egr. Attorney Rienzi,
you have every right, just like the writer, to express free opinions, it is not objectively an "opinion" to state in an apodictic manner that "we need to ELIMINATE pharmaceutical sales reps" to save the system. You consider yourself defamed by some fellow whistleblower, but your repeated public affirmation that we are a category of corrupters and that we are not honest and fair because we have relations with pharmaceutical companies, what is it? An embellished kindness? Do not raise a loud voice by virtue of its dominant position, rather respond civilly and constructively to the criticisms that have been leveled by the undersigned, even harshly, in the law of the art. 21 of the Constitution… And even on this occasion I don't spare myself from telling you that many things you say are nonsense; you are a lawyer, naturally you are not omniscient, and I have provided you with ample normative documentation on our profession which you demonstrate that you have completely ignored, and yet you repeat with nonsensical expressions: "Pharmaceutical reps can be useful if they are honest and correct and if they do not have relationships with pharmaceutical companies...but how can this be possible?". But what nonsense is this? I am a permanent employee of my company with the National Collective Labor Agreement for Chemists (which I invite you, in vain, to read)! Who am I supposed to work for, but what does he say? If you had had the humility to read the extensive regulatory references that I have analytically illustrated to you, you would have found that the State has delegated the Drug Information service to pharmaceutical companies, even recognizing a "payment" in the form of an additional quota on the reimbursement price of the drugs. And if you, who assume the right of the ombudsman - naturally excluding from this the "uncivilized" pharmaceutical informants - wanted to do your job well on this delicate (but completely unknown to you) issue, you would have to rise up against those pharmaceutical companies which, while "pocketing" the additional fee dedicated to the remuneration of the Information on Drugs service, do not have a network of informants "with doctors authorized to prescribe". I remind you that pharmaceutical companies are those that carry out research and produce value and health (as well as large profits for shareholders), but also those that limit themselves to boxing generic copies produced in "Cindia" without adding research and development value (but always with large profits for shareholders). Regarding the news cases you mentioned: given that I shouldn't remind you, lawyer, that a thief can only be called a person who has been convicted by a court of the Republic for stealing, and not a person under investigation and trial but who has not yet received a sentence; having said this, and even if you use the conditional you play the dirty game of certain strongly partisan journalists - and therefore not very objective -, I must tell you that there is no Professional Association of scientific drug representatives, which we have always strongly desired but systematically opposed by stronger powers; so from what or what should we expel the bad apples? Colleagues who have committed crimes of comparison or fraud have always been fired from their respective companies and often, unfortunately, they have been the only "fools" to pay... Can you kindly cite a case of a lawyer of your colleague who is guilty of criminal crimes?
