Personal info stolen in Baltimore looting

[JustWinBaby]

(06-09-2015, 04:34 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This comment is laughable.  For 9 of the past 10 years I've written prescriptions for Tamiflu...The most important reasons to prescribe Tamiflu may not be true

Which is an example of Roche writing prescriptions for Tamiflu how? If you're worried their claims MAY not be true, then why not prescribe another drug. Oh wait...

I don't get your hate for Tamiflu.  It's not the first or last drug that has questionable effectiveness for people.  Maybe take up your case with the FDA approval process.  I'm not really even sure what the hell this has to do with this thread.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-09-2015, 08:26 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Which is an example of Roche writing prescriptions for Tamiflu how?  If you're worried their claims MAY not be true, then why not prescribe another drug.  Oh wait...

Prescriptions based upon lies by omission.  Do you know what that is?  If they submitted all their results it may not have ever been approved = no prescriptions = no money for the drug company.  Yes, their claims "MAY" not be true.  The manufacturer (with a vested interest) claims they're telling the truth.  The Cochrane Collaboration (without a vested interest) claims they aren't telling the truth.  Have you done your own clinical trials to determine who is right and who is wrong?  No, you haven't.  At best, the use of Tamiflu is controversial.  Do you have trouble understanding the use of "may" in a sentence?

"Oh, wait..." what? 

Quote:I don't get your hate for Tamiflu.  It's not the first or last drug that has questionable effectiveness for people.  Maybe take up your case with the FDA approval process.  I'm not really even sure what the hell this has to do with this thread.

It's called an example.  An example of a lack of ethics to make a profit.  You claimed drug companies are entitled to make as much as they can to pay for the R&D.  I asked you are they entitled to make as much as they can based upon fraudulent R&D in order to get a drug approved so they can pay for their fraudulent R&D.  A question you have continued to avoid answering.  Now you're trying to displace the blame onto the prescribers for something the drug company did.  Apparently, when it comes to making money you believe companies can do no wrong.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-09-2015, 09:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you have trouble understanding the use of "may" in a sentence?

Not at all.  However, you're the one that brought it up and appear to have trouble understanding your own use of "may". I don't think I have to answer anything when your example hasn't proven fraudulent R&D. It's not as if Roche doesn't have plenty of drugs that fail FDA or get pulled before even getting to that point.

It's not the first drug that's controversial in efficacy.  Drugs have had unintended consequences and side effects, and those companies have paid damages.  And drugs also have off-label uses and benefits.

You know, the courts.  If Roche has done wrong, they'll be held accountable in the courts.  I don't get your whining.  It's like Roche destroyed your practice or something. There's your answer - if Roche has done wrong they WILL, not may, be accountable. I'm sure you'll have opportunity to join the class action suit.

So, no, I've never said companies can do no wrong. But don't go pointing fingers when you rely on drug reps to educate you, either.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-09-2015, 11:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not at all.  However, you're the one that brought it up and appear to have trouble understanding your own use of "may".  I don't think I have to answer anything when your example hasn't proven fraudulent R&D.  It's not as if Roche doesn't have plenty of drugs that fail FDA or get pulled before even getting to that point.

Roche touted Tamiflu as a potentially life saving drug in high risk patients. Independent researchers have proven that isn't true. Review of undisclosed results has revealed Roche deliberately withheld unfavorable results.   When you tout a drug as a life saver and independent research proves it isn't and it is revealed Roche withheld information that is a big deal whether you will admit or not.  If you're honest the use of "may" is correct until more research settles the controversy.

Quote:It's not the first drug that's controversial in efficacy.  Drugs have had unintended consequences and side effects, and those companies have paid damages.  And drugs also have off-label uses and benefits.

I know more about this than you ever will, but I appreciate your effort to tell me basic information.

Quote:You know, the courts.  If Roche has done wrong, they'll be held accountable in the courts.  I don't get your whining.  It's like Roche destroyed your practice or something.  There's your answer - if Roche has done wrong they WILL, not may, be accountable.  I'm sure you'll have opportunity to join the class action suit.

Whining?  I'm not going to apologize for taking care of patients to the best of my ability. If you're family member was prescribed a medication to potentially prevent death due to a flu complication and it turned out the drug company claims were false I doubt you would claim I'm whining then.   And we all know the courts always get it right especially when drug companies with deep pockets are involved for one a appeal after another if necessary.

Quote:So, no, I've never said companies can do no wrong.   But don't go pointing fingers when you rely on drug reps to educate you, either.

It really hurts my feelings when someone with a complete lack of formal education, training, and experience who obviously has no idea what they're talking about makes a stupid comment like yours. Drug reps are are salesmen, e.g. businessmen who will say anything to make a sale. I trust them as much as I trust you. None.