Blausen Group

I think this is very non-committal and not a good “communications strategy.” For all I know, Pfizer’s main donation to Hiati may be the “animal health products” Jen mentions in her email (seems like the animal health division of Pfizer wants to be sure it is part of the company’s communications strategy). No dollar amounts are mentioned, although I’ve heard “hundreds of thousands” of dollars from other sources. Maybe Pfizer is carefully assessing the situation before it makes a public commitment. Who knows? It’s all so vague.

Compare this vagueness to Pfizer’s donation to 2004 tsunami victims of $10 million in hard cash and $25 million worth of healthcare products. If we assume that “hundreds of thousands” means $300,000, then Pfizer is giving only a TINY fraction of that (eg, 0.9%) to Haiti (and some of it for Haitian animals)!

Merck and BMS have have pledged to Haiti relief only 20% of what they gave to tsuanami relief.

J&J has not yet responded to my inquires.

There are few things in this life more important than better health! Am I missing something? What did you mean?a

For example, they claim to have made predicted 3 of last years winners… but the prediction for Montagnier was made in 1989, and the prediction for Krugman was made in 2006.

http://science.thomsonreuters.com/nobel/success-tab/

A credible and effective filter for pharmaceutical communications are the numerous patient advocacy groups reaching patients with credible and meaningful information about how to prevent and treat disease and the social media sites that reach diverse patient populations. Partnerships between industry and these groups are critically important to our health care future.

from
Tatiana Abend
Health and Wellness Coach
founder, owner
BodyVision SL

Good grief – no wonder they feel like we don’t understand them – we treat them like zoo animals – to be observed behind glass and pondered over. When we start treating them like people, it will go a long way toward bridging the big gap that exists between pharma and physicians.

Our entire health care industry must be redesigned around the patient to deliver higher quality outcomes for less money. Tweaking the current system will not work. We need to design a new wellness and health care system and the pharmaceutical industry has the potential to lead the way. It is unclear if any of the current industry players are up to the task.

We have been talking about a “personalized medicine” revolution and the shift from sick care to well care for a long time. The enabling diagnostic and treatment technologies are emerging to make it possible. It is not technology getting in our way it is us humans and the organizations we live in that are both stubbornly resistant to change.

The current players in the ecosystem are pedaling the bicycle of the current system very hard each protecting their relative position and current business model. It looks like a rugby scrub with all of the players waiting for the ball to pop out. Everyone is pointing at each other saying it is the other guy’s fault and nothing changes.

In order to transform health care accelerated by new pharma business models we will need to experiment at the systems level to demonstrate that we can recombine existing capabilities across silos to deliver value to the patient. We need to bring the voice of the patient into the innovation conversation and than arm them with PCRs and the ability to take more control over their own wellness and care. Incentives and financial models will need to align with new system configurations.

It will take active experimentation. R&D for new business models and systems the way we do R&D today for new products and technologies. Check out the work we are doing to enable system level experimentation at http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com.

I’m totally with you. I’ve been approached with these offers as well (and sat through the boring speeches that result). Our company (and me personally) has a clear policy never to buy a speaking slot. What’s more we don’t sponsor conference where we are also speaking just because I don’t want anyone to think for a second that we bought our spot. I’ve been asked to do a lot of speaking lately (no sponsorship required), but often I’ll speak at blogger Jonathan Richman instead of Bridge Worldwide Business Development guy just to avoid even the appearance that I bought the spot.

I’d love to see some more disclosure of this so that the audience knows when someone like me (or you) didn’t pay for a spot. I get that this is how some of these conferences make money, but they are in danger of losing attendees if the content is quality.

The part I find the most ironic is that pharma industry folks are invited to speak and never have to pay for their spot, but on average their talks are no better than some sponsor talks. Granted, some of each are great, but just because someone currently works for a pharma company doesn’t mean they’re going to give a great presentation.

Good for you for pointing this out. I’ll sign any petition you’ve got.

JMR

In my opinion he plagerized

Don’t send me any more of his garbage. He has no credibility as a stock analyst.

Yes, there’s the possibility of the iris turning black if the woman has an iq of 55 and can’t read the instructions and brushes that stuff all over her eyeball. Yes, there’s a possibility of the iris turning dark if elves hold the woman down and pour gallons of Latisse in her eye. Yes, there’s a possibility of the iris turning dark if someone were to swim in a pool full of Latisse without eye goggles. Yes, there’s a possibility of the iris turning dark well if the factory were to explode and rain down Latisse into a person’s eyeball.

There’s a chance that your eyeglasses could break, and the glass could shatter and rip up your eyeballs. Better get contacts. Oh no, there’s a chance the contacts could get contaminated in that dirty solution and blind you. Lasix? Well that’s a laser. The laser machine might go bananas and explode your brain, and spew bloody brain tissue everywhere.

Fear mongerer

WASHINGTON (AFP)June 15, 2009 — A US federal appeals court on Monday ordered Exxon Mobil Corp. to pay 507.5 million dollars in punitive damages plus interest for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.

The ruling by the ninth US Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California was consistent with the figure suggested by the Supreme Court last year. It also awarded plaintiffs 5.9 percent interest starting from the date of the original trial judgment in September 1996.

The cumulative amount of the interest payments could nearly double the 507.5-million-dollar fine.

But the figure is still a small fraction of the five billion dollars in damages Alaska natives, fishermen, business owners and others had originally been awarded by a jury in 1996. That amount was later reduced following appeals by Exxon, which is based in Irving, Texas.

Thank you very much for your kind words.

It is always very welcome and encouraging to receive
positive feedback.

Yes, starting next week you can expect the first installment
in a series of practical ways to easily distill and fully leverage
to your competitive advantage the often times massive amount of web analytics data that’s available.

Thanks again for your interest and feedback.