John Edwards is still my favorite Dem candidate for President. So if you’re wondering why I would give this diary such a title, let me set this up with some context. The topic is regulation of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.
For those of you with short attention span like myself, here is the synopsis:
1 – I agree with Edwards and plan to vote for him.
2 – I work in drug development and understand the power of their lobby, so Edwards’s latest fight against PhRMA is ill-timed and will ultimately lead to the end of his campaign for President.
3 – We need to address this issue, certainly, but Ewards’s timing is representative of our inability as Democrats to choose the right fights at the right times.
Here’s the article and the long version is below the fold.
I work in the drug development industry (as a contractor). There are many things about this industry that I despise. Sometimes I am so disgusted or frustrated that I seriously consider quitting this industry cold-turkey. I despise the deeply entrenched methods of toxicology, where thousands and thousands of animals are exploited and killed every year. I despise the way in which Big Pharma claims to have the public interest in mind when, from my insider’s point of view, they are some of the most inefficiently run companies in the world. I am frustrated at how Big Pharma has slowly exploited the political process, with the complicity of the (formerly) Republican congress, to ensure their invulnerability for years – if not decades – to come. I also realize that quitting would do nothing to change these things – so maybe I can make a positive impact by sticking with it.
So how does John Edwards fit into this? Let’ start with this brief article. Here we see John Edwards outline a number of points related to drug development / advertising with which I wholeheartedly agree. Edwards’s main point is that he wants to eliminate direct-to-consumer advertisements for "new" products. This, in my mind, would be a good start. But I would prefer to see DTC advertising eliminated entirely.
(Forgive me for having you look up your own source, but I believe the US and New Zealand are the only developed nations that allow direct-to-consumer advertising. And, yes, this is another thing I despise about the drug industry in the US.)
So if I agree with Edwards, why do I believe this will be the death knell of his campaign? The answer is that he doesn’t understand what this means in a Washington that is controlled by lobbyists. We would all like to believe we have made positive changes to lobbying in the past few years, but we haven’t. I can guarantee that PhRMA has now targeted John Edwards.
This means Edwards will be the target of a specific campaign by PhRMA, probably not overt, but significant in its effects to destroy his credibility on this issue. He will be accused of being an opponent of research, someone who just doesn’t understand how difficult and expensive R&D is for the poor, poor Pharma companies. None of this will be true, but that’s how it will be portrayed and people will believe it. After all, if these companies can throw $4 billion at DTC advertising, what’s $10 or $20 million to demonize a guy like Edwards in order to ensure their profits for years to come?
This also means that other industries that have lobbied successfully to be de-regulated will pile onto Edwards to ensure they can exploit the "free market" while disregarding public health and safety (mining industry, anyone?).
Beyond this, the topic brings up my frustration with Democrats, in general. Yes, we have good intentions. Yes, we want to defend the Constitution. Yes, we want to protect people from the greed that is guaranteed to be manifested by the "free market" and de-regulation.
But, dammit, we keep going about it the wrong way. Edwards has now put himself front and center in the war on the drug companies. As much as I agree with him, he is going to get his ass kicked. He is not ready for this fight. Do I want him to address it? Hell, yes. But he needs to address this after he is in office, when he has the clout and the credibility to take on such a powerful industry. He has plenty of other issues he can bring to the forefront in his effort to become President – why would he choose to attack such a powerful entity at this point in time?
Updated: Title (added a question mark, which, interestingly enough, was created by Dr. Evil's adoptive father) & removed my presumptive conclusion