111–120 of 121 posts
Every large pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer has been busted for kickbacks and have mandatory internal training as part of the punishment to prevent it, yet it still happens.
If you try to bring a product to market and are looking for feedback and an endorsement, doctors will openly hint of receiving compensation for the endorsement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I agree, but i take it that this isn't about advertising to patients, but the general public. Some doctors don't even have patients. Some work in drug development itself.
You can tell because one has a clear conflict of interest and one does not.
> 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How much we trust the drugs rests entirely on how much we trust the industry
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Rural areas are much less walkable since stuff are so far away, and thus are significantly fatter than walkable areas. When it is easy to walk to places you need to go to people often walk, and such areas have much less obesity.
Walking 1/4 mile to a coffee shop every day won't make people skinny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can be FOIA'd, for all the good that will do you. They apparently have, according to the news, employees dedicated to deleting records before they can be FOIA'd, they use burner phones and private email accounts, and when caught the agency boss will say "I don't know who my personal assistant was working for when he did that" in front of Congress. And get away with it. In a matter that regarded some two million…
and how, exactly, does any of that have any bearing on > Drug company employees who attempt to bribe a doctor in the context of non US Government Pharma companies paying non Government doctors to spruik drugs on twitter and by prescription?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and how, exactly, does any of that have any bearing on > Drug company employees who attempt to bribe a doctor in the context of non US Government Pharma companies paying non Government doctors to spruik drugs on twitter and by prescription?
Because a huge part of the regulatory agencies’ monies comes from royalty payments from the companies they’re supposed to be managing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for a very long time. The current prescription opioid crisis is for the millions of patients in pain unable to get any pain meds (ex: ibupofen following surgery).
>The current prescription opioid crisis is for the millions of patients in pain unable to get any pain med as a person with a dear family member who is addicted to opiates and watches their compulsive behavior of going from new doctor to new doctor for prescriptions and samples I suggest there is more than one 'opioid crisis' unfolding.
I qualified it as the prescription opioid crisis. It gets conflated with the current fentanyl crisis. But the pill mill crisis peaked decades ago and waned not long after.
Fentanyl overdose cases now include people who hadn't even been born when pill mills were the driver. Yet, the association continues.
For nearly as long, we've had Dr's who serially refuse to prescribe pain relief, for fear of risking their license. Compounding that are draconian state laws, some so extreme they limit pain meds to 3 days max.
For over a decade, chronic pain patients
...as in, people I know
...as in people who once managed their pain and lived their lives, now they don't.
Instead, people I know obtain pain relief (what little they can manage) illegally because it is the only viable option left to them.
This is not hyperbole. This is their reality. Right now.
A few, blessedly, are helped by Kratom. Which is more than nothing. Sometimes a lot more.
Unfortunately, lawmakers are also learning of Kratom. I'm already hearing pols testing some fear-generating rhetoric about it. If they can inject the problem then they get to supply the solution. Which will be a ban. It's always a ban.
No matter the collateral damage.