I worked for a telephone-survey company in my teens. That's why I pointed out not showing the first 26 questions is kinda dubious. No need to include their RESULTS, but just the questions themselves.
For instance, if say Q19 was "Considering that many big pharmaceutical companies make record profits every year, and considering a CEO had a christmas bonus of $XXX million dollars, should they invest more of that money into making drugs cheaper? Do you Strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree? (doesn't point out the no opinion option)...Ok now a question about apple pie. Do you like Apple, blueberry, or some other kind of pie?"
In that case Q19 pre-loads the polled individual with information: record profits, someone else getting a bonus, and the idea that the profits are not being invested into something nice for the polled individual. This will likely directly change their answers to Q27 as the Q19 premise hides information that may-or-may-not-be-true and has the person naturally accept it as true because of how short-term memory works.
Tricks like that are PARTICULARLY prevalent in "surveys" that end up being stuffed as evidence to government assemblies. Other tricks include correlative sample-bias being used as a filter(EG: people with a cell phone are less likely to X so we weight the study with more cell-phone people).
I'm just pointing out that sample-bias and loading-tricks are things that have to be controlled against and often are controlled the other way.
Old/young people taking pills is a thing, yes. But I don't see that as pharma's "mea culpa." The old can chose not to, and the young can choose likewise. It comes down to weather it's worth it to them.
For example: Rittalin or whatever drugs for hyperactive kids, that's a parent's choice. They can instead deal with naturally hyper-active kids like humanity has for thousands of years. If it's worth the cash-trade for them to not have to raise their kids "naturally" that's their option. Kinda follows-suit with students using those same drugs as nootropics instead of self-discipline and extra effort.
Elderly taking pain-meds instead of "taking it easy" is a choice. Diabetic meds instead of diet alteration is a choice. Them drinking for 40 years causing them to need pills for their jaundice is also a choice.
Depressed girls taking happy-pills instead of making different life-choices is just that.
I don't particularly agree with excessive profit-margins, but demand vs supply scale is directly tied to those. I can't charge someone $10k for 5 mins of work if someone else under-cuts me on equivalent work for less cash. Similarly, "big pharma" can't charge lots for pills if people don't buy them...I mean; $50 of happy-in-a-bottle vs actually putting more effort into your life seems like a no-brainer choice to me.
All very fair assessments.
Well as I have experienced. Many of the pills are pushed on you by the Doctors who are in turned pushed by Big Pharma. Not many people do research and just believe everything their Doctor tells them because he or she wears a white coat and he is an "expert". It is a very manipulated system. Most people with no thought will not seek other opinions and go along with what their doctors tell them. And everyone knows older people are very easily manipulated for the most part. Why do you think most scammers try to find older people to scam? And a lot of the times parents want to just take the easy way out by just giving their kid a pill and hope the problem goes away. Big Pharma is out to make money not heal people. If they heal people they will lose business. They do keep people living longer but at a price.
The relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry has evoked heated debate for many decades.1 In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent $89.5 billion on physician–pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR) interactions that accounted for 60% of the global sales and marketing spending.2–8 Previous reports have demonstrated that PSRs may influence prescribing behaviour.9–16 However, the evidence determining whether pharmaceutical industry and PSRs interactions influence physicians is divided and contradictory. Studies have indicated that physicians may be unable to distinguish between promotional information and scientific evidence.17 18 Physicians, however, believe their colleagues are more susceptible to pharmaceutical industry marketing strategies than themselves.19–22 The majority of the physicians do not believe that they are affected
I talked with my girlfriend today and she is a CNA in an old folks home. On her med cart she supplies 15 folks with all the drugs. She said the amount of drugs comes to about a 115 pills between 15 people. So about 7.5 pills a person.
Yes I agree and it is everybodies choice to do what they do. But the problem is big pharma knows this and preys on people because they know the people aren't going to research these things. Many people are wising up though.
In sum, there is no question that the pharmaceutical industry has been of great benefit to human wellbeing. However, the industry has also evolved some harmful practices. I review several of them and describe how they evolved. As you will see, this is another example of an evolutionary process that was driven by the profits they produced for the industry.
Expenditure by Type of Pharmaceutical Marketing(2012)
Leave you with an interesting statistic:
Of the $1.05 trillion revenue for the global pharmaceutical market, nearly half of it — roughly $515 billion — comes from the U.S. and Canada. However, the two countries make up only around 7% of the total world population.
Edited by Thoth101, 11 July 2020 - 10:52 PM.