[brandonmenc]

> That's advertising.

Anecdotally, a friend of mine was doing post-doctoral work researching and developing cancer drugs. He now works on a pharmaceutical sales team as a scientific liaison.

"Advertising" a drug involves a lot more than running TV commercials - it also includes former scientists making the current research digestible for doctors who don't have the time or specialized knowledge to do that in between seeing patients.

The notion that every practicing doctor has enough free time - or is even smart enough - to keep up on the latest pharmaceuticals, is ridiculous.

[vkou]

> The notion that every practicing doctor has enough free time - or is even smart enough - to keep up on the latest pharmaceuticals, is ridiculous.

How do doctors in other countries with functional medical systems deal with this problem? Health outcomes across the developed world are very similar.

[Retric]

There are only ~50 new drugs a year, and many of those are highly specialized. So, it's really not hard to keep up with new drugs. The hard part is actually staying fresh on all the existing knowledge that you don't use regularly and some changes to best practices.

[refurb]

You realize that new data comes out on drugs constantly? Even drugs launched 10 years ago. Just take a look at all the medical journals.

It's not a one-and-done thing with learning about drugs.

[Retric]

Yes, but again it's not about "keeping up on the latest pharmaceuticals" that's small chunk of time. The changing landscape of existing drugs that have been out for 2+ years is much larger than the number of 'new' drugs.

Look into AIDS medications for example and pills are often a mix of 2+ existing drugs that work well together. And again, GP's rarely have to worry about the new Cancer drugs etc.

[dikdik]

>The notion that every practicing doctor has enough free time - or is even smart enough - to keep up on the latest pharmaceuticals, is ridiculous.

That's part of the doctor's job, if they can't keep up with new medical/pharma literature then they need to find a different job. Further, most doctors know taking a ton of info from a pharma rep is just asking to be misinformed. A lot of pharma sales reps have no science background and many lie about approved populations and other aspects of a drug (just see the many, many lawsuits out there).

[refurb]

That's part of the doctor's job, if they can't keep up with new medical/pharma literature then they need to find a different job.

Do you know any doctors? Have you talked to them about how they spend their days? Most want to maximize the time they spend with patients. Any way they can keep up to date on the latest technology is helpful.

[dikdik]

Yes, I know a TON of doctors and used to work very closely with about 50 of them.

Well the solution to your problem is not to inundate them with misleading or false information from someone whose entire base of scientific knowledge comes from employer-led seminars. The solution would be to train more doctors, so they have more time with patients AND can be more effective physicians.

[refurb]

from someone whose entire base of scientific knowledge comes from employer-led seminars

You forgot to add that the scientific information is limited to the FDA approved label.

[dikdik]

While it should be, it's not. There has been lawsuit after lawsuit of pharma reps that promote off label uses of drugs among many more egregious acts (typically at the behest of the pharma companies).

[gech]

>Any way

Bribes?