Comments on: Pfizer gets penalized

By: Aporkalypse

Aporkalypse — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:03:02 +0000

I don’t know enough about it to comment on the bribery issue, but we don’t want this to become an issue of off-label uses no longer being available to physicians. If that were true, we could only use Paxil to treat anxiety d/o instead of other SSRIs. As for Neurontin, the fact it is an excellent, relatively safe second line therapy for peripheral neuropathies when TCAs don’t work. It’s expensive and I prefer TCAs because of cost, but it’s as effective if not more. Neurologists will not abandon their use of it for this.

The FDA probably needs to address off-label use and liberalize their process for adding indications.

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Sun, 23 May 2004 22:20:06 +0000

“Obviously, Mr. Fembup must be a drug rep or work for the industry. No one would surely be so blind to see that it is not the physicians decision nor the industries decision as to how a drug is used.”

Yeh, right, “obviously” except then you say maybe I’m a physician? Or maybe I’m something else? I guess that’ll cover it, huh, liljohn??

I have nothing to do with the drug industry. Nothing.

But I obviouskly did ask a question, which you just as obviously ignore.

But you do seem to believe that physicians are utterly powerless to resist the influence of Pfizer “bribery”. Thus you accuse physicians of complictiy in the Pfizer “bribert” and moral laxity at the same time, do you not?

Might I add that I would pray NEVER to be defended by the likes of you.

By: poormedicalstudent

poormedicalstudent — Thu, 20 May 2004 17:32:32 +0000

ugh, that nofreelunch site is a bore. we have students here that constantly push that, as opposed to saying that maybe the responsibility lies with the individual physician to make moral choices in the interests of their patients, not themselves.

regarding the decision, i commented on it a few days back. i believe that both pfizer and the physicians are in the wrong. let’s face it, if physicians weren’t being convinved to offer said drug off-label without studies demonstrating efficacy, this story wouldn’t exist. pfizer started it, but physicians easily could’ve ended it by saying “no thanks”.

By: Lil' John

Lil' John — Tue, 18 May 2004 12:54:55 +0000

Obviously, Mr. Fembup must be a drug rep or work for the industry. No one would surely be so blind to see that it is not the physicians decision nor the industries decision as to how a drug is used. Without proper clinical trials, how do we know this drug wasn’t….isn’t harmful when pushed on the wrong patient.

Lets face it, Pfizer’s hands aren’t exactly clean on giving out bribes and highly influencing physicians prescription decisions. If Mr. Fembup is a physician, maybe he needs help and should check out this website
http://www.nofreelunch.org/

I don’t think the $430 million payoff will put a dent in Pfizer’s funds. Not to mention they can use their $49.15 billion income to influence the FDA to make Neurontin an OTC drug.

By: Carl Lindemann

Carl Lindemann — Tue, 18 May 2004 10:21:10 +0000

Nice payoff to the whistle blower! Hmm. I wonder if this strategy can help with my overhead!

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Tue, 18 May 2004 05:09:21 +0000

And it seems “just” because . . . ?

Because this medication is no longer available to diabetics ?

Because diabetics can no longer take this medication until the FDA eventually approves it?

Because docs would never have placed their patients at risk, nor compromised their professionalism, had it not been for Pfizer pushing cash at them?

Because the docs who took the payments aren’t included in the decision?

Because Pfizer, which bought Warner Lambert, got nailed for Warner Lambert’s behavior?

Because the FDA which is notoriously slow to approve label uses of drugs dragged its feet on this one, and then decided to extort cash from Pfizer?

Because the lawyers get 50% of the setlement?

Why is this “just”?

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Tue, 18 May 2004 00:45:48 +0000

Oy weh!