Is the distrust of the pharmaceutical industry warranted??

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

But if you are told to keep quiet about something that would potentially cost a very significant amount to the company, you will or something will happen you - you'd be naive to think that doesn't go on.

In short, no.

In reality, it's far more complicated than that. I wouldn't take much notice of the legal settlements made. This is business and law after all. If I sue someone in Ireland for defamations it's easier for them to make a settlement that endure the court trial. The more scientific the query the less chance a jury or judge has a hope in hell of understanding it. So companies just have funds set aside for big payouts. It's far more cost effective.

So why the no? They put more into marketing than they do into research. Access to clinical trials is seen as private property and damaging to their competitiveness. Recently a few companies have stepped back on this stance and are trying to make the trials data more open. Their problem though is unless others follow suit, they will be at a disadvantage. Open data, means it's far easier for lawsuits. And in the US, some drug laws suits, are a particular kind of stupid. But companies have to made huge payouts. As a results drug side effects are either one of two of categories:

grossly understated - the effects of a drug in a particular area are completely down played.
grossly overstated. - every fcking side effect from here to the moon is listed.

And drug efficacy is the similar.

The industry is a vital cog in a human being health and some of the distrust show towards them is just ideological, anti-establishment, big whatever. (Pity that last one isn't applied to the homeopathic industry). That isn't to say they're always doing stuff for humanity's benefit. Like everything, there's good and bad pharma.

steddyeddy wrote: »

That would very much depend on the whistleblower protections laws of the country.

It might more depend on how many roads are being built nearby

Pharmaceutical companies aren't inherently untrustworthy. Certainly no more than any other industry.

Just remember that behind every drug that reaches clinical trials (let alone those that reach the market), thousands of other drug candidates had been tested and failed in its wake. By the time the general public hears of a new drug, the company developing the drug has already invested hundreds of millions in to its development without a single cent in sales.

In the pharmaceutical industry, there are far more failures than successes, the costs of development are astronomical and with the way pharmaceutical patents work, there's scarcely any time at all to make a return on investment.

Understandably, the further a drug has gotten through the pipeline, the less willing said company will be to drop it. Look at Vioxx for example. The thought at the time that drug was developed was that COX-2 selective inhibitors would have all the anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects of aspirin/NSAIDs without any of the gastrointestinal side effects. Only after hundreds of thousands of people had taken the drug and after it became one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the world did it become obvious that something else was happening and that Vioxx was causing heart attacks and vascular events. Just before the drug came to market, Merck knew the drug had some cardiovascular risk and that was confirmed afterwards from the post-marketing surveillance. They didn't lie outright but they downplayed the risks to the FDA. That then fed down to physicians and pharmacists who knew no better.

The moral of the story is that "big pharma" are under a lot of pressure to make a profit and need to be tightly regulated. It's not an exciting world of conspiracies and there are no secret cures being "bought up" and swept under the carpet (as if that's even possible). Like any business, profit is their number one concern and it's up to regulatory bodies to keep them in check.

Trusting a big business driven by profit is never a great idea but given all the regulatory rigmarole that goes in to bringing a drug to market, there really is no good reason to completely distrust "big pharma" as some people do. There are a lot of others who do all the distrusting for you so you don't have to.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you distrust the rental, education or other sectors whose job it is to maximise profits.

These industries don't make money from people being ill. I don't distrust the Pharm. Industry as such. I do find some of what they do unethical.

The Pheasant2 sums it up pretty well.

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

I think my distrust is rooted in the fact that they prefer to treat illness (long term pay off) rather than cure it (once off paymemt).

I understand they are a business but still...undecided on whether capitalism and healthcare can ethically go hand in hand.

Originally Posted by steddyeddy
Do you distrust the rental, education or other sectors whose job it is to maximise profits.

Be better to say someone like Northrop Grumann - make UAVs and all sorts of death from above - makes me feel safe n happy

Offtopic :

they also have this yoke - want a go :

There are some problems with the way research is conducted and the with peer review system. Investigator bias, for instance. Double-blind studies are one way around this and are useful. Anyway, I don't want to stray too far off topic so I'll leave it there.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Their. How can I take your comment seriously when you cap-lock the wrong word as THERE ?

Did you take literary genius Shakespeare seriously when he spelled the same word 3 different ways in Macbeth?

Android autospell and the spelling Nazis collaborating to publicly humiliate dyslexic posters and question their mental capacity.

Am I the idiot? Or did you understand what I was trying to say perfectly well, but you still decided to attempt to embarrass me and discredit my opinion.

Would you make fun of a man in a wheelchair? Would you laugh at Stephen Hawkins? Shame on you. Be more open minded in future of peoples disabilities.