The Rise Of Marketing-Based Medicine (via Pharmalot)

The Rise Of Marketing-Based Medicine

64 Comments

By Ed Silverman // January 28th, 2010 // 7:57 am

money13You’ve heard of evidence-based medicine. Well, a new paper summarizes a panoply of practices employed over the past two decades or so – ghostwriting, suppressing or spinning data, disease mongering and managing side effect perceptions among docs – that the authors call marketing-based medicine. And they rely on internal documents from litigation – such as the much-publicized lawsuits over antipsychotics and antidepressants – to illustrate their point.

A stunning must-read from Ed Silverman on a must-read paper. The comments following Ed’s post are also rich.

I imagine there will be blowback and some vigorous challenges to the facts and stats in the paper. But the industry emails quoted are themselves devastating, and suggest how successfully the marketing forces within the industry won out over those who wanted to make drugs that clearly worked, rather than aggressively sell drugs that either didn’t work that well or worked for some but carried nasty side-effects that were downplayed.

Pharma, biotech, and medicine itself will be years digging out of the credibility hole this sort of thing put them in.

The Rise Of Marketing-Based Medicine (via Pharmalot)

money13You’ve heard of evidence-based medicine. Well, a new paper summarizes a panoply of practices employed over the past two decades or so – ghostwriting, suppressing or spinning data, disease mongering and managing side effect perceptions among docs – that the authors call marketing-based medicine. And they rely on internal documents from litigation – such as the much-publicized lawsuits over antipsychotics and antidepressants – to illustrate their point.

A stunning must-read from Ed Silverman on a must-read paper. The comments following Ed’s post are also rich.

I imagine there will be blowback and some vigorous challenges to the facts and stats in the paper. But the industry emails quoted are themselves devastating, and suggest how successfully the marketing forces within the industry won out over those who wanted to make drugs that clearly worked, rather than aggressively sell drugs that either didn’t work that well or worked for some but carried nasty side-effects that were downplayed.

Pharma, biotech, and medicine itself will be years digging out of the credibility hole this sort of thing put them in.

Here’s the thimbleful of information I have heard regarding The Tablet (none of which has changed in six months): The Tablet project is real, it has you-know-who’s considerable undivided attention, and everyone working on it has dropped off the map. I don’t know anyone who works at Apple who doubts these things; nor do I know anyone at Apple who knows a whit more. I don’t know anyone who’s seen the hardware or the software, nor even anyone who knows someone else who has seen the hardware or software. The cone of silence surrounding the project is, so far as I can tell, complete.1

Daring Fireball: The Tablet

Chess computing as a metaphor for Pharma. Who knew

The Chess Master and the Computer – The New York Review of Books
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592

Like so much else in our technology-rich and innovation-poor modern world, chess computing has fallen prey to incrementalism and the demands of the market. Brute-force programs play the best chess, so why bother with anything else? Why waste time and money experimenting with new and innovative ideas when we already know what works? Such thinking should horrify anyone worthy of the name of scientist, but it seems, tragically, to be the norm. Our best minds have gone into financial engineering instead of real engineering, with catastrophic results for both sectors.

(via Instapaper)

Only that would be “when we already know what sells.”

Chess computing as a metaphor for Pharma. Who knew

The Chess Master and the Computer – The New York Review of Books
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592

Like so much else in our technology-rich and innovation-poor modern world, chess computing has fallen prey to incrementalism and the demands of the market. Brute-force programs play the best chess, so why bother with anything else? Why waste time and money experimenting with new and innovative ideas when we already know what works? Such thinking should horrify anyone worthy of the name of scientist, but it seems, tragically, to be the norm. Our best minds have gone into financial engineering instead of real engineering, with catastrophic results for both sectors.

(via Instapaper)

Only that would be “when we already know what sells.”