Welcome to the Forest board

I am going to respect that your response was very articulate and thorough, with a nice breakdown outlining the constructs of pharma guidelines from a purely objective standpoint, but I will discuss the cultural impact this decision had on the organizations sales force in a moment and how you are only outlining a small portion of the importance of pharma. First, I would like to address a response that I believe to be incomplete.

In regards to Research and Development with other pharmaceutical organizations being profits driven. Absolutely, but I would also include and to a lesser extent R&D serves "goodwill" functions which have a very real stockholder and market leverage / political value. But to the point: I am by no means naive enough to assume that R&D is a purely altruistic behavior that is pursued solely for the betterment of healthcare.... from a molecule development standpoint companies very much pursue R&D for those products in which they feel a profitable market exists. When I refer to Research and Development and I discuss Forests disregard and irresponsibilities, I am refering to the fact that other pharma companies conducting these studies are gaining the necessary indications that outline both the safety and the efficacy of the molecule for a particular patient subtype and by conducting these studies prior to marketing them as indications are not only in compliance with the FDA guidelines but within very existent moral parameters to prove patient value and do no harm. Forest does not need to develope there own molecules to be a reputable company , but they do need to do the research necessary for their promotion. Which does not occur. In my previous post I outlined being corporately trained to discuss GAD, PTSD, AAD,PMDD proactively with physicians even though at the time none of these indications were granted and Lexapro was unproven in their treatment. So, although other organizations are marketing a molecule for profit (which is not intrinsicly evil) they are ensuring that the molecule is actually treating the disorders they are actively promoting and are ensuring patient safety. Do you see this clear difference? I believe"parasitic" as a description is inflammatory, which is appropriate when you profit based on general class effects paid for and proven by other companies ... emtionaly laden...yes, but not hyperbole.

I'll explain further for those reading the site that do not understand the industry. Gaining additional indications is associated with a greater cost to bring these treatments to market. Therefore, Forest can market to HMO's (as stated in my prior email) at a much greater cost advantage than those organizations that actually do the legal/ethical activity and gain indication prior to marketing to physicians.
What does this do to healthcare and the market? 1.Understanding that the industry is profit driven (as per both of our admission) it strongly pushes physicians to write a product that is understudied in comparison to it's peers for indications it has not yet received because of the cost savings. Ultimately this type of business model will provides patients and healthcare with understudied potentially unsafe or ineffective molecules. I believe one could clearly see how this is the case. For example if Pfizer knew that Zoloft could be marketed without consequence from the FDA to lactating mothers would they have conducted the studies necessary to ensure the safety of the nursing child? Would SSRI's have even been studied past the initial antidepressant effect to prove the efficacy and safety and applicability in patients with GAD or would this have been left for the already time constrained overworked physicians to discover anecdotaly? Think about how this could impact other disease states...cancer...diabetes...heart disease? Life RENAL (I'm not even going to go into Benicar, which during corporate not divisional training was treated even more irresponsibly when a popular scientific magazine was brought out to draw a correlation between the mechanixm of action of Benicar and a decrease in smooth muscle cell proliferation...(the published article did not discuss Benicar nor any ARB, but we were trained on how to tactfully discuss this with physicians as part of the benefit of Benicars pharmacokinetic profile I will not even begin to discuss our philosophy concerning the neuroprotective nature of Namenda our marketing / scientists have concocted as of late.
.

That is what I'm referring to from an R&D standpoint.

Now for the pharma consideration.

First, it was not a political stance against the Mercks and the Pfizers (what is our problem with these companies), and it most certainly offers a competitive advantage. I worked for another large pharma. company (That should answer your question as to whether or not this was my first pharma company) when these guidelines were initiated. The motivation was to self-regulate...a "gentlemans agreement" if you will to prevent government intervention dictating acceptable promotional activities with very real reprecussions from member parties. At the time pharmaceutical promotional activities were being exposed on news programs and in periodicals. I understand what pharma. is and is not, and I'm also aware of the cultural impact it has on the sales force. When I joined forest and I was conducting dinner programs three to five times a week and being pushed by management to spend dollars (given by corporate, so don't blame management)...not educate, but spend dollars on key physicians. I was told by reps...we can do this because we didn't sign pharma...they knew other companies were not conducting themselves in this manner, but in their understanding of pharma..by not signing they were allowed to engage in these questionable promotional practices, which very much creates a corporate culture of "whatever it takes to get the job done" further reinforcing the sales first, ethics second mentality. So, that is the psychological impact not signing pharma has had on the Forest Sales Force. How much do sales organizations pay to impact their representatives mentality, so don't underestimate the importance of this. Also, clearly this is a functional competitive advantage? When physicians are accustomed to the old practices of providing dollars for limited engagements "dash and dines" to become "expert speakers" and suddenly the only company giving them this very real benefit to their bottom line is Forest. How is that not a competitive advantage to have an unlimited budget to spend in ways other companies cannot because they adhere to pharma. to promote their product to key doctors. Please, do not say that your guidelines are more strict than those outlined by pharma. This is not true. This is the line that is touted while gladhanding to physicians is commonplace. How many Lexapro expert speakers do we need per territory. How many intimate $500 - $1000 (honorarium) 2 hour dinners does Lilly get to have. It is common industry knowledge that this happens with our company. I believe you can clearly see how not signing pharma created a competitive advantage both in the focus of the salesforce and the types of activities one is allowed to engage in.

I stand by my original statment, and I sincerely believe Forest will be slapped with a very large fine here in the near future and it will not be the fault of the representative or the manager, but the RD's and VP's and CEO for creating this business model and corporate culture.

 

Who ever you are you just summed up the horrible and criminal nature of Forest...I've worked there for 3 years and anybody that believes Forest is a legit company that cares about curing disease and showing respect for it's reps is dead wrong....and were most liking selling used cars before they came to Forest....Thank you for this post it sums up the Forest culture perfectly

 

Terrific commentary !
Who is the director of Marketing if I may ?

 

That is an extremely true (and well writen I might add)response that echoes my 3 yrs with Forest. And as far as turnover goes, I had 7 partners in those 3 yrs......

 

If only you put as much time into your work, as you did your loquaciously annoying post, you would be average. Or even better; putting that effort into finding a new job. You, my idiot friend, are the exact reason why idiots have a bad name. Take your fluffy-ass jibberjab and stick it where the sun don't shine. Your verbosely, winded posts give me gas. Please leave!

 

Re: FOREST GETS DOGGED!!!!!

I'm a business communications salesperson trying to talk with someone at Forest about their business communications needs such as new product rollouts to internal/external audiences, interactive media pieces to help with physician education, etc. I've had little luck with getting a real human being on the phone in marketing or sales at Forest. I've been transferred to a nameless voice mail where I'm expected to leave a message that no one returns. Can you or anyone out there give me any constructive suggestions? All calls are routed through a main number at Corporate headquarters 212-421-7850. voice mail is what I get....Thanks!

 

Re: FOREST GETS DOGGED!!!!!

Good Luck. The marketing department is filled with people who were successful selling copiers or cars, worked for Forest for 6 months, kissed ass and got moved on and upward. If you are lookinng to deal with professional people with intelligence and experience in the business world you are barking up the wrong tree. Try PDI.

 

NOTE: FOREST IS A MARKETING COMPANY, THATS IT. NOT REALLY AS CONCERNED WITH PRODUCING MEDICINES AS PRODUCING A PROFIT. IN FACT, EVERY FOREST REP I KNOW (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE 5) IS INVOLVED WITH PROVIDING GIFT CERTIFICATES, JEWLERY, TICKETS TO SHOWS AND STRAIGHT UP CASH TO DOCTORS. ITS REALLY A JOKE AND YOU NEED NO SALES SAVY TO SUCCEED THERE. JUST HAVE THE BALLS ENOUGHT TO USE YOUR $15,000 PER QUARTER BUDGET TO TAKE OUT DOCTORS AND THEIR FAMILIES TO DINNER OR SHOWS AND YOU'LL DO FINE. IT WAS FUN WHILE I WAS THERE BUT BEING AT A LEGIT COMPANY I REALIZED THAT THERE IS ONE REASON THAT FOREST REPS ARE SUCCESSFUL. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

I am a student at the University of Arizona. For one of my classes we are doing a group project and our company of choice is Forest Laboratories. Since everyone in our group is a Management Information Systems major, our focus is on the technological processes Forest Labs uses. We are interested in how SALE REPS perform day-to-day interactions with their clients. We are also looking at how Forest Laboratories knows to restock the each store that sells their products. Does the store have to notify Forest? Or does Forest Labs have a divice to monitor instore products? I am looking for someone that can provide different technological processes Forest Laboratories uses. If there is anyone I could talk to (a Sales Rep or anyone that have information about some processes) I would love to hear from them. I can be contacted here at the forum board or through e mail. EMAIL: uofamis22@yahoo.com

 

Anyone know Rob Staker?

Wondering if anyone knows Rob Staker. Any comments?

 

I am a marketing student doing research on the pharmaceutical industry and looking at various sales materials used in the depression area. I was looking close at the sales pieces for Effexor dated January 2003 (102272-02), May 2003 (103712-01) and November 2003 (105336-01) and I noticed that the data on the pooled remission analysis changed from one piece to the other. The total N of the study increased, the placebo number decreased, and the SSRI and Effexor N increased from the sales piece from January to the November sales piece. Also the SSRI % achieving remission went from 34% to 35%. What is even more confusing is that the reference is the same for both pieces. Then when I looked at the November sales piece, the total N increased again, but with a new reference to a poster presented at the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology and EX 110 Data on file, Wyeth.

Does anyone know why the data changed so often, the references changed and only one refers to Data on file - Ex 110? Why doesn’t the first two sales aid reference Data on file and a similar EX number?
common?

 

Re: FOREST GETS DOGGED!!!!!

Actually, things like Phizer falsifying evidence that Neurontin ever had benefit for bipolar patients and Merck ignoring cardiovascular problems in Vioxx patients are what's giving our industry a bad name.

 

Check with the FDA - Wyeth got popped for making false claims concerning Effexor's efficacy. Something about false and misleading marketing practices.

 

I must say, the recruiters' experiences with Forest DMs vary greatly from that of the reps who actually work for them!!!

 

You know, you are correct about many of Forest's promotional activities being questionable by recent standards, but the truth about our industry is that regardless of whether a company signed Pharma guidelines or not, these practices go on in most if not all pharmaceutical companies, even many of those who did sign the Pharma agreement. The Pharma agreement really did little to change the corruption in our industry - it was basically a nice ploy by big pharma to keep the FDA off their backs, and possibly to stifle competition from smaller companies who were engaging in promotional activities that most companies who signed the agreement had been engaging in for many years.

 

Has anyone heard anything about the UKs adding cardiotoxicity warning to the label of Effexor and will oly allow it to be used by psychiatrist?

 

Re: Welcome to the Forest board: Well Written Credible Arguments

There are quite a few very well written insights into the Forest culture posted on this website. Since I'm assuming this is the work of one author I would like to get in touch with you to discuss. I will provide you with my information and you can contact me if you would like. The information you provide could make a BIG difference on how Forest promotes its products. Let me know and I will post contact information that will secure your identity.

 

Re: FOREST GETS DOGGED!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, things like Phizer falsifying evidence that Neurontin ever had benefit for bipolar patients and Merck ignoring cardiovascular problems in Vioxx patients are what's giving our industry a bad name.

[/ QUOTE ]


WOW!!!!! You must be the smartest person in the world...."Phizer" NO...
PFIZER....

 

[ QUOTE ]
You know, you are correct about many of Forest's promotional activities being questionable by recent standards, but the truth about our industry is that regardless of whether a company signed Pharma guidelines or not, these practices go on in most if not all pharmaceutical companies, even many of those who did sign the Pharma agreement. The Pharma agreement really did little to change the corruption in our industry - it was basically a nice ploy by big pharma to keep the FDA off their backs, and possibly to stifle competition from smaller companies who were engaging in promotional activities that most companies who signed the agreement had been engaging in for many years.

[/ QUOTE ]

The base of this corruption lies in politics. Look at that 'industry' if you want to see unethical behavior. Sure, pharmaceutical employees are ultimately responsible for their own actions, but if the people overseeing an industry's ethics are in the most unethical trade themselves, where money and power are the main goal, then not much can change. Just take a look at the most recent tobaco bill, if you don't mind being outraged. It's too late in history for any kind of revolution of violence to work, so the only way out is for those who work and pay taxes to stage a funding revolution, i.e., a tax revolution. This will never happen in large numbers, but you can always dream. Anyway, just expressing my continuing disbelief at the crap politicians get away with while pretending to be "working for the people." Happy year of the rooster!