| Author |
Topic:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... [Locked] |
Cawlin  Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Yukishiro1 posted:
What part? That revenues come from % drugs? That's just facts.
You're making assertions about how much revenues and using some nebulous term of "% drugs", so yes, I'll file this under Bonk/sweeny arguments until I see some actual facts, not just Yuki/Bonk/sweeny facts about it.
Yukishiro1 posted:
Or the bit about relentlessly pushing drugs on patients and doctors? Don't you work in pharma? You honestly don't know how this works? How pharma targets doctors and takes them out to expensive dinners with attractive young sales agents and does all sorts of things to try to get doctors to push their drugs?
Yes I know how that works and I know a few physicians too and how they interact with the pharma sales reps. Here's a hint btw: physicians didn't get to be physicians by being stupid. They know what's going on and they know how to interpret study data. If physicians were prescribing drugs inappropriately, they would be getting sued and drummed out of the profession or jailed... I know you just got out of law school, but I had no idea you've been to medical school too!
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Cawlin posted:
Eager_Igraine posted:
It seems like this kind of issue is being addressed largely in the marketing. The number of drug advertisements I see on television has increased dramatically over the past few years, and the listed risks in their use also seems to have increased. "May cause death" and "may cause suicidal thoughts" have become common and also weasel words like "... has been suggested to help [symptom or illness]..."
Marketing is a whole other ball of wax. Marketing is subject to FDA regulation too by the way...
Bear in mind these few things:
1) If someone during a clinical trial suffers an adverse event, and medical science cannot conclusively tie it to your drug, but also cannot conclusively say your drug had nothing to do with it, you are required to report it and to include it on your labeling AND in your advertising.
2) You are forbidden from advertising what your drug supposedly does in "concrete" terms. You may not say "This drug unequivocally reduces your risk of heart disease". You have to say "Ask your doctor if XYZ drug might be a good candidate for you!"
There are more forces at work there than are apparent with respect to labeling, marketing claims and so forth. In the end, the FDA wants your physician to make the decisions about your therapies, not the drug companies.
I am noticing more frequently though that the language chosen for advertising several drug products specifically allow room for them to have absolutely no positive effects at all, and maybe kill you. That suggests to me that drug companies are finding routes to the market for products that kinda suck. There appears to be a difference between saying that your product, in clinical trials and used as recommended by a physician, has been shown to have [x] impact for most people in the trials, and saying that your product, in clinical trials and used as recommended by a physician, might have had some undefined but presumably beneficial impact although it wasn't quantifiable enough by itself to be measurable during the trials, and it might also kill you.
Just sayin'.
-----signature-----
I radiate more heat than light.
I know what you're trying to do but you're just sailing another failboat over the falls. - imaloon1
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
|
So Pharma is stupid for spending the billions they do on marketing to doctors because no doctor would be influenced by the marketing?
Great argument there, chief.
|
__Bonk__  Posts: 5,122
Registered: 2009-7-25 03:04:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
The end result will be that the drug industry is another that will leave this nation. Banana republic here we come
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
|
Actually Bonk America is one of the friendlist countries in the world to pharma. You couldn't really be more wrong if you tried.
|
Cawlin Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Eager_Igraine posted:
Cawlin posted:
Eager_Igraine posted:
It seems like this kind of issue is being addressed largely in the marketing. The number of drug advertisements I see on television has increased dramatically over the past few years, and the listed risks in their use also seems to have increased. "May cause death" and "may cause suicidal thoughts" have become common and also weasel words like "... has been suggested to help [symptom or illness]..."
Marketing is a whole other ball of wax. Marketing is subject to FDA regulation too by the way...
Bear in mind these few things:
1) If someone during a clinical trial suffers an adverse event, and medical science cannot conclusively tie it to your drug, but also cannot conclusively say your drug had nothing to do with it, you are required to report it and to include it on your labeling AND in your advertising.
2) You are forbidden from advertising what your drug supposedly does in "concrete" terms. You may not say "This drug unequivocally reduces your risk of heart disease". You have to say "Ask your doctor if XYZ drug might be a good candidate for you!"
There are more forces at work there than are apparent with respect to labeling, marketing claims and so forth. In the end, the FDA wants your physician to make the decisions about your therapies, not the drug companies.
I am noticing more frequently though that the language chosen for advertising several drug products specifically allow room for them to have absolutely no positive effects at all, and maybe kill you. That suggests to me that drug companies are finding routes to the market for products that kinda suck. There appears to be a difference between saying that your product, in clinical trials and used as recommended by a physician, has been shown to have [x] impact for most people in the trials, and saying that your product, in clinical trials and used as recommended by a physician, might have had some undefined but presumably beneficial impact although it wasn't quantifiable enough by itself to be measurable during the trials, and it might also kill you.
Just sayin'.
So you think FDA is in the business of letting people bring drugs to market with no beneficial effects and only side effects up to and including death?
I just explained to you some of the primary directives being exerted on marketing claims and you choose not to see them in your analysis of the advertising you hear on commercials?
Seriously man, do you think that there is honestly a large market for drugs that do nothing but might kill you? Honestly? Yes I know michael moore wants the world to believe that but that fat fker is probably on about a half a dozen of Yuki's "% drugs" against which he likes to rail, just to keep himself from keeling over in the middle of a Krispy Kreme binge.
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Pharma of two generations ago: Saving people's lives for pennies!
Pharma today: Giving people a 3% less chance of having a heart attack from overdosing on burgers and weighing 350 pounds, for 10,000 a year!
Cawlin posted:
Fk yeah!
|
Cawlin Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Yukishiro1 posted:
So Pharma is stupid for spending the billions they do on marketing to doctors because no doctor would be influenced by the marketing?
Great argument there, chief.
LOL more putting words in peoples' mouths I see...
Doctors aren't going to just fall for a pretty sales rep and some unsubstantiated claims. They look at data, they look to AMA and industry guidance...
I know you think you're clever because you're a 20-something fresh out of school but I assure you, for the most part, doctors are generally as much scientists as they are physicians and they understand about data and statistics and if you don't have real data behind your drug, it's going to be pretty hard to convince physicians to prescribe it.
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
Cawlin Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Yukishiro1 posted:
I don't understand anything about science, physiology, or the pharmaceutical OR medical industries but just got out of law school, so that's good enough!
Yeah we know.
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
|
Which is why the hire the perky 22 year old sales rep and dress her in a skirt. And take the doctor out to dinner at a fancy resturaunt. And fly him down for a "conference" in Miami. Probably with the aforementioned sales rep. Because all that helps the doctor interpret the data better.
I probably know more doctors than you do. You are kidding yourself if you think pharma marketing to doctors is benign and designed only with the best interests of doctors and patients in mind.
You keep mentioning law school which is funny because none of the crap pharma pulls with doctors would ever remotely fly in the legal context.
|
|
