| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HarryZ
Family Elder
Joined: May 26, 2004
Posts: 1383
Location: London, ON, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marcstck
Family Member
Joined: Jan 04, 2006
Posts: 84
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Well, that's a start. I've often wondered why payola is illegal in the music industry, but is considered business as usual within the medical establishment. The fact that doctors wind up on the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs they hawk is scandalous... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nemotoday
Family Member
Joined: May 22, 2004
Posts: 64
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: FDA Etc |
|
|
Long, long overdue and I hope that Europe follow suit as well.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyon
Family Elder
Joined: May 04, 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Mid-Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wish I knew more about the whole process because on one hand I think allowing any loopholes and allowing researchers even the $50,000 is too lax.
On the other hand, I don't want to risk hindering new treatment availability or increase the time before they become available.
Bob
_________________
Wife diagnosed with RRMS in Feb. 2006. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dignan
Family Elder
Joined: Aug 12, 2004
Posts: 1212
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyon
Family Elder
Joined: May 04, 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Mid-Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dignan wrote: | | My part-time job as devil's advocate impels me to post a link making a case for the other side of the argument. I'm not sure where I stand, but I don't really think it's all that simple once I read both sides... |
Thanks dignan, sounds like we're going to have plenty of time to form an opinion!
Bob
_________________
Wife diagnosed with RRMS in Feb. 2006. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HarryZ
Family Elder
Joined: May 26, 2004
Posts: 1383
Location: London, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dignan wrote: | | My part-time job as devil's advocate impels me to post a link making a case for the other side of the argument. I'm not sure where I stand, but I don't really think it's all that simple once I read both sides... |
Big pharma has survived and become very large, rich and influential over the years regardless of what rules they are given by the FDA or other government regulators. If they aren't allowed to give someone more than $ 50,000 to "preach" how wonderful a new drug is, they will find a way to get around that and insure their spokesperson is compensated.
Big money has always managed to overcome rules and when you look at the possible revenue that a drug company has in its sights with a new medication, you can bet the right thing is said by the right person and the right time.
These new rules proposed for the FDA will make it a bit more difficult for big pharma but I'm sure they are already thinking of ways to circumvent them.
Harry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
