Job interview

Im in the 2nd stage of interviewing & am wondering as a whole if thermo fisher is a good company to work for...

 

Yes, great place to work as a second job! Most of my colleagues sell clinical lab and radiology services on the side to add to their income.

 

Stay away from NYC.

 

What's the salary range for a clinical tech sales rep?

 

First off- get a life. Secondly they are not your colleagues anymore since you were fired.

 

Nice to see management has nothing better to do than read this board. The work here is fine for a short time job pit-stop. Don't take a job here thinking it will become a career. Just like big name pharma - this industry doesn't have a bright future.

 

Total compensation here is not all that good - you can supplement your income working on the side for a clinical lab. Be careful though, a few reps have been busted in the last few months.

 

In-vitro allergy testing has never caught on and continues to be a dog. Why you ask? First off it's a hocus pocus lab test lacking sensitivity of results. Secondly it's too expensive. Most insurance carries either do not cover or severely limit reimbursement for in-vitro allergy.

A few devout nuns were recently diagnosed with a high sensitivity to the spanish fly allergen yet none of these folks had ever met a spanish fly! Go figure!

 

Well I'm no nun but I had no idea that the Spanish fly ImmunoCAP was available. What about the Italian fly ImmunoCAP - is that available? I was tested for both the French, and American fly ImmunoCAP and came up negative. Although my MD assured me it was a very sensitive and specific test. Was he wrong? I'm pissed b/c I paid a lot for that test as my insurance declined it!

 

If you do well you will have a job and make good money. More money than a pharma rep.

 

Unfortunately the Italian ImmunoCAP exhibits some specificity issues as many of the Italian flys intermingled with the sexy French antigens and cross-hatched some Italio-French offspring. Since the two show close antigenicity they can't be separated by normal laboratory centrifugation methodologies. Hence one who might be negative for the Italian Fly could be elevated for the French Fly and vice versa. What a quandry!

It's best that the patient ask to be immunized for both the French and Italian just to be sure. Just make sure that if the patient wakes up in the middle of the night that he doesn't call his wife either Jacqueline or Sofia!

 

Thanks for the advice. Although Immunotherapy (IT) is lengthy and I stay far away from Italians. Why you ask? Well, they are somewhat arrogant and make outlandish comments. Last time I was in Rome, Italy the men are so very flirtatious and hard to get rid of (like flies). I was there to see the Vatican.

I give you credit for being so knowledgeable (!) in the wonderful world of lab diagnostics.

 

I love this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/health/in-documents-on-pain-drug-celebrex-signs-of-doubt-and-deception.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Great read about Thermo Fisher/Phadia/Pharmacia (Pfizer's shell company)/Pfizer's past. Found it to highlight the ethics at those past companies.

 

A research director for Pfizer was positively buoyant after reading that an important medical conference had just featured a study claiming that the new arthritis drug Celebrex was safer on the stomach than more established drugs. “They swallowed our story, hook, line and sinker,” he wrote in an e-mail to a colleague.

The truth was that Celebrex was no better at protecting the stomach from serious complications than other drugs. It appeared that way only because Pfizer and its partner, Pharmacia, presented the results from the first six months of a yearlong study rather than the whole thing.

The companies had a lot riding on the outcome of the study, given that Celebrex’s effect on the stomach was its principal selling point. Earlier studies had shown it was no better at relieving pain than common drugs — like ibuprofen — already on the market.

The research chief’s e-mail, sent in 2000, is among thousands of pages of internal documents and depositions unsealed recently by a federal judge in a long-running securities fraud case against Pfizer. While the companies’ handling of the research was revealed a dozen years ago, the documents provide a vivid picture of the calculation made by Pfizer at the time and its efforts ever since to overcome doubts about the drug.

The documents suggest that officials made a strategic decision during the early trial to be less than forthcoming about the drug’s safety. They show that executives considered attacking the trial’s design before they even knew the results and disregarded the advice of an employee and an outside consultant who had argued the companies should disclose the fact that they were using incomplete data.

In one e-mail, an associate medical director at Pharmacia (which was later bought by Pfizer) disparaged the way the study was being presented as “data massage,” for “no other reason than it happens to look better.”

In another, a medical director at Pfizer described it as “cherry-picking the data” even as officials were publicly boasting of the study’s success. Dr. M. Michael Wolfe, a gastroenterologist who had cautiously praised the study in a medical journal at the outset, said after reviewing the new documents: “I always try to give investigators the benefit of the doubt, but these communications make it quite challenging for me.”

The importance of Celebrex to Pfizer is indisputable. It is one of the company’s best-selling drugs, racking up more than $2.5 billion in sales, and was prescribed to 2.4 million patients in the United States last year alone.

The drug is the last of the so-called COX-2 inhibitor pain drugs, after Vioxx and Bextra were withdrawn in 2004 and 2005 because of safety concerns.

Some of the Celebrex’s detractors contend that its risks are still not fully understood, and argue that Pfizer is dragging its feet on a study — now nearly six years old — evaluating the drug’s heart risks. The study is scheduled to end in May 2014, the same month that Celebrex loses its patent protection and sales of the drug are expected to plunge.

Then and now, Pfizer has defended its decision to release partial results from the 2000 study and denies any intent to deceive. Company officials have said the drug has demonstrated its worth and safety. The proof, they say, is that 33 million Americans have taken it. “The bottom line is Celebrex is a very important option for many of these patients,” said Dr. Steve Romano, head of the medicines development group in Pfizer’s primary care unit.

The decision by Pfizer and Pharmacia to withhold crucial data became widely known in 2001, after the Food and Drug Administration released the study’s full results. The revelations, along with similar reports of withheld data by other drug companies, led to calls for reforms in the way data from clinical trials is published, including in The Journal of the American Medical Association, which ran an article featuring the partial results from the study.

The withheld data also led to a lawsuit, filed in 2003, by several pension funds that charged that by handling the results the way they did, Pfizer and Pharmacia had misled investors and were responsible for a drop in Pharmacia’s stock value when the full results were revealed.

 

Who cares about Pfizer on this thread and why is a Thermo board dominated by Phadia, which is a pimple in the vastness of ThermoFisher?

 

Did you read the article above poster? Of course not.

The article was about Pharmacia (not Phadia) and Pfizer. Many of upper management still at Thermo are well aware of what happened. This board was created not for Thermo but those involved in the lab/diagnostic side.

There is another site for Thermo under analytical, so I encourage you to visit that one.

 

"Pimple in the vastness of ThermoFisher". Is that sort of like saying that it's as small as "Tits on a bull"?

 

That is true....we go to some nice places for meetings...in Reno now. Good money, some good managers and some are horrible. I've been here 2years, won ACE, I'm interviewing.

 

If you are interested in working for unethical, harassing, discriminating people choose Thermo Fisher. They are as bad as Novartis in my opinion. After being referred by the VP for an interview, not one, two, but three interviews, they thought it would be best to dick someone around and treat them like shit knowing that they had no intentions of hiring the person. Not only did each interviewer have the same thing to say at the end of each interview-robots, in the last interview they utilized words/language such as 'KILL', 'DEAD', and 'YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER.' They are spineless, worthless, P.O.S.' from the bottom all the way to the top. I'll bet they even had it planned with big pharma since that's there goal to grow and be greedy-you'll make a lot of money, they stated in the interview. Who says that, along with the above? AND, I'll bet my life savings they were taping the interviews.

It will not be long before a suit is filed for discrimination-male dominated in all positions.

 

"Their goal is to grow and be greedy-You'll make a lot of money."
That's a terrible thing to say.