In speaking of Big Pharma, one should recall that Burrascano is partnered
with some affluent and well-known Big Pharma businesses.
A simple search of ProPublica will yield that several well-known "LLMDs" have been receiving perks from Big Pharma dating back at least several years. Those are some expensive lunches. Still others are receiving perks from Big Nutraceutical.
" http://projects.propublica.org/docdolla ... =&period=
The "Big Pharma" shill talk is bunk and meant to persuade and fool those who are uninformed, naive, or perhaps too ill to do their own research and learn otherwise.
Camp Other wrote:
I knew about this ages ago, and I don't support any doctor's decision - LLMD or not - to take these perks from Big Pharma.
This is important to note because accusations of being in the pockets of Big Pharma have historically been one of the cornerstone manipulation techniques used to pit patients against any non-"LLMD" physician, i.e., a provider approved by the association and it's related society.
This is true. Though a number of patients have also seen it as a small part of a systemwide problem with how modern medicine works. Why do doctors accept these perks from pharmaceutical companies? Are they just greedy, or do they genuinely need the perks including speakers' fees when promoting a drug to other doctors? Has it become more expensive to be a doctor, and run one's practice without accepting such engagements?
It's becoming less acceptable over time to do this sort of work for Big Pharma, and more patients are asking for accountability and transparency regarding these practices - but for a long time it's been considered business as usual and as I said before, many doctors have done it from different backgrounds.
See, for example: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22870 ... -from-drug
I see where you're going with this, you're pointing out what you view as being hypocritical behavior. Perhaps it is, but I think patients are going to overlook some of their doctors engaging in promoting certain drugs and/or supplements for a number of reasons and continue to point out the IDSA's conflicts for two main reasons:
1) Some consider their doctor's practice of taking up these perks as minor
issues compared to what they view as the major issue of the IDSA not offering them guidelines for effective treatment or not to have done more to have them be diagnosed and treated earlier when Lyme disease is easier to treat;
2) Some consider the fact that a doctor who sells supplements out of their own office and makes a profit from their sales to be no big deal - some even think they deserve that extra profit because the doctor has been so helpful to them.
In other words, some patients don't care that their doctors are doing this. And if they find it to be somewhat iffy, they point to bigger
problems on the IDSA's side and know which side they'd rather be on when it comes to treatment.
A third but weaker reason ties into the fact that many different doctors have engaged in this practice of taking Pharma's perks, it's been considered common practice and only in recent years has it been questioned by the public, public health advocacy groups, and institutions.
Some patients may have known about it in the past, but realized many doctors already did it and shrugged it off. This might change over time - just as it has in a broader way in society.
Bagge wrote: Their intent appears to have been to manipulate patients towards their approved providers, [...] It's about bringing in the patients to a particular group of providers. It's their business plan.
How do you know what their intent was? I'm curious to know how you can determine the intent. And if was their intent to (manipulate may be too strong a word here?) encourage patients to see certain providers, how is that any different from what anyone else does
There are doctors who have accepted Big Pharma payouts and perks for years who are considered top of their field, work at major universities, and are highly rated by both their colleagues and their patients for their medical care.
Every one of their colleagues and their university medical centers promoted these doctors and encouraged referrals to their doctors. Every one of these institutions promoted their medical centers full of doctors who have accepted payouts from Big Pharma, knowing or suspecting they may have accepted such payouts.
I myself have been a captive audience of my own insurance company and family physician. I get "encouraged" to see certain providers every single time my family doctor offers me a referral to one of his "chosen" specialist providers who is "within network". Every family doctor has their "favorites" they refer to everyone for a given specialty. Why is that?
As for this part, which I axed out from above:
Bagge wrote:despite any quality of care considerations, extreme health risks involved in their unproven treatments, or alleged illegal activities and convictions.
I hate to say it Bagge, but I feel this way about some of the care I received under my insurer's plan, from doctors within my network who have nothing to do with LLMDs, ILADS, or the diagnosis of Lyme disease in general. Overtesting me with CT scans and giving me unnecessary tests in order to avoid potential lawsuits and make a profit, to me, doesn't sound like good quality of care and came with extreme health risks at points.
Any care I received from an LLMD put me at far less risk from what I experienced relative to other things I've had to undergo from other medical professionals, including surgery - which to me, I don't know about you - going under general and surgery itself is riskier than taking oral antibiotics for several months. And the quality of care I received from my LLMD was very thorough; tried to rule out other conditions and also treated non-tickborne related conditions.
And now we come to the moment we've all been waiting for: Awarding Bagge.
Congratulations, Bagge! You've just won the Lymenet Europe Imelda Marcos