Posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 16:55:02
I just have to say that the purpose of this site is mutual support and information exchange. It just doesn't seem like a drug rep could possibly be here for the right reasons.
They aren't looking for any support. Maybe they would be looking to see how people like a new drug, which is fine, only the drug isn't out yet! The alternative is they are a good samaritan wanting to spread information. I am just so very skeptical of that motive.
For the moment let me give benefit of the doubt and assume that pharmrep is here out of genuine interest in spreading important information for the good of others.
Would they then say that their own company is of high quality but that other companies "schtoop" people? Is that a supportive statement? (seems like a plug and a smear all in one).
Ok lets ignore slurs pharmrep has made towards other companies. Regular people here make slurs all the time that get ignored.
Many people here think that drug reps are educated people like 'researchers', who will be objective in their advice. But drug reps are trained only on a few drugs and really can provide no valid comparisons. They do not have a background consistent with giving good medical advice. (not suggesting this drug rep is hiding anything etc, just pointing out that any company that trains a rep will concentrate on their own products).
My beef has nothing to do with whether its a good drug or not, its about whether the person marketing it will have undue influence over people with no other information to look at.
There should be reps from all the companies, to make it fair.
I think the above seems reasonable to say, and that's without assuming financial gain.
Now lets throw in financial gain. -- How about if I start touting something I sell, after I put my degrees behind my name? Would that be fair on this site. Soap on a rope? That would be spam, soliciting. Soap at least is clearer. But it doesn't seem clear to me here: what exactly are the rules? A Lexapro rep touts Lexapro as being just "better" than Celexa and that's ok? How is their personal off-duty opinion any different from their on-duty professional opinion? How are we to know which it is?
I appreciate the idea that someone in-the-know may have interesting information or viewpoints and I wish there was a way to get that without bias -- but there isn't any way to be sure and in the absence of being able to discern bias or no bias, we are safer here without it at all.
It doesn't seem to be in the best interests of the site to have a Forest drug rep in our midst.