“No doctor, this is a different chemical. See this tiny atom on this side chain over here? We, we moved it in between these two atoms and now its a different drug all together”.

If I were a clinician, my response to the above speech would be: “Did you remember to bring the Grey Poupon mustard for my pastrami sandwich this time”?

The suppression of religious freedom throughout most of Europe in the 1600s was really just an attempt to protect people from being misled by heretics and thus being exposed to something much worse than death: eternal damnation. I’m sure you agree that this was a bad idea, along with McCarthyism, etc., no need to insult your intelligence or knowledge of modern history by going through all these examples.

So generally I am a relatively unrestrained fan of the free market of ideas. In this scenario there is still a physician gatekeeper, maybe the price is that they have to spend more time talking to their patients.

As a caveat, I will admit that the banning of cigarette ads seems to have done a lot of good, so I will have to think about how to justify the lack of self consistency of my position. Maybe the difference is that there is no real controversy about tobacco being a pure negative, whereas outside of this board there is still a pretty broad range of opinion on the value of pharmaceuticals.

You did a nice job with the structure of Scherings HCV protease inhibitor, there are two very minor mistakes but overall a very nice job for (I assume) a non-chemist dealing with an extraordinarily complex chemical structure.

“Words, like eyeglasses, obscure everything they do not make clear.”

– Joseph Joubert

Again, much of yours, like JMT’s above, purports to offer us plainly inapt analogies.

Your losses in the stock market, by themselves cannot cripple, maim or kill you. Or (as in many, many other cases) magically grant you a CURE — a greatly INCREASED lease on life. Finance is not pharmacy.

Now — I do not mean to be too impertinently direct here — but can you identify this compound? Can you explain its mechanism of action, in the human body?

[I myself, could not -- but for the fact that I created the graphic -- last year.] So, again, I would suggest that you NEED a medical doctor to help you make these decisions (unless you’re planning on doing those seven years of med school, post haste).

I think personal responsibility is a good thing — and I think we should all talk to our doctors.

That whole process is clouded by the billions pharma spends to “force the start” of these conversations, in my opinion — focusing consumers on the newest and most expensive drugs — drugs that often are no improvement over (and occasionally much worse than) older cheaper generics.

The USA and Australia are the only two post-modern economic nation-members to permit such adverts. That should tell you something (we are also the only two still allowing the death penalty, BTW — that should tell you something else).

Again, motorcycles and skydiving are recreations — trying to prolong life with the aid of medicine is not. Please don’t obscure the issue with inapt analogies.

Namaste

As a consumer, I reject the attitude that any effort on my part to participate in decisions about my own health is interference with decisions that my doctor should be making without my input. I find any effort to protect me from being exposed to information that someone else feels I might not be sophisticated enough to understand a little disturbing. I make it a point to be at least as educated about my personal health issues as I am about my stock portfolio, and any MD who does not want to deal with me as the final decision-maker on any treatment options is quickly “fired”.

I’d be interested in hearing people’s thoughts on where they draw the line: should Americans be allowed to buy or sell stocks without the approval of a licensed investment advisor? Should investment companies be allowed to to advertise directly to consumers? How about motorcycle manufacturers or skydiving companies?

Just to take the issue off the table, I have no objection to a licensed medical doctor serving as a gatekeeper for what medical products would be reimbursed by third parties, I think that is a different issue.

More plainly, perhaps — let’s not “get it twisted” here:

You proposed that beer and FDA-approved drugs are like kinds.

Thus, equally foolishly, I proposed that cigarettes and FDA-approved drugs were, too.

Now, I think your “sure. . . so equal” rebuke proves too much, by (at least) half — for your own case, and from your own keyboard, to boot.

Namaste

Erh, FYI, “JMT” — doctors rarely prescribe Augie Busch’s products. We, as a nation, don’t need the intervention of trained medical experts, or placebo-controlled studies to figure out whether Augie Busch’s products are effective — they are — or safe [they aren't; unless one is very careful with them].

Advertising drugs is more akin to advertising cigarettes (on TV) — than it is to say TV beer commercials.

But maybe yours leads to a good idea afterall — maybe drug ads should appear on TV as often as cigarette ads now do (i.e., not at all).

So, I guess I’d say you’ve asked us to compare apples to. . . earthquakes.

Namaste

It’s still a commercial model!