![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Simcha on September 1, 2002, at 15:29:54
I'm concerned by the growing debate over Lexapro. I am not saying that we should not allow Drug Reps to provide information on this new drug.
However..... I think that Pharmrep is more than zealous about Lexapro. Of course he would be. His job depends on it. I think we need to remind ourselves that drug reps and drug companies in general are for profit institutions and as such the profit is the ONLY GOAL of said institutions.
Remember Enron, Worldcom, and all the rest of the corporate scandals lately. These big companies really have so much control over our lives.
As they make Celexa impossible to get because it will be knocked off of the formulary of most insurance companies, Forest introduces "New and Improved Celexa" in the form of Lexapro. Now, those of us who do just fine on Celexa may not do as well on Lexapro. I see no convincing evidence that Lexapro will be better for me than Celexa. Most med changes have been very difficult for me.
Knocking the waning Celexa off of insurance formularies by making Lexapro cheaper Forest has made certain that no one but Forest will make profit off of Citalopram. The old drug "citalopram" will die an early death at the hands of the insurance companies so that by the time Forest loses its patent no one will bother marketing generic citalopram because there would be no profit. Thus Forest retains its patent on Lexapro and remains the sole provider of this allegedly superior form of its most successful drug (removing the r-isomer of course).
I do not buy into their claims that this is not a profit driven plan for the reasons above. It will insure a continued monopoly on the s-isomer at the very least and it will kill any incentive for any other company to make a generic citalopram thus keeping Lexapro on top of the market.
Just My Opinion,
Simcha
Posted by IsoM on September 1, 2002, at 17:00:08
In reply to Hey, Do We Allow Pharm Reps to Have Free Reign?, posted by Simcha on September 1, 2002, at 15:29:54
Simcha, pharmrep may seem to be getting free advertising for Lexapro on PB, but I like the fact that dr. dave is answering back. I like hearing both sides & so far, the info dr. dave has provided has me feeling pretty dubious about Lexapro's benefits.
It's this back & forth debate that helps keep us informed. Despite what pharmrep is saying, I don't think many are going to be eager to try Lexapro unless Celexa helped lots but had troublesome side effects with it.
Posted by Simcha on September 2, 2002, at 1:07:13
In reply to Re: I Like Reading Both Sides » Simcha, posted by IsoM on September 1, 2002, at 17:00:08
Yeah, I was just raising the question. It seems like the discussion is heated and balanced.
Thanks for your imput,
Simcha
Posted by trouble on September 15, 2002, at 17:42:46
In reply to Re: I Like Reading Both Sides » IsoM, posted by Simcha on September 2, 2002, at 1:07:13
> Yeah, I was just raising the question. It seems like the discussion is heated and balanced.
>
> Thanks for your imput,
> Simcha
Mercy,i am so behind on reading PB that i have no idea what's goin on, but will look for these psychopharm pushers over on medication once i recover from administration, anyway, i too like reading both sides of "expert opinion", attacking each argument with all available resources, then if either position still holds, voila. this is work, this board is work.
trouble
This is the end of the 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.