<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Auld Lang Sunshyne</title>
	<atom:link href="http://postscript.communitycatalyst.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://postscript.communitycatalyst.org/?p=403</link>
	<description>A Blog by Community Catalyst</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 May 2010 16:23:42 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard M. Plotzker, MD</title>
		<link>http://postscript.communitycatalyst.org/?p=403&#038;cpage=1#comment-1234</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard M. Plotzker, MD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.prescriptionproject.org/?p=403#comment-1234</guid>
		<description>The NEJM had a wonderful summary by two physicians who reviewed discovery documents in a court case outlining the efforts the drug companies will go to influence its prescribers.  What came across as more surprising is the lack of restraint on the part of the academic leaders in influencing those of us dependent on their advanced expertise.

As a college student in the pre-computer days there were ads for companies willing to write your term paper.  A C+ guaranteed or your money back.  Now there are people who will attach your name to their research work and have them pay you for doing your term paper.

There are a couple of suggestions I might make as an office practioner who will occasionally go to a nice dinner to hear and question a true expert whose mind and experience I would not ordinarily be able to access.  First, if the companies want to pay ten experts a million dollars each, let them.  That is not where the abuse comes from.  It derives from inviting every local yokel specialist affiliated with the largest local medical facility who has never done a lick of the research of what he speaks to convey the company&#039;s opinion.  Real experts yes, pseudoexperts no.  Second, the costs of drugs would be less in aggregate and the utilization more thoughtful if the company representatives could walk through the physicians&#039; doors by invitation only.  One of the tragedies of Neurontin, the NEJM subject, and a lot of other drugs is that they are decent substances for the purpose they were developed and tested.  Expansion of markets beyond the approved niche does not require that same level of testing and disclosure, only a testimonial from a local respected practitioner that he or she likes to use the drug for another purpose and in his or her opinion those who withold it when the circumstance arises shortchange their patients.  

rich the furrydoc</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NEJM had a wonderful summary by two physicians who reviewed discovery documents in a court case outlining the efforts the drug companies will go to influence its prescribers.  What came across as more surprising is the lack of restraint on the part of the academic leaders in influencing those of us dependent on their advanced expertise.</p>
<p>As a college student in the pre-computer days there were ads for companies willing to write your term paper.  A C+ guaranteed or your money back.  Now there are people who will attach your name to their research work and have them pay you for doing your term paper.</p>
<p>There are a couple of suggestions I might make as an office practioner who will occasionally go to a nice dinner to hear and question a true expert whose mind and experience I would not ordinarily be able to access.  First, if the companies want to pay ten experts a million dollars each, let them.  That is not where the abuse comes from.  It derives from inviting every local yokel specialist affiliated with the largest local medical facility who has never done a lick of the research of what he speaks to convey the company&#8217;s opinion.  Real experts yes, pseudoexperts no.  Second, the costs of drugs would be less in aggregate and the utilization more thoughtful if the company representatives could walk through the physicians&#8217; doors by invitation only.  One of the tragedies of Neurontin, the NEJM subject, and a lot of other drugs is that they are decent substances for the purpose they were developed and tested.  Expansion of markets beyond the approved niche does not require that same level of testing and disclosure, only a testimonial from a local respected practitioner that he or she likes to use the drug for another purpose and in his or her opinion those who withold it when the circumstance arises shortchange their patients.  </p>
<p>rich the furrydoc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Healthy Blog &#187; Transparency on Pharma Opposition to Transparency</title>
		<link>http://postscript.communitycatalyst.org/?p=403&#038;cpage=1#comment-1233</link>
		<dc:creator>A Healthy Blog &#187; Transparency on Pharma Opposition to Transparency</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.prescriptionproject.org/?p=403#comment-1233</guid>
		<description>[...] out that the biotech drug industry refuses to even adopt the voluntary PhRMA code (and see this Prescription Project blog post comparing words and reality, so [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] out that the biotech drug industry refuses to even adopt the voluntary PhRMA code (and see this Prescription Project blog post comparing words and reality, so [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
