Bill Moyers int-view/Melody Peterson-Transcript | Arthritis Information
I'm posting this at the request of one of our members who thinks it important that this subject gets really good exposure.[Jan Lucinda]
BILL MOYERS: One of the other issues we're going to be hearing a
lot about in the next few months is the high cost of prescription
drugs. Most of us can testify to the fact that drugs save lives. When I
had heart surgery fourteen years ago, my own life was saved by a
skilled surgical team, a caring wife, and some remarkable drugs. But
drugs are costly -and it seems their price keeps rising. The sticker
shock has sent many people -especially the elderly - across the border
to Mexico and Canada in pursuit of affordable medicine. And a report
this week says that because of the cost, many middle class baby boomers
are trying to do without. The pharmaceutical companies say you get what
you pay for, they say it's not cheap to develop new medicines. But in
journalism as in medicine, it's always helpful to get a second opinion.
So if the cost of your daily meds leaves you feeling sad and depressed,
unable to sleep or eat, I have a prescription for you - a consultation
with the journalist Melody Petersen, who has written a powerful new
book about what ails us.
Once upon a time — she says — around 25 years ago, in fact —
prescription drug ads were rare on television. Now you can't escape
them.
AD #1:
...with one little pill taken just once a day...
AD#2:
I feel anxious. Can't make any decisions...
AD#3:
...fortunately, there's Mirapex
AD#4:
Paxil CR
AD#5:
Zetia
AD#6:
VIOXX is there to help
AD# 7:
Viva VIAGRA
BILL MOYERS:
In a single generation, ads like those have helped to make America the
world's greatest medicine show. That's journalist Melody Petersen's
term for it in her book, OUR DAILY MEDS.
As a reporter for THE NEW YORK TIMES Melody Petersen covered
the drug industry for four years, winning one of the highest honors in
business journalism - the Gerald Loeb Award. Then she spent another
four years researching and writing this book. She concludes that
selling prescription drugs - rather than discovering them - has become
the industry's obsession.
She found companies pitching drugs with cartoon characters, popping up
on email and websites, on buses and street corners, at NASCAR races and
even at the world-famous state fair in Iowa where Melody Petersen grew
up....
MELODY PETERSEN: It was like Disneyland - this little
critter, which was the mascot for Lamisil, a pill for toenail fungus.
He was out there doing a jig with the children - and I found these
marketing tactics just about everywhere.
BILL MOYERS: Here you are possessed to stay with one
subject for eight years. Most journalists I know who spend so much
time, do so much research, so obsessed with one subject will tell me
that they had an epiphany, they had a moment when they said, 'This is
what I'm going to do -the big investment of my life." Was there a
moment for you?
MELODY PETERSEN: It was actually gradual. When I started
writing about the pharmaceutical companies for The Times I didn't know
anything about the drug companies and I actually thought that they were
a lot about science. That's what they tell the public. They are all
about science and discovering new drugs. But as I started to follow
their daily activities and talk to executives, I learned that really it
was marketing that drove them.
BILL MOYERS:
Was there something you saw that precipitated this choice?
MELODY PETERSEN:
There's a study that the FDA often cites-
BILL MOYERS:
Federal Drug Administration?
MELODY PETERSEN: Uh-huh. That a 100,000 Americans die
every year from their prescription drugs - that they took just as the
doctor directed. This isn't when a doctor or a pharmacist made a
mistake or the patient accidentally took too much. This is when
everything supposedly went right. So, that just shows you how dangerous
these products are.
BILL MOYERS: Petersen reports that Americans spend more
on medicines than do all the people of Japan, Germany, France, Italy,
Spain, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil
and Argentina combined. The relentless marketing has enriched corporate
executives and sent stock prices soaring.
BILL MOYERS:
What's the most conspicuous example of the aggressive marketing?
MELODY PETERSEN: The obvious example is the television
ads. Only those ads are only allowed in the United States and New
Zealand. So those are pretty much an American creation.
BILL MOYERS:
You mean drug companies can't advertise in other countries on television?
MELODY PETERSEN:
No. They can't advertise anywhere directly to consumers. They can advertise to doctors in other countries but not to us.
BILL MOYERS: You write, "This book is about how America's
for-profit medical system, filled with incentives to make money and
disincentives for good care has failed. In too many cases, whether a
medicine helps or harms a patient has become secondary to how much it
will bring shareholders in profit. Why should the drug industry be an
exception to what all corporations, all business does?
MELODY PETERSEN: With medicines we're talking about life
and death. With Wall Street driving it, there's this constant pressure
to exceed the level of revenues that you made the year before. The
result of this push from Wall Street-executive stock options depend on
it. If the drug companies don't do this, their stock price goes down.
Executive salaries go down. It's just driven to get those profits up. I
write about one study in Iowa. A group of researchers looked at
Alzheimer's patients who had just been diagnosed to see what medicines
they had been taking before this diagnosis, they found that 30 percent
of these patients were taking medicines that could cause dementia.
Rather than stopping those medicines, the doctors just added a
prescription for Alzheimer's. And we just learned with the
antidepressants like Zoloft and Paxil they found that in about half the
studies dozens of studies that were done of these antidepressants, the
sugar pill- the placebo worked just as well or better than the drug.
BILL MOYERS:
What do you conclude from that?
MELODY PETERSEN:
There's a lot of money to be made.
BILL MOYERS:
From selling a drug that works no better than a placebo?
MELODY PETERSEN: Uh-huh. If it doesn't work, if the
patient still has the problem, what happens in American medicine today?
The doctor prescribes yet another pill. So there is a lot of money in
selling drugs that don't work.
BILL MOYERS: Petersen reports that almost 65 percent of
the nation now takes a drug available only by prescription. Aggressive
marketing has turned what were once normal life events into maladies
that can be treated with a pill. With our consumer-driven culture, she
says, America was ripe to become "a perfect medicine market," where the
power of marketing can take an obscure niche drug and turn it into a
best seller.
DETROL AD: The worry that your problem is as obvious as if
you'd announced it to the world. But the good news is that overactive
bladder is a real medical condition the symptoms can be treated. And
the great news...
BILL MOYERS:
"It's a real medical condition" the announcer tells us, guessing few had heard of it.
DETROL AD:
Gotta go, gotta go, gotta go...With just one pill...
BILL MOYERS: The existing condition was called
incontinence, and only a small percentage of people suffered from it.
But the makers of Detrol weren't satisfied with so tiny a market. They
needed a best seller. So they funded seminars and wined and dined
urologists to persuade them that, in fact, there could be a new medical
condition...it's all part of a grand marketing strategy of which ads
are only the most visible tip
MELODY PETERSEN: A very powerful technique that the
drug companies spend millions and millions of dollars on is hiring
physicians to give lectures to other physicians on their drugs. So, it
looks like this physician is up there giving his independent opinion on
this drug. But, he often, he's been trained by an advertising agency.
His slide presentation has been created by an ad agency. It looks like
independent science, but it's not.
BILL MOYERS:
Writing a story about the pain killers VIOXX and CELEBREX, she made an interesting discovery.
MELODY PETERSEN: I wanted a rheumatologist to just give
me his opinion about these drugs. So I called a leading society of
rheumatologists in the country and told them I want an expert. But I
don't want anyone who's being paid by either one of these companies.
And they said, "Well, we have lots and lots of experts. But they're all
being paid by one of these companies."
BILL MOYERS:
The marketing techniques, she found, extend far beyond simply rewarding agreeable doctors and go to the science, itself.
MELODY PETERSEN: They have a technique, which they
benignly call publications planning. And what this is they want to get
as many articles published in our medical journals as they can that
show their products in favorable lights, and will get physicians to
prescribe them. So, they often hire a Madison Avenue ad agency to write
up an article for them or a study and the name of the ad agency rarely
appears in the published version. Instead, they hire doctors to put
their names on as author.
BILL MOYERS:
Boosted by medical experts, the makers of Detrol were able to convince millions they might have a new ailment...
DETROL AD:
...You've got better ways to spend your day then worrying about wetting accidents or rushing to the bathroom.
BILL MOYERS: Presto! A blockbuster drug exploded in the
market. Companies had figured out how to create a billion dollar
hit......no matter that later research revealed that Detrol also made
it difficult for older people to walk or take a shower or even feed
themselves. Encouraged by record-breaking, share-boosting profits, she
writes, the companies have poured even more resources into their
marketing efforts pushing the boundaries for what might be considered a
disease.
PAXIL AD:
I'm always thinking something terrible is going to happen, I can't handle it.
BILL MOYERS: People who worried too much were encouraged
to believe they might be suffering from a condition known as
"generalized anxiety disorder." Paxil, once prescribed as an
anti-depressant could ease it.
PMDD AD:
A week before my periods, I get super moody ...
BILL MOYERS:
Even women suffering from PMS were told they could have premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder or PMDD.
PMDD AD:
Sarafem...a distinct medical condition...
BILL MOYERS:
Prozac, once an anti-depressant, was re-packaged and re-purposed as Sarafem.
PMDD AD:
Only prescription medication for PMDD...
BILL MOYERS:
What are the dangers as you see them from all this medication?
MELODY PETERSEN: First of all, that people are taking
drugs they don't need. Because every drug is a balance between its
potential benefits and its potential risks. If you take a drug you
don't need, then you can only suffer the risks.
BILL MOYERS:
Ads, by law, mention some of those risks-but on television they come in a fast-talking, easy-to-avoid package.
COMMERCIAL VOICEOVER:
Side affects may include decreased appetite, dry mouth, sweating, nausea, constipation.
MIRAPEX AD:
Or if you experience increased gambling, sexual or other intense urges...
COMMERCIAL VOICEOVER:
Some risk of dependency. Side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, drowsiness...
BILL MOYERS: Don't you think a lot of people are willing
to take risks to have a better life? More joy? More life experiences as
the ad says? More sleep?
MELODY PETERSEN: Uh-huh. We want to believe in this. We
want to believe that we can just take a pill and life will be better,
our problems will disappear.
BILL MOYERS: You say, "The medicine merchants have
learned to sell us hopes and dreams. A pill for every desire. Too few
of us realize the dangers. "
MELODY PETERSEN: All you have to do is watch television
and you will see this. It'll show patients hiking through the woods.
They're dancing on a dinner cruise. They're running on the beach. They
look like they are having such a good time. So yes, they're selling you
what you wish you could be or wish you could do.
COMMERCIAL VOICEOVER:
Maybe you've tried medicine but you're still waiting to enjoy life again...
BILL MOYERS:
In many cases, Petersen writes, it is the marketers and not the scientists who decide which drugs are right for the new you.
COMMERCIAL VOICEOVER:
You're unable to feel. You get overly startled and may have trouble sleeping.
BILL MOYERS: To boost sales of the anti-depressant
Zoloft, Pfizer sought to expand the potential market by commissioning
studies that suggested that the disorder PTSD was not as rare as most
believed.
ZOLOFT AD: These are some symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder. A serious medical condition affecting over thirteen million
Americans. While the cause is unknown ...
MELODY PETERSEN: A few years back, I kept getting
information from a group called the PTSD Alliance. PTSD is Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder. And one of the main messages of this group
was that five percent of the American public suffered from PTSD. And
this is estimate was millions and millions more than the government
actually said suffered from this illness.
And later, I learned that this group wasn't actually what I
thought it was. It was the creation of a public relations firm working
for Pfizer to sell more Zoloft. In fact, it was staffed by the public
relations firm. Its offices were the same address of the public
relations firm.
BILL MOYERS:
She found example after example of science compromised by marketing.
MELODY PETERSEN: You know, it's gone so far that some
independent scientists are starting to view our medical literature as
propaganda. I've learned that there are so many different ways for a
study to be designed to get the data that will help you sell your drug.
If you want to make it look more powerful than an older drug on the
market, you give the volunteers in your trial the older drug at a dose
that is too low to really help them so your drug looks better. If you
want your drug to look safer than an older drug you boost the dose up
of the older drug in the volunteers so they have more side effects. If
you have one study that showed it worked, and one study showed it
didn't, you publish the first study over and over again with the help
of your advertising agency. And you don't publish the second one.
BILL MOYERS:
Are we being deliberately misled?
MELODY PETERSEN:
Yes.
BILL MOYERS:
Intentionally?
MELODY PETERSEN:
Yes, looking at documents from inside the drug companies, yes. I would say we're being misled deliberately.
BILL MOYERS: I was fascinated to read an attack on your
book. A seething review in THE NEW YORK POST right here in New York.
"Hard Pill to Swallow." It's very critical of your book. By Robert
Goldberg. It says nothing about who Robert Goldberg is. But when you do
a little investigation he turns out to be vice president of a group
that receives funding from the drug industry. But, he does not disclose
this fact in this review in THE NEW YORK POST.
MELODY PETERSEN:
Exactly.
BILL MOYERS:
Now, what does that say?
MELODY PETERSEN: This is what they do over and over
again. The drug companies are very good at putting their words in the
mouth of someone who looks independent to get their message across.
BILL MOYERS:
MELODY PETERSEN: responded to Goldberg's attack in THE
NEW YORK POST with a letter that alerted readers to the fact that
Goldberg was not the objective reviewer they were led to believe. Her
letter ends: "The drug companies learned from the tobacco industry that
the public would believe their message if it came from someone who
appeared independent. People need honest information about medicines,
not propaganda."
BILL MOYERS:
Doctors, themselves, she writes in her book, can be part of the propaganda machine
MELODY PETERSEN: Unfortunately physicians have lost their
way. And I don't think the public really understands this. But, in
1951, Congress changed the law so that we would require prescription
for certain drugs. Before, we could go into the drugstore and get
whatever we wanted. And Congress wanted an educated physician who had
the best interest of his patients at heart and was independent from the
pharmacies and the drug companies to be the gatekeeper. But, now, a lot
of the physicians in America take gifts or cash from the drug
companies. Some physicians take hundreds of thousands of dollars a
year.
BILL MOYERS: Congress, too, is in the grip of the
industry. Petersen reports that in a recent six-year period Big Pharma
spent more on lobbying than any other industry and now employs two
lobbyists for every member of Congress. With doctors and congress
compromised, what about that other gatekeeper, the Federal Drug
Administration?
MELODY PETERSEN: Actually, the drug industry pays the
FDA too. There was a change in the law in 1992. Before 1992, the FDA
had one customer and that was us, the public. But, in '92, the drug
companies started to pay fees to get their drugs reviewed and approved.
And so, the FDA has another customer now, the drug companies. And you
can talking to scientists inside the FDA, you learn that there's an
awful lot of pressure for the FDA to do what the industry want them to
do.
BILL MOYERS:
So after her exhaustive diagnosis,
MELODY PETERSEN: has some prescriptions of her own.
MELODY PETERSEN: The system is so out of whack the way it
is today, you really have to be careful. Don't take any drug without
understanding the risks that it could have. Find the doctor who has
thrown the sales reps out of his office, who has said 'I'm gonna do
what's right for my patients'. And there's a growing number of doctors
who feel that way and think the thing that could do the most good is to
have a law that bans doctors from taking money from drug companies. We
need our doctors to be our independent advocates again.
BILL MOYERS: The book is OUR DAILY MEDS: HOW THE
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TRANSFORMED THEMSELVES INTO SLICK MARKETING
MACHINES AND HOOKED THE NATION ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
BILL MOYERS: Melody Petersen thank you for joining me on the JOURNAL.
MELODY PETERSEN:
Thank you so much for having me.
BILL MOYERS: Just last week, Congress opened hearings on
the marketing practices of Big Pharma. Committee Chair Bart Stupak
echoed Petersen's warnings about the dangers in his opening remarks.
REPRESENTATIVE BART STUPAK: The purpose of this hearing is to
examine the potentially misleading and deceptive tactics used in direct
to consumer advertisements for prescription pharmaceutical products.
Research shows that some DTC advertising results in patients seeing
their doctor and discussing previously undiagnosed conditions.
BILL MOYERS: Lawmakers were shown television ads from
such blockbuster medicines as LIPITOR and VYTORIN, both widely
prescribed to lower cholesterol. Industry executives defended the ads
as "educational" or as a conversation starter for physicians and their
patients. Experts from the American Medical Association and others
described them as deceptive, designed to sell a product -not to inform
consumers. More hearings are scheduled. In the meantime, read Melody
Petersen's book. Then keep it in your medicine cabinet.
Bodak2008-06-04 13:06:09Thank you Stephen. Great job!!!!
Jan
THanks again.
Jan
Did anybody besides me read this all the way through?
Come on Lev - what does your friend at the FDA say?
Pip the pi**ed
I saw the interview on PBS, its also viewable online. Pretty disturbing stuff, Petersen states: "Americans spend more on medicines than do all the people of Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina combined." Pretty effective marketing -- only the US and New Zealand allow tv drug ads.
I wanted a rheumatologist to just give
me his opinion about these drugs. So I called a leading society of
rheumatologists in the country and told them I want an expert. But I
don't want anyone who's being paid by either one of these companies.
And they said, "Well, we have lots and lots of experts. But they're all
being paid by one of these companies."
Really, really makes one wonder where we are headed.
I think of Cordelia and all the drugs that are being pumped into her and they are not working.
So if they are not working then we may have to look for something else, but no, lets just keep upping the dose.
If I have it right they had her on IV of 1500 of pred, enough to kill an OX, then dropped it down to 37mg over two weeks.
No wonder her system is screwed.
Pip,
I'm telling you the same thing I've always said. Don't keep mentioning imaginary people. You, just like the author constantly make accusations aganst doctors, people at the fda, universities and etcs but somehow you never mention any names so that these no-name criminals can be investigated or at least be allowed to defend themselves. Did the author mention any names? Of course not, she's selling a book, not looking to lose everything she has in a libel lawsuit. Anyone familiar with the New York Times or you, Pip, know for a fact that the New York Times and it's reporters and you are not the most trustworthy place or people for unbiased, honest reporting.
Yous always say that the doctors only prescribe what the big pharm pays them to prescribe but yet you think that drug advertising shouldn't be allowed. Well, if the doctors only prescibe what big pharm pays them to prescribe, how would we know about other benificial drugs if big pharm couldn't advertise? Hello? Anyone home in there Pip? And you being pist isn't anything unusual. Medical geniuses like yourself are usually always pist off at the stoopid medical professionals. After all, who do those naturally schooled fools think they are that they have more medical knowledge than someone with your roadback medical knowledge. They (medical professionals) are a bunch of morons or maroons or idiots that are sacrificing everything good for a fistful of dollars. I'm not really sure why I am so funtional when I used to be practically crippled, physically and because of the physical also mentally. I guess fortunately, the right big pharm must have paid off my healthcare professionals and now I'm back to good. I'm just one of the lucky ones, I guess. It seems to me that even so many members at this forum are so appreciative of their doctors and medicines but you on the other hand are so very negative. You need to try a different avenue. Your road is not working or you wouldn't be so negative. Two years on the same road and you're still doing pain meds and other drugs and now your stomach is a mess. Keep preaching. Keep being negative. It's time for you to try a biologic. Many people with your disease, palindromic arthritis, have had excellent results with the biologics. You still have the palindromic flares just as if you weren't doing the minocin. You need to realize that you aren't smarter than the doctors that really do care about their fellow human beings. Hugs and kisses only work on boo-boos.
LEV
Meloldy Peterson is so right on. Doctors need to be advocates for patients again.
Jan
Did anybody see that cancer study/kids post that Suzanne posted? My first question was - where are they going to find independent researchers?
Sigh,
Pip
[QUOTE=Pip!]Did anybody see that cancer study/kids post that Suzanne posted? My first question was - where are they going to find independent researchers?
Pip
[QUOTE=Pip!]
My bad - credit goes to Jas!
[QUOTE=JasmineRain] While there seems to be little doubt that they offer much benefit to lots of people, I do worry when they start pushing to rapidly expand the indications list and subsequently the patient base.
[/QUOTE]
Check out the Vioxx article I posted - says pretty much the same thing!
I just reread this. I really like her closing statement.
Jan
[QUOTE=levlarry]
Pip,
I'm telling you the same thing I've always said. Don't keep mentioning imaginary people. You, just like the author constantly make accusations aganst doctors, people at the fda, universities and etcs but somehow you never mention any names so that these no-name criminals can be investigated or at least be allowed to defend themselves. . .
. . . . . Medical geniuses like yourself are usually always pist off at the stoopid medical professionals. After all, who do those naturally schooled fools think they are that they have more medical knowledge than someone with your roadback medical knowledge. They (medical professionals) are a bunch of morons or maroons or idiots that are sacrificing everything good for a fistful of dollars. . . .
LEV
[/QUOTE]
Bloomberg.com
Harvard Doctors Failed to Disclose Fees, Senator Says (Update2)
By Rob Waters
June 8 (Bloomberg) -- Harvard Medical School doctors who helped pioneer the use of psychiatric drugs in children violated U.S. government and school rules by failing to properly disclose at least .2 million from drugmakers led by Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly & Co., a U.S. senator said.
Joseph Biederman, Timothy Wilens and Thomas Spencer conducted studies on how kids are affected by drugs such as Lilly's attention deficit treatment Strattera. They filed yearly disclosure forms with the Boston school showing they got a total of 0,000 from several drugmakers, Senator Charles Grassley said in the Congressional Record. When Grassley sought added documentation in March, they admitted getting more, he said.
Biederman directs, and Wilens and Spencer are affiliated with, a research center at Mass General that studies psychiatric medications in children. Biederman is the leading proponent of the idea that bipolar disorder, once viewed as an adult disease, can begin early in childhood and be treated with drugs.
Bipolar Disorder
Biederman's research helped convince many psychiatrists and pediatricians to look for and diagnose bipolar disorder in children, said Larry Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut Creek, California, who has written two books on the overuse of psychiatric drugs by children.
``He single-handedly put pediatric bipolar disorder on the map,'' Diller said in a telephone interview yesterday.
The number of kids diagnosed as bipolar increased 40-fold between 1994 and 2003, according to a recent study. Sales of drugs used to treat the condition doubled from 2003 to 2006.
Also rereading this. Still applies.
Jan
Some friends were talking about this book and I wanted to reread the transcript.
Again, thanks to Bodak for posting it.
BUmp again.Thanks for bumping this. I was on vacation when this got posted and just watched the actual interview on another site which I posted on
the ornecia ad thread.. I didn't know you guys had already discussed it!
Here's the link if anyone wants to watch the actual interview:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05162008/watch2.htmlGimpy-
Thanks for posting the interview. It is powerful.
She talks about the marketing of drugs.Knowing that I am a new person on the forum, isn't this rather OLD news?
Posted: 04�June�2008 at 1:03pm
...or am I missing something intrinsic and vital?
It is VERY current. Very current. Applies to what drug companies do today.Buyer beware and always do your own research and ask loads of questions. This kind of thing, the research and questions (and yes, even the opinions), is where this forum helps me most. That is pretty vital in my book.
[QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]It is VERY current. Very current. Applies to what drug companies do today.[/QUOTE]
OOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKAY, it looks like an agenda from where I sit. But, I am have been judged wrong before, and most likely will be again.
[QUOTE=aguaeon] [QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]It is VERY current. Very current. Applies to what drug companies do today.[/QUOTE]
OOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKAY, it looks like an agenda from where I sit. But, I am have been judged wrong before, and most likely will be again.
[/QUOTE]
I share your opinion aguaeon...........
Lynn492009-01-31 12:38:23Do you think what the drug companies do
isn't an agenda?
[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]Do you think what the drug companies do
isn't an agenda?
[/QUOTE]
I do not see the drug companies here bumping posts from six months ago to the top of the discussion list.
The post is still relevant today. Nothing has changed.
Also,
[QUOTE=aguaeon] I do not see the drug companies here bumping posts from six months ago to the top of the discussion list.[/QUOTE]
is hardly any indication of whether drug companies are operating on an agenda or not. Sorry that the truth makes you so uncomfortable, and that we aren't willing to live in denialisim to enable you to, but other people might appreciate a discussion around it.
aguaeon......... dontcha just love Gimpy's spin on what you feel???
I'm not in denial, I'm in remission
From the article they link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/25569107/bitter_pill/1"The story of how Zyprexa and other atypicals became a
multibillion-dollar market suggests that the medical community
— doctors, researchers, the institutions that back them
— may be themselves prone to a placebo effect: the willed
conviction that a new drug, presented as a breakthrough, must in
fact be one, that a product sold as healing must in fact do
good."
[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo] is hardly any indication of whether drug companies are operating on an agenda or not. Sorry that the truth makes you so uncomfortable, and that we aren't willing to live in denialisim to enable you to, but other people might appreciate a discussion around it.[/QUOTE]
Whoa! Please do not attempt to define how I feel, my level of comfort or discomfort, or whether or not I am in "denialisim". I seldom engage in the rhetoric that is the backbone of denialism and I more definitely have no problem stating my position.
My question re: "old news" was quite simply related to a trend I have noticed in which posts whose discussion has run its course are repeatedly bumped to the top, not once to encourage more discussion "around it", but repeatedly.
It is certainly your right and your prerogative to discuss any topic you so desire. However, remember that in the same vein I also have the right and the prerogative to give voice to my point of view and thoughts.
Cheers!
aguaeon, well, then, my opinion is that if you don't like the topic or you don't want to discuss it more, don't open it. You're in charge of what you post, you're not in charge of what anybody else posts,
Why don't you share an opinion about the
topic of the post, if you want to post on a thread? You know, instead of your opinion why other people shouldn't be posting their opinions on the topic?
edited for spelling and clarity.
BY the way, Suzanne, great article!
Gimpy-a-gogo2009-02-01 12:27:37
[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]aguaeon, well, then, my opinion is that if you don't like the topic or you don't want to discuss it more, don't open it. You're in charge of what you post, you're not in charge of what anybody else posts,
[/quote
Ah, yes, that old caveat. Exactly, I am not in what others decide to post, but I can, per your post, decide to post whatever I _think_ about what is posted
[quote]Why don't you share an opinion about the
topic of the post, if you want to post on a thread? You know, instead of your opinion why other people shouldn't be posting their opinions on the topic?
[/quote]
HMMMMM, I thought that I did. However, in case you missed it: why "bump" topics that have reached their "use by dates"? O
I do not want to engage you in what ifs, what fors, and how comes, but if you insist on doing so I will oblige. How about instead of dredging the bottom of the
pool we engage in current events, eh?
ETA, simplicity of remarks from both sides of the pond.
aguaeon2009-02-01 13:48:53Well, this is a current event. But again, if you don't like it, don't read it, instead of trying to tell everyone else to not write, discuss, think about it. It's a simple concept.
[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]Well, this is a current event. But again, if you don't like it, don't read it, instead of trying to tell everyone else to not write, discuss, think about it. It's a simple concept.[/QUOTE]
No problem, you see current events as "old news", I see it as current, i.e, as belonging to the present time, so be it. I was not attempting to tell anyone what to write or discuss, that seems to be your simply rote, i.e., memorization by repetition.
You win, hands down, with your refusal to move beyond what was into what is. Well, it's still going on, so it still is, and if you can't accept that, then there's the denialsim you're in denial about having.who cares? Gimpy!!!
No matter what you say aguaeon..... Gimpy will beat that horse good and dead... and then whack on it some more....... ugh.
and don't deny that you have denied the denialism you dwell in ........
babs102009-02-01 17:04:44
[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]Well, it's still going on, so it still is, and if you can't accept that, then there's the denialsim you're in denial about having.[/QUOTE]
OK, I am forced to ask...is "denialsim" the same as denialism? Once I could have accepted as a typo, twice I inquire.
Ahhh, I see!, you MUST have the last word, eh? OK, tell me how far up the black hole of denial I reside and I promise not to respond so you can satisfy your need. I accept, I accept.
Lynn-
You say you're in remission. Ivypoe was on Enbrel for 5 year and got colon cancer. Go figure.
[QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]Lynn-
You say you're in remission. Ivypoe was on Enbrel for 5 year and got colon cancer. Go figure.
[/QUOTE]
I don't just "say" I'm in remission, my blood tests, x-rays, RD, etc, all do that for me.........
You know what, my 16 year old daughter got thyroid cancer. At the time she was diagnosed she was a nationally ranked athlete, as healthy as they come. Cancer happens to people who are healthy, to people who have no risk factors....
I've had RA for 9 years and I've used Enbrel. Humira, MTX and now Rituxan. I'm healthy, happy and not blind to the fact that people get cancer for no particular reason.
Just because she used Enbrel, doesn't mean it "caused" the cancer, especially since there is a direct link between inflammation and colon cancer!
I'm not sure why you chose to continue with this discussion, but I'm pretty sure it's a waste of my time and energy...........
Lynn492009-02-02 10:27:32THen don't reply.[QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]Lynn-
You say you're in remission. Ivypoe was on Enbrel for 5 year and got colon cancer. Go figure.
[/QUOTE]
This was discussed in the appropriate thread started by Ivypoe and I don't understand why Lynn's comments about remission and Ivypoe's thread are compatible in any way. It's two very different threads and statements. I'm not disputing either comments but how are they connected and why? If I had said I was in remission would the reponse above been the same; linking my remission with Ivypoe's thread? Lindy
[QUOTE=LinB][QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]Lynn-
You say you're in remission. Ivypoe was on Enbrel for 5 year and got colon cancer. Go figure.
[/QUOTE]
This was discussed in the appropriate thread started by Ivypoe and I don't understand why Lynn's comments about remission and Ivypoe's thread are compatible in any way. It's two very different threads and statements. I'm not disputing either comments but how are they connected and why? If I had said I was in remission would the reponse above been the same; linking my remission with Ivypoe's thread? Lindy
[/QUOTE]
I just guessing but I would say, probably not...........
[QUOTE=aguaeon]
[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]Well, it's still going on, so it still is, and if you can't accept that, then there's the denialsim you're in denial about having.[/QUOTE]
OK, I am forced to ask...is "denialsim" the same as denialism? Once I could have accepted as a typo, twice I inquire.
Ahhh, I see!, you MUST have the last word, eh? OK, tell me how far up the black hole of denial I reside and I promise not to respond so you can satisfy your need. I accept, I accept.
[/QUOTE]
I'll answer. The origin of 'denialsim' actually lies in old topics being reposted as new, as opposed to being bumped, so it really even answers your other query as to why some prefer to bump old threads they like instead of starting new ones. Just personal preference.
'Denialsim' is a word like 'strategery', to me. I want to use them in the same sentence some day. Maybe with 'truthiness'? What do you guys think?
Denialsim is like reverse denialism or something.
Once upon a time, someone posted a blog that was supposed to be about denialism, but the author of the blog misspelled it. The very first word and subject of the blog. No one commented on that, as I recall.
It was posted again, months later. This time, I checked the date of the blog and commented that I thought it was funny that the author had written it way back in March (I think) and still hadn't fixed the typo.
And the denialsim movement was born.
Suzanne2009-02-02 12:05:34Lin-
Melody Peterson's book Our Daily Meds is about the drug company marketing of drugs with their profit motive being above the public health of individuals. If you are doing fine, you might still acknowledge that others are having serious side effects of many drugs, for instance Ivypoe. THis book deals with exactly that problem.
I've read the book, I've listened to the interviews, and I've read all the posts on this forum and other forums regarding the book and it's take on the industry. I don't agree or disagree, but I do find that your linking Lynn's remission and Ivypoe's cancer odd.
I'm not just doing fine, I'm in clinical remission and have been for over 14 months. Everyday I acknowledge that others are having serious side effects from their drugs but I more importantly acknowledge the serious complications from having rheumatoid arthritis. I stress the importance of controlling the symptoms and damage from RA and PsA. Of course there's side effects and sometimes severe side effects from the medications but there's also miracles. I feel there's far more miracles than serious side effects from the drugs. I almost died because of Vioxx but I'm not going to dismiss drugs that helped me achieve clinical remission because of Vioxx and it's marketing lies.
Just be absolutely, positively, 100% sure with statistics and a paper trail when you say that someone's serious disease is caused by a certain drug. I've been there with Vioxx and the paper trail is long and horrible for that disaster. Lindy
I find discounting someone's pain incredibly insensitive.Is that what I did? Please explain if the above comment was directed at me. LindyLindy - I don't think she was referring to you (and she will confirm) but instead was talking about some of the people that attacked Ivypoe for what her doctor said.
Pip
Lin-
No, I was not referring to you but to others who seem to shine her on.
I will bump this up since the topic of science versus testimonials come up over and over. As she says, it takes MONEY to finance tests so there is not a level playing field in drugs not made by Big Pharma.I bet if a protocol cured someone w/ money......... they'd ante up.
I guess we all have our own opinions..............
Babs- I like your posts.
Really like this book.Bump for discussion of research financing.bump again.For the newbie.[QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]For the newbie.[/QUOTE]
You sure like to dig up stuff to cause trouble don´t you?
No, I think it is very important and pertinent.
Why? Because you AP-ers constantly need to prove AP is the be all end all?
So you bring up posts which are months old because you have run out of ways to prove it. Sheesh
Shug.... you're gold in your assessment and delivery of an excellent book review!! To the trash piles she goes!! (I too have read it.. and agree wholeheartedly)
"Best wishes for illumination, education, and understanding.". because you won't find it in that book!!!
Babs, I had some few misgivings about posting an opinion that went wide of what others have posted. I have now read the transcript and that has strengthened my opinion.
I am not denying that there have been far too many errors, shortcuts, and even devious behaviour from/by/through pharma. However, a less angry more balanced expose would have, in my opinion better served both the author and her audience.
I completely agree.. I read the book last fall...
to have written an expose with less emotion would have been beneficial... You almost feel as though she is a scorned lover! a Get even kind of presentation, perhaps? As well, the book could have been shorter by 50% --- the redundancy was irritating at best.
I'm actually putting the book on my swap book list to get rid of it in trade for something I'd like to have
[QUOTE=babs10]to have written an expose with less emotion would have been beneficial... You almost feel as though she is a scorned lover![/quote]
Which immediately brought to mind William Congreve's famous lines: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned. Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
[quote]I'm actually putting the book on my swap book list to get rid of it in trade for something I'd like to have[/QUOTE]
A used bookstores in town has a liberal
swap policythat I take advantage of quite often.
One of the platitudes from the book re: taking prescription medication as a "quick fix" has become nearly a curse, an invocation,a conjuring term in certain circles and for at least some high-priced supplement marketing schemes.
I can only speak for myself, but when the radiologist pointed out how many new joint erosions were apparent in my hands and feet and that the older erosions were worse, you can bet your shiny penny I wanted a "quick fix". Now if "they" would just come up with a quick fix for fractures.
I am, however, in agreement with the anti-pharm movement about magazine and television advertising of prescription drugs. However, I am apalled my all marketing advertising in media by all sources whether the food industry, automobile industry, or big pharma.
There is more than a modicum of irony that fast food and sugared breakfast cereals and viagra are advertised seemingly without any oversight yet alcoholic beverages and cigarettes are banned from TV.
I think it is an outstanding book. Absolutely outstanding.
[QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]I think it is an outstanding book. Absolutely outstanding.[/QUOTE]
And that is why such appraisals are called
personal opinion. Your opinion is no more right nor wrong than my opinion. However, having both pro and con opinions on a book present a more balanced, and essentially a more 'helpful' expression of what the book actually represents.
Cheers! Shug
As I said before and I will say again, I think it is an excellent book pointing out the extreme marketing of the drug industry. My opinion
Babs-
That is SO true.
Still like Peterson's book about the marketing of drugs by drug companies and other points she makes, i.e. drug ads are permitted on TV only in the U.S. and New Zealand.
I really respect people who can respectfully disagree. Throwing a good in the trash sounds childish to me. I would think as adults we could do better.
Jan, as you lie Peterson's book so well, please take the time to provide us with an in-depth review of the book. It is ONLY through such a review that we who have opposing points of view will be able to understand why and how you find this book worthwhile.
Until then, bumping this topic to the top sheds no light on the content of the book. And that, the contents of the book should be the focus.
Jan, as you like Peterson's book so well, please take the time to
provide us with an in-depth review of the book. It is ONLY through such
a review that we who have opposing points of view will be able to
understand why and how you find this book worthwhile.
Until
then, bumping this topic to the top sheds no light on the content of
the book. And that, the contents of the book should be the focus.
THe interview gives a review, if you've read it. Or you could read the book yourself.Jan, I am not interested in anyone's review but yours. It is you that continually bumps this thread, so it is from you that I am asking for a review. Share with us you impressions of the book, what you especially found enlightening, what you were either skeptical off or conversely what you found remarkable.
I have read the interview, just as I indicated earlier in this thread and I provided a review of the book from my POV. Now it it your turn.
Until and unless you post a review of your own, simply bumping this topic time after time serves no purpose except to bump a topic that at this point is expired.
[QUOTE=Spelunker]Opinions are certainly a valid way to put forward any idea. I have read Ms. Peterson's book and found her vitriolic style to lessen the impact of her message. She rambles, repeats herself, and seems to want to infect everyone with her own brand of anger and
scoffitis. Derision does not make for good reporting, nor does bias, scaremongering, and a wholly apparent anti-medicine stance is neither breakthrough nor illuminating....
Best wishes for illumination, education, and understanding.[/QUOTE]She has alot of facts, if you've read it.Yes Jan I HAVE read it. One more time, please either provide a review or stop bumping this expired thread simply because you seem to belief it somehow supports some unstated opinion or point of view that you are occulting. If an opinion or a point of view is occulted for too long, its light is extinguished.
[QUOTE=Spelunker]
[QUOTE=Spelunker]Opinions are certainly a valid way to put forward any idea. I have read Ms. Peterson's book and found her vitriolic style to lessen the impact of her message. She rambles, repeats herself, and seems to want to infect everyone with her own brand of anger and
scoffitis. Derision does not make for good reporting, nor does bias, scaremongering, and a wholly apparent anti-medicine stance is neither breakthrough nor illuminating....
Best wishes for illumination, education, and understanding.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]100,000 people die every year from taking prescription drugs exactly as directed by their doctor. This is one of her facts.Jan, either review the book or don't your choice. However, PLEASE, stop with the random quotes and assertions. I am not interested in either, and frankly, it is becoming tiresome.
Review, do not blindly accept what the author says. Be objective and distance yourself from the hyperbole. Review simply means to critically appraise.
Can you do that, or are you going to keep on keeping on??
[QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]She has alot of facts, if you've read it.[/QUOTE]
she has LOADS of opinions.... sprinkled w/ facts.... elaborated w/ fabrications... and dangled w/ denial.....
[QUOTE=babs10]and dangled w/ denial..... [/QUOTE]
Oooh, nice alliteration! [QUOTE=babs10][QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]She has alot of facts, if you've read it.[/QUOTE]
she has LOADS of opinions.... sprinkled w/ facts.... elaborated w/ fabrications... and dangled w/ denial.....
[/QUOTE]
I just fell off my chairSorry, I may post some more of her facts.
[QUOTE=babs10]hey!! are you guys making fun of me?? you no likey my theatrical prose? *bow* *curtsey*
*giggle*
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com