Posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2002, at 14:09:10
PBE, not PBC
Posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 9:24:13
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020731/msgs/114892.html> Frankly, I don't care whether I get a PBC from anyone, Dr. Bob included. Drug pushers from pharmaceutical companies certainly do have a "unique perspective." It's called SELF-INTEREST and GREED. You shouldn't be posting on this board. How much is Forest paying you to harass us? Or, are you just an ingratiating lowly subordinate who will print out your PB posts and present them to your supervisor, in the hopes of a promotion? You should get a PBC and a PBE. That's PLEASE BE ETHICAL. But I'm not sure someone can be taught to be ethical. You either have integrity or you don't, and YOU certainly don't. And as long as Dr. Bob allows you on this site, his ethics and integrity are questionable as well.
----
Sheesh
Posted by bubblegumchewer on August 2, 2002, at 9:31:41
In reply to PBE, not PBC, posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 9:24:13> You don't think it's even POSSIBLE that the guy might believe in the product he sells and might be inclined to help people in need? It's a satisfying feeling to bring relief to people who are suffering... why have you concluded without a fair trial that this guy might not have ANY good intentions?
----
Re: PBE, not PBC + poll to answer too.
Posted by pharmrep on August 2, 2002, at 10:13:06
In reply to PBE, not PBC, posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 9:24:13> That's twice you have referred to my company. Forest has no clue what I do online. And PBE applies to you...you have slandered me with "dishonest, harass, pusher, non-integrity, non-ethical, sickening, con-artist, sleazeball, spindoctor...etc"
> How about this...everyone (except Bekka) add your note...If you think I've carried myself poorly for the whole 32 hours of PB I have...speak up and I will leave. If you have something objective to say or a nicety to add, that's great too. Because I dont know where the rough-housing is coming from...some of those who started out skeptical have actually seen a few of my notes, and dont feel that way anymore. So please...respond to "poll"----
Re: this ongoing debate
Posted by jrbecker on August 2, 2002, at 10:36:20
In reply to Sheesh, posted by bubblegumchewer on August 2, 2002, at 9:31:41> > You don't think it's even POSSIBLE that the guy might believe in the product he sells and might be inclined to help people in need? It's a satisfying feeling to bring relief to people who are suffering... why have you concluded without a fair trial that this guy might not have ANY good intentions?
>
> Yeah, agreed, but this is not the way to go about it. Pharmrep might indeed be truly altruistic in his/her intentions but this method is definitely the wrong way to go about it. I might be misinformed, but I'm not aware that pharmrep suffers from any mental health issues -- not that I'm saying psycho-babble should be exclusive to those that do -- however, I think that this is somewhat of a safehaven for us to share our subjective opinions in a peer-to-peer manor, without the presence of corporate establishments. That's what makes this site great, it cuts through the BS of marketing and media exposure (we can always do our own current events in drug research elsewhere). What's important is that we keep this site personal and experiential. Without this I think we sacrifice the sense of community we have here.
>
> to pharmrep specifically: I'm sure you think we're being unduly harsh on you (and we are, apologies for us all). But try to be in our shoes, considering the amount of stigma that still surrounds mental illness, we are thus very protective of the sanctity of this online community. Moreover, your id name of 'pharmrep' ceratinly doesn't help to paint a rosy picture of you for us. I think we all do believe you when you say you are only here to provide educational guidance for us all. However, do understand how we can consider a lot of where you're coming from as biased and thus, we might be a little skeptical. I only ask that when you that when you bring your information forth that you be highly cognizant of what you think is educational and what might not be approporiate (I used to work in marketing too and so I know what it's like to fully believe in your product). With that said, let me be the first to re-welcome you.
>
> keep smilin everybody. JR
>----
PBE
Posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 10:36:35
In reply to Re: PBE, not PBC + poll to answer too. , posted by pharmrep on August 2, 2002, at 10:13:06> A poll? How pathetic is that? Are you for real? It wouldn't matter to me what the results of your "poll" were because I am not swayed by public opinion. I believe what I believe. I don't care what other people think or what Dr. Bob thinks. I firmly stand by my words and my belief that drug pushers from pharmaceutical companies should not be on this board. You sound like a smooth-talking salesperson who spent, at most, a couple of hours in a crash course, learning a few scientific and pseudo-scientific buzzwords so that when you go to hawk your wares, you can create the illusion that you know what you're talking about. No, I doubt you believe in your product because it sounds as if you don't know enough about it to believe in it. For pharmaceutical companies, greed is the name of the game. I will not respond to you again. Greedy, self-interested, smooth-talking drug pushers are not worth my while.
----
Give it a rest Bekka **nfm
Posted by johnj on August 2, 2002, at 10:46:12
In reply to PBE , posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 10:36:35> nfm
----
Re: PBE, not PBC + poll to answer too. » pharmrep
Posted by Geezer on August 2, 2002, at 11:06:48
In reply to Re: PBE, not PBC + poll to answer too. , posted by pharmrep on August 2, 2002, at 10:13:06> Hey pharmrep,
>
> Count one vote for your side. My wife IS an organic chemist and she doesn't have any more answers than you do. Psychopharm. is still a "crap shoot" - not empirical science.....h***, the pdocs can't even make an accurate DX much less come up with the right drug to treat it with. If the drug companies don't provide the drugs I don't know where they will come from.
>
> Just be cool - Dr. Bob runs a good show here. You might want to take a look at my response to your post Re: FDA is the DMV in the pharm world>> Geezer 7/31/02.
>
> Hang in
>
> Geezer----
thanks all...so far good stuff
Posted by pharmrep on August 2, 2002, at 11:07:16
In reply to PBE , posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 10:36:35
> Instead of the continued bashing, why dont you test my knowledge, afterall, that's why I'm here, to learn and share what I know. (you didnt answer my questions from the last post either)----
Mephisto? Faust?
Posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 11:47:38
In reply to Lexapro rep pushes Lexapro, what a shock! » pharmrep, posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 9:45:20
> Dr. Bob, please let me know whether you intend to sell out to the corporate interests infiltrating this board, preying upon vulnerable, impressionable, naive and desperate patients.----
Well, I think my sheesh post said it but...
Posted by bubblegumchewer on August 2, 2002, at 12:14:20
In reply to cost -- pharmrep, posted by katekite on August 2, 2002, at 12:04:16> To answer your poll, I say give pharmrep a chance... I like to gather information from whatever source. I did stick up for you (you could thank me for it, hint hint.. ok, you don't need to.)
>
> That being said, others have made good points. Don't take it personally, pharmrep, but there's only so much room for your kind here, and since you're currently the only one around, you haven't exceeded that quota, so you're ok in my book. But imagine if the board was overrun by pharm reps... then the atmosphere would be lame, like having to wade through a bunch of marketing when really we primarily want to talk to other patients who are not financially biased in any way. But like I said, I think that a few opinions from the world of pharmaceutical marketing are ok; I appreciate getting their perspective and I am not cynical enough to think that the world of medicine and pharmaceuticals in particular are 100% motivated solely by greed. Partially, of course. Anyone would be foolish to think that companies do not want to sell their product. I do not think that makes the people employed at those companies the scum of the earth and I appreciate getting a little advance notice of new products so I can use that information along with other sources to make educated decisions about medications I might want to try. Of course I don't really WANT to try any, but that's wishing which is different from real life.----
Re: PBE, not PBC + poll to answer too. » Geezer
Posted by Ritch on August 2, 2002, at 12:21:51
In reply to Re: PBE, not PBC + poll to answer too. » pharmrep, posted by Geezer on August 2, 2002, at 11:06:48> > Hey pharmrep,
> >
> > Count one vote for your side. My wife IS an organic chemist and she doesn't have any more answers than you do. Psychopharm. is still a "crap shoot" - not empirical science.....h***, the pdocs can't even make an accurate DX much less come up with the right drug to treat it with. If the drug companies don't provide the drugs I don't know where they will come from.
> >
> > Just be cool - Dr. Bob runs a good show here. You might want to take a look at my response to your post Re: FDA is the DMV in the pharm world>> Geezer 7/31/02.
> >
> > Hang in
> >
> > Geezer
>
>
> Geezer,
>
> That is a good point. How do we know who anybody really is here anyway? PharmRep could be working for Lilly trying to make Forest look unethical, or could be working for some antimed group to help unearth evidence of the evils of drugs (although I doubt any of those theories). He/she really sounds like a drug rep. I talked to a couple of them before in the waiting room when visiting my pdoc-not about drugs but about their *work*-where they travel, etc. I say the more information the better. Even though it *might* be misinformation. The more viewpoints and sources the better you can judge for yourself. If you trust nothing but research-you could be misled by the designs of the studies, if you trust just the anecdotal experiences of a *few* you could overgeneralize about a medication and not take something that could work for you. As you say many pdocs are bewildered and often lack training to sort through the medication blizzard that is all around us.
>
> Mitch
>----
thanks
Posted by pharmrep on August 2, 2002, at 13:05:13
In reply to Re: PBE, not PBC + poll to answer too. » Geezer, posted by Ritch on August 2, 2002, at 12:21:51> I appreciate all the insight and objectivity. Just thought I'd ad one more note. If I am so "deceiving" why would I call myself pharmrep, and clearly link myself with a company/product? I didnt have too, and thought I was doing the right thing my being upfront. I'm not lying to you guys, or selling to you either. Just trying to learn, and share. I thank you for your opinions (good or bad) and hope you will learn I am trustworthy (like some of you have)
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:6976
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020725/msgs/6976.html