HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Is Big Pharma hopelessly corrupt?

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12 3
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 12/28/2010 1:10 AM (GMT 0)
Always wondered how a drug can pass safety trials with flying colors and then shown to cause toxic side effects after sale to the public. Like Vioxx. Or how Paxil was deemed safe but seemed to cause an epidemic of teen suicides after its release.

This is a 16 minute video that purports to expose how drug companies conduct their safety trials. The country already found out the hard way how the corruption of the banksters in the financial industry wrecked our economy. This is about drug companies marketing their antidepressants but I am sure their tactics are similar for the other drugs they sell.

www.cchr.org/videos/marketing-of-madness/psychotropics-on-trial.html

Say it ain’t so, Joe! Hopefully there are medical professionals out there in the forum who can explain that this is an exaggerated parody that does not really reflect how the world really works.

(Please, please, please do not take this as a reason to stop taking antidepressants. Stopping cold turkey can be very harmful.)
Posted 12/28/2010 1:18 AM (GMT 0)
I participated in the drug study for asacol (5-ASA).
It was conducted in a very professional manner and was very, very thorough.
Posted 12/28/2010 2:29 AM (GMT 0)
What was that like, Peety. What did you have to do?
Posted 12/28/2010 3:48 AM (GMT 0)
it's true - it's all about the money, my friend!
Posted 12/28/2010 3:50 AM (GMT 0)
corporate greed with no ethics!
Posted 12/28/2010 5:14 AM (GMT 0)
It's difficult if not impossible to evaluate the long-term effects of drugs in a manner that is economical or timely and for this reason adverse effects, some of which are severe, are sometimes detected long after a particular drug is brought to the marketplace. Also, it is to be expected that some short-term effects will go undetected due to limitations in the size of samples. Post-marketing surveillance addresses both of these limitations.

Most companies would prefer to avoid situations like the one involving Vioxx as the reputation of the firm in question suffers and settlements must be paid, both of which erode margins. I would venture to claim that most of the major blunders that have happened in the past did not stem from malice, but from the two limitations I mentioned before. It is true, however, that misconduct has happened, and will continue to happen to some extent.
Posted 12/28/2010 5:22 AM (GMT 0)
I don't have a problem with drug companies making money. After all, they are still businesses and if they didn't make a profit they would go out of business and that would also bring an end to research for new drugs. It's extremely expensive to develop new drugs. I've reaped the benefits from Remicade, Colazal and even prednisone and I'm glad they were around even though I no longer have to rely on them. The last thing drug companies want is for their medicines to cause problems down the road. That translates into expensive lawsuits. My husband was a drug rep for five years and I can't tell you how much paperwork he had to fill out and how much training he had to undergo to ensure everything was done in an ethical manner. I'm sure there are some bad apples out there but there are many good ones too.
Posted 12/28/2010 12:39 PM (GMT 0)
It is human nature to want to profit from a new drug and sometimes the new drug has not been thoroughly screened. That's where government should be our watchdog.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a national forum for people to report their adverse reactions directly to other people. Right now it seems very antiquated and indirect. IOW many people have to die before a drug gets pulled.
But how many millions are harmed when people don't die, just lose an organ or suffer unnecessarily?

That's a great part of this forums value to me. I can read how people have been affected by various UC drugs and supplements. No it's not too scientific but when enough people report that probiotics seem to help that's important information for me and something my doctor didn't ever bring up until 12 months later.

I like getting information from MANY sources, not just my doctor and not just from journalists because I suspect many stories we read have been planted by the big Pharma PR departments, as well as medical journals with studies financed by them aimed at doctors who prescribe their drugs after reading them. Vicious circle.

Anybody know if NIH (National Institute of Health) has a way for individuals like us to report their drug reactions, good and bad?
The internet gives us the power to communicate with one another, we just need a way to organize and share the information.
Posted 12/28/2010 2:58 PM (GMT 0)
There is less money to be made finding a cure when you can treat symptoms for the life of the person. Number one reason there hasn't been a cure for anything since maybe polio years ago.

Canansa, close to $300 USA, $75 Canada for the exact same product under a different name Solkfalk. Ya think they are making money at $75 for 30 pills? you bet. So why the excessive charges in the USA, even $75 is excessive. Don't tell me research costs, they can get grants, donations, and tax write off's, then they can pump them pills off a assembly line for pocket change and charge $300, the profit gap is astronomical.

What we have in the USA is a marriage of corporate and government, fascism I believe it is called, with the illusion of choice for us.
Example:
Cost of health care is so high you must buy over priced insurance or take a chance of getting wiped out financially. So both insurance and health care makes out on your situation, and what does our government do? Unconstitutionally force us or small business to buy insurance anyways instead of regulating the over charging.
Posted 12/28/2010 6:55 PM (GMT 0)
Zippy hit the nail on the head. Keeping folks on meds long-term for chronic conditions is extremely profitable.

When I was first diagnosed, every slick, full color pamphlet, informational brochure and quarterly magazine (!) I was given by my GI was produced by Procter and Gamble, makers of Asacol. They also had a slick, interactive website, which was ahead of its time. They're spending alot of money to get the message out and the message was clear: Take your Asacol. Even if you feel better. Even if you have no symptoms at all. Never stop taking your Asacol. The magazine had a letters to the editor section that was filled with horror stories from supposed patients relating how badly they relapsed when they quit or got lax in taking the meds.

When I asked my doctor what else I might do to manage my condition, she laughed at me. I was told I was chronically ill and would always be ill. I would stay on meds the rest of my life - or at least until I got sick enough to have my colon removed. I mentioned the "informative" publications didn't offer any help beyond "take your medication" and pointed out that it seemed ironic they were all printed by the pharmaceutical company. She accused me of being a conspiracy theorist.

Big pharma wines and dines the doctors, provides slick marketing materials and tons of free samples. Alot of money is being invested because the potential profit is astronomical.

Posted 12/28/2010 7:31 PM (GMT 0)
Well said princesa,
Conspiracy theorist, haha, yeah more like a conspiracy fact, name calling like that is always used to try and shut people up. Doctors tend to be taught a narrow line of thinking through college, and get influenced by drug companies. How easy is it to just give X drug for X condition. In and out, next patient. Why bother looking into other ways to help the patient, it takes time and effort. Not saying all doctors have that attitude, but it is easy for them to slip into that mind frame.
Posted 12/28/2010 7:54 PM (GMT 0)
Chronically ill and chronic disease are two different states. some require meds, others don't. Some require treatment and maintenance, others don't.

Regarding the $$....the world continues because of it. But I agree there is collateral damage, which can be frightening.

Patients have a responsibility to do the homework, and all medication side effects seem to be listed somewhere. If I took all the side effects to heart, I wouldn't be on any meds...I'm grateful I can take what I do. Others that I've had side effects, I don't take and definitely stay away from others. My responsibility.

Meds cost a lot of money...for sure...it's a profit making business. I couldn't imagine it any other way. Regarding availability for meds, it seems that the insurance companies in the US have more to say about the meds one can take than the doctors.

The corrupt ones who hide the truth about meds...it eventually comes out, and I personally don't think the docs want their patients to die or suffer forever side effects at any cost.

Yes, there are corrupt doctors and corrupt companies, but there are also corrupt or desperate patients as well. We all have a responsibility.

q
Posted 12/28/2010 8:15 PM (GMT 0)
The asacol drug I tested was being tested for crohns, but my GI (university medical faculty) got a special protocol from the FDA to allow me to try it because I was not getting better using any of the other treatments available and was heading toward surgery. This was in the late 1980s.

I was given huge quantities of unmarked pills for free. It was a blind study, so I was lucky that I actually got the real drug, and not a placebo. I had to record every bowel movement (I started out with more than 20-30 per day) and every other thing I experienced. (Like I often say, that is why some of the side effects are not real: just because I was supposed to report something didn't mean it had anything to do with the drug or even with UC, but those were the rules). I had regular appointments with my GI (I don't remember how often now, but I think it was every two or three weeks), when he would interview me, do blood tests, and give me a flex sig (if I was feeling particularly crummy, he would let me skip the flex sig but I had a whole lot of them). I didn't pay for the appointments.

Because I participated in the study, I was able to continue getting the pills until asacol was approved. It worked really well for me, and I avoided surgery. I'm not sure the company doing my study was actually the one that ended up getting the patent for asacol, but it was the same drug.
~~~
It's true that doctors are influenced by good drug reps, but the lavish gifts to docs are no longer. It's a relatively new code of conduct adopted by the drug manufacturers because it had indeed gotten out of control and doctors were getting greedy about it, too.

I can't be indignant about the drug manufacturers. They are highly regulated. No one forces us to take a single pill. I was very very sick and was grateful for asacol, and am grateful for Remicade. I have a chronic disease and will need treatment for it for the rest of my life. I don't believe the drug companies are at fault for that. If you are that jaded about the drug manufacturers, then I challenge you to just stop taking their drugs, see how that works for you.

~~
There is something buried in health reform that will keep track of which doctors are costing Medicare the most, presumably because they are over-treating and ordering unnecessary tests, etc. It creates peer pressure when they find them on top of the list, to quit running up costs. It's all that can be done because of the concerns about "government getting between me and my doctor."
Posted 12/28/2010 8:22 PM (GMT 0)

Zippy123 said...
There is less money to be made finding a cure when you can treat symptoms for the life of the person. Number one reason there hasn't been a cure for anything since maybe polio years ago.

Canansa, close to $300 USA, $75 Canada for the exact same product under a different name Solkfalk. Ya think they are making money at $75 for 30 pills? you bet. So why the excessive charges in the USA, even $75 is excessive. Don't tell me research costs, they can get grants, donations, and tax write off's, then they can pump them pills off a assembly line for pocket change and charge $300, the profit gap is astronomical.

What we have in the USA is a marriage of corporate and government, fascism I believe it is called, with the illusion of choice for us.
Example:
Cost of health care is so high you must buy over priced insurance or take a chance of getting wiped out financially. So both insurance and health care makes out on your situation, and what does our government do? Unconstitutionally force us or small business to buy insurance anyways instead of regulating the over charging.

This is nonsense. Developing a cure for any number of diseases would guarantee a firm tens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of billions of dollars for the course of the patent. That in itself is an extremely powerful incentive for the development of such drugs.

It's important to remember that the pharmaceutical industry isn't a coherent colluding entity, it's a collection individual firms competing for marketshare and profits. Intelligent drug design is directly dependent on our understanding of the operation of biological systems at the cellular and molecular level; something that is in turn dependent on improvements in instruments and technology in general. In spite of the slow pace of research, we've made a tremendous amount of progress over the past half century, and that progress is likely to continue to accelerate.
Posted 12/28/2010 8:30 PM (GMT 0)
Good post delarge...well said.

I agree.

Individual decisions are not necessarily those of the entirety.

Regarding vaccines, meds as cures....there are still people who refuse them, sometimes to the detriment of the population. The response of the parents or those people is...whatever, I don't care.

q
Posted 12/28/2010 8:42 PM (GMT 0)
Bravo Delarge and Peety.
Posted 12/28/2010 9:10 PM (GMT 0)
please don't be naive - wake up and smell the greed.  i gotta say i agree with zippy 100%.  i worked at a pharmacy and have seen and heard things.  maintenance meds are definitely more profitable than a cure!  paying money for maintenance meds for the rest of your life versus paying money once for a cure - hmmm...what is more profitable.  you do the math.
Posted 12/28/2010 9:12 PM (GMT 0)
The last thing drug companies want is for their medicines to cause problems down the road. That translates into expensive lawsuits.

Most companies would prefer to avoid situations like the one involving Vioxx as the reputation of the firm in question suffers and settlements must be paid, both of which erode margins.


Not really. When Glaxo was caught with its hands in the cookie jar during the Paxil study they were fined a paltry 2.5 million dollars. That is what that firm grosses each 7 hours. Just the routine cost of doing business.


Patients have a responsibility to do the homework

This sounds very similar to the excuse Goldman Sachs used to justify selling their toxic securities to their own clients, (who they were supposed to be helping).
Posted 12/28/2010 9:21 PM (GMT 0)
It's easy to bash big pharma, and I do it myself sometimes because there is abuse.

I see it this way, it's buyer beware. Like someone said, no one will put a gun to your head and force you to take a single pill. Do your own research and make educated choices. If you can find natural remedies that work for you, take advantage of that. I haven't found any natural cures for my colitis however, and it's not from lack of trying. If I had lived 100 years ago, my U.C. would have killed me. Modern medicine saved my life and I can't just ignore that fact.

Big pharma has an important role in developing new drugs and treatments, but I think organizations like the CCFA can be important too in doing research along avenues that might not produce commercially viable medicines that the drug companies would be interested in.

My GI doc who is also a researcher and head of the GI department at the Mayo clinic (and therefore has a big say in the research trials Mayo clinic takes part in) says there have been a phenomenal number of different drugs tested for U.C., and most have proven pretty much useless. It's just the stubborn, chronic nature of the freakin disease itself. Progress has been painfully slow.

Big pharma can't be blamed for things like the overuse of antibiotics, or our atrocious eating habits in the western world. Obesity, diabetes and autoimmune diseases have become almost an epidemic because of our crappy lifestyles.
Posted 12/28/2010 9:30 PM (GMT 0)

kate22 said...
please don't be naive - wake up and smell the greed. i gotta say i agree with zippy 100%. i worked at a pharmacy and have seen and heard things. maintenance meds are definitely more profitable than a cure! paying money for maintenance meds for the rest of your life versus paying money once for a cure - hmmm...what is more profitable. you do the math.

On an industry-wide level perhaps, but from the standpoint of an individual firm releasing a cure would allow it to capture an entire market and generate significantly more revenue than it would by participating with other firms in a market for maintenance drugs. Also, a significant portion of the compounds that are released to the marketplace are discovered by university researchers who then proceed to patent and license them to pharmaceutical firms for distribution. Research conducted in such a setting isn't typically aimed at sustaining or managing diseases, but resolving them.
Posted 12/28/2010 9:34 PM (GMT 0)

BabeintheWoods said...
The last thing drug companies want is for their medicines to cause problems down the road. That translates into expensive lawsuits.

Most companies would prefer to avoid situations like the one involving Vioxx as the reputation of the firm in question suffers and settlements must be paid, both of which erode margins.


Not really. When Glaxo was caught with its hands in the cookie jar during the Paxil study they were fined a paltry 2.5 million dollars. That is what that firm grosses each 7 hours. Just the routine cost of doing business.


Patients have a responsibility to do the homework

This sounds very similar to the excuse Goldman Sachs used to justify selling their toxic securities to their own clients, (who they were supposed to be helping).

That's just a fine imposed by a public agency, the real damage is imposed through the tort system. Merck, for example, ended paying a settlement of over $4 billion for Vioxx. That amounts to a 3rd of its annual net income for 2009.
Posted 12/28/2010 9:40 PM (GMT 0)
It's a business and businesses are in it for the money, end of story. A lot of people don't realize it but even hospitals are ran like businesses.
Posted 12/28/2010 11:05 PM (GMT 0)
I have been traveling in 3rd world countries for the past month and have to say, if you have access to health care and medication, consider yourself darn lucky. Many people do not and probably wish they did.

If you are so opposed to "big pharma" then don't use what they offer. You will feel much better, maybe not physically, that you have stood on principle rather than succumbed to their evil ways.


Sue
Posted 12/29/2010 12:07 AM (GMT 0)
I agree with Zippy. When you consider the vast profits being made by pharma companies, corruption becomes impossible. It's repeated over and over with every large corporate industry. The oil and gas companies, Monsanto, etc...and unfortunately, our "governments", which are now nothing more than corporations themselves.
Posted 12/29/2010 12:42 AM (GMT 0)
I was researching the use of Low Dose Naltrexone and came across an article that basically spells out why LDN will never be FDA approved for autoimmune disease. Since the FDA studies cost millions of dollars they Pharma go a cost analysis and if there's no profit...by by drug!

LDN has been around for years and it's patent is expired. It's also quit cheap at $20/month without insurance. It's BIG Pharma and the Federal Gov if you ask me!
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
123