|

Practicing while under the influence of Pharma

(image courtesy of The Ethical Nag)

Just how much are physicians influenced by pharmaceutical reps bearing gifts? It’s a question recently posed in this report on Medscape, based on posts at a physician-only discussion group.

The original question seems simple enough: “Are you influenced by the ads on paper and pens?” It was asked by a family physician in a recent posting on Medscape’s Physician Connect (MPC).

What follows are several indignant responses from fellow physicians about how they could not be bought with coffee mugs or pens, “or any other gift worth only pennies at best.”

Others disagree, and the doctors debate the relative merit of the current system, with some of them acknowledging that they rely on Pharma for their continuing education:

Still other physicians argue that there is a benefit to having drug reps visit the office with samples and gifts. A urologist says, “Shutting your doors to the pharma world is limiting your exposure to new meds, new applications of old meds, and the changing patterns of insurance coverage.”

A general practitioner agrees, “How [else] would you make yourself aware of new drugs that have arrived on the scene? Read the ads in journals? Where would you get the details you need to know about the drug? How long would it take before you became aware of what’s new? When you have a question about a drug, if there were no samples and no package inserts to view, what resource would you use?”

The cost for this pharma-funded continuing education delivered to the front door of physicians’ practices?

Indeed, a meta-analysis published in JAMA in 2000 found that the estimated $8000-$13,000 spent per year on each physician does affect prescribing and professional behavior.[1] A small study published in the International Journal of Health Services in 2009 suggested that patients, too, are aware of the pharmaceutical gifts that doctors receive.[2] Furthermore, researchers found that patients’ approval of gifts was related to the perceived value of the gift to patients as well as its monetary value.

Eight to 13 thousand dollars, per physician, per year?   That’s a lot of pens and coffee mugs.

Articles like these reinforce for me that what is being called “health care” in the United States is nothing more than “medicine peddling”. Medical training for doctors is all about… well, medicine, which is not the same thing as health. So why are doctors referred to as “health care providers” when their training and practice is so limited and narrow?

If you need a drug, visit your doctor. If you need help improving your health, find a healer. Hint: they are not listed in your “health” insurance provider directory.

Wait... there's more!

  • 97

    97. That’s my latest CD4+ count, less than half the count from six weeks ago.

    That’s it. I have tried as many alternative treatments as I can think of to reverse the decline. I will be starting my third round of pharmaceutical ARVs as soon as I can get a prescription and fill it.

    This decision has been a long time coming, and in hindsight, I probably should have restarted a few months ago. There’s nothing magical about 97, or being below 100, but it’s as good a breaking point as any. I’ve long argued that there are two things to keep in mind about CD4 counts: one is the long-term trend; the other is single- or low double-digit counts.

  • Reduce AIDS drug toxicity and side effects

    I embarked on my third course of ARVs since 1998. For ten of the sixteen years I have been HIV-positive, I was able to manage well enough without ARVs and I continue to believe there is no reason for otherwise healthy HIV-positive—let alone negative—gay men to take these drugs. To those who want to wave a recent study about the benefits of early intervention in my face, I would ask them why they put so much faith in a science that has utterly failed us to date.

  • The truth about Truvada: PrEP won’t stop AIDS

    I’m willing to grant that gay men are entitled to use PrEP… provided they have access to all the information they need to make an informed decision. Informed consent has been a hallmark of the HIV and AIDS research and prevention efforts for three decades, and that shouldn’t be waived for the campaign favoring PrEP.

    Gay men deserve to know that all the claims for Truvada reducing the risk of acquiring HIV-positivity  are based on trials—funded by Gilead—that emphasized the importance of using condoms…

  • Confessions of a heretic AIDS dissident

    You might not know it from reading the comments left here on my blog, but there are more than a few AIDS dissidents who really don’t like how I think or what I write about.

    There’s a whole thread on a very popular Facebook page called “Rethinking AIDS”, discussing my open letter to Dora. Last I looked, that thread had nearly 100 comments, and very few of those comments were about Dora, Ruggiero or the defense of academic freedom.

    No, the gist of the thread was whether or not I am in “the AIDS Zone.” It seems that because I did not use “air quotes” around the term “HIV disease”, I’m not really an AIDS dissident. Others took issue with my post for daring to publish that some AIDS Rethinkers hold a very narrow view about “HIV” and “AIDS”, while others of us are merely “questioning” the whole affair. None of them chose to comment directly to me here.

    Some of the most visible and vocal Rethinkers seem intent on imposing their own “beliefs” (another loaded term that deserves quotes) on the entire movement. There has long been a tendency to try to impose a sort of litmus test to determine whether or not one is a true “AIDS dissident”.

    Since I first met the AIDS dissident community via the AIDS Myth Exposed forums—since renamed Questioning AIDS—several years ago, I’ve become aware of several of the various factions, distinctive personalities and divisions within that broad group. Now I’m finding it ironic just how guilty some of these people are at their own version of “bone-pointing”.

One Comment

  1. Worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb while they learned DDI killed 7% of population with or WITHOUT HIV. Was the person that received the clinical data for Dr. Hirome Okabe (in Princeton BMS) from the Phase One toxicity studies done in Tokyo and other parts of Japan and Asia. All control groups studied reported 7% death due to ACUTE PANCREATITIS…AGAIN…with or without HIV. Do the Math…it only took 3-4 million tests…a percentage of that to be told HIV positive…to then take AZT & DDI…and what do you get? The amount of people who died in the first supposed 5 years…literally equals the total reported death statistic. I should have made copies to distribute, but never imagined it would happen the way it did. DDI was 2nd most prescribed up to just a few years ago. The Gay Activists then were marching in the streets daily to get the FDA to loosen their approval methods…to lead to Post-Consumer Testing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *