Competing with Integrity — Only Evidence-Based Words Last

Every impulse to disparage a rival product carries the same emotion underneath it: the fear of losing something. From 2019 through 2025, the Ministry of Health monitoring reports have consistently recorded competitor-disparagement incidents at precisely those moments — and almost without exception. This creed does not deny that impulse. Anyone can feel it. What it does is ask you to weigh, quietly, the cost of acting on it against the long-term return of holding to evidence alone. Respect for rivals is not about praising the competition. It is a choice to use only words you can back up.

So What / So Why — Why This Creed Exists

Disparagement does not come from a lack of ethics. It comes from the pressure of competition narrowing the threshold for judgment — specifically, the moment when a fear of losing takes over. Reading across the monitoring reports from 2019 to 2025, the incidents cluster around recognizable pressure points: the evaluation period before a biosimilar switch, the weeks immediately after a competing drug launches, the final three days of a fiscal quarter. Those are the moments when anxiety peaks. That pattern alone is enough to show why this problem cannot be addressed purely through character. You need to understand the structure and decide in advance where to draw the line.

The reason fair competition pays off over time is that healthcare professionals have long memories. Physicians and pharmacists who have observed a medical representative year after year hold onto the impression — "this is someone who criticized competitors without evidence" — regardless of which product they are now selling. The 2024 report noted that some incidents appeared to reflect not individual lapses but "deliberate efforts by the sales organization," which signals how steep the correction costs become when disparagement becomes systematic. An individual's fair play is the first line of defense before that happens.

Choosing not to mention a competitor at all is not weakness. A representative who consistently delivers evidence-based communication on both the efficacy and safety of their own product builds the assessment — "I can trust what this person tells me" — without ever making a comparison. When the urge to say something about a competitor arises, it may be signaling that the case for your own product is incomplete. The fork in the road is whether you ignore that signal and reach for criticism, or honestly examine what is missing from your own presentation. That fork is where this creed sits.

The Creed — What I Want to Be

When a competitor's name comes to mind, I want to check one thing first: is there comparative data for this? If there is, I can present it — including the points that are unfavorable to my own product. If there is not, I say nothing. A disclaimer does not provide cover, as the reports have shown repeatedly. Saying "this is just for reference, there is no formal data" does not make an unsupported claim safe.

• I want to be a custodian of evidence. When the goal shifts to persuasion, the temptation is to select only convenient facts. But what physicians are asking of me is accurate delivery of evidence. The moment persuasion becomes the objective, information gets filtered.
• I want to notice when I am anxious about a competitor. Anxiety itself is not the problem. But I want to catch it before it produces words I will regret. If I can recognize "I am afraid right now," I can still choose what to say next.
• I do not want to weaponize anecdotes. The 2025 report records a case where unconfirmed adverse events were described as an "emergency situation" to push a product switch. Anecdotes are not evidence. Moving a healthcare professional's concern through emotionally charged language is the opposite of accurate information provision.
• I do not want to prompt physicians into criticizing a competitor for me. Asking "what is your impression of that product, doctor?" in a way designed to elicit negative feedback is itself classified as disparagement in the 2023 report. Not saying it directly does not make it acceptable.
• When I compare, I show the disadvantages of my own product too. In a vaccine case from the 2025 report, only the competitor's disadvantage was presented (requiring reconstitution at point of use), while the representative's own product's disadvantage (shorter shelf life) went unmentioned. Selective silence lands in the same category as disparagement.

These are not promises that I will always get this right. Under real pressure, each line becomes heavier. I am writing this as a place to return to — not a claim that I will always succeed.

Daily Practice — Concrete Actions and Checks

Before visiting a facility considering a product switch

• If comparative claims may come up, do I have evidence-based materials on hand? If not, the comparison does not happen.
• Can I explain the safety profile of my own product, including adverse effects and risks? Discussing efficacy alone is a guideline violation.
• Do I have any intention of asking how the physician thinks about the competitor's product? If so, redirect that energy toward what I can deliver accurately instead.

When a physician or pharmacist asks about a competitor

• Clarify what they actually want to know. Are they asking about the characteristics of my product, or are they asking for a comparison?
• If comparative data exists, present it including points unfavorable to my own product. Do not make verbal comparisons that are absent from the written materials.
• Saying "I do not have detailed data on that" is a demonstration of integrity. Being willing to say you do not know something is not a weakness.

One-minute self-check before a visit

• Is everything I plan to share today backed by scientific evidence?
• If the competitor's name comes up, do I have data to support what I would say?
• Am I concealing any disadvantages of my own product?

Reflection after the visit

• Did I mention a competitor without evidence at any point?
• Did I convey the meaning of "ours is superior" without comparative data?
• Did I rely on anecdotes or unofficial information?

When It Is Hardest — Under Real Pressure

The day before a switch decision, an online visit with your manager watching, the final days of the quarter — these are the moments when a creed gets worn down fastest. The feeling of "I have to say something" is universal. The question is whether that "something" is grounded in evidence.

In a case from the 2024 report, a representative named two competing products disparagingly in a visit where their manager was present. The report described this as suggesting "deliberate action at the organizational level." A manager's presence creates the sense that the behavior is endorsed. But whether an action is a violation is judged independently of who was in the room. "I thought it was approved" is not a defense.

A case from the 2023 report involved a structure where the representative prompted a physician with "how do you feel about that product, doctor?" to elicit criticism. Even with the representative's own awareness that "I did not say it myself," the report classified the prompting as disparagement. A detour is not a defense.

The psychological pathway from "I need to protect this" to "I will attack" under competitive pressure — the mechanics of that shift — is examined in depth in Series 2, Vol. 8: "The Anxiety of Competition — How Urgency Produces Disparagement." Knowing the structure in advance makes it easier to pause when you are standing inside it.

One question is enough to draw the line: "Is there scientific evidence for what I am about to say?" If yes, say it. If not, do not. That is all.

Anchor Points — Where to Return When You Are Close to Breaking

The Guidelines for Sales Information Provision Activities state four principles: ground everything in scientific and objective evidence; provide information on both efficacy and safety; uphold fair competition; disclose conflicts of interest transparently. These are principles, but in the moments when you are closest to breaking, they become concrete places to return to. You can always come back to the question: "Is there scientific evidence for what I am about to do?"

When you want to check what disparagement has actually looked like in practice, Series 1, Vol. 7: "Disparagement and Defamation of Competitor Products" documents every recorded case from 2019 through 2025. The disclaimer "this is just for reference, there is no formal data." The question designed to draw out a physician's criticism. The unconfirmed adverse event called an "emergency situation." All of it has been classified as a violation. What is recorded there is the accumulated record of people who did not choose fair play.

The point of reading that record is not condemnation. It is to know that real people, under the same pressures and with the same feelings, made a different choice. That fact means you will stand in the same situations. It also means you can make a different choice when you do.

Fair competition is a matter of integrity, but before that it is a practical calculation about a long career. The trust built by five years of evidence-only communication is a different asset — qualitatively different — from the trust held by someone who briefly defended market share through disparagement. That trust carries over to the next product, and the one after that.