Posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 9:45:20
In reply to Re: mirror images: lexapro and focalin and dr.bob, posted by pharmrep on July 31, 2002, at 2:48:27
Well I'm so shocked. Someone (me) said something critical about a new not yet marketed drug, and now a person who wants to sell that drug is disagreeing.
How could I possibly know much of anything about a drug that's not even out yet? About a drug with few published clinical reports? All I can do is make educated guesses based on other similar types of situations, such as Focalin. I chose to do that and now you are choosing to pick this one post out of hundreds I've made similar guesses in and shoot it down. Gee I wonder why?
Oh wait, its because you SELL Lexapro.
Or am I mistaken, are you just a magnanamous well educated individual who happens to be in possession of knowledge you know the rest of us would like to have? How generous of you.
Of course the two forms inhibit eachother! They are almost identical so they fit in the same places. That means nothing whatsoever with regard to side effects and efficacy! At least not by itself. Maybe there is great information out there, but you didn't give it to me. Lexapro might be better, but it might be worse!
Maybe it alone, without the antagonism of the other form, causes irreversible binding somewhere and 10 years from now people on it will discover their blood no longer clots. Do you know it won't? Don't you think someone just like you sold thalidomide enthusiastically and thinking they understood?
Any dimwit can use their judgement to know an opinion I've made on an unknown drug with no relevant clinical experience is just that, an opinion, a guess. A strong guess, OK. Am I opinionated: apparently. Have I tried Lexapro? No. And no, I'm not on Celexa, though I have tried it. I did not hate it, I have no personal problem with Celexa or with Lexapro. Celexa had some side effects for me but so did most other things.
I'm offended that you used the word "controlled". That sounds more like a dog than a human. How about, "helped by". That might go over better. Most people don't like being 'controlled'.
Your opinion on Lexapro is a guess, no matter how much education (read "company research briefs") you've had. Even if you or the research had no connection to the company it would be a guess. There is close to zero clinical experience with it and until there is you can't tell me its more or less useful than a bar of soap.
I am not saying that it is not worth trying. It might be fantastic. It might be the next penecillin. Yes, a wonderdrug. Maybe it will not only treat depression, but cure it forever. Honestly, I don't know, and it could turn out to be awesome. I clearly said that. You didn't. You said Lexapro was 'better'.
To think that anyone could suggest a drug will be better than any other before its been widely used, is just a load of crap.
You would like everyone to believe that you have some magic information that is only available to you. You would like everyone to run out and buy your drug. You sell the drug and your paycheck depends on you convincing doctors to use it and as many people as possible to take it.
Furthermore, though I can't think that anyone already being a drug rep would care, you have a responsibility you clearly aren't working on. That responsibility is to the consumers. It's to your siblings and your parents and relatives and the rest of the world who might consider following your biased advice.
Your responsibility is to not misinform people. Your responsibility is to be cautious. Doctors will respect you much more than they currently do if and when you learn to say you don't know.
People may respect your opinion more here because they think you have more information to work with and more training. The only way you can avoid misinforming people in your job (and you are never off duty), is to avoid misinforming yourself.
You've been schtooped by your own drug company! You said, "Even though Celexa is just as efficacious as other antidepressants, Lexapro is better...." That statement IS incorrect and MISLEADING. You said Lexapro is BETTER. Consider reevaluating exactly how you know that it's BETTER. It may be "theoretically more effective" or "clinically have promising results", but no unmarketed drug is simply "BETTER".
You go and criticize a strong opinion and then in the same breath give out an even stronger one, stronger because it comes from someone who seems like they would know.
So I'd like an apology for you saying Lexapro is BETTER. And then I'd like you to either offer unbiased advice in the form of direct quotes from peer reviewed journals, without passing judgement on them in the form of words like "BETTER", from now on, or, alternatively, I'd like to see you leave us alone here and get back to your kickbacks.
This website is supposed to be for mutual support and exchange of information. Sales pitches are equivalent to spam and are not needed here. I'm not feeling particularly supportive of you and your struggle to push Lexapro pills down everyone's throat without waiting to see whether or not it works or has negative effects. And you were not supportive of my right to an opinion. The information you give out is biased, and you don't want any in return. That's not exchange and its not mutual.
Which is BETTER, an uneducated opinion or one biased by a paycheck?
Kate
poster:katekite
thread:110614
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020731/msgs/114601.html