Comments on: JP Garnier: The Media Plays A ‘Dangerous Roulette’

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:12:05 +0000

Hi Nathan,

One small point about those figures - the sales and administration expenses aren’t broken down. Not to be argumentative, but unfortunately, this leaves us with an imprecise basis for comparison. Nonetheless, you are correct that SEC filings are, generally, useful tools for obtaining such info.

In any event, thanks for writing in.

ed at Pharmalot

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:02:07 +0000

Robyn,
You can easily find the actual figures in the SEC filings for any publicly traded pharma company. GSK earned 23 billion pounds in 2006. They spend 3.5 billion on R&D (which includes MUCH more than just clinical trials) and 7 billion pounds on “sales and administration”. Cost of goods is 5 billion pounds. This leaves 7.8 billion pounds as their profit.

Ellen, No doubt the pharma industry spends too much on sales and probably has too high a profit margin — but don’t villify the researchers like myself who spend countless hours trying to design new ways save and improve lives. Believe me, most researchers aren’t in it for the money. Researchers like myself (with a PhD) get paid about half of what a typical doctor makes and we spend just as long in our professional training.
Drugs can be dangerous — all drugs should be taken with caution. I’m sorry you lost your child. But driving is dangerous too. From a societal perspective, it’s well worth the risk. Why do you think our life span now is greater than it has ever been in our history? Do you think that it’s our great eating habbits and regular excersize? Not hardly — it’s due to medical advances made by doctors and by pharmaceutical companies.

By: Robyn

Robyn — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:13:19 +0000

Consider this statement from industry analyst Viren Mehta alongside Garnier’s claim that pharma does not spend more money advertising than on developing new drugs:

â€œThe industry spends perhaps around 10% of its revenues on conducting clinical trials, and then another 30% promoting its products.â€
Mehta V. Batten down the hatches in 2005. Scrip World Pharmaceutical News 2005; 3025: 57

Who to believe?

Perhaps JP could show us some actual figures to prove his point in GSK’s case.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:54:58 +0000

My take…

Drugs work. Drugs cause adverse events. Therefore, drugs have a risk/benefit ratio, and taking a drug is a calculated risk. The media likes stories on adverse events because they make for more exciting news. These stories can cause people to become non-compliant with their medications, which makes the job of healthcare professionals harder, and causes worse outcomes for patients. How do you fix this problem? I don’t know. I certainly don’t want anyone controlling the press. But for most people taking the drug, the benefits of the drug will far outweigh the risks, and the disproportinate focus on safety problems in the media do society a disservice.

I agree with Garnier.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:47:53 +0000

I did not design them, but I sold them. I always say that the patient makes the final decision. The web is a wonderful resource. If you believe the drug is not for you, then don’t take it.

By: Ellen

Ellen — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:41:09 +0000

Any bashing that Pharma receives is long overdue. It’s like David fighting Goliath: I am about to get TEVO to zip by the endless drug ads on my TV, the FDA Hearings make it clear that the Administration is your best friend, drug reps’ noses get long like Pinnochio every time they go to see doctors, clinical trials are often “reconfigured”. And then there’s the other side. Those of us on this other side are battling an uphill game. We don’t have millions to give to our Congressman, and we don’t have a President who is best friends with Syd Taurel. We now have AHRP and other strong blogs - at last - and some occasional good reporting (ever notice that Pharma stories are usually in the Business Section of the Times as opposed to the front page). It’s pretty tough to take to hear a pharma researcher feeling sorry for himself when a small handful of others try to fight back so as to save lives. If what you read pains you, get your company to be ethical. I certainly hope you were not involved in designing SSRIs, Zyprexa, Vioxx, and on and on. Try being Pharma’s best friend when it killed your child.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:48:00 +0000

I hope the media listen to JPs message. I work as a researcher in a big pharma company and it’s very disheartening to hear the negative image painted of our industry. We do a very valuable service to society and in spite of our shortcomings, we don’t deserve the constant bashing that we receive from the media. I wish the public were more aware of the thousands and thousands of employees who work hard to conceive, design, and manufacture the medicines that they complain so much about.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:45:45 +0000

Not kidding. There is nothing in the memo regarding women specifically. Are you referring to the cartoon at the bottom?? If you are, then you really need help. Paxil had a good response to the negative detailing that the Prozac reps werespreading. SB responded with a clearly reasonedmemoand clinical direction. What is the problem. You don’t like cartoons? I don’t think Barry Brand designed it himseld. I am sure it was lifted from some newspaper.

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:34:00 +0000

Frank,
Your’e kidding….right

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:20:08 +0000

I read the link that Lisa Van S posted and I seenothing wrong with it, nordo I see how it, in any way, reflects JP’s impression of women. You have it all wrong!

The pharmaceutical industry is an easy target because they make money. Unfortunately, it’s the insurance companies and law firms that make much more, and are the main reason for our health crisis today.