Prog G initially posted an potentially eye-opening long video on Youtube suggesting how Pharma could gain influence on Doctors using financial incentives. This has now been removed and replaced
We would now not recommend this YouTube video; it is biased and an eye-opener for other reasons. The debate, in the comments linked to this post, have been very helpful. We have replaced the video link with something more helpful in this context; bad science!
However there may have been elements in the initial video that we do not necessarily think could not be the case. Therefore Prof G said
“This happens in MS field as well! As a principle investigator and a steering committee member for several MS trials my only protection is transparency and full declaration of my conflicts of interest. May be this is not enough?”
“To develop new and effective treatments for MSers, MSologists have to get involved with Pharma, there is no alternative model. This also means getting up at meetings to present data and concepts. Every clinical trial should be viewed as an experiment and the results often raise questions, which is why we do the trials in the first place and why we don’t do trials that don’t ask a worthwhile scientific question.”
“For those of us who do clinical research on behalf of pharma we walk a fine line and have to take care that we don’t stray over that line.”
“All this Pharma bashing however is not good for the field. Pharma needs to get their house in order and they continually need to remind us what good they do. We mustn’t forget the major strides that have been made in the field of MS in the last 20 years; these would not have occurred without Pharma’s involvement.”
disgreaceful.the only way to control this is to impose a restriction on marketing budgets – say 2% of top line revenue.All the rest ought to go in RD.The industry has to be much more audited and regulated
so how deep are you in prof G? do you take a lot of kick backs?
Incorruptible people are everywhere, even in clinical trials. The question is, can they make the difference?
This video is IG11 and beyond! If anyone wants a non-IG11 explanation of what went down with GSK, read this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/gsk-pays-3-billion-fine/Alex Jones and Mike Adams (the so-called "Health Ranger") are regarded as wingnuts in the States. Alex Jones uses his radio show to spout conspiracy theories about 9/11 being an inside job done by the US government and how President Obama isn't a real American and will turn the US into a socialist country. Mike Adams is also a 9/11 "truther" and a Obama "birther". Both of them are also vaccine denialists and have interviewed Andrew Wakefield for their respective YouTube shows. So pardon me if I don't believe a single word of their tripe. Anyone wanting to know more about the idiocy of these two should check out a blog called "Respectful Insolence". As the French say, "les extremes, se touchent".I'll admit that Big Pharma doesn't always do the right thing as far as patients are concerned, but this doesn't mean conspiracy-mongering wingnuts like Jones and Adams are right. Ben Goldacre has been able to criticize Big Pharma without resorting to science denialism and I believe that Prof G and his team have been nothing but forthright with their experiences with Big Pharma.
Dear MariaNice to hear from you, whilst the post may be IG11, I do think there are things that pharma really need to do alot better.At present I'm not going to ECTRIMS this year, preferring to go to basic science meetings or saving cash and not going. These meetings are really struggling to get sponsorship to go ahead compared to meetings where neurologists attend. There the companies spend far to much courting business.However if it wasnt worth it they wouldnt do it
This is an idiotic video. Prof G couldn't have watched beyond the first 5 minutes or so. I switched off after the presenter said-Medicine is a giant orgy of corruption … If you take these drugs, if you take these vaccines, you are a sucker of these industries who are using your body to make profits for their own filthy rich executives … You trust your doctor? you're a fool …
It is a jolly long video
You should remove this post. Having it on the blog gives the impression you endorse these views
Re: "You should remove this post. Having it on the blog gives the impression you endorse these views."Done! We would now not recommend this YouTube video; it is biased and an eye-opener for other reasons. The debate, in the comments linked to this post, have been very helpful. We have replaced the video link with something more helpful in this context; bad science!
Re: "You should remove this post. Having it on the blog gives the impression you endorse these views."Done! We would now not recommend this YouTube video; it is biased and an eye-opener for other reasons. The debate, in the comments linked to this post, have been very helpful. We have replaced the video link with something more helpful in this context; bad science!