-- Here's the letter I just sent to Barron's. To those whose info I used, thanks.
To the editor:
ÿ
ÿÿÿ "Flagging Fortunes" (December 22) did a good job of making Vivus, Inc. look bad. My question is whether the article was balanced or biased.
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ Here's why. You properly reported that Vivus can't meet production goals. You then ask "if the factory snafu was just an alibi for flagging demand?"
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ I'm glad to report that demand for Vivus's product, MUSE, is strong. Specifically, the latest numbers, for the week ending 12/19/97, show a healthy 5.8% sales increase at the retail level. And to top it off, Vivus is prepared to open a 3rd plant in Ireland. More remarkably, this demand was driven without an advertising campaign.
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ The article then quotes a seemingly neutral urology expert, Dr. Irwin Goldstein of Boston University. He questions the value of MUSE. According to Dr. Goldstein, MUSE may find itself "out of the loop" with the new drugs coming on the market. But is Dr. Goldstein really neutral? The answer is a resounding "no." It turns out that Dr. Goldstein works for Harvard Scientific Corp - a competitor of Vivus. Basically, your reporter just asked the executives of Pepsi to comment on Coca-Cola's new products. How much sense does this make?
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ In the future, you'll help your readers by quoting from objective sources. And of course, you should reveal when the people you're quoting are working for the competition.
ÿÿ
ÿÿÿ PS - enclosed are the sources to support Vivus' sales figures and Dr. Goldsteins affiliation with Harvard Scientific Corp..ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ Aaron F. Sears, cpa/mba
ÿÿÿÿ Hightstown, NJ
ÿ
ÿ
Message 3057077
ÿ
Message 3063450 |
