Re: New York Times: Free Drug Samples? Bad Idea, Some Say
- From: "Jeff" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 02:56:33 GMT
"Pete" <pete@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f18kc507a7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeff wrote:Free Drug Samples? Bad Idea, Some Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/health/01cons.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin
This may require creating an account.
(If you don't want to create an account, please don't come back and
say you don't want to create an account, because I don't care. And I
won't paste copyrighted material.)
Jeff
To all....I didn't comment on the long thread on a similar subject that preceded this, but could not resist on this new fresh thread by Jeff. This is a very serious and "real" problem. IMO, the pharmaceutical companies are controlling the medical arena (which includes their influence on the lowering of blood test ranges, and blood pressure ranges - which is critical when considering starting a patient on a lifetime regimen of cholesterol, or BP pills (two of the largest sellers), which may mess you up if you really don't need them (the statins especially), because perhaps you are getting on in age, and you used to be at the upper limit, and now the range has been lowered (largely due to the friggen pharmaceutical lobbyists), and your doctor decides to start you on the pills. This is not to say there are not other research type agencies involved, but the pharma impact is huge.
I think, for recent blood pressure and cholesterol normal value changes, the changes were justified by the science. I would have to look more closely.
Big pharma is definitely increasing the number of men who are diagnosed with ED (and the number of older ladies who wish for peace and quiet). I think big pharma has played a valuable role when it made people with various issues, like male pattern baldness and bladder problems, more aware that there was a treatment involved.
However, I have no doubt that there are a lot of people who are treated for many diseases who would be better off without the treatment (including those I mentioned above).
This is vicious and nasty stuff that keeps getting worse each day. The TV commercials are sickening - especially the "ask your doctor crap". Chances are your doctor knows less about the damn drug you are asking about than you can learn about yourself (if you are a halfway intelligent person - if you are a dumbass, you are screwed - and boy do I hate it when the old people (and even worse, many young people also) don't even know what the names of their drugs are - ie, "I don't know, my doctor told me to take it - duh!).
I think the vast majority of direct advertising for prescription drugs should not be allowed.
I have been to approx 75 doctors in my life, and have been studying medicine intensely for 15 years, and I doubt that the vast majority of doctors even take the time to read the package inserts of the friggen samples they receive. I have seen this by experience, since (as an example) the doctor may not even know what the different strengths are for the particular medication, and give you the wrong answer when you ask him/her. They get the sales pitch from the rep and start prescribing it on a trial basis, especially if it is real popular, with lots of commercials.
Just what the sales reps and drug companies want.
I would rather pay a few bucks for a drug the doc is familar with.
I do not totally disagree with free samples, but I definitely agree with Jeff on his previous comments that an older proven drug that is available as a generic, can be just as good if not better (since it has a proven track record). I am all for new technology, if it is indeed better for the patient, but once you start prescribing a long term "brand name" drug to a patient, it will not go generic for many years (say 14-17 for talking purposes), and the patient may not be able to afford it (or want to pay for it even if they could pay for it, and still get by, sacrificing other things).
Always remember that the drug companies are big business, out to make the almighty dollar, and there are no more "Marcus Welby's" or "Patch Adam's" left in the world anymore,
I totally disagree. Drug companies have some of these people working for them, like in research and development. And some drug reps really want to help doctors practice better medicine.
But, reseachers are also interested in making a big bonus by discovering a new blockbuster drug. And the drug reps have an obvious conflict of internest. Drug companies are in business to make money. Nothing wrong with that. But, just like the corner garage wants to change oil more often to make money (they may really beleive that you need to change oil every 3000 mi), drug companies want to sell their product, too. So beware!
There are many doctors who are in business to help people, not to make a furtune.
and the doctors themselves have also succumbed to the system, IMHO. What a shame.
The system is definitely a negative factor.
Just look at it this way - Nexium is the left side of the optical isomer for Prilosec. Why do you think that is. It is very simple - it is so the Pharma could start up another long term patent for something they already invented. It's all about patent laws and making money. I think the patient is just a pawn being moved around. And of course, we don't want to even mention the subject of curing a disease, versus keeping it at bay - not good for big Pharma - a subject constantly discussed in this, and many other ng's :-) .
Yet, if a cure for a disease were available, some drug company would start to make it. They care about their profit, not other pharma companies' profit.
Jeff
Pete
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Colonsocopy cleanout always poor
- Next by Date: Protein in urine
- Previous by thread: Re: New York Times: Free Drug Samples? Bad Idea, Some Say
- Next by thread: Re: New York Times: Free Drug Samples? Bad Idea, Some Say
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
