Drug Company Merck Drew Up Doctor "Hit List"

Philip K Dickhead sends in a piece from the Australian media, a couple of weeks old, that hasn't seen much discussion here. In a class-action lawsuit in Australia against Merck for its Vioxx anti-arthritis drug, information has come out that the company developed a "hit list" of doctors who had expressed anything but enthusiasm for the drug. Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 because it causes heart attacks and strokes. Merck settled a class action in the US for $4.85 billion but did not admit guilt. "An international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be 'neutralized' or discredited because they criticized the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced. Staff at US company Merck & Co. emailed each other about the list of doctors — mainly researchers and academics — who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action. The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words 'neutralize,' 'neutralized,' or 'discredit' against some of the doctors' names. It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments. 'We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,' a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff."

Comments

Neutralized

[Anonymous Coward]

The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words 'neutralize,' 'neutralized,' or 'discredit' against some of the doctors' name

<blonde German baddie from Die Hard>
I don't want neutralize, I want dead.
</blonde German baddie from Die Hard>

Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claims

[Anonymous Coward]

We've all seen the classic beer commercial. Some guy is bored and alone. Then he cracks open a beer and suddenly this amazing party materializes out of nowhere and bunch of adoring super-models surround the guy like he's the hottest guy on the planet.

Most of us recognize that this is a marketing fantasy. Sure, beer is often served at parties and there are often some attractive women at parties but the actual events depicted in such commercials are solidly in the realm of fantasy. More fundamentally, most of us recognize that the reason we are being shown the beer commercial is not because the beer company is devoted to improving our lives but instead because the CEO wants to increase profits so he can get his incentive bonus so he can buy his third mistress that second luxury vacation home she's been asking for. The CEO probably does see himself as a decent guy but, when you strip away the pretense, he's certainly not doing what he does out of pure altruism.

We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.

Do most of us recognize that this is a marketing fantasy? Probably not. Sure, antidepressants are prescribed to people with depression and people do recover from depression. But the idea that a couple pills will solve every single problem you have in your life is solidly in the realm of fantasy. More fundamentally, the reason we are shown the antidepressant commercial is not because the pharmaceutical company is devoted to improving our lives but instead because the CEO wants to increase profits so he can get his incentive bonus so he can buy his third mistress that second luxury vacation home she's been asking for. The CEO probably does see himself as a decent guy but, when you strip away the pretense, he's certainly not doing what he does out of pure altruism.

So, getting back to the topic in this Slashdot article, people should look at such articles and wake up to the fact that pharmaceutical companies are not motivated by altruism - and that, furthermore, pharmaceutical will make whatever claims about their drugs that they think they can legally get away with. When a pharmaceutical company makes a "scientific" claim about one of their drugs, you can be sure that the claim has the bare minimum of actual scientific basis allowed by law.

When big businesses get too big

[erroneus]

We see this over and over again. We saw it in HP where leadership was so arrogant that it thought it should be able to do the things it did overstepping boundaries. Critics must be silenced. This isn't about competition in the sense of making better, safer, more effective things. This is about competition of life versus death quite literally. They see the world as an opponent that must be controlled, misdirected or otherwise "neutralized." In short, they are sociopathic and should be legally marked and deemed as such.

Re:When big businesses get too big

[MickyTheIdiot]

Most people living today don't know the basic fact that corporations are "legal fictions" that require the government to exist. Corporations to many these days are some magical category that somehow exist on their own, and until we have a corporate rule type situation that the cyberpunk authors like to write about then we corporations really do require a government to issue them a charter.

I don't know if we have laws that make it hard to revoke a corporate charter, but if we do legislators can write laws to change that (good luck as corporate lobbyists have so much influence). Revoking a corporation's charter is the death penalty as applied to corporations and it has been an option that has been forgotten about. However, if you believe that certain persons are such a menace that capitol punishment is called for, how could you throw the same option away when it comes to corporations that are a menace to society or show themselves unable to follow the common law?

We ought to start thinking as a country about revocation of corporate charters.

Re:When big businesses get too big

[Tynam]

The problem is that it's easy to start a new corporation, with a new name and the same people running it. Charter revoked? No problem. Start a new one.

(Language Fascist side note: You mean capital punishment. Capitol punishment would be 'imprison everyone in D.C.' Which might not be such a bad idea, but I don't think it's what you meant.)

Re:When big businesses get too big

[Anonymous Coward]

"In short, they are sociopathic and should be legally marked and deemed as such."

That is true, however it overlooks a major reason why nothing is done about this kind of behavior. Ironically as business is such a competitive environment, sociopathic behavior provides a competitive advantage, so they naturally out compete their opponents and so fight their way to the top. Thats why we see this behavior at the top in business. But more importantly, this same behavior also applies equally to politics and they also write the laws.

The minority of people who seek political power over others (ultimately for their own gain) are the same kind of personality as the people who get to the top in business. That is why they don't see such behavior as wrong and as they fight to the top, the most sociopathic will resist and manipulate to prevent others less extreme in their party from bring in new controls to prevent such unfair behavior. As both business and politics are such competitive environments not all people in business and politics are this extreme, but the most extreme people do fight their way to the top. That is also why business and politics are so closely linked at the top. Money and Power.

A simple way to think about sociopathic behavior is that its an extreme form of Narcissistic behavior. They are totally self centered at the expense (often literally) of their opponents and/or victims.

This behavior is also repeated throughout history. For example, the emperors of Ancient Rome. Also the Nazis (especially Hitler and Himmler). In fact many leaders throughout history. We even see this behavior in some of what J. Edgar Hoover did. They all maneuver to seek to undermine their opponents often over years. This is also the goal of a whole area of politics called Opposition Research. Big Business also uses Opposition Research tactics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research

Even when they cannot find information to use to undermine their opponents, then they will simply resort to lies and misinformation. A recent example of this was shown up in England (but these tactics are used in every country).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8002085.stm

This minority in every society who seek money and power are ruthlessly determined to seek any way they can to undermine their most powerful opponents, at whatever level of money and power they are currently at and they always have competitors at their level of money and power. Everyone below them are powerless and so meaningless people to them and often easily exploitable. Its why so often the ones at the top have such little empathy to the ones below them. They are focused on seeking ever more money and power, so their focus is on the ones at their level and above as they seek to work with or against others with money and power, so that they can gain more money and power. These people really are incredibly ruthless people. Thankfully most people do not think like this, but unfortunately that also prevents most people fully understanding just how incredibly ruthless this minority of people are ultimately for their own gain.

Re:When big businesses get too big

[BlendieOfIndie]

We saw it in HP where leadership was so arrogant that it thought it should be able to do the things it did overstepping boundaries.

Way to be specific.

If you're gonna spread FUD, you should at least give some valid, specific references. If you said this about Enron your point would be obvious, but HP?

Re:When big businesses get too big

[Anonymous Coward]

Right before Carly Fiona was finally forced out, she was caught hiring private investigators to illegally spy on / tap the communication of opposing members of HP's board of directories. It received a lot of attention here and other computer tech sites, it's not surprising the poster didn't spell out the details.

Re:When big businesses get too big

[HiThere]

Like hiring unlicensed investigators to investigate those criticizing them. Including other members of the board.

I'm sure they did other things, but that's the only thing that pops up to the top of my mind. I generally ignore HP these days. They no longer make decent equipment.

Re:When big businesses get too big

[Swanktastic]

Over the years, working with many companies, I've actually found managers at small businesses to be significantly more fast and loose with the law than at big businesses. Lawyers tend to go after deep pockets, so big businesses have HUGE infrastructures set up to prevent lawsuits from impacting them. For example, a lot of small company managers will make blatant racist/homophobic decisions and never suffer the consequences- at a big company, 18 internal policemen would descend on them, and they would be fired.

If you've ever wondered why no one creates a huge dry-cleaning business- it's precisely for this reason. Drycleaners violate a HUGE number of environmental regulations with the chemicals they work and working conditions they enforce. No lawyer will bother to sue even the most egregiously unethical Mom&Pop drycleaner- it's not worth his time. However, if there was a $1B corporation doing the exact same thing (or conducting even signficantly less harm), you can expect major news and major lawsuits.

My unprovable theory is that, in many cases, a $10B corporation will usually act more ethically than a hundred thousand cottage businesses adding up to $10B revenue simply because they tend to be more under the microscope.

Re:When big businesses get too big

[Guido von Guido]

Right before Carly Fiona was finally forced out, she was caught hiring private investigators to illegally spy on / tap the communication of opposing members of HP's board of directories. It received a lot of attention here and other computer tech sites, it's not surprising the poster didn't spell out the details.

No, that was Patricia Dunn (HP chairman after Fiorina was forced out). Fiorina may have been an awful CEO, but she hasn't been implicated in that particular scandal.

Re:When big businesses get too big

[dargaud]

For multinationals, have revocations ever happened in some countries while continuing to operate in others ? I can't think of an example.

Best practice for a doctor:

[gcnaddict]

If you're a doctor, don't say anything about any drug. If you praise a drug, you'll look like a shill. If you slam a drug, you'll... well, probably get killed.

Just stay out of it, even if it means you make $100,000 less every year. Getting involved is a lose/lose.

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[oldhack]

Brilliant. Doctors should keep their trap shut whether a medicine is any good.

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[gcnaddict]

Doctors should still prescribe medications which fit the problem (duh), but they should neither outwardly praise medicines nor slam them.

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[oldhack]

Publishing papers, commenting on them, are these too "outwardly"?

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[gcnaddict]

If you have the scientific research to back your assertion then no, it's fine. I was just referring to doctors who voice their opinions.

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I need to have someone spend hundreds of thousands (at least) on research to merely question some aspect of a previously published paper?

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[oldhack]

Anyways, I write code for living, and Perl sucks. Who's with me?! :-)

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[ColdWetDog]

Yep. Much of the doctor to doctor advertising is on the basis of "Dr. So and So at the University thinks this is a great drug". No facts, just opinion, and typically money under the table. Or even money up front and center.

For years doctors seemed to be under the allusion that they were protected from advertising's nefarious psychological hooks because "we're smart". That nonsense is being completely and thoroughly debunked as these sorts of blantant maneuvering and lying on the behalf of Big Pharma become more apparent. More and more (although still a minority, unfortunately) of physicians don't let drug reps near them. And this sort of behavior is accelerating the trend.

It will take another half generation or so of new docs to come up through the ranks with a very jaundiced view of drug company advertising. But it will happen. And the Big Pharma knows it. Which is why they are so keen to push direct to consumer advertising.

Follow the money. Corporations always do.

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[Metasquares]

Larry Wall has just sent out a memo to "unlink" you.

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[Anonymous Coward]

you have my sword

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[oldhack]

You will NOT neutralize me, you linguist wuz!

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[Anonymous Coward]

and my bow

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[StormyWeather]

It always amazes me when I run into a doctor that is unhinged from pharmaceuticals, even if just a little bit. When my wife had her last baby, my doc was talking with me about it, and asked me if she had any postpartum. She has every time, for about a week and a half, and I told my Dr that. He said if she needed anything for it to let him know. I told him that we were really not into medications unless it got really bad, and we just pushed through it because she breast feeds. Then he really surprised me because he got all exited, and started going on about teas and herbs that she could take that would do the trick, and have great effects, with no side effects on the baby. Yes it would have been nice if he had mentioned those first, but at least he didn't just get huffy at me like most doctors do in those scenarios.

Re:Best practice for a doctor:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mixing up your MDs and your Ph.DiMs.

MDs, the ones who prescribe the vast majority of prescriptions, are meat-based relational databases with built-in audio, visual, chemical and tactile input devices.

Ph.Ds are the ones who write papers.

Sounds mafia-esc

[Ken Broadfoot]

"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live."

Tony Soprano must own this drug company in Australia.

Or kinda of Bush-Cheney-ish.

"Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"

Re:Sounds mafia-esc

[Anonymous Coward]

"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live."

Combined with the " words 'neutralize,' 'neutralized,' " the doctors better start carrying automatic weapons in the case of a meeting with those nasty Merck mercks.

Re:Sounds mafia-esc

[NoobixCube]

Sounds more like Scientology to me. These doctors criticised the drug company, and are to be neutralized or discredited. "Destroyed" would be a good word. Would you say the drug company considers them "Fair Game"? *wink wink*

Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[TheFlannelAvenger]

I hope I never get sick, or if I do, that I die quick. Health Care in the USA is the disease.

Re:Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[j. andrew rogers]

Here is the conundrum:

Pharmaceutical and other medical research companies in the US semi-routinely engage in questionable behavior, obviously a bad thing that is enabled by the existence of the Byzantine private healthcare market of the United States. Simultaneously, the vast majority of global medical research, 60-70%, is done in the US and is significantly enabled by the fact that you can recoup costs because the healthcare market is more competitive (albeit perversely) due to the semi-private nature of the market. It is one of the reasons many new medical treatments and diagnostics are available in the US first.

So here is the problem: on one hand the US healthcare market is a byzantine mess where a lot of questionable practices can occur, but on the other hand this same mess also enables most of the world's medical innovation to occur. Much of the rest of the industrialized world is a free rider on the ugly mess that is US healthcare when it comes to innovation and R&D investment. It might be nice to adopt, say, European-style healthcare systems in theory, but can we afford it at the price of relative technological stagnation because all the profit motive has been removed from the development of that technology since the US is the last major market where a legitimate profit can be extracted?

Profit motive is a double-edged sword, and in healthcare is no exception. But I think far too many people, particularly people used to socialized medicine, abhor the ugly side of such things while failing to recognize that they also benefit mightily from it. Even Americans benefit from it in some significant ways despite the unacceptably high costs, such as having the highest cancer survival rates in the world, markedly higher than many western industrialized countries. There needs to be a way to get the benefits without throwing out the innovation baby with the bathwater, which strictly socializing US medicine would do by all empirical evidence. The stark differences in the level of investment in medical advancements by various countries is hard to ignore, and I generally consider such investment to be a good thing.

Re:Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[richie2000]

There are ways: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/financing-drug-research-what-are-the-issues/

Re:Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[bendodge]

You started nicely but finished poorly. The problem is that people are not paying for their own healthcare. Since they aren't paying for it, they have no incentive to do their own checking or avoid needing the care to begin with. Our insurance model is broken. A bigger insurer (ie. Uncle Sam) won't fix it.

Here's a good article about it: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=03

Re:Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[dr2chase]

A bigger insurer (ie. Uncle Sam) won't fix it.

Most modern countries with universal health care get better outcomes (healthier, lower infant mortality, longer expected lifespan) for less cost per capita and a smaller percentage of their GDP. In their case, it appears that a bigger insurer worked pretty well, plus they don't have anyone going bankrupt from medical bills. If it works for Canada, England, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Israel, Iceland, New Zealand, Italy, Spain, Norway, Greece, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, and South Korea, it can probably work for us, too.

(source: http://www.nationmaster.com/ who gets their data from the UN, OECD, CIA Fact Book, WHO, and similar reliable sources).

Re:Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[bit01]

60-70%, is done in the US

60-70% of what? Money? That is not a good measure in this case. Neither is numbers of drugs approved or numbers of papers in a "publish or perish" research world. It's actually pretty hard to judge what and where worthwhile research is being done.

---

Support underdogs and variety. Monopolies (=industrial feudalism) are unhealthy.

Re:Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[ultranova]

The problem is that people are not paying for their own healthcare.

Not this libertarian bullshit again.

Since they aren't paying for it, they have no incentive to do their own checking or avoid needing the care to begin with.

I have every incentive to avoid being in need of medical care, simply because it is uncomfortable.

Our insurance model is broken. A bigger insurer (ie. Uncle Sam) won't fix it.

The point of insurance is to turn a small likelihood of a catastrophic cost into a fixed and affordable monthly cost. Since the cost of almost all major operations are beyond anyone's budget, some form of insurance - whether through an insurance company or in the form of taxes and publicly funded healthcare - is the only model that can work.

"Patient pays" -model is one where people die because they can't afford treatment; and while this is acceptable to libertarians, it isn't acceptable to me, so I'll keep on advocating publicly funded healthcare; and since all somewhat developed countries have such systems, I'd say that most people are with me on this. Yes, that means that you'll be paying for an alcoholic's liver transplant through your taxes, and will undoubtedly complain bitterly about this horrible violation of your personal freedom on the Internet, which was also paid by someone's tax money. My heart bleeds for you; but luckily, I can get it patched up with your tax money :p.

Re:Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[JAlexoi]

You do understand that, if the medical researchers had the same restrictions as a nazi doctors in the concentration camps, we would have incredibly fast drug introductions and research times would go down drastically.
There is always the problem of balance between R&D and human lives. We, in Europe, have decided that general availability is much better, than pace of R&D. And I am all for it.
Why? Because I know that I would have had been bankrupted if I were living in US already, and I am only 24. I live in Lithuania, a small, rather poor country. And still I had a reasonable medical treatment.
Main difference between Europe and the US, is that most European countries are geared towards keeping the most number of people in healthy condition, so that they contribute as much as possible to the economy.
If you take a shot at our socialist system, then you should understand that the medicine is not the thong we actually have issues with. If you look at it, we mostly have issues with social security contributions and payouts. Soclial medicine is the last thing that is being abused.

Re:Drugs Are Bad, mmmkay?

[asdfndsagse]

But this generally isnt as you say it. Pharmecuticals only spend 15% of their revenue on research, as reported in their own statements[1]. And then of that the majority goes to evading each others patents, not actual science of any sorts. Most of the money and research is done with public money from the NIH and such, and done on a competitive bidding system with publicly available papers, none of this requires the current type of pharmecutical system, structured only on new drugs, and on patents. If we got rid of that model we would be able to spend more on research, less on health care (of which alot is government money), treat people better, AND get rid of the horrible pharmaceutical advertising that takes most of those companies budgets and disgraces the medical profession.

The US does have a amazing public funding for research, but i dont think that is so heavily linked to the medical system as you make it out to be, at least in the pharmaceutical world.

[1]
http://www.novartis.com/downloads/investors/reports/AR06_E_web.pdf - p 143
http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/annualreport/2006/financial/p2006fin13.jsp
http://www.astrazeneca.com/article/11183.aspx

Re:Merck is an excellent company

[BitZtream]

Mr Clarke, is that you?

Its been a long time since we've talked Richard, hows life going? Still got the fat belly I hope.

http://www.merck.com/about/executive_committee/rtc.html

Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the drug companies are taking ideas from their Mexican counterparts? I guess we need another fence along the border. This time, though, the border is Merck headquarters...

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Say we the people make a public hit-list of these greedy motherfuckers...

Re:I for one...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

http://www.merck.com/about/executive_committee/home.html

Re:I for one...

[ColePEET]

I'm totally down for this. The world has gone global, time for revolution to go global I think. I'd say execute the top 25% of the following companies, for a start. Oil Tanker Manufacturers. Oil Producing Companies Automobile Manufacturers Large Bond Trading Firms

Re:I for one...

[mmaniaci]

Hey! How did you find my [completely fictional] hit list?

Re:I for one...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You must have inadvertently left it on their webserver when you hacked in...

Re:I for one...

[Prune]

I find it ironic how much Deese in his photo looks like the Dave Pell corporate villain character in the second season of Damages.

How hard is PR?

[Anonymous Coward]

When your company makes products that save people's lives, in huge numbers, how hard is it to have good public relations? Sure people hate cooperate profits, but for a drug company it's easy to say "our profits are driving R&D for the next generation of drugs." These companies still find all sorts of creative ways to screw it up anyway.

Re:How hard is PR?

[Jafafa Hots]

"our profits are driving R&D for the next generation of drugs."

They DO say that. They routinely say that when criticized about their astronomical profit margins. Problem is, it's a lie. R&D is an expense. Since when do you pay your corporate expenses out of your profits? Profits are counted AFTER expenses. Essentially they're trying to get their expenses counted twice.

Re:How hard is PR?

[Tweenk]

Mod parent insightful. Same goes for movies: "Hollywood accounting" is a term for unethical accounting measuers to reduce reported profit for a reason.

Re:How hard is PR?

[BitZtream]

Its easy if they are, more often than not their profits drive salaries of executives.

Universities are often the ones driving research and innovation, which promptly gets patented by companies like Merck and Glaxo.

Its funny, I pay taxes so things can be researched, and then I lose the right to control the items I paid to research.

Re:How hard is PR?

[drizek]

Now that you have pointed this out, they will go into the next stage of excuses for their excessive profits. Something along the lines of "Your Grandmas retirement is invested at GlaksoSmithKline. Do you want your Grandma to die in the streets of starvation? Well that's exactly what will happen if we don't charge you $29.99 for a tube of fungal cream."

Re:How hard is PR?

[StormyWeather]

Yea, but that's a two edged sword. If there weren't any profits in it then the only ones doing it would be college students till they could graduate and get a real job, oh wait, there woudln't be any jobs to graduate into, so better choose a different profession.

Ttaff?

[enrgeeman]

Ttaff? staff? Or is this a new strain of the pig flu that is killing mexican doctors, in the war on doctors without enthusiasm?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

"increase profits so he can get his incentive bonus so he can buy his third mistress that second luxury vacation home she's been asking for. The CEO probably does *see himself* as a *decent* guy"

Only in the US

I hope ...

[PPH]

... that Australian law allows them to ream Merck out for this kind of behavior. Specifically, attacking another's professional reputation. In some places (States in the USA) its considered a violation of the professional code of ethics that can cause one to lose a license to practise certain professions (engineering, for example). But in the US, its rare to see any penalties imposed. Only in cases where actual financial damages can be proven (in spite of the fact that licensing laws impose no such requirement).

As medical professionals rely heavily on reputation for their livelihood, it would be nice to see this taken seriously. Interesting note: The only group that seems to be successful in having such regulations enforced in the US are lawyers (as in having web sites that rate lawyers taken down).

Re:I hope ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, attacking another's professional reputation. In some places (States in the USA) its considered a violation of the professional code of ethics that can cause one to lose a license to practise certain professions (engineering, for example).

Really? That is bizarre. An engineer can't say that engineer X is incompetent, a disgrace to the engineering profession and is constructing buildings that are unsafe, don't follow the building code, and will fall down in a few years?

I think most people would say there is a strong societal interest in encouraging engineers to point out flaws, errors & negligence.

Re:I hope ...

[roguetrick]

Theres an even stronger interest in discrediting the competition through falsehoods.

Re:I hope ...

[PPH]

Well, in general, if one company decides to dish dirt against their competition, there may be little one can do. But in an instance in which one or more parties involved in a businbess relationship are bound by a professional code of ethics which prohibits such behavior, the issue may not be that clear.

As a licensed engineer, I am prohibited from engaging in such behavior, as well as other unethical practices. If the medical profession has similar codes of conduct then an interesting situation arises. Drug companies depend upon licensed medical professionals for quite a bit of their business through the writing of perscriptions. As an engineer, there may be issues if I reccommend a product or service provided by a vendor if such reccomendation may result in a violation of my profession's code of ethics. The same may hold true of the medical profession.

Corporate Personhood

[Anonymous Coward]

www.google.com/#q=corporate+personhood

www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

Re:Corporate Personhood

[MickyTheIdiot]

Also, basic reading into corporate personhood reveal that SCOTUS never even directly ruled on this idea. It's been accepted as fact ever since a clerk wrote a footnote into a ruling that said "The supreme court sees corporations as persons" or the like.

Someday, hopefully someone with a bankbook can work on challenging this and ACTUALLY getting it to the supreme court... when that court isn't full of corporate shills like Alito. I'm sure this "Strict Consitutionalist" won't remember that consitution writers didn't trust corporations (because of their dealings with the East India company) and were opposed of handing out corporate charters that didn't expire after a given period of time.

Re:Corporate Personhood

[ChrisMaple]

Railing about the legal properties of corporations is attacking a straw man. The problem is that illegal activities caused by an individual in a large organization can be deflected from both the organization and the guilty individual. It is this defect in the law and the judges who misunderstand the law that need to be fixed, not the shorthand that in some respects a corporation is like a person.

Re:Corporate Personhood

[vaporland]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad this is the decision that started the whole mess...

is anybody surprised, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven forbid these drug-taking plaintiffs would ever take something harmless and far more effective, like marijuana...
 
I wonder how many people have died from Celebrex, Vioxx, NSAIDs.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[UncleTogie]

We've all seen the classic beer commercial. Some guy is bored and alone. Then he cracks open a beer and suddenly this amazing party materializes out of nowhere and bunch of adoring super-models surround the guy like he's the hottest guy on the planet.

Spookily enough, this is how they sold the doctors on the meds to begin with.

I worked as IT guy at a medical office for a number of years, and noticed that I'd never seen an ugly pharmaceutical rep. The reps sent to the doc's office were all pretty enough to drive most guys googoo, and I noticed even Doc was hanging on her every word. Later, I asked the office manager if that was common and actually WORKED. "Every time I'VE seen," she replied...

Since then, I've always wondered how many drugs were prescribed solely because of hooters.

Not that surprised: The Truth About Drug Companies

[Anonymous Coward]

I am really not that surprised. There is a great book out there written by a former New England Journal of Medicine editor-in-chief, Marcia Angell, called, The Truth About Drug Companies. (amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946/ref=ed_oe_p). The book touches on the fact that drug companies do these kinds of things to Dr.s who disagree with them.

Kind of off topic, but, among other things the book points out is that they're justification for high R&D costs is absurd. They mainly buy out small bio-tech companies or buy rights from academia / organizations who originally develop block buster drugs.

It's a great read. for those of you to lazy to get your hands on the book (forgot how to read) youtube has some videos up of her lecturing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouF3ISihHLM

Big Pharma is evil, but...

[guyminuslife]

My mother was taking Vioxx regularly when the whole scandal broke. She immediately went to the pharmacist to get as much of the stuff as she could before it got taken off the market. The other drugs didn't really do it for her. Arthritis sucks, and as a dentist, it has a huge impact on your ability to do your job.

Yeah, it might kill you, but on the other hand, it's about quality of life.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I too was on Vioxx.

I was 21 years old and still had a 3 month supply when the cuffuffle broke. My Doc told me to continue on taking it until all I had was gone, then he would prescribe me something else.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[V50]

Yep, my uncle was on Vioxx, and it was about the only thing that seemed to work for him. When the whole "Vioxx will kill you" thing broke, it was pretty devastating for him, not because he was concerned with having a heart attack or stroke, but because now the only thing that was working for him in dealing with his arthritis was unavailable.

I don't think he outright said it, but I really got the impression that, given a choice, he'd gladly take the risks because his arthritis was so bad, and the Vioxx worked very well.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Kokuyo]

Which is a good point. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This is about a company trying to shut up doctors who didn't like their product. There is nothing wrong with deciding to take the risk, but first you ought to KNOW the risk.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that Vioxx isn't that dangerous. The problem is that Merck's behavior is very dangerous.

If the company hadn't decided to lie about it and fight tooth and nail to and discredit everyone, it could easily be on the market today. Just not to really old people, smokers, or other people with high risk factors for heart attacks. And the doctor would hopefully let you know that the pain in your chest might not be heartburn, increasing the probability you'd realize you're having a heart attack and call 911 before you keel over.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[ColePEET]

a 21 year old on anti-arthritis medicine?

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[ColePEET]

Than advertise it as such. People love to take things that improve their life and kill them at the same time, look at cigarettes for example. If they just had the balls to tell the truth Vioxx would probably still be for sale and would probably be having ridiculous amazing sales.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[oneirophrenos]

There exists a great deal of genetic polymorphism with regard to drug efficacy and side-effects. Individuals have differing capabilites for metabolizing a drug, which leads to some people being able to tolerate higher doses than others.

In fear of lawsuits, pharma companies are quick to withdraw drugs from the market if serious side-effects surface. This has happened with a number of efficient drugs, such as rimonabant, an appetite suppressant that was pulled from the market in Europe for increased suicide risk. Even though the drug worked for a lot of people, Sanofi-Aventis saw that keeping the drug on the market wasn't worth the risk.

The issue of side-effects may be resolved with the aid of pharmacogenetics, which will hopefully help identify the capacity of patients to benefit from a drug and tolerate its side-effects. Then it wouldn't matter if we have drugs on the market that cause ill effects to a certain group of people, because doctors would be able to cross-reference a patient's genome for genetic polymorphisms with regard to a drug, and only prescribe drugs with known side-effects to patients that can handle them.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Excelcior]

Arthritis sucks, and as a dentist, it has a huge impact on your ability to do your job.

The thing I find most fascinating about your comment is that I'm not the only Dental /.er!

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[bill_kress]

People have a really bizarre inability to really accept things outside their experience.

For children, when they start driving, they think they are unstoppable. The drive fast or drink and drive simply because they have not personally seen the consequences.

After a while, you start seeing how much you can get hurt if you jump from a roof into a pool and you start thinking twice, but until then nothing can stop you.

Instead of hiding smoking or pretending it was OK, my mom tried to quit repeatedly, complained about how pathetic and weak she was, how they controlled her and how she couldn't stop spending money on them. She stopped for a year once, but went back. I think I can remember at least 6 serious efforts to stop, but in the end it killed her.

If you could really grok that before you picked up your first cigarette, you would be physically incapable of smoking it.

We like to think that we make our own decisions and we do so with the information we have in a way that benefits us, but really we are manipulated easily. FOX news knows how to pull the strings of a type of person to manipulate their feelings, chemical addictions can completely and deeply change how you feel about many things, etc.

The point is, these people say it's a quality of life issue simply because they aren't able to comprehend the fact that they could die tomorrow.

If someone were able to actually say with certainty that "if you keep taking that pill, you will die in 2 weeks, otherwise you will live for 15 years", they would stop. From there it's just a matter of odds.

Hell, what if they said "If you keep taking that pill, you will die in 10 years, otherwise you will die in 15"? Well, right now some might actually say "I'll keep taking it", speaking for that person in 9 3/4 years who may answer VERY differently-- again a human inability to logically analyze the situation and come to an honest conclusion.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[guyminuslife]

Clarification: I'm not a dentist, my mother is. So you are the only dental /.er. ;-)

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Excelcior]

Aww, shucks.... lol

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[HiThere]

Vioxx wasn't specifically anti-arthritis. It was a Non-Steroid Anti-Inflammatory Drug. Like aspirin. But it only suppressed a part of the reactions that aspirin suppressed, so it didn't cause gastric distress. Unfortunately, it also had some other effects. If you didn't get them, then it was a reasonable drug.

In a way it was rather like thalidomide. Only some people had the problem that caused it's recall, but the result was that nobody could use it. Not even terminal cancer patients. (For some terminal cancer patients, thalidomide was the only drug that would relieve their pain. But it was forbidden. Even if they were also male, and thus quite unlikely to get pregnant.)

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Kohath]

This is a bunch of BS. When there is no "right" answer, many different conclusions are logical and reasonable. Life is full of situations with no good answers.

You really think "live with constant pain 24x7" vs. "take a chance on a heart attack or stroke" is a choice with a clear-cut, correct answer? It is not.

Moreover, people who think they can find the "right" choice for every possible situation are dangerous and destructive.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Kohath]

I think you misunderstand the current state of drug regulation and class-action lawsuits.

Silicone gel breast implants caused none of the conditions they were blamed for. But there were huge lawsuits and they were taken off the market. Billions of dollars changed hands at the direction of the legal system. It doesn't matter that they harmed no one. The damage is already done and the companies (shareholders, employees, and other individuals) that made them aren't going to get their money back.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is relative. Yeah, haha. Gambling with your life is a lot cooler too. I mean who wants to be alive and uncool?

Besides, your life doesn't matter to anyone else, so why shouldn't you gamble with it, AM I RIGHT?

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The difference being that smoking does no good in itself. Vioxx for the few people that actually needed it probably wouldn't have been a major problem, instead, because of the marketing, we got everybody and their brother using it when they could have used an alternative.

Keep in mind that using Vioxx wasn't a death sentence. In fact, the increased risk of death was not found to be statistically significant in the one story that I found. The increased risk of a heart attack or stroke was about 2% combined:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/10October/Pages/Vioxxriskconfirmed.aspx

When weighed against the debilitating illness that it was meant to treat (vs. what it was used "off label" to treat), living life with a slightly higher risk vs. being in constant, debilitating pain, that risk can be quite acceptable to the user.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[rdnetto]

The point is, these people say it's a quality of life issue simply because they aren't able to comprehend the fact that they could die tomorrow.

Maybe. Or maybe they see their life as worthless when they have to live with such pain.
It is entirely possible that they just don't feel their lives are worth living without the meds, so even if it shortens their lives its better than nothing.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck is this modded insightful? You're a sanctimonious dickweed with nothing of value to say.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[ChrisMaple]

It doesn't take a whole lot of pain -- a good toothache will do it -- to realize that living in continuous pain for the rest of your life (whether that's a month or twenty years) is simply not worth it. A person in severe pain is no good to himself or anyone else; severe pain prevents productivity. Severe pain makes happiness difficult or impossible.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[The End Of Days]

Why should you tell me I can't gamble with it? Why should your opinion have more influence over my life than my own?

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[edp]

"Hell, what if they said 'If you keep taking that pill, you will die in 10 years, otherwise you will die in 15'? Well, right now some might actually say 'I'll keep taking it', speaking for that person in 9 3/4 years who may answer VERY differently-- again a human inability to logically analyze the situation and come to an honest conclusion."

That example does not demonstrate any inability to analyze the situation. A person might value their quality of life with the pill more than 50% more than their quality of life without the pill, in which case 10 years with the pill is worth more than 15 years without the pill.

Then, in 9 3/4 years, their choice is 1/4 year with the pill versus 5 1/4 year without the pill, in which case it makes sense to discontinue the pill, unless their quality of life is much, much greater with the pill.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Prune]

What's logic got to do with it? The fear of death/will to live is not logical, so talking about die in 10 vs die in 15 and then say "logically analyze" is silly.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[barc0001]

Quality of life is a thing too though that factors in. Think of it this way: If you're in blazing pain and can't move your limbs properly any more because of the pain, is living 15 years like that really better than living 10 years pain free and able to do tons of things you couldn't without the drug?

We already know the answer to this. Science has proven that a minimal caloric diet with the correct balance of nutrients will slow the aging process, but be boring as hell to live on, with the likelyhood of the end user feeling hungry more often than not. Nevertheless, despite the fact we know that you can live longer by doing this, there aren't many takers.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[taucross]

The motivating force behind humans is not life, it is pleasure. Without pleasure, life is meaningless.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's a good thing that only that big, evil Fox news uses its influence to pull peoples' strings. All other news organizations don't do this, and there would be mass firings if anyone was ever found to be manipulating news coverage to advocate their political views.

"I'm a little concerned about this notion everybody wants [the media] to be objective"
-- Peter Jennings, October 20, 2004

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
-- Richard Salant, former President of CBS News

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[ultranova]

Hell, what if they said "If you keep taking that pill, you will die in 10 years, otherwise you will die in 15"? Well, right now some might actually say "I'll keep taking it", speaking for that person in 9 3/4 years who may answer VERY differently-- again a human inability to logically analyze the situation and come to an honest conclusion.

Given a choice between 10 years in good health and 15 bedridden and in pain, I'll take 10. I might answer differently if it's a choice between 3 months and 5 years 3 months. What's illogical about choosing differently between different options? Perhaps you should hone your own analytic skills before commenting on those of others.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was parodizing the previous two comments, which have a decidedly "Merck is on ur slashdot infiltrating your comments" feel.

Re:Big Pharma is evil, but...

[guyminuslife]

Do you drive?

YOU'RE GAMBLING WITH YOUR LIFE!

(/. says: "Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING." I respond: "It's supposed to be like yelling!" So I am adding additional useless verbiage to get past the lame filter.)

Name...

[jez9999]

Philip K Dickhead sends in a piece from the Australian media, a couple of weeks old, that hasn't seen much discussion here.

I'm not sure I'd like to discuss anything submitted by 'Philip K Dickhead'.

Re:Name...

[ColePEET]

I'll hold the stick, you watch the carrot. Your obviously very, very, immeasurably good at concentrating on the flawed yet irrelevant instead of the completely rotten and horribly, terrifyingly relevant.

Re:Name...

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one, think that Philip is a good name. I don't know what you have against people named Philip.

Re:Name...

[Anonymous Coward]

The name is fitting for the news. Corporate domination without any moral considerations. Very fitting, indeed.

"..but the company admitted no wrongdoing."

[MickyTheIdiot]

Does anyone else besides me see the common practice of coming to a settlement with no admission that the corporation did anything wrong is a really, really bad thing. I don't know if the fact that this is tacked on to every major settlement has to do with the fact that these corporations are massive concentrations of power and money that the legal systems aren't designed to deal with or if it's just greedy plaintiffs or a combination of both. If we could get companies to actually admit guilt in some of these cases, would it head off crap like this anyways?

Re:"..but the company admitted no wrongdoing."

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else besides me see the common practice of coming to a settlement with no admission that the corporation did anything wrong is a really, really bad thing.

No. It means that there are many lawsuits that are cheaper to settle than to fight, even if you are 100% right.

You might recall the crazy judge in Washington DC who sued a dry cleaner for over $50 million dollars for a pair of pants. At one point the dry cleaners offered $12,000 to the crazy judge to settle, drop the suit and go away. The judge refused, and eventually the judge lost in court. The dry cleaner had spent enormous amounts of money fighting the stupid lawsuit, and is unlikely to get any of that back.

That is why people often settle lawsuits - it's cheaper & easier. They don't want to admit liability since that will encourage more nuts to come out of the woodwork and sue.

Now, that is a generic statement, and doesn't apply in all cases.

Re:"..but the company admitted no wrongdoing."

[drizek]

The company will never admit guilt. You can either bleed them dry and let them remain innocent, or you can sue them and PROVE that they are guilty. They will never, under any circumstances, admit guilt in a settlement case.

Re:"..but the company admitted no wrongdoing."

[HiThere]

It's a valid point that is true in some cases. In other cases it's to shield those who ordered the wrong to be committed. If the corporation admitted to having committed a felony, e.g., the actual felony would have been committed by individual people. And ordered by others. At this point conspiracy laws could be used to send most of management of the corporation to prison. But as no guilt has been admitted, no prosecution of the individuals is usually done.

Technically there's no reason that the managers couldn't be charged separately, but somehow it almost never happens.

Re:"..but the company admitted no wrongdoing."

[bekeleven]

Now, I don't want to sound "shill" here or whatever, but there's also the fact that no wrongdoing has been proven. A lot of people took that drug, and I mean a lot. So a few dozen had heart attacks? Has there been any scientific study on this? Any statistical analysis?

I blame the lawyers. They found some people that took a drug and got sick, put them in a room together, and said "look! we found causation!" Medical isn't the only industry that has issues.

And now even slashdot says, without equivocation or even the telltale "allegedly," that the drug "causes heart attacks and strokes." How far we've fallen?

Re:"..but the company admitted no wrongdoing."

[DNS-and-BIND]

If a company is ever convicted of a felony, then it's pretty much over for them. Bank loans say that they have to stay clean, other companies won't allow themselves to enter contracts with a felon, etc. Look at what happened to Arthur Andersen, they were convicted and it destroyed the entire company, not just the little part that was at fault. Think about the workers, they're always the ones who get screwed in these cases.

Re:"..but the company admitted no wrongdoing."

[Max Littlemore]

No, see they had this whole campaign to discredit anyone who had anything negative to say about the drug. The did do something wrong.

I think the plaintiffs should have held out for an admission and 1 year of ten commercials a day on prime time explaining to the public their practices of pushing drugs regardless of side effects, clearly highlighting their motivation of profit, and detailing herbal remedies that are more effective than pharma with less side effects.

And no, I do not think that is disproportionate.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Fast Thick Pants]

Obviously we need more gay doctors.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[RichardJenkins]

We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.

What? You guys really get ads like that in the States? I can't remember ever seeing an ad for prescription drugs - the very notion of advertising anti-depressants directly to consumers (particularly over the boob tube) is insane!

The name

[Anonymous Coward]

Philip K Dickhead sends in a piece.....

Dickhead... too funny!

Re:Oh boy

[BitZtream]

I'm all for science and technology, but there is something to be said about putting too much faith in new drugs and treatments.

I'm extremely skeptical of the HPV vaccine (GARDASIL) and completely against this retarded idea of inoculating every girl at the age of 13.

If you know anything about their 'trials' for ensuring its safe you would be too.

We simply do not know enough about the long term effects of these things to go around giving it to people without reason. With stupid states attempting to make it legislation to do so it scares the piss out of me.

If we're talking about a drug that may save the life of someone with a known health issue, thats one thing, but giving people drugs for minor problems or giving people drugs for problems they don't yet have and can be avoided in other ways is just stupid until we have real world data NOT PROVIDED BY SOMEONE WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE SALE OF THE DRUG.

If a person has cancer and a month to live and we have a treatment that will let them live another year but don't know the side effects I'm all for it.

If a person hasn't got a health issue but live in an environment that they are sure to end up with a major health issue that makes their life expectancy extremely short, and we have a drug that will extend that life expectancy but may have effects after that, I'll consider it.

If a person hasn't got a health issue, isn't really likely to end up with a health issue, and we really have no idea what the drug to prevent a health issue will do to them in 10 years or more, then you can fuck off if you want to inject me or mine with it until we have more data. You can give it to yours all you want, and if you happen to end up sterile then nature has done its job. Me and mine will feel sympathy for you, but we won't lose any sleep at night as yours die out.

As I said, I love technology and the advances we've made, but I also know enough about the history of medicine to know that a lot of shit we've come up with isn't nearly as great as we once thought it was.

A treatment for Malaria in mosqutoe infested jungles that has some side effects is good.

Drinking irradiated water because it gives you 'energy and is refreshing' is insanely stupid.

We've done both you know, and knew little of their side effects until well after they were in heavy use.

Ethics?

[Vengance Daemon]

Here in the USA we don't use the word "ethics" in any discussion about pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, or medicine in general unless it is coupled with the words "no" or "none whatsoever" or "give me all your money and then die."

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Tweenk]

We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial.

I haven't. In my country, it is illegal to advertise prescription-only drugs in the TV, radio, newspapers and on outdoor billboards (not sure about the Internet). I think it should be this way everywhere, for the reasons mentioned in your post.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[future assassin]

My girlfriends family doctor is one of those doctors. She pushes anything that is pro pharma and has TONS of free samples for crazy amount of different drugs. When my girlfriend mentioned to her that I was looking to find a family doctor who was pro cannabis (Trying to get a license for my herniated disk) she got all up on my girlfriend how cannabis is bad and all that... but shes more then willing to give out some free pills for "beta' testing. Always wondered how much shes paid by the pharma companies.

Another thing I don't understand is how anyone could take a pill that spends more then half of the tv commercial talking about how many side effects there are and that rare occasional deaths can occur. WTF?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Compholio]

We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.

What? You guys really get ads like that in the States? I can't remember ever seeing an ad for prescription drugs - the very notion of advertising anti-depressants directly to consumers (particularly over the boob tube) is insane!

Oh yeah, lots of them - they probably make up about 30% of the advertising time now. Ever since the pharmaceutical companies figured out that there was no penalty for violating the restrictions on advertising for prescription medication they've flooded our airwaves with this crap.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sure - that could never happen in some *other* country: only the US has lying bastards for CEO's. Idiot.

Re:Part of the problem

[ColePEET]

Does Vioxx cause death? Maybe. If the specific formulation of the drug is to blame then why are other drugs with virtually the same formulation still on the market with warnings? Why didn't those drugs also get removed from the market - with similar numbers of deaths behind them as well? Maybe? Virtually? The difference of ONE FUCKING MOLECULE is the difference between medicine and poison. So basically you are saying people clinging on to life with the tenacity that almost all humans display is the real cause of all the evils in the world. Man, I don't even know what to write, my mind recoils at the twistedness of this post. "It's a lottery and there are winners and losers. Merck lost. Too bad, I guess." Heres the problem right here, not old people. Its a lottery, every now and then the capitalist system needs someone to throw to the masses. Appease the plebs. Distract them from the fact that every company is 100% corrupt, by "catching" one of them every so often.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[nicklott]

We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial

Actually, only Americans and New Zealanders have seen that (in the first world). They are the only two OECD countries that allow direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumers.

Someone made the decision to make that hitlist.

[ColePEET]

What about that? Who would have that authority at Merck? The CEO? The hit-list didn't just appear, it was a plan put into action. Who put it into action? Some one made a decision. The world needs to track down and execute the people who make these decisions.

Re:Someone made the decision to make that hitlist.

[Anonymous Coward]

I came here to post a similar sentiment. "Drug Company" didn't make the hitlist, people did. When truly horrible things like this happen, I want to see names. I want to know that anytime they apply for a job, an HR rep is going to Google them and find out that they found it acceptable to make a hitlist of people who disagreed with them.

Re:Someone made the decision to make that hitlist.

[ColePEET]

So what? Can the guy/guys/girls responsible? Badmouth them on google? That's fair punishment? How about an eye for a fucking eye. I'm curious, how can you think a life like that is worth allowing continuing to exist? And don't give me no yuppie Nuremburg bullshit about following orders. Like theres an email. "seek them out blah blah." emails have a from and a to field. Find from. Hang him. Find to. Hang him. Then, find everyone above from and to in the corporate hierarchy and hang them. Gross negligence causing physical harm = capital offense in my opinion. Or, if killings' too salty for you, well, corporations exist and are owned by people, and corporations are persons. Well that means slavery is still legal, seeing how one person owns another. So therefore people who commit physical harm against another should be commited to slavery, and owned by the victim. All the employees, everyone involved, they should forfeit there lives in the service of those whose lives they maliciously and knowingly destroyed. And if they run, then hang them.

Re:Someone made the decision to make that hitlist.

[SanityInAnarchy]

How about an eye for a fucking eye.

Alright, but translate it properly, first. The saying is actually "No more than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

Since as far as I know, none of these doctors were actually killed, that would be considerably more.

how can you think a life like that is worth allowing continuing to exist?

Because people are complicated. Because even assuming all of this is true, those responsible may not be beyond recovery. And because we don't get to kill people just because we don't like them -- we kill people who are actually a threat to society.

Who are you to judge the value of a human life?

Find from. Hang him. Find to. Hang him.

Great, so I can be sentenced to death by someone forging an SMTP header.

Then, find everyone above from and to in the corporate hierarchy and hang them.

Because people above from and to obviously condoned the action? How do you know?

Or, if killings' too salty for you... people who commit physical harm against another should be commited to slavery, and owned by the victim.

Because slavery has always worked out so well in the past.

You know, I'm all for tracking them down, putting them on trial, even sentencing them to life imprisonment. But this lynch mob thing you've got going... Sorry, you've become what you hate. In fact, I'd rather be associated with their deliberate, premeditated murder than your lynch-mob murder.

Re:Someone made the decision to make that hitlist.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The world needs to track down and execute the people who make these decisions.

Yes! We'll need to make a hitlist of these people!

Re:Part of the problem

[Tweenk]

Until we start denying care to everyone over, say 50 years of age, the US will not be moving to any sort of "universal single-payer health care."

Yeah, let's ignore human rights, the meaning humanity, and revert to what amounts to barbarism... This proposition reads like something taken straight from a dystopian novel. I'm not defending the fight for a few more months of life no matter the cost, but your idea is way overboard.

Re:Oh boy

[Kokuyo]

Oversimplifying much? Today's medicine is way cool. One just has to make a difference between scientific medicine and corporate driven business.

Re:Oh boy

[KDR_11k]

Vaccines are usually given before the infection because they work by preparing the immune system for the pathogen, in many cases a vaccine becomes pointless once the subject is infected because then the immune system will train itself on the live pathogen and giving it training dummies won't do anything anymore.

The only thing surprising

[Akita24]

is that any physician would do anything besides read the propaganda from the pharma co and dispense the new drug like popcorn to their patients for a kickback. Oh wait, this was in Oz .. Never mind.

Re:The only thing surprising

[ColePEET]

Its exceedingly rare but there is still good in the world.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[SocratesJedi]

Another thing I don't understand is how anyone could take a pill that spends more then half of the tv commercial talking about how many side effects there are and that rare occasional deaths can occur. WTF?

Every drug has side effects, some more noticeable than others. The simple fact is that we don't understand human biology well enough to predict or prevent all side effects while preserving the mechanism of action of the drug. As in engineering, it is a trade off: you exchange symptomatic and pathophysiologic relief for less severe symptoms due to adverse reactions to the drug. When adverse reaction to drugs exceeds the relief granted by them, they're typically discontinued on a patient-by-patient basis. The only way to avoid all side effects is stop taking drugs until human biology advances far enough to control for them all which will never occur in our lifetime.

Re:Part of the problem

[BitZtream]

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

(Anon because I've modded.) In Canada ads for prescription drugs are allowed, but only if they don't mention what the drug is for. This leads to subtle innuendo, like Viagra ads with telephone poles and fence posts everywhere. Antidepressent commercials invariably show happy people having picnics and pushing their kids on a swing for 20 seconds, followed by the list of side effects and the phrase "Ask your doctor about today!"

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day, every channel ... I dare say every commercial break. "Ask your doctor about" this drug, that drug, some other drug. Anti-depressants, anti-cholesterol, arthritis pills, allergy pills... you name it. It's marketed directly to consumers.

Criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live

If they're threatening physical harm, isn't this considered assault? Last I checked, that was a criminal offense. And if they're threatening to discredit the individuals professionally rather than resort to personal violence in retaliation, that's still defamation.

The employees and policymakers involved should be locked up.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

To fix the gender inequality problems in the drug company rep business?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at a pharmaceutical company on, among other things, the database to gather data on the representatives and their clients. We were pretty close to them because of this. I can confirm that what you say is very true.

All Ex Cheerleaders

[copponex]

A friend of mine was a rep for a larger company. She was an ex college cheerleader and they picked her up straight out of college, and with bonuses, she was making close to 80k in her second year. This didn't include all the expenses her company paid for - car, housing, gas, expense accounts for taking clients to dinner. And according to her, she was not unique in her history as a cheerleader, or her pay grade.

I saw the analytical software she had to gauge her performance against others in her region. It was mind-boggling how much data she had, how many prescriptions had been written by which doctor, doctors who hadn't purchased her brands yet, growth rates... and that seemed to be just the tip of the iceberg. But nowhere, nowhere did it tell her if patients had recovered or not, or if any of them had passed away. If they were dead, it was just the loss of one prescription.

She always talked about competing for growth rates, and the bonuses that it included. Basically, doctors who sold a lot of drugs were invited to gatherings in the Caribbean, expenses paid of course, where all of the top sales reps would also be enjoying the conference as well.

The whole thing was really sickening. I talked to one doctor that said he felt pressured to prescribe pills, not necessarily by the drug companies, but by his patients. They come in, malnourished, overweight, smoking, and not getting any exercise, and ask for help with their cholesterol. What he should tell them is that they need to stop smoking, prescribe an hour of exercise a day, and a new diet. Instead, he writes them a script, is one step closer to getting a free vacation, and his patients get to continue abusing themselves guilt free.

This is one of the many reasons we need to move to a system where the incentive is to keep people healthy instead of keeping them sick. As the baby boomers continue to age, this dogmatic adherence to the "free market" could quite possibly bankrupt us.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[bendodge]

Uh, it's not a free market. It's run by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. People have a remarkable way of managing their money better than other people's. If people were paying their own money for drugs instead of an employer's insurance or tax-funded nets, they'd make a remarkably larger effort to stay healthy and spend less on treatments.

See hospitals in India, Singapore, and Thailand staffed by American doctors that actually compete for patients from around the world. They're booming because they're mostly free of bureaucracy and are very open about their mortality, infection, and error rates. That's how healthcare should work.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[copponex]

I know. That's why the "free" is in quotes. Whenever you hear someone talk about how the market should be free, they usually mean, free to allow powerful interests engage in anti-competitive practices. That's how taxpayers end up subsidizing private providers of Medicare, because they can't compete with government provided services of comparable quality. It isn't "fair" that they aren't allowed to make money, so we should keep the market "free."

Interestingly, it looks like India's health care system, a mix of private and public initiatives, is doing very poorly compared to the universal system in Singapore. India's healthcare system is not providing good service for their population, so I don't know why you consider it evidence of the "free" market working it's magic. According to Wikipedia, "Most public health facilities lack efficiency, are understaffed and have poorly maintained or outdated medical equipment." It's no secret that rich people can get good health care, it's just that most western people are very rich when they're shopping in India.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[drunkenoafoffofb3ta]

To be fair, that's old news. Stuff like that doesn't happen any more-- or rather, it's increasingly difficult for pharma to do it and escape censure. Don't feel too bad. Doctors have to slum it in only 4* hotels these days, and freebies are cost limited to something like $20-- and they have to be pertinent to the job... But it's still free stuff.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[sa1lnr]

"She always talked about competing for growth rates, and the bonuses that it included."

Is it just me, or does this sound awfully familiar?

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[Arancaytar]

If people were paying their own money for drugs instead of an employer's insurance or tax-funded nets, they'd make a remarkably larger effort to stay healthy and spend less on treatments.

While some aspects of industrial disease are caused by overindulgence in luxury, it doesn't follow that healthy living is always cheaper than unhealthy living. You will not be able to pressure the poor into living healthier by making them pay for their own healthcare. All you would do is kill them.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[StormyWeather]

People are free to be ignorant, and companies are free to prey on that ignorance. The only thing that makes the market non-free is the government in the way telling insurance companies they MUST insure people a certain way, giving companies tax write offs for insuring employees, but telling independents like myself that I have to pay taxes on my insurance, and letting people sue doctors over trivial crap causing the docs to do extremely expensive CYA activities. Government once again is the problem, and people only see government as the solution. Look at the case of the DR in new york that wanted to give people unlimited visits to his office for like 75 bucks a month, and stop taking any third party payer. The government gave him a stream of crap about him becoming an insurance company, and a nasty fight to get through it.

You as a consumer are also free to do your own damn homework and use a doctor as a tool towards that decision. That's what we do at our house with us and our kids. We follow our own vaccination schedule, we eat healthy, we exercise regularly, we take vitamins, etc. However, when someone gets really sick, like when I get my once a decade kidney stone I'm really damn glad I don't have to wait on the bureaucratic bullshit of Canada or England to get taken care of.

The inefficiencies and bloat you hate in medicine is almost all caused by middlemen that shouldn't really be there to begin with. Insurance should be high deductible and cover only calamities. Then doctors would bill directly to consumers and we could get away with all the "negotiate rate" crap and get doctors to compete with each other. I guarantee you that the first care to plummet in cost would be dental. If dentists could just tell all customers that payment was due in cash before service then look at all the billing and insurance nightmares they woudln't have to do. Most dentists would drop at least two employees off the payroll immediately.

Medicare is crap, and every doctor and dentist I work for either won't take it, or is working towards not taking it. If the government takes over you can guarantee that it will just be a bigger version of medicare where doctors will get every dime out of the government at your healths expense, and feel justified in doing so because it's such a bitch of a system to deal with.

People just see free as their golden lamb. Free is tax funded crap, and it drags everyone down. Yes I know most people will let their health deteriorate before pulling a dollar bill out of their wallet for it, but why oh why will that same person get behind an inefficient system that will pull out ten times as much from their wallet over their lifetimes for crappier service in a mandatory fashion? Why oh why do people spend all their money on new entertainment systems, and crappy new cars, then beg our gubmint for free health care... I'm so depressed about this attitude of gimme gimme lately.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[KMnO4]

Yeah, your post is so on target. I was just in a suburban Chipotle near a hospital a couple weeks ago listening to a blonde bombshell talking to a doctor (still in scrubs) about her company's line of products. He clearly enjoyed the attention.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[T Murphy]

Preventative health care is cheaper than treatment. No health care is cheaper than treatment too, but that is not what the GP is saying.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[jma05]

> Interestingly, it looks like India's health care system, a mix of private and public initiatives, is doing very poorly compared to the universal system in Singapore. India's healthcare system is not providing good service for their population, so I don't know why you consider it evidence of the "free" market working it's magic.

India's healthcare system is doing fine... IF you factor in what resources go into it. Most patients (non-metro) pay few cents to a couple of dollars per consultation in private clinics. This is not co-pay or care subsidized by government. It is the full amount. Given that Indian per-capita is 20 times lower than US/Singapore, Indians are getting EFFICIENT (while not an abundance of) care. My jaw dropped when I saw that a very minor emergency room visit was billed at $250 (pre-insurance) in US.

Re:All Ex Cheerleaders

[Anonymous Coward]

In some US states this is illegal. NH passed a law that bans the sale of prescriber-identifiable prescription drug data for marketing purposes. The pharm companies sued to have the law overturned, but eventually lost... see "IMS Health Inc. v. Ayotte."

Re:Part of the problem

[ColePEET]

One of the most horrible truisms imaginable. Same with "the good die young" or "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Re:Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

The HPV vaccine is there to combat THE LEADING CAUSE OF CANCER DEATHS IN WOMEN.

Actually no, it's there to combat the leading cause of cancer deaths in women (cervical cancer) and some close contenders.

Cervical cancers that can strike and kill 20-year-olds depriving them of 50 good years of life. HPV related cervical cancers that strike and estimated 10,000 women a year (on the low end) in the US. How many times deadlier is that than Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think it's much closer to mosquito control in it's potential positive impact than irradiated water. If you were listening to objective sources who spoke as loud and stridently as the anti-vax sources (or anti-woman church sources) you would easily see that. But somehow you have allowed yourself to be deceived and are passing that crime along.

I don't see this...

[KingAlanI]

The drug companies obviously like the US situation because they could make more money than they could otherwise

Certainly the government under a public healthcare system would have a degree of buyers' monopoly (monopsony). Prices would go down, and they wouldn't rake in as much, true.

However, I suspect that, while Pharma's profits would be driven down, they wouldn't be driven down enough to force Pharma completely out of business.
So, assuming that the US and the other holdouts went UHC, I'd suspect that staying in drug-development and making some money would be better for them than quitting the business and making *nothing*.

The money spent on government healthcare has to go *somewhere*. The drug/device makers, the doctors, will still get something. Only the insurance company people would necessarily be cut out of the picture.

Duh ?

[aepervius]

Long term effect of vaccination ? How about the same as long term effect as other vaccination ? You are not introducing PERMANENTLY something in the system, the vaccination product may well be flushed rather quickly out of the system. You are teaching the immune system to react to a specific part of what youa re immunizing against. I am not a biologist, but looks to me you are confusing long term effect of a chemical in the body (like for example AZT) with long term effect of the immune system being able to recognize a foreign host...

Re:Duh ?

[Cassini2]

The immune system is poorly understood, and even today relatively unpredictable. Additionally, viruses tend to evolve, and this makes them unpredictable. Administering vaccines will cause permanent damage and possibly death to a very small percentage of the people given the vaccine. Taking a vaccine is like playing Russian Roulette. If you give enough different vaccines to a sufficiently large number of people, sooner or later something bad will happen. Adverse affects depends on what you have previously been exposed too, whether you currently have an infection and just don't know it yet, and if the immune system accidentally correlate this vaccine with something it really shouldn't attack. Currently, we can't predict that those complications for any given school kid.

The long-term effects of Gardasil are unknown. It only defends against a few specific common varieties of HPV. No one knows that if these are displaced, will deadlier cancer causing variations of HPV replace them? The way viruses spread, you really need to knock out the class, not just 3 sub-varieties. This is why the flu vaccine is given every year, and often does not work. The flu changes every year. It will be the same for HPV. It's just no one understands how fast it will happen. Will the virus mutate and the kids get cancer anyway?

Additionally, the current drug marketing process puts sales ahead of science. Even if Gardasil is safe, and ultimately saves lives, how much confidence do you have in vaccine testing? Sooner or later, some company will come up with a vaccine that really does have long-term side effects. Do you want every school aged girl in North America do be hit with a potentially serious "surprise" later in life? Make no mistake, we are giving these school kids Gardasil because of marketing, not science.

I just want my kids taking something because we understand the science, and the risks. Marketing isn't a good reason to be prescribing drugs and vaccines to kids.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[MrMarket]

Obviously we need more gay doctors.

Why? To create more jobs for more gay PhRMA reps?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[tsa]

My brother's GF was a representative for a pharma company for a few years. She is quite good-looking, which helps in achieving your targets of course. She always had a trunk full of expensive gifts like coffee machines and other stuff to give to doctors to promote medicines. When I told her that in normal Dutch this is called bribery she was mad at me and told her the doctors actually have to do a lot to get those things. They have to give the company data on how the patients react to the drugs, something that the secretary can get out of her computer with a few keystrokes. Hard work indeed, for the doctor. Those doctors were also often invited to a tropical paradise to see presentations about new medicines. Of course they didn't have to pay for those trips.

Reminds me of Michael Clayton

[moxley]

This sort of thing reminds me of the way the company in "Michael Clayton" behaves, (great film BTW).

I wiah that sort of thing was a fantasy and that it could be said that such things are exaggerations and never happen - but when it come to millions or billions of dollars at stake these multinational companies are sometimes willing to do extremely unethical things, including murder - we certainly have seen cases of attempts to cover up negligence where numerous people have been killed as a result of faulty products.

Even if Merck didn't actually have anybody killed here, and even if they claim that isn't what they meant by "neutralize," - destroying someone's life and credibility because they are trying to tell the world the truth about what their research has shown is just about as bad.

As corporations and governments are becoming more intertwined I expect we'll see more of this.

It seems like sociopaths tend to make it far in corporate society - something about being able to do what it takes to rise to that level in the cutthroat world of business seems to fit the the sociopathic personality.

Any company that gets caught doing this sort of thing, even if it's found out after the fact should be destroyed - it's assets should be divided properly among shareholders and employees who are clean of any taint from such a scandal....

Re:Reminds me of Michael Clayton

[ColePEET]

Exactly that. Companies can break the law, and they are people now, so why don't they have corporate prison? Too big to fail just lines right up with corporate interests. We can do whatever we want, laws merely exist to keep the plebes away from guns so they can never stop us. And we're too big to fail so we'll get away with it.

Re:Reminds me of Michael Clayton

[Jerry Rivers]

"Any company that gets caught doing this sort of thing, even if it's found out after the fact should be destroyed"

Never mind that, in the case of Merck and similar sized companies, dismantling it ends up being akin to smashing a fly with a sledge hammer; gross over-kill that ends up punishing thousands of innocent employees, employees of Merck suppliers, their families, and creditors.

The real answer is to punish only those who broke laws. That rarely, if ever, includes every single employee right down to the janitor and security guards, and it usually is only a handful of middle and top level managers.

Michael Clayton was an excellent movie though!

Re:Reminds me of Michael Clayton

[moxley]

Maybe so; it was a quick idea; but I'm assuming you may have missed the part about distributing the assets of the company properly (proportionally) among the shareholders and employees who are clean of any taint from such a scandal ....When it comes to a company as large as Merck I am guessing that for many people they would never have to work again.

I agree that innocent people shouldn't be punished - and there is also the effect that this would have on R&D of new drugs (which would likely be any pharma company's main claim of of defense, that any actions or sanctions against them would hurt our chances of finding a cure for caner, etc)..But I doubt that is the case.

I guess I am just tired of corporate abuse - actualy t hink abuse isn;t strong enough of a world - with a lot of these large corporations some of the things they do could rightfully be called 'treason against humanity,' or something.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

The one and only time I went to a speed dating event, I got the list of women's ages (if they admitted it), their occupation, etc. I saw "pharmaceutical sales" on the list and before I ever got there, I told the friend I was going with, "I'll be able to pick out the pharma rep - she'll be the most attractive woman there"... and I was right.

There were other attractive women there, but the one that stood out from the crowd was the pharma rep.

Never heard that one before.

[Fantastic Lad]

I don't sense much bias in your comment, (for which you are to be congratulated), but I do take exception with some of your statements.

Living in Canada, I've known numerous older people, (over 60) who receive excellent health care. Elaborate heart surgeries and such. Nobody seems to think that they're being given second rate care or that preferential treatment is being given to younger people. I've never even heard that idea floated until you brought it up just now. My grandfather is in his 80's and two years ago he was treated successfully for cancer. He's still quite active for a very old dude, and he has a lot of respect for his doctors.

Just FYI.

-FL

Re:Never heard that one before.

[PitaBred]

And I know a guy whose uncle was essentially told to "go home and die" in Canada because they wouldn't do the brain surgery he needed. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Re:Never heard that one before.

[dr2chase]

True. But happily, there is data, and the data says that the expected lifespan in Canada is 4 years longer than it is in the US, the infant mortality rate (deaths per 1000) is 5.1 instead of 6.3, yet they spend $2000 less per capita, and instead of spending 15.4% of GDP on healthcare, they spend 9.8%.

There's your data -- the Canadian system is better. Your friend's dead uncle is just an anecdote. Perhaps the surgery he 'needed' was highly unlikely to extend his life.

Re:Never heard that one before.

[PitaBred]

Infant mortality is an interesting metric... how much of Canada's population is made up of exceptionally low-income migrant and illegal workers? Their babies still count, too. A raw percentage also doesn't correct for the much more racially mixed US population, which causes a much higher infant mortality than in the US: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

And the spending... how much of that is cosmetic and elective surgery? Are those even options in Canada? Not to mention... how many Canadians come down to the US to have surgeries their government won't cover? Does that spending count toward the US spending, or Canada's?

Nice informative rating for "statistics" that have been taken well out of context, though.

Re:Never heard that one before.

[dr2chase]

how much, how much, how much?

There's this thing called the internet, you can answer these questions for yourself. Otherwise, you're just concern trolling.

There's about 20 countries with universal healthcare and better health outcomes than ours. That's one heck of a pattern.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Achromatic1978]

The US, and until recently, NZ, were the only countries in the world where you are allowed to advertise a prescription medication. It, of course, leads to the absurdity of "Ask your doctor about {drug}" style ads, not "Discuss with your doctor the symptoms of your ailment", of course not. So people go into their doctors, "So I saw this ad, and I matched a couple of the things they mentioned, "feeling tired, run down"... "so can you write me a script for {drug}".

Mind blowing. Unbridled capitalism at its finest.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, my hottest cousin is a drug company rep.

Re:Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, If you think you can get data on a drug with research that has not been funded by someone with a vested interest, youre fuckin' high. 40% of NEJM articles are funded by drug co's. basically, ppl need to fund their own agency to study these drugs, otherwise theyre just being lazy and going off of what someone else tells me. FWIW - I think drug companies shouldnt be doing research on their own drugs (they are forced by FDA) it increases their price, and then forces them to hide mistakes.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[DirtyCanuck]

Unless you are of course, watching an American channel being broadcast in Canada. Which makes up a large portion of stations we have available.

Signs you are watching American Channel:

1. Drug propaganda public service announcements.
2. Anti Abortion commercials
3. Pharmaceutical commercials, with death as a side effect (laugh every time).
4. Some sort of community college commercial with some overly average guy yelling at you to go to school.
5. Really, really bad local commercials (Halloween Costume Warehouse).
6. Really dark and even disturbing commercials that turn out to be some politician bashing another (often not realizing until end of commercial)
7. Do you have BAD CREDIT, well we have got a number for you....
8. Fast Food
9. Walmart

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[DirtyCanuck]

I encourage people to contribute to this list.

MOD PARENT UP - All drugs have side effects.

[hostguy2004]

I Agree, All drugs have side-effects.

Heparin, a very old drug requires regular blood tests to prevent overdose and hemorrhage or stroke.

Re:MOD PARENT UP - All drugs have side effects.

[Hurricane78]

Well. It's all a question of cost (side effects + cash) versus gain (illusion of health).

The reason I say "illusion", is this: When was the last time, you saw a pill, that actually made your problems go away forever. You know what I mean. Them not coming back, as soon as you stop taking the stuff.
Well, most medicaments (especially painkillers) are just telling your body to disable the alarms that went off because you did something wrong or got attacked by something.
So you will not fix it. And you will learn nothing from it. You just keep paying... and paying... and paying...

What most people do not realize, is that virtually all of those diseases, that come "because of old age" and many of those that somehow can't be fixed, come from really loong times of doing something wrong or being in an unhealthy environment. At least a decade. If not much more.
A small chemical imbalance can kill you, if you give it enough time.

Interestingly, there *are* doctors who know what the causes of that type of diseases are. Mainly the ones that work with many patients over very long times. And according to them (one of them being Dr. med. M. O. Bruker), those small (or not so small) imbalances (things like a bit denatured proteins, shortages of certain vitamins, and refined sugar, or short: processed food) cause those diseases. Do it right, and you never develop that shit.
Which is very obvious, if you think about it.

I think, you only really see, how broken the system is, when you look at how little work there is actually done, to help you prevent getting sick. And of course, that doctors do not earn money for keeping people healthy, but get payed only when you become sick. What could possibly go wrong? ^^

Re:MOD PARENT UP - All drugs have side effects.

[PCM2]

Heparin is also rat poison. True story -- the original use for that class of anticoagulant drugs, beginning with warfarin, was to overdose vermin so that they would hemorrhage and die. Read the boxes on a lot of rat and mouse poison and you'll find that they're still the preferred agent in use today.

But heparin is also vital therapy for a variety of life-threatening conditions. If it disappeared from the market, a whole lot of people would be screwed, and many would die.

True, Merck's behavior was absolutely reprehensible. They actually got their very just desserts already: All the money that they spent to develop the drug has been wasted, all the money they could have made from selling the drug has vanished in a puff of smoke. Good. We hit 'em where it hurt, for once.

Unfortunately, I'm also with the people who say it's a real shame that patients who could benefit from Vioxx no longer have access to it.

Merck Caught With Pants Down.....

[IHC Navistar]

Wow. They drew up a 'hit list' and wound up putting themselves in the cross hairs instead.

Sounds like a 'black list', which is very shady, but the fact that they stated that they needed to use some kind of action against the doctors clearly turns it into a 'hit list'.

I guess you could say that Merck was caught with it's pants down..... by doctors! ZING!

Re:Merck Caught With Pants Down.....

[freedom_india]

Nope.
Considering that corporations are never convicted and jailed, the maximum Merck will get is a $10K fine and a settlement from Merck that says it will not do so in future.
What about the Doctors whose lives it destroyed?
Collateral Damage.
When will we realize that Corporations are like Terminator:
1) They have no shame.
2) They have no remorse.
3) They never stop until they destroy you.
The only way to stop corporations is to destroy them completely: which means it must be disbanded, its board jailed and its CEO banned from taking similar jobs or promoting any company.
Sigh... that is but a dream.
In Asia such a concept does not extend as such in practice. Usually the CEO/Chairman is jailed or convicted of a crime.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[jollyreaper]

We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.

Never felt more betrayed than by the cold and flu ads. They show someone miserable at night but he pops the meds and the next morning he doesn't even look like he's been sick! I know damn well the super model beer commercial fantasy is more likely to happen than that!

I remember puking my guts out in the early morning and feeling shocked that the pharmaceutical companies would lie to us so brazenly in the commercials. Then I realized just how sick I must be to find this surprising.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[peektwice]

Did you just say she had junk in the trunk?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[labnet]

If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
I just shake my head (from afar) way too often when I see the path the USA has headed down. It is ultimately leading to the USA being a much poorer country in the future.
(ps. Go to http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse for a great look at the worlds future)

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[woboyle]

Ever heard of anyone dying from an overdose of pot? Falling asleep, eating until bloated, thirsty enough to drink the pacific ocean dry, yes. Dying... never! :-)

Sounds like Scientology Tactics

[CodeBuster]

'We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,' a Merck employee wrote.

He must have been a Scientologist because that sounds almost exactly like what CoS directs and encourages its members to do when faced with external criticism ala their "fair game" policies (which they claim to have repealed, but in practice still regularly employ to aggrivate, defame, and harass their critics). The Corporation was right, this is the behavior of a psychopath.

Re:Sounds like Scientology Tactics

[benjamindees]

You have absolutely no sense of irony, do you?

Re:Sounds like Scientology Tactics

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>The Corporation was right, this is the behavior of a psychopath.

Uhhhg..... This is not the behavior of a psychopath. A corp is not a person. Making the jump from corporate personhood to corporate psychological disorders makes no sense. "Corporate personhood" is a legal construct.

Mountains, bears, asteroids, and clouds are all psychopaths by your definition.

Re:Sounds like Scientology Tactics

[CodeBuster]

This is not the behavior of a psychopath

In reference to the company in question (MERK) the following characteristics are demonstrated by their actions (or the actions of their employees in the performance of their duties which amounts to the same thing):

1. Reckless disregard for the safety of others - An attempt to cover-up legitimate concerns exposed by independent research of unacceptable harms likely caused by Vioxx in order to protect profits.

2. Deceitfulness - the "plan" to discredit or "neutralize" opponents and the implied strong willingness to use whatever means, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to achieve that goal.

3. Incapacity to experience guilt - denial of responsibility and failure to admit any wrongdoing (possibly leading to a settlement where neither responsibility or wrongdoing are admitted).

4. Failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law - if an individual had acted as Merk did, would we as a society consider that to be acceptable behavior? Would that individual have any reason to be proud of such behavior? I think not.

Not sure how many criteria in DSM-IV must be satisifed for diagnosis, but with four (4) symptoms in place we are certainly well on the way towards making the case.

Mountains, bears, asteroids, and clouds are all psychopaths by your definition.

The distinguishing characteristic is "personhood". I think you will agree that none of the above meet that criterion and therefore would not satisfy the definition.

Re:Sounds like Scientology Tactics

[greyhueofdoubt]

I'm just tired of people calling corporations psychopaths. If I were to say, OK, Merk is a psychopath- then what? Arrest Merk? Institutionalize Merk? Have an intervention? I'm coming at this from a practical point of view. Deceit? OK, we can charge corps with fraud. Disregard for the safety of others? We have laws that cover that. And so on. But anthropomorphizing an organization of thousands of people ranging from janitors to CEOs is just silly. Merk is a business- a shitty one that I wouldn't want to work for- but they are following a trajectory set by the environment like a rock falling to earth.

You might as well say that Merk is sad, or introspective, or jolly- it sounds silly, right? Why is "Psychopath" special?

A better analogy would be to compare merk to an organism- unthinking, bound by a few simple behaviors and laws of nature, and driven towards a singular goal- and in that respect Merk is a very successful organism. Like mosquitoes or zebra mussels, maybe, but successful nonetheless.

>>Failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law - if an individual had acted as Merk did,
>>would we as a society consider that to be acceptable behavior? Would that individual have any reason
>>to be proud of such behavior? I think not.

You could say that about every business, every organization, and every person ever.

I'm glad you enjoyed the pseudo-documentary. Next up: Cars 'hate' humans! Observe how many people they kill! Look at the damage they do to our environment! Let's carry a synecdoche to an absurd end!

-b

Well..

[a whoabot]

Well good on Merck. I wouldn't want to see some greasy, Hippcratic-oath-swearing quacks get in the way of the market!

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Hurricane78]

Well, there are things that you can't ingest as fast as you would need for it to kill you.

I guess, even though your comment is anecdotal, that it's somewhat similar to Stevia. A sweetener made from a plant. It's used by American natives for thousands of years.
To get to the point: Monsanto, makers of the cancerous Aspartame (who else? ^^), ordered a study. The result was, that you could become sterile from it. (Stay with me.)
What they did not really put their emphasis on, was that the amount you had to eat, for it to be any dangerous, would be half of your body weight. Every single day.
Try that with salt. ^^ Or even with water! (Yes. Too much water can kill you too. Same as not enough of it.)
Or, well, pot. :)

You know where I'm going with this...

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[drunkenoafoffofb3ta]

The barrage of potential side effects is there purely because of regulation. It's not as if Pharmacos and the ad agencies are happily putting it in.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

More fundamentally, the reason we are shown the antidepressant commercial is not because the pharmaceutical company is devoted to improving our lives but instead because the CEO wants to increase profits so he can get his incentive bonus so he can buy his third mistress that second luxury vacation home she's been asking for. The CEO probably does see himself as a decent guy but, when you strip away the pretense, he's certainly not doing what he does out of pure altruism.

WTF do I care how many bimbos and Ferraris the CEO keeps in his stable? I'm not depressed anymore.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[woboyle]

Yeah. Anything in "excess" is probably bad for you! However, if you smoke too much pot (I quit 25 years ago), all you do is fall asleep. You would need a ton of pure THC to kill yourself. Smoking it might result in terminal munchies, but it won't kill you by itself! :-)

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[woboyle]

Of course, there is always the possibility of an anaphalactic (sp?) reaction to pot, but I have never heard of such killing anyone.

I think someone in Merck Australia has been

[drunkenoafoffofb3ta]

...watching too many gangster movies.

It's not uncommon for pharma to keep tabs on key doctor's work for them, competitors, and their opinions on so and so's drug. I've worked on them. However... This is batshit crazy behaviour. Smearing doctors? Mega fallout when caught. Merck are going to have a hard time in that market now!

Re:Oh boy

[LordNor]

The funny part of the whole thing is that it can be completely 100% prevented and cured with the proper vitamins. Every person that has HPV that leads to cervical cancer is also vitamin B12 deficient. (I believe it is B12, its one of the B's anyway.) The same thing goes for most auto-ammune diseases as well. Check the vitamin D levels of someone with say MS... They will be very Vit D deficient. Unfortunately for big pharma, you can't patent something in nature.

Another good thing to look at is 5HTP. Almost all the "good" anti-depressants are derivatives of 5HTP. They all have more negative side effects and don't work as well...

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[dogeatery]

Most countries don't allow such commercials. But in the US, anything that's probably bad for society is usually legal as long as someone's making a profit big enough to bother protecting

Re:Part of the problem

[shentino]

Because the FDA is lobbied to just as readily as congress critters?

Re:Oh boy

[HiThere]

His point is that the information is being provided by people who have a vested interest in your deciding one particular way.

You don't know what the effects of something you are being injected with will be. You are operating on trust. And so is the person who injects you. He is unlikely to have prepared the substance himself, but rather to have purchased it from someone he trusts.

But in this case, the injection is for something that little is known about the effects of, and what is known is given by biased sources. You can decide to trust them anyway, but you should be aware that that's what you are doing. And that there is, indeed, a history of drug companies selling things that didn't do precisely what they claimed, and had side effects that weren't precisely what they claimed. Sometimes it was because they didn't know, but also sometimes it was because they had intentionally suppressed any adverse commentary. This has been proven to have happened within the past decade. So currently existing laws and practices don't prevent it from happening. It's fair to decide whichever way you want, but you ARE deciding based on trust...or mistrust. Not based on knowledge. And you have no feasible way to get the knowledge. It's quite possible that nobody knows.

You say "It's a vaccine". I say it's a complex of substances, some of which are intended, or at least claimed, to activate the immune system. There are other components that serve various other functions. And there are some which are just there because it's too expensive to remove them. (They're just trace...but sometimes mere traces can have profound effects. Not usually, of course.)

Maybe it does precisely what they claim and has no side effects they don't mention. It's possible. But that would be a foolish bet. It *is* likely that any serious side effects are extremely rare, or no mentioned. Or very long term. And the long term ones are unlikely. But there'll be something. Perhaps it will make you allergic to anteaters. Few would care, but it would be a real undisclosed side effect. Perhaps it will cause your heart to grow at the rate of 0.5%/year. How would they know? Unlikely, of course. But there are *LOTS* of possible unlikely side effects that they don't disclose...and often don't know about. At least one of them will occur at least occasionally. The purpose of testing is supposed to be to weed out those drugs that cause serious side effects with any frequency. But the tests won't detect any effects with a frequency of less than, say, 1 in 10,000 or with a latency of over a year. (I may have those precise numbers wrong, but the idea's correct.) And that's if the tests are honest. But they are being conducted by an entity that has an investment in getting certain results. So adverse results have a history of occasionally being swept under the rug. And so we come back to trust.

But even if you trust them, they may be ignorant of a problem that will affect you. Cautious people prefer large scale studies to be done first. Say on the population of another state or country. Or on a self-selected group of experimenters over an extended period of time. But diseases evolve too. So the cautious approach has it's own problems.

Sometimes there aren't any good answers, but it's clear that having the qualification trials run by an entity that has a vested interest in the results is a very bad approach.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[dov_0]

Ever heard of anyone dying from an overdose of pot? Falling asleep, eating until bloated, thirsty enough to drink the pacific ocean dry, yes. Dying... never! :-)

Dying, no. Long term problems with short-term memory and concentration, yes. Loss of initiative and drive, yes. Psychosis, family break-down, incarceration in a psychiatric facility, panic disorder, depression, suicide attempts, broken relationships, unemployment. Yes. Actually that pretty well sums up the largish circle of people I used to smoke marijuana with and as far as I can tell, they were all pretty average, normal people before they started on dope. Ten years after I quit I still have serious problems with my memory.

Many people like to say that Marijuana is harmless and not like other drugs as it is natural. Well, Arsenic and Cyanide are natural as well. It seems that the main problem with Marijuana is that THC, the main drug in Gunja isn't water soluble like most drugs that wash out of the system. It's soluble in fats and oils, so it hangs around in fat cells in the body for many years to come. Your brain is 30% fatty tissue...

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Miseph]

Of course, pot also has a very low concentration of THC. that's like saying that nobody has ever ODed on poppyseed muffins, so surely heroin is safe.

I'm not against medical (or, for that matter, recreational) marijuana, but that doesn't mean an apples to oranges comparison is in any way fair or reasonable.

motives other than greed

[Scrameustache]

It might be nice to adopt, say, European-style healthcare systems in theory, but can we afford it at the price of relative technological stagnation because all the profit motive has been removed

What profit motivated the russian doctors who came up with viral bacteriophage therapy? Or with hypothermic cardiac surgery?

throwing out the innovation baby with the bathwater, which strictly socializing US medicine would do by all empirical evidence

You have no such evidence; merely your faith in the invisible hand of the market.

Be Skeptical of KDawson "Accuracy" Claims

[dov_0]

Re.the Summary above. There is no 'Federal' court in Melbourne. We have the Supreme Court. Paradoxically, a higher court is in Canberra, the High Court of Australia. If people want to go higher than that, there is the Privy Council in England. Haven't heard of a case going there in many years though.

Re:Be Skeptical of KDawson "Accuracy" Claims

[simmee]

Appeals to the Privy Council were ruled out in (I think) 1982. So the High Court of Australia is the highest court.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Ceiynt]

I fired my old family doctor of about 10 years because I started to see he was nothing but a shill for the drug compaines. He'd spend less then 5 minutes in the room with you, give you a hand full of samples of the latest, greatest whatever. I brought in a list of drugs that Wal-Mart sells for $4 and a list of what my insurence covers, none of his samples were on the list, so he wouldn't prescribe those. Lo and behold, the samples are the ones that are still patent protected, and cost $500 for a weeks worth.
One of the doctors left the practice because she didn't like his style of medicine. I now go to her practice, which she runs with her husband. She has signs in the exam rooms and the lobby that state "Please do not ask for drug samples, as we do not accept them from the pharmicutical companies. Samples increase the price for everyone and are not free. The doctor will discuss with you the right medicine for the right problem, and will try to prescribe generics if at all possible."
I like it now that my family doctor really does practice medicine instead of playing the corporate shill and handing out the flavor of the month.

Re:Oh boy

[Scrameustache]

I'm extremely skeptical of the HPV vaccine

Why such extreme skepticism?

I'm not saying they're not marketing it aggressively, but the vaccine seems to do what it's meant to do, so I find your reaction to be, well, extreme.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[woboyle]

I'm aware of all that. This is why I stopped using it a long time ago, but as recreational drugs are concerned (and legislation never did anything to stop its use), pot is one of the lesser evils, IMHO. And yes, because it is fat soluble, it hangs around the system for about 7 years (the amount of time it takes for all the cells in your body to be replaced). Coke is water soluble, so its effects (other than phychological) are mitigated much more quickly. In any case, after I quit regular use of MJ, for about 7 years I would, from time to time, experience a "high" as THC was released by the fats in my body into the bloodstream.

sad state of affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Vioxx was the only thing that really worked for my wife. Now her choice is pain or to take a narcotic which doesn't deal with the pain as well as Vioxx did. I know several others who have a much lower quality of life when it was pulled. I've also heard doctors express disappointment about it being pulled.
I can't help but think that this kind of thing is the inevitable result of thinking that things must have zero risk, and that we should reward lawyers for the small percentage of people who are harmed by something, even though the vast majority of people are helped.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[dov_0]

... because it is fat soluble, it hangs around the system for about 7 years (the amount of time it takes for all the cells in your body to be replaced)...

The only problem with that is that apparently fat cells are like nerve cells. They don't get replaced like muscle celss or whatever. Once they are produced, they stay there. The highs you experienced were probably more likely to be the contents of the cells being utilised by the body.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Dragonslicer]

She pushes anything that is pro pharma and has TONS of free samples for crazy amount of different drugs.

I heard from a couple doctors that I know that some of the hospitals and health care organizations around here, including the clinic that I go to, have started to forbid doctors from taking samples from drug companies (I can't find any public statement in a quick Google search, so this is still third-hand). Maybe there's still hope.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[woboyle]

Ie, whatever I said, ignore it? :-) Yeah, works for me!

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[woboyle]

From my (admittedly a long time ago) research, they (the fat cells) do get replaced, but slowly, and that these "flashbacks" are due to the release of the toxins/fat-soluble chemicals that they have adsorbed over time. However, my studies of that subject was almost 40 years ago, so our understanding of the subject may have changed since then, not to mention my memory of the subject!

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

future assassin, I'm pro-marijuana but would not prescribe it for a ruptured disk, as that is not a valid indication for marijuana use. There are far more effective painkillers out there than marijuana.

The proper use of marijuana is as an alternative to steroids in generating appetite for people who are starving to death as a side effect of their medical condition or the treatment for their condition (eg: cancer chemo). Basically, the legitimate use is to generate 'the munchies', not to treat pain.

You should probably seek out a 'pain specialist'. It's likely that steroid injections to the area of your disk will be the best combination of efficacy/expense/lack of side effects.

If you're just trying to legitimize your pot habit, first get your pain treated and then see a shrink about whatever depression or anxiety you're trying to relieve with the pot.

Re:Oh boy

[dbIII]

One you get the disease the vaccine won't do any good. That is why they are giving it to girls that are young enough that most of them have never ever had unprotected sex (no Utah jokes please).
It took many years to develop and test.

Re:Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell a closet religious zealot here. Rewind a couple of generations and rephrase your argument in terms of smallpox vaccination.

The vaccine you are talking about is controversial mostly because it protects against, and has a chance of eradicating a virus that causes cervical cancer.

Vaccination vs Abstention for all STDs attracts the same kind of ire as Evolution vs ID from the usual crowd.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[mi]

I was looking to find a family doctor who was pro cannabis [...] Another thing I don't understand is how anyone could take a pill that spends more then half of the tv commercial talking about how many side effects there are and that rare occasional deaths can occur.

What makes you think, an honest cannabis commercial would dwell on the side effects any less? That crap is bad for you (worse for some than for others, like most things) — just because the government tells you that, does not mean, it is not so...

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[b4dc0d3r]

First post, on topic, and nailed it right on the head. Plus I'm drunk. I think I love you.

It's scary, honestly, to think how many lives are in the hands of people whose decisions to pursue FDA approval and continue research projects are based on profit potential, as opposed to saving lives.

The conspiracies about having cures for diabetes and AIDS but profit is in tempering the symptoms instead... sabotaging legit research into alternative therapies, discouraging natural medicines because anyone could grow it, and the ever-present direct marketing to consumers, who pressure the doctor into prescribing something because they're getting the same pressure on the other side from drug compaines. And then the "continuous release" reformulations which bypass the normal patent length... Does anyone think a normal company these days can't get a continuous release formula right the first time? No, it takes 14 years to figure that out and patent it, and you double the life of a cash cow.

Asinine rewards and bonuses for drug reps whose function in life is absolutely useless, and the poor people pay for that because they are the ones without good coverage. And for the middle class, who cares what the cost is - insurance pays for it, right?

Is it, in the interest of the people, right for medical research to be for-profit? For the good of the people, the furthering of humanity, the safety of our nation, the welfare of our most blessed resource children of all things... is it profit that should motivate us?

I understand gvmnt grants such as NIH in the US, but shouldn't that be all open-sourced, as it were, if any public money comes into play? Free access, no patents, or at least pricing restrictions on patents.

It sounds like socialism, and we're all scared of that... but regulations have to be in place. SEC relaxed restrictions on financials and the whole industry maximized its leverage and melted the economy - paper money burned at the stake. We know greed causes problems.

Allow me to pursue a tangent. Google fucked up the internet. How so? Well everyone wants a tech support site, because everyone has dll problems. So we have a thousand sites, a thousand differnt places to submit your questions, and a thousand answers multiplied by the number of wrong answers peopel give becuase they want to score response points, increase their post count or similar - wild guesses hoping to accidentally score. Each subpopulation self selected, and the search results will bring different ones to the top depending on what the error is, or how you phrase it. Adsense on each of these sites, and suddenly it's lucrative to set up shop repeating what everyone else already knows. KBalertz site is a copy of MSDN - what's the use? SQLServerCentral I think, and Experts-Exchange I thnk are blocked on my work lappy (hosts file) because they want me to sign up to see the answer. Well if I change my user-agent string to googlebot, I get to see the answers so fuck you I'm not signing up. A proprietary community and good google results makes money, but pollutes the internet. Consolidate the answers, have a few sources to search - Google did not mean to derail this, but it happened. Ironic, that the search leader made it harder to find good answers because the number of experts are spread over many different sites and cannot possibly provide correct information.

It's greed, and failing to work a truly sustainable business. Your customers dying cannot be good for business. Can't afford the drug, or getting a newer, untested version like VIOXX instead of more established therapies, more tested therapies - this does not help anyone.

I honestly thing 5 years of every drug's life should be spent in "beta" status - you will be tracked, and insurance can refuse to pay for it, but if you want to out of your own bulging pockets go for it. No lawsuite in the first 5 years, to protect the investment of the drug companies, but it will also hurt profits. Trade-off? Human lives saved at the expense of some corporate profits, balanced by svings on lawsuit settlements.

I will run for office some day, vote for me :)

ALL LARGE COMPANIES USE THAT

[Anonymous Coward]

  AND THE USE ANONYMITY, VIRAL AND ASTROTURFING in every medium including now predominantly on internet. It is so easy to dupe people, there is no more "truth" on the internet, everything -- Everything all the time is slightly get changed and manipulated for a positive spin by those who have money.

  Just like Wendi Deng, wife of Murdoch, who is nothing but an opportunist, who slept her way to the very top -- how unflattering, but proof is in the pudding, and when you post it, with back up information, it always keeps on getting changed, or so very slightly.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng

  There is no truth, but money. There is no more truth -- PEOPLE WITH MONEY CREATE IT!

  sick

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously we need more gay doctors.

I once read somewhere about a increasing trend that doctors were becoming asexual because of a psychological disconnect between physical bodies of others and sexuality.

Here is the scary part

[kilodelta]

There are tons of drugs out there where pharma has suppressed negative research. Recall if you will the drug phenylpropanolamine aka Dimettap. Worked great on me, but I'm male. It had a nasty habit of killing women who were in that age bracket where they were most fecund. How many years did it take for that drug to get yanked off the market?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[thatskinnyguy]

With all of the marketing for drugs out there, I'm starting to feel left out that I don't take any.

Also, I'm wondering if all of the marketing for drugs is really necessary. I mean, if a drug does it's job particularly well, it will be prescribed by physicians and people will pay for it. It falls into a different category than the beer commercial right after it - I can go out and readily buy beer on a whim and it's totally legal. If I wanted to do the same thing with prescription drugs, it would be more costly and time-consuming to do it all above board and legally.

Does the public really need to be conscious of the existence of certain prescription drugs? Probably not.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[ultranova]

Why? To create more jobs for more gay PhRMA reps?

You don't need to find someone attractive to make eyes with them, for a price. You don't need to find someone attractive to sleep with them either, for a price. You might need Viagra, thought.

Re:Part of the problem

[Chryana]

For some reason, all these countries which have socialized medicine and which will let older people die without treatment all seem to be ahead as far as life expectancy goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
US is at rank 45 behind Japan, Canada and pretty much all of Europe.
I can't speak about the elderly visiting the US to get treatment, but I can tell you that I was in Tijuana, on the border to the US last year, and I saw firsthand that the medical industry seems very prominent in that city. I think you can reach the same conclusion that I came to when I observed this, although I have to admit I have no further data to back my suppositions.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Arancaytar]

Anaphylactic shocks are by definition exceedingly dangerous and unpredictable, so if they can occur, they can also lead to death.

I haven't heard of anyone killed this way either, but then I haven't even entered "marijhuana anaphylactic shock" into Google.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[bitt3n]

Another thing I don't understand is how anyone could take a pill that spends more then half of the tv commercial talking about how many side effects there are and that rare occasional deaths can occur. WTF?

Sleeper Effect

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[tirefire]

Yeah.

*Or* we could prescribe cannabis for the myriad of illnesses it treats and symptoms it alleviates. And it's so non-toxic no one has ever died from it, not once, not ever.

Just sayin'.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Toonol]

You are a strange mix of skepticism and gullibility.

MOD PARENT UP

[MrKaos]

Corporations used to be a gift from the community with a limited scope for accomplishing a very specific goal. Now-a-days pirates wear suits and as captains of industry navigate their vessels in search of more plunder [arrrrrr].

It's sickening that Monty Pythons humorous vision is so accurate.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[baubo]

Since then, I've always wondered how many drugs were prescribed solely because of hooters.

I guess this ought to make me glad my doctors happen to be women?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[gringofrijolero]

Unbridled capitalism at its finest.

No, doing it legal is very bridled. Unbridled is when you go outside the country to get it cheaper and smuggle it back in with you, then sell some to your "friends".

Obviously you are drinking the wrong beer...

[tjstork]

the actual events depicted in such commercials are solidly in the realm of fantasy.

Obviously, you are drinking the wrong beer. You need to drink something better than Heineken and switch to something good like Strohs. Every time I went to a party when I was younger, with my beer of choice, I always got the supermodels!

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[dr2chase]

Cannabis is a good deal less toxic and/or addictive than quite a few over-the-counter drugs. Its side-effects (primarily, intoxication) are common, but not life-threatening. Against painkillers, it compares especially well.

I do agree, however, that if it were marketed as a drug, the guys selling it would find some way to push the truth envelope.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[wiredlogic]

The ads for prescription drugs are relatively new. They used to not be allowed but the FDA caved to big corporate sometime in the 90's. They aren't like normal over the counter drug ads. They have to follow one of two formats: The ad makes very vague statements about the drug along the lines of "If your are experiencing X symptoms, ask your doctor about prescription drug Y"; or the ad makes explicit statements about what the drug is supposed to do but all side-effects are described spoken aloud at normal speed. The latter can be quite humorous when the side effects are plentiful and severe when the rest of the ad is trying to convince you that this stuff is the best shit on earth.

It's these commercials that are the front line for creating consumer demand for these drugs and the basis for their need to pressure doctors into hopping on their bandwagon to prescribe the latest and greatest pill.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[UncleTogie]

Dying, no. Long term problems with short-term memory and concentration, yes. Loss of initiative and drive, yes. Psychosis, family break-down, incarceration in a psychiatric facility, panic disorder, depression, suicide attempts, broken relationships, unemployment. Yes. Actually that pretty well sums up the largish circle of people I used to smoke marijuana with and as far as I can tell, they were all pretty average, normal people before they started on dope. Ten years after I quit I still have serious problems with my memory.

Then I might venture that you're one of those that shouldn't indulge. The effects you describe, while common, are NOT set in stone. A friend of mine has smoked it for over 20 years, and has a loving wife, steady job, is stable, and only partakes after work. He can tell you every phone number he's had since he was 4, and has worked in the IT field since the early 90's.

Just because SOME people react that way to the green stuff does not mean that EVERYONE does. Just like alcohol, or any other inebriant, there are some people that just can't keep it together while abusing it and shouldn't have it anywhere near them.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[dr2chase]

Obviously we need more gay doctors.

Or women doctors, perhaps?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

"A friend of mine has smoked it for over 20 years, and has a loving wife, steady job, is stable, and only partakes after work. He can tell you every phone number he's had since he was 4, and has worked in the IT field since the early 90's."

Make that 30yrs and it describes me fairly accurately, although we didn't have a phone until I was 15. I have a few friends who can drink a six pack every night and live a normal life, I can't do that with alcohol but I'm fine with (or without) dope.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[supercell]

I know and have known quite a few drug reps. Yep, all smoking hot and all got the job because of that. Doctors tolerate their stupidity because they are hot. They go to their drug rep dinners b/c and prescribe their drugs, b/c they are hot. In the end, drug companies bring it all back to basic human nature. I liken the drug reps that prance into the doctors offices to the Miller Beer Girls, that graduated and instead of giving out beer samples, now give out pills to doctors. It's essentially the same thing. No wonder our medical system is so screwed.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Achromatic1978]

Tis a nice double standard, when you look at it. "It's a global market" scream the corporations, "if we can get labor cheaper in Mexico/China/Eastern Europe, we should be able to!". "It's a global market," scream the people, "if we can get our pharmaceuticals cheaper in Canada, the UK, Mexico, we should be able to!". "No, you shouldn't. And we'll lobby to make it illegal, under the guise of quality control, even if you are buying the exact same drug."

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[MechaStreisand]

I'm Canadian, and I've seen all of those on American TV except for drugs with side effects including death. That sounds hilarious. What drug was that?

Innovation, but at what cost?

[sir_montag]

Innovation at the cost of a sane healthcare system is worth less than nothing.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[rtb61]

Oddly enough the eating until bloated is some what of a misconception. THC is a MSG blocker, so only junk food addicts get the munchies when stoned, people who avoid the various excito toxin, neuro stimulants do not get the munchies as they do not suffer from drug withdrawals and are not forced to compulsively eat in order to fulfil the "flavour enhancer" (what a huge steaming pile of PR=B$ for a legalised drug) addiction.

THC as a blocker for MSG et al also explains why it is so effective in treating various severe diseases caused by those sic. "flavour enhancers" and of course has the potential to do huge damage to the pharmaceuticals profits via the selling of patentable drugs to cure the problems created by legal junk food drugs and they conspire and fund at all levels to keep the pig trough flowing.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Prune]

Uh, there is Walmart in Canada, and I have seen them advertise on TV. So it's definitely not a sign one is watching a US channel.

Death - The Best Anti-Arthritic

[Tolkien]

That is all. :)

Insane for whom?

[xant]

It's certainly not insane for the drug companies. You can put pressure directly on your doctor to get the drug that the teevee says will cure you. If he's ethical and doesn't comply (when the treatment isn't appropriate), well, there's plenty of other doctors. They'll comply out of apathy, or because it has a direct payoff in perks from drug companies.

It's a totally rational strategy for drug companies.

Re:Merck is an excellent company

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting to negate bad mod.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[mooingyak]

2. Anti Abortion commercials

Can't say I've seen any of those -- and all I get is American TV (goes with being in the US I suppose).

5. Really, really bad local commercials (Halloween Costume Warehouse).

Now sometimes these are really entertaining, though rarely on purpose.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[ChromeAeonium]

makers of the cancerous Aspartame

Not according to the FDA or ACSH. But at least The Holistic Healing Web Page is of that belief. In general, you should beware of medical advice that has its origins in fowarded emails.

Re:Part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

US medicine is socialized and has been for several decades. The only issue we have is a squabble over who pays the bill. The menu and the quality of the entrees has been set and outside most people's control for some time.

Captcha: urinates - what i like to do on posters who don't know what socialism is

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[kmarple1]

We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.

Do most of us recognize that this is a marketing fantasy? Probably not. Sure, antidepressants are prescribed to people with depression and people do recover from depression. But the idea that a couple pills will solve every single problem you have in your life is solidly in the realm of fantasy.

You're right. But to take it a step further, even the people recovering from depression are more than likely not doing it thanks to a particular pill from a TV ad. There are a lot of anti-depressants on the market, and often someone needs to try several of them at various dosages to get a combination that works for that person. Even when found, that combo might not work forever. The commercials don't just show problems being solved by a pill, but problems being solved by their pill.

What drug companies want is for their drugs to be prescribed over those of a competitor. But that's often not in the best interest of the patient. A good doctor would be one that took whatever they heard from a rep as information about one option and then did what was best for their patients.

favorite drug side effects

[pentalive]

I forget the exact drug or what it was for but I do remember the side effect they mentioned. How about that. The effect in question was "A brain sensation". what??

What is a "brain sensation"? Like you never had a brain before, but now you think you have one?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

The effects you describe, while common, are NOT set in stone.

It's that "while common" clause.. you might want to think about that one.

Also one incident is anecdotal evidence at best.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[tg123]

Yeah. Anything in "excess" is probably bad for you! However, if you smoke too much pot (I quit 25 years ago), all you do is fall asleep. You would need a ton of pure THC to kill yourself. Smoking it might result in terminal munchies, but it won't kill you by itself! :-)

Just a note of caution (drugs always have side effects)
Pot for some people has been linked to schizophrenia

http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/001475.html

Re:Part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak about the elderly visiting the US to get treatment, but I can tell you that I was in Tijuana, on the border to the US last year, and I saw firsthand that the medical industry seems very prominent in that city.

those would be the doctors that lost their licenses or can't get licensed in the US

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[deniable]

We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial.

Actually, I haven't. I live in Australia and advertising prescription drugs directly to patients is illegal. What people get here are fake news stories on current affairs shows. They have to pretend to have some news value, so they don't look like the ads described.

Re:Part of the problem

[heson]

The "life expectancy at birth" list is almost useless for anything since deaths at age under one year old influences the rest of the list hugely.
It is completely irellevant when it comes to old people, compare it to a list of "life expectancy at X years old" to see why.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[h4rm0ny]

On the subject of your sig: I am both amused and convinced. I shall buy more boxer shorts today!

OT: anon due to having modded

[slash.duncan]

> (Anon because I've modded.)

Harrumph! Last time I tried that they killed the mod anyway! I suppose it's part of the same rule changes that gave me fifteen modpoints to use in three days instead of five. It would have been nice to at least get a warning before they did it, but no, I guess the "you'll cancel your mod" warning must have disappeared with the same changes, as all I got was a note after I posted (anonymously) that it had undone the mods I had made.

Maybe they changed that rule back. I hope so! It seems to me the cost of having to post anon in that case, having the post start at zero and not having any modpoints applied to it apply to your account, is enough sacrifice.

OT: In Denmark we need more *male* med students

[jonaskoelker]

Or women doctors, perhaps?

OT: In Denmark, there are more than 50% female med students (as told to me by a female med students; ISTR her citing numbers from somewhere). So much more, in fact, that we take affirmative action to get more men in.

Depending on how recently this happened and the average age of doctors and such, one shouldn't be surprised if there are more working male doctors right now, though...

</off-topic>

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[zx75]

Ugh, add to that any country that receives US television broadcasts. American advertising leakage is huge in Canada since at least half of the stations that I get are American in origin.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Mikkeles]

We've all seen the classic beer commercial. Some guy is bored and alone. Then he cracks open a beer and suddenly this amazing party materializes out of nowhere and bunch of adoring super-models surround the guy like he's the hottest guy on the planet.'

You say that like it's a good thing! Whenever it happens to me, it just interferes with getting back to the lab.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[pxlmusic]

exactly. the pharmaceutical companies were the push behind criminalization of marijuana.

a plant with 1001 uses that anyone can grow at home that could effectively replace some medications pushed by big pharma.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Scannerman]

$('#me').devilsAdvocate(function(){
      alert('that unbridled capitalism is what funded the research behind 94% of the worlds drug discoveries.');
  var sucks = 1;
  var sorry = 0;
});

A Large Fraction of the worthwhile Drug research in the USA has been funded by the NIH (I.e the Federal Government) Research institutions aren't normally allowed to produce drugs, so It gets licensed out to Private drug companies (And there's a whole bunch of issues there) that's where the money gets made, But to pretend that unbridled capitalism funds all the research is nonsense, although it often does fund the further trials / licensing/ approvals process etc.)

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Hurricane78]

Well. I would not say that I trust the FDA anymore than any other government or pseudo-government organization. ^^
Which is somewhat at the same level as that holistic pseudoscience site: Veeery down below.

I got my source from a set of studies that were made, and i know that Monsanto tried to denounce the sources of those studies, and create their own ones. Which then were heavily criticized for doing exactly such insane stunts as the Stevia study.

By the way: I dunno, but even if both sweeteners (Aspartame and Stevia) do nothing bad to you, which one would you take:
A) The one that is a plant-extract used for at least 5000 years without problems. (Stevia)
B) The one that was developed by Monsanto as a biochemical weapon for the US government, and then when not so successful, found to taste sweet in light dosages. (Aspartame)
?

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[DirtyCanuck]

"Uh, there is Walmart in Canada, and I have seen them advertise on TV. So it's definitely not a sign one is watching a US channel."

Ya but have you ever noticed the difference in the commercials. The Canadian ones just pitch the price of goods. The American ones somehow manage to equate shopping at WalMart as being patriotic and slap American flags coloUrs and symbols everywhere.

The commercials with side effects as death are rare, but I certainly have seen them.

10. Commercials from lawyers who are looking for anybody who has had a love one killed or ill effected by a drug that was not properly tested and has a class action suit against it.
"Do you know a love one who has committed or attempted suicide on the anti smoking drug deathaxapan, now is your time to CASH IN...."

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[DirtyCanuck]

2. Anti Abortion commercials

Can't say I've seen any of those -- and all I get is American TV (goes with being in the US I suppose).

I only see these on certain channels, these commercials often are often very subtle but at the end have some pro life BS with the name of some church. I don't see them on stations in New York, but some of the rebroadcasts of shows high up on my digital cable.

Great Comment

[MJSlattery]

Worked in biotech and the Pharmaceutical industry for 15 years and never heard one executive, ask one time, if the drug in question would save lives or improve quality of life. It was always always always what is the projected market share in each country for the patent life. These people don't have souls and they don't care who they kill or injure. Just part of their business and we are the collateral damage.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[DirtyCanuck]

Unless you are of course, watching an American channel being broadcast in Canada. Which makes up a large portion of stations we have available.

Signs you are watching American Channel:

1. Drug propaganda public service announcements.
a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVRO_a6pQB8
b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDalFIDhf40&feature=PlayList&p=AEEDA86D572040F6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2
c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skoWq27KYeE

2. Anti Abortion commercials
a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTfhLAcNwaE&feature=related
b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ehEce0Ae0&feature=related

3. Pharmaceutical commercials, with death as a side effect (laugh every time).
a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GvYI4VdVEI&feature=related
b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUsCxoShVqs&feature=related
c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vvvBhWAjK8&feature=related
d) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdM0Kf_ZyXk&feature=related

4. Some sort of community college commercial with some overly average guy yelling at you to go to school.
a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFXT2u_Ma3I

5. Really, really bad local commercials (Halloween Costume Warehouse).
a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtzWVYS5XHc
b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGvtbriY-M&feature=PlayList&p=D44238CD10AEC90A&index=1

6. Really dark and even disturbing commercials that turn out to be some politician bashing another (often not realizing until end of commercial)
a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wejI0l17xIA

7. Do you have BAD CREDIT, well we have got a number for you....
a)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtzWVYS5XHc

8. Fast Food
a)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxqRg2Nohso

9. Walmart
a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2x5IAUqVSQ

10.Commercials from lawyers who are looking for anybody who has had a love one killed or ill effected by a drug that was not properly tested and has a class action suit against it.
"Do you know a love one who has committed or attempted suicide on the anti smoking drug deathaxapan, now is your time to CASH IN...."

a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7NPU7jEbRw

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[JAlexoi]

I don't smoke. Never did smoke. Not even tobacco. And I don't drink over 100 ml of alcohol per a night out.
Yet, I have had issues with a lot of those points you presented. I have seen more people incarcerated in a psychiatric facility on account of alcohol induced psychosis, than of marijuana induced psychosis.
Everything is harmful when used without moderation. And job loss argument is definitely redundant.
Remember! Moderation, moderation and once more moderation!
On a absurd note: We should probably ban all kinds of food! Since overconsumption of it leads to obesity and a lot of health problems, like diabetes, heart diseases, hypertension etc... the list is probably much longer than the one of marijuana's.

Why Aren't We Hearing This from The MSM?

[srobert]

This just can't be true. We'd have heard it reported on CBS, NBC, or Fox if it were. Right?

My mom

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom took Vioxx for several years. Her lung capacity from taking this shit has dropped as a direct result. She is on a puffer (although not oxygen, yet). She could get around easily, although she had arthiritis. Now she still has arthiritis, but can only go up about 4 or 5 steps before being winded and needing to stop to catch her breath. Merck has a hit list? Show me the clown saying that! He's on my hit list! Their whole board should be shot --with a big fat dose of their own product, over several years. That will fix them!

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Patch86]

B) The one that was developed by Monsanto as a biochemical weapon for the US government, and then when not so successful, found to taste sweet in light dosages. (Aspartame)
?

[citation needed]?

I was under the impression that it was discovered in the course of trying to create an ulcer treatment.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Patch86]

A friend of mine has smoked it for over 20 years, and has a loving wife, steady job, is stable, and only partakes after work. He can tell you every phone number he's had since he was 4, and has worked in the IT field since the early 90's.

Everyone knows someone who can say this: "My gran is 96 years old and has smoked 30 cigarettes a day since she was 12, and is still fit as a thoroughbred on race day!". Does this mean the (extremely well documented) carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoking don't count for anything?

Just because we can find counter-intuitive examples, it doesn't mean that the initial premise is flawed.

For what it's worth, I know quite a few people who are either current or former users (although I've never indulged myself). The majority of them display some combination of awful memory, bouts of depression, or paranoid tendencies. None of them are chronic, but it's a notable trend in comparison with my non-user friends.

It's also known as free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The US, and until recently, NZ, were the only countries in the world where you are allowed to advertise a prescription medication.

Yes, the US has this unique thing called the First Amendment.

Amazing how the same Website defending people's right to send horrific accident scene photos, a few days earlier seem to think Big Pharma companies should not have free speech.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I am in the process of becoming a pharmacist. I have heard many descriptions for drug reps. They are basically intelligent strippers. On the bright side (very recently) they are no longer allowed to give out free swag like they could before. They are a business and we should see them as such.

On the side of the drug companies though, let me give a few stats. Of about 5000 investigational substances that make it to animal testing (18 months avg). Of those 5 enter human trials. Phase 1-3 clinicals last about 5.6 years. From there they enter testing for long term side effects lasting about 2.6 years. Final approval and we are down to just 1 compound from 5000.

Still doesn't make me feel any better about when roccuronium recently went generic and dropped from $47 a vial to 17 cents.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[kalirion]

Monsanto, makers of the cancerous Aspartame

How much of your body weight in Aspartame do you need to ingest to get cancer?

Re:Part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at the list and found three US territories (US Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico) that ranked higher than the 45, the first two significantly higher! It makes me wonder what the possible differences could be.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Dread_ed]

Alcoholics have symptoms similar to those you describe except they also come with a large number of dead people from DUIs and overdoses. And yet, alcohol is legal.

My only contention with pot being illegal is that alcohol is legal and causes more damage tham pot ever has or will.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[atraintocry]

The only citation I've seen of that point is from a CA radio show in the 80s. Not quite damning evidence.

The citation appears in an article called (get this) "The Swirl and the Swastika: NutraSweet & the Military-Medical-Industrial Complex" in a book of essays called Psychic Dictatorship in the USA, both by a guy named Alex Constantine.

It's good for a laugh, anyway.

Naw, that won't fix a thing

[wilec]

I work in the health care industry too and while I guess it is natural for the crowd here to fixate on the sales WOMEN that Pharma uses to push their products, and yes they are almost exclusively dolls though not always that young. However the sales MEN that often show up with them seem to be almost exclusively ex basket ball players or Esquire models, for the lady doc's I guess or as noted maybe for the gay ones. Same formula seems to apply for implant and surgical materials. I wouldn't know about the goodies and junkets since I am a lowly alarm and controls technician, lucky to get the occasional day old dough nut or el cheapo LED flashlight from some old hairy dude or girly girl wantabe with a twitch. Damn that was mean of me, I'm gonna burn in hell.

wabi-sabi
matthew

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

job loss argument is definitely redundant. Remember! Moderation, moderation and once more moderation!

I moderated you 'Redundant' for that.

Re:Be Skeptical of Drug Company "Scientific" Claim

[Boronx]

Bill Clinton, George Bush (ok, bad example) Barack Obama were all pot smokers, Al Gore was a heavy pot smoker.