Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

medicalxpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#101

Post by tonymet »

vedtopkar wrote: post #100
tonymet wrote: post #73

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…

I think it's the difference between suspicion of the pharmaceutical vs the pharmaceutical company. You can criticize the company without criticizing the treatment.

can you explain that reasoning more? that makes no sense

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#102

Post by MrJohz »

Jensson wrote: post #57
arp242 wrote: post #7

> 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…

Imagine if doctors had to say if the drug company paid him to prescribe the drug when he prescribes a drug for you?

That seems like it would make sense though, wouldn't it? To it's important information that you, the patient, need to understand before you can make an informed decision about whether or not the medicine being given to you is the best option for you.

Otherwise you can't know if a recommendation from your doctor means they've genuinely considered all the options and chosen the best one, or just that one company paid them the most money.

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#103

Post by t-3 »

arp242 wrote: post #85
t-3 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why antibiotics resistance is a problem in many parts of the world. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are more of an agriculturally-induced problem than a non-farmer-human-induced problem. Almost all commercial livestock are pumped full of antibiotics to make them fat, according to estimates ~2x the amount of antibiotics are used for animals as for humans.

I'm just going by Wikipedia, but it's not clear to me that it's the reason for antibiotic resistance in humans, rather than a reason. Also, "livestock pumped full of antibiotics to make them fat" has been banned in the EU since 2006.

It's also supposed to be regulated in the US, but that hasn't reduced the use of them much.

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#104

Post by jlund-molfese »

arp242 wrote: post #98
nradov wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point. All of the data is right there.

Did you read that FTC page? Do you think it's compliant to just fill in something on some website? 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 somethin…

It’s a business opportunity! I’d love it if my insurance provider notified me about possible conflicts of interest from doctors as soon as they received bills from them

Bundle it with a service that lets me schedule doctors’ appointments without phone calls, and I’d pay for it out of pocket

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#105

Post by xboxnolifes »

tonymet wrote: post #101
vedtopkar wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the difference between suspicion of the pharmaceutical vs the pharmaceutical company. You can criticize the company without criticizing the treatment.

can you explain that reasoning more? that makes no sense

In this case of doctors being paid to endorse drugs, the problem is that there is payment being exchanged at all. The issue persists whether or not the drug is effective.

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#106

Post by shiroiushi »

123yawaworht456 wrote: post #53
DoreenMichele wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dream career was urban planning. We used to design walkable cities and now we design a world that is car centric. Designing exercise into our daily lives used to be part of the urban planning profession. Paris was redone to put a stop to health issues in overcrowded slums. Nutritional value of produce has gone down for decades while we strip mine our soils and try to make up for it with chemical fertilizers. I don…

cool story bro, but: 1. there are plenty of obese people in rural areas where they have all the walkable space they might desire 2. do you even know how little energy humans need to walk ? a single candy bar is enough for a three hour hike 3. pick a random chinese/japanese city, find a youtube video with visible crowds, and count the number of morbidly obese people you see. it would take you a while to find a single…

>1. there are plenty of obese people in rural areas where they have all the walkable space they might desire

No, they don't. Have you ever spent any significant time in rural American places? There's no place to walk at all, because:

1. everything is too far away for walking to actually be useful for going places, 2. there's no sidewalks even if you don't mind walking 2 hours to the nearest Walmart, and 3. there's no wild places to walk either, contrary to popular belief, because all the land is privately owned and "trespassing" is not allowed (and can get you shot).

Rural Americans can only walk places if: 1. they have a lot of land around their house, which granted is more affordable than in more urban places, or 2. they get in their vehicle and drive to a state or national park someplace and use the hiking trails there.

It's so weird how many people think rural America is some bucolic place that resembles the Shire of the hobbits, when in fact it's a car-bound hellscape even worse than the worst American car-centric city. It's not like the UK, where you have an absolute right to roam across rural lands.

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#107

Post by SilverBirch »

refurb wrote: post #71
chuckadams wrote: post #8

Doctors who fail to disclose an interest should lose their license. The SEC doesn't tolerate such shenanigans for finance, why should the FDA permit it for drugs?

Isn't the very fact a doctor is on social media saying how great a drug is a giant flashing sign that they are being paid to do it?

It's easy to imagine a stereotypical "When my patients find their pancreas swimming around in their fish tank, I recommend ACME Pancrease De-marination forceps". But the more important bit is the massive grey area. Let's say your kid plays with Bob's kid on their little league team, you've added each other on Facebook, you put out a post asking if anyone has any advice about your fish tank dwelling pancreas and bob chimes in because he's a doctor. Do you assume Bob is being paid then?

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#108

Post by SilverBirch »

destitude wrote: post #16

"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." - are there countries where this is illegal and/or never get paid for drug endorsements?

In the UK you can't advertise anything that needs a prescription from a doctor.

Re: Study shows most doctors endorsing drugs on X are paid to do so

#109

Post by refurb »

SilverBirch wrote: post #107
refurb wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the very fact a doctor is on social media saying how great a drug is a giant flashing sign that they are being paid to do it?

It's easy to imagine a stereotypical "When my patients find their pancreas swimming around in their fish tank, I recommend ACME Pancrease De-marination forceps". But the more important bit is the massive grey area. Let's say your kid plays with Bob's kid on their little league team, you've added each other on Facebook, you put out a post asking if anyone has any advice about your fish tank dwelling pancreas and bob c…

I assume 100% of people on social media are doing for other than altruistic reasons.

100%

Post reply on HN