91–100 of 121 posts
> The research team points out that while some may see the practice of being paid to endorse drugs as unethical, it is not illegal and does not affect licensing. Does the US have no transparency laws for this? As in: "if you promote a product, then you must disclose if you're paid for it"? Even for things like "sponsored posts" on Instagram this is required; e.g. from the FTC: "Do you work with brands to recommend or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that? Surely you mean without proper disclosure.
Because it conflicts with their duty to their patients. Patients should be able to trust their doctor and not have to look for fine print disclosures in the middle of receiving treatment which may or may not impair them cognitively or emotionally.
Some doctors don't even have patients. Some work in drug development itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe this you should vote for RFK Jr. He’s the only presidential candidate that has actually taken on industry. The VO has pledged to open up all the data in the FDA and CDC for transparency. We need this.
US Gov't FDA and CDC can already be FOI'd. Records from neither department will cover ongoing "bribery" of regular doctors by Pharma reps, so it's unclear how "we need this" to address that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s worth highlighting that Peter starts every podcast by stating that his conflicts of interest can be found on his disclosures page: https://peterattiamd.com/disclosures/ He’s done so since the start of his podcast. In checking, Dexcom is clearly listed as a company he advised during the period listed on Open Payments.
Right I guess this didn't require sleuthing. This does display how large the payments were tho, if that makes any difference to someone.
> The research team points out that while some may see the practice of being paid to endorse drugs as unethical, it is not illegal and does not affect licensing. Does the US have no transparency laws for this? As in: "if you promote a product, then you must disclose if you're paid for it"? Even for things like "sponsored posts" on Instagram this is required; e.g. from the FTC: "Do you work with brands to recommend or…
Yes, the US has transparency laws. You can find all the payments listed here. https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the US has transparency laws. You can find all the payments listed here. https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
To repeat: "Some Open Payments website seems incredibly untransparent, and wouldn't comply with the social media transparency requirements as I read that FTC page."
> The research team points out that while some may see the practice of being paid to endorse drugs as unethical, it is not illegal and does not affect licensing. Does the US have no transparency laws for this? As in: "if you promote a product, then you must disclose if you're paid for it"? Even for things like "sponsored posts" on Instagram this is required; e.g. from the FTC: "Do you work with brands to recommend or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To repeat: "Some Open Payments website seems incredibly untransparent, and wouldn't comply with the social media transparency requirements as I read that FTC page."
I don't understand your point. All of the data is right there.
So your argument is that the rules for Instagram tat are more strict than the rules for drugs? Maybe they are, I don't know. But seems rather undesirable, because how many people are going to look up some doctor's name in some website most people don't even know exists? This seems a classic "pretend to be doing something while not actually doing something" type of non-solution.
> The research team points out that while some may see the practice of being paid to endorse drugs as unethical, it is not illegal and does not affect licensing. Does the US have no transparency laws for this? As in: "if you promote a product, then you must disclose if you're paid for it"? Even for things like "sponsored posts" on Instagram this is required; e.g. from the FTC: "Do you work with brands to recommend or…
Social Media is only required to do that because of the EU. the US have no laws that require this.
I'm confused that people have at the same time deep suspicion and also unwavering trust of drugs companies, depending on the story. In most cases people are suspicious of pharma corruption & recklessness. Yet in a few contexts, for example with vaccines and psych meds , any criticism is deeply stigmatized. Critics are even slandered as backwards. Why the paradox? I think a healthy dose of suspicion all around is warr…