|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > March 2005 > The Marketing LASIK and VIOXX
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The Marketing LASIK and VIOXX
|
|
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-03-19, 6:22 pm |
| Yesterday's New York Times had an in-depth story on medical marketing,
"The Marketing of VIOXX: How Merck Played Game of Catch-Up." Those
unfamiliar with the perils and pitfuls of medical marketing as it
affects the patient will find this article very informative.
This type of marketing is not unique to drugs but applies as well to
medical technology(EG. LASIK). All consumers of refractive surgery
should do their homework as there is much hype...since the monetary
rewards are high.
Excerpts:
"To win them over, the documents show, Merck officials planned to offer
them carrots like clinical trials, posts as clinical consultants or
give them grants."
"Many..involved complaints that some academic (medical) researchers
were inflating Celebrex's benefits while exaggerating VIOXX's side
effects."
"A Merck document recommended that Dr. ____ (a doctor Merck was trying
to neutralize) be giving more paid speeches, be invited to more
meetings and be asked to more drug trials."
The article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/b...s/11merck.html?
With this in mind, the CRSQA should list alternate sources (and amount)
of income its "certified" surgeons receive from manufacturers- grants,
advisory boards, clinical trial income, travel, speaking honorariums,
etc. Patients will then be better informed for their decision on the
choice of procedure and the choice of surgeon.
WK
| |
| serebel 2005-03-19, 6:22 pm |
|
gospa68@aol.com wrote:
>
> With this in mind, the CRSQA should list alternate sources (and
amount)
> of income its "certified" surgeons receive from manufacturers-
grants,
> advisory boards, clinical trial income, travel, speaking honorariums,
> etc. Patients will then be better informed for their decision on the
> choice of procedure and the choice of surgeon.
>
> WK
That's it Glenn, run everything thru Wizzer for the blessing of the
day.
Don't forget the change you find in the couch cushions.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:22 pm |
| There is nothing wrong with a patient knowing this kind of
information if it is of interest to him or her, however it is not
something we research. We focus on the doctor's patient outcomes.
If the doctor is getting good patient outcomes, we believe such
information is somewhat superfluous. Let's put it another way, would
a surgeon who gets poor outcomes be acceptable if that doctor did not
consult for a manufacturer? I think most potential patients are much
more interested in the patient outcomes than what is in the doctor's
stock portfolio.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-03-19, 6:22 pm |
| Patients, while interested in outcomes, are equally interested in the
accuracy of the information being provided. It is clear that many of
the medical specialties are tainted by the vested interests of doctors
who are profiting handsomely from a particular procedure or drug. Once
this has provided them with a certain lifestyle, you can be sure that
it takes a very courageous doctor to kill the golden goose.
Your superficial comment that patients are more interested in outcomes
than what is in the doctor's portfolio only underscores your clear
position of being a industry advocate, not a patient advocate. I do not
know of any credible patient advocacy person or organization that would
put together such nonsense as you do for the CRSQA.
WK
I have not had a refractive procedure so I am not vested to any
outcome, either good or bad. In addition, I have no vested interest in
any refractive procedure or related organization. I am an ophthalmic
clinical expert and have grave concerns about how refractive surgery is
being marketed to unknowing and trusting consumers.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:22 pm |
| So WizKid, how did you become a "ophthalmic clinical expert"? In what
kind of environment do you work? What are your credentials to respond
that virtually everything I have ever said in this newsgroup is
inaccurate, even though you have never once provided any
substantiation of your meritless claims?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2005-03-19, 6:22 pm |
|
gospa68@aol.com wrote:
I am an ophthalmic
> clinical expert and have grave concerns about how refractive surgery
is
> being marketed to unknowing and trusting consumers.
You are as much an "expert" as OJ Simpson is a feminist. All you do is
regurgitate Hanson and Kellers posts. You have zero knowledge on RS or
probably anything else.
SErebel
|
| |
|
|