Corporate Malfeasance

[untermensche]

If you think the drug your doctor is prescribing has been approved for your ailment, guess again. That may not be true.

If you think the drug your doctor prescribed is the best drug for your problem, guess again. That may not be true.

Here are just a few of the recent settlements from drug manufacturers. Billion dollar settlements.

Off label promotion and kickbacks to doctors are a common practice in the corporate world of pharmaceutical sales.

Corporations are not your friend.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

Are there any other examples of massive corporate malfeasance?

 

[Harry Bosch]

If you think the drug your doctor is prescribing has been approved for your ailment, guess again. That may not be true.

If you think the drug your doctor prescribed is the best drug for your problem, guess again. That may not be true.

Here are just a few of the recent settlements from drug manufacturers. Billion dollar settlements.

Off label promotion and kickbacks to doctors are a common practice in the corporate world of pharmaceutical sales.

Corporations are not your friend.

View attachment 33918

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

Are there any other examples of massive corporate malfeasance?

Good Heavens! Are you trying to allege that corporations primary duty is to maximize profit? I hope that you can generate proof for such an outrageous claim!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you trying to suggest that off-label use is evidence of medical misconduct?

Consider, https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_tamsulosin_flomax/drugs-condition.htm. It's the first-line treatment for a kidney stone that is small enough to pass.

It's approved use is benign prostatic hyperplasia--the enlarged prostate that eventually happens to all men. The docs realized it has the same effect on the ureters that take the urine from the kidneys to the bladder as it has on the urethra that takes the urine from the bladder on out.

Is it approved for kidney stones? No. Do I have a problem with having been prescribed it? No. Why should the drug companies spend the time and money to show what the docs already figured out? Besides, I can see ethical problems with even doing the trial--the control patients should get the normal standard of care for the situation--but that's the very drug they would be testing. How do you even do the trial?

There's also the problem with how to get volunteers. Kidney stones are an acute condition, a patient who presents with a kidney stone isn't going to be in shape to consent to a medical trial even if they haven't been given pain drugs.

There have been a very few medical trials that have been done on a basis of if you live in the area you're deemed consenting if you don't opt out. Those are for extreme situations in the emergency room where the standard of care has a pretty poor outcome, though.

 

[untermensche]

Good Heavens! Are you trying to allege that corporations primary duty is to maximize profit? I hope that you can generate proof for such an outrageous claim!

Your justification for criminal behavior is noted.

When doctors become nothing more than profit seeking capitalists they have abandoned the practice of medicine and no longer serve their fellow man.

Prescribing drugs because you get a kickback for doing it is unethical and illegal.

 

[untermensche]

Are you trying to suggest that off-label use is evidence of medical misconduct?

Consider, https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_tamsulosin_flomax/drugs-condition.htm. It's the first-line treatment for a kidney stone that is small enough to pass.

It's approved use is benign prostatic hyperplasia--the enlarged prostate that eventually happens to all men. The docs realized it has the same effect on the ureters that take the urine from the kidneys to the bladder as it has on the urethra that takes the urine from the bladder on out.

Is it approved for kidney stones? No. Do I have a problem with having been prescribed it? No. Why should the drug companies spend the time and money to show what the docs already figured out? Besides, I can see ethical problems with even doing the trial--the control patients should get the normal standard of care for the situation--but that's the very drug they would be testing. How do you even do the trial?

There's also the problem with how to get volunteers. Kidney stones are an acute condition, a patient who presents with a kidney stone isn't going to be in shape to consent to a medical trial even if they haven't been given pain drugs.

There have been a very few medical trials that have been done on a basis of if you live in the area you're deemed consenting if you don't opt out. Those are for extreme situations in the emergency room where the standard of care has a pretty poor outcome, though.

Off label use is something doctors can do. If they have some evidence to use it.

It is not something drug manufacturers can legally promote.

 

[untermensche]

When you look at the ethical nature of an institution and find patterns of widespread illegality you can conclude that the institution has no moral foundations of limitations.

The corporation is an unethical institution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you trying to suggest that off-label use is evidence of medical misconduct?

Consider, https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_tamsulosin_flomax/drugs-condition.htm. It's the first-line treatment for a kidney stone that is small enough to pass.

It's approved use is benign prostatic hyperplasia--the enlarged prostate that eventually happens to all men. The docs realized it has the same effect on the ureters that take the urine from the kidneys to the bladder as it has on the urethra that takes the urine from the bladder on out.

Is it approved for kidney stones? No. Do I have a problem with having been prescribed it? No. Why should the drug companies spend the time and money to show what the docs already figured out? Besides, I can see ethical problems with even doing the trial--the control patients should get the normal standard of care for the situation--but that's the very drug they would be testing. How do you even do the trial?

There's also the problem with how to get volunteers. Kidney stones are an acute condition, a patient who presents with a kidney stone isn't going to be in shape to consent to a medical trial even if they haven't been given pain drugs.

There have been a very few medical trials that have been done on a basis of if you live in the area you're deemed consenting if you don't opt out. Those are for extreme situations in the emergency room where the standard of care has a pretty poor outcome, though.

Off label use is something doctors can do. If they have some evidence to use it.

It is not something drug manufacturers can legally promote.

I'm saying you went too far in saying the doctors are doing something wrong in off-label use.

I do agree that drug companies shouldn't be promoting off-label use, but I'd like to see the drug information pages updated to show common off-label uses.

 

[untermensche]

Are you trying to suggest that off-label use is evidence of medical misconduct?

Consider, https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_tamsulosin_flomax/drugs-condition.htm. It's the first-line treatment for a kidney stone that is small enough to pass.

It's approved use is benign prostatic hyperplasia--the enlarged prostate that eventually happens to all men. The docs realized it has the same effect on the ureters that take the urine from the kidneys to the bladder as it has on the urethra that takes the urine from the bladder on out.

Is it approved for kidney stones? No. Do I have a problem with having been prescribed it? No. Why should the drug companies spend the time and money to show what the docs already figured out? Besides, I can see ethical problems with even doing the trial--the control patients should get the normal standard of care for the situation--but that's the very drug they would be testing. How do you even do the trial?

There's also the problem with how to get volunteers. Kidney stones are an acute condition, a patient who presents with a kidney stone isn't going to be in shape to consent to a medical trial even if they haven't been given pain drugs.

There have been a very few medical trials that have been done on a basis of if you live in the area you're deemed consenting if you don't opt out. Those are for extreme situations in the emergency room where the standard of care has a pretty poor outcome, though.

Off label use is something doctors can do. If they have some evidence to use it.

It is not something drug manufacturers can legally promote.

I'm saying you went too far in saying the doctors are doing something wrong in off-label use.

I do agree that drug companies shouldn't be promoting off-label use, but I'd like to see the drug information pages updated to show common off-label uses.

I never said doctors are doing something wrong by using drugs for off label use. I said they easily could be.

But if they are prescribing some drug off label because of a kickback you may not ever know it.

It is definitely illegal for a drug manufacturer to promote or reward off label use.

And many corporations are clearly criminal enterprises.

They must by law behave as sociopathic psychopaths. Watch the video.

 

[TomC]

Good Heavens! Are you trying to allege that corporations primary duty is to maximize profit? I hope that you can generate proof for such an outrageous claim!

Your justification for criminal behavior is noted.

When doctors become nothing more than profit seeking capitalists they have abandoned the practice of medicine and no longer serve their fellow man.

Prescribing drugs because you get a kickback for doing it is unethical and illegal.

Perhaps your sarcasm detector needs new batteries?
Tom

 

[untermensche]

Good Heavens! Are you trying to allege that corporations primary duty is to maximize profit? I hope that you can generate proof for such an outrageous claim!

Your justification for criminal behavior is noted.

When doctors become nothing more than profit seeking capitalists they have abandoned the practice of medicine and no longer serve their fellow man.

Prescribing drugs because you get a kickback for doing it is unethical and illegal.

Perhaps your sarcasm detector needs new batteries?
Tom

No sarcasm there.

The profit motive works under the assumption that all players obey the law.

Economic systems are based on the lawful action of players. Unlawful actors are locked up. If you are big enough you just get a fine.

That is the only ethical profit.

 

[TomC]

Perhaps your sarcasm detector needs new batteries?
Tom

No sarcasm there.

The profit motive works under the assumption that all players obey the law.

Economic systems are based on the lawful action of players. Unlawful actors are locked up. If you are big enough you just get a fine.

That is the only ethical profit.

Perhaps it's my sarcasm detector that needs adjustments.

Maybe because he described exactly what I see as the biggest problem with medical care in the USA. Corporate Capitalism.

Healthy people aren't the goal. Profits are the goal. Healthy people are a side effect. Not even a terribly important one.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying you went too far in saying the doctors are doing something wrong in off-label use.

I do agree that drug companies shouldn't be promoting off-label use, but I'd like to see the drug information pages updated to show common off-label uses.

I never said doctors are doing something wrong by using drugs for off label use. I said they easily could be.

But if they are prescribing some drug off label because of a kickback you may not ever know it.

It is definitely illegal for a drug manufacturer to promote or reward off label use.

And many corporations are clearly criminal enterprises.

They must by law behave as sociopathic psychopaths. Watch the video.

The problem here isn't the off-label, the problem is the kickbacks.

The pharmacies should not be allowed to provide the drug companies with information about what doctors prescribed what.

 

[untermensche]

I'm saying you went too far in saying the doctors are doing something wrong in off-label use.

I do agree that drug companies shouldn't be promoting off-label use, but I'd like to see the drug information pages updated to show common off-label uses.

I never said doctors are doing something wrong by using drugs for off label use. I said they easily could be.

But if they are prescribing some drug off label because of a kickback you may not ever know it.

It is definitely illegal for a drug manufacturer to promote or reward off label use.

And many corporations are clearly criminal enterprises.

They must by law behave as sociopathic psychopaths. Watch the video.

The problem here isn't the off-label, the problem is the kickbacks.

The pharmacies should not be allowed to provide the drug companies with information about what doctors prescribed what.

No. The problem is a drug manufacturer promoting off label use.

That is illegal.

And that is what they were doing knowing it was illegal but risking it.

Doctors can promote off label use based on published and peer reviewed research that had nothing to do with the drug approval process.

They cannot use drugs off label based on hunches. They risk being sued if they cause harm.

And they certainly can't use any drug off label based on nothing but the word of drug manufacturers.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've started watching the Netflix series Dirty Money. Wow! Anyone not yet convinced that some big corporations are crooked and/or evil needs to watch this.

Episode 1) Volkswagen sold a huge number of dirty diesel cars with a software trick^* to fool tests into reporting clean exhaust. (* - the engine would remain in a clean mode until the steering wheel was turned.)

Episode 2) Scott Tucker, King of payday lending, amassed hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth, while impoverishing a million desperate Americans with fine print in their loan contracts. (Customers thought they were paying interest and principal; instead their monthly payments were just "loan renewal fees.")

Episode 3) Valeant Pharmaceuticals was a top Wall St. darling for a while; its business model was to buy hundreds(!) of small pharma companies, lay off most of the R&D departments, and jack up drug prices. Some patients who had been doing fine suddenly needed to pay $280,000 annually for drugs to stay alive. The heroine of the episode is a smart woman who takes a "gap year" before starting her PhD work in algebraic topology ... and ends up as a stock researcher who made a fortune shorting Valeant stock!

Episode 4) I just started this episode. HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, was the go-to bank for launderers. For example, HSBC executives entered the name of TAJCO, a terrorist organization, as "TAJ.CO" or "TAJ-CO" to evade string-matching scripts that flag transactions with terrorists or criminals.

The crooks in Episodes 2 and 3 both used a lot of cut-out companies to disguise their activity. Despite that these episodes are all about malfeasant companies that were caught, very few, if any, of the executives went to prison.

 

[untermensche]

Corporations are required by law to be sociopathic institutions.

 

[Rhea]

Despite that these episodes are all about malfeasant companies that were caught, very few, if any, of the executives went to prison.

And they know it.

That is a huge gap in our economic, financial and legal systems.
And the works pay for this.

 

[Elixir]

Corporations are required by law to be sociopathic institutions.

Large and publicly held Corporations are required by survival imperatives to behave sociopathically.
The law only fails to curtail sociopathic corporate behavior, it doesn't cause it per se.

That is a huge gap in our economic, financial and legal systems.

^ Point.

 

[untermensche]

Watch the video, post #6.

Corporations are required BY LAW to behave like sociopaths.