Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Thank you for the source bsl....this is a good quote from it:
The only reports on this massive scandal were in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) (1) and the Guardian (2).
source:mondediplo.com...
I like th use of the term "massive scandal." It seems you attempted to downplay the whole thing.
I never attempted to downplay the scandal. I simply pointed out that of the 4,173, very few were doctors, according to the source I cited.
I think the British Medical Journal and the Guardian are pretty legitimate sites for medical news...no?
That's funny, a while ago when I cited three a studies from the BMJ that went against your "opinion", you said they were funded by phara and were
useless sources. So, now you bend reality to your will depending on what sources you want to use?
A lot of this "corruption" is being billed as such due to the difference in the medical systems between here and America. In Italy, you people have
drug reps. They can give meals, trips, etc., and it's common place. In Italy, that is billed as corruption. Often, the doctor is already using the
drug, or it truly is the best drug on the market. I don't see any problem with a doctor using the statistically better drug, and getting a side
benefit. Obviously, if a doctor is prescribing a more expensive or less effective treatment due to benefits from the company, that is flat out wrong.
If the patient is receiving a cost effective (most drugs used in Italy are generics), beneficial treatment, but the doctor also was treated to a
dinner a month before by that company, what is the problem?
Excitable, I can't help but wonder why you suddenly care about a two year old news report, other than the fact that you have had disagreements with
me and this story happens to take place in Italy? It's truly a compliment to me that I occupy that much of your time that you would do research
specifically just to try to get under my skin.
Ciao bello =)
Mariella