Comments on: Pharma Gives Vermont Docs Lots Of Money

By: The Official Blog of the National Physicians Alliance » In a far far away state…..

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:16:58 +0000

[...] from the meeting? Pharma Money - it was almost entirely supported by the [...]

By: Lisa Van Syckel

Lisa Van Syckel — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:14:36 +0000

Bravo,….well stated!!……

By: Melody

Melody — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:06:39 +0000

Lisa–

Thanks for your comments. Pharma advocates ALWAYS seek to shift the blame to the “consumer”–not the drug, not the industry, and not the doctor who is, after all, the final arbiter for getting pharma drugs into consumer bodies.

Most parents today, I would imagine, can’t find the time to read the local newspaper. Very few, I would guess, subscribe to medical journals/newsletters that offer a total picture. Instead, we place a historic reliance on doctors, who supposedly base their opinions on documented studies, filtered through their well-educated, highly-trained analytical brains, and governed by their oath to Hippocrates.

Both pharma and doctors supposedly operate under a Code of Ethics and advocate for self-policing. Those efforts (at self-policing) are dismal, to say the very least.

By: Lisa Van Syckel

Lisa Van Syckel — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:07:31 +0000

Parental Responsibility!!!……Please…….

Are you saying that GSK shouldnt take responsibility for promoting Paxil for children,knowing full well that their drug can maime or kill a child!!……

Information that was deliberately withheld from FDA and the Public….

What about those Physicians an Clinical Investigators who still tout the safety and efficay of antidepressants,knowing that these drugs are not FDA approved,and carry a Black Box warning.And choose to withhold vital information from parents,lets question their ETHICS!!

I was Gullable,not irresponsible!!! I can assure you, that wont happen again…

By: Cyndi

Cyndi — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:59:25 +0000

The final blame needs to be placed on the parents of these children. It is their responsibility to advocate for what is safe and appropriate for their children. Common sense would suggest that you do not give amphetamines to children. Although there may be some valuable uses it clearly is a class of drugs that is over prescribed

By: Lisa Van Syckel

Lisa Van Syckel — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:29:42 +0000

Hi Girls,or Guys

Psychiatrists are prescibing antidepressants and antipsychotic medications to infants and toddlers at an alarming rate.
How do we justify this?…

Diabetics and HIV Patients need their medications to survive.

Infants and Toddlers can “survive” without the “Risperdal” and its life threatening side effects!…….

The prescribing of Antipsychotics has increased more than 175% in children!…This could not have happened without aggressive marketing, and a Physician’s conflict of interest.

By: Jeannie

Jeannie — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:27:30 +0000

I agree with Cyndi that Americans need to take individual responsibility for their own health. Instead of blaming the pharmaceutical industry, people need to understand the how the healthcare industry works. Because of wide spread managed care, physicians are under pressure to see high volume of patients in order to make the kind of money that they used to. Thus, they don’t have the financial incentive to spend time learning about advancements in drug therapies. Pharmaceutical companies therefore must find ways to disseminate information to physicians, one of which may be to provide some kind of “payment” or incentive. Now, pharmceutical companies are businesses and of course they would be biased to tout the benefits of their products as opposed to the negatives. This is where regulators such as the FDA come in to keep the pharmaceutical company practices ethical. Most people I know who work in the pharma industry are honest and smart people whose purpose in life is to discover drug that help people live healthy lives. We all gain from the scientific research that pharmaceutical companies conduct. If its wasn’t for pharmacuetical companies’ scientific research, we wouldn’t have even basic anti-biotics such as penicillin, or drugs that lower cholesterol which in turn lower the number of heart attaches, or drugs that now keep HIV-infected patients alive for at least 20-years whereas in the 1980’s HIV was the kiss of death, or drugs that fight breast cancer, or drugs that help couples enjoy sex, or drugs that prevent men from getting prostate cancer. The list goes on and on. Instead of point the finger at pharma, people should take a hard look at themselves and say, what can I do to improve my own health so that I won’t have to rely on drugs to keep me alive in my old age?

By: Cyndi

Cyndi — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:24:05 +0000

I always find it interesting to hear people demonize the pharamceutical industry in between bites of their Big Macs and puffs on their Marlboroâ€™s. We are a society that has lost personal responsibility for our own actions. Many of the diseases that the pharma industry treats could be eliminated by people taking more responsibility for their own health. Although there are certainly areas where the pharma industry could improve its image, the industry has saved many lives and reduced the overall costs of healthcare by reducing or eliminating more costly procedures. By the way, pharmaceutical costs only account for 10% of our overall healthcare costs. Not a bad ROI for what they provide.

By: interesting

interesting — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:42:42 +0000

Reality: when the doctors do not get paid to lear about the pharma products, drugs, they learn the real truth about the drugs. This can be done by simply reading the (new) drug product monograph or an objective scientific study re the drug. This, big pharma does not like. Why? Simple, for the complete truth about drugs is too much of info for it includes everything, the good, the bad and the ugly about the drugs. They all have it and the docs should know it all when Rxing.
When doctors do get paid to learn about drugs, they are paid by pharma to learn what pharm wants them to learn, nothing more. That means the good, the good and the good. The bad and ugly if covered is done only superficially..”side effects? not many only slight headache, don’t worry doc”.
Just attend a company sponsored and paid for dinner CME where the company sponsored and paid for specialists does the talk. You’ll see what we mean.

By: Laurie

Laurie — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:43:00 +0000

” disarm doctors by inhibiting access to critical scientific information about the benefits and risks of treatment options that help patients win their battle against disease.â€

So Pharma is saying that doctors will only learn about drugs IF they are PAID to do so??? If that’s the case, then this problem is a whole lot more complicated that we thought. I believe docs have a PDR that tells them what they need to know, without the dinner, pens, trips, and “speaking fees”. That is an insulting statement to doctors.