"Illegal marketing" and "Unlawful promotion" get used interchangeably. These allegations are completely different from payments to physicians for speaking fees or consulting fees, which to the best of my knowledge is legal.
There were ethical questions concerning payments from Big Pharma to Physicians which gave birth to the Physician Sunshine Act, which makes public payments.
These payments reveal a financial relationship exists between a doctor and a drug company.
Global health care giant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company's unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs,
Yes, that post above is accurate and true. The DOJ has won some impressive cases against big pharma for alleged illegal marketing practices.
Perhaps its time for a reading comprehension lesson.
Notice it says"illegal marketing practices" which is a far cry from "illegal payments".
Iride, there is a huge difference between what my statement says and what you claim I said. I said nothing about "illegal payments." If you are a professional research analyst with a doctorate like you claim, then you have to be able to read at a higher level. View Thread
WHOA! I have never alleged illegal payments from drug companies to Doctors. Again you are putting words in my mouth.
The payments are legal for consultings fees,etc. But I do find them unethical since it can effect a doctors prescribing habits towards his own interests, rather than the patient. Its why the Sunshine Act was passed.
Drug companies have been sued by the DOJ for unlawful marketing, but I think most if not all payments to physicians are kept under a legal blanket by making them speaking and consulting fees. Either way its financial relationship.View Thread
I understand what you guys are saying, but I still see comparison studies of cardiovascular outcomes as having inherent flaws.
When a study like the recent IMPROVE IT claims "267 lives saved" (or whatever the exact number was) they are making a bold assumption those 267 people would have, beyond any doubt, suffered an event had they not been taking the drug.
In a study that size you could easily get the same 2% absolute difference withholding treatment to both groups.
We are dealing with unpredictable events. We can run all the math formulas we want, and still there is no way to confirm the drug given saved a study participant from a bad outcome.View Thread