It's sad to watch a company selling its soul. Medscape used to be a source of reasonably trustworthy medical information with a few drug company ads thrown in to help pay the bills. Gradually, however, the promise of ever increasing riches became too alluring. It began selling disease-specific "resource centers" to the highest bidder (see my prior post here), earning millions from companies keen to control which articles are fed to doctors believing they are receiving medical education. At least these resource centers have a pretense of legitimacy, and if you dig around you can usually find something of value.How things have changed. Today when I opened my email's inbox I received an email from Medscape. On the subject line: "Reasons to Choose Lexapro First." Eloquent in its simplicity. When I opened the email, I received nothing more than an advertisement for Lexapro (pasted above).
Yes, it appears that Medscape has found a new buyer for its Depression Resource Center. Kaching.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed!
10 comments:
Why don't the drug companies simply remove any pretext of being impartial and start their own hospital, staffed by their own "bought and paid for" doctors? Then we could choose to go to "Eli Lilly hospital" or "Glaxo Smith Kline hospital" to use only that company's line of products.
*removes tongue from cheek*
BTS
" It's sad to watch a company selling its soul."
I think it's worse to see a person give up their soul. Companies don't have souls; it;s an industry, not a human being.
Skewed perspective.
I disagree. Companies are groups of human beings, and they should be held to the same moral standards as individuals.
Did anyone catch the Superbowl or the Academy awards? Then they got an expensive show for free.
Bud Light gives me a headache. I thought their costly commercials were masterpieces. Will I ever drink it? No.
Will anyone ever use Lexapro first because of an article? No.
It is the corporation that is getting ripped off in both situations.
Supremacy,
I think you're a bit naive. Commercials work---people eat them up and they do indeed ask their doctors for the drugs they see on TV or in a magazine or on a website.
I have several doctors among friends and family. They report that people come in asking about the things they see in ads.
You might not fall for it, but the masses do.
Gianna: You may be right. But, can you think of any benefit of direct to consumer ads?
1) awareness of condition
2) awareness of remedy
3) preclusion of claim of lack of informed consent
Regarding Supremacy Claus:
What is your point to your challenges in this blog? Between what I sense are your projections and just off base at times, I have to wonder if you are a rep or have some agenda favoring the Pharmacuetical industry.
Care to disclose yourself at least vaguely?
therapyfirst
"Companies are groups of human beings, and they should be held to the same moral standards as individuals."- Dr.Carlat
Ok, that's a good point.
Re: supremacy claus and therapyfirst, the possibility of anonymity is one of the advantages of the blogosphere, allowing people to post their opinions without fear of recrimination. I have no problem with supremacy claus' challenges, nor with his or her anonymity. It all furthers the debate. Bring it on!
Therapy: The point is loving correction of the left wing ideologue.
What is the point of your personal remark? I sense some frustration on your part in the debate. The facts deserted the left 100 years ago. All that remains are personal attacks, payoffs and coercion.
Post a Comment