Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Is the distrust of the pharmaceutical industry warranted??

  • 28-05-2014 01:58AM
    #1
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭


    There seems to be a lot of distrust placed in the pharmaceutical industry or "big pharma" in recent years. Are these concerns warranted or is it a general distrust of science at play? An article from the Financial Times indicated the level of distrust in the industry.

    My views are that the pharm companies are a business like any other but certain times intervention from pure research bodies is needed to regulate the industry and greater government investment is required to make the industry serve the public.

    Patients’ groups distrust ‘big pharma’

    By Andrew Jack in London

    The majority of patients’ organisations consider pharmaceutical companies untrustworthy, according to a survey conducted by a UK-based consultancy to be released on Friday.
    PatientView, which monitors the views of patient groups around the world, says that from 665 organisations assessed, only 37 per cent considered the industry “trustworthy” in 2008, and less than a quarter had noted any improvement since then.

    Detailed rankings compiled from patient groups with a close knowledge of the drug company’s products showed many continental European groups rated highly, while US and UK businesses were less well judged.
    Novartis of Switzerland performed best, and Baxter of the US worst.
    The ratings will add to the gloom in the drug sector, which is facing concerns over patient access to treatments as a result of rising unemployment in the recession and cutbacks in medical care.
    In spite of efforts by the industry in recent months to provide more information on clinical trials, and funding to doctors and patient groups, 55 per cent of the patient groups also said they did not believe there had been any real increase in transparency over the past year.
    The negative views are significant given that patients are generally thought to have a positive attitude to the industry as they are benefiting from life-saving products.
    However, Alexandra Wyke, head of PatientView, said many patients’ groups – notably those in the US – had expressed concerns about rising drug prices and inadequate access programmes for those on low incomes.
    “There is a feeling that patient assistance programmes [to provide free drugs] have been cut back, pricing has been ratcheted up,” she said.
    Pharmaceutical trustworthiness ranking in 2009* Rank Company Change in 2008 rank 1 Novartis (Switzerland) Up 3 2 Sanofi-Aventis (France) ** 3 Bayer (Germany) ** 3 Roche/Genentech (Switzerland) Up 5 5 Abbott Laboratories (US) Up 3 6 AstraZeneca (UK) - 6 Pfizer/Wyeth (US) Down 4 8 Johnson & Johnson (US) Down 7 9 Bristol-Myers Squibb (US) Down 1 9 GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Down 6 11 Eli Lilly (US) Down 5 * Patient groups’ opinions on whether companies had improved their levels of trustworthiness ** Not included in last year’s survey Source: Patientview A frequent frustration of patient groups was that they were given insufficient information on the results of clinical trials of new drugs and about early-stage trials in which they could participate in order to gain access to experimental life-saving treatments.
    Ms Wyke said Novartis had established a strong reputation for developing tight links with patient groups, notably for its leukaemia drug Glivec, and Sanofi-Aventis had recently boosted efforts to establish better contact with patient groups.
    Wim Leereveld, head of the Access to Medicines Index, which is releasing an alternative ranking system in June, warned that patients’ views should not be taken in isolation.
    “Sometimes the perceptions are wrong,” he said, stressing the broader nature of his index. “I think the sector is relatively transparent compared with other industries.”
    GlaxoSmithKline, which experienced a sharp drop in its trustworthiness rating, said: “We believe it is imperative to earn the trust of society, not just by meeting expectations but by exceeding them.
    “The patient is central to all that we do and we are determined to be more flexible and responsive to their needs.


«1345

Comments

  • #2
    Sinister Pigeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 106 ✭✭Sinister Pigeon


    One word.

    Thalidomide.


  • #3
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    Yes and yes.


  • #4
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Sinister Pigeon wrote: »
    One word.

    Thalidomide.

    Several words. Thalidomide was the result of stereo-chemical differences between racemate forms of the drug. The effects of stereochemistry on binding equilibrium between drugs and receptor were wildly underestimated at the time. This was a general ignorance in the part of the science of the time not a conspiracy by the pharm companies.


  • #5
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    The elephant man


  • #6
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    By the way in a lot of cases Thalidomide shouldn't have been prescribed at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There are those who would have you believe that pharma companies are sitting on cures to fatal illnesses, but because there is fúck all profit to be made from curing and megabucks to be made in treating, these cures will never see the light of day.

    Scary if true, unfortunately there's no way for your average Boards poster to find out for sure.

    I personally don't fully trust them, but also don't take for granted the wonders of modern medicine.


  • #8
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Nope.

    But then again these are the same kinds of people who are distrustful of vaccines and GMOs -people who are against them based on misinformation, ignorance and the media's constant fearmongering.


  • #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sinister Pigeon wrote: »
    One word.

    Thalidomide.

    Thalidomide is used quite a lot in oncology. Very useful medication actually.


  • #10
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    It can have a certain level of distrust and skepticism like every other industry, but it's the easy use of the term "Big Pharma" to peddle conspiracy theories and alternative medicine that can be irritating to see.


  • #11
    Sinister Pigeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 106 ✭✭Sinister Pigeon


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thalidomide is used quite a lot in oncology. Very useful medication actually.

    Just not for morning sickness though..........


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    stankratz wrote: »
    There are those who would have you believe that pharma companies are sitting on cures to fatal illnesses, but because there is fúck all profit to be made from curing and megabucks to be made in treating, these cures will never see the light of day.

    Scary if true, unfortunately there's no way for your average Boards poster to find out for sure.

    I personally don't fully trust them, but also don't take for granted the wonders of modern medicine.

    Well they're not sitting on the cures but they certainly could cure a lot more diseases than they can now EG cystic fibrosis. The problem is millions goes into research of each and every drug and in order for that to be profitable a lot of people have to buy that drug. Less prevalent illnesses don't warrant these costs in their eyes. This is inherently capitalist and not a deliberate conspiracy of the pharm companies. This requires government intervention to solve.


  • #13
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    stankratz wrote: »
    There are those who would have you believe that pharma companies are sitting on cures to fatal illnesses, but because there is fúck all profit to be made from curing and megabucks to be made in treating, these cures will never see the light of day.

    Scary if true, unfortunately there's no way for your average Boards poster to find out for sure.

    I personally don't fully trust them, but also don't take for granted the wonders of modern medicine.

    It's not true. Do you know how many universities alone are involved in research across the globe? There's no way big pharmaceutical companies can hide cures, there's just far too many researchers and scientists working behind the scenes all over the worlds, from universities to small research companies -which collectively dwarf big pharmaceuticals.

    In reality, big pharmaceuticals can't really do much to stop research even if they tried. They're nowhere near powerful enough. It's a misconception people have brought about by the media painting them as far more influential than they are in reality.


  • #14
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thalidomide is used quite a lot in oncology. Very useful medication actually.

    Yes indeed provided the hydrogen atom is in the right place this time ;)


  • #15
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭bleg


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well they're not sitting on the cures but they certainly could cure a lot more diseases than they can now EG cystic fibrosis. The problem is millions goes into research of each and every drug and in order for that to be profitable a lot of people have to buy that drug. Less prevalent illnesses don't warrant these costs in their eyes. This is inherently capitalist and not a deliberate conspiracy of the pharm companies. This requires government intervention to solve.

    Like some sort of orphan disease programme?

    http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/significantamendmentstothefdcact/orphandrugact/default.htm


  • #16
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    bleg wrote: »
    Like some sort of orphan disease programme?

    http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/significantamendmentstothefdcact/orphandrugact/default.htm

    Yes that's the one. The next thing the government will need to fund is antibiotic research. It's no longer profitable.


  • #17
    donegal__road
    Closed Accounts Posts: 953 ✭✭✭donegal__road


    Turmeric


    Big pharma = slow expensive death


  • #18
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    donegal__road wrote: »
    Turmeric


    Big pharma = slow expensive death

    The active ingredient, curcumin is being investigated by several pharmaceutical companies as a anti cancer drug.


  • #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well they're not sitting on the cures but they certainly could cure a lot more diseases than they can now EG cystic fibrosis. The problem is millions goes into research of each and every drug and in order for that to be profitable a lot of people have to buy that drug. Less prevalent illnesses don't warrant these costs in their eyes. This is inherently capitalist and not a deliberate conspiracy of the pharm companies. This requires government intervention to solve.

    The price of some high-end meds is ridiculous on the surface, but as you say there is a serious amount of money put into the research. That is why I can't condemn a pharma company for charging $150,000 for a course of drugs that would make a person's life so much better. Government intervention/subsidisation should be looked into.
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    It's not true. Do you know how many universities alone are involved in research across the globe? There's no way big pharmaceutical companies can hide cures, there's just far too many researchers and scientists working behind the scenes all over the worlds, from universities to small research companies -which collectively dwarf big pharmaceuticals.

    In reality, big pharmaceuticals can't really do much to stop research even if they tried. They're nowhere near powerful enough. It's a misconception people have brought about by the media painting them as far more influential than they are in reality.

    I overlooked the universities there indeed Redzer, would be very difficult to buy up all these 'cures' and keep them buried and their creators silent.

    Going back to the trust thing, this made my stomach turn when I first read it. These are the kind of people we are dealing with i.e. profit at all costs...
    Recently unearthed documents show that the drug company Bayer sold millions of dollars worth of an injectable blood-clotting medicine -- Factor VIII concentrate, intended for hemophiliacs -- to Asian, Latin American, and some European countries in the mid-1980s, although they knew that it was tainted with AIDS.

    Full article...


  • #20
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    By the way in a lot of cases Thalidomide shouldn't have been prescribed at all.

    If they didn't know at the time , they didn't know.

    Lying about it though is a bit weak -
    The suits, consolidated in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, allege that Grunenthal GMBH, the German drug company who invented thalidomide, in cooperation with American companies Smith, Kline and French, now GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK), and Merrell Richardson, now Sanofi-Aventis (NYSE: SNY), hid evidence of thalidomide distribution in the United States in the late 1950s, lying to Congress and creating a false historical narrative that the drug was blocked by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). http://www.thalidomideireland.com/recentnews.htm


  • #21
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    gctest50 wrote: »
    If they didn't know at the time , they didn't know.

    Lying about it though is a bit weak -

    Well no one knew about it at the time. Now both stereoisomers of the drug are tested. Yes in all capitalist controlled ventures eg health, education and housing government intervention and controls are needed.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Canis Lupus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,880 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    Can't say I'd trust them fully. I feel where massive profits are to be made then it's possible someone gets screwed somewhere along the line.


  • #23
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    People don't trust the pharmaceutical industry? Gosh..
    'journalists and food supplement pill peddlers and naturopaths can distort evidence for their own purposes [...] the pharmaceutical industry uses exactly the same kinds of tricks and devices, but slightly more sophisticated versions of them, in order to distort the evidence that they give to doctors and patients [...] negative data goes missing in action; it's withheld from doctors and patients [...] 76 percent of all of the trials that were done on [reboxetine] were withheld from doctors and patients [...] around half of all of the trial data on antidepressants has been withheld.

    Ben Goldacre

    Alas the genuine sceptics will be lumped in with the conspiracy theorists and it'll be business as usual.


  • #24
    Sinister Pigeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 106 ✭✭Sinister Pigeon


    What about the Bopal disaster?


  • #25
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    How anyone could blindly trust pharmaceutical companies is beyond me.
    Pfizer (Sept 2009)
    Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion, then the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States. Pfizer pled guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra with "the intent to defraud or mislead", promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the FDA had previously deemed dangerously high. Bextra was pulled from the market in 2005 due to safety concerns. The government alleged that Pfizer also promoted three other drugs illegally: the antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the antiepileptic drug Lyrica.


    Merck (Nov 2011)
    Merck agreed to pay a fine of $950 million related to the illegal promotion of the painkiller Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after studies found the drug increased the risk of heart attacks. The company pled guilty to having promoted Vioxx as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis before it had been approved for that use. The settlement also resolved allegations that Merck made false or misleading statements about the drug's heart safety to increase sales.


    GlaxoSmithKline     (July 2012)
    GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay a fine of $3 billion to resolve civil and criminal liabilities regarding its promotion of drugs, as well as its failure to report safety data. This is the largest health care fraud settlement in the United States to date. The company pled guilty to misbranding the drug Paxil for treating depression in patients under 18, even though the drug had never been approved for that age group. GlaxoSmithKline also pled guilty to failing to disclose safety information about the diabetes drug Avandia to the FDA.


    Sanofi-Aventis (Dec 2012)
    Sanofi-Aventis agreed to pay $109 million to resolve allegations that the company gave doctors free units of Hyalgan (an injection to relieve knee pain) to encourage those doctors to buy their product. Sanofi lowered the effective price by promising these free samples to doctors, but at the same time got inflated prices from government programs by submitting false price reports, alleged the United States. Medicare and other government health care programs "paid millions of dollars in kickback-tainted claims for Hyalgan," according to the DOJ announcement.


    Johnson & Johnson (Nov 2013)
    Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $2.2 billion fine to resolve criminal and civil allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor. The government alleged that J&J promoted these drugs for uses not approved as safe and effective by the FDA, targeted elderly dementia patients in nursing homes, and paid kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider, Omnicare Inc. As part of the agreement, Johnson & Johnson admitted that it promoted Risperdal for treatment of psychotic symptoms in non-schizophrenic patients, although the drug was approved only to treat schizophrenia.


    Eli Lilly (Jan 2009)
    Eli Lilly was fined $1.42 billion to resolve a government investigation into the off-label promotion of the antipsychotic Zyprexa. Zyprexa had been approved for the treatment of certain psychotic disorders, but Lilly admitted to promoting the drug in elderly populations to treat dementia. The government also alleged that Lilly targeted primary care physicians to promote Zyprexa for unapproved uses and “trained its sales force to disregard the law.”


    AstraZeneca     (April 2010)
    AstraZeneca was fined $520 million to resolve allegations that it illegally promoted the antipsychotic drug Seroquel. The drug was approved for treating schizophrenia and later for bipolar mania, but the government alleged that AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel for a variety of unapproved uses, such as aggression, sleeplessness, anxiety, and depression. AstraZeneca denied the charges but agreed to pay the fine to end the investigation.


    Abbott (May 2012)
    Abbott was fined $1.5 billion in connection to the illegal promotion of the antipsychotic drug Depakote. Abbott admitted to having trained a special sales force to target nursing homes, marketing the drug for the control of aggression and agitation in elderly dementia patients. Depakote had never been approved for that purpose, and Abbott lacked evidence that the drug was safe or effective for those uses. The company also admitted to marketing Depakote to treat schizophrenia, even though no study had found it effective for that purpose.


    Boehringer Ingelheim (Oct 2012)
    Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc agreed to pay $95 million to resolve allegations that the company promoted several drugs for non- medically accepted uses. These drugs included the stroke-prevention drug Aggrenox, the lung disease drugs Atrovent and Combivent, and Micardis, a drug to treat high blood pressure. The FDA alleged that Boehringer improperly marketed the drugs and "caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs."


    Amgen (Dec 2012)
    Amgen agreed to pay a $762 million fine to resolve criminal and civil charges that the company illegally introduced and promoted several drugs including Aranesp, a drug to treat anemia. Amgen pleaded guilty to illegally selling Aranesp to be used at doses that the FDA had explicitly rejected, and for an off-label treatment that had never been FDA-approved.


    Endo (Feb 2014)
    Endo Health Solutions Inc. and its subsidiary Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. agreed to pay $192.7 million to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from Endo’s marketing of the prescription drug Lidoderm. As part of the agreement, Endo admitted that it intended that Lidoderm be used for unapproved indications and that it promoted Lidoderm to healthcare providers this way


  • #26
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    The answer to your question is yes

    Britain’s Serious Fraud Office has opened a criminal investigation into the commercial practices of US drug giant GlaxoSmithKline and its subsidiaries.

    GlaxoSmithKline have showed time and time again that their ethics regarding their pharmaceutical toxic drugs are unethical and dangerous... hence, why they have always been, and still are under criminal investigation.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/health-pharma/glaxosmithkline-faces-criminal-investigation-from-britain-s-sfo-1.1811642


  • #27
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    stankratz wrote: »
    The price of some high-end meds is ridiculous on the surface, but as you say there is a serious amount of money put into the research. That is why I can't condemn a pharma company for charging $150,000 for a course of drugs that would make a person's life so much better. Government intervention/subsidisation should be looked into.



    I overlooked the universities there indeed Redzer, would be very difficult to buy up all these 'cures' and keep them buried and their creators silent.

    Going back to the trust thing, this made my stomach turn when I first read it. These are the kind of people we are dealing with i.e. profit at all costs...
    Regulatory methods and practises have improved immensely since then. Something like this would not happen again and wouldn't make it past some of its first testing phases, let alone onto the market.

    There will always be companies consumed with the monetary angle of it, but many more are built of researchers who want to do well. People don't go into cancer research for the money, they go in with an ambition to contribute to fighting it.

    Sure, the outcome is ridiculously expensive, but billions and billions get poured into products that 90% of the time do not work out.

    I'm hoping to get into pharmacogenomics, and I'm doing it for good reasons, as well as it being a big interest of mine, but I'm not going to do it for free either. I couldn't ask you to do your job for nothing. So although my intentions are good, and I'd value the health of patients above financial gain, this all adds to the end cost of the drugs as well.

    Thankfully there are new methods being brought in that could cut down on R&D costs hugely, like humanised mice. But government subsidies would go a long way in bringing down the cost of treatment, too.


  • #28
    Sinister Pigeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 106 ✭✭Sinister Pigeon


    Anybody remember the case of the Tipp farmer that had to sue Merck Sharp and Dohme and won?


  • #29
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    stankratz wrote: »
    Government intervention ... should be looked into

    Like offering patent monopolies so that pharmaceutical companies can charge whatever the fuck they like?

    Before the crying TINA's* arrive there are alternatives to the current patent system that have the chance of producing better outcomes at a lower cost to society.


    *There Is No Alternative


  • #30
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    I've seen a tiny touch of it firsthand

    - one type of insulin seems a bit dodgy as far as safety goes,

    was told basically "take that at night-time"
    me - " instructions say take it any time"
    - " no no take it at night time"

    answer is obvious enough - hit a blood vessel with it - can kill you - nearly got me a couple of times


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Regulatory methods and practises have improved immensely since then. Something like this would not happen again and wouldn't make it passed some of its first testing phases, let alone onto the market.

    There will always be companies consumed with the monetary angle of it, but many more are built of researchers who want to do well. People don't go into cancer research for the money, they go in with an ambition to contribute to fighting it.

    Sure the out come is ridiculously expensive, but billions and billions get poured into products that 90% if the time do not work out.

    I'm hoping to get into pharmacogenomics, and I'm doing it for good reasons, as well as it being a big interest of mine, but I'm not going to do it for free either. I couldn't ask you to do your job for nothing. So although my intentions are good, and I'd value the health of patients above financial gain, this all adds to the end cost of the drugs as well.

    Thankfully there are new methods being brought in that could cut down on R&D costs hugely, like humanised mice. But government subsidies would go a long way in bringing down the cost of treatment, too.


    I'm channelling myself into protein therapeutics and I do it for good reasons but I also want to make a living. I will not money above patient's lives either.

    I highlighted that word because that it going to make a huge difference to patient's well being in the future. CYP450 gene variants hold the key to optimising drug regimes for patients.


Advertisement
Advertisement