The Pharmaceutical Industry is Criminal

Get a grip on yourself!

What company in their right mind would want to kill it's customers?

I do feel that nowadays it is up to people to look up and check for various side-effects and not just blindly follow doctor's orders.

Daniel,

Stop saying absurd things like: "Seriously people — don’t take new drugs put out by the pharmaceutical companies. They’re very likely to be dangerous."

How many new drugs come out in a year? How many are eventually found to be dangerous? I know that it will reduce the sting from your argument, but why not say something based on fact like "I would urge caution in using drugs that are new to the market. There is a non-zero and non-trivial chance that they are dangerous. Try existing drugs with long track records first and only then, if they don't work, and if the disease you're treating is serious enough to warrant it, try the new drugs. Just remain vigilant to the possibility of side-effects."

Carl

"What company in their right mind would want to kill it’s customers?"

Tobacco, maybe? (Quoth the smoker.)

My personal opinion on drugs, whether they tackle a disease like asthma, or psychologically-oriented drugs for depression and such, is that they are crude instruments. They lack precision of any sort, and we rarely understand how or why they work at all. Sure, doctors provide some granularity to their explanations, but most people don't realize how short our understanding really is.

Would you say that anyone who installs a v1.0 of a software product is ignorant? What about buying the 1st model year of a newly redesigned vehicle? There are risks and rewards with using anything new. The fact that people do not perform a formal risk analysis does not make them ignorant. In American society newer is always better (think gadgets, cars, houses, etc). The only difference is that drugs may seriously mess you up as opposed to giving you a blue screen or leaving you stranded on the side of the road.

"They lack precision of any sort, and we rarely understand how or why they work at all. Sure, doctors provide some granularity to their explanations, but most people don’t realize how short our understanding really is."

Doctors know relatively little about the mechanism of how drugs work. I don't see this as a problem any more than the fact that an artist may not know what the physics is behind color. Pharmacists actually have much more training in drugs than do doctors and typically have more up-to-date knowledge. But, human understanding of the mechanisms that make drugs work has come a long way in recent years and that understanding will continue to accelerate. It is only recently that drugs could be DESIGNED to do specific things. In the past it was mostly hit and miss.

"The only difference is that drugs may seriously mess you up as opposed to giving you a blue screen or leaving you stranded on the side of the road."

Another difference is that NOT taking drugs can leave you dead as opposed to being slightly behind the technology curve. The risks involved in not having the latest version of an operating system are small. The risks in not taking a new drug (which may be the ONLY drug that effectively treats some disease) may be quite large.

It just isn't so simple as "don't take new drugs."

I actually disagree with Dan's example of a cure for asthma. That kind of disease is likely worth the risk for a lot of sufferers. Drugs for weight loss, depression, and anxiety simply aren't needed by the majority that take them. I lost weight (60 lbs. in six months) without using a drug (made very simple diet changes). I got off anti-anxiety and depression meds and just worked through that stuff by myself. Surely not everyone, but a lot of people could do the same. I've little doubt that our society is over-medicated. Getting over an infection (that isn't serious) makes you stronger. Never getting an infection in the first place leaves you vulnerable. It's a rough analogy, I know.

Given the posts lately, I think Dan's mind has left the building.

Dude, get laid or something, you really need to relax and get a grip.

Sorry, guys, but I support Daniel on this one.

The Pharmaceutical Mega-Conglomerate have their hands in the cookie jar, are being fined because of impropieties because they are TOO in bed with the FDA, and the public at large is so over-doped to notice that WE AREN'T GUINEA PIGS. (Ver 1.0 be damned.)

Last year, my mother was prescribed a medication that made FDA approval specifically because the maker WITHHELD vital, lethal information on it. Hundreds have been documented as having died specifically from this drug, and others are suffering from it. It was cheaper, and to the doctor's knowledge, safe. This is but one example. It isn't, and 60 minutes did a special on it, while we watched in shocked silence, totally not expecting this kind of report to hit so close to home.

Look how hard it is to order cheap drugs from overseas, the same identical drugs from the same manufacturer, because pharmaceutical corporate lobbyists have it a criminal act to import drugs, even when you have a prescription for it from a thoroughly authorized medical practice. This made such a stink in congress that it couldn't last.

But, how did it happen in the first place? Too Much Trust. Blantently. Boldly. Rashly on the parts of the makers and the users. Trust anything too much and you're bound to get raped for it, in one respect or another.

Go about your ways, everybody. Go right ahead. I won't necessarilly be following.

-=T=-

"But, how did it happen in the first place? Too Much Trust."

That's a part of the problem, but there's another (equally important) part. Impatience.

Cynics will say that those with the most impatience are the pharmaceutical companies who are impatient to rake in big profits, but it's not just them. There's a serious problem with the impatience of people in the US (and elsewhere) who hear about drug research and hear that there is a possible cure (or treatment) for (fill-in-the-blank). They yell and scream about the long drug approval process. Are there problems with some drugs? Yes. Are there things that can be done to improve the approval process? Yes. Should we do everything we can to improve the process and improve the safety for those taking the drugs? Of course.

Here is the question:

Are we better off with the current situation than we would have been without ANY of the drugs (particularly the "new" drugs of the last 50 years or so)?

I'd say that the answer is yes.

This isn't to say that people don't die because of the specific drugs they have taken. I'm simply asserting that MORE people would have died if the full set of drugs didn't exist. There has been a net improvement in health and life-span.