I joined this blog because I am a long term T1 and found the info. here tremendously helpful. When I applied to join, I stated that I was a contractor working at a pharmaceutical company with diabetes products. I am not speaking at all for that company. I just want to present my view as some context to the reactions in this thread.
When i first started working for that company, their contact with patients was mostly through 1) market research or 2) education. By education, they meant that their "smart" people figured out what T1's and T2's needed to know and they were going to tell them that no matter what. A distorted internal tradition led the marketing group to believe that they should advertise but not have a conversation with patients. This was driven by a fear that patients would say bad things about the company (which they do and which is sometimes justified)or reveal issues with their therapy (which the company is required to the FDA very quickly).
In traditional pharma marketing research, someone has an idea, then spends a couple of hundred thousand dollars asking recruited participants specific, approved, questions on that topic. It takes months from start to finish. It has its place. But if you want to find out what real people really need or really want rather than what they think about the idea - it doesn't work so well.
If you want to find out the real ways to help, conversations are so much better. And TuDiabetes is a place for conversations. It has rules and the company I contract with has rules (especially about transparency) to make sure the privilege is not misused.
If I stared to tell you some of the goodness we have learned in conversations, I would probably cross the line and begin "promoting" so I'll stop here.
Please give the DOC bloggers and writers the benefit of the doubt. I understand skepticism about big pharma and it has to prove that it can be a responsible member of the DOC. I am sure, in at least one case, that they are trying.