Bristol's Oncology Failures

Discussion in 'Bristol-Myers Squibb' started by anonymous, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:55 AM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    The difference is that Genentech has like 20 oncology drugs and their reps are not calling on the same oncologists with the same products.

    We look like a glorified primary care force trying to be oncology. These stupid pod meetings to figure out routing, lunches, etc is ridiculous. I am making a lot more money but it feels like my very first job in pharma with these stupid pods. Embarrassing.
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Was once primary care rep and have been oncology rep for 10 yrs. There is no real difference- get over yourself!
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Agreed!!!! Same for me. No real difference with huge geography on top of it.
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    You are such an idiot. I don't (for a second) think I am better than primary care reps. In fact, I came from primary care a long time ago.

    My point was that you work your way up in order to have a better situation- running your own territory, more money, less supervision. If primary care was so wonderful- why don't you go back there? No need to answer because the REAL answer is that specialty (especially oncology) is a better job. The reps are not more talented but the pay and perks are. That's why a lot of reps work hard to get into oncology. If given the choice between primary care and oncology- 100% of reps will choose oncology every single time. That's reality.

    If you are happy with our current set-up here, you are pathetic. Or, maybe you just don't like to work. Anyone that has been in oncology as long as you "claim" to be knows that this pod model is ridiculous and makes us look like we have no idea what we are doing. If you can't admit that to yourself- you are in complete denial. We ALL deserve better than this mess.
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) announced today that it has decided not to pursue an accelerated regulatory pathway for the combination of Opdivo plus Yervoy in first-line lung.

    The move helps secure Merck & Co Inc's lead in the development of combination lung cancer treatments. Merck last week said U.S. regulators had agreed to an accelerated review of its application to combine immune system-boosting drug Keytruda with chemotherapy as an initial therapy for advanced lung cancer.
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    It's intentional. Merck will see our surprise sooner than they thought. Our CEO will show them something they have never seen.
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Haha, alternative facts.
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    HAHA. If you're outclassed by Pfizer in oncology, you really ARE in a bad way!!!
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Now THAT is an hilarious quote! "Dominating"? BMS has no pipeline. No future. They have nivolumab. They blew their wad on a broad label and wanting data in the early Checkmate trials. Dominating? Novartis. Roche/Genentech. THAT is domination.
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

     
  12. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    As an IT rep you know that our days are numbered. Plus we spend most of our time at home
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    The institution reps are a joke.
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Hey buddy! Get your own fu*king cafeteria to sit in.
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Career Primary Care Reps are the only reps they can find to take the positions since the exodus of the BMS Oncology reps. These reps know how to fake those calls-metrics should look great! And they don't cost as much....
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

     
  17. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Bristol-Myers Opdivo Fails Kidney Cancer Trial CheckMate-214
    Although the combination showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), it did not reach statistical significance as the median PFS was 11.56 months for the Opdivo and Yervoy combination versus 8.38 months for Sutent. Hence, the trial did not meet its primary endpoint. Nevertheless, the combination met the co-primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) and achieved a 41.6% ORR versus 26.5% for Sutent.

    However, the company has decided to continue with the study as planned to allow the third co-primary endpoint of overall survival to mature. The tolerability profile observed in CheckMate-214 was consistent with that observed in previously reported studies of this dosing schedule.

    Yikes!!!!
     
  18. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Hmmmm......wonder how many of those new hires will remain. Are they all BMS employees? Or contract?
     
  19. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    How the hell is over 3 months PFS NOT statistically significant? Wonder what the threshold was? Sounds like maybe a protocol design issue...
     
  20. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Look at the numbers Einstein.
    Choices.........