Conflict Much?

WebMD is not a public health site, they are a business, just like Pfizer.
 
I don't mean publicly owned...I meant the purpose generally presumed purpose for the site is public health.
 
Last edited:
i thought the purpose of the site was to make money, presumably from advertisements, most of which are probably from pharmaceutical companies.
 
I don't use them at all. I expect most medical professionals use peer reviewed sources such as UpToDate.
We tend to practice EVIDENCED based medicine, and not just because "we read it". :)

Jaybird180 said:
But don't think for a second that medical professionals don't consult them as a resource. They do!
Click to expand...
 
I don't see a problem. It's common for high-level execs to switch from one company to another. Sounds like WebMD made him a better offer, so he switched.

If he then chooses to bias towards Pfizer on WebMD, then it creates a problem.
 
nddons said:
Maybe so, but I also believe that their 5 most feared words from their patients are: "I saw this on WebMD."
Click to expand...

If it is, then I don't want that person as a doctor.

Many physicians seem to have this idea that patients should take what they say for gospel and that they are never wrong. It's amazing how much many doctors DON'T know.

A doctor should be happy about a patient caring enough to do research, and might even learn something. It goes with anything - I've learned from my students.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If it is, then I don't want that person as a doctor.

Many physicians seem to have this idea that patients should take what they say for gospel and that they are never wrong. It's amazing how much many doctors DON'T know.

A doctor should be happy about a patient caring enough to do research, and might even learn something. It goes with anything - I've learned from my students.
Click to expand...

I was saying this somewhat in jest. What I was referring to was that I think there is some level of self-diagnosis being undertaken by patients, accompanied by a solution found in that drug commercial someone saw on late-night TV. I know many physicians who have to "undo" misperceptions of illnesses as well as perceived cures.
 
nddons said:
I was saying this somewhat in jest. What I was referring to was that I think there is some level of self-diagnosis being undertaken by patients, accompanied by a solution found in that drug commercial someone saw on late-night TV. I know many physicians who have to "undo" misperceptions of illnesses as well as perceived cures.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I do have a problem with drug commercials, especially the "Ask your doctor if [insert random drug] is right for you," without even saying what the drug does.

However, on the flip side, my wife (who does very thorough research) found out about a new test that is strictly a blood test and is better than 99% accurate for detecting Down's syndrome in a fetus during the first trimester. In all kinds of medical journals being written up. When we asked our doctor about it, he hadn't even heard of it, and showed no interest in learning. Gee, a simple blood test with high accuracy that is equally accurate to amniocentesis and choriono-villis testing (both of which are invasive and risky). You'd think any OB worth his speculum would be interested in such a test.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Agreed, and I do have a problem with drug commercials, especially the "Ask your doctor if [insert random drug] is right for you," without even saying what the drug does.

However, on the flip side, my wife (who does very thorough research) found out about a new test that is strictly a blood test and is better than 99% accurate for detecting Down's syndrome in a fetus during the first trimester. In all kinds of medical journals being written up. When we asked our doctor about it, he hadn't even heard of it, and showed no interest in learning. Gee, a simple blood test with high accuracy that is equally accurate to amniocentesis and choriono-villis testing (both of which are invasive and risky). You'd think any OB worth his speculum would be interested in such a test.
Click to expand...


I've heard the reason for this is that the law requires pharma ads to disclose possible side affects if they tell you what the drug is good for. Soooo, if you DON"T tell what the drug is for you don't have to tell what the side affects are.
 
Captain said:
I've heard the reason for this is that the law requires pharma ads to disclose possible side affects if they tell you what the drug is good for. Soooo, if you DON"T tell what the drug is for you don't have to tell what the side affects are.
Click to expand...

If they don't have to tell you then why is half the commercial warning you about the side effects?
 
I would be interested in this new test that is OUT OF TESTING and AVAILABLE.
The blood tests that I'm aware of simply tell you the RISK but to actually diagnose Downs in utero, you need to do amniocentesis or CVS. The only other new test that I'm aware of is only available in certain cities and is not approved by the FDA yet. It is by a company called sequenom.
So you see, it is not as simple as "gee, a simple blood test". I would be interested in any other credible information you may have though.

Another issue is the following.
Sequenom could also face heightened skepticism because of its past problems. The company was preparing to introduce another prenatal Down syndrome test in 2009 when it abruptly announced that the data it had promoted to investors could no longer be trusted.

It turned out that a top research official had known which samples were positive and negative and had told subordinates to adjust the parameters of the test to improve its accuracy.

Five executives, including the chief executive and the research official, were fired. The research official, Elizabeth A. Dragon, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. (She died this February, before sentencing.)

Sequenom’s stock, which had been over $25 early in 2009, collapsed after the scandal. On Monday it rose 24 cents to close at $5.56.

Ted DuPuis said:
Agreed, and I do have a problem with drug commercials, especially the "Ask your doctor if [insert random drug] is right for you," without even saying what the drug does.

However, on the flip side, my wife (who does very thorough research) found out about a new test that is strictly a blood test and is better than 99% accurate for detecting Down's syndrome in a fetus during the first trimester. In all kinds of medical journals being written up. When we asked our doctor about it, he hadn't even heard of it, and showed no interest in learning. Gee, a simple blood test with high accuracy that is equally accurate to amniocentesis and choriono-villis testing (both of which are invasive and risky). You'd think any OB worth his speculum would be interested in such a test.
Click to expand...
 
You have some good points, Ron, and Sequenom has not been without their problems back in 2009.

There are actually 2 blood tests available (Verifi and MaterniT21), and while not available EVERYWHERE, they are available, primarily in major cities by maternal/fetal medicine specialists. I didn't expect them to be available in rural PA where finding a family doctor is hard enough, let alone a specialists or new technology/testing - albeit a test that has been in research and trials for 10 years+. Part of the holdup with availability, as I understand it, is state governments who don't want women to have this information because they may make a decision based on the results. God forbid we give women any credit as to understanding the meaning of these results. Genetic counseling is a requirement and good hour long meeting with the provider to ensure there is a thorough understanding of what this test tells you, and what it does not.

Although it is still considered a 'screen' and will give a positive or negative result, it is not the end all be all - yet. That is the direction that these labs are pushing to go, and I hope it gets there. For now, a positive result simply means that additional testing should be done to verify results - additional testing being CVS or Amnio depending on timing.

Ted's point was simply that this is a test that has been in research for over 10 years. It was released in October 2011. In February 2012 it was approved for detecting not only Trisomy 21, but 13 and 18 as well. It's all over the internet, in medical journals, on the pregnancy message boards/forums, etc. My provider had not even heard of such a development even in process. Further, he didn't even want to discuss it or find out about it. For those of us at high risk, having a simple blood test (and yes, I say simple because it is non-invasive) this option is a very good one for early detection of possible issues, where now the decision to do more invasive tests that carry risks can be made.

An no, I didn't find out about this on WebMD - this was suggested to me by a friend who's doctor recommended it to her.
 
Good information, thanks.
I had not heard of it either. I do tend to listen to patients though and will research something they ask me about.

I only do prenatal care for the OB/GYNs in the larger city. I'm in a small town that you have to fly or take a ferry to get to. So I'm NOT an expert in OB. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't see a problem. It's common for high-level execs to switch from one company to another.
Click to expand...

Mediocre execs, you mean. They move constantly so no one can calculate the negative ROI on hiring them.

Easier to say it was a temporary market scenario for the company they didn't know how to run properly to their in-bred Board of Director friends at the golf course.

Sometimes it's true. Sometimes they're MBA's who have zero clue about how to make a company profitable or lead people.

They're often quite charismatic which lets them get away with a whole lot of really dumb stuff.
 
denverpilot said:
Mediocre execs, you mean. They move constantly so no one can calculate the negative ROI on hiring them.
Click to expand...

While I'd agree that most of the ones I have first-hand experience with I would classify as less capable at running a company than my African Grey parrot, my comment was about their nomadic nature rather than their ineptitude.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While I'd agree that most of the ones I have first-hand experience with I would classify as less capable at running a company than my African Grey parrot, my comment was about their nomadic nature rather than their ineptitude.
Click to expand...

And I mistook "high-level" for "high-achieving". ;)
 
fnpdoc said:
I don't use them at all. I expect most medical professionals use peer reviewed sources such as UpToDate.
We tend to practice EVIDENCED based medicine, and not just because "we read it". :)
Click to expand...

If that were only true. I grant there is a lot of reading to keep up on, but I find many doctors lacking in their knowledge departments regardless of what source they use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top