- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122157
18 Nov 20
“COVID-19: Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine now 95% effective and will be submitted for authorisation 'within days'”
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-now-95-effective-and-will-be-submitted-for-authorisation-within-days-12135473
Having worked in the B2B med-tech sales sector most of my life I find this headline simultaneously hilarious and depressing.
So Pfizer were, or claim to be, first to market (so to speak) with their 90% effective vaccine, and everyone in their office is back-slapping each other and counting the soon-to-be bottom line beans and bonuses.
But then a few days later a “me too” announces a breakthrough with their vaccine which is not only cheaper to distribute (very important if you understand the costs associated with supply chain), but is also, holy crap, 95% effective!
A full 5% more effective than the other rushed-through-production and still unproven new cure.
Holy crap! Pfizer office party goes a bit flat.
But wait....it’s a miracle, thank Jesus... a few days after that announcement Pfizer announces that by a miracle of statically jiggery-pokery, their vaccine is also 95% effective.
...And here Dr Gullible, is a sales aid produced by an intern in our marketing team, which clearly shows that our graph is bigger than their graph.
And they wonder why the public are sceptical.
18 Nov 20
@divegeester saidI 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.
“COVID-19: Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine now 95% effective and will be submitted for authorisation 'within days'”
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-now-95-effective-and-will-be-submitted-for-authorisation-within-days-12135473
Having worked in the B2B med-tech sales sector most of my life I find this headline simultaneously hilarious and de ...[text shortened]... y shows that our graph is bigger than their graph.
And they wonder why the public are sceptical.
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.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122157
18 Nov 20
@relentless-red saidDon’t read to much into that comment, I wasn’t referring to the medical profession, just making a point that actually people aren’t gullible at all.
Helpful to hear somebody from the industry refer to Dr Gullible. Wish more medics realized how they were seen.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122157
18 Nov 20
@relentless-red saidHarsh but probably needed if you felt that the procurement process was compromising prescribing.
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.
The sales profession is a mixed bag but behaviour isn’t largely driven by corporate culture and ethics. Thankfully the introduction of punitive consequences for firms selling into the healthcare sector who break compliance regulations has curtailed much of the inappropriate activities.
Sales reps from your chosen, preferred or partner suppliers can be very helpful.
@divegeester saidI 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.
Harsh but probably needed if you felt that the procurement process was compromising prescribing.
The sales profession is a mixed bag but behaviour isn’t largely driven by corporate culture and ethics. Thankfully the introduction of punitive consequences for firms selling into the healthcare sector who break compliance regulations has curtailed much of the inappropriate activities.
Sales reps from your chosen, preferred or partner suppliers can be very helpful.
@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.
18 Nov 20
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.
19 Nov 20
@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.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122157
19 Nov 20
@relentless-red saidThe medical profession is riddled with and compromised primarily by a hierarchy of egotistical (so-called) “opinion leaders” who do indeed highly influence their peers. Having key opinion leaders somehow on the payroll is key to most commercial infiltrations into the rich revenue channels of the sector.
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.
The problem with too much influence isn’t your humble sales rep, it’s the revered names in the profession.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122157
19 Nov 20
@cheesemaster saidIt will be much faster than that.
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.
The lives, the scientific reputations, the political reputations and the money at stake is enormous.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122157
19 Nov 20
@kevcvs57 saidYou are right about resources Kev, it is fairly straightforward to increase research funding and amplify sampling bases etc. But the key limiting factor is the measurable results over time, i.e. the safety, side-effects and ongoing clinical efficacy of the 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.
19 Nov 20
@divegeester saidThe 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.
The medical profession is riddled with and compromised primarily by a hierarchy of egotistical (so-called) “opinion leaders” who do indeed highly influence their peers. Having key opinion leaders somehow on the payroll is key to most commercial infiltrations into the rich revenue channels of the sector.
The problem with too much influence isn’t your humble sales rep, it’s the revered names in the profession.
19 Nov 20
@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.