Pharmaceutical conspiracies

[Diagoras]

Apparently a surprising number of people think the pharmaceutical companies have discovered instant cures for major diseases, but they're covering it up to keep people buying large quantities of drugs. I can't believe anybody can honestly entertain that idea. I mean, if some company actually invested all the money to research and develop a cure for cancer, and they had a real cure for cancer, why in the world wouldn't they immediately pounce on the patent for it? Undoubtedly they would win a Nobel Prize, all the investors would be clamoring for their stocks, and their corporation would become one of the most widely admired by everybody on the planet, as their drugs are distributed to every single individual from now on who develops that disease.

And if there was a cover-up, that would make it even more enticing for somebody inside to expose it. Not only would you be credited with saving millions of lives, you'd be an instant hero for exposing the cover-up. You can't shut up the number of scientists it takes to do all the research to figure out that something is the instant cure for a major disease. The people who get into researching cures for diseases are the kind of people who are eager to use medical science to save lives. Even if they were greedy individuals solely looking for profit and power, not coming public with a cure for a major disease makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[DRBUZZ0]

I have said before (and this is lost on most) that pharmaceutical companies do not want people to die of cancer. They do not want people to die of anything. Cancer drugs are small potatoes. They're expensive to develop, have a limited market and the patients either die or end up being successfully treated, so it's not ongoing.

The actual money is in drugs with mass-market appeal, those which are big enough to make mass production and which are taken regularly are by far the best. And if they're relatively simple chemically that's even better.

Erectile dysfunction drugs are HUGE for profits. Antidepressants generate decent profits. Allergy drugs are huge cash makers. Acid blockers, hair loss, high blood pressure, arthritis. And especially cholesterol drugs. Stalins make more money than any other kind of drug.

The drug companies want you to live a long life and be very old, very arthritic, very bald, very high blood pressured, very impotent and ideally a bit depressed about it too.

The ironic thing is that many of these things do have a "natural cure" and the drug companies do not cover it up at all.

Is there a natural alternative to statins? Sure, it's simple. Change your diet and exercise. The drugs even say "When overexercise and diet changes are not enough."

But be that as it may, do you really think the majority of people who take cholesterol or high blood pressure drugs are really doing so as a last resort. How many people do you know who take cholesterol drugs who say "I had to. I stopped eating eggs entirely. I cut out all deserts. I eat a salad for lunch every day and no fried foods and I run two miles. But it just wasn't enough so I had to resort to drugs."

I'm going to guess zero. The fact that these things sell like they do has a lot to do with the fact that most people aren't going to really for the amount of lifestyle changes you'd need otherwise. It's no conspiracy. It's not that people don't know that changing their diet and exercising will reduce cholesteral or blood pressure or acid reflux.

[firecoins]

Erectile dysfunction drugs are HUGE for profits.
Men say its huge but you find out later it might not be THAT big.

[OldTigerCub]

Sounds reminiscent of the 100 mile per gallon carburator that the evil oil companies covered up in the '70s.:p

[portlandatheist]

Sounds reminiscent of the 100 mile per gallon carburator that the evil oil companies covered up in the '70s.:p

And the Everlasting Lightbulb (http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com/node/304)

[ktesibios]

Erectile dysfunction drugs are HUGE for profits. Antidepressants generate decent profits. Allergy drugs are huge cash makers. Acid blockers, hair loss, high blood pressure, arthritis. And especially cholesterol drugs. Stalins make more money than any other kind of drug.


I always suspected that he was really a capitalist in disguise. ;)

[Plantfoam]

I work in the pharmaceutical distribution field, supplying hospitals, pharmacies, and large government accounts, so this notion has always been rather funny to me. Most people that believe this stuff probably don't realize how much money the drug manufacturers pour into R&D. I believe that developing a new drug runs an average of about $400 million or so.

A "cure" for cancer would be more of a genetic manipulation thing. And yes, every scientist would love to be the first person to proclaim that they have found the cure to a major disease. It reminds me of what a project leader for a Mars surveyor (forgot his name) said to George Noory when he was asked is NASA was covering up evidence of life on Mars. To paraphrase roughly, he said, "I'm in charge to taking the pictures, and if I found life there, I would be the first to jump for the instant Nobel Prize."

The only pharmaceutical "conspiracy" I know of is the efforts of some (mostly foreign) entities to sell counterfeit drugs on the open market. A prime example would be the infamous fake Viagra tablets coming from Russia that were composed primarily of concrete:boggled: For this reason, we no longer buy drugs from other distributors in a second-hand manner. We now only receive drugs directly from the manufacturers.

[MRC_Hans]

That CT is especiallly popular with people who are peddling some form of alternative treatment. Just look at the homeopathy forums; they are almost constantly raving about how the Evil Big Pharma Conspiracy is conniving to keep people sick and medicated.

It is really very ironic: They have no evidence for their own stuff except claiming that they and their patients can see it works. But apparantly the same observational skills don't exist with the rest of the population, who never seem to notice that they get worse every time they go to the doctor :rolleyes:.

I work with a large insulin producer, and you might think we would not want to try to find a cure for diabetes. Yet we are researching just that. Why? Well, it may be bad news for us (not really, because there are customers enough, but never mind), but it will be even worse news if somebody else does it. So if somebody should invent a cure for diabetes, we'll want it to be us.


Hans

[T.A.M.]

Please, anyone, bring an allege medical CT and present your evidence...This is a game I can play well...

I have already been tackling the Mercury-Vaccine-Autism crap on blogs elsewhere.


TAM:)

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Many cancer's have been "cured" in the sense that they've had the survivability brought up very high. (Yes there are still some that more deadly than others)

The issue is that there's no single pill cure for cancer. And *probably* never will be. But that's just the nature of cancer.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Please, anyone, bring an allege medical CT and present your evidence...This is a game I can play well...

I have already been tackling the Mercury-Vaccine-Autism crap on blogs elsewhere.


TAM:)

Hey, I've got a question for you on Autism... I've heard this take on the the Autism CT: Here in the U.S. (and I believe Canada too cause of Doug Flutie) it seems that there is a disproportionate number of Football players have kids with Autism. Now, I've heard of CTs that it's either due to "nutritional supplements) to the pesticides or fertilizers that they use on the fields for practice and play.

Ever hear of these?

My take is that the instances are the same as the general population... It's just that they have more money and fame and therefore in the spotlight more.

[T.A.M.]

No I have not, but please provide a link, as it has my ***** DETECTOR going off...

TAM:)

[DRBUZZ0]

I always suspected that he was really a capitalist in disguise. ;)

oops. I'm not good at typing

[Hyperviolet]

Please, anyone, bring an allege medical CT and present your evidence...This is a game I can play well...

I have already been tackling the Mercury-Vaccine-Autism crap on blogs elsewhere.


TAM:)

But...Alex Jones says it's admitted that they put mercury in the vaccines to kill us? :confused:

[technoextreme]

The drugs even say "When overexercise and diet changes are not enough."
This isn't right. It's exercise and not only that but in general there are people in which this doesn't help.

I'm going to guess zero. The fact that these things sell like they do has a lot to do with the fact that most people aren't going to really for the amount of lifestyle changes you'd need otherwise. It's no conspiracy. It's not that people don't know that changing their diet and exercising will reduce cholesteral or blood pressure or acid reflux.
Im guessing more than that. Doctors wouldn't let them do it.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

No I have not, but please provide a link, as it has my ***** DETECTOR going off...

TAM:)

I believe you. Sounds like BS to me. I remember reading it in my local newspaper back when Doug Flutie used to play for the Bills. (Go Giants!)

[firecoins]

I think Kevin Tradeu is financed by the pharmecuteical industry

[Juustin]

I encountered someone a while back who offered Magic Johnson as "proof" that a cure for AIDS was available. It's being kept from the poor and is limited to anyone who can afford it, etc.

I find a good answer for this is to ask if Freddy Mercury, Arthur Ash, and the guy who played Mike Brady were poor. Follow that up with information about medical advances that have been made since they've died.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I think Kevin Tradeu is financed by the pharmecuteical industry

That's like saying Osama works for the CIA...

Isn't he one of those "snake oil" salemen who's now moved onto stock and real estate scams?

[dudalb]

Reverse that,Space Monkey.
Trudeau moved into medical scams after serving time for finaincial frauds,including a conviction for credit card fraud.
What amazes me is the morons who buy that all of his convictions for fraud are a part of a "big pharma" plot against him.which is Trudeau's response to questions about his long police record.
Part of the anti big Pharma craze is the idea that making a profit in the health care field is immoral of and by itself.

[T.A.M.]

I work in the pharmaceutical distribution field, supplying hospitals, pharmacies, and large government accounts, so this notion has always been rather funny to me. Most people that believe this stuff probably don't realize how much money the drug manufacturers pour into R&D. I believe that developing a new drug runs an average of about $400 million or so.

A "cure" for cancer would be more of a genetic manipulation thing. And yes, every scientist would love to be the first person to proclaim that they have found the cure to a major disease. It reminds me of what a project leader for a Mars surveyor (forgot his name) said to George Noory when he was asked is NASA was covering up evidence of life on Mars. To paraphrase roughly, he said, "I'm in charge to taking the pictures, and if I found life there, I would be the first to jump for the instant Nobel Prize."

The only pharmaceutical "conspiracy" I know of is the efforts of some (mostly foreign) entities to sell counterfeit drugs on the open market. A prime example would be the infamous fake Viagra tablets coming from Russia that were composed primarily of concrete:boggled: For this reason, we no longer buy drugs from other distributors in a second-hand manner. We now only receive drugs directly from the manufacturers.

Exactly. I mean #1, if a cure for something like a non-surgical cancer could be found, the company that found it (A) would charge a price appropriate to the value of the medication, (B) would become the most famous company, along with its scientists, in the history of the world. Their stocks would soar.

Beyond the financial and fame rewards, believe it or not, 99% of the people in the Pharma Industry are good, honest people.

Pfizer recently dumped a medication they had invested $800 Million in, before it even came to market. People have no idea these companies invest in R&D.

TAM:)

[DRBUZZ0]

The "cure for cancer" is always what comes up and honestly I find it idiotic. There's never going to be a "cure for cancer" because "cancer" is too broad a term for a family of similar cellular conditions. The only way I could see an across-the-board cure happening would require some sort of nano-machine-engineered-microbe to go in and fix all the damaged dna and/or chemistry going on there or just kill the cells. That ain't happening this year or next or the year after.

It may happen but it sure as hell won't be basil extract or some cheap chemical or something that is "Natural" or known about but suppressed by drug companies. That is complete bull.

And the whole "We need prevention" thing is nearly as much bull as well. You get these idiots on TV who say that the companies are trying to stop people from realizing that you can prevent disease with diet and activity. Really, who the hell does not know that? EVERYONE knows that if you smoke you're going to be at a high risk for lung cancer. The condition is pretty rare in people who never smoked and yet cigarettes still fly off the shelves.

Some idiot on Youtube was saying how Kevin Trudeau's book is unfairly criticized. He presented his own story: I had bad heartburn a lot and I took the advice from this book and lost weight and changed my diet, and now I almost never get heartburn.

NO S**T SHERLOCK! Did you need to buy the damn book to know that being overweight can put stress on your digestive system? Or that certain foods can cause indigestion or heart burn?

The whole prevention thing is overstated. You *can* prevent cancer, just like any other condition. If you stay healthy and eat well and are active and get plenty of the recomended nutrients, you'll reduce your chances. You won't reduce them *that* much for cancer, because it's often not a direct cause of anything. But you can dramatically reduce your chances of heart disease and such.

[DRBUZZ0]

I should probably add on a personal note: My grandfather lived to be 83. He died in 2003. He had suffered a minor heart attack in 1998 and he was also diabetic and had high blood pressure. He was on a lot of medications which kept him alive as long as he was and ended up living a reasonably long life.

But he was pretty overweight. I'd say he could have been slightly more than 300 lbs... well maybe not. He was shorter than me, but he was defiantly hefty, "fat" even. How many fat 80 year olds do you know?

It's amazing. The amount of effort that must have been put into those drugs I am sure is high. But it is not as high as the alternative, which would have been getting him to not eat so many donuts. Taking donuts away from Poppy would have been literally impossible..

[Plantfoam]

I have found proof that the conspiracy is true, and I am switching sides.

Jonas Salk discovered the miraculous cure for polio, despite the wishes of the drug companies, who obviously just wanted a daily polio suppression pill (bigger profits).

Since then, Dr. Salk has died....undoubtedly the deadly consequence of challenging the pharmaceutical giants.

Case closed.

[defaultdotxbe]

I work with a large insulin producer, and you might think we would not want to try to find a cure for diabetes. Yet we are researching just that. Why? Well, it may be bad news for us (not really, because there are customers enough, but never mind), but it will be even worse news if somebody else does it. So if somebody should invent a cure for diabetes, we'll want it to be us.


Hans
i notice this is a common theme among conspiracy theories, the identification of the antagonist as a singular, monolithic entity, like "the government" or "big pharma" once you realize the pharmaceutical industry is dozens or hundreds of companies all competing with eachother any "suppression of cures" theories fall apart, any company marketing a cure for a major disease would not only make billions, but would put most if not all of their competition out of business

the same thing pretty much applies to any conspiracy theory, 9/11, JFK, moon landing, without the conspirators being part of the borg collective it all falls apart

[The Man]

There certainly is an instant cure for any medical condition major or minor.
It’s called DEATH.
Although, I don’t think the pharmaceutical companies are covering it up.
Also, it has at least one major, undesirable, side effect.

[DRBUZZ0]

i notice this is a common theme among conspiracy theories, the identification of the antagonist as a singular, monolithic entity, like "the government" or "big pharma" once you realize the pharmaceutical industry is dozens or hundreds of companies all competing with eachother any "suppression of cures" theories fall apart, any company marketing a cure for a major disease would not only make billions, but would put most if not all of their competition out of business

the same thing pretty much applies to any conspiracy theory, 9/11, JFK, moon landing, without the conspirators being part of the borg collective it all falls apart

Yep. It also presumes there aren't powerful companies or other entities who would be just as benefited by the opposite (insurance companies, companies like GM for whom a major component of expenses is health care for retirees, the government who pays a great deal on healthcare, private organizations)


The same could be said every time somebody say "Yeah this guy who can run his car on water with his invention was not able to get it out because of the oil companies."

"The Oil companies"??!?!? Sure, they make tons of money, but what about the others: The airlines are constantly dealing with the price of fuel! Even if they could not run planes on it, it would lower the price considerably!

The US military is always dependant on fuel. How about a submarine with unlimited endurance that is too small for a nuclear reactor? or a self-powered tank? I think they would like that.

How much does Walmart spend on diesel fuel? If their trucks ran on water that would be great for them.

What about car companies for that matter? They want to sell big, high-profit SUV's, but people don't buy high end cars like that and don't rely on cars as much when gas is expensive. If they ran on water cars would sell like crazy!

What about the shipping companies? The railroads? Every city and town that has busses, police cars or municipal vehicles?


You have to figure that if the oil companies are powerful enough to stop some "amazing energy invention" that they have bought all the other companies who would reap HUGE benefits.

[firecoins]

That's like saying Osama works for the CIA...

Isn't he one of those "snake oil" salemen who's now moved onto stock and real estate scams?
Yes! You see it so brilliant! The industry hires a guy to tell you they are a fraud when he is a fraud. And he can buy houses for no money down.

[Whack01]

What really irks me about conspiracies that target pharmaceutical companies is that lives depend on the work that they do. Anything to hinder that unnecessarily is practically murder. The demagogues first slander big pharma in order to taint the jury pool, then sue them just to turn a buck. The conspiracy theorists don't help as they just ignore all the good that has come from the industry and harp on the really bad things with no appreciation for the actual damage they're doing with their slander. Ironically CTs don't see how they're being manipulated to make a buck in this either.

All that said I do agree with what Brazil did (http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2004/11/brazil-to-go-to-compulsory-licensing.html)

/Whoever invented Prilosec should get the Nobel

[T.A.M.]

Suffer from a little GERD do we Whack01?

TAM;)

[robinson]

The real conspiracies are about making money.

[GreNME]

Please, anyone, bring an allege medical CT and present your evidence...This is a game I can play well...

It's not so much a conspiracy as it is business as usual, but pharma companies are known for two pretty devious practices: 1) putting more R&D into drugs that will bring a residual profit instead of drugs that have a short, finite dosage; 2) drug companies systematically hire individuals (usually women) who are able to play the eye candy role while being able to memorize as much company-biased sales rhetoric as possible to entice offices into using their products, the presentations of which come across to many doctors who keep up with pharma research (I even know a few personally) as dubious at best, just shy of lying in the worst cases.

Which leads me to:
Beyond the financial and fame rewards, believe it or not, 99% of the people in the Pharma Industry are good, honest people.

I disagree, or at least I think your comment is misleading. I think a large percentage of them have good intentions, but I wouldn't use the word "honest" to describe some of the practices. It could very well be institutional problems and not individuals making decisions that result in troubling consequences (like vioxx), but the pharma industry itself is not a 99% "good, honest" industry no matter what one may think of the individuals involved.

Pfizer recently dumped a medication they had invested $800 Million in, before it even came to market. People have no idea these companies invest in R&D.

TAM:)

I have plenty of idea, and compared to profits the R&D cost is such that dropping an $800 mil project without having a reportable loss in finances. Lots of industries have huge R&D, but that does not mean their market model is not aggressively misleading. Two obvious ones, pharma and small-cap stock trading, are examples of markets that make high promises with heavy caveats* that are repeatedly taken advantage of by those who create and send spam.

* may cause upset stomach, bleeding of the anus, and blindness. Please see your doctor for the full list of side-effects.

[DRBUZZ0]

The analogy I've made before is the following:

The pharmacy companies are big multi-national corporations which are driven by profit and want to make money. They have been accused from time to time of various forms of corruption, such as off-label marketing, trying to increase prices artificially and so on.

Therefore I should not use their products because they will not be safe and effective and I will be better using natural products.

Therefore by this logic...

The aircraft companies are big multi-national corporations which are driven by profit and want to make money. Airbus for being unfairly government subsidized and afforded extra benefits. Boeing has been accused of lobbying for the airforce to buy new tankers it really didn't need and for overstating claims of effeciency of their newer products..

Therefore their aircraft do not fly and are not safe. Instead the next time I want to go somewhere I will not get on a 757, but rather I will jump off a cliff and flap my "natural" arms.

[T.A.M.]

GreNME:

I appreciate your perspective...a few comments on your comments.

1. You are correct, the Pharma industry does select individuals who are charismatic and good looking. I would say it is equal men and women where I work, which makes sense given the ratio of men to women presently exiting medical schools in Canada, is women about equal to men (about 52% to 48% respectively).

2. I find it insulting when someone insinuates (not saying you are) that the person's looks or charm somehow plays a role in my prescribing practices. It may influence me to let them speak their piece (though I tend to listen to all of them), but I consider myself above buying the pharma line just because a cute lady is selling it.

3. Perhaps honest, in the absolute broadest sense of the word, is a little too giving, but if we are to nail them for what they do as being "dishonest" then you better line them up right after car salespeople, Electronics Salespeople, and just about anybody else in sales.
I know quite a few personally, and find them to be very good people, and quite honest, both at work, and outside of work. They are also honest about their competition. Of course, mine is the perspective of the person they are making a pitch to.

4. I get a little tired about people complaining about the, heaven forbid, capitalistic attitude of the big Pharma business...what more is to be expected. If people want an altruistic provider of medicines, then increase your taxes substantially, and have it government run...oh wait, then they will be in on it right???lol

5. There is no doubt that drug companies will not invest in a product that shows little sign of sales potential. This is usually directly linked to efficacy and the seriousness/morbidity associated with the disease it treats. This is also sound business practice...like it or lump it. They will also dump a drug if data emerges that will likely result in a greater cost in litigation than they could hope to profit...cold yes, but also sound business...

6. 80% of the encounters I have with reps, in the office, is in the form of....

Rep: so do you see much of illness X?
Me: A fair bit.
Rep: SO do you use much of Drug Y (their product) for illness X?
Me: I use it, as well as Drug W and Z, depends on their insurance coverage and the price, as most in that class are of equal efficacy.
Rep: Well thats fair, just keep us in mind.

and that would be the end of conversation, or at least end of Drug related convo.

TAM:)

[GreNME]

GreNME:

I appreciate your perspective...a few comments on your comments.

Fair enough, and a few comments on your comments on... crap, I get confused with too much recursion! :eek:

1. You are correct, the Pharma industry does select individuals who are charismatic and good looking. I would say it is equal men and women where I work, which makes sense given the ratio of men to women presently exiting medical schools in Canada, is women about equal to men (about 52% to 48% respectively).

It's a little less even in the US, at least in sales reps, if you catch my drift.

2. I find it insulting when someone insinuates (not saying you are) that the person's looks or charm somehow plays a role in my prescribing practices. It may influence me to let them speak their piece (though I tend to listen to all of them), but I consider myself above buying the pharma line just because a cute lady is selling it.

Oh, I would say that looks and charm play a large role in the practices of carrying certain products, but it certainly isn't relegated to pretty faces. All companies at a certain size (and upward) go to great lengths to offer very convincing presentations to prospective clients. Pharma companies happen to be one of the few, at least in the US, who actually go to such lengths as hiring former cheerleaders, beauty pageant winners, and so on for their sales teams in numbers that have at least been noted as more than coincidental (though not necessarily constituting the majority). Sure, beauty queens are people too, but I don't think Miss Virginia 1996 necessarily had hocking Provera to OB/GYNs when she answered "I want to help people" at the pageant.

Yes, I'm laying on the hyperbole there, but honestly it's not being applied as thick as you might think.

3. Perhaps honest, in the absolute broadest sense of the word, is a little too giving, but if we are to nail them for what they do as being "dishonest" then you better line them up right after car salespeople, Electronics Salespeople, and just about anybody else in sales.
I know quite a few personally, and find them to be very good people, and quite honest, both at work, and outside of work. They are also honest about their competition. Of course, mine is the perspective of the person they are making a pitch to.

Oh, I base my opinion on the perspectives of people who have been pitched to as well, both in private practices and in residencies. I somewhat disagree about the level of honesty in their pitches, at least I'm not convinced they are any more honest than most other salespeople, including those you mentioned. Those who have had a little medical study tend to be able to answer more intelligently than those who haven't, but in many cases there aren't required equivalents of medical knowledge for those in sales... not in the US, at least.

That's more reflective of sales, by the way: I'm a head of IT and many of the salespeople I have to deal with often display the same qualities as far as that goes.

4. I get a little tired about people complaining about the, heaven forbid, capitalistic attitude of the big Pharma business...what more is to be expected. If people want an altruistic provider of medicines, then increase your taxes substantially, and have it government run...oh wait, then they will be in on it right???lol

Actually, I can understand the capitalist attitude. What I don't like is when I hear about leveraging their influence on government regulatory administrations to block generic competition when their patents run out, or extending their patents past the amount of time when their drug's entrance to the market is new enough that it is meant to gain them a return on investment.

5. There is no doubt that drug companies will not invest in a product that shows little sign of sales potential. This is usually directly linked to efficacy and the seriousness/morbidity associated with the disease it treats. This is also sound business practice...like it or lump it. They will also dump a drug if data emerges that will likely result in a greater cost in litigation than they could hope to profit...cold yes, but also sound business...

There comes a point between profit and charity when the goal of healing or increasing quality of life becomes blurry and is eventually nearly non-existent. Every single doctor and nurse I have ever known (yes, every single one, and that includes family) relates this as a constant source of grief and stress in their job. In some cases, I've known doctors who have admitted the single reason they continue ongoing relationships with some sales reps is to keep a steady stream of sample packs for their... well, those for whom "healthcare" is less of a given. In those cases, I regard the doctors with a great deal of respect, not the producers from whom a single perscription can cost in the hundreds for the patients otherwise.

6. 80% of the encounters I have with reps, in the office, is in the form of....

Rep: so do you see much of illness X?
Me: A fair bit.
Rep: SO do you use much of Drug Y (their product) for illness X?
Me: I use it, as well as Drug W and Z, depends on their insurance coverage and the price, as most in that class are of equal efficacy.
Rep: Well thats fair, just keep us in mind.

and that would be the end of conversation, or at least end of Drug related convo.

I can't quote for you an alternate percentage, but I can say that the chances are that a conversation you describe signifies either a prior rapport between the salesperson and you or you have had greater experience with less pushy salespeople. I can see how that contributes to your interpretation. Here is a quote from a resident I know whose hospital has one of the more strict policies about contacts by reps:They can invite us to dinners. I chose to go to one to see what it was like, as I was told that the speaker (an attending at my hospital) was quite good. It was at a fancy restaurant, open bar and all that. About 20 people were there, nurses/residents/docs. They prob spent about $80/person. I was disappointed in the talk. I had thought that the attending was going to present research, but all he had was a canned powerpoint from which he was not allowed to deviate. I did get to ask questions at the end about the validity of using med X versus all the other generic ones. He had a tough time answering because med X really isn't a first line choice, but he had to make it sound good for the pharm reps who were watching him.
And here is a practicing doctor's opinion of the same:My office gets reps way too often. Internal medicine uses a lot of drugs in a wide variety of fields so we get tons of reps. For the patients's sake we sign their little forms so we can have samples of various drugs and then they leave us brochures and invite us to lectures. They actually bring us lunch several days a week. The lunch thing bugs me a lot.
I chose the more tame ones because I could copy them verbatim and because I'm not really making accusations past dubious sales practices when referring to reps. :) (also, in full disclosure: it's not like I haven't taken advantage of free offers from the likes of Microsoft reps in the past)

Still, overall, I wouldn't call any of this a conspiracy, I certainly don't consider it necessarily "evil," so I still don't think many of the various wild accusations made in CTs have any extra merit just because the bigger pharma companies (like Merck) engage in somewhat monopolistic and questionable sales practices. I also have my problems with the automotive industry, also based on experiences related to me from people ranging from mechanics to those in companies who are developing some alternate-fuel vehicles, so I don't think I have quite the tenacity in my opinion as your average CT-ist might have in my negative opinion.

[T.A.M.]

A final reply, and then perhaps via PM if we need to talk of it futher


Oh, I would say that looks and charm play a large role in the practices of carrying certain products, but it certainly isn't relegated to pretty faces. All companies at a certain size (and upward) go to great lengths to offer very convincing presentations to prospective clients. Pharma companies happen to be one of the few, at least in the US, who actually go to such lengths as hiring former cheerleaders, beauty pageant winners, and so on for their sales teams in numbers that have at least been noted as more than coincidental (though not necessarily constituting the majority). Sure, beauty queens are people too, but I don't think Miss Virginia 1996 necessarily had hocking Provera to OB/GYNs when she answered "I want to help people" at the pageant.

Our practice (4 Family Docs) has a drug room. In that drug room are kept our sample. We keep all companies samples in this room, not just certain drugs. Like I said, and this goes for most of my colleagues (that I am personally aware of), my prescribing practice/choice is based on (A) Efficacy, (B) Price, (C) Patient's Insurance Coverage, and failing all that, if they are the working poor, and can't afford it, it does depend on the samples in the drug room.


Oh, I base my opinion on the perspectives of people who have been pitched to as well, both in private practices and in residencies. I somewhat disagree about the level of honesty in their pitches, at least I'm not convinced they are any more honest than most other salespeople, including those you mentioned. Those who have had a little medical study tend to be able to answer more intelligently than those who haven't, but in many cases there aren't required equivalents of medical knowledge for those in sales... not in the US, at least.

That's more reflective of sales, by the way: I'm a head of IT and many of the salespeople I have to deal with often display the same qualities as far as that goes.

Agreed, I guess I do not hold the "sales pitch" against them in terms of honesty, as both parties understand what it is, and I know full well how to read between the lines...


Actually, I can understand the capitalist attitude. What I don't like is when I hear about leveraging their influence on government regulatory administrations to block generic competition when their patents run out, or extending their patents past the amount of time when their drug's entrance to the market is new enough that it is meant to gain them a return on investment.

It works both ways though. For instance, the Generic companies will often take Pharmacists on PAID TRIPS to exotic places, etc...That no longer happens here in Canada with Doctors and brand name Pharma. They have regulations now, where they are even told what type of meals (how expensive etc...) they can purchase when providing lunch or a drug dinner.


There comes a point between profit and charity when the goal of healing or increasing quality of life becomes blurry and is eventually nearly non-existent. Every single doctor and nurse I have ever known (yes, every single one, and that includes family) relates this as a constant source of grief and stress in their job. In some cases, I've known doctors who have admitted the single reason they continue ongoing relationships with some sales reps is to keep a steady stream of sample packs for their... well, those for whom "healthcare" is less of a given. In those cases, I regard the doctors with a great deal of respect, not the producers from whom a single perscription can cost in the hundreds for the patients otherwise.

I can't quote for you an alternate percentage, but I can say that the chances are that a conversation you describe signifies either a prior rapport between the salesperson and you or you have had greater experience with less pushy salespeople. I can see how that contributes to your interpretation.

The drug lunches, drug dinners, they happen. Here is the way I look at this. Rep A comes in, provides lunch, we let them give their 5 minute speech, then we eat (usually I eat while they are talking). I then hit them with several questions concerning the class of drug and the role it plays in illness X. I then make sure they have loaded the room with samples for my patients that cannot afford meds (generic or otherwise). We have drug lunches about one per week.

Drug Dinners I look at as Free CME. If our local college provides a CME topic, the fee is usually $75-100 per physician. It is free if a pharma sponsors it. The only catch is that the topic is usually related to the CLASS of drug the pharma rep has...like if the rep is for Ramipril, the topic might be Hypertension in the Diabetic. They bring in a top speaker (I Haven't had issues with the speakers we get) who presents for 30-45 minutes, then a Q&A. Dinner is provided...yes $80 per person is not unusual.

I guess it depends on your perspective, but I do not feel the reps have much if any influence on what type of drug I prescribe, and virtually no inlfuence on the brand name. I know it must work for them as a whole though, or they would not be doing it.


I chose the more tame ones because I could copy them verbatim and because I'm not really making accusations past dubious sales practices when referring to reps. :) (also, in full disclosure: it's not like I haven't taken advantage of free offers from the likes of Microsoft reps in the past)

Well admitted...well said.


Still, overall, I wouldn't call any of this a conspiracy, I certainly don't consider it necessarily "evil," so I still don't think many of the various wild accusations made in CTs have any extra merit just because the bigger pharma companies (like Merck) engage in somewhat monopolistic and questionable sales practices. I also have my problems with the automotive industry, also based on experiences related to me from people ranging from mechanics to those in companies who are developing some alternate-fuel vehicles, so I don't think I have quite the tenacity in my opinion as your average CT-ist might have in my negative opinion.

In the end, like you said, i think it is business as usual.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

Bill Mahers anti pharm rant
rHXXTCc-IVg

[GreNME]

A final reply, and then perhaps via PM if we need to talk of it futher

...

In the end, like you said, i think it is business as usual.

TAM:)

No, I think any further discussion on either of our part would be out of the scope of conspiracy theories and more within the scope of politics or medical practices. :)

(not that I think discussion with you on the topics wouldn't be interesting and/or edifying, but I think we agree that CTs are over the top)

[DRBUZZ0]

Bill Mahers anti pharm rant
rHXXTCc-IVg

yea...

The pharmaceutical industry is mot motivated by good or evil as far as I am concerned. They work for money. They create drugs. That is how they make money. The best way for them to do so is to create drugs which are safe and effective and address as many health issues as are possible. Advertising a product that doesn't work can only get you so far. Beyond their marketing, the real way to be successful is to make something that works. That is why patients use them and doctors prescribe them in the end.

Engaging in unfair, evil, dishonest buisiness will only come back to bite you in the end when it gets out or your products don't live up. You can do that in a monopoly which is why those are so dangerous. But without a monopoly no amount of power will stop someone from coming out with a cure if one exists.

Given the whole idea of the "conspiracy over the everlasting lightbulb that would mean no money anymore for lightbulb companies." If I came out with a lightbulb with an unlimited lifespan and could sell it at near the price of a normal one, I'd be rich and the lightbulb companies could not stop me.

It's the argument that you cannot make money on a durable good. That's bull. Even if it never needs replacing due to time alone, I'd still sell enough to make a fortune and have a stustainable buisiness from new construction and ones that get broken.

Same deal, if some company comes out with a cure for cancer they will release it lest the others do so first.

[GreNME]

Well, Maher makes one good point: preventive medicine is better than almost all of the drugs out there. This isn't any kind of medical secret, either. Exercise and diet trump the need for many of the common medications that exist today.

The trouble is that in today's world having time for exercise and money for proper diet are more difficult.

[Mobyseven]

Was watching episode 2 of House last night - "You know what else is really good business? Teeny-tiny baby coffins."

Said to a mother who refuses to vaccinate her child because, "The multinational corporations want us to think that vaccinations work."

[Nick227]

Please, anyone, bring an allege medical CT and present your evidence...This is a game I can play well...

I have already been tackling the Mercury-Vaccine-Autism crap on blogs elsewhere.


TAM:)

Hey TAM,

OK, how about ibogaine. Poly drug dependence interrupter. Effective for heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, and alcohol. Scientific studies demonstrate efficacy for blockading symptoms of drug withdrawal. In addition ibogaine metabolites sit in the body fat and continue to promote drug abstinence for on average a month after initial dose. Re-dosing possible to maintain abstinence. Drug has no abuse potential itself.

Commenced Phase 1 FDA trials 1994. Legal disputes broke out between parties carrying out and paying for the trials. 1995 US National Institute for Drug Abuse NIDA pulled the plug for no good reason.

Mechanism of action not fully comprehended despite large numbers of animal studies. Substance is an opiate partial agonist and likely active in NMDA and GABA pathways amongst others.

Few commentators dispute that this drug would utterly revolutionise the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction worldwide but Big Pharma is utterly uninterested and governments have not offered "orphan drug" status.

For scientific verification see work of Dr Deborah Mash, professor of neurology and molecular and cellular pharmacology at the University of Miami School of Medicine, internationally renowned expert in field of neuropharmacology of drugs of abuse, and holder of the Jeanne C. Levey Chair in the Department of Neurology.

Nick

[Mobyseven]

OK, how about ibogaine. Poly drug dependence interrupter. Effective for heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, and alcohol. Scientific studies demonstrate efficacy for blockading symptoms of drug withdrawal. In addition ibogaine metabolites sit in the body fat and continue to promote drug abstinence for on average a month after initial dose. Re-dosing possible to maintain abstinence. Drug has no abuse potential itself.

Redded by me. Could you kindly cite the relevant scientific studies?

kthnxbi

[jhunter1163]

I work in a very large medical practice (25 docs) and we get pharma reps in the office ALL the time. We (the editorial we, not me personally) listen to their pitches, eat their food, take their pens, sticky pads and other swag, and take a few samples for the med room.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's marketing. If one of our docs happens to see a patient with the condition one of these drugs is intended for, he/she might try it; or he/she might not. Most of the docs I know (and I'd venture to expand that to most docs in general) will stay with the things they KNOW to be effective until they're sure that there's something better out there.

[calebprime]

I'm feeling cruel, so here's a link to a site that gives an overview of studies.

Guaranteed to make yer eyes bleed n' yer head ache.

http://www.shaman-australis.com/~claude/eboga.html

[robinson]

http://www.ibogaine.org/science.html#lab

Could you kindly cite the relevant scientific studies?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=ibogaine%5Ball%20fields%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=PubMed&term=18-methoxycoronaridine%5BAll%20Fields%5D

[robinson]

In case it isn't obvious, 18-Methoxycoronaridine (18-MC) is similar to ibogaine. In animal studies it has proved to be effective at reducing self-administration of morphine, cocaine, methamphetamine and nicotine.

S.D. Glick (1996). "18-Methoxycoronaridine, a non-toxic iboga alkaloid congener: effects on morphine and cocaine self-administration and on mesolimbic dopamine release in rats". Brain Res. 719 (1-2): 29-35.
Ibogaine, a naturally occurring iboga alkaloid, has been claimed to be effective in treating addiction to opioids and stimulants, and has been reported to inhibit morphine and cocaine self-administration in rats. However, ibogaine also has acute nonspecific side effects (e.g. tremors, decreased motivated behavior in general) as well as neurotoxic effects (Purkinje cell loss) manifested in the vermis of the cerebellum. 18-Methoxycoronaridine (MC) is a novel, synthetic iboga alkaloid congener that mimics ibogaine's effects on drug self-administration without appearing to have ibogaine's other adverse effects. Acutely, in rats, MC decreased morphine and cocaine self-administration but did not affect bar-press responding for water. In some rats, treatment with MC (40 mg/kg) induced prolonged decreases in morphine or cocaine intake lasting several days or weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8782860

Glick is still working with 18-MC.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16626688&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[DRBUZZ0]

I work in a very large medical practice (25 docs) and we get pharma reps in the office ALL the time. We (the editorial we, not me personally) listen to their pitches, eat their food, take their pens, sticky pads and other swag, and take a few samples for the med room.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's marketing. If one of our docs happens to see a patient with the condition one of these drugs is intended for, he/she might try it; or he/she might not. Most of the docs I know (and I'd venture to expand that to most docs in general) will stay with the things they KNOW to be effective until they're sure that there's something better out there.

Well I've had my doc or the receptionist give me stuff before when I ask about it. "Oh that's a cool pen" or something.. I often get the response. "Oh you like it? Here, you can have it. The pharma rep left eight hundred of them in the office."

(Okay well it's usually not eight hundred)

[Mobyseven]

kthnx4thastudiz

bi now

[PixyMisa]

Commenced Phase 1 FDA trials 1994. Legal disputes broke out between parties carrying out and paying for the trials. 1995 US National Institute for Drug Abuse NIDA pulled the plug for no good reason.

Mechanism of action not fully comprehended despite large numbers of animal studies. Substance is an opiate partial agonist and likely active in NMDA and GABA pathways amongst others.
Funny, you just mentioned two very good reasons for NIDA to pull the plug.

Few commentators dispute that this drug would utterly revolutionise the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction worldwide but Big Pharma is utterly uninterested and governments have not offered "orphan drug" status.
"Orphan drug" status is a US thing. What about the rest of the planet?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

No I have not, but please provide a link, as it has my ***** DETECTOR going off...

TAM:)

I haven't been able to find an article about pro-athletes + pesticides on grass practice fields and autism in their kids, but there are a lot of "Pesticides cause autism" links on the web.

http://www.drgreene.com/21_1894.html

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/06_13_05.htm

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=151

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2003/February/09/local/stories/01local.htm

[defaultdotxbe]

I haven't been able to find an article about pro-athletes + pesticides on grass practice fields and autism in their kids, but there are a lot of "Pesticides cause autism" links on the web.

http://www.drgreene.com/21_1894.html

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/06_13_05.htm

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=151

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2003/February/09/local/stories/01local.htm
wouldnt the mother have to exposed to the pesticides for it to have prenatal effects on the child?

are the pesticides staying in the bloodstream and being transfered to the mother through exchanges of bodily fluid (which seems that it wouldnt result in a whole lot of chemicals getting through to the fetus) or are the pesticides effecting the athletes at a genetic level, which is then transferred to the child?

im sure there are links between pesticides and autism, it just seems the "pesticides on the practice field are effecting pro athletes kids" seems a bit of a stretch

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

wouldnt the mother have to exposed to the pesticides for it to have prenatal effects on the child?

are the pesticides staying in the bloodstream and being transfered to the mother through exchanges of bodily fluid (which seems that it wouldnt result in a whole lot of chemicals getting through to the fetus) or are the pesticides effecting the athletes at a genetic level, which is then transferred to the child?

im sure there are links between pesticides and autism, it just seems the "pesticides on the practice field are effecting pro athletes kids" seems a bit of a stretch

Which is why I was asking if he had ever heard of the CT. :) I don't believe it for a minute that professional athletes have a higher proportion of autistic kids more than the general population. I couldn't find any link about it other than just pesticides + mom = goofy kid

[robinson]

T.A.M.

You still there? Anybody?

[Nick227]

Redded by me. Could you kindly cite the relevant scientific studies?

kthnxbi
Ibogaine: Complex Pharmacokinetics, Concerns for Safety, and Preliminary Efficacy Measures (http://ibogaine.mindvox.com/Articles/Mash-01.pdf)
- Mash DC, Kovera CA, Pablo J, Tyndale RF, Ervin FD, Williams IC, Singleton EG, Mayor M. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000;914:394-401 is probably the best known. Here is a link (http://www.nyas.org/annals/searchRslt.asp?search=ibogaine&within=articles&field=all&sort=rank&searchmethod=) to more.

Nick

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I work in a very large medical practice (25 docs) and we get pharma reps in the office ALL the time. We (the editorial we, not me personally) listen to their pitches, eat their food, take their pens, sticky pads and other swag, and take a few samples for the med room.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's marketing. If one of our docs happens to see a patient with the condition one of these drugs is intended for, he/she might try it; or he/she might not. Most of the docs I know (and I'd venture to expand that to most docs in general) will stay with the things they KNOW to be effective until they're sure that there's something better out there.

My doctor always looks to see if he has free samples to give out instead of writing a prescription, saving time of having to go get it filled, saving money not having to spend the money on the co-pay, etc.

[Nick227]

In case it isn't obvious, 18-Methoxycoronaridine (18-MC) is similar to ibogaine. In animal studies it has proved to be effective at reducing self-administration of morphine, cocaine, methamphetamine and nicotine.

S.D. Glick (1996). "18-Methoxycoronaridine, a non-toxic iboga alkaloid congener: effects on morphine and cocaine self-administration and on mesolimbic dopamine release in rats". Brain Res. 719 (1-2): 29-35.


18-MC has only been studied on rats, as far as I'm aware. What's interesting about it is that, despite being a derivative of ibogaine (a psychoactive tryptamine), it is believed to not be psychoactive itself. One of the barely spoken mainstays of the pharmcological business, sorry science, is that it's just not done to develop tryptamines, no matter what potential benefits to mankind they might possess.

The Pharm business demonstrates a near pathological lack of interest in a substance which would revolutionise the treatment of addiction worldwide. They are terrified of it basically. This particular strand of tryptamine has been studied extensively and found to be active in virtually every known neurochemical pathway associated with drug and alcohol dependency. The possibilities it opens up are mindblowing, but big business is terrified of the possibilities. It wants control and sustainable profits, not paradigm-busting broad spectrum treatments. No one knows why ibogaine is so amazingly effective, and if the situation continues as it does, no one ever will. In fact, imo it is a supreme testament to human endurance and desire for truth that ibogaine actually has been scientifically studied at all, given the abysmal lack of commercial interest.

Yes, where is TAM? He seems active on other threads but quiet here, despite his challenge.

Nick