Maybe I'm too cynical.
I just watched a TV commercial about fibromyalgia. I don't watch a lot of TV, so maybe this commercial has been running for a while, but it's the first time I've seen it. It had high production values, so it didn't look like a public service announcement.
So my immediate (and very cynical) thought was: Some pharmaceutical company has a new drug targeted to people with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.
The ad gave a website address for more information: www.myfibrorelief.com. I'm going to surf over there right now and see whether my cynicism is misplaced. Be right back...
... I'm back.
Bingo! Pfizer it is.
Pfizer's website has an interesting feature offering a free "My Fibro Relief Kit". Except that it's not free. Sure, you don't have to pay for it, but you do have to submit personal information and are asked to complete a questionnaire. After that, you'll receive information about the condition, tips on how to get relief, etc.
If Pfizer is so concerned about the well-being of fibromyalgia sufferers, why not just post this helpful information on the website without making them jump through hoops? Could they have a hidden, less-altruistic agenda?
I remember a similar phenomenon when Viagra was released. (Coincidentally, also a Pfizer product, but I'm confident I could tar all the pharmas with the same brush).
The company had never previously expressed an interest in men's sexual health. Yet, all of a sudden, it was running ads exhorting men to "talk to their doctor" about erectile dysfunction. Men were encouraged to take a questionnaire about their sexual function. That questionnaire set the bar pretty low, i.e. there would be very few men who wouldn't be candidates for Pfizer's drug.
Of course, I'm not naive about pharma's intent in direct-to-patient marketing. They're in the business of selling their product for a profit. I'm just suspicious when they insist that their primary goal is patient welfare. Isn't the primary goal of any corporation the same - shareholder value? I just hope the pharmas achieve that goal without stepping on patients' welfare.
I guess I am a little cynical.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Cynic's corner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Cynic: “a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.”
You ought to be.
Start at the “symptoms” on the website. These can also be caused by anything from a car accident to a viral flu.
But now the patient can present to the GP with a list of symptoms. Put some pressure on the provider to prescribe the drug. Tell a friend – the option is available on the website.
Two mouse-clicks to the treatment, nine mouse-clicks to the (limited) side-effect profile. Right out of the Business and Marketing handbook.
The first catch? – Price: about a dollar per tablet of 25mg. Taken on average 75mg twice per day = considerable expense.
(http://www.pharmacychecker.com/Pricing.asp?DrugId=45770&DrugStrengthId=80097.)
The drug is not available on the Saskatchewan Formulary. Neither is it available on EDS (Exceptional Drug Status)
So “out-of-pocket” it will be then. Because, you have ALL the signs and symptoms. And nothing has ever worked for you.
The second catch: Any mention of FDA safety changes related to the drug? - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563679
So have this changed the view from cynical to believer in conspiracy theories? (A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations.)
I guess you will not see many Pfizer drug samples on your shelf soon…Ever wondered why I post anonymous, parasitic comments?
Good one, Colt
Regards
Joe
Wow, thanks for the nuts-and-bolts analysis on this one! Keep up the cynicism.
Post a Comment