-Removed-I potentially made myself very unpopular at the start of both my consultant posts by stopping all drug company sponsored meals, events and freebies and stopping all drug rep visits. If you want to find out about new treatments read a peer reviewed journal and look carefully at who funded the study.
Helpful to hear somebody from the industry refer to Dr Gullible. Wish more medics realized how they were seen. You can get a quick win by offering the underpaid nurses in the team a free dinner with gifts suggesting names of drugs and presentations of poor quality studies. The real win will be when the government stops paying over the odds to drug companies and PPE providers and pays a bit more to the frontline staff, but clearly contemporary political ideology doesn't support that.
-Removed-I think the biggest danger is convincing yourself that you aren't influenced by suggestion. Deciding that you can surround yourself with brand names on pads and pens, but know that you are above being influenced so you are just putting on a nice event for a deserving team. In reality we are all vulnerable to suggestion and we live in a culture that invests heavily in advertising and product placement because it works. Feeling that you are the one who is too smart to be taken in is a very human Achilles heel that certainly isn't under represented in medics.
@cheesemaster saidAnd I heard today that Johnson & Johnson is back to testing. Interesting.
Anyone willing to say they will take the vaccine when it comes out?
I'm not.
I think the fastest vaccine before this one was for measles and that took 4 years.
I think you have to wait until you have maximum information. If there is an effective vaccine then you want to give an illness nowhere to hide and that requires a high percentage of compliance. That way the rate of infection between people becomes miniscule. You have to wait and see the detail.
@cheesemaster saidTime is irrelevant. It’s about the resources thrown at the project such as man hours and trial sizes.
Anyone willing to say they will take the vaccine when it comes out?
I'm not.
I think the fastest vaccine before this one was for measles and that took 4 years.
10 scientists working for four years = 40 scientists working for one year. It’s not exactly as measurable as that but I’m sure you get the point.
I’m gonna lunge across the desk and grab whatever vaccine my doctor offers me, and be very grateful.
-Removed-The existence of the one problem certainly doesn't stop the other being a problem. I'm afraid you won't get much sympathy from me for the marketing strategies of wealthy multinational pharmaceutical companies charging the public purse what they like by referring to their reps as humble. I would, however, agree to some extent with some of your comments about the structure of the medical profession. The 'great and the good' do tend to preach and dominate NICE Guidance and policy whilst working with tiny caseloads in protected environments. You do sometimes wonder how they would get on and what they would learn if they had to practice in the less favourable post codes in the lottery. There is also the potential for academics to be owned by Big Pharma through the need to get research funding.
@kevcvs57 saidI think that is a partial truth, but resources and money can't buy you information on longer term consequences of a treatment.
Time is irrelevant. It’s about the resources thrown at the project such as man hours and trial sizes.
10 scientists working for four years = 40 scientists working for one year. It’s not exactly as measurable as that but I’m sure you get the point.
I’m gonna lunge across the desk and grab whatever vaccine my doctor offers me, and be very grateful.