 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Alzheimer's / September 2006Truth about drug companies - follow up
Alan, here's what happens when you let government decide what drugs can and cant be used (details below); Summary UK government body decides that some drugs arent 'cost effective' and effectively bans them unless you want to pay for them yourself. In your proposal, these drugs wouldnt even be allowed to be prescribed at all. Note 'cost effective' in the Alzheimers case means that carers spend longer with sufferers in a worse state. But hard(er) times for carers and sufferers doesn't cost the state anything so that doesn't come into the equation. Given the choice between a doctor who may be influenced by drug companies one way or the other, and a government that would ban a drug outright, removing any vestige of choice, I'd have to take the former every time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5262760.stm "Charities have criticised a decision not to make two bowel cancer drugs widely available on the NHS. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said there was insufficient evidence to recommend Avastin and Erbium. But charities say both drugs, used to treat advanced disease, are the best option for seriously ill patients. They say the drugs have been shown to extend life expectancy by four to five months in some patients." (TW:I suppose patients living longer would cost the government more, maybe thats something to do with them not being cost effective?) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/5124286.stm Campaigners, carers, patients and MPs joined protests against a recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to limit, or in some cases ban, treatment with four separate drugs. NICE say that donepezil, ivastigmine and galantamine should be provided on the NHS, but only when new patients have reach the "moderate" stage of the condition. (TW:obviously, this decision would mean they will reach the moderate stage quicker :-(  SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > Alan, > > here's what happens when you let government decide what drugs can and cant be used > (details below); > ... I agree that they problem you raise is a real one. And I also agree that when you allow government to regulate an industry, dangers like the one you point out crop up. Regulation does have real dangers. However I also think that failure to regulate has real dangers. There was a time in the U.S. when the most outrageous quack medicines were hawked to the public and many people had no way to figure out whether they were good or not. This problem still exists in some neighboring countries. My Dad seriously considered taking my Mom to the Bahamas where some quack had offered to cure her Alzheimer's for $50,000 using a new drug that had been "suppressed" by the FDA. I forget the name of the drug but it had been discovered by the FDA to cause very serious liver disease and had no effect on Alzheimer's. The trick is to find the right balance between government regulation and _laissez faire_. It isn't easy. Errors can be made on either side. But it seems to me we have to try. Alan >>Alan, >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > regulation and _laissez faire_. It isn't easy. Errors can be > made on either side. But it seems to me we have to try. Germany's Commission E has used government money to do extensive clinical testing on herbal medicines, something that isn't done in the US because all testing is paid for by the pharma companies, and they have no reason to do tests on anything they can't patent. As a result of Commission E's work, herbal medicines are far more widely used in Europe than they are here. Dana >>>Alan, >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Dana Actually they are cutting back on herbal medicines in the UK (which would generally mean the same for the EU), in general because the providers wont do the tests that show whether they are effective or if they have side effects. No doubt this is partly because of cost, partly because they will be shown to be ineffective or have side effects, and partly because for generic herbs no one company will pay if all will benefit. There is a whole raft of them that will shortly no longer be available. For some time they have been available through a loophole, in that they have been marketed as foods rather than drugs, so no tests were needed. I think this is shortly to change. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com >> ... >> Germany's Commission E has used government money to do extensive [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they have been available through a loophole, in that they have been marketed as foods > rather than drugs, so no tests were needed. I think this is shortly to change. Testing of supplements is a good example of where government intervention can be positive. Clinical trials are very expensive. As TW points out, the commercial incentives for trials of supplements are very weak. There are many things that are in the interests of society, but not in the interests of individual private companies. Some of the simplest and most common examples include: National defense Universal childhood education Public libraries Roads and highways Public health (the area we are talking about in this discussion) Capitalism isn't opposed to these things, it's just that no one can make a profit maintaining the armed forces, educating children whose families can't pay, loaning books for free, building roads that don't have tollboths, or taking care of illnesses that don't generate major drug sales. So we get together and collectively fund these activities, and even enlist private companies (by paying them tax dollars) to help. Alan > There are many things that are in the interests of society, but not > in the interests of individual private companies. Some of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > even enlist private companies (by paying them tax dollars) to > help. I can't see enlisting private pharma companies to test supplements or herbs. They have too much to lose. Example: My doctor wanted to put me on Cymbalta (antidepressant) a while back. I was reluctant, particularly because my pharmacist was nervous about my using any of the various stuff I use to get to sleep (even OTC stuff) with the Cymbalta, and I don't care how good an antidepressant the stuff is, if I haven't slept in 4 days, I'm not going to be a cheerful girl. Well, I did a little research, and learned that the latest research on St. John's Wort showed that the reason previous research was equivocal -- sometimes it seemed to work really well, and sometimes not at all -- was because they'd been standardizing for the wrong constituent. They'd discovered another constituent, and when they standardized for *that*, even the Mayo Clinic was giving the stuff high marks for treating mild to moderate depression. Accordingly, I found St. John's standardized for that newly-identified constituent, and it's worked really well for me. Which amounts to a loss for the makers of Cymbalta. The stuff would have run me about $125 a month, the St. John's is running me about $30, and of course that's going to someone else. I agree we need tax funding for research on supplements, herbs, etc, but it shouldn't be through any company that stands to lose thereby -- or gain thereby, either. And considering the political power of the pharma industry, I don't see it happening any time soon. Dana > Accordingly, I found St. John's standardized for that newly-identified > constituent, and it's worked really well for me. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it shouldn't be through any company that stands to lose thereby -- or gain > thereby, either. Don't you mean it _should_ be? That doesn't make any sense otherwise? Why should companies or people not involved with a particular drug (be it pharma or heb originated) have to pay for testing? > And considering the political power of the pharma industry, I don't see > it happening any time soon. > > Dana It would be interesting to know the size of the alternative or herb sector. I'm sure they have also a massive vested interest in trials _not_ being done, since the majority are likely harmless to harmful. St Johns Wort is one of the few that actually comes up as useful. BTW, it is contraindicated with certain other herbs and drugs, check up on that. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com >> Accordingly, I found St. John's standardized for that newly-identified >>constituent, and it's worked really well for me. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > should companies or people not involved with a particular drug (be it pharma > or heb originated) have to pay for testing? Why would we trust the results from a company that stands to lose or gain money according to those results? See Vioxx. No, I think research needs to be financially disinterested. Dana >>> Accordingly, I found St. John's standardized for that newly-identified >>> constituent, and it's worked really well for me. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dana Dana honey, in principle I cannot but agree with you. But is it possible to find even ONE person who is financially disinterested? I don't think so. Altruism is a very rare attribute. SignatureBest Regards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox') >>>>Accordingly, I found St. John's standardized for that newly-identified >>>>constituent, and it's worked really well for me. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > to find even ONE person who is financially disinterested? I don't think > so. Altruism is a very rare attribute. Okay, I'll settle for "doesn't stand to gain or lose millions upon millions of dollars." Dana > ... >> ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Okay, I'll settle for "doesn't stand to gain or lose millions upon millions of dollars." I think there are a lot of financially disinterested researchers, in fact, most of them are. Most of the scientists at universities and at drug companies are working for salaries, not profits from drugs. Most of the leading research is coming from universities, where the respect of one's colleagues, together with a deep interest in the science, and a belief in the value of what they are doing, are often the biggest motivations for hard work. I work for an hourly wage as a computer programmer. But I care about what I'm doing and try to do the best I can. If someone makes big bucks out of a program I worked on, the best I can hope for is that they'll use my services again. I'm okay with that. It's true that I don't work night and day with no personal life at all like some entrepreneurs I've met. But I think I'm still pretty motivated to do a good job. Alan > Most of the leading research is coming from universities, where > the respect of one's colleagues, together with a deep interest > in the science, and a belief in the value of what they are doing, > are often the biggest motivations for hard work. Who depend on grants from government and drug companies. I by no means intend to demean the dedication of the dedicated. I just think they're generally co-opted by Hobson's choices. >> Most of the leading research is coming from universities, where >> the respect of one's colleagues, together with a deep interest [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I just think they're generally co-opted by Hobson's choices. if what you imply is true (researchers fake tests to please their drug overlord masters), every single drug would pass all its tests with flying colours, and be shown to be better than all other drugs for the same condition. It aint so. We live in the real world, not one where limitless amounts of money from disinterested parties mean that all drugs can be tested by independent third parties. If there is a problem with faked tests, then its the regulations that need strengthening, rather than taking money from me (or you but I'm concerned about me) to test every single possible drug. There simply isnt enough money, resource or time to implement this utopian testing regime, and you still wouldnt remove biases. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com Tumbleweed, I don't think we're really at cross purposes, here, but I'm not sure, either. How much do you know about major drug multinationals? (I know it's a lot, so start from there, please, if you wish.) >>> Accordingly, I found St. John's standardized for that newly-identified >>> constituent, and it's worked really well for me. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Why would we trust the results from a company that stands to lose or gain > money according to those results? See Vioxx. Not sure exactly what happened there, but "Bad examples do not make good law" . is this where due to side effects they are being prosecuted, even though they have been warned about them? Like I said, only seen a few headlines, not sure of the details, though I do know that in the US you'll sue anyone even if a warning sign was stapled to your forehead. I did find this though..... "Merck successfully defended in Doherty v Merck where a grandmother claimed that the drug had caused her heart attack. The jury in Atlantic City, New Jersey found that Vioxx did not contribute to her heart attack, that Merck acted responsibly in informing the medical community about the benefits and risks of the drug and that the drug company's marketing efforts did not mislead consumers. In August 2006, a jury found in favor of Merck in the company's first case in California, Grossberg v. Merck. The jury found that Merck was not negligent, that it did not conceal information and that Vioxx did not cause Grossberg's heart attack. So, maybe Vioxx is more a case of people suing because someone is always to blame and people demand a drug with no side effects even though thats not possible. Betchaa St Johns Wort has side effects but I suppose there is no one to sue in that case? I'd rather just firm up the law on testing & publishing results than have someone take money out of my pocket to test numerous herbs that may or may not be useful to me, plus have someone else profit from it! > No, I think research needs to be financially disinterested. > > Dana Nice theory but I dont see how that would work in practice, how much of your pay would you 'volunteer' given there is essentially an endless requirement and the money will coem from the taxpayer? I volunteer none of mine, so they'll have to take twice as much from you :-) SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > So, maybe Vioxx is more a case of people suing because someone is > always to blame and people demand a drug with no side effects even > though thats not possible. Betchaa St Johns Wort has side effects but I > suppose there is no one to sue in that case? I'm ALL for people taking personal responsibility -- or, failing that, having it rammed down their gullets -- when the consequences of their actions are freely available and common sensical. For example, I have NO sympathy AT ALL for people who filed for bankruptcy because they maxxed out their 20 credit cards buying big screen TVs and DVDs, I-pods, cable modem, HDTV, luxe vacations and cruises, designer clothes, Hummers, restaurant meals, cinema tickets, concert tickets, gasoline to get them where they didn't have to go, etc. I do see a distinction between the above and people who took meds authorized for prescription by the FDA, likely the single-most worldwide obstructionist government agency for legal drug approval on the planet. Add to that the fact that our current gov. has done gymnastics magic worthy of Cirque de Soliel in aid of big pharma... YRMV Best, Deborah ... > I do see a distinction between the above and people who took meds > authorized for prescription by the FDA, likely the single-most worldwide > obstructionist government agency for legal drug approval on the planet. ... According to Marcia Angell in _The Truth about Drug Companies_ (from which this thread gets its title), the FDA has gone from being the slowest to approve agency among the developed countries to the fastest in the last 10 or so years. Both patients and drug companies (guess which one has had the most influence) have put enormous pressure on the government to speed FDA drug approvals. The pressure has been very effective. Some scientists now argue that the FDA is granting approvals too quickly to drugs that are not effective. > Add to that the fact that our current gov. has done gymnastics magic > worthy of Cirque de Soliel in aid of big pharma... Indeed. I think most of this is just outright corruption, no different from the corruption of doctors by buying them expensive gifts. But it's also the case that big pharma's propaganda is quite effective. Even well meaning congressmen and doctors are still taken in by the flood of misleading or false data coming from the drug companies about how much money they invest in research, how much benefit the produce, how many lives they are saving, how "educational" their marketing is, and so on. Alan > ... >> I do see a distinction between the above and people who took meds [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Alan Alan, do you get as disgusted as I do when you see televison advertisements for brand-name drugs? There's no ethical place for direct marketing in pharmaceuticals. Full stop. Period. Good points, Alan. Deborah > ... > Alan, do you get as disgusted as I do when you see televison > advertisements for brand-name drugs? > > There's no ethical place for direct marketing in pharmaceuticals. Full > stop. Period. Absolutely. The Aricept ad is infuriating. The others are no better. They show healthy, happy, smiling people who are on expensive drugs with the implication that you too will be healthy, happy and smiling on those drugs. I want to puke every time I see the smiling actor say, "I couldn't remember my grandchildren's names [before Aricept]" or the smiling actress who says, "I'm ready for chemotherapy." Anyone who has been in an Alzheimer's home or a cancer ward or anywhere in the real world has to wonder what planet the people in those ads came from. It is my understanding that direct to consumer drug advertising is banned in every other advanced country - as it used to be banned in the U.S. Interestingly, we think of the Republican Party as most deeply in bed with the drug companies - which it probably is. But it was Clinton that allowed the TV ad abomination to flower. Alan > Interestingly, we think of the Republican Party as most > deeply in bed with the drug companies - which it probably > is. But it was Clinton that allowed the TV ad abomination > to flower. > > Alan Eh, all our "rulers" are beneath our most humble citizens. Third party, anyone? Populist, for a few years/decades? >> So, maybe Vioxx is more a case of people suing because someone is >> always to blame and people demand a drug with no side effects even [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > authorized for prescription by the FDA, likely the single-most worldwide > obstructionist government agency for legal drug approval on the planet. Can you expand upon that because I dodn't know what you are proposing. Are you proposing the FDA should be 100% correct all the time? That every single drug trial must be capable of being 100% capable of spotting all side effects, however obscure? Lets say that 1 in 100,000 people will suffer a severe side effect. Lets say that side effect is documented and each person warned about it before taking the drug. Should those people be compensated for millions of dollars each? On what basis? Lets say that side effect isnt documented because it wasnt found in the trial, and the trial was well run . Again, should those people be compensated for millions of dollars each? On what basis? Its only in the third case, side effects deliberately covered up, that the drug company bears liability. The American public seems to 'want to have its cake and eat it'. Drugs are being withdrawn, even if the overall benefit is higher, because of the cost of the legal side (damages and legal costs) even for well known and publicised side effects. The attitude seems to be, "its always someone's fault". Sometimes, it isnt. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com Apologies to all, but I felt it was necessary to intersperse my replies to maintain context. >>> So, maybe Vioxx is more a case of people suing because someone is >>> always to blame and people demand a drug with no side effects even [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Can you expand upon that because I dodn't know what you are proposing. > Are you proposing the FDA should be 100% correct all the time? Of course I am not. That > every single drug trial must be capable of being 100% capable of > spotting all side effects, however obscure? Certainly not. > Lets say that 1 in 100,000 people will suffer a severe side effect. > Lets say that side effect is documented and each person warned about it > before taking the drug. Should those people be compensated for millions > of dollars each? On what basis? It gets a bit murkier, here. How do we know the documentation is reliable? Have we not seen multiple warnings, in our admittedly long lifetimes, Tumbleweed, when the warnings were insufficient, for whatever reason? Thalidomide? I'll bet you recall that one. (I presume you're as much, or nearly so, a dinosaur as I am. I'm coming up, rapidly, on 55.) A worthy drug, in some cases. But, beyond doubt, truly terrible in other applications. > Lets say that side effect isnt documented because it wasnt found in the > trial, and the trial was well run . I suppose that's where we part company, in essence. I suspect the trials are seldom well run, and, when they are, I suspect the results are manipulated to the benefit of big pharma. Yes, T, I am a cynic; one who desperately wishes for solutions to my demented LOs condition, and is willing to make allowances and take personally responsible risks. Again, should those people be > compensated for millions of dollars each? On what basis? Sometimes, yes, they should be compensated for millions, if a jury can be convinced that the proscecution proved the manufacturers willfully hid, falsified, obfusticated test data relating to severe side effects. You see, I'm a (cough, cough, it's really hard for me, as a native of Georgia/South Carolina, USA, to apply the word to myself,) Yank, and we were lately accustomed to the legal principle of somewhat limited responsibility on the part of corporations. (We're learning otherwise, quite rapidly, so don't worry too much about us...) You are not a Yank, and that's no insult. I lived in Suffolk for several years, in the last millenia, and absolutely adored every minute of it. Fact is, Brits don't have the historical right to sue we do. (And that goes against us "Yanks", as often as it aids us, IMO. Abuse, you know...) > Its only in the third case, side effects deliberately covered up, that > the drug company bears liability. Well, *hello*! Do you really think that multinational drug companies really care about patients above profits? If you do, I would like to ask for your hand in marriage. (Not really; I'm done with that.) > The American public seems to 'want to have its cake and eat it'. Yes, well, that's what the corporate media would like you believe. > Drugs are being withdrawn, even if the overall benefit is higher, because of > the cost of the legal side (damages and legal costs) even for well > known and publicised side effects. The attitude seems to be, "its > always someone's fault". This is a reasonable sounding argument, which is why it's got so much wear out of the tread. It ain't factually so. Really. I'll show you links another night. I'm knackered from working my 11 hr. day. > Sometimes, it isnt. And, I cannot argue with that. Sometimes, it isn't. There will always be numbnuts. Best to you, T, Deborah On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:39:46 +0000 (UTC) in alt.support.alzheimers, Deborah <celiej@yaspamisnotwelcomedhoo.com> wrote: > Apologies to all, but I felt it was necessary to intersperse my replies to > maintain context. no need for apology; that IS proper netiquette. it's even better netiquette to quote only the part of the past to which you are replying. too bad everyone else copies the entire posts and bottom posts, or top posts, or posts without quoting so there's no context. > Apologies to all, but I felt it was necessary to intersperse my replies to > maintain context. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > drug, in some cases. But, beyond doubt, truly terrible in other > applications. thats true, but what your point? BTW, thalidomide is now being used against cancer, apparently its very effective. Is that a good idea? I'm not sure. SHould someone be unable to get what will bea very good drug because there sia chnace it might get taken by a pregnant woman later? Its a tough one. Who is responsible if this happens? The drug manufacturer? The person who let it get out? the person who took it? >> Lets say that side effect isnt documented because it wasnt found in the >> trial, and the trial was well run . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > desperately wishes for solutions to my demented LOs condition, and is > willing to make allowances and take personally responsible risks. What evidence do you have for that? Many drugs are withdrawn because they dont make it through various phases of trials. If what you say is true, they'd pretty much all get through and to market, wouldnt they? > Again, should those people be >> compensated for millions of dollars each? On what basis? > > Sometimes, yes, they should be compensated for millions, if a jury can be > convinced that the proscecution proved the manufacturers willfully hid, > falsified, obfusticated test data relating to severe side effects. Thats not what I said though. I said, >>if the trial was well run<<. No one would argue with the latter, but its cheating to answer that question!! The former is the difficult case, and you didnt answer that :-) > You see, I'm a (cough, cough, it's really hard for me, as a native of > Georgia/South Carolina, USA, to apply the word to myself,) Yank, and we [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > really care about patients above profits? If you do, I would like to ask > for your hand in marriage. (Not really; I'm done with that.) You are answering a different question to the one I asked!! Please try and pay attention in class :-) >> The American public seems to 'want to have its cake and eat it'. > > Yes, well, that's what the corporate media would like you believe. Child in car without seatbelt. Car crashes due to drivers fault. Car rolls over several times, door opens and child is thrown out. Parents sue car manufacturer for having door that flies open when car is rolled over. have cake, eat it. There are probably a billion other examples, and I am not including the famous hot coffee/mcdonalds case. >> Drugs are being withdrawn, even if the overall benefit is higher, > because of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'll show you links another night. I'm knackered from working my 11 hr. > day. OK. But even if it aint so, the legal costs simply get added onto the price of all drugs. >> Sometimes, it isnt. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Best to you, T, > Deborah And you. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com Once I finish up laughing, I'll reply, Tumbleweed. Please allow me a day or two, if not more. "Ernesto" approaches. I always look for, and savor, the humo(u)r first, though it's not a funny subject we're talking about. The big problem with drug companies is the quantity of money they make. In 2002, the top 10 American drug companies made more profit than all 490 of the rest of Fortune 500 companies PUT TOGETHER! As Everett Dirksen used to say, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money!" The drug companies are making REAL money. They're making so much money, with higher profit margins than virtually every other industry, that both the pressure and the opportunity to distort our medical care and corrupt our doctors, and to distort our laws and corrupt our legislators and regulators, is enormous. It doesn't require terrible people in the drug companies for this corruption to develop. It is an inevitable consequence of the economic situation. If one drug company fails to corrupt doctors and lawmakers, the other companies will eat its lunch. If one salesman fails to corrupt his doctors and another does, he'll lose out on the sales. Free market competition works that way. The subject of clinical trials came up. Not too many years ago, clinical trials were mainly financed by NIH and perfomed by hospital staff under the direction of medical school professors. Results were published in the literature, as the professors wrote them. Today, most of the funding comes from the drug companies. The companies sign contracts with the medical schools. The contracts specify that the professors will conduct the research, but the company will have the right to review and intercede in the procedures, and most importantly, the right to approve or block any publication before it can be published. The school doesn't have to agree to this. They can say no. If they do, the company goes to another school and offers them the millions of dollars to conduct the trial. Research money doesn't grow on trees. Medical schools need it badly. They cave in. The clinical trials process really is being corrupted and the quality of the research, and especially the published results, really is being compromised. For example, serious negative results might cause a company to hold off submitting a drug for approval. But those results will NOT be published, as they would have been in the past. One of the few checks left is the tort system that allows smart but sleazy lawyers to sue the pants off the drug companies (their very favorite, because very richest, targets). So the companies have to police themselves to some degree. The tort system is itself a horrible, corrupt, abomination. Everything that Bush and the Republicans say about it seems to me to be true. But I worry about what will happen in the drug development world if "tort reform" takes away that last check on drug company license, and if we have not made new government regulations to check the drug company corruption. Alan > The big problem with drug companies is the quantity > of money they make. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Alan Alan, you had me on board until the last paragraph. Surely, there are those who will extort our once vaunted system. That doesn't make Bush and the Republicans right, or correct, or remotely Constitutional. Here's the thing that really, *really* gets me -- this isn't partisan, it's about the ultimate survival of our nation. I have grandchildren. This is Big, for me: If we, the American people, cave in and allow mythical, non-human Corporations, and *not THE People*, under our lawful Constitution, to prevail, we have ceded our heriditary human rights. At that point, RIP, USA, and much/many more. I wish I had more faith in The People. Seems too many of us are interested only in American Idol and a whole lot more that I don't follow. (I've never seen a single episode of either American Idol or The Sopranos. Not that I'd watch The Sopranos if could, even if I had that cable tier...which I don't. I, personally, loathe gangster/gangsta "entertainment.") (Please prove me wrong!) Deborah > ... > > The tort system is itself a horrible, corrupt, abomination. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > prevail, we have ceded our heriditary human rights. At that point, RIP, > USA, and much/many more. I'm not sure whether you're arguing against tort reform here. We've gotten far afield from Alzheimer's Disease, but I will say that I believe that it is true that many blameless companies and private citizens are ripped off or even destroyed every year by unjustified but skillfully pursued lawsuits. Tort reform seems desirable to me, but only if we can put new safeguards in place that enable us to rein in big company malfeasance without these predatory lawsuits. > I wish I had more faith in The People. Seems too many of us are interested > only in American Idol and a whole lot more that I don't follow. (I've > never seen a single episode of either American Idol or The Sopranos. Not > that I'd watch The Sopranos if could, even if I had that cable > tier...which I don't. I, personally, loathe gangster/gangsta > "entertainment.") Ah yes, "The People", "the Great Unwashed", the great cross that we of the liberal elite must bear. What can I say? > (Please prove me wrong!) In order to do that, do I have to prove myself right? I think I better give up now. Alan >> ... <snip> >> (Please prove me wrong!) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Alan No, no. You may be interested, or enraged, by the links I sent Tumbleweed. Discussion is good. Best, Unwashed Liberal Elite ;) >> Apologies to all, but I felt it was necessary to intersperse my >> replies to maintain context. <snip> >>> Lets say that 1 in 100,000 people will suffer a severe side >>> effect. Lets say that side effect is documented and each [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > responsible if this happens? The drug manufacturer? The person > who let it get out? the person who took it? As to who is responsible, the answer I give is "all of the above." >>> Lets say that side effect isnt documented because it wasnt >>> found in the trial, and the trial was well run . [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what you say is true, they'd pretty much all get through and to > market, wouldnt they? I don't believe they'd all get to market, no. Have a look here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1312765,00.html Here are the final two paragraphs: <begin quote> Bit by bit, health activists in Britain and America have uncovered the core of pharma might: a sinister mesh of hidden influences in the regulation and practice of medicine that is painstakingly dissected in Medicines Out of Control? by Charles Medawar and Anita Hardon. In both countries, clinical drug tests are paid for by the pharmas, who tweak the trials' design for the best possible results. Until recently, only the most favourable findings got published in the 20,000-odd biomedical journals, many of them dependent on pharmas for funding. The drugs are approved for marketing by regulators, whose salaries are mostly financed by the subjects of their evaluations - since pharmas pay to have their products vetted. The medicines are then prescribed by doctors routinely courted with pharma gifts - from free pens to family skiing holidays - meant to persuade them to change their prescribing habits. <end quote> >> Again, should those people be >>> compensated for millions of dollars each? On what basis? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > answer that question!! The former is the difficult case, and you > didnt answer that :-) Got me there, T, so I'll try to do a bit better. I don't believe every patient harmed by unforeseen side-effects in a carefully researched med should get millions. Maybe only thousands. <g> Maybe nothing. There's no one correct answer. So, you see, your original question was rigged. :-) <snip> >> Well, *hello*! Do you really think that multinational drug >> companies really care about patients above profits? If you do, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You are answering a different question to the one I asked!! > Please try and pay attention in class :-) This is where I lost it laughing, last night. >>> The American public seems to 'want to have its cake and eat >>> it'. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > probably a billion other examples, and I am not including the > famous hot coffee/mcdonalds case. Of course there are many examples of ludicrous lawsuits. Hey, we've got volumes of them. But, that's a red herring. We were talking of actions taken by reasonable people. >>> Drugs are being withdrawn, even if the overall benefit is >>> higher, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OK. But even if it aint so, the legal costs simply get added > onto the price of all drugs. These links don't specifically address big pharma, but they do dovetail into the statement you make above. I expect you'll have reservations about some of these sources, and so you should. It's never good policy to take on faith everything you read or hear, is it? Some of these, *I* find slightly absurd. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/036480.html <http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.a sp?pr=1117> http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/articles.cfm?ID=785 http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/yourhealth/righting_wrongs.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mencimer.html PS - Which industry has, far and away, the highest profits in the world? Going for the oars, now. It's about to get unpleasant, here. Best, Deborah > Going for the oars, now. It's about to get unpleasant, here. > > Best, > Deborah Usenet post sinning, by responding to myself. This last was a reference to the weather where I live. It could be worse, so far. Best regards, Deborah >> Going for the oars, now. It's about to get unpleasant, here. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Best regards, > Deborah Deborah, I hope you are not getting any of those tropical storms in your area! Hope all is well with all of those who live in the path of these storms! SignatureBest Regards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox') >>> Going for the oars, now. It's about to get unpleasant, here. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Hope all is well with all of those who live in the path of these > storms! Thank you, so much, Evelyn. Please send your best thoughts to the folks along the far-northwestern SC/far-northwestern NC shores, and those inland who will certainly be affected along the Eastern US seaboard. There's a lot of rain in this system, not so much wind. Flooding is what worries me. I'm not expecting much beyond heavy rain and high winds, at this point. At some point, the bullet will not be dodged on my section of the SC coast. <nervous lol> Hoping you and Peter and family are well, Deborah Deborah, where do you live in SC. My daughter lives in Beaufort. Gwen >>>> Going for the oars, now. It's about to get unpleasant, here. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Hoping you and Peter and family are well, > Deborah > Deborah, where do you live in SC. My daughter lives in Beaufort. > Gwen Murrells Inlet. Glad to know your daughter is in the clear. Best, Deborah >>>> Going for the oars, now. It's about to get unpleasant, here. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Hoping you and Peter and family are well, > Deborah Deborah, I just got off the phone with my uncle who lives in New Bern NC. He's battening down the hatches for this one. Hope you and everyone in that area is OK. We are supposed to get rather a lot of rain on Saturday, but that's all. We get snow and ice, and have occasional torrential rains and a couple of years ago there was a small tornado here in upstate NY, but not too much in the way of high winds. I guess every area of the country gets it share of some sort of icky weather :-( SignatureBest Regards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox') >>> Apologies to all, but I felt it was necessary to intersperse my >>> replies to maintain context. [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/articles.cfm?ID=785 Thats why I didnt include that one :-) > http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/yourhealth/righting_wrongs.html > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mencimer.html Thanks, there is some very thought provoking stuff in there. I had heard the story about the lawnmower/hedgetrimmer (from an American) and didnt realise (as neither did he) that it was an urban myth. Of course, some 'facts' are repeated to make companies sound bad when actually there is just a dull explanation behind them*, but as I say there is a lot of good stuff there as well. > PS - Which industry has, far and away, the highest profits in the > world? Dont see the relevance of how much money they make. Seriously. Either what they are doing is right or wrong, either the trials are fake or not, etc,but whether they make money or not, and how much, shoudnt be an issue in deciding that. *for example, 'trials that fail aren't written up in prestigious journals (I abbreviate)'. Well no, they wouldnt be, first because why report that the drug you were testing, that you now wont be launching, is no good? What would be the point? Who would want to read that? Second, because its a general scientific practice (which probably isnt good, but it happens) to mostly write up successful experiments, by which I mean experiments that proved what you set out to prove (unless the results are startling in a different way). A report that read 'experiments that determined that a perpetual motion machine didnt work' dont get many people excited. Or 'My 2 year series of tests on mice that will not lead to a cure for cancer. In one of your references, this is cited as if its part of an evil plot. I dont think so. However, I do think there is a lot more there that bears furtherreading. Thanks, no flame proof suit needed! SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > Dont see the relevance of how much money they make. Seriously. > Either what they are doing is right or wrong, either the trials are > fake or not, etc,but whether they make money or not, and how much, > shoudnt be an issue in deciding that. It's not so simple, is it? Regarding how much money they make... I'm very happy for the manufacturers of medications to be rewarded 2x as much as the next highest profitable industry. Who can plausibly argue the fact that 99.9999 percent, or more, of the posters in this group have benefited, both directly and indirectly, from the products of the pharma industry? The percentage is either non-existent, or perishingly minescule, surely. I'm of the admittedly "Liberal Elite" crowd who probably naively holds this core belief: "To whom much is given, much is expected..." Luke 12:48 And, this may possibly be the only time you'll see me quote the Bible. No promises about that. There's some good stuff in there. Best, Deborah > Of course, some 'facts' are repeated to make companies sound bad when > actually there is just a dull explanation behind them*, but as I say there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not, etc,but whether they make money or not, and how much, shoudnt be an > issue in deciding that. how much they make from a defective drug should indeed be a factor in determining ***punitive*** (rather than actual) damages. the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant for negligent or wrongful acts in order to deter them from continuing the behavior that caused damage to the plaintiff(s). IMHO punitive damages should indeed cause pain to the defendant, in the case of a corporation its officers and shareholders. >> Of course, some 'facts' are repeated to make companies sound bad when >> actually there is just a dull explanation behind them*, but as I say [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the defendant, in the case of a corporation its officers and > shareholders. I love this, if for no other reason than to be able to say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. (It's a figure of speech. Really. Google it, if you doubt.) Thanks, Dennis. ... > Dont see the relevance of how much money they make. Seriously. > Either what they are doing is right or wrong, either the trials are fake or > not, etc,but whether they make money or not, and how much, shoudnt be an > issue in deciding that. ... Well ... maybe. Making money is not in itself a crime, and shouldn't be. But I do think that understanding that this has been the richest industry in the U.S. is important in understanding what happens inside and what needs to be done. Normally, we imagine that competition holds down prices. But for reasons that have yet to be explained, that doesn't seem to work in the drug industry. There are 7 or more major cholesterol drugs, 3 major impotence drugs, and numbers of blood pressure drugs, anti-depressants, and other categories. And yet the prices don't fall on any of them until they go off patent, at which time the prices plummet. The very same drugs also sell in Canada, Europe and in other countries at significantly lower prices even though the U.S. companies that make the drugs aren't forced to sell there. They could say, screw the price controls - we're not selling. But they don't. So they must be making reasonable profits at the lower prices too. Something is wrong with this picture. There is a compelling public interest in reasonable pricing for drugs. There are huge numbers of people in the United States who literally can't afford the drugs they need to stay alive. If movie prices or restaurant prices or prices of any other luxuries go through the roof - people don't have to buy. But with drugs, it's often your money or your life. In that situation I believe it is just _wrong_ to allow prices that generate obscene profits while people suffer or die. > *for example, 'trials that fail aren't written up in prestigious journals (I > abbreviate)'. Well no, they wouldnt be, first because why report that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > perpetual motion machine didnt work' dont get many people excited. Or 'My 2 > year series of tests on mice that will not lead to a cure for cancer. I disagree with this too. Negative results have very serious and significant scientific implications. If a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor appears to cause young people to commit suicide, that's a fact that needs to be known. There are a half dozen of those drugs on the market, and more in development. Knowing that one trial ran into problems can clue in investigators that there are dangers here and many more people are at risk. If a COX-2 inhibitor seems to cause a higher rate of heart attacks, that needs to be published. It's not enough to just quietly kill the research and not bring out the drug. There are other COX-2 inhibitors and other anti-inflammatory drugs that have similar mechanisms of action. If a blood pressure drug turns out to be less effective than a diuretic in reducing blood pressure, we need to know that. The law allows the drug company to sell the new blood pressure drug as long as it is safe and effective (doesn't kill the patient and does lower blood pressure.) But if doctors knew that the drug was less effective than other drugs, they wouldn't prescribe it, and they certainly wouldn't shift their patients from diuretics to the new medicines - as in fact so many have. How many patients have died because of blood pressure related diseases who might have been saved if they had used a more effective drug? All three of the above are, in fact, real-life examples. I'm not making them up. > In one of your references, this is cited as if its part of an evil plot. I > dont think so. However, I do think there is a lot more there that bears > furtherreading. Thanks, no flame proof suit needed! As I've said before, I think most of the people in the scientific sections of the drug companies are dedicated people who are trying to save the world as well as make a decent income for themselves. I have great respect and appreciation for what they do. But the people in the lobbying and marketing sides of the business are a totally different story. They do indeed engage in what can only be characterized as "evil plots." What can you call it when drug salesmen buy expensive gifts for doctors or congressmen other than evil corruption? It's true that the doctors and congressmen who accept these bribes are evil too. But two wrongs don't make a right. > -- > Tumbleweed > > email replies not necessary but to contact use; > tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > ... >> Dont see the relevance of how much money they make. Seriously. [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] >> email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at >> hotmail dot com I wish I knew enough to reason as much/as well as this. Alan, you've obviously performed critical thinking on this subject, in the past as well as in the present. I'd like to reach this level, or better, (though better isn't all that likely at my corporeal state,) eventually. I'm working on it, but it's hard work, hard work. (LOL) It takes most of my "free" time to make a living, not that it's a credible excuse. And, no offense meant to Tumbleweed, by any means. I can hear gears clicking all the way from here. ;) Best, D > ... > I wish I knew enough to reason as much/as well as this. Alan, you've [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hard work, hard work. (LOL) It takes most of my "free" time to make a > living, not that it's a credible excuse. Thanks. However the real credit belongs to Marcia Angell, the author of _The Truth About the Drug Companies_. It's that book that taught me most of what I know about this subject. > And, no offense meant to Tumbleweed, by any means. I can hear gears > clicking all the way from here. ;) Indeed. I have disagreed with TW's arguments, but I have great respect for his or her intelligence and thoughtfulness. Alan > Its only in the third case, side effects deliberately covered up, that the > drug company bears liability. which is EXACTLY the case with vioxx. and fen-fen. and a bunch of others that were pushed hurriedly through the FDA for approval when repugnicans were in the white house. >> Its only in the third case, side effects deliberately covered up, that >> the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of others that were pushed hurriedly through the FDA for approval > when repugnicans were in the white house. ...and the public also push the FDA to approve things quickly. Again. cake and eating it, you cant have it both ways. The balance is a difficult one.From my quick scan of vioxx, I'm getting the impression thats not a clear cut case either, with early verdicts being overturned. AFAICS there is a tendency in the US courts for juries to find in favour of 'the little guy', and hand out big awards, because of the perception that it wont matter to a large corporation (irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case) SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > From my quick scan of vioxx, I'm getting the impression thats not a > clear cut case either, with early verdicts being overturned. the verdicts being overturned have a lot more to do with the drug companies throwing an infinite number of lawyers and expert witnesses at the plaintiffs, rather than the merits of the case. if they happened in states with elected judges, then i'd suspect bribery or some other form of monetary influence like so called "campaign donations". it's why texas courts are so corrupt, for example. >> Accordingly, I found St. John's standardized for that newly-identified >> constituent, and it's worked really well for me. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Wort is one of the few that actually comes up as useful. BTW, it is > contraindicated with certain other herbs and drugs, check up on that. Another very useful herb is a close relative of the St. Johns Wort.... it is called Motherwort. The absolute best cure for hot flashes ever. Fortunately I no longer need it, but back in the day, Motherwort was the one very thing that helped. SignatureBest Regards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox') > Why > should companies or people not involved with a particular drug (be it pharma > or heb originated) have to pay for testing? so that both the funder and the tester conducting the research have no interest in the outcome. >> Why >> should companies or people not involved with a particular drug (be it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so that both the funder and the tester conducting the research > have no interest in the outcome. Good intentions, you and dana can start with the first payments. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.