Sicko

The Reality-Based Community (which unfortunately doesn't accept comments; I don't think it's worth a post here) has just gone on a bloodthirsty, naive and oddly ill-informed tear about pharma marketing. Does Mark Kleiman actually know what we do? I spend many hours every day making sure that the materials our clients give to doctors are not just technically accurate but fairly written--I send back copy that attempts to make excessive claims or fails to draw sufficient attention to risks and side effects. If I don't catch those issues, each pharmaceutical company has an internal legal committee to do it. And if misleading pieces end up in circulation, the FDA has mechanisms to stop them and force everyone involved to make amends--and boy, is it ever willing to use them.

And anyone who thinks that general practitioners are going to be regularly relicensed to write simple Rx has got a screw loose. It's perhaps reasonable to make demands that specialists remain abreast of current work in their field, but do you want to have to see a specialist every time you have a common ailment and you need a drug that has no serious side effects?

Finally, the "drugs are cheap to produce" line is just stupid. You're not just putting money into the pockets of the captains of industry here--those revenues pay for R&D. And yes, for advertising, because if they just made the damn drugs and didn't let anyone know about them, they'd never get prescribed. What is the alternative to marketing, word of mouth?

I usually love the RBC, but they're way off base here. The alternatives to the existing direct-to-physician marketplace would be worse.