"Someone who publishes a refereed article who has conflicts of interest that were later disclosed by the author should have their publication discounted entirely because they don't own BioPure stock"
Dr. Natanson is a 50% patent holder for an additive that he claims, when added to an HBOC, will increase its effectiveness and decrease toxicity. His cohort, Dr. Mark Gladwin had made a number of attempts to license it to Biopure for several millions dollars and had lowered the offering price as many as 4 times in an attempt to coerce Biopure management into obtaining this additive. They said "no thanks" each and every time ending with their final "no" in early Febuary of '08. A short time later Natanson/Gladwin released their meta-analysis of the HBOC industry, the DAY BEFORE the HBOC workshop meeting, that were arranged as a proactive way to discuss clinical pathways forward for the viable product candidates. The article had been written and complete for a month prior. Natanson/Gladwin/Wolfe held onto the article as to strategically "bomb the church on a Sunday morning".
Below is an excerpt from the Wall St. Journal who covered the story and asked Natanson why he did not disclose his conflicts on Jama's conflicts questionaire.
"Dr. Natanson said he didn't report the information because he forgot his name was on the patent, and that he hadn't been named on a patent application before. "I believe in full disclosure," said Dr. Natanson. "This was an error in judgment on my part and I take full responsibility."
"yet the doctor who runs a clinical trial using BioPure's product and publishes an article about the results should be congratulated for owning stock in the company?"
Who is congratulating Jahr? I don't recall congratulaing him. I simply made the point that no one makes an investment in something they think will lose them money. He is clearly of the belief that the product works effectively and that it has a place in the world.
"Why don't you see a potential conflict of interest in the latter case?
I DO SEE A CONFLICT here BUT the difference between the two of these researchers is that Natanson hides behind the cloak of the NIH, which creates the image that it's an NIH sponsored study and then he boldly and intentionally lies about his conflicts of interest while Jahr openly admits his conflicts of interest from the outset.
"In addition, using HemoPure in elective surgery in a controlled setting where advanced medical care is available at a moment's notice is substantially different from an acute care combat trauma setting, in my humble opinion. Consequently, the two situations are an apples and oranges comparison, and not meaningful."
They are very different settings and I agree with your HO, but I don't quite understand the point you are attempting to make? There are multiple clinical uses for an oxygen therapeutic and all of the protocals would vastly differ, such as the infusion rates, what RTS should infusion begin at, what age groups would be treatable, etc, etc.
"Oddly enough, the major news story I recall about BioPure from 2007 was that their products turned up as performance enhancing drugs that one unwitting professional cyclist was asked to smuggle from the United States to Europe so another professional cyclist could presumably use it to boost their athletic performance without getting detected by standard tests."
Well to be factual, it was Michael Rasmussen's friend who happens to be an ex-mountain bike racer who Rasmussen asked to transport a pair of shoes for him to Italy which contained the Hemopure units. From what I've heard, they were obtained through the black market in S. Africa, which originated from a corrupt distributor in the supply chain. Just because the product was brought by Richards from the U.S. to Italy does necessarily mean that he obtained it in the U.S. Biopure has since replaced their S.African distributors.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
