Maybe they could shorten the FDA approval times so huge companies like Pfizer aren't the only ones that can survive waiting for a drug to be approved. Not like the current system is stopping Pfizer.

It used to be legal for companies to promote drugs in the United States for any use. Congress banned the practice in 1962

Ah the good old days, when cocaine was advertised as a cure for headaches, toothaches, whatever you got.

Doctors are just like the police, we're all overpaid idiots who don't know anything and should all be fired (greedy pigs that we are)...

...until you need our help.

Stop eating all those hamburgers and you won't be begging us for that cholesterol medication. You could also come in for a physical more than once a decade.

Article is about pharmaceutical company motives, headline blames doctors. Subby needs to adjust his dosage?

as long as my doctor tells me about it I have no problem with off-labeling.

The main takeaway from this for me is: make sure you have a pretty smart doctor. And don't always assume that he or she will stay smart. My mom's doctor used to be great, but now he's going senile and she keeps going to him out of habit.

FTA:

Across the United States, pharmaceutical companies have pleaded guilty to criminal charges or paid penalties in civil cases when the Justice Department finds that they deceptively marketed drugs for unapproved uses, putting millions of people at risk of chest infections, heart attacks, suicidal impulses or death.

Yikes

I bet they understand the distinction between an IRA and a Roth IRA.

Or did you think people go to medical school because they want everybody to be healthy?

I don't understand why with all of this health care nonsense that has been going on the past year, why the democrats and/or republicans don't even bring up the fact that pharmaceutical companies are raking in the dough at the expense of the American public. They never make anything that actually *CURES* a problem, they simply treat the symptoms to ensure 70 years of income from each impacted individual. They also pressure doctors to market the newest product that doesn't have a cheaper generic. It's ridiculous and this is one reason I feel that neither republicans nor democrats give a rat's dirty behind about the American public.

gorfie: I don't understand why with all of this health care nonsense that has been going on the past year, why the democrats and/or republicans don't even bring up the fact that pharmaceutical companies are raking in the dough at the expense of the American public.

That's the joke.

macadamnut: I bet they understand the distinction between an IRA and a Roth IRA.

Or did you think people go to medical school because they want everybody to be healthy?

There are easier ways to make money.

BiggityBanninated: Doctors are just like the police, we're all overpaid idiots who don't know anything and should all be fired (greedy pigs that we are)...

...until you need our help.

Stop eating all those hamburgers and you won't be begging us for that cholesterol medication. You could also come in for a physical more than once a decade.

Thanks for all you've done for us, pill-pusher.

czerno: macadamnut: I bet they understand the distinction between an IRA and a Roth IRA.

Or did you think people go to medical school because they want everybody to be healthy?

There are easier ways to make money.

Not many that let you call yourself a "scientist".

Ecobuckeye: BiggityBanninated: Doctors are just like the police, we're all overpaid idiots who don't know anything and should all be fired (greedy pigs that we are)...

...until you need our help.

Stop eating all those hamburgers and you won't be begging us for that cholesterol medication. You could also come in for a physical more than once a decade.

Thanks for all you've done for us, pill-pusher.

I haven't done anything to you.

You know what has thousands of uses (medicinal and non), is completely nontoxic, and has no possibility of overdose? The dangerous, illegal MARIJUANA!!11!eleventy

Seriously.

macadamnut: czerno: macadamnut: I bet they understand the distinction between an IRA and a Roth IRA.

Or did you think people go to medical school because they want everybody to be healthy?

There are easier ways to make money.

Not many that let you call yourself a "scientist".

What the fark are you even talking about?

Oh, and most MDs (and soon-to-be MDs) that I know know farkall. Med school is only for memorizing lots of information, and MDs are not scientists. PhDs are. Hence me going for a PhD (more work, more effort, less money, but more useful to society's advancement) rather than an MD.

Gee. I wonder if the high profits of big pharma is part of the real cost of health care. Health Insurance companies simply pass the costs onto consumers (while making less than 5% profit on average). Meanwhile, big pharma can pay BILLIONS out and still turn a huge profit.

Yeah, kill my job but don't you dare go after the real costs.

Barakku: Maybe they could shorten the FDA approval times so huge companies like Pfizer aren't the only ones that can survive waiting for a drug to be approved. Not like the current system is stopping Pfizer.

It used to be legal for companies to promote drugs in the United States for any use. Congress banned the practice in 1962

Ah the good old days, when cocaine was advertised as a cure for headaches, toothaches, whatever you got.

Actually, you can thank thalidomide for that.

As an aside, any time you hear someone screaming about how "the free market can regulate itself," mention thalidomide.

WTH? Nobody served prison time for killing so many patients? All the governments and court systems has done is fine people that is considered chicken feed to them.

These people need to go to prison for the rest of their lives.

BiggityBanninated: You could also come in for a physical more than once a decade.

Hmm... pay $65 for five minutes of a doctor saying, "You're fine. Wear condoms, eat well and exercise, see you next year."

Or pay $65 for a bottle of delicious scotch and sirloin steak.

My annual raise will only cover one of those and the office visit won't leave me with delicious leftovers the next day.

/getting the grill heated up now

BiggityBanninated: Doctors are just like the police, we're all overpaid idiots who don't know anything and should all be fired (greedy pigs that we are)...

...until you need our help.

Stop eating all those hamburgers and you won't be begging us for that cholesterol medication. You could also come in for a physical more than once a decade.

I'll get a physical when you'll let me have one for less than a thousand dollars. Not everyone has insurance. Maybe next week though...

Why do you think they call it a "Practice"?

this doesn't seem that difficult to fix.

Solution:
1. create giant accessible list of approved drugs and approved uses
2. provide list to doctors and pharmacists
3. require doctors to write on prescription WHY THE DRUG IS BEING PRESCRIBED (aka, for what use)
4. require pharmacists to counsel patients when they're being prescribed a drug for an off-label use.


I mean, that's what pharmacists do, right? they're supposed to know about drugs. let the doctors diagnose and suggest treatment, leave it up to the pharmacists to know about drugs.

gorfie: I don't understand why with all of this health care nonsense that has been going on the past year, why the democrats and/or republicans don't even bring up the fact that pharmaceutical companies are raking in the dough at the expense of the American public. They never make anything that actually *CURES* a problem, they simply treat the symptoms to ensure 70 years of income from each impacted individual. They also pressure doctors to market the newest product that doesn't have a cheaper generic. It's ridiculous and this is one reason I feel that neither republicans nor democrats give a rat's dirty behind about the American public.

Right, because it is as easy as saying "cure" and getting a drug to pop out. The system is farked for sure, but that notion is ridiculous.

BiggityBanninated: Doctors are just like the police, we're all overpaid idiots who don't know anything and should all be fired (greedy pigs that we are)...

...until you need our help.

Stop eating all those hamburgers and you won't be begging us for that cholesterol medication. You could also come in for a physical more than once a decade.

Just curious, but do you by chance have a GED in medicine?

gorfie: They never make anything that actually *CURES* a problem, they simply treat the symptoms to ensure 70 years of income from each impacted individual.

I got conjuctivitis, I got the eye drops. Cured. Stopped using them.
Girl I know got a yeast infection, took a pill. Cured. No more pills.
Grandma got lymphoma, few months of chemo and monitoring. Now cancer-free.
How many people do you actually know who take pills for 70-straight years?

Big pharm may be greedy, but they don't deliberately withhold cures. That's not just paranoia, it's irrational paranoia...because despite what you may think, the cures DO make more money than the treatments, and there is always another disease.

Urthel: Health Insurance companies simply pass the costs onto consumers (while making less than 5% profit on average).

I see this get trotted out all the time and it irritates the shiat out of me. Yes, it's true that health insurance profit averages 2 - 4%. A companies profit means exactly squat to its consumers though - profit is for reinvestment and to attract shareholders (i.e. increased funding).

However, the administrative cost is between 16 - 26%. Largest part of administration is payroll. Don't pretend like health insurance is some efficient and necessary cog in the gear, there is an absolutely disgusting amount of money wasted on a daily basis.

FriarReb98: Marcus Aurelius: We have to remember what's really important here in the big picture: pharmaceutical company profits.

See, to me, THIS is what needs reforming, not health care. If pharmaceuticals weren't the modern advertising equivalent to cigarettes and alcohol, then maybe they wouldn't cost $500 for thirty 200mg Seroquels, for example.

\not on Seroquel, just know someone who is

Schizophrenia medicine should not cost that much.

/That shiat needs to be more widely distributed. And free.

FriarReb98: Marcus Aurelius: We have to remember what's really important here in the big picture: pharmaceutical company profits.

See, to me, THIS is what needs reforming, not health care. If pharmaceuticals weren't the modern advertising equivalent to cigarettes and alcohol, then maybe they wouldn't cost $500 for thirty 200mg Seroquels, for example.

\not on Seroquel, just know someone who is

Why do you disparage the foundations of free enterprise?

If people actually didn't want drug companies to act in this way, they would vote for politicians who would raise the penalties for breaking these laws, thus making the practice unprofitable. Since the public has NOT voted for such politicians, it means that they believe that there are acceptable levels in society of what the drug companies are doing.

Moral principles are open to debate, but the free market doesn't lie.

Katie98_KT: this doesn't seem that difficult to fix.

Solution:
1. create giant accessible list of approved drugs and approved uses
2. provide list to doctors and pharmacists
3. require doctors to write on prescription WHY THE DRUG IS BEING PRESCRIBED (aka, for what use)
4. require pharmacists to counsel patients when they're being prescribed a drug for an off-label use.


I mean, that's what pharmacists do, right? they're supposed to know about drugs. let the doctors diagnose and suggest treatment, leave it up to the pharmacists to know about drugs.

Another thing that might help would be to add jail time for the corporate officers, along with a substantial fine.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Hmm... pay $65 for five minutes of a doctor saying, "You're fine. Wear condoms, eat well and exercise, see you next year."

Or pay $65 for a bottle of delicious scotch and sirloin steak.

Bah. Everyone knows that moss juice causes cancer and rectal inversion.

My personal prescription for steak is liberal doses of distilled corn mash with an occasional cordial of Grand Marnier... you know, for when company is over.

This just shows how the liberal-controlled government is our enemy. Those enormous fines aren't going to help the stock holders or the economy. Maybe if the heath care industry didn't have so many regulations to keep track of, they could lower costs and do their jobs right.

Yes, I do watch Fox News. How did you know?

Thats why Marijuana\Hemp needs to be legalized to reduce this corrupted system.

Obvious tag on vacation?

Esn: FriarReb98: Marcus Aurelius: We have to remember what's really important here in the big picture: pharmaceutical company profits.

See, to me, THIS is what needs reforming, not health care. If pharmaceuticals weren't the modern advertising equivalent to cigarettes and alcohol, then maybe they wouldn't cost $500 for thirty 200mg Seroquels, for example.

\not on Seroquel, just know someone who is

Why do you disparage the foundations of free enterprise?

If people actually didn't want drug companies to act in this way, they would vote for politicians who would raise the penalties for breaking these laws, thus making the practice unprofitable. Since the public has NOT voted for such politicians, it means that they believe that there are acceptable levels in society of what the drug companies are doing.

Moral principles are open to debate, but the free market doesn't lie.

Yes, because politicians always act on behalf of their voting constituents and not on behalf of the lobbyists who bribe them.

FormlessOne:

As an aside, any time you hear someone screaming about how "the free market can regulate itself," mention thalidomide.

Or the Therac 25 for that matter.

jagec: gorfie: They never make anything that actually *CURES* a problem, they simply treat the symptoms to ensure 70 years of income from each impacted individual.

I got conjuctivitis, I got the eye drops. Cured. Stopped using them.
Girl I know got a yeast infection, took a pill. Cured. No more pills.
Grandma got lymphoma, few months of chemo and monitoring. Now cancer-free.
How many people do you actually know who take pills for 70-straight years?

HIV-infected, hell any retrovirus-infected individuals, people with diseases of the brain, diabetes patients, people with immune-response disorders and that's just the people I could list without stopping.

Big pharm may be greedy, but they don't deliberately withhold cures. That's not just paranoia, it's irrational paranoia...because despite what you may think, the cures DO make more money than the treatments, and there is always another disease.

I see you've never taken any finance, accounting or business class at the collegiate level. The comeback makes waaaaaaaaay more money for the pusher than a collection of random sales. The various major pharmaceutical firms may not be withholding a cure for AIDS, but they definitely aren't spending money looking for a cure either.

Primum non nocere: Matrix Flavored Wasabi Hence me going for a PhD (more work, more effort, less money, but more useful to society's advancement) rather than an MD.

Have you worked 70+ hours this week? And every week for the last 20 years? Worked a 24-hour shift non-stop in the ER?

Zel I'll get a physical when you'll let me have one for less than a thousand dollars. Not everyone has insurance. Maybe next week though...

Zel, I can charge a $1 million for any clinical service I provide. Guess what, the insurance companies pay me whatever they feel like. I have no recourse. Either take the entire fee schedule or not. Look at your EOB next time. See where the reimbursement is 30% of the fees.

I had 7 years of post graduate medical training. I had no net worth until I was 36-years-old.

All I wanted this afternoon was a 5-minute break from charting to get a few laughs on Fark. Instead I get overloaded with physician hate. Well, some days it's hit-or-miss on Fark. Back to charting. 6:30 AM comes early on Mondays.

Most PhDs I have worked with do work that long, though the stresses are of a different nature. Just be glad it's different than police hate, I guess.

As someone going to gain an MD in 14 months, I am NOT getting a kick out of the quote in the headline for the article. Thankfully, it looks like there are a lot of people in this thread who know what's up.

Primum non nocere and bimalc make the points that I came here to say. Doctors know exactly what on- and off-label uses mean, and most strive to prescribe drugs based on what the best scientific evidence supports, not based on using only what the FDA approves. I'm rotating on my hospital's dermatology service right now, and most of the stuff my staff use for the heavy-hitting skin disease is technically off-label because no-one is going to put the time and money into getting it approved(rubber-stamped) by the FDA, especially when there is a crapload of good evidence already supporting its use. No need to do it, except FDA approval might make it harder for insurance companies to refuse to pay.

****As an interesting side, drug companies have also profited in the past by getting FDA approval for what used to be off-label benefits of a drug. You've seen this with Yaz(drospirenone), the birth-control pill advertised to help with acne. Quite a few(most?) of the combination birth control pills out these days help with acne, it's just that Bayer was the only company that went through the headache of the FDA approval process, and now they're the only one that gets to tell the public that THEIR birth control helps acne.

The sword cuts both ways.