![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Anyuser on December 7, 2002, at 11:13:31
If you don't agree with what a poster has to say, why not just ignore that poster instead of trying to censor him/her? How would you like it if someone tried to censor you, or tried to censor a poster that interested you? If your answer is that you are trying to protect others (presumably others in need of your protection), I say that is an inappropriate motive and a misconceived goal.
Do you have much confidence in the FDA? I don't. I respectfully suggest that an effort to use the FDA to censor free speech on the internet (which effort will probably be ignored by the FDA) is wrong on many levels.
Posted by gabbix2 on December 7, 2002, at 11:45:53
In reply to Mr. Scott, Alan, Geezer, JLM, posted by Anyuser on December 7, 2002, at 11:13:31
I don't think Mr. Scott was trying to censor anything, I think it was i who mentioned retration.
You're probably right, I'm not really clear on what i'm saying right now, kinda knocked of the highwire,
It doesn't probably matter much to anything or anyone but me at this point. sorry for wasting space.
Posted by Mr.Scott on December 7, 2002, at 11:47:07
In reply to Mr. Scott, Alan, Geezer, JLM, posted by Anyuser on December 7, 2002, at 11:13:31
1)I ignore lots of posts where I disagree with people or they disagree with me.
2)Pharmreps' presence here is violating to me. It's probably a calculated effort by Forest, and it's wrong. TV commercials are one thing, but there is a seperation between the pharma companies and the patient with something called a doctor for a reason. Not to mention it's the law.And my confidenece in the FDA is no better or worse than my confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. Although perhaps inefficient, the FDA has no profit motive to keep drugs out of peoples hands. Remember the days of snake oil...
Posted by Anyuser on December 7, 2002, at 13:40:00
In reply to Re: Mr. Scott, Alan, Geezer, JLM, posted by Mr.Scott on December 7, 2002, at 11:47:07
I don't agree with everything pharmrep says, but I am always interested in hearing it. I am especially interested in reading the discourse between him/her and others. If you have your way, I won't be able to read what I want to read. If you feel "violated" you can solve your problem by not reading his posts, which solution doesn't infringe on others' rights.
Are you speaking literally when you imply that pharmrep is breaking the law? If so, how?
If a poster claimed to be an employee of a drug company, and was very critical of drug company practices, would you allow that poster free speech, or would you censor them also? Is there anybody else you would like to see censored?
If someone were to ask you whom you work for, and what are your qualifications to post here, and what are your biases, etc, would you think those questions were inappropriate? I would. If someone were to attempt to rat you out to your employer or a government agency regulating your employment, would you be bothered? I would.
What about the possibility that that a drug rep posted anonymously without disclosing their employment? I am pretty sure a poster was doing that not long ago. Would you prefer that? If not, why attempt to censor a poster candid enough to disclose his/her biases?
Posted by Mr.Scott on December 7, 2002, at 16:16:57
In reply to Mr. Scott, posted by Anyuser on December 7, 2002, at 13:40:00
Your email is too long for me to read fully. I just don't think it's right for him/her to be marketing here. If you do fine. Just be careful not to infringe on my free speech either..Why don't you just ignore my posts and take your own advice.
Posted by Alan on December 7, 2002, at 17:35:42
In reply to Mr. Scott, Alan, Geezer, JLM, posted by Anyuser on December 7, 2002, at 11:13:31
> If you don't agree with what a poster has to say, why not just ignore that poster instead of trying to censor him/her? How would you like it if someone tried to censor you, or tried to censor a poster that interested you? If your answer is that you are trying to protect others (presumably others in need of your protection), I say that is an inappropriate motive and a misconceived goal.
>
> Do you have much confidence in the FDA? I don't. I respectfully suggest that an effort to use the FDA to censor free speech on the internet (which effort will probably be ignored by the FDA) is wrong on many levels.
============================================
You seem to contradict yourself.You don't trust the FDA to regulate and give fair oversight yet you are interested in what a representative from the pharmecutical industry has to say to patient's before AND while they're seeing their doctor. Is that simply because you are curious to see the rebuttals in order by observaton to evaluate what is unethical about it?
I don't have much confidence in the incestuous relationship between the FDA and the pharm industry either. It should be run by the NIH. Short of that,
Have you read:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020725/msgs/6905.html
After you have, get back to us and let us know if you think free speech has any reason to be scrutinised and limitations expected - including whether or not ethics are a consideration in this situation.
One may not be able to change the FDA but that shouldn't keep one from trying to change what is unethical in our lives.
Best,
Alan
Posted by Anyuser on December 8, 2002, at 18:31:47
In reply to Mr. Scott, Alan, Geezer, JLM, posted by Anyuser on December 7, 2002, at 11:13:31
What is your view of what Mr. Scott did on PB?
Posted by Mr.Scott on December 9, 2002, at 0:50:54
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Anyuser on December 8, 2002, at 18:31:47
I don't mind your disdain for my posts. It is your right to feel how you do and to report me to the PB equivalent of the FDA (Dr. Bob)if you wish. Thing is though...Your actions are a mirror image of mine. The main difference is that I don't believe (and I may be wrong) I have violated any PB laws.
I think Forest Pharmaceuticals should attach a Brief Summary or a Product Insert to every one of their posts as fair balance or something comparable. Whether you agree with it or not the law is the law. All Direct-To-Patient/Consumer marketing efforts must contain regulatory approved fair balance from guidance sought by the FDA.
No Internet banner or ad for a drug or its website can be more than two mouse clicks away from fair balance.
Now in this case Forest may be doing some clever marketing where a precedent has not yet been set. But you can bet I'll help to get the ball rolling if I can. It took the FDA several years to finally provide guidance on internet drug advertising.
To me the actions of Forest are shady here. And I'm going to take full advantage of the rights I have because of the extensive taxes I pay each year (for better or for worse)to support agencies like the FDA.
Posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 9:52:10
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » Anyuser, posted by Mr.Scott on December 9, 2002, at 0:50:54
The merits of what pharmrep has to say are beside the larger point I am trying to make about your tactics. What you did is categorically wrong as a tactic, regardless of what it is you're trying to prevent. The criticism I'm making would apply to anyone using the same tactic in an attempt to prevent postings on any topic.
1. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether a self-confessed drug rep on PB is a tolerable thing. There are many articulate critics of pharmrep. Dr. Bob has heard them out, and so far he has not blocked him. You essentially tried to go around Dr. Bob and block a poster that he declined to block. If Dr. Bob had decided to block pharmrep after hearing the arguments for and against, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Do you think any poster should be able to go around Dr. Bob to subvert his policies? Maybe I am overstating this point. Maybe Dr. Bob doesn't care, or has a different view. That's why I asked him.
2. Even if Dr. Bob were a laissez faire administrator, in my book what you did was a very big internet no-no. You went outside the universe of Psycho Babble in an effort to mess with someone's personal life, because you didn't agree with what that person has to say or their right to say it. I would be very, very upset if someone tried to do that to me, and I bet you would be, too. If that isn't "uncivil," in the PB meaning, I don't know what is. To me, that is much more alarming than the insults and sarcasm that trigger a PBC.
3. You overlook the benefits of free speech. The strongest critics of pharmrep presume that he is somehow winning a debate, and it doesn't seem that way to me. If you read all the posts he's taken more shots than he's given. I think it's wrong to try just to shut him up, or shut up any poster, instead of watching the discourse play itself out. If he'd been blocked, we wouldn't have read the to and fro between him and Dr. Dave, for example. This, however, is Dr. Bob's call. He determines the benefits and the limits of free speech on his board.
In sum, you, and the other poster that endorses you, say that pharmrep and his employer are so very bad that your tactic is justifiable, and I strongly disagree.
Posted by Alan on December 9, 2002, at 10:24:20
In reply to You miss the point, posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 9:52:10
> The merits of what pharmrep has to say are beside the larger point I am trying to make about your tactics. What you did is categorically wrong as a tactic, regardless of what it is you're trying to prevent. The criticism I'm making would apply to anyone using the same tactic in an attempt to prevent postings on any topic.
>
> 1. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether a self-confessed drug rep on PB is a tolerable thing. There are many articulate critics of pharmrep. Dr. Bob has heard them out, and so far he has not blocked him. You essentially tried to go around Dr. Bob and block a poster that he declined to block. If Dr. Bob had decided to block pharmrep after hearing the arguments for and against, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Do you think any poster should be able to go around Dr. Bob to subvert his policies? Maybe I am overstating this point. Maybe Dr. Bob doesn't care, or has a different view. That's why I asked him.
>
> 2. Even if Dr. Bob were a laissez faire administrator, in my book what you did was a very big internet no-no. You went outside the universe of Psycho Babble in an effort to mess with someone's personal life, because you didn't agree with what that person has to say or their right to say it. I would be very, very upset if someone tried to do that to me, and I bet you would be, too. If that isn't "uncivil," in the PB meaning, I don't know what is. To me, that is much more alarming than the insults and sarcasm that trigger a PBC.
>
> 3. You overlook the benefits of free speech. The strongest critics of pharmrep presume that he is somehow winning a debate, and it doesn't seem that way to me. If you read all the posts he's taken more shots than he's given. I think it's wrong to try just to shut him up, or shut up any poster, instead of watching the discourse play itself out. If he'd been blocked, we wouldn't have read the to and fro between him and Dr. Dave, for example. This, however, is Dr. Bob's call. He determines the benefits and the limits of free speech on his board.
>
> In sum, you, and the other poster that endorses you, say that pharmrep and his employer are so very bad that your tactic is justifiable, and I strongly disagree.
===========================================So your point is that FDA policy about direct advertising/advising don't superceed those of Dr. Bob?
I would think that highly implausible.
Alan
Posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 10:42:33
In reply to Re: You miss the point » Anyuser, posted by Alan on December 9, 2002, at 10:24:20
You seem to have a technical, legal objection, in addition to a political argument. I understand your political argument, even though I don't agree with it. I don't understand your "legal" argument. I have read what you and others have to say on the topic, I can't see that there's anything technically "illegal" about pharmrep's posts, even if you buy into the political argument. I understand where you're coming from, so please don't restate how much you hate Forest Labs, etc., but can you cite chapter and verse as to what it is about pharmrep that is technically "illegal?" You have strong opinions about benzos, I think (I don't follow all your posts). Is it illegal for you to give people advice about benzos?
Parenthetically, you don't know, you can't know, that pharmrep really is an actual pharmrep. It's fair enough to take him/her at their word, but this is the internet, and nobody knows you're a dog on the internet.
Do I think Dr. Bob's policies trump your theoretical FDA policies re free speech on the internet? Damn straight. That's what the internet is all about. That's what this site is all about. The logical extension of your point would be that this site shuts down and everybody is limited to their docs and FDA handouts for information.
Posted by Mr.Scott on December 9, 2002, at 15:38:22
In reply to You miss the point, posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 9:52:10
Well...As I'm enitled to...I'll express that I disagree with all your points especially #2. With one possible exception that DR. Bob has already heard many points of view (not mine I might add) and that he has decided to let pharmrep keep posting. Until Alan pointed out the thread discussing drug reps posting here, I'd never seen any such discussion.
Alan has no financial motive in promoting benzos. Pharmrep is employed to sell drugs. It's a regulated industry for a reason. I suggest you read up on the history of why perhaps beginning with things like narcotics and cocaine being touted as non-addictive.
There is a limit as to what can be expected from an individual seeking care. Yes, they need to be well informed, but they are not objective enough to 'by themselves' to rely on what a profit seeking entity has to say about it's product. The FDA is a good thing, even though it is far from prefect.
If the FDA were to decide that it was innapropriate then that would supercede Dr.Bob I believe. Just like firearms are regulated so that Dr. Bob couldn't sell guns here any differently than they are sold off the internet. Private community or website and all.
Finally, I never said Forest was bad either. Their marketing tactic is sneaky here though and I want to see if is in fact a regulatory violation. I think you may be being naive to think my post is messing with someone's personal life. Forest's posting is more likely a corporate objective not a one man show.
Posted by Mr.Scott on December 9, 2002, at 15:41:02
In reply to What is your point » Alan, posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 10:42:33
Waco and Ruby Ridge didn't work so well now did they?
Posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 16:24:44
In reply to Re: You miss the point » Anyuser, posted by Mr.Scott on December 9, 2002, at 15:38:22
> There is a limit as to what can be expected from an individual seeking care. Yes, they need to be well informed, but they are not objective enough to 'by themselves' to rely on what a profit seeking entity has to say about it's product. The FDA is a good thing, even though it is far from prefect.
Exactly who is it on Psycho Babble that needs to be protected by means of censorship? You? Me? Dr. Dave? Alan?
> Finally, I never said Forest was bad either. Their marketing tactic is sneaky here though and I want to see if is in fact a regulatory violation. I think you may be being naive to think my post is messing with someone's personal life. Forest's posting is more likely a corporate objective not a one man show.
>
If I thought a drug company were peddling directly on Psycho Babble, I would be more inclined to agree with you. Indeed, Dr. Bob has blocked posters from peddling products before. I can't believe, however, that pharmrep is authorized by Forest. Compare Lexapro.com to his/her posts. I'd bet the marketing/regulatory suits at Forest would be pissed if they were aware of his posts. Also, Lexapro doesn't seem to be faring very well on PB.
Posted by Alan on December 9, 2002, at 18:26:21
In reply to Re: You miss the point, posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 16:24:44
> > There is a limit as to what can be expected from an individual seeking care. Yes, they need to be well informed, but they are not objective enough to 'by themselves' to rely on what a profit seeking entity has to say about it's product. The FDA is a good thing, even though it is far from prefect.
>
> Exactly who is it on Psycho Babble that needs to be protected by means of censorship? You? Me? Dr. Dave? Alan?
>
> > Finally, I never said Forest was bad either. Their marketing tactic is sneaky here though and I want to see if is in fact a regulatory violation. I think you may be being naive to think my post is messing with someone's personal life. Forest's posting is more likely a corporate objective not a one man show.
> >
> If I thought a drug company were peddling directly on Psycho Babble, I would be more inclined to agree with you. Indeed, Dr. Bob has blocked posters from peddling products before. I can't believe, however, that pharmrep is authorized by Forest. Compare Lexapro.com to his/her posts. I'd bet the marketing/regulatory suits at Forest would be pissed if they were aware of his posts. Also, Lexapro doesn't seem to be faring very well on PB.
>
>
==========================================I don't get where you are coming from. You are contradicting yourself. You're for freedom of speech above all else (kinda like the "free market" will solve all of our problems as is popular to think politically from the far right today) but object to the possible FDA oversight policies that prohibit direct marketing without full disclosure not to mention ethical guidelines of the dispensing of medical advice...
You don't seriously believe do you that a pharmrep isn't directly pedaling by posting to PB? How could it be any more overt? How else could it possibly be characterised? That's the person's job afterall - pedaling through promotion (knocking down of competitors drugs, trashing benzodiazapines, etc, - the typical talking points of the reps company).
Alan
Posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 19:06:30
In reply to Re: You miss the point » Anyuser, posted by Alan on December 9, 2002, at 18:26:21
> I don't get where you are coming from.
I am against PBers going around Dr. Bob and attempting to censor other PBers by ratting them out to the government, or their employers, or their ISP, or anybody else.
>You are contradicting yourself.
Not so. I am in favor of FDA information, such as it is, being availble in addition to, but not in lieu of, other sources of information.
> You don't seriously believe do you that a pharmrep isn't directly pedaling by posting to PB?
Direct sales would be send me your credit card number and I'll send you my product.
>How else could it possibly be characterised?
"Mutual support and education." Obviously, a post from an individual without a mood disorder but with a commercial interest in his/her advice is categorically different from advice from somebody with a mood disorder and no commercial interest. One could make similar qualifications about doctors with axes to grind--anti-drug, pro-talk therapy, etc. For that matter, one could make similar qualifications about any poster that gives advice, offers an opinion, makes pronouncements. I think we all ought to be competent to take potential bias into account when listening to what other posters have to say. You, and others, obviously have with respect to pharmrep. The "whom do you trust" issue is complicated, and in any event, I think the issue should be resolved by Dr. Bob blocking comment he doesn't want on his site, and not by other posters acting as vigilantes. How would you like it somebody were so antagonized by your advice on benzos that they tried to rat you out? You wouldn't, and you shouldn't.
Posted by Alan on December 9, 2002, at 21:48:56
In reply to Re: You miss the point, posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 19:06:30
> > I don't get where you are coming from.
>
> I am against PBers going around Dr. Bob and attempting to censor other PBers by ratting them out to the government, or their employers, or their ISP, or anybody else.If the owner of any bboard is not following FDA policies and allowing illegal or unethical behaivor then it should be stopped. It is the only way to keep commercialism out from between the already complicated doctor/patient relationship.
>
> >You are contradicting yourself.
>
> Not so. I am in favor of FDA information, such as it is, being availble in addition to, but not in lieu of, other sources of information.What? You're in favor of FDA regulation and oversight and guidelines but then you turn around and say but just not in this case? Explain that to me please...
>
> > You don't seriously believe do you that a pharmrep isn't directly pedaling by posting to PB?
>
> Direct sales would be send me your credit card number and I'll send you my product.
>
> >How else could it possibly be characterised?
>
> "Mutual support and education." Obviously, a post from an individual without a mood disorder but with a commercial interest in his/her advice is categorically different from advice from somebody with a mood disorder and no commercial interest. One could make similar qualifications about doctors with axes to grind--anti-drug, pro-talk therapy, etc. For that matter, one could make similar qualifications about any poster that gives advice, offers an opinion, makes pronouncements. I think we all ought to be competent to take potential bias into account when listening to what other posters have to say. You, and others, obviously have with respect to pharmrep. The "whom do you trust" issue is complicated, and in any event, I think the issue should be resolved by Dr. Bob blocking comment he doesn't want on his site, and not by other posters acting as vigilantes. How would you like it somebody were so antagonized by your advice on benzos that they tried to rat you out? You wouldn't, and you shouldn't.How interesting your comments are.
The pharmrep is far worse than "direct" pedaling. They are indirect pedaling - going around the ethical guidelines by saying that their schill "doctor friends" are advising them...and then dispensing medical advice implying that this is doctor's advice, not theirs.None of us should have to police this bboard to expose pharmreps for what they are...marketeers. Many are asking for pharmreps advice all of the time. Why might they be doing that? Possibly to get information about what "other" doctors are doing through pharmreps schills? It's still offering medical advice over the internet in a capacity that will be heeded by the most vulnerable and I find the lack of concern for that saftey net lacks compassion and forethought .
My advice comes from my experience with others that are sharing personal experiences. I'm not here with a marketing agenda, profit motive, and I am not a doctor (via pharmreps implicated accomplices in the circle of doctors that they get "face time" with).
I'm not here exclusively or otherwise to promote bzds or AD's or anything else.
That's what differentiates me from pharmreps visting a psych bboard full of potential customers - and I find the whole practice outrageous.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2002, at 3:50:55
In reply to You miss the point, posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 9:52:10
> 1. Do you think any poster should be able to go around Dr. Bob to subvert his policies?
The way I see this is, it's OK with me if he posts, but if an outside entity keeps him from doing so, that's out of my hands. And in fact it's also my policy that the site shouldn't be used to facilitate illegal activities:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#illegal
> 2. You went outside the universe of Psycho Babble in an effort to mess with someone's personal life... If that isn't "uncivil," in the PB meaning, I don't know what is.
I'd consider that uncivil, too, but it's complicated in this case because "consumer-directed broadcast advertisements" by the industry are regulated:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/1804fnl.htm
Let's see what happens. I wouldn't assume it'll be a "federal case". And it might even provide some resolution...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2002, at 4:02:00
In reply to Re: You miss the point » Anyuser, posted by Alan on December 9, 2002, at 18:26:21
> You are contradicting yourself.
> You don't seriously believe do you that a pharmrep isn't directly pedaling by posting to PB?
Please respect the views of others, be sensitive to their feelings, and don't be sarcastic or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for one week, so this time, it's for two.
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.