9 ms·

"Its not really the advertising that is a problem. " Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Sickness-Pharmaceutical-Companies-Patients/dp/156025856X htt

"Its not really the advertising that is a problem. " Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Sickness-Pharmaceutical-Companies-Patients/dp/156025856X http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Sickness-Pharmaceutical-Compan... It is an advertising problem. Big pharma makes massive profits, so you can't cite profits as a source of justification for advertising drugs to people who don't need them. Maybe you should have taken 30 seconds to google GSK's profits last year, or AstraZeneca who had a bad year last year but still make 2 BILLION dollars. It goes beyond selling drugs to people who don't need them though, they over exaggerate and create new attractive names for illnesses. "Social Anxiety", for example, is not a thing. It's actually called "Social Phobia". A research study showed that marketing "Social Anxiety" yielded a more positive result, so big pharma called it just that. I'll leave you to figure out how much big pharma made off of that little stunt.

refurb 14y ago
Two billion dollars on how much revenue? What are their capital investments? You have to remember pharma has laid off over 100,000 employees in the last few years due to a lack of new products. I know a lot of people don't like drug advertizing, but you do realize that it gets a lot of people to their doctors talking about their health right? And it's not like a patient can prescribe a drug for themselves, its the doctor who ultimately decides which treatment to pursue.
- richardlblair 14y ago
  "And it's not like a patient can prescribe a drug for themselves, its the doctor who ultimately decides which treatment to pursue." Clearly you don't know very many people in the health field. If a patient comes in asking for a specific medication, most doctors will just prescribe that medication assuming the person is suffering from the illness required for the medication. Where do they get the information for making a diagnosis? Don't worry, Big Pharma will host an info session or hand out pamphlets so that doctors know what to look for... It may be a conversation, but it's the wrong one. Big pharma is notorious for increasing the potential number of patients for an illness by putting out advertisements that widen the net for the given illness. Social Anxiety is great example here, as is ADD. 5% of children in the US are diagnosed with ADD, only 0.5% are diagnosed with ADD in france. The issue of ADD specifically goes beyond just advertisements; it speaks to the fact that drug reps have a real impact on the treatment options doctors present. In France if a child is having a tough time concentrating in school the find the root of the problem, in the US they throw meds at the kid and shove him out the door. The marketing strategies of big pharma are nothing but pure evil. Get people on more meds, to make more money next quarter.
  - refurb 14y ago
    If a doctor is prescribing a medication because the patient asked for it, the doctor isn't doing their job. I was talking to an oncologist the other day and he thought the patient education/advertising was great. Patients who would put off coming to him, make an appointment because a drug company made them aware that their symptoms may be a sign of a more serious disease. Also, he has patients coming to him saying "Hey, I just heard about this new cancer drug, is it the right one for me?" He thinks the more you can get patients involved in their own health, the better. Are there doctors who are too lazy to push back on a patient that demands a prescription? Of course. Look at how many patients with viral diseases get antibiotics. Are you going to blame the pharma companies for that as well?
    - richardlblair 14y ago
      Patients being involved in their health, and in their health care is very important. What is more important is where they get that information. If the information is coming from big pharma it isn't informing patients, it's selling patients by making them think they have something that they don't. Additionally, big pharma has had a massive impact on how we identify illnesses. The DSM is a great example of this. The more diseases we can convince people they have the more drugs we can sell them. The issue is especially true for mental illness where they continue to push the definitions of illnesses so broad that everyone has a mental illness. Read the book I recommended. Seriously, it's a great and easy read. If you are all about patient education, then you need to understand the full picture.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      Depends on how you define the job of the doctor. In a for-profit context, is the job of the doctor to maximize revenues? Or long-term patient health? In a customer service context, the customer is always right, after all. And that's not even counting the doctors who get paid to manipulate other doctors and their prescription habits. I am perfectly happy to blame pharma companies for the "everything should be solved with a pill" notion. After all, that's what the advertising tells both patients and doctors. One of the major goals of advertising is demand generation. I will also blame consumers for falling for it, of course. And for having the weaknesses of character that advertising exploits. But I'm more willing to forgive the consumers, in that pharmaceutical companies are professional manipulators, while the consumers are amateur defenders against manipulation.
protomyth 14y ago
I can read their financials[1] along with their competitor[2]. As well, I can see their R&D budget and pipeline table. What would have been acceptable profits for them? 1) http://www.astrazeneca.com/Investors/financial-information/Financial-results/2012 http://www.astrazeneca.com/Investors/financial-information/F... http://www.astrazeneca.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3DPress-release.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1285641816841&ssbinary=true http://www.astrazeneca.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&... 2) http://www.mercknewsroom.com/press-release/corporate-news/merck-announces-full-year-and-fourth-quarter-2012-financial-results http://www.mercknewsroom.com/press-release/corporate-news/me...

refurb 14y ago

Two billion dollars on how much revenue? What are their capital investments? You have to remember pharma has laid off over 100,000 employees in the last few years due to a lack of new products. I know a lot of people don't like drug advertizing, but you do realize that it gets a lot of people to their doctors talking about their health right? And it's not like a patient can prescribe a drug for themselves, its the doctor who ultimately decides which treatment to pursue.

richardlblair 14y ago
"And it's not like a patient can prescribe a drug for themselves, its the doctor who ultimately decides which treatment to pursue." Clearly you don't know very many people in the health field. If a patient comes in asking for a specific medication, most doctors will just prescribe that medication assuming the person is suffering from the illness required for the medication. Where do they get the information for making a diagnosis? Don't worry, Big Pharma will host an info session or hand out pamphlets so that doctors know what to look for... It may be a conversation, but it's the wrong one. Big pharma is notorious for increasing the potential number of patients for an illness by putting out advertisements that widen the net for the given illness. Social Anxiety is great example here, as is ADD. 5% of children in the US are diagnosed with ADD, only 0.5% are diagnosed with ADD in france. The issue of ADD specifically goes beyond just advertisements; it speaks to the fact that drug reps have a real impact on the treatment options doctors present. In France if a child is having a tough time concentrating in school the find the root of the problem, in the US they throw meds at the kid and shove him out the door. The marketing strategies of big pharma are nothing but pure evil. Get people on more meds, to make more money next quarter.
- refurb 14y ago
  If a doctor is prescribing a medication because the patient asked for it, the doctor isn't doing their job. I was talking to an oncologist the other day and he thought the patient education/advertising was great. Patients who would put off coming to him, make an appointment because a drug company made them aware that their symptoms may be a sign of a more serious disease. Also, he has patients coming to him saying "Hey, I just heard about this new cancer drug, is it the right one for me?" He thinks the more you can get patients involved in their own health, the better. Are there doctors who are too lazy to push back on a patient that demands a prescription? Of course. Look at how many patients with viral diseases get antibiotics. Are you going to blame the pharma companies for that as well?
  - richardlblair 14y ago
    Patients being involved in their health, and in their health care is very important. What is more important is where they get that information. If the information is coming from big pharma it isn't informing patients, it's selling patients by making them think they have something that they don't. Additionally, big pharma has had a massive impact on how we identify illnesses. The DSM is a great example of this. The more diseases we can convince people they have the more drugs we can sell them. The issue is especially true for mental illness where they continue to push the definitions of illnesses so broad that everyone has a mental illness. Read the book I recommended. Seriously, it's a great and easy read. If you are all about patient education, then you need to understand the full picture.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Depends on how you define the job of the doctor. In a for-profit context, is the job of the doctor to maximize revenues? Or long-term patient health? In a customer service context, the customer is always right, after all. And that's not even counting the doctors who get paid to manipulate other doctors and their prescription habits. I am perfectly happy to blame pharma companies for the "everything should be solved with a pill" notion. After all, that's what the advertising tells both patients and doctors. One of the major goals of advertising is demand generation. I will also blame consumers for falling for it, of course. And for having the weaknesses of character that advertising exploits. But I'm more willing to forgive the consumers, in that pharmaceutical companies are professional manipulators, while the consumers are amateur defenders against manipulation.

protomyth 14y ago

I can read their financials[1] along with their competitor[2]. As well, I can see their R&D budget and pipeline table. What would have been acceptable profits for them? 1) http://www.astrazeneca.com/Investors/financial-information/Financial-results/2012 http://www.astrazeneca.com/Investors/financial-information/F... http://www.astrazeneca.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3DPress-release.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1285641816841&ssbinary=true http://www.astrazeneca.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&... 2) http://www.mercknewsroom.com/press-release/corporate-news/merck-announces-full-year-and-fourth-quarter-2012-financial-results http://www.mercknewsroom.com/press-release/corporate-news/me...