![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by oracle on July 31, 2002, at 18:53:16
In reply to drug reps, posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 16:55:02
> It doesn't seem to be in the best interests of the site to have a Forest drug rep in our midst.
>
> KateDo we have a drug rep here on the lists ? (Maybe I missed something) Otherwise, I agree with what Kate has said.
Posted by Anyuser on July 31, 2002, at 18:53:53
In reply to drug reps, posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 16:55:02
Your points are good ones, and I think they are part of an interesting larger issue.
How are we to know the motives of anybody that posts here? Drug reps are bought and paid for, so at least we know where they're coming from and can take that into account in assessing their statements. How do we assess the bona fides and reliability of someone touting an herbal remedy, or fish oil? Or of someone whose subject line reads, "EQUANITRANQ RUINED MY LIFE!!!!!" Or someone who is supposed to be a doctor? Remember Dr. Kramer? PB beat on him like a pinata.
Would we be more credulous of a drug rep that didn't believe in his product, that ratted out his employer and gave us the inside dirt? Probably.
We're all looking for a Big Daddy, at least I am, and some people try to be Big Daddy on the internet. But the internet eats Big Daddies alive.
Posted by Cam W. on July 31, 2002, at 23:30:46
In reply to drug reps, posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 16:55:02
Kate - He said a lot of things that were scientifically unsound. Stuff about the enantiomers being 50% of each and since you are getting only the good half, the drug is twice as good or has half as many side effect is just plain wrong. There were a couple more instances where he was fudging. I almost posted, but clicked off (probably the wise choice; I am not getting paid to train him).
Sorry for getting snarky, he shouldn't feed us B.S. - Cam
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2002, at 23:42:39
In reply to drug reps, posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 16:55:02
> Many people here think that drug reps are educated people like 'researchers', who will be objective in their advice.
It's a complicated issue, whom to trust:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
> My beef has nothing to do with whether its a good drug or not, its about whether the person marketing it will have undue influence over people with no other information to look at.
So people need other information. Whatever other sides of the story there are.
> There should be reps from all the companies, to make it fair.
I should issue invitations? :-)
> How about if I start touting something I sell, after I put my degrees behind my name? Would that be fair on this site... what exactly are the rules?
I'm open to input, but I think my inclination is not to make a new rule, ie, to allow people to post about products if they follow the current rules, ie, don't pressure others, exaggerate or overgeneralize, etc.
> I appreciate the idea that someone in-the-know may have interesting information or viewpoints and I wish there was a way to get that without bias -- but there isn't any way to be sure and in the absence of being able to discern bias or no bias, we are safer here without it at all.I guess my philosophy has been, better to have information and to be alert to potential bias than not to have information. Besides, it's not like I have any way to keep drug reps out...
Bob
Posted by BekkaH on August 1, 2002, at 0:15:47
In reply to drug reps, posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 16:55:02
Drug reps do not belong on this site, but it's possible they have been here all along without identifying themselves as such. When someone raves about a drug, that poster might be someone being paid by the drug company to do so. When someone trashes a drug, he may actually be trashing a competitor or potential competitor of the drug company he works for. The most positive thing I can say about the Lexapro pharmrep is that at least he identified himself as a Forest Lab rep. Nevertheless, I think it is inappropriate for salespeople to post here. I had hoped that SPAM would not make it's way to this site. By any other name, it's still SPAM. Isn't it bad enough that pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars COURTING physicians with pens, gadgets and high-priced dinners at the fanciest restaurants, etc? It is sickening and unethical -- but not surprising -- that a pharmrep would infiltrate Psychobabble and attempt to hawk his wares here.
Posted by mist on August 1, 2002, at 0:48:41
In reply to A wolf in sheep's clothing, posted by BekkaH on August 1, 2002, at 0:15:47
The way I look at it, you have to take everything on the internet with a grain of salt. Maybe more than one grain. That's why I'm not that concerned about someone like that posting here. I don't believe anyone would be swayed that easily in any direction based on what a stranger says. It's all just something to consider. I have always thought there might be drug company reps here, especially since there are some posters who are so aggressively critical of anyone who even questions that treatments other than meds might work for some depressed people. I have always suspected some of them might be drug co. people. But I don't know for sure, so I listen to what they have to say the same as anyone else (unless they're being insulting and abusive). The thing about any med is, even if it's great for many other people, if it doesn't work for you or the side effects are intolerable it doesn't matter what anyone else says about it. It's always a matter of trial and error anyway, so no other person's opinion about it can ultimately matter that much.
Posted by BekkaH on August 1, 2002, at 1:05:44
In reply to Re: A wolf in sheep's clothing, posted by mist on August 1, 2002, at 0:48:41
Hi mist,
How right you are about taking any and all information on the Internet with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, there are some people who are particularly vulnerable and desperate and, therefore, easily seduced by snake oil salesmen. Targeting patients in distress is a heinous act.
Bekka
Posted by katekite on August 1, 2002, at 9:44:28
In reply to Re: drug reps, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2002, at 23:42:39
Posted by Mashogr8 on August 1, 2002, at 10:38:30
In reply to Yes I think you should invite others, then. (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by katekite on August 1, 2002, at 9:44:28
I kind of like not having or hearing ideas about drugs like we listen to on television, radio or have to read past in a magazine. On the other hand, it could be a source of revenue..... But then there'd be advertising and more banners. Anonymity works better I think.
MA
Posted by Phil on August 1, 2002, at 10:59:37
In reply to No,I don't think you should invite others, then., posted by Mashogr8 on August 1, 2002, at 10:38:30
Believe me, we know drugs. They know schmoozing and buzzwords. I promise, you won't learn anything.
Well, maybe if they brought pens and coffee cups.
Nothing like having coffee at work in a cup with Thorazine stamped on it.
Posted by mist on August 1, 2002, at 11:05:30
In reply to Don't invite drug reps. I'd have to up my meds!!!, posted by Phil on August 1, 2002, at 10:59:37
Posted by Phil on August 1, 2002, at 11:24:52
In reply to Have them on a separate board? (nm), posted by mist on August 1, 2002, at 11:05:30
Posted by Mashogr8 on August 1, 2002, at 11:30:14
In reply to A surfboard. (nm), posted by Phil on August 1, 2002, at 11:24:52
Posted by mist on August 1, 2002, at 11:56:32
In reply to Re: A surfboard with absolutely wicked waves (nm), posted by Mashogr8 on August 1, 2002, at 11:30:14
Posted by Phil on August 1, 2002, at 12:56:39
In reply to Re: A surfboard with absolutely wicked waves (nm), posted by Mashogr8 on August 1, 2002, at 11:30:14
NO sexual side-effects, took the two headed man from miserable to happy. Now that's something.
We give it to the tigers, they love it. But we are running outta tigers.
Viagra, Viagra..get it up here! Concrete in a pill. Take one and see the stars and stripes rise.
All natural Senokot right here! Turning blue; no need too. Elephants got into these before a parade and absolutely changed the marching bands school colors. Senokot..senokot.
Teenager have too many hormones? Get your Zoloft here, put it in their scrambled eggs and whammo!!
No more safe sex speeches.
Rash-master! Get your rash-master here. Got a rash? Hey it happens! Rash-master- no pills to take, just scrape that baby off. Poof. No more rash.
Amitriptyline .05 cents right here? Take it and ride the roller-coaster. Hey! We promise, you'll never be the same.Hey, like sh*t through a goose, we'll be in your town soon. Free admission, but brother will you pay. When leaving get your free XanaX for the drive home. Kids never crossed a median into oncoming traffic? Beats the heck out of our rides. See you next year!!!
Posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 0:01:46
In reply to Have them on a separate board? (nm), posted by mist on August 1, 2002, at 11:05:30
How about overboard?
Posted by Phil on August 2, 2002, at 6:12:01
In reply to Re: Have them on a separate board?, posted by BekkaH on August 2, 2002, at 0:01:46
Posted by LLL on September 18, 2002, at 16:47:51
>Oh and BTW, why is there a pharmacy rep on here? >Isn't that kinda like Spam or having a talking >ad for Forrest Labs in a consumer/patient chat >room?
>It seems to cause many reactions from otherwise >well meaning people. Can't we cut the ads and >talk to real patients and doctors?
This was posted on Psycho Babble by another poster. I agree, why do you continue to tolerate having a pharm salesperson on the board. I was told to be civil after pointing out to him that referring to someone as "nasty" is being judgemental. His response to me today? "that's not a judgement, telling someone "no need to get nasty" is a figure of speech!"
I do not understand why you continue to tolerate his presence when it seems to be quite inappropriate.
However, I'm sure that by stating this opinion I will get blocked.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2002, at 20:39:46
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by LLL on September 18, 2002, at 16:47:51
> why do you continue to tolerate having a pharm salesperson on the board.
I've made this a continuation of the previous thread on this issue, please see the earlier posts here.
> However, I'm sure that by stating this opinion I will get blocked.
There's a difference between disagreeing and being uncivil. Though of course there can be overlap, too...
Bob
Posted by dr. dave on October 4, 2002, at 3:37:07
In reply to Re: salesperson, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2002, at 20:39:46
I'm getting a bit concerned about the Lexapro thread. Statements are being made, not as opinions, but as statements of fact from an authoritative source which just aren't remotely justifiable by the evidence. I have no problem having robust discussions about the interpretation of data, and doing my bit to give an alternative point of view, but vulnerable people are turning for advice to a sales representative who is saying things quite at odds with the research.
I would be interested in your views.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2002, at 19:03:18
In reply to Re: salesperson, posted by dr. dave on October 4, 2002, at 3:37:07
> I'm getting a bit concerned about the Lexapro thread. Statements are being made, not as opinions, but as statements of fact from an authoritative source which just aren't remotely justifiable by the evidence. I have no problem having robust discussions about the interpretation of data, and doing my bit to give an alternative point of view, but vulnerable people are turning for advice to a sales representative who is saying things quite at odds with the research.
What I like to see is discussion that's open enough to include alternative points of view. Whom then to trust can be a hard -- and subjective -- question:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
But on a site like this, that's the reader's prerogative -- and responsibility.
As far as evidence, I think there's a continuum from (1) lots of evidence for to (2) not much evidence one way or another or evidence both ways to (3) lots of evidence against. The more towards (3), the more problematic the statement. If you think misinformation like that has been posted, please let me know (in addition to posting an alternative point of view). How does that sound?
Bob
Posted by dr. dave on October 9, 2002, at 4:20:07
In reply to Re: evidence, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2002, at 19:03:18
> > I'm getting a bit concerned about the Lexapro thread. Statements are being made, not as opinions, but as statements of fact from an authoritative source which just aren't remotely justifiable by the evidence. I have no problem having robust discussions about the interpretation of data, and doing my bit to give an alternative point of view, but vulnerable people are turning for advice to a sales representative who is saying things quite at odds with the research.
>
> What I like to see is discussion that's open enough to include alternative points of view. Whom then to trust can be a hard -- and subjective -- question:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
>
> But on a site like this, that's the reader's prerogative -- and responsibility.
>
> As far as evidence, I think there's a continuum from (1) lots of evidence for to (2) not much evidence one way or another or evidence both ways to (3) lots of evidence against. The more towards (3), the more problematic the statement. If you think misinformation like that has been posted, please let me know (in addition to posting an alternative point of view). How does that sound?
>
> BobThat sounds extremely sensible. I've posted an alternative point of view and a request for back-up of some claims that have been made. I realise it's not your responsibility to check the validity of every last thing anyone says, but I just wanted to register my concern that this was happening.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2002, at 21:12:23
In reply to Re: evidence, posted by dr. dave on October 9, 2002, at 4:20:07
> I just wanted to register my concern that this was happening.
I appreciate that concern about what happens here, thanks!
Bob
Posted by Alan on October 13, 2002, at 2:47:49
In reply to Re: evidence, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2002, at 19:03:18
> > I'm getting a bit concerned about the Lexapro thread. Statements are being made, not as opinions, but as statements of fact from an authoritative source which just aren't remotely justifiable by the evidence. I have no problem having robust discussions about the interpretation of data, and doing my bit to give an alternative point of view, but vulnerable people are turning for advice to a sales representative who is saying things quite at odds with the research.
>
> What I like to see is discussion that's open enough to include alternative points of view. Whom then to trust can be a hard -- and subjective -- question:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
>
> But on a site like this, that's the reader's prerogative -- and responsibility.
>
> As far as evidence, I think there's a continuum from (1) lots of evidence for to (2) not much evidence one way or another or evidence both ways to (3) lots of evidence against. The more towards (3), the more problematic the statement. If you think misinformation like that has been posted, please let me know (in addition to posting an alternative point of view). How does that sound?
>
> Bob
================================================Dear Dr. Bob,
Most consumers here (which is what babble is mostly made up of) know nothing in the way of how drugs are approved and about test result validities except to trust the FDA and what the drug co's tell us. Babblers are relatively vulnerable by nature of their disorders/diseases and while having critical thinking skills, are not provided the following information - the foundation of which you base your policies regarding commercial "face time" are concerned.
With an undeniably unhealthy (some argue incestuous) relationship between the drug co's and the FDA where drug test results are allowed to be cherry - picked (after the criteria for each new test moves the goal posts to acheive more and more desireable results) and all of the most desireable results are sent to the FDA for approval, how can there be any transparency of content for consumers to trust - most importantly coming from a pharmrep?
Certainly you know the practice allowed by the FDA for co's to throw out undesireable results and change test criteria until they get the results they need (not to mention hiding failures or in the Paxil case, attempting to throw out the failed test results and getting caught by their own internal memos regarding the results of these failed tests)....
So how does this troubling FDA/Pharm co. policy fit into your continuium of allowing "credible" evidence to argue for or against anything at all by a salesman (pharmrep) considering your criteria?
This is not to say that they are inherently corrupt but only that we deserve better and need the most credible sources of information for your illustrious site to maintain it's crediblity.
Visiting doctors (that have exposed their financial or otherwise intersts in a drug company) would seemingly be unqualified to give unbiased information. Why not limit advice and support from those docs that have their hands clean?
Or are you of the opinion that there are so very few of them left that this is an unreasonable request?
There are enough obstacles standing between the doctor/patient relationship such as time constraints, commercial interests, etc, already as I read here at PB. That relationship doesn't need to be complicated further by consumers being fed "face time" to complicate matters further. The saturation of paxil and zoloft adds on TV and Radio, and Newsprint isn't enough face time already? Don't patients deserve to have a sanctuary still waiting for them at here at PB?
Please reconsider your policy of allowing overt commercial interests to permeate this prestigious bboard - a board full of sophisticated and newbies alike....if for no other reason, in the interest of protecting the vulnerable population. Isn't that most of us here? Us that would feel the need to visit a psychological help/support bboard?
Sincerely,
Alan
Posted by judy1 on October 13, 2002, at 13:16:26
In reply to Re: evidence - policy/continum » Dr. Bob, posted by Alan on October 13, 2002, at 2:47:49
for a beautifully written post. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the pharm industry- and here in CA, I'm particularly distraught that a judge just overturned a ruling made to force the makers of paxil to include habit-forming in their ads. I would hope people reading your post (newbies like you pointed out) will consider what you wrote the next time they pick up a prescription from their pdoc. take care, judy
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.