In articles about ccsvi, the media makes note of MSers decrying their neuros as being in the pocket of an enormous pharmaceutical cabal.
They say it the way they do to ridicule our beliefs. But I think it is ridiculous to assume that the pharmaceutical companies outreach to doctors, 'hot babe' pharma sales reps, and financial support of doctor's research on an enormous scale would NOT buy some influence. OF COURSE they are influenced. Why else would the pharma companies be bothering?
I was a med rep...and I'm also female. Hot rep? not really:-)
Doctors here in the UK are told what they can and can't prescribe by their local primary care trusts. So no matter how 'hot' a rep their influence is moot as far as prescribing goes.
What med reps are good at is using medical info to pass on a medical message that the company wants to pass on their customer base. In this case customers are doctors, so we can assume a certain amount of intelligence..right?
The point I am making is that the influence is limited, its not all encompassing. Companies are bothering with it because it acclerates sales..if the product is GOOD. If it's rubbish then the rep and doctor know it. Sympathy sales are not that common this side of the pond-I think your from the states?
In the case of MS, where you have doctors who are already sceptical/hostile to CCSVI, how much work do you think a rep does to re-affirm these ideas? I can tell you now the answer is not much if its even brought up in discussions.