Drug Companies - A conflict of interest?

TheyKnowMyIP · 21-09-2011 05:35PM #1

Seems like the Pharma industry is coming under severe scrutiny now: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0920/1224304402832.html

Do you place unmitigated trust in these companies to look out for your health 100%? Why are drugs with questionable track records being pushed to the public? Are we being potentially swindled where possible if the information in this article is anything to go by?

cosmicfart · 21-09-2011 05:36PM

Bolivia has the best coke, period.

chin_grin · 21-09-2011 05:37PM

cosmicfart wrote: »

Bolivia has the best coke, period.

Can or bottle? :pac:

Biggins · 21-09-2011 05:37PM

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Seems like the Pharma industry is coming under severe scrutiny now: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0920/1224304402832.html

Do you place unmitigated trust in these companies to look out for your health 100%? Why are drugs with questionable track records being pushed to the public? Are we being potentially swindled where possible if the information in this article is anything to go by?

What do you think or are you just looking for opinion pieces for your report or thesis?

Seachmall · 21-09-2011 05:40PM

Surely they get their research from independent, peer reviewed publications, not Pharma funded or distributed ones?

jimdeans · 21-09-2011 05:42PM

I'll give you my opinion, as the partner of a doctor and as someone who runs a small medical virology research lab.

Drug companies are the lowest of the low. They make great stuff, but they will try and push their meds for stuff that it doesn't work on. They'll use dodgy stats to convince doctors that their drug is better than the competitors, even though it's not.

I don't know how they sleep at night. They try to give my partner all kinds of gifts if she'll come to their talks about their newest drug. She won't take anything from them and sticks to peer reviewed journals for her info. Most of my medic friends are the same, but some aren't. They all say the same thing: "The advertising doesn't influence me".

I personally think drug companies should only be allowed publish their research in independent journals, and should be allowed zero interaction with medical staff.

Sauve · 21-09-2011 05:43PM

I work in the frontline of this industry and I wouldn't say companies are 'swindling' patients.
However, drug companies do attempt to push their products on GPs' and pharmacies, with HUGE bonus deals and incentives.
The difference is that doctors and pharmacists are there for the wellbeing of the patient, not the drug company, and although these bonuses and deals are appealing, I have never come across a patient who was given an appropriate medication/treatment for the cause of profit.
The drug companies who sell these products are there to sell. They're businesses.
Pharmacists and doctors work ethically, with patient safety at the fore.

TheyKnowMyIP · 21-09-2011 05:43PM

Biggins wrote: »

What do you think or are you just looking for opinion pieces for your report or thesis?

I believe the research trials should be far removed from the pharms and carried out ethically like any other field of study. Ethics seems to be lost on these companies. This isn't a small issue granted. We're talking about lives here. A friend of mine is still paying back a loan for Avastin, despite the drug being almost useless if recent medical tests are anything to go by:o

A little honestly would go a long way I guess.

TheyKnowMyIP · 21-09-2011 05:46PM

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

Pharmacists and doctors work ethically, with patient safety at the fore.

Not trying to discredit Medical Professionals. Their job is by far the most challenging I reckon. It's that their hands are tied. Drug Research authenticity isn't something a GP or even a specialist should have to deal with. Rigour is key.

AnamGlas · 21-09-2011 05:46PM

If they're professionals, they aren't going to jeapordise their careers.

jimdeans · 21-09-2011 05:46PM

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

I believe the research trials should be far removed from the pharms and carried out ethically like any other field of study. Ethics seems to be lost on these companies. This isn't a small issue granted. We're talking about lives here. A friend of mine is still paying back a loan for Avastin, despite the drug being almost useless if recent medical tests are anything to go by:o

A little honestly would go a long way I guess.

in some parts of the world, university research departments will carry out the trial and data collection for the drug companies. The drug companies still do the data analysis and spin the results as they please. But there's usually an agreement that the data will definitely get published in a journal, which will help with publication bias. But it's still open to a lot of shenanigans.

TheyKnowMyIP · 21-09-2011 05:52PM

jimdeans wrote: »

in some parts of the world, university research departments will carry out the trial and data collection for the drug companies. The drug companies still do the data analysis and spin the results as they please. But there's usually an agreement that the data will definitely get published in a journal, which will help with publication bias. But it's still open to a lot of shenanigans.

Interesting. I was under the assumption that Industry Research is generally more thorough. How wrong I was.

TheyKnowMyIP · 21-09-2011 05:57PM

AnamGlas wrote: »

If they're professionals, they aren't going to jeapordise their careers.

Ain't that simple I am afraid:pac:

Might head to that Lecture. Sounds bloodly interesting. Education is key.

opinion guy · 21-09-2011 05:57PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Surely they get their research from independent, peer reviewed publications, not Pharma funded or distributed ones?

AHAAHAAAAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHA........

no wait...I'm not done yet....

AHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thanks for that Seachmall:)

Latest dodgyness I heard of is drug companies scouring the smaller studies on a drug as by the laws of statistics one will eventually show the result you want. They find that study and promote it to promote their drug and ignore the 19 other ones that say the exact opposite

jimdeans · 21-09-2011 06:02PM

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Interesting. I was under the assumption that Industry Research is generally more thorough. How wrong I was.

Industry has the big money. And if they're onto a winner and want to show it works, then they have the resources to do that in a very convincing way.

The problem is that their loyalty is to their shareholders, not the patient. I genuinely don't know how their reps sleep at night. But they will say all kinds of stuff to get a doctor to prescribe their drug.

All research has the potential to be conflicted. A big mistake people make is that if it's in a peer reviewed journal, it's true. There's lots of rubbish out there. And the skill is in deciding what's rubbish and what isn't.

jimdeans · 21-09-2011 06:03PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Latest dodgyness I heard of is drug companies scouring the smaller studies on a drug as by the laws of statistics one will eventually show the result you want. They find that study and promote it to promote their drug and ignore the 19 other ones that say the exact opposite

An old trick. See my reference to publication bias above.

Sauve · 21-09-2011 06:05PM

And that skill (hopefully) is where the docs and pharmacists come in when prescribing and dispensing the stuff.
I know the pharmacist who owns our place spends a lot of time reading up and researching everything that comes through the door.
And we're not fooled by the shiny posters and stats that the reps push on us.
I'd like to hope that this is the norm....

pragmatic1 · 21-09-2011 06:06PM

No one should trust anything 100%. However, the IMB and the EMEA provide a valuable service by monitoring drug efficacy and safety. I'm also very glad that pharmaceutical companies are around so I dont have to rely on faith healers and medicine men when I'm sick. Sometimes we're just ****ing spoilt in the west.

jimdeans · 21-09-2011 06:09PM

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

And that skill (hopefully) is where the docs and pharmacists come in when prescribing and dispensing the stuff.
I know the pharmacist who owns our place spends a lot of time reading up and researching everything that comes through the door.
And we're not fooled by the shiny posters and stats that the reps push on us.
I'd like to hope that this is the norm....

Exactly. But you'd like to think they wouldn't have to go trawling through papers for skewed data, on top of everything else they have to do.

The shiny posters and the stats receive mega bucks (and I mean billions) because they work. Even with people who think they're not influenced.

opinion guy · 21-09-2011 06:11PM

jimdeans wrote: »

An old trick. See my reference to publication bias above.

True....but the twist I heard was they were deliberatly running lots of small studies to get a positive result....then publish that and just don't publish the negative ones at all. even more evil

Sauve · 21-09-2011 06:16PM

jimdeans wrote: »

Exactly. But you'd like to think they wouldn't have to go trawling through papers for skewed data, on top of everything else they have to do.

The shiny posters and the stats receive mega bucks (and I mean billions) because they work. Even with people who think they're not influenced.

Yeah I see your point there.
Marketing is marketing at the end of the day and even the most astute are liable to be influenced.
Although being aware of it is probably half the battle...
I suppose the best we can do is keep the ethics in place.

jimdeans · 21-09-2011 06:20PM

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

Yeah I see your point there.
Marketing is marketing at the end of the day and even the most astute are liable to be influenced.
Although being aware of it is probably half the battle...
I suppose the best we can do is keep the ethics in place.

it's just a shame that guys like you, run off your feet in a pharmacy, have to worry about the drug companies trying to mislead u, on top of everything else you have to be doing.

ILikeBananas · 21-09-2011 06:59PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Surely they get their research from independent, peer reviewed publications, not Pharma funded or distributed ones?

Very little testing of pharmaceuticals gets done by independent bodies. It's a hugely expensive process and so the only people who can afford to do it are.....the pharmaceutical companies themselves!

The pharmaceutical companies commission the studies and then use their statisticians to portray the results in the best possible light.

Ben GoldAcre write extensively about this in his excellent book "Bad Science"

opinion guy · 21-09-2011 07:05PM

Well thats the unfortunate truth of it really - the pharma companies are the only ones who can afford to do the important studies. We need them. We just need to keep them on a tight leash

TheyKnowMyIP · 21-09-2011 07:15PM

Interesting when you read about the guy complaining about his drug prescription and their propoganda. In the case of Mental Health, would it not be better to pump this money into places like Pieta House? They seem far more deserving of the money if that documentary on the telly a few days ago is anything to go by. Mental Health should not be trivialised to some farcical nonsense. Anybody can suffer.

It's shocking what they get away with, especially when it comes to cancer treatment:mad: Research first, profit second in order of precedence. When you push to market too quickly, quality is obviously going to suffer, No?

opinion guy · 21-09-2011 07:24PM

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

It's shocking what they get away with, especially when it comes to cancer treatment:mad: Research first, profit second in order of precedence. When you push to market too quickly, quality is obviously going to suffer, No?

Well to play devils advocate for a minute - no profits, no new drugs.
Tbh I think that the real issue is that once a drug is licensed the assumption of patients, and to some extent doctors, is that it must be safe. In reality their is post marketing surveillance etc and weird side effects only emerge over a few years. However there is this insistence in promoting the image of medicine and drugs as infallable.

Take the narcolespy swine flu thingy (I'm right now assuming this is a real thing - I don't know enough about it tbh). That vaccine was brought to market so quick out of necessity - but with that there are inevitably risks. Howver the line at the time was - oh yeah perfectly safe.

People then see these stories of narcolepsy and this then damages credibility and next thing people start refusing vaccines next time around when they realise authorities can't back up their claims of safety.

There needs to be alot more honesty and public education about how the whole process works I feel.

TheyKnowMyIP · 21-09-2011 07:43PM

opinion guy wrote: »

There needs to be alot more honesty and public education about how the whole process works I feel.

True. Hopefully something will come of this. Higher quality testing and less of the misinformation will only benefit everybody excluding the drug company shareholders, who aren't exactly driven by absolute honesty.

entropi · 21-09-2011 07:53PM

ILikeBananas wrote: »

The pharmaceutical companies commission the studies and then use their statisticians to portray the results in the best possible light.

This.

What is needed, but wont actually happen, is for independant, non biased research. Then blind trials and data analysis performed, and then published. If it gets published, industry cannot cover their asses with data that would otherwise make them look better than they are.

mackg · 21-09-2011 08:22PM

Master of Nothing wrote: »

This.

What is needed, but wont actually happen, is for independant, non biased research. Then blind trials and data analysis performed, and then published. If it gets published, industry cannot cover their asses with data that would otherwise make them look better than they are.

Who is going to pay for this?

entropi · 21-09-2011 08:40PM

mackg wrote: »

Who is going to pay for this?

Fcuked if I know, maybe some wealthy philantropist? :pac:

The sad thing is, that industry will always have the cash and resources behind them to fund their own, slightly skewed to their side, research. While genuine and non biased research will haardly get to see the light of day.

Plus, cures dont sell, drugs do...it'll continue onwards, day after day.

ed2hands · 21-09-2011 09:07PM

A most interesting article on drug trials:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

Drug Companies - A conflict of interest?

Do you trust Medical Professionals to recieve unbiased research always? 63 votes

Comments