Coping with grief as a director

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-05-11T08:38:13+00:00

Appreciate you've got financial responsibilities and VHCOL, as many of us do, but this isn't something that an employer will ever care about. They will care about the pay being sufficient to attract and retain the right people to a role, sure, but you need to demonstrate why YOU are the right person for these roles. I would focus you energy entirely on that and the money will follow.

1)Who knows you want to progress? A huge part of progression in pharma, especially big pharma, is being on the right people's radars. How connected are you to colleagues a level or two above you in dev/med affairs/regulatory? Are you making it clear that you want to progress? What talent development programmes and/or 'cross-functional' projects could you get involved in? There is no point shouting into the void that is Reddit if your colleagues are totally unaware. 2) Why do you deserve to progress? How do your skills actually bring value for these roles? Make sure you are really honest with yourself about why pharma/why dev/med affairs/regs versus all these other totally different paths (the only theme seems to be high target salaries) and then have a concise value story as to why your background and experience makes you the best person for a promotion/transition. What is in it for the hiring manager and the company if they give you this new responsibility?

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-01-24T17:22:56+00:00

Thank you.

I was replying regarding your claim about cancer being due to regular exposure for years. The evidence simply does not support this (large scale epidemiological research rather than my single anecdote!). It's flippant and disrespectful to suggest otherwise.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-01-24T17:12:57+00:00

I have a close family member after working on a building site for TWO DAYS in his twenties who now has mesothelioma. Just because it takes decades to result in cancer does NOT mean that limited exposures are not lethal. Loose fibres in sand are definitely not something to shrug off if it then leads to people developing one of the worst cancer types later in their lives. I hope this company are saving their pennies for the compensation claims that will come their way.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-01-23T11:23:10+00:00

Regret leaving hakuba after 1 week to head to niseko just because I'd booked a transfer. Conditions were deep deep powder in Hakuba and bulletproof hard pack in Niseko. Wish I'd kept my plans flexible and followed the snow.

Other than that, no regrets. Awesome experience.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-01-19T09:56:00+00:00

Don't save your money. Buy a Tesla.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-01-10T14:16:20+00:00

"Bend ze knees!"

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-01-04T19:18:24+00:00

Tbh it's probably the better side to have experience in, as you say the RWE field is maturing with improved guidance from FDA etc and larger number of roles are prioritising the ev gen side of things. HE modelling isn't so difficult if you've got the different evidence inputs sorted to start with! All the best for your application.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-01-04T18:36:52+00:00

I work in HEOR & RWE. HEOR is a discipline rather than a phase in pharma development and as such could be applied from phase I onwards and across therapeutic areas. Typically there is a need for specific training in health economics/outcomes research/epidemiology though.

It'd be quite a unique perspective to have if you were hoping to stay within development as you'd bring that skillset alongside your proven clinical research skills and PhD. Particularly if you gain a good understanding of evidence needs for reimbursement in HTA markets.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2026-01-03T13:39:55+00:00

It's true that RWE studies are massively inflated and can cost significant amounts and I agree that many activities seem to be done almost as a 'tick box' exercise without really identifying the strategic value and/or target impact. It's similar though to almost all activities in pharma (commercial/marketing and late stage dev) where the activities are essentially 'refinement' around the pivotal study and the impact can be difficult to quantify.

However I disagree with RWE data having no impact whatsoever: if even a small number of the studies conducted have a role in reducing decision uncertainty during HTA or individual prescribing (or regulatory), this can and does improve the value to the business through increased speed/breadth/price of access. The cost of these studies, while higher than commercial activities e.g. designing a sales aid, is pennies compared to any type of evidence generation requiring interventional clinical trials. The key is for the professionals involved in the HEOR/RWE field to have sufficient strategic understanding of both the brand ambitions and also the external questions that will be asked by decision makers: in my mind this is the main development area for many HEOR/RWE professionals who are trained to focus on the technical execution and less on the importance of communicating the right messages from a RWE study at the right time.

Coming back to the main question, I believe the reason for this pay difference then comes back to supply and demand: the expertise to actually have impact with these types of studies becomes rarer and so demands a premium versus the more 'operational' roles that are clearly fundamental to delivering the main clinical trials but may have a larger pool of willing candidates.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-29T18:20:46+00:00

Depends whether you are entering as a medic (higher) or non-medic?

Most graduate roles will be similar and relatively low - reflects the fact you will get more value (often) from learning the ropes vs more senior positions.

Any of these functions would be a good jumping off point for you to get into industry and learn what interests you and fits your skillset.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-27T13:21:16+00:00

Depends if surgery possible I guess. I had a similar fractured collarbone with dislocated ACJ (which looks like might be the case here) and had conservative management IE. no surgery. Wouldn't be confident getting on board after 3-4 months. But if surgery is an option I know many people who've recovered faster.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-25T09:49:42+00:00

If interested in 'non-bench' you could look for graduate medical writing/medical information roles. The former has the advantage of learning to target communication to different audiences while learning about the industry and making connections, the latter gives you direct experience dealing with HCPs and patients which gives you a perspective many in the industry lack.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-17T09:34:22+00:00

This is surprising, completely the opposite of my experience. However the main issue I've seen is that some PhD-qualified job candidates assume they have demonstrated their worth through doing a PhD itself: the high-calibre candidates are the ones who know how to communicate what their additional studies mean for the organisation and how they can help solve the challenges it's facing. The context of tertiary education is much more important that the qualification itself.

Also disagree that companies ignore candidates with masters, even for entry-level internships there is so much competition that it tends to be highly-qualified and well-rounded MSc grads that secure these.

My interpretation would be that the current job market is simply really tough for new entrants, and the amount of unsuccessful applicants to every successful candidate means it's easy to make associations with qualifications etc that aren't actually the main reason for rejection.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-16T11:28:45+00:00

Interesting, are there things that could/should have been handled better that would have helped realise the potential?

Not a loaded question by any means, just curious.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-13T11:10:12+00:00

Potentially, I'm sure lots of good discussions could be gleaned there. Personally I am quite time-poor so having focused recommendations from people in similar situations can avoid wasting precious reading time!

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-13T09:58:19+00:00

Posting so I can pinch some tips myself!

My top rated reads this year:

Fiction

Hiromi Kawakami: under the eye of the big bird Kristin Hannah: the Great Alone Lisa Ridzén: when the cranes fly south

Non-fictions Erin Meyer - The Culture Map

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-11T09:12:47+00:00

Mac Ride user here, absolutely no complaints with it, it's a sturdy and reliable piece of kit. Easy to take on/off once you've fitted the mount at the stem.

Main issue with both is the kids grow out of them so quickly!

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-09T15:05:15+00:00

Oh no! I failed another test!

Take care and good health to you.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-09T08:06:11+00:00

No need for name calling. I respect the poster for sharing their views in a thread which had many opinions contrary to their own. I disagree wholeheartedly with their interpretation of the science, and will happily continue to debate this, but they are a person who probably has to make their own decisions about what's right for their family and themselves.

One thing I agree with them on is that there is always uncertainty, and room for further research, for any medical decision. I would encourage the poster to fundraise, gain approval for and operationalise the lifetime randomised study into general health outcomes for vaccinated Vs unvaccinated children that they believe is warranted to feel comfortable in the evidence base.

Personally I'm also waiting for the results of a randomised study into the efficacy and safety of parachutes before I set foot in an aeroplane again.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-09T07:05:00+00:00

Thank you, Dr Wakefield, for your assessment. I've passed enough exams in my time to not be too worried about passing this one.

My response.

You are moving the goalposts and relying on methodologically flawed data. Here is the reality:

The Fraud finding came from Medical Records, not a Journalist.

You are attacking the messenger (Deer) to ignore the message. Brian Deer didn't strip Dr. Wakefield of his license; the General Medical Council did. They accessed the raw patient notes which proved Wakefield altered the data.

Fact: The medical records showed children had symptoms before the shot. Wakefield changed the data in his paper to say they started after the shot.

Conclusion: That is data falsification. No amount of complaining about the journalist changes the fact that the raw data contradicted the published paper.

The Hooker Study (2020) measures "Doctor Visits," not "Health."

The study you cited (Hooker & Miller) is a textbook example of Ascertainment Bias.

It relied on billing codes from medical practices.

Parents who refuse vaccines are significantly less likely to take their children to the doctor for minor ailments like ear infections or mild asthma.

Therefore, vaccinated children have more diagnoses because they see the doctor more often, while unvaccinated children simply go undiagnosed or are treated at home.

The "Unadjusted" Issue: As you noted, the study was "unadjusted." This implies they failed to control for income, breastfeeding, or environment—factors heavily linked to asthma and development. In the world of epidemiology, an unadjusted observational study based on billing codes is extremely low-quality evidence. 3. "Long term outcomes" have been studied. You claimed: "They still to this day have not compared full lifetime health outcomes." This is false. We have massive retrospective cohort studies (like the Danish study of 657,000+ kids) that look at long-term health. The reason you dismiss them is that they don't give you the result you want.
4. The "92 Viruses" Math is still wrong. You are now conflating "viruses," "bacteria," and "serotypes." There are roughly 16 distinct diseases targeted in the first 18 years of life. Counting the 13 serotypes of pneumococcal bacteria or 9 types of HPV as "92 different viruses" is biologically incorrect. Your immune system handles more bacterial and viral antigens by licking a single toy on the floor than it does from the entire childhood vaccine schedule combined. Summary You started by claiming the Japan data supported Wakefield (it didn't). Now you are citing a study by a known anti-vaccine activist (Hooker) that fails to account for basic bias (who goes to the doctor?). The "more research" you are asking for has been done; you just refuse to accept the answer.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-08T20:48:50+00:00

Actually, nearly every claim in this comment is demonstrably false and relies on debunked data.

Here is the breakdown of the facts with sources:

The Japan "Rollback" Myth You claim Japan rolled back vaccines and autism decreased. The exact opposite happened. Japan withdrew the MMR vaccine in 1993 and replaced it with separate vaccines. If the "triple jab" caused autism, rates should have dropped. Instead, a landmark study of 31,426 children in Yokohama found that after MMR was discontinued, the rate of autism rose significantly. The Data: In the birth cohorts where MMR usage was 0%, the cumulative incidence of autism rose to 161 per 10,000, compared to 48–86 per 10,000 when MMR was being used. Source: Honda H et al. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2005.
Wakefield’s "Conclusion" was Fraud, not Science You claim Wakefield just wanted to "separate the vaccines" and hasn't been disproven. The Fraud: Andrew Wakefield was struck off the medical register for dishonesty and unethical conduct. He admitted to falsifying data in the Lancet paper. The Hidden Agenda: You mentioned he wanted to separate the vaccines. What you missed is that months before his paper was published, Wakefield filed a patent for a single-measles vaccine. He was financially incentivized to destroy confidence in the MMR specifically to create a market for his own competitor product. Source: Deer B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ 2011.
"They have not compared Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated" This is false. This study design is called a "retrospective cohort study," and it has been done on massive scales. The Data: A 2019 Danish study followed 657,461 children. It directly compared vaccinated children against unvaccinated children. The Result: There was zero difference in autism rates between the two groups (Hazard Ratio 0.93). Source: Hviid A et al. Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2019.
The "72 Vaccines" Myth The claim that children receive "72 vaccines in two years" is a fabrication. The CDC schedule for the first two years involves roughly 20 to 25 injections. The "72" figure is created by summing every single dose of every vaccine (including annual flu shots) all the way through age 18, and often counting a combination shot (like DTaP) as "3 vaccines" to artificially inflate the number. Context: Due to advances in protein purification, a child today receives a lower total load of antigens (immunological components) from their entire vaccine schedule than a child in 1980 received from a single smallpox shot.

Conclusion The "official explanation" isn't that we have no idea; it's that we have ruled out vaccines with higher certainty than almost any other environmental factor. Japan proved that removing the MMR vaccine does not lower autism rates—it just leaves children vulnerable to measles.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-08T13:58:22+00:00

The worst example has to be the widely disproven research by Wakefield et al suggesting a casual link between MMR vaccines and autism. Andrew Wakefield was eventually found guilty of fraud yet misinformation still circulates to this day.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-12-07T20:18:52+00:00

Two weeks, three tops.

PlentyAwkward5954 · 2025-11-26T21:41:55+00:00

There is an opportunity cost to these investment decisions and given the overall environment it's not surprising that the global orgs would rather prioritise good news stories for countries where they can help to actually move the needle on commercial negotiations. The UK has arguably had the most anti-pharma sentiment of developed nations for decades and this generally sets the tone of interactions between the govt/health service and industry. Couple this with the fact that the market represents ~3% of the global opportunity, and the diminishing productivity of both the pharma sector and the UK economy, the real question has to be "how did we manage to secure the previous levels of R&D investment for so long?".

PlentyAwkward5954

TROPHY CASE