So how is GSK the evil one now?

[Anonymous]

Since we have a couple of jerks that say GSK is evil and good for nothing and never comes out with a new product I was wondering how they were going to say that the news about Lapatinib showing a 35% response rate in women with advanced breast cancer in initial trial of the drug as first-line treatment was bad for consumers.

Since we all know that the over whelming majority of doctors spend very little time learning about new medications and treatments I guess this means the public and GSK will have to depend on the sales reps to get the news out and properly inform the doctors about this new drug when it reaches the market.

Creditable people give both sides to a story which means giving the bad news as well as the good so let’s see what spin they try and put on this one. I think they will continue to lose creditability, excuse me, to be honest they never had any in my eyes as of a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

This is very true, there was a study out of Harvard Medical that looked at Doctors age in relation to patient care and mortality rate. And as you may have assumed the older a doctor gets the worse the patient care becomes and the higher the mortaility rate. They even mentioned how in other countries there are sales reps that just go around to doctors informing them of new breakthroughs in medicine and things like that. pretty interesting article...Anyway to the above poster, good point.

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
Since we have a couple of jerks that say GSK is evil and good for nothing and never comes out with a new product I was wondering how they were going to say that the news about Lapatinib showing a 35% response rate in women with advanced breast cancer in initial trial of the drug as first-line treatment was bad for consumers.

Since we all know that the over whelming majority of doctors spend very little time learning about new medications and treatments I guess this means the public and GSK will have to depend on the sales reps to get the news out and properly inform the doctors about this new drug when it reaches the market.

Creditable people give both sides to a story which means giving the bad news as well as the good so let’s see what spin they try and put on this one. I think they will continue to lose creditability, excuse me, to be honest they never had any in my eyes as of a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ] What the hell is a "35% response rate"- explain it- OH wise one--I will tell you, smoke and mirrors- Also if the drug ever does get to market it-- in GSK fashion, will be so expensive that few can afford it, and GSK will rake in the same abominable profits it has in the past. You are full of shit.

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since we have a couple of jerks that say GSK is evil and good for nothing and never comes out with a new product I was wondering how they were going to say that the news about Lapatinib showing a 35% response rate in women with advanced breast cancer in initial trial of the drug as first-line treatment was bad for consumers.

Since we all know that the over whelming majority of doctors spend very little time learning about new medications and treatments I guess this means the public and GSK will have to depend on the sales reps to get the news out and properly inform the doctors about this new drug when it reaches the market.

Creditable people give both sides to a story which means giving the bad news as well as the good so let’s see what spin they try and put on this one. I think they will continue to lose creditability, excuse me, to be honest they never had any in my eyes as of a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ] What the hell is a "35% response rate"- explain it- OH wise one--I will tell you, smoke and mirrors- Also if the drug ever does get to market it-- in GSK fashion, will be so expensive that few can afford it, and GSK will rake in the same abominable profits it has in the past. You are full of shit.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I guess GSK is suppose to give it away. The 35% response rate is important because I think these patients were ones who had already tried other types of medicine. The fact that you would say smoke and mirors proves you are clueless. Let us explain something to you, companies are in business to make money, period. The companies that do not make a profit go under and develop NOTHING! If you are lucky enough to be one of the 35% responders then it is a very big deal and well worth the money. If a condition is not common then a company has to charge more money because they would not recoup the money they spent to develop it in the first place. I keep asking you to give us a name or two of big pharma companies they you are pround of and yet again you are clueless. You would rather rant and rave because you have an axe to grind against GSK. That is why no one takes you too seriously. If you can't point to someone else and say "Why are you not doing it like them? then we must be behaving like the majority of companies in our industry and it is the industry that you have a problem with and not just GSK.

[Anonymous]

35% more people didn't die. I think that's pretty damn impressive.

[Anonymous]

Excuse me for interrupting, but are you suggesting that all the evidence that GSK has released drugs that they know there are potential problems with are put right because they produced a drug that improves outlook for cancer patients by 35%?? I'm sorry, they are a drug company, they make drugs, they are not doing it for the greater good of mankind, they are doing it because they are a drug company and that's how they make money.

A doctor saved my mum's life years ago, and I'm sure that he saved others in his line of work, he was later convicted of being a mass murderer. Doing the job you are supposed to be doing doesn't forgive you of any crime.

[Anonymous]

Excuse me for interrupting, but are you suggesting that all the evidence that GSK has released drugs that they know there are potential problems with are put right because they produced a drug that improves outlook for cancer patients by 35%?? I'm sorry, they are a drug company, they make drugs, they are not doing it for the greater good of mankind, they are doing it because they are a drug company and that's how they make money.

A doctor saved my mum's life years ago, and I'm sure that he saved others in his line of work, he was later convicted of being a mass murderer. Doing the job you are supposed to be doing doesn't forgive you of any crime.

Your last paragraph sums it up pretty well. The thing is, there are a lot of impressionable young people who've gone to work for the company and they WANT to believe all the nice things. It's human nature to want to believe that the group of people you align yourself with are good and decent people. What they need to keep in mind is that in a company the size of GSK, there will always be unsavory characters, and since it is, after all, big business, those types often stab, screw, or cheat their way to the top.

Sounds like an impressive drug which will save lives, and yes, that is a good thing. There are many remarkable products out there that drug companies are responsible for. But there's also a lot of poor business practices going on out there, especially since big pharma marketing departments were overrun by soda and cereal marketers. IMHO, their philosophy of marketing is what ruined the industry.

[Anonymous]

A doctor saved my mum's life years ago, and I'm sure that he saved others in his line of work, he was later convicted of being a mass murderer. Doing the job you are supposed to be doing doesn't forgive you of any crime.

Not sure how to respond. How much do you love your "Mum"? If others died because of his crimes, but he lived on as a Doc and helped your "Mum" recover, does that amend his BAD deeds. Probably not, but does it amend the bad deeds to YOU, since he helped your "Mum" recover. A situational ethics question fron college MANY years ago. It gives me a headache today. I like things in black and white, but things are not always that way. Hope you figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Since we have a couple of jerks that say GSK is evil and good for nothing and never comes out with a new product I was wondering how they were going to say that the news about Lapatinib showing a 35% response rate in women with advanced breast cancer in initial trial of the drug as first-line treatment was bad for consumers.

Since we all know that the over whelming majority of doctors spend very little time learning about new medications and treatments I guess this means the public and GSK will have to depend on the sales reps to get the news out and properly inform the doctors about this new drug when it reaches the market.

Creditable people give both sides to a story which means giving the bad news as well as the good so let’s see what spin they try and put on this one. I think they will continue to lose creditability, excuse me, to be honest they never had any in my eyes as of a long time ago. The drug is shit and you are an idiot, it may extend the life of a few women a month or two -but you can bet it will bankrupt them for nothing. Read the fine print, dumbass.

[Anonymous]

35% more people didn't die. I think that's pretty damn impressive.

Should I assume you mean 35% LESS patients died while on the med?

Might want to work on your wording, your phrasing is misleading and confusing.