August 16, 2006

"In Defense of Big Pharma"
posted by HawthorneWingo 17 years ago
  • What a striking stand for "Commentary: The Premier Magazine of Opinion." Other articles from the most recent issue (that are already "pay only archive" for some reason) include: Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders by Michael I. Krauss & J. Peter Pham Neither historical nor legal barriers stand in the way of unilateral action. Searching for the House of David by Hillel Halkin Does an archeological dig in Jerusalem finally confirm the grandeur of the biblical king--and does it matter? Friendship Among the Intellectuals by Joseph Epstein Can personal affection survive a clash over the ideas that really count? Opinions. More like bullshit. I've read more diverse opinions on the editorial pages of the WSJ. I can see why no one has posted in this absolute shit-smear of a post. Christ, this is just as bad as a one link GNN article. Sorry, that came off as overly harsh. I have all kinds of insane shit I read, too, but most of it I keep hidden away because I'm rightfully ashamed of it.
  • Yeah, you're correct, it is overly harsh. I was merely presenting another voice on the topic, one which might provoke intelligent conversation. (Hasn't so far.) If you think it's a bad post, you're absolutely welcome to move on to another, rather than starting the thread off by taking a big, steaming dump on it.
  • On another note, I really really think there are people in the world who get paid to post propaganda like this on community forums across the tubes of the internets.
  • this almost seems like something that berek character would have posted.
  • Who are those people and where can I contact them?
  • The article was an excellent exercise in the obfuscation of facts. I'd never heard the story of that drug that treats sleeping sickness told quite that way before. Not to mention the crazy notion that drugs will one day cure all diseases--why even bother to prevent diseases from happening when we've got drugs to cure them! It's hard for me to engage in a proper discussion whent that article is the starting point as all it does is piss me off for being so dishonest. One of the flashy factoids a lot of lecturers in my courses like to present is how much is spent on marketing for Viagra (~2 billion world-wide) versus how much went into all childhood and adult vaccines (~4 billion world-wide). Such are their priorities. I understand that big pharma is comprised of corporations that need to make money, but these people are using federal money to do drug research and then we let them set their own prices for those drugs. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that the United States is the only country to let them set their own prices. How badly does someone need that drug to live? Hmmm, let's see how much money we can extract from them (or their insurance company) in order for that to happen. /cranky rant
  • I can see why no one has posted in this absolute sh***... Hunh? The subject of the post was the article about Big Pharma. Not Commentary magazine and its back-issues. Do you only read articles if they come in pre-approved packages that suit your ideological persuasion?
  • I tend to believe only those articles that come from places like Elsevier. But yeah, I'll read anything.
  • Who are those people and where can I contact them? Here ya go
  • The article seems to be a pretty blantant bit of corporate spin and obfuscation but perhaps an additional link or two for context would have helped. And I think we've heard from the Manhattan Institute here before, on other topics (can't be arsed to look them up at the moment). Nevertheless, absaloms comment was churlish and unnecessary. The turderists shall never prevail. I mean, c'mon, it says so right on the package - "More bananas, less flinging".
  • I dunno folks. I'm always amazed by the anger directed at pharma as an industry. What they do is incredibly risky, backbreaking work. The researchers employed by these companies make much less than most people in other industries with comparable education and experience. Yes, the larger corporations among them are decently profitable, but they’re certainly not the highest returns in the marketplace. And anyway, as public corporations these profits flow back to shareholders – most of whom are retirement/pension funds. I’m not trying to shill for pharma either – I AM one of those academic scientists hoping to make the next big medical discovery. I’ll admit that while academic labs do certainly have a big role in discovery, we’re not nearly as big a part of the picture as people tend to think. My point here is that the work is long and difficult and that there is more than enough of it to go around. The folks in pharma certainly add plenty of value, and simply pulling everything under the academic grant system ignores their significant contribution. The argument that corporations exclusively piggyback on the discoveries of academic and government scientists is completely false. Look it up – private industry spends more annually on R&D than does government in the US. The bottom line is this is an industry that has produced the vast, vast majority of drugs that we all know and love today. I’d encourage everyone to think long and hard about any sweeping proposals lest they kill the golden goose. Medicine has made huge advances over the last 50 years under our current system, whatever its shortcomings. As a researcher, I’ll grant that I’d like to see less money being spent on sales and marketing, but equal blame can be assigned to the physicians and patients in this area.
  • The first U.S. application for thalidomide—for use as a sleeping pill—was submitted to the FDA in 1960. A junior official took her time reviewing the original application. While she did, a German scientist identified thalidomide’s dreadful power to halt embryonic limb development in the early stages of pregnancy. Delay was all the FDA contributed, but that alone prevented thousands of birth defects in the United States. And that, dear children, is why there were only 16 thalidomide birth defects that were accepted to be proven in American children. God bless Big Pharma for their restraint and for saving us from ourselves once again./sarcasm Gimme a break. And don't forget, CEO's for Big Pharma are a classic case of the underpaid average American worker.
  • I really feel this is less a legitimate post and more part of a PR campaign.
  • Yeah, because I'm such a n00b, and my politics and views of corporate capitalism are so obscure. I'm probably a shill for Big Pharma. Give me a fucking break.
  • You post a link which basically gives a hand-job to the drug companies and is written by a guy who is funded by Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb. Please. I'll put away my tinfoil hat... but really.... you might as well have asked Myron Magnet what he thinks of Karl Rove and posted the response. Same result. It's fluff. Worse, it's funded fluff.
  • In defense of the poster, the title was in quotation marks. That led me to believe that he didn't quite buy it. Was I wrong?
  • Attack the article. Not the poster. It's possible to post links whose content you don't agree with, you know. Sometimes it's even fun! "Omigod he's a PR hack!" is a pretty hysterical reaction. And 20 seconds of research would have shown that I'm not someone who'd be trying to promote Big Pharma.
  • yeah, i second nunia's assessment. i know i don't always post things i agree with, i post things that are interesting. and this is definitely interesting.... and i disagree with it... but i didn't post it... but i digress...
  • Also seconding nunia. I assumed it was posted for critiquing purposes.
  • Um...really.....I ah..... Ah..... I'll be over here by the punch bowl...yea. . . . .
  • But academic scientists are themselves usually funded, sometimes partly, sometimes wholy, by public money. Their work then goes on to make more profit for companies already posting record profits, off of other people's sicknesses. This is not a healthy system.
  • Actually, I can't think of any academic scientists who are not funded, even indirectly, by public money. All scientists at state universities (aka all universities in Canada, Britain, etc, and most of the US) are supported in their work by public money. They may also have grants from drug companies, but those usually cover only the direct research costs. All the infrastructure and a lot of the labour is public. Even at private universities, a hefty amount of public funds goes towards the science departments - or else the threat of cutting off U.S. federal funds for law schools not complying with that Soloman thing would have no power. (Law schools, like other arts and humanities, don't get very much, if any federal funding). The companies do do a lot of research as well - but they are also completely piggy-backing off of public research, with no recognition of that. Not just the publically supported drug research, but all the publically supported basic biology and biochemical research. Just like how the Human Genome project - an international, publically supported and publically available effprt - was used by private companies in their own developmen t - and they are now selling their own version. So this is why I don't see any problem with capping pharmaceutical prices or otherwise interfeering with pharmaceutical companies. I do think that we need them - they do fund a lot of research, and obviously cover manufacturing costs, etc. But they do not pay for all of their research - we, as the public, pay for a great deal of what they claim, and they are the ones making all the profit. Frankly, maybe public research should be covered under a GNU type liscense. If you use public research, you have to share your own. Or perhaps there has to be a profit sharing measure - if companies use publically supported research, they have to pay a proportion of their profits to liscense that work. If I make a film using someone else's script, I have obviously added a great deal and should make some profit, but I'm not allowed to not pay the writer.
  • Academic research is almost wholly funded by government grants in most countries. The grants usually include a not-insignificant indirect cost that can range up to 90% of the direct. The indirect cost is supposed to cover infrastructure, electricity etc. but in reality has become a huge profit center for universities. The work done there is usually necessary but not sufficient for the next wonder drug. Actually, this seems to understate the case as a few more decades and a few billion dollars are usually required for a medicine to make it to market. In many cases the IP required is from a mix of sources. Placing a license on basic biology - even a GNU/GPL style - implies that many of these thoughts can themselves be owned and licensed. Again, think carefully here – is this really a road you want to go down with even more patentable information? One of the complaints of many of my fellow researchers is that too much information is patented – should a basic biological pathway be owned? Most would favor a shift in the patent law toward placing more information in the public domain – attaching a bio-GPL onto everything would seem to be a step in the opposite direction.
  • GPL is pro-open source. It would mean that people using open source public information could not then add a little bit of work and patent the whole. In fact, the only problem I could see would that it might entirely undermine the patent system, which may have some benefits - I would like to see the patent system controlled, not destroyed. Actually, I would be in favour of longer patent periods in the US, in exchange for guarenteed price caps. The US drugs are so expensive because the patent period there is much shorter than elsewhere, and they are trying to make their profits in a shorter period -- but this does a disservice to patients. The only benefit is to generic drug manufacturers. If the drug companies would guarentee prices similar to generics, I would be in favour of them having a monopoly for longer - because, in the end, it's the price for the patients and providers that really matters. That said, I don't hold with imposing US copyright or patents overseas at all. They are different countries, with different needs and economies. A perfectly reasonable price for a drug in North America is a ridiculous and impossible price in Africa.
  • I know I'n not saying this too clearly, since I don't really understand all the law/technical details, but GPL tries to keep things derived from things which have been released into the public domain in the public domain. Basically, you can't use public information to create private information -- you can sell your product, but the information (the source code, formula, whatever) has to be public, and there can be no monopoly of production.
  • It's nice to meet you, FAQ.
  • I want pills.
  • JB, Are you thinkin' what I'm thinkin'? YEAH, we need MORE more gummint subsuddies for the Pharma industry, not less! Poor barstards.
  • Yeah, because I'm such a n00b, and my politics and views of corporate capitalism are so obscure. I'm probably a shill for Big Pharma. Coffee went up the nose on that one. :) For those who don't know, HWingo is a thoughtful critic of corporate behaviour.
  • In defense of the poster, the title was in quotation marks. That led me to believe that he didn't quite buy it. I assumed it was posted for critiquing purposes. I thought the whole point was to post the good links to the front page, and not the ones that you think are crap. Have I been doing it wrong all this time? I don't want to be too critical, but it was a single link to an editorial in a magazine with questionable funding and a political bias. There was no context or explanation in the post, so there's nothing to judge the quality of the post by, except for the quality of the article, so don't be surprised when people shit on it.
  • I was operating under the assumption that "provocative" could be "good." Perhaps I need to become more small-minded in that regard.
  • How 'bout the crazy views expressed in that article, huh?
  • Since when did a lack of appreciation for corporate funded propaganda make anyone small-minded? I criticized the post, not you. Why not defend the post, instead of accusing me of being small-minded?
  • I thought the whole point was to post the good links to the front page, and not the ones that you think are crap. Something you - and by you, I mean the poster - disagree with is not necessarily too crap to post, just as stuff that you agree with is not necessarily good enough to post. And I'm not sure why HawthorneWingo has been getting attacked for posted this, really.
  • If this article represents what is passing for economic philosophy and/or journalism lately, then the barbarians have won. The best one can say is that the original publication merely claims to be a "journal of opinion" precluding it from requiring facts, a defence of statements, or anything beyond a re-written stream of thought that wouldn't pass muster in grade six.
  • And I'm not sure why HawthorneWingo has been getting attacked for posted this, really. Health care is a sensitive issue, because everyone needs it, and a lot of people don't have it. So an editorial like this is going to piss some people off- it defends a big player who those people feel shoulders some of the blame for the situation. The argument it presents is deceptive and the author biased. The post doesn't provide any context or links to more objective sources of info on the topic- he just slapped it down on the front page like a big smelly turd. GYOB. It's not really that big a deal to me to ignore the article along with the loads of other crap that clogs up the intertubes. What really motivated me to post was the shock and hostility expressed over what seems to me to be perfectly legitimate (even if it is a bit harsh) criticism.
  • Lessee, I got two sense here . . . Point one, Office of the Dean, Mssrs. J. Haliwat Montgomery-Blackling and Pug McTwyntie, (Esquire) to wit: Dear sirs, I believe the FPP could have had more stuff in it. Yours, Pbest, blah blah blah. Point 2: claims to be a "journal of opinion" precluding it from requiring facts, a defence of statements, or anything beyond a re-written stream of thought that wouldn't pass muster in grade six. Fair and balanced, indeed, what? *snort* My dear TUM, I believe I can assist you in regard to your request for a most excellent elixirical supplement at my humble country abode this coming six November, providing the rabble behave and do not strike as they have threatened to do. We could rendezvous concurrently at Berryleicester station and from there take the 9:17 to Womble via Clackton Steps.
  • It seems there are two purposes to MonkeyFilter (and I believe it's true on the Blue, too): to post "the best of the web" simply to show it to others to enjoy and possibly comment on or discuss in-depth; and to post something purely for discussion, like the above link, which are often the "newsfilter" posts that people complain of. I see nothing terribly wrong with either although I personally find it annoying when we have days of very little but political news, and I think it's unfair to call someone out when this is no different to a link to someone defending the war in Iraq, for example.
  • I agree. Normallly in a conversation, when discussing issues, people sometimes do exactly what I think HawthorneWingo did here: he threw out a possibly contentious article for discussion purposes, and with no clue to his position on the issues. He may have thought that folks would present their own links, pro or con, in our usual genteel manner, and a good time would be had by all. So, what have we learned from this? It might be a good idea to state one's intention a bit more clearly? Oh, and, maybe not to assume that a posted link doesn't necessarily represent the opinion of the author?
  • *Mapquests Berryleicester*
  • JB, Are you thinkin' what I'm thinkin'? YEAH, we need MORE more gummint subsuddies for the Pharma industry, not less! Poor barstards. posted by BlueHorse at 03:25PM UTC on August 16, 2006 BlueHorse: changing the length of patent times would not be a subsidy, provided it also came with caps/relative reduction on drug prices. Already patent drugs are cheaper in Canada (and in some European countries) than in the US because the patent times are longer. (I think the governments may also cap prices, but I'm not sure.) Sick Americans are paying a great deal for the shorter patent times - sure, it means you can get the generic sooner, but if you're sick now that does matter. The idea is, half the price for the drug (above cost of production), and double the patent time. The drug company makes the same amount of money, but the patient still pays half. Drug companies are already subsidized, but not through the patent system - they are subsidized through the use of university based and other publically supported research in the creation of their drugs. Changing patent times is not going to affect that for better or for worse.
  • For certain medicationss, it costs less for me to pay out-of-pocket for Canadian (even non-generic) than my regular copayment after insurance.
  • Unfortunately, there's no medication for that annoying double "s."
  • I know squat about the pharma industry. All I do know is that there's an awful lot of drug advertising on television during the US evening news. Can't help thinking some of those ads are meant to drum up hypochondriac demand. e.g. what's this "acid reflux disease?" thing, never heard of that before a few years ago.... worse than that are all the ads for painkillers that suggest a pill is better for muscle pain than rest.
  • The argument it presents is deceptive Just thinking about the article...there seems to be a consensus that this is corporate propaganda of some form or other and I have no problems buying into that. But what parts exactly in this article are deceptive?
  • Wait? Didn't you ever want the newest, trendiest medical problem, SB? Didn't you want the best designer medication for your problem? Didn't you want side-effects that were as bad or worse than the medical problem? Montezuma's Revenge got you down? Try Asstex©®², and give those runs the finger! Like all medicines, Asstex©®² can cause some side effects. These effects are usually mild to moderate and usually don't last longer than a few hours. Some of these side effects are more likely to occur with higher doses. The most common side effects of Asstex©®² are hallucinations, slapping of the face, and upset neighbors. Less common side effects that may occur are temporary changes in urine color (such as blue or plaid), eyes being more sensitive to ninjas, or cottonmouth (often accompanied by cottonass). In rare instances, men have reported an inversion of the colon that lasts many hours. You should call a doctor immediately if you ever have an inverted colon that lasts more than 4 hours. If not treated right away, permanent damage to Uranis could occur. Alien attack, crop circles, poor choise in music, and death have been reported rarely in men taking Asstex©®². Most, but not all, of these men were living with their mothers before taking this medicine. It is not possible to determine whether these events were directly related to Asstex©®².
  • I spell good.
  • Just thinking about the article...there seems to be a consensus that this is corporate propaganda of some form or other and I have no problems buying into that. But what parts exactly in this article are deceptive? The most depressing thing here (more depressing than being offered the strongly stated opinion that opinions are "bullshit", and -- EGADS! -- that I might be in the pocket of Big Pharma) is that, due to the FPP Nazis (not a Godwin, just a play on a Seinfeld reference -- I'm making sure I'm completely bare-assed transparent, here), this thread is largely overlooking that there's an interesting discussion to be had: What's good/bad about Big Pharma? Me, I think there's plenty to criticize. Such as the fact that there are plenty of older medicines/treatments that doctors don't prescribe because they're influenced by Big Pharma marketing efforts to prescribe the more expensive still-patented stuff. This is the world's most profitable industry, after all; it's a gold mine in terms of stuff to criticize. And the fact that drugs that would hugely benefit lots of poor people are being passed over in favor of more expensive drugs that help mostly rich people, mostly marginally. Still, there is the fact that Big Pharma has created some pretty amazing drugs over the years, and the question of whether there are more efficient ways to develop new treatments, & cetera. Carry on.
  • Also, where's the drug that includes "increasing likelihood of scoring with hot chicks" among the side effects?
  • REST, SB? We Americans don't REST! We're on the go, we're on the move, we have to squeeze that game of squash in between parachuting to work and fighting crime. We've got no time for this sissy, pansy "rest" of which you speak! I thought I had plaid urine once, but come to find out I just hand't lifted my kilt high enough.
  • Well that Asstex the cake! I dunno if anything's so good about Big Pharma, HWingo that wouldn't have been good with what medicines +modern technology etc. would be anyway. And yet the bad is so much more - ?
  • Like all medicines, Asstex©®² can cause some side effects including slapping of the face Hee-larious! But let's be serious for a moment, what have you got that'll cure restless esophagual leg syndrome?
  • StoryBored: Actually, I know several people with acid reflux, and it is a disease, or at least a condition. One of the type A fellas has had such bad acid reflux since a teen, that it has scarred his throat to the point that he can hardly swallow. He's had a rotor-rooter job done, but now the tissues are to the point they might tear if done again. He effectively has a throat about the diameter of a pencil--plays hell with eating, and so creates more acid. He certainly needs the meds (and a personality makeover to mellow out)
  • Er...you could always just pull your twitching foot out of your mouth.
  • we have to squeeze that game of squash ... TUM, how about squashing the game of squeeze? Or squeegeeing it around the square? i got nuthin'
  • I know several people with acid reflux.. *Follows nunia's advice.*
  • Me, I think there's plenty to criticize. Such as the fact that there are plenty of older medicines/treatments that doctors don't prescribe because they're influenced by Big Pharma marketing efforts to prescribe the more expensive still-patented stuff. From some of the stuff i've read, the sales side of pharma can get downright sleazy. "Pfizer/Warner-Lambert paid $430 million in May 2004 for engaging in a scheme to promote Neurontin for off-label uses. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP paid $355 million in June 2003 and pled guilty to giving doctors kickbacks by providing them with free samples of Zoladex, knowing the doctors would bill Medicare and Medicaid hundreds of dollars per sample. The record setter was TAP Pharmaceuticals Inc., which pleaded guilty to participating in a criminal conspiracy and paid $875 million to settle criminal and civil fraud charges. TAP provided doctors with free Lupron samples which the doctors billed to federal programs at the list price and then pocketed the payments. The drug company also offered doctors "grants" in exchange for prescribing Lupron. Sad. The only answer i can think of here is vigilant enforcement and public shaming. But perhaps the root of it is in the pharma companies' unrestrained sales incentive schemes?
  • its all about the benjamins
  • It's occasionally more subtle than that. They have done research (yes, they do research on doctors too :) that showed that medical students were more likely to remember/reccomend drugs aftre receiving a free lunch from that company. And the get LOTS of free lunches. They also get bags, folders, pens and occasionally small vibrating purple cows from drug companies at conferences. My mother-in-law is a health researcher and attends many medical conferences - she can't prescribe, but she still gets so much swag. (Which she so kindly shared with us when we were students. We have the cow.)
  • Is it just me, or does 'Big Pharma' sound like the stage name of a hip hop/country fusion artist?
  • So what to do? If you stifle profits, you also stifle the big slices of those profits that go toward R&D - R&D that develops marginal pocket enhancers like Levitra, but that also develops drugs like Lipitor, which is literally going to change the face of heart disease. At the same time, their marketing efforts are becoming increasingly onerous and pervasive, to the point where we rightly wonder about our doctors' independance. I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't have a clue how to solve the "problem." (assuming one exists beyond the idea that [a] they are corporations, [b] they make profits and [c] this is bad). What's the fix? Can one legislate away rapaciousness without strangling innovation?
  • > So what to do? while reading the linked article yesterday, i kept coming back to pure research is a public good and it is problematic to pursue long-term research in the private sector. -> humanity has an interest in improved healthcare. -> there is already a world health organization. -> why not take the next logical step and centralize governments' funding of pharmaceutical research, globally?
  • I dunno. You've got a huge undertaking there - a couple dozen funding countries wtih varyign levels of support, the same amount of different health care systems, several huge companies who actually do the work right now who will be less than enthusiastic about releasing their research doctors (and research profits) to some sketchy world organization (look - black helicopter!). It might not be possible - it certainly in't soonly or smoothly possible. What about a corporate bustup on the AT&T model? Forced separation of lines of business, promoting increased competition, plus tweaking the drug patent system so that the push to generic's doesn't zap their profits so hard?
  • On the consumer side, definitely more education about treatments and available options. When the doctor prescribes a Pfizer pill, the patient should be aware of the option of a pill from say, Johnson & Johnson.
  • Or generics, when the prescribed pill is merely a tinkering of an older patent.
  • why not take the next logical step and centralize governments' funding of pharmaceutical research, globally? I'd be worried about the bureaucracy and the inevitable corruption such a powerful funding body would have. Not that the current system isn't prone to corruption but at least with multiple funding sources, you can mix the bad with the good. An international funding body means a single point of failure.
  • TUM, how about squashing the game of squeeze? Or squeegeeing it around the square? I may end up quashing my Squeee...
  • They also get bags, folders, pens and occasionally small vibrating purple cows from drug companies at conferences. My oncologist's office had a dish of ginger candies (good for nausea) provided by the drug company in the chemo suite. The dish was in the shape of the company logo, which was also printed on the candy wrappers. I thought that was kinda classy advertising. Of course, now I can't even look at butterscotch disks, which those candies resembled, without wanting to hurl from the associated memory...
  • I've got this topical medication that I use. Just a steroid, nothing complicated, been generic for years and years. You can get it as a cream, ointment, alcohol or oil-based solution. I went to a new doctor once, a dermatologist, to get more when my refills ran out. This guy had big posters up advertizing the latest and greatest from pfizer and the other big pharm companies, which kind of pissed me off but I didn't care much, since even if this guy did write me a prescription for a brand name I'd just ask my pharmacist for the generic. He wrote me a prescription for this "new" stuff, which is the same exact active chemical, in a foam, and I found out later that the pharmacist couldn't give me the generic because there was no generic foam, even though the same exact chemical is sold as a generic in a dozen other forms, and god damnit I had to go get another prescription from another doctor because some marketing douchebag decided it'd be a good idea to inject fucking air into an old drug so they could get another few years of patent out of it and rely on unethical doctors to sell it to their patients when there are several cheaper versions already out that are just as good if not better. So, the problem exists on multiple levels. Personally, I think that if a prescription drug needs marketing, it was probably a waste of r&d resources. A good prescription drug, by my definition, should sell itself. You're sick? We just invented this pill that cures that. You don't need to see a commercial to want that pill when you're sick. Save the marketing for viagra and other "luxury" drugs, and keep it out of the doctor's office. They're doctors, not salesmen.
  • Well, you were inconvenienced, certainly BUT you are unlikely to be so again, since you are now aware that your first doctor is a shill, you believe this is wrong, and you have subsequently taken your business elsewhere, thus depriving the pharmaceutical company who did this of your business. That is capitalism working. But even though you prefer the other, could it not be that some people prefer the foam and are willing to pay a little more for it? Sure, foaming an otherwise perfectly good ointment isn't exactly rocket science, but companies still ought to be able to try and make a profit off their innovations, even if you may not particularly like that innovation? And then, doctors are the sole purveyors of prescription pharmaceuticals. Who else *could* the marketing douchebags go to? Perhaps it's public antipathy toward marketing to doctors that has caused pharmaceuticals companies to advertise directly to the public...? I'm not saying there isn't some douchebaggery in pharmaceutical sales - there is in all sales. I just wonder if curtailing the ability to market to doctors AND the public isn't chucking the baby out with the bathwater. Medical journals only have so much space, and there are lots of different drugs out there. How else do the pharmcos get their message out, if not by marketing?
  • Some steps have been made at the marketing end. In Texas, they made it illegal for drug companies to give anything to docs except free lunches and office supplies. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but when you consider that they were giving away high dollar *vacations* before (cleverly disguised as seminars and the like where you learn about the drugs) it's a big step. Some docs (though not enough) have also started a movement against those posters with the ads on them. The doc my mom works for (who does general medicine) won't hang posters with ads on them. While he regrets the lost opportunity to educate patients on different issues, he took the time to talk to his patients about the posters and found that they ignored them because they felt they were being sold to.
  • > You've got a huge undertaking there agreed, but people manage to do it for particle physics. admittedly, the payoff for physics is probably a lot further down the road, but international cooperation is working. > What about a corporate bustup on the AT&T model? one problem would be enforcing this internationally; many of the big pharm companies are based outside the u.s. what's to stop them gaining an unfair advantage in the u.s. market after the dismantling of native corporations?
  • A few of my family members are physicians and the drug reps that visit their offices have no qualms about asking why they haven't been prescribing enough of their drugs. Let's not kid ourselves, they are there to make money. Fine, but should health be left to market forces? Once upon a time, the NYC water supply was privately run--that turned out really great when companies got to charge what they wanted for a really basic need.
  • Capitalism works, but it doesn't necessarily work for the needs of people - it works for the needs of the market. In the production of luxury goods, this is usually the same thing, but in the production of necessities, it's often not. Developed countries with public healthcare show better health outcomes than developed countries without public healthcare (of which I can only think of the US - but it certainly has lower health outcomes than Canada, Britain, most of Europe, etc). I agree that we shouldn't strangle the current system - especially since we certainly don't have anything to replace it. Cutting back on corruption - and I say that bribing doctors to prescribe things is corruption - is a good step. Reworking the patent system to make sure that they can make a profit but have lower prices over all would also be a good step (I would certainly never extend patents without a guarentee of price lowering). Britain actually has prescriptions covered by the NHS, and that works brilliantly (I know people complain, but seriously, it's good). They aren't free - you have to pay £6 (unless maybe you are very poor). But it's £6 for your basic hayfeaver prescription or £6 for your AIDs prescription. So how sick you are doesn't kill your budget. (I actually knew a Canadian woman with rheumatoid arthritis who was paying $700 CND out of pocket every month for drugs that kept her disease from attacking her internal organs - and there was no financial help for her. She had to be paying out $10,000s before the government plan for low income would help). I don't know if there is any pressure for doctors from the government to prescribe generics, but maybe there should be - if the generics don't work, then you go to the latest and greatest. But the way things are right now is not working. I worked for a few summers in a research hospital, and saw a bit of the drug-research connections from the inside. Drug companies do support important research, but they also do not support other very important research (like non-pharmacological treatments for osteoarthristis, which can be very effective). They also control what people can publish about that research - including when drugs are not safe. Most Canadians here probably remember when a researcher at the University of Toronto had to defy her contract with a drug company to publically say a drug they were giving to children was not safe. But most of all, the costs of drugs are putting them beyond the reach of people who need them - in North America, and in the world beyond. Sick people usually do not have extra insurance to cover drugs - they are sick, and often un- or under-employed. That's not even considering the world-wide situation. No matter how life-saving a drug is, it doesn't do any good if those who need it cannot use it.
  • Fes - the reason for increased marketting to people may be changing laws. Certainly in Canada it is - basically they had banned pharmaceutical advertising. Then they allowed it, but under controlled circumstances (I'm a bit vauge on the details). I support free speech and all, but advertising drugs to people is a risky business. People want to find hope, and drug ads are completely willing to supply it. Then some may go in and demand that drug, whether it is the right thing medically for them or not. My grandmother was such a person - and perfectly willing to switch doctors if they didn't do/tell her what she wanted.
  • Excuse me . . . MonkeyFilter: You can get it as a cream, ointment, alcohol or oil-based solution. Ahh. Thank you. Please continue.
  • That is capitalism working. Not to sound too snarky, but does it make me a communist if I don't think that the doctor's office is an appropriate place to teach sick and possibly poor people about a free market economy? Can we put basic human needs ahead of the built-in incentives of our economic system? I mean, by all means let free market forces determine what kind of ice cream I buy, but HMOs put enough restrictions on where you can go for health care, not to mention geographic concerns (there's only so far you can go when you have the flu). When you give doctors incentives to take advantage of their customers, you're making what is already a bad situation for most people even worse.
  • It's up to the AMA (or whatever your doctor's regulatory board is) to put an end to that practice. Write them a letter and tell them how you feel.
  • I'd like to say that I applaud mandyman's brave stance in this thread. I'd like to add further that mandyman, space kitty and I are all really trashed right now because we went to a Dada party (really) and danced to music from Revenge of the Nerds, and that I will no doubt regret posting to this thread in the morning. We all apologize for our recent crankiness. I'm going to go sing "Are You Ready For The Sex Girls" off-key now.
  • I'd like to say that I applaud mandyman's brave stance in this thread. I'd like to add further that mandyman, space kitty and I are all really trashed right now because we went to a Dada party (really) and danced to music from Revenge of the Nerds, and that I will no doubt regret posting to this thread in the morning. We all apologize for our recent crankiness. I'm going to go sing "Are You Ready For The Sex Girls" off-key now.
  • Oooh, mandyman, what wig did you get?
  • You two have deliberately gone WAY off topic. I am so telling Trycicle on you. He's totally gonna ban you now.
  • I went with the Princess Lolly wig as opposed to the Queen Frostine. Space Kitty's Clockwork Orange bolwer hat really needs to be seen.
  • Bastard. Actually, for the same reasons I support universal health care, I support more government involvement in/oversight of new-treatment development. I think those moves would produce a more moral society. Relatedly, I think good public health should be a core goal of government; given that, if it makes sense for the govt. to run the systems pursuing other core goals like good postal service and a good national highway system, then it makes sense for the govt. to have greater oversight of the healthcare and pharma development systems. /rant
  • Kinda old, but still thorough: The Truth About the Drug Companies.
  • Oh, noes, Big Pharma is teh gooooooooood!
  • Big Pharma vs Godzilla: Walmart to sell generic drugs for $4. p.s. that was a good article, Hwingo.
  • The big threat to Big Pharma And here you people were bad mouthing those poor doomed corporations.
  • When I worked in Washington, the biggest lobby – after Big Oil, and the big military contractors – was the big pharmaceutical companies . . . Big Pharma also says that if Medicare gets much lower drug prices, drug companies won't have enough money to develop new drugs. Won't somebody think of the drugs?!?!
  • I'm thinking of them.
  • Here are the top recipients of contributions from pharmaceutical executives and political action committees from 2001 through March, and how they voted: Senator 2001-07 contributions Vote Richard Burr, R-N.C. $520,694 Yes John Kerry, D-Mass. $304,888 Yes Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. $281,040 Yes Arlen Specter, R-Pa. $259,699 Yes Orrin Hatch, R-Utah $241,850 Yes Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa $216,599 No Max Baucus, D-Mont. $199,000 Yes Chris Dodd, D-Conn. $192,025 Did not vote Tom Carper, D-Del. $183,794 Yes Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. $174,338 Yes Source: USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance data
  • Yeah, and who the hell thinks Pharma needs to advertise? It's not like sick people can NOT use drugs. There isn't enough of us to go around? I go generic or the cheapest. Screw the mothers.
  • And it's people like you that they need to convert with advertising. Sure, generic will do. But then the companies don't make money. They've got to get you to believe only their drug will help what ails you.
  • To spare one person a heart attack, 100 people had to take Lipitor for more than three years. The other 99 got no measurable benefit. Or to put it in terms of a little-known but useful statistic, the number needed to treat (or NNT) for one person to benefit is 100. All those ads for statins like Lipitor and Zocor that suggest people reduce their cholesterol for better heart health? The bad news.
  • Ah, that trashes one of my favorite judgments. Some analyst or other opined that the reason for the stock market huge gains some years ago was because everyone involved was on Prozak. I hate it when my favorite unsupported snarks are found wanting.
  • ....concludes it is no better than placebo Yeah but placebos work great!
  • StoryBored--I BELIEVE in placebos!
  • StoryBored--I BELIEVE in placebos! I can't (snif!) I'm doomed!
  • Some people are strong responders to one drug-- but give them another in the same class, and they become actively suicidal. And try and take my drugs away when I need them, and I could become all homicidal on your ass. I refuse to live with that black dog. Don't care if it's a placebo or not. Leave your mitts offa my drugs.
  • I was just checking the labels! I warn't gonna take any!
  • Oh, I'm sure. Government and Big Pharma are wanking along together, business as usual.