Pharmas Try to Do Something RIght
...after trying to rip us off first...
In the NY Times Business Day section there was an interesting article.
"Heart Pill To Be Sold By Itself"
Here is the story in a nutshell:
The outcome:
The article then quotes their President of Worldwide Development who confirms they have changed their strategy (post-criticism). Is this because their top scientist is a yo-yo head? No. This genius is quoted as saying "We didn't appreciate how this would be perceived." What the heck does that mean?
I will tell you what it means. It means that they tried to fool the American medical community but they did not think they would get caught. They did not "appreciate" how their irresponsible behavior would be "perceived." Did they expect a medal for trying to pull the wool over our eyes? I'll bake them a cake this week.
Two doctors quoted in the article seem commend the company for their strategy change action. The heck with that. You don't get credit when you do the obvious correct thing. You are just supposed to do it.
One doctor, who is doing a clinical study for them "lauded" them for its decision and said "[This company] is ALLOWING physicians to make intelligent choices for patients." Well excuuuuuuuse me. I thought doctors made intelligent choices for their patients for high level reasons and not because pharmaceutical companies ALLOWED them to.
I am sure we have our ethical priorities on ass-backward if we think pharmas ALLOW physicians to do anything. Physicians write for their drugs. Last year this particular pharma had sales of $51 billion dollars. I guess that using the same logic, they ALLOWED physicians to make them a gazillion dollars.
Listen, here is the bottom line. They are making a drug that may work. It may be the best thing since the invention of the PEZ dispenser. They tried to squeeze out more profits at the expense of patient health.
They got caught. Let me repeat that for the ethically challenged -- THEY GOT CAUGHT. They were forced to change. They changed. You don't get lauded for that. You should be smart enough to know right from wrong in the first place. Next time get your act together Pfizer and do the right thing from the start.
Parenthetically, I am personally on their statin drug. Next presciption I am changing to another statin. Now that I am ALLOWED to make intelligent choices this will be my first one.
Dr. K.
Related Topics: Panel: FDA Needs Drug Safety Reforms, Brand Rx Prices Rise Another 6.3%
Technorati Tags: torcetrapib, cholesterol, prescription drugs
In the NY Times Business Day section there was an interesting article.
"Heart Pill To Be Sold By Itself"
Here is the story in a nutshell:
- One of the big pharmas developed a new drug called torcetrapib
- This drug increases good cholesterol (HDL)
- The current heart drugs called statins (Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor) only lower bad cholesterol (LDL)
- Experts say this new drug that raises good cholesterol could be a great advance
- Torcetrapib is introduced to the public with the requirement that it must be prescribed in tandem with a statin drug made by the same company.
The outcome:
- Said pharmaceutical company gets its proverbial butt whooped in the medical and legal community
- Questions about antitrust issues arise
- Cardiologists complained
- The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine criticized their strategy in a long and prominent article.
- Pharma bows to the criticism and changes its strategy.
The article then quotes their President of Worldwide Development who confirms they have changed their strategy (post-criticism). Is this because their top scientist is a yo-yo head? No. This genius is quoted as saying "We didn't appreciate how this would be perceived." What the heck does that mean?
I will tell you what it means. It means that they tried to fool the American medical community but they did not think they would get caught. They did not "appreciate" how their irresponsible behavior would be "perceived." Did they expect a medal for trying to pull the wool over our eyes? I'll bake them a cake this week.
Two doctors quoted in the article seem commend the company for their strategy change action. The heck with that. You don't get credit when you do the obvious correct thing. You are just supposed to do it.
One doctor, who is doing a clinical study for them "lauded" them for its decision and said "[This company] is ALLOWING physicians to make intelligent choices for patients." Well excuuuuuuuse me. I thought doctors made intelligent choices for their patients for high level reasons and not because pharmaceutical companies ALLOWED them to.
I am sure we have our ethical priorities on ass-backward if we think pharmas ALLOW physicians to do anything. Physicians write for their drugs. Last year this particular pharma had sales of $51 billion dollars. I guess that using the same logic, they ALLOWED physicians to make them a gazillion dollars.
Listen, here is the bottom line. They are making a drug that may work. It may be the best thing since the invention of the PEZ dispenser. They tried to squeeze out more profits at the expense of patient health.
They got caught. Let me repeat that for the ethically challenged -- THEY GOT CAUGHT. They were forced to change. They changed. You don't get lauded for that. You should be smart enough to know right from wrong in the first place. Next time get your act together Pfizer and do the right thing from the start.
Parenthetically, I am personally on their statin drug. Next presciption I am changing to another statin. Now that I am ALLOWED to make intelligent choices this will be my first one.
Dr. K.
Related Topics: Panel: FDA Needs Drug Safety Reforms, Brand Rx Prices Rise Another 6.3%
Technorati Tags: torcetrapib, cholesterol, prescription drugs
2 Comments:
I agree that Pfizer tried to give Lipitor a new lease on profitable life by bundling it with torcetrapib. I'm equally unamused by BiDil's packaging of two relatively inexpensive substances as the latest and greatest thing for controlling blood pressure.
However, torcetrapib seems to now have an additional bit of baggage: I'm seeing reports that it can raise blood pressure as it's raising that "good cholesterol". What kind of scrambling can we predict now?
LF Velez
I found out about the ethics of drug companies first hand recently and yes, I was more than angry about the way that they treat people..
I was in one of the drug companies clinical trials..I FULLY participated because my med options had run out and I thought it would be a great opportunity after I had researched the drug that I would be trying..
I spent close to 2 years doing everything they required and/or requested of me..
After this trial was completed I knew that I had not recieved the full dose of the med and wanted to try it in the recommended dose for my disease..It had been approved for my disease by this time and when I asked for the recommended dose the company told me that I would have to pay for it and of course it was VERY expensive..
I have been in several clinical trials and the usual is that they will provide the med to their clinical trial patients free of charge if they complete the trial..
This was the 1st time that I was made to feel "unimportant" and as a guinea pig for a drug company..
If drug companies can use and put patients at risk to get their new drugs approved then it should also provide that drug to those patients at no cost if they know that you weren't given the recommended dosage during the trial..
These companies generally make millions of dollars on these new drugs so the people that helped them get there should be able to benefit in this small way..
Post a Comment