HOSTILITY, TRUTH IN LABELING

Who's calling you a commie, and what industry is being a leech?

Crawfish: Thanks for stopping in to say hello, and all that.

Question 1: rhymes with leech.

Question 2: big phat pharma, which is sucking us all dry -- like leeches.

Comment 1: bet he doesn't like being called "Mr." Bet he likes that god-like one better. I should-a called him "Mrs." Or "Ms." Or "Miss." He'd really like that.

Could it be clearer?

Made a comment in his goodbye blog. Haven't checked to see if there were any responses at all.

My rant -- and it IS a rant -- was inspired by his comment to my "New Entitled Group" blog -- and had absolutely nothing to do with that blog. Just out of the blue.

I would dare him or anyone to say those things to my face. I'm quite sure he wouldn't have what it takes.

Thanks again.

I know a lot of people like him. I did at first, too, until I realized that you don't argue or reason with a rattler -- or even a leech.

And a P.S. My sister, down in Louisiana, called crawfish "mud bugs." Have you ever heard that? Now are you going to come after me with a claw? I'm sorry, but I did think that was so funny.

Nope, so far, he hasn't commented on your farwell comment. LOL!

EJ: I did note that later.

I'm going to change my blog "Hostility" and put his name right there. If I don't have the courage to do that, then I don't have much more courage than he does.

Maybe I should send him a copy, too. Just to make sure he sees it.

I came close to flagging his comments as offensive, which they are, but I guess I wanted anybody who read "Hostility" to be able to see about whom it was being written.

Thank you for stopping by to give me the information. I appreciate it.

And by the way, I meant what I said in his goodbye blog. It could NOT happen to a nicer blog spot.

I'm a stockbroker (they don't call us that anymore) and I researched pharma extensively for years before concluding what you pretty much concluded. I won't go into great detail but there is something wrong when these companies spend 3 times as much money on marketing as they do on research, when so much of their research is creating new diseases to form new markets for existing drugs, when new drugs are often marginally effective and often less effective than the drug they are replacing goes generic and increasingly present more dangerous side effects. I am 54 years old and I don't know anyone else my age who is not on a prescription drug. I am also shocked that more than 60% of children are also medicated to treat behavior disorders. Pharma does some good things but when was the last time they came up with a "miracle" cure?

Ok, let's address some of this:

"something wrong when these companies spend 3 times as much money on marketing as they do on research": A lot of companies do this. Why should pharms be different? You seem to presuppose that these companies should have some kind of altruism there that negates capitalistic endeavors.

"when so much of their research is creating new diseases to form new markets for existing drugs": Phil, this is a HUGE allegation. What specifically are you saying here? That companies are making diseases to sell more drugs? What are you talking about precisely?

"when new drugs are often marginally effective and often less effective than the drug they are replacing goes generic and increasingly present more dangerous side effects" Some of this is true, but drugs have niches. And you give on one angle (say, 3x/day dosing) to get a better profile (say, once daily dosing) yet pick up a sideeffect or two. This is the kind of thing a person should co-manage with their prescribing physician. Why can't a drug company make anything they want, and let the market decide whether it's worthy? I've seen a lot of drugs go by the way-side because they didn't find a niche....

"more than 60% of children are also medicated to treat behavior disorders.": why is this a pharm company issue, and not a societal/parental/physician-issue?

Pharma does some good things but when was the last time they came up with a "miracle" cure?: AIDS patients may now have NORMAL life spans. NORMAL. That's pretty miraculous if you've seen a dying AIDS patient. It's not a "cure"..but it'll do.

1. Metformin: Brand name "Glucophage". Reduces mortality in diabetics by 30% due to macrovascular events (i.e. heart attacks).

2. Pneumococcus conjugate vaccine: Reduces rates of invasive pneumococcal disease (blood stream infections, pneumonia & meningitis) in children compared to the old-stand-by polysaccharide vaccine.

3. Voriconazole: Brand name "V-fend". Reduces mortality in patients with leukemia who develop invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. This is a damned-near cure in these folks. They were dying left and right on us, and all we had was amphotericin B--a great drug but with horrific side-effects. Vori works better than any formulation AmB for aspergillus.

4. Inhaled corticosteroids (Names: flovent, beclovent, etc.): Allow for better and earlier control of asthma which reduces lung-damage and acute complications/hospitalizations, etc.

5. Linezolid (Name: Zyvox): Oral treatment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections of skin and soft tissues & pneumonia. This drug costs $1000 for 10 days of treatment. The only alternative is vancomycin which ain't working so great for MRSA these days. AND, vanco is intravenous only. Zyvox is oral--allows for early discharge. Pharm company provides drug FREE for patients who can't buy it.

6. I can't speak with any authority on the improvements in drugs to treat heme malignancies (leukemia & lymphoma). I do know Gleevec has made a huge dent in chronic myelogenous leukemia & lifespan.

These are the approvals for 2007. You can look at each year's:

http://www.centerwatch.com/patient/drugs/drugls07.html

They are not as many as people think. I think some have the opinion that drugs are just flying off companys' shelves. Many of these are reproduced in the list in more than one category. We haven't had a new antibiotic in about 3 years.

I'm not saying there's not corruption sometimes, or badness that goes on--as it does in any industry. BUt I don't think they deserve this Bad Rap.

This is just a partial answer, and I'm not answering for Phil. This is just my own conclusions from past research. I have done no research about this today. If I researched, I could find a few more.

Making up diseases so drugs can be sold for that "disease." Just one off the top of my head: RLS, or "restless leg syndrome." Just thought of another: the "diagnosis" of ADD in adults so they can be given something to conquer this horrid disease. Oh, and how about that one for shyness? Have mercy, aren't a lot of us shy? But that's not a disease, for crying out loud. Haven't seen any ads for that lately, so maybe they've yanked it.

Think of just one word: Heparin.

Heparin has been in the news quite a bit of late. I know that I would NOT want any of the stuff they've recalled stuck in my veins during heart surgery. Nor would I want to see it flushing an IV line of an infant.

Heparin is in the news quite a bit today. I believe there's a Congressional hearing. Maybe about all the people who've died as a result of having it stuck in their veins.

Why has it been so deadly? The first theory is that it was contaminated in China at a Chinese factory through the use of contaminated pig guts, and that it was probably cheaper to use the contaminated pig guts than the uncontaminated. Now just who wouldn't be tempted when faced with the prospect of all that profit? Actually, that little to-do may not have to do with Heparin, but it does have to do with some drug used fairly often by Americans.

The fact that presumably "American" companies have taken their manufacturing to China and other countries because it is so cheap just sort of rankles.

And as far as I know, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing this manufacturing, whether done in China or Cincinnati. That sort of rankles a little bit, too.

Another thing that rankles is that the FDA is charged with assuring the safety of drugs sold in the U.S. But the U.S. has had to hire gobs more people to sort of check these drugs out.

Who, pray tell, pays the FDA? China? Right.

I believe I heard on TV this morning that it would take over 800 years to check out all the drugs that need to be checked out for safety for Americans.

Most Americans have no idea how they are being stiffed, or how many times. And there are so many entities stiffing us that apparently we're getting used to it. Not I, said the little red hen.

Two things. First, it's not just the $ of research as compared to marketing but that the growth of marketing expenditures have been to market around the doctors to place pressure on them to prescribe them. I think that is unethical.

Second, Vioxx got in trouble because there were two separate sets of research data presented to the FDA that did not agree. The original set justified Vioxx as a specialty pain killer for people who are in such pain (arthritis) that no other drug is effective and it was approved as such. The second set presented data to justify prescribe Vioxx in order to prevent intestinal polyps. PREVENT POLYPS? First of all, how do diagnose anyone as being likely to develop polyps? Second, polyps are easily detected and removed in a colonoscopy. Considering the dubious original diagnosis and the very serious side effects, it's like dropping a nuclear bomb to prevent boll weavils. In the end, Vioxx was taken off of the market for having been improperly approved and the company sued for presenting bad contradictory studies.

The main reason pharma stocks have been in trouble ever since is because the FDA is finally doing its job of considering the side effects of new drugs who are presented for little reason other than to replace the lost profit margins of old drugs whose patents are expiring. Many new drugs are less effective than the old drugs and present more serious side effects but people want them and marketing directly to the public makes a doctor's job more difficult.

Granted, some of this stuff is subject to opinion but in an industry that has been phenomenally successful in the past in coming up with miracle cures (I grew up at a time when polio was fairly common e.g.), how do they keep growing when the majority of the population is no longer at risk of the multitude of diseases that have been eradicated? You make up new diseases, that's how. What got me started on this was when I was researching Rogain about 15 years ago and discovered that although it was significantly effective (whatever that means) in about 22% of cases, that most miracle of miracle of drugs, the placebo which is effective against everything, was effective about 16-18% (I forget) of the time. In other words, for about %50/mo., you were buying the a 3% chance that you might prolong the "going bald" period. At best, you look like you're going through chemo-therapy. I see ethics problems here. Same with Friggles' example with RLS.

As to 60% of children being medicated, you have a point. But still, these drugs were designed for and marketed to that purpose. Scary.

Leeches are being prescribed again. Excellent and cheap alternative to drugs and I hear they tickle when they do their work.

Great comments to both Shining City and Crawfish.

I was especially amused by your comment to Crawfish about leeches being put into use again. The first thing I thought of, however, after I got through laughing, was that if they're really effective, next we'll have drug companies making "knock-offs" so they can turn another buck. Just please don't let them go off to China to make them -- they'd probably be so full of lead that the drug companies would have to make up some drug to counter the effects. And I don't think that's cynical. I think it's entirely possible.

Thanks again.

Oh....Steech, if you only knew Frigglesnitz!!! You poor "man," you truly ARE ignorant. I ought to know...she's my mom!!!! Before you go judging people, you should do your homework, and then you may not look so....retarded. It truly takes an intelligent person to understand her writing, and it is apparent that you do not have any intelligence.

Have a wonderful day.

JERK

Look, I've no stake in any pharmaceutical industries, as I said in my own recent blog posting on pharmaceuticals, but I think generally you're demonizing a profession unduly.

I want to correct a couple of facts:
1. Restless leg syndrome for some individuals is a reality; it's not a hokey diagnosis, as you suggest. Sometimes it is overdiagnosed. But, as a condition, it is definitely associated with iron-deficiency anemia, and sometimes simple iron replacement corrects the problem. Othertimes RLS is associated with malignancy...even some other conditions. When severe and refractory, we use the drugs. They are based on the pharmacology of movement disorders (such as Parkinsons) and they affect the basal ganglia. Some patients have a complete change in their life as a result of these agents, so please don't be so quick to pronounce the drugs bad and the condition hokey.

Con't.

2. Leeches. We've been using leeches for a long time in wound care. Only recently, however, has the FDA gotten involved.

Friggs, you'll be glad to know that the biggest supplier of medical leeches is FRANCE (whoops! Decidedly NOT an American company!). The company that provides the leeches makes it clear (if you can read French) that they perform neuroimmunologic research, as well as market leeches, and they do so with the specific purpose of marketing pharmaceuticals.

My point: Nearly any company that markets biomedical products has some fingers in drug development. And we ALL, yes, you included, are beneficiaries of that.

Friggles, regarding heparin, there seems to be some issues with the Chinese manufacturer of a component of heparin having contaminated the drug supply on that particular import. You are alledging that Baxter intentionally did this, only at that particular manufacturing house in China because of: "Now just who wouldn't be tempted when faced with the prospect of all that profit?" This really doesn't make sense. If Baxter was going to do this, why do it in one plant all the way over there in China?? If they thought they could legitimately cut these corners, why wasn't it implicated in mass drug preparation at all Baxter manufacturing companies? The allegation that drug companies don't care about what happens to patients, caring more instead about the all-mighty dollar, ARE the same cries that liberals make. And it's unfounded, Friggles. You might not like to be compared that way, but that is how your allegations sound. You've branded all drug co's as a big, greedy, corporate business out there to just "stick it to" the little people who pay taxes and are at the "mercy" of the FDA. It just doesn't shake out that simply.

Phil, Vioxx was voluntarily withdrawn by Merck because of the emergence of data that the drug is associated with increased rate of cardiovascular events (stroke & MI) during their study on use of Vioxx to prevent polyps. Various lawsuits have alledged that Merck willfully withheld data on this in it's earlier arthritis studies & that they failed to put a label change on their product early enough to save lives....(as if these people would have quit taking the drug for their arthritis as a result).

I'm not saying there isn't covert stuff done sometimes. Maybe Merck did withhold this evidence; a few previously employed pharm researchers say they did. I'm not saying this is oK. I'm saying that the industry doesn't deserve the black eyes you guys are giving them as a result.

I just saw the comment by DS and I told him off! On his farewell blog or whatever you want to call it. If you can't say something nice...

New post on my blog, non-political.

Don't call you "Mr."?

Maybe you'd like pinko commie socialist anti-American better. I could apparently on this TH site have called you those things on this TH site and there would be nothing you could do about it except try to say you're not.

I have never demonized any individual on this venue since I began blogging here except for perhaps "Robert," before I wised up to his violently ignorant self.

I have never demonized you. I have never said I hate you who are involved in Big Pharma. I may resent Big Pharma's tactics, but I surely am not alone there. And they're not commies either.

Yes, you admit there are flaws in the system; however, I can't see many who would own up to them. B.P. does underhanded things to be able to sell more and more unnecessary drugs to people ignorant enough to buy them. "Well, my goodness, I haven't slept well the last couple of nights, so gimme a couple of those retread sleep meds so I can get a good night's sleep!"

PDrop it? Well, I had dropped TH for a whole month until out of the blue I got an e-mail that you'd made a comment to one of my blogs. That started it. I remember that a couple of months ago I had made some short and polite comment to a blog of yours, and there was no response. At that point I said to myself "just drop it." And I did.

And I had no idea your wife was involved in the industry until Sgt told me. But that doesn't matter. I don't care.

To be continued.

continued from preceding comment:

You would not have come off as the "bad guy" if you had not, completely out of the blue, called me anti-American, etc. I was astonished, to say the least. What's more, your comment had nothing to do with my blog post; in other words, the only person likely to see it was I.

I have never heard you repudiate the disreputable side of your industry. I'm from Missouri. Show me.

By the way, "I'm sorry I called you those despicable names" might go a long way. It's not something I expect to happen, however.

Comment continued:

You would not have come off as the "bad guy" if you had not, completely out of the blue, called me anti-American, etc. I was astonished, to say the least. What's more, your comment had nothing to do with my blog post; in other words, the only person likely to see it was I.

I have never heard you repudiate the disreputable side of your industry. I'm from Missouri. Show me.

By the way, "I'm sorry I called you those despicable names" might go a long way. It's not something I expect to happen, however.

I was in no mood to fool around much this morning. I was in a hurry to say what I said. I even double-commented.

Even then, I wasn't finished.

You said that we had made a truce about a year ago. That's not exactly what happened. What happened was that I was fed up to "here" with wasting my time trying to reason with you, at which point I wrote my last comment to you and said "I'm done." Your reply was (as close as I can remember) "I'm done, too." That's not exactly what I call a truce.

I have one more blog to write about this blessed business, and then I am finished finished finished, and we don't have a call a "truce." It will simply be over. You won't have to worry about getting your underwear in a twist reading anything I have to say. In fact, you don't need to read my last blog (which is still in its formative stage). But there will be others who will, just out of curiosity.

You have been at liberty to call me all kinds of names, falsely accuse me of calling you names, and there is but one thing that will stop all this bull forever: apologize for calling me commie, etc. You know very good and well that I'm no more a communist than Minnie Mouse.

Really, it is not so much that you have differing opinions of what Frigglesnitz believes to be true; it is the fact that you labeled her AND attacked her. And I do not appreciate that. NOBODY attacks her and doesn't hear about it from ME! She is very right. I will fight for her tooth and nail. You had no right to attack or label her, and if you do nothing more, I believe you owe ME an apology. As I said, I DO NOT appreciate your comments about her. One thing is true about dogs. They will sometimes attack out of fear. Its called fear-agression. Isn't that what you have shown all of us?
Yes, I do believe it is time to call a truce, but you need to make the first step.

The reason for that is that I am not hiding in any corners. I won't be accused of being afraid to speak my piece in public, as it were.

Thanks for stopping by my place. After reading these posts of yours, I think it's pretty safe to say you could have nothing but Red hair. You'll be added as a C.A.T.H.eter on a probationary basis.

And I'm not even THINKing of touching the pharmaceutical thing. Not my cup of tea.

You have enlightened me to Steech's problem, his wife is in the pharmaceutical industry and he's a broker, the latter I knew. Well, you might find this interesting. I was engaged to a doctor and he was constantly trying to be bribed by the pharmaceutical reps. They sent him on lavish trips all in the guise of a "seminar." One was to South Beach Miami at a 5 star hotel, he insisted that he pay for my airfare, but they picked up the tab for most everything else. The restaurants we ate at were some of the best I've been to. One featured Emeril as the chef. One night 'back home' we went to my favorite jazz artist and the dinner beforehand we had with 3 pharma reps and their spouses and on to the concert which had been 'sold out' for weeks. I later asked how we were able to get into the concert and found out the reps knew I liked jazz and bought our tickets and dinner. The doctor was never bought by these reps, he only used the drugs he truly believed in, they were wasting their time by trying to bribe him but we both knew another doctor that was bought all the time and still is. He owns a lear jet and a house on a very nice lake in OK. All perks from his kickbacks from pharms. So to say there isn't corruption in the big pharm is absurd! I have more...

When I was dating the doctor I was a compliance officer in a small investment banking firm, I had to make sure all the bonds that were traded were handled properly. I also had to see that our ten to twelve brokers were trading legally. That they weren't getting insider tips or GIVING them. It's very possible when you're married to someone in a large company that you could have "insider information" so I had to guard against what news they brought in each day. It was a grueling task to keep track of even that small of a number. I can't imagine how the larger companies do it.

Nothing illegal EVER happened on my watch. You have to have several licenses to be a compliance officer not just a 'series 7' which is what a broker has. If one of your brokers does something illegal on your watch, you run the risk of losing your license too. That is why it is a very important highly regulated industry through the NASD. But they are more monitored (we hope) than pharma reps. This is one reason that I decided NOT to become a pharm rep, I know too many doctors and they said I was too pure to taint myself with that industry!

I am in the process of getting my PA. My job before being 2nd to the President of the Investment Banking firm, was working in admin of a 51 doctor clinic where I handled the physicians' payroll. We had almost 400 employees at the clinic & I saw the same pharma corruption there, bribery, vouchers for meals to 5 star restaurants, trips to resorts, most of the doctors we had turned them down, but the offers were there. I also did physician recruiting.

As someone mentioned Restless Leg Syndrome - I have this condition, but I have found a very inexpensive drug to use for it. Mine stems from an inoperable tumor in near the basal ganglia area of my brain; they found it 13 years ago when I had 4 mos of vertigo. It has not diminished my IQ, I still test at 155, so I can function quite well. ;) It is stable and has been for years, they consider it benign; it only changed once which was almost 7 years ago due to a near fatal car wreck. I know the costs involved with medications; I never used to take one pill before that wreck! Anyway, that is just FYI. I think the pharma industry could allow generics on many drugs but they fight over patents and it costs the consumer, even those who would rather not take the darn stuff!