Social Audit Ltd
P O Box 111 London NW1 8XG
Telephone/Fax 44 (0)171 586 7771
[email protected]


Martin Bagwell,  Executive Support
Medicines Control Agency
Market Towers, 1 Nine Elms Lane
London SW8 5NQ

25 July 2000

Dear Mr Bagwell,

I have had no response to my letter to you of 29 June, complaining about the failure to respond to my information request for the Assessment Report for Detrusitol, following our complaint about the misleading advertising of this product.

On 14 February and again on 24 March I wrote to Mr Alder, drawing his attention to what the FDA had already identified as misleading claims relating to the 'selectivity' of this drug - but the same advertisements are still appearing in the British Medical Journal.

You will recall that the advertisement we are complaining about was prepared in November 1999, several months after the FDA told Pharmacia & Upjohn it found the claim misleading. This was because the claim for selectively was based not on human studies, but on experiments with cats.

You will appreciate that the industry's own advertising Code (clause 7.2) requires that claims be "accurate, fair, objective and unambiguous", also that "care must be taken (in using data from in vitro and animal studies) so as not to mislead as to its significance." In particular, "the extrapolation of such data to the clinical situation should only be made where there is data to show that it is of direct relevance and significance."

Please will you let me know whether and how our complaint is being investigated? Please also refer this letter as part of our complaint.

Yours sincerely,
Charles Medawar


Contents page
List of correspondence with MCA/CSM