Big Pharma, Real People, Phony Website?

Dear Ed,

Thanks for the Christmas present! Certainly an entertaining read, although I don't think Big Pharma would want Objectivists making laws. I think the expectations and enforcement of transparency and truth in marketing, along with the lack of an FDA to enforce their oligopoly, would cause Big Pharma fits (just look at how they wanted the FDA to bully the drug compounding pharmacies).

Still, great fun.

What's the big deal? The First Amendment is still in place, as far as I can remember. I have absolutely no problem with people putting other perspectives on the table. People can then dissect what they hear and come to their own conclusions.

And James - as a former IV compounding pharmacist - genentech is on the right track. I unfortunately can see the future and when something is contaminated at the pharmacy and someone loses their eye we will see the lawsuit that the doc was doing this to make more money. You see instead of this savings going to save the patient or insurance money, the patient gets billed for a full vial. This vial is used on multiple patients. So you can bill 10 vials by buying 1. Do you feel better that your local Hummer driving opthamologist is doing a little better? Maybe they split the excess profits with the compounding pharmacy, so your local compounding pharmacist can get himself something nice for Christmans.

At least they tried and hopefully any litigation will be directed at the practitioner and not the manufacturer.

Glad to see that pharma's problems are now all the fault of gov regulation and interference. It was getting hot in the hellholes.

Indeed. It if were not for government regulation and "interference" - like Hatch/Waxman, Bayh/Dohl, etc. - there would not be a pharmaceutical industry.

TOdd,

You truly are a Jack of all Trades aren't you!!..

You Guys are up awfully late tonight..

Ed,

Yes the political views might match, but don't you also think that the fact he is an OB/GYN means more to the association between this site and Ron Paul. As a healthcare guy in the industry I certainly support Ron Paul for that reason - although I am sane enough to realize his days in this race are numbered.

I think it is safe to say in the medical/pharma field there are many more Ron Paul supporters than for Hilary/Obama combined.

Not to turn this discussion into politics - we have enough arguements on this site without bringing that in, but I think that gets a stronger connection to the industry.

Lisa, I have done it all in healthcare. Great career, great life, much knowledge accumulated.

Started 3 medical practices/businesses, started and sold my own PBM built from the ground up (this is where honestly, the real $$$ are at, but no one is looking here yet!), built a consultant group, and now I am an industry type.

I have seen everything from all angles so I have a little more perspective on some issues than others.

"I think it is safe to say in the medical/pharma field there are many more Ron Paul supporters than for Hilary/Obama combined."

Is this a serious statement? I work in the midst of Pfizerpfolk (scientists). The majority are either Dems (all over that map) or McCain and a few Gulies. I haven't met one for RP yet. Well, until tonight.

Different strokes.

TOdd,

Are you aware that Ron Paul is against Federal Funding of Mental Health Treatment, and Teenscreen in Kids?

TOdd,

You have a great Imagination,..I have to grant you that one!!..

Just checked the opensecrets.org site (campaign contributions). Here is the top-15 list by candidate from the pharm industry for 2008. Of course, this is money from the comapanies and pacs; unclear how that would relate to individual employee preferences. And contributions themselves are more complicated than "preferences" in any simple sense.

Overall, for 2008 candidate, pharma has given 51% to Dems and 49% to Reps.

1 Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $274,436 2 Obama, Barack (D) Pres $266,384 3 Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $260,535 4 Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $139,164 5 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) Pres $138,850 6 Ferguson, Mike (R-NJ) House $118,600 7 Coleman, Norm (R-MN) Senate $112,278 8 Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) House $112,100 9 Dingell, John D (D-MI) House $104,086 10 Specter, Arlen (R-PA) Senate $90,750 11 Dodd, Christopher J (D) Pres $89,400 12 Clyburn, James E (D-SC) House $84,884 13 McCain, John (R) Pres $74,300 14 Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Senate $66,882 15 Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) House $62,750

Hi Todd,

Honestly, I have no idea about that connection with Ron Paul. If I had to guess, I would say the ad is there for ideological reasons first and foremost. Maybe if we knew more about who is running the site it would be more obvious. Shrug.

Cheers ed

Disbelief,

Im a constituant of Mike Ferguson (who by the way was#2 behind Bush in 2004 as far as Pharma Dollars are concerned)

It was Mike who spear headed the Congressional Hearings on antidepresants in children, In the end,..Its about Moral Responsibilty,..Mike's got that!!. Its a Shame he has resigned!!

Ed,

I met w/ Ron Paul's Staff in DC during the Med Guide Hearing, and this appears not to be accurate. Legislation he has introduced over the last few years may dispute what is being posted

Ed,

Im going to forward this to Ron Paul's Staff, I dont believe they are aware of this.

Disbelief,

I guess that was my feeling on the people I touch. I am regionally based - not in NJ thank goodness (no offense east coasters). Most of the people I see and talk to on a daily basis are private practice physicians. They respect that RP is a doc and would defend their interests. Especially in light of all the changes coming in healthcare at some point. So from a donation point or even a home office basisi you certainly could be correct. I will certainly cede that I do not have the knowledge base on that one. But from a ground level medical practitioner level RP is the favorite I hear about

TOdd,

East Coast,..Nevada Maybe...

TOdd

Merry Christmas!!!..

Yeah, as far as donations, the numbers speak for themselves.

The Dem/Rep balance changed just before the '06 elections when it was clear Dems were going to take the House and possibly the Senate. So this moolah is not exactly based on personal conviction. Prior to then, it had been close to 70/30 Rep/Dem since Gingrich in the mid-90s.

I do look forward to learning where this group comes from. Of course, it's possible it just 'sprang up.' But it would be the first time I've ever seen that if it did!

BTW, I'm actually "Hank," the guy you kicked in the butt earlier today. Decided to go "under cover" since I'm more interested in discussion than butt-kicking. And I really do know a lot of Pfizer Pfolk!

p.s. But I confess I took personal pleasure when you talked about the limits of your "knowledge base"! Nobody's poifect.

Disbelief,

May I ask, who you are speaking to?...

Lisa, if you don't think my credentials match I can actually live with that. But since you are an investigator I will give you a few hints.

Look a number of years back for a private PBM with about 9 million members sold to a BCBS plan. Then look up the owner, then tell me if they match up.

Or if you really do some digging, look to find at a state college - where there is a professor who is an associate (i.e. very part time) professor in the college of dentistry, medicine, and pharmacy.

If you can find me you can do some digging - but I can't imagine anyone cares that much.

Anyway, good night all and have a safe Christmas and New Year's. I have to get back to my imaginary bed and family.

TOdd,

Good Night,...Sweet dreams, and Merry Christams to You and Your Family, Happy New Year...

Dentistry... that explains it.

Best to Ed's short people and the whole gang on this shortest night of the year. From now on, we will have more light to shed on whatever comes down the pike (as they say in Rockville at our favorite agency).

Peace on earth (or wherever you can find it), and to all - truly! - a great night!

Thanks, Hank.

And good night, everyone.

ed at Pharmalot

Thanks for alerting me to that web site! I love it -- finally a web site that is on my side!

At our local Pfizer facility, they had a program called "Pharmacodiplomacy" a couple of years ago. Apparently, employees were having difficulties when they introduced themselves as working for the indutry. No doubt they did, indeed, get rude and uninformed questions. And some that were not.

The company invited "average citizens" to come in and take part in the program. Essentially, the ACs got to pose their toughest questions to the Pfizer employees, and the latter got experience responding to them. I myself got to be one of the ACS, which was interesting in a hundred ways. (BTW, ACs were paid to participate, but, of course, one could turn that down, make it a charitable donation, etc.).

This new organization appears to have moved beyond "pharmacodiplomacy."

This is very entertaining, although it will have a limited shelf life, because it doesn't invite audience participation (one may not comment on the "articles" that are posted). It's an extremely dull discussion, when it's so one-sided.

Anyway, while most of the commentary was hypocritical, or at least easily rebutted, I thought that this little gem, from David Catania's "bio," was delightful:

"I am a Washington Lawyer whose sole purpose is to invent solutions to problems that don’t exist."

Riiiiiiiiight. ADHD, anyone? Social anxiety disorder, anyone? Anyhoo...

Matt

TOdd, I wasn't referring to the Genentech issue. And I really don't care what my ophthalmologist drives--he's earned his money, and if he's doing his job, why should I care? I'm also surprised to see you engaging in LVS-style class warfare.

I was referring to the effort earlier this year and last by the FDA to impose cGMP on compounders, and the support by Big Pharma of that regulation. For Big Pharma to support the government in regulation of their very small-time competition while trying to find ways around being regulated themselves certainly doesn't fit within an Objectivist worldview.

If I may, I would like to add to the discussion. The effort earlier this year, the Safe Drug Compounding Act of 2007 was first, a discussion draft, and second, was intended to address those compounding pharmacies who illegally manufacture 'under the guise of traditional pharmacy compounding'. Many companies (i.e.Lincare, Rotech, CCS Medical) manufactured nebulizer medications under the guise of compounding; thereby skipping manufacturing practices intended to protect patients.

Illegal manufacturing is not limited to nebulizer medications as evidenced by the recent Apothecure Pharmacy indictment in Texas where three people died.

Unfortunately no discussion ever occurred regarding this draft bill as those who oppose any restraints on their 'right to compound' provided misinformation to the patient and pharmacist community about the bill's intent.

Until Congress steps forward and clears this issue up, these companies continue to expose patients to unnecessary risks.

Without federal legislation to regulate this new growing industry of "mini-drug companies" who hide under the good name of compounding pharmacy, patient safety continues to be in second place after pharmacy company profits.

Sandra, what leads you to conclude that a lack of gov't regulation = a lack of safety? Indeed, if pharmacies want to continue to make a profit in this highly litigous and regulatory society, wouldn't it stand to reason that they should be making safe products?

Further, though you did not state it, it is at least implicit in your reasoning that gov't regulation does = safety. Given the frequency of recalls and product failures, as well as the current environment, in which the FDA issues 483s/warning letters but only occasionally imposes actual punishment, and often not until years after the initial violations, what evidence to you have to indicate that all this FDA regulation actually makes any difference vis-a-vis manufacturing safety?

Indeed, who is to say that a voluntary, industry standards program a'la the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval would not be a more effective method for achieving manufacturing safety?

James,

If you want to have a discussion with TOdd, address it to him, and keep me out of it.

Peace on Earth, Good will toward Man...

For James - What evidence do you have that gov't regulation does _not_ increase safety.

Here are some of the reasons (all discussable, of course) that suggest it does:

1. That is what Alan Goldhammer said - PhRMA executive VP for gov't relations - when he testified before the IOM on safety in 2005. BTW, he said the same thing about the impact of product liability suits. Always good to get it from the horse's mouth.

2. In 1995, when Gingrich & Co., backed by the usual folks(CEI, WLF, et. al.) tried to create exactly the sort of system you suggest - "voluntary" - even the industry mostly balked. FDA approval _was_ the Good Housekeeping seal.

Perhaps most important, it reinforced the science cohort in industry who, overall, have been the stalwarts on safety.

3. Re: impact on safety, look at the FDA under Goddard, not the leadership crew we have now. It suggests what is possible.

4. The "think tanks" that have fought regulation most vociferously have been heavily funded by "family foundations" like the thalidomide heirs, big tobacco, and fellow travelers. When I think about safety, they're not who first comes to mind.

5. And, yeah, I've seen the "studies" that purport to show otherwise, particularly re: litigation and safety. Here, it comes down to which statistics, of which "damn liars," you're inclined to believe. It's econ at its speculative worst.

Hank, the supports for your argument do nothing to illustrate that government regulation makes drugs safer. You are merely showing that Big Pharma wants regulation as it exists. The regulations in place, specifically GMPs, benefit Big Pharma by a) having very little actual teeth in practice, and b) serving to keep smaller players from making large leaps in the marketplace. This, again, is the reasons why, imho, Big Pharma supported the application of GMPs to compounders.

In the event you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, Hank, I recommend doing so. In the book, some businesspeople supported being regulated because it meant they did not have to compete in the marketplace--it kept the rich and powerful rich and powerful. Less regulation often = greater competition.

Which goes back to my original thesis--Big Pharma would not want Objectivists making the rules.

James,

"...Which goes back to my original thesis–Big Pharma would not want Objectivists making the rules."

What the Worshipful Company (my nickname for the pharmaceutical industry) doesn't want is anybody, irrespective of who or what they are, enforcing the rules that are already there. The stuff that goes down goes down because there is a culture of blind eye in operation at pretty much every level, as far as I can see, but certainly when it comes to regulation.

There is sufficient legislation to undermine the quackery that passes as science, but nobody appears to be interested in enforcing it.

Matt

Wow. Some of these threads sitting around the living room like opened toys. That's good! Merry X'Mas, everyone.

James, if you're out there - I agree that Conglomerate (let's call them that, rather than "Big") Pharma likes regulation when they can control it. That is the situation today, as it has been at least since Kessler, and really before that. Again, I refer you to the Goddard era to suggest a different version of the relationship between FDA and pharma (small and large). In those days, you could see a much clearer differntiation between those companies that were _both_ highly competitive and also highly committed to rational safety standards (reinforced by FDA), and those who were not.

They believed, as you suggest, that the the good guys would also do better in the market, and they didn't mind the FDA policing the others - for ethical as well as financial interests.

In more recent years, what's been interesting is to see former radical deregulators become "agency rules" (preemptors) once they can control the agency. I hope their godfather Milton Friedman, if not Ayn Rand, would turn in his grave. But I'm not sure he/they would.

.

BigPharmaRealPeople...

It wouldn't be run by Peter Pitts - drugwonks.com - a real person, former FDA man and possibly the last utterly gullible human being on earth who remains convinced that Big Pharma are honest (or more realistically someone who benefits from purporting that 'belief') ...

would it?

One hopes they pause long enough to wipe the spittle from their lips and invest in an editor who will actually edit the articles. Grammar, punctuation and spelling really are so important when one has a point to make.

pg,

Peter Pitts isnt "Gullible". He just knows what side his bread is buttered on...

Lisa, if you read between the lines I was saying that, as in: "..(or more realistically someone who benefits from purporting that ‘belief’)". We're from different countries, different ways of writing things, but yes - Peter Pitts is well aware of what he's doing. :)

pg

Its not in my nature to read between the lines. Peter Pitts was among those Industry Apologists at FDA who chose to stay silent while tens of thousands of children were being maimed and killed due to the side effects of antidepressants.

Lisa, I know. Which is exactly why I brought his name up in the first place in relation to BigPharmaRealPeople? Its just a difference in the way we express things, thats all, and that difference is probably bigger due to different nationalities.

Perhaps I should have suggested Thomas Laughren instead...

[...] to Pharmalot’s Ed Silverman, for pointing out the new website, Big Pharma Real People (click here to access and here for the [...]