Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Pfizer Marketing Vice President providing services as a medical device and drug expert witness and pharmaceutical marketing expert. Judge Sanders: "The court agrees with defendants' view that Dr. Rost is a very adept and seasoned expert witness." He is also the author of Emergency Surgery, The Whistleblower and Killer Drug. You can reach him on rostpeter (insert symbol) hotmail.com. Follow on https://twitter.com/peterrost
Friday, September 29, 2006
My CNN Interview: "The Whistleblower" and Cheerleader drug reps
The youtube, and I am another anonymous than the first one, has problems. Part of the text falls out. And there are repeats, etc.
I want, however, to say something about that "break-up" "caused" by your appearance on the real tube. It was not really all that interesting to me, other than that it was the typical male jerk response to general info projected unto a specific female.
Doctors come in the female as well as the male variety, and if my experience counts for something, doctors who get into extra-marital involvements usually do so with personnel and with patients who "really need them and really, really, can not live without them ;)! It has been a long time, Peter, for you, and for me too, but the doctors I knew, and was married to, went into that business for one specific reason: "they want to help people and be needed". Not a few of them extend that into their personal lives.
For those who are not in the medical profession, it would have been enlightening to state that most doctors get approximately two semesters of pharmacology in Med School, and they learn out of books which are way out of date. First it takes time to write the book, then it has to be edited, printed and distributed, etc. And by the time it gets to the classroom it is outdated. For that reason doctors really do rely on pharmaceutical reps, information by drug companies, etc. to keep up. And that is also the reason that getting such information - and you said that, but it may have not been too clear to everyone hearing you - should really come from a professional who has the facts and real data as well as the gravitas and knowledge to speak about it. That a pharmaceutical rep is a pretty and attractive cheerleader is a "sales" "argument". It really is quite irrelevant whether this sales rep is young and chirpy, or old and wrinkly, to get really relevant data across to physicians. The real issue, therefore, is not the sales reps, it is lack of qualifications to have a relevant discussion with a physician to get this physician the information he/she needs and the patient deserves. In my opinion, therefore, your emphasis, throughout your blogging endeavour, interesting and sometimes chirpy, in more than one aspect, as it may have been, and entertaining, to say the least, has not been quite as informative as it could have been. Next on your agenda should be a few trips to schools and graduating pharmacology majors. Then YOU pick the chirpy and cute ones who are qualified and present them as excellent candidates for the new and improved sales force. You say....what?
Great interview, you carried your points off very well. There is nothing wrong with having pretty sales people but that's no excuse for not giving them the info about the products they need to competently cover all their aspects.
In the first place Pfizer shouldn't use beauty to cover the shortcomings of the drugs they try to sell by not fully training their sales force to give all the information the doctors need to know about them.
In the second place doctors should know better than to let phsical attributes and flirting distract them from getting the information they need to know about drug interactions and side effects. If they feel pressured by fraudulent sales tactics then they shouldn't be buying the drugs from them.
Yes the free market should cover it but only if their is sufficient competition and companies that don't use other forces to insulate them from it.
Great interview. However I have one very relevant question... are all hosts (or whatever you call it) in the US so.. enthusiastic/in to their work? Am I the only one reacting on this? Is it because I'm a Swede and used to very dull hosts? :D
Well, not all are like this guy, some are even more hyper. Nancy Grace comes to mind . . . and a few are really relaxed. But they definitely are a bit more intense compared to many television anchors in Europe.
8 comments:
The Youtube file is set "private" so most people can't view it.
SO you couldn't view it on this site or just on YouTube??
Tell me if it is fixed now!
The youtube, and I am another anonymous than the first one, has problems. Part of the text falls out. And there are repeats, etc.
I want, however, to say something about that "break-up" "caused" by your appearance on the real tube. It was not really all that interesting to me, other than that it was the typical male jerk response to general info projected unto a specific female.
Doctors come in the female as well as the male variety, and if my experience counts for something, doctors who get into extra-marital involvements usually do so with personnel and with patients who "really need them and really, really, can not live without them ;)! It has been a long time, Peter, for you, and for me too, but the doctors I knew, and was married to, went into that business for one specific reason: "they want to help people and be needed". Not a few of them extend that into their personal lives.
For those who are not in the medical profession, it would have been enlightening to state that most doctors get approximately two semesters of pharmacology in Med School, and they learn out of books which are way out of date. First it takes time to write the book, then it has to be edited, printed and distributed, etc. And by the time it gets to the classroom it is outdated. For that reason doctors really do rely on pharmaceutical reps, information by drug companies, etc. to keep up. And that is also the reason that getting such information - and you said that, but it may have not been too clear to everyone hearing you - should really come from a professional who has the facts and real data as well as the gravitas and knowledge to speak about it. That a pharmaceutical rep is a pretty and attractive cheerleader is a "sales" "argument". It really is quite irrelevant whether this sales rep is young and chirpy, or old and wrinkly, to get really relevant data across to physicians. The real issue, therefore, is not the sales reps, it is lack of qualifications to have a relevant discussion with a physician to get this physician the information he/she needs and the patient deserves. In my opinion, therefore, your emphasis, throughout your blogging endeavour, interesting and sometimes chirpy, in more than one aspect, as it may have been, and entertaining, to say the least, has not been quite as informative as it could have been. Next on your agenda should be a few trips to schools and graduating pharmacology majors. Then YOU pick the chirpy and cute ones who are qualified and present them as excellent candidates for the new and improved sales force. You say....what?
Fixed now for the original commenter.
Great interview, you carried your points off very well. There is nothing wrong with having pretty sales people but that's no excuse for not giving them the info about the products they need to competently cover all their aspects.
In the first place Pfizer shouldn't use beauty to cover the shortcomings of the drugs they try to sell by not fully training their sales force to give all the information the doctors need to know about them.
In the second place doctors should know better than to let phsical attributes and flirting distract them from getting the information they need to know about drug interactions and side effects. If they feel pressured by fraudulent sales tactics then they shouldn't be buying the drugs from them.
Yes the free market should cover it but only if their is sufficient competition and companies that don't use other forces to insulate them from it.
Great interview.
However I have one very relevant question... are all hosts (or whatever you call it) in the US so.. enthusiastic/in to their work? Am I the only one reacting on this? Is it because I'm a Swede and used to very dull hosts? :D
small swedish girl apologizing. i know it's supposed to be into. not in to. (right?)
Well, not all are like this guy, some are even more hyper. Nancy Grace comes to mind . . . and a few are really relaxed. But they definitely are a bit more intense compared to many television anchors in Europe.
Post a Comment