Nomad
Master Black Belt
First off, when companies lie or falsify information of this sort to protect their bottom line instead of protecting the patients, they should be punished very severely... including both criminal and civil charges.
This is truly reprehensible, and this practice has done a huge amount of harm to the pharmaceutical industry as a whole (regardless of which companies are actually involved in this).
The issue of drug reactions and side-effects is different, IMO. As someone who works in pharmaceutical research, it is a very very complicated process. Truly "clean" drugs are almost impossible to make because of the nature of biological processes, biofeedback, the similarity of different receptors and proteins, etc.
The companies do their best to minimize interactions and potential side effects, but it is also true that many of these do not come to light until after the drug is released... long term effects, particularly those that only effect a small segment of the population, are unlikely to turn up during the extensive clinical trials conducted before a drug is approved.
The cost of developing drugs is absolutely massive, and it's a crapshoot at best (of 20 or so compounds advanced to the clinic, 1 might make it through to the market; others will be pulled because of safety concerns or lack of efficacy in the actual disease - the best animal modelling in the world often fails to translate well to the human disease).
The concept that drug companies would hide cures for diseases is both sad and, I believe, completely false. It is true that very few diseases have been completely cured and/or wiped out, but the root cause of this lies more with the complex nature of disease than it does with any desire for a better bottom line. Viruses constantly change and adapt to find their way around new drugs designed to eliminate them. Often the best drugs of this type hit multiple targets quite broadly (more difficult for the virus to adapt), which also tends to translate to more side effects. Cancer has many many different faces, and a drug which may work extremely well in some people won't work at all in others (different cancer cell types are vulnerable to different things). Again, drugs effective against multiple types of cancer cells are more likely to be toxic to normal cells also. Metabolic diseases like diabetes are incredibly complex, and it's difficult to find compounds which will treat it without aggravating other things (like cardiovascular function, or causing weight gain... hardly a good thing in a disease where obesity is a leading cause).
Even if you're incredibly cynical about drug companies, keep in mind that a cure for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc. would be an unmatchable public relations coup that would pay way way above the cost of the "cure" itself for whatever company developed it.
The bottom line is that without the "evil drug companies" the world would be a sadder place... many many more people would be dying much younger of cancers which are now considered "treatable", not to mention little things like polio, tuberculosis (which was nearly wiped out but is now making a comeback in a more drug-resistant form), heart disease, and many other conditions.
The best treatment for diabetes is to recognize that you shouldn't be grossly overweight or obese (THE leading indicator) and to make changes in your life to control it before it becomes full-fledged diabetes. The best treatment for lung cancer is not to smoke, and if you're a smoker, to quit. Drug companies exist at least partially because most people choose not to make these healthier choices and instead demand treatments for these mostly preventable diseases.
As a patient, I am in agreement that if you can avoid taking a drug, that's probably the best policy, and if you can't, be sure that you are informed of possible side effects (and their likelihood). If you have an adverse drug reaction, make sure your doctor knows it and look into alternatives.
OK, rant over... now I'm donning my flame-proof suit.
This is truly reprehensible, and this practice has done a huge amount of harm to the pharmaceutical industry as a whole (regardless of which companies are actually involved in this).
The issue of drug reactions and side-effects is different, IMO. As someone who works in pharmaceutical research, it is a very very complicated process. Truly "clean" drugs are almost impossible to make because of the nature of biological processes, biofeedback, the similarity of different receptors and proteins, etc.
The companies do their best to minimize interactions and potential side effects, but it is also true that many of these do not come to light until after the drug is released... long term effects, particularly those that only effect a small segment of the population, are unlikely to turn up during the extensive clinical trials conducted before a drug is approved.
The cost of developing drugs is absolutely massive, and it's a crapshoot at best (of 20 or so compounds advanced to the clinic, 1 might make it through to the market; others will be pulled because of safety concerns or lack of efficacy in the actual disease - the best animal modelling in the world often fails to translate well to the human disease).
The concept that drug companies would hide cures for diseases is both sad and, I believe, completely false. It is true that very few diseases have been completely cured and/or wiped out, but the root cause of this lies more with the complex nature of disease than it does with any desire for a better bottom line. Viruses constantly change and adapt to find their way around new drugs designed to eliminate them. Often the best drugs of this type hit multiple targets quite broadly (more difficult for the virus to adapt), which also tends to translate to more side effects. Cancer has many many different faces, and a drug which may work extremely well in some people won't work at all in others (different cancer cell types are vulnerable to different things). Again, drugs effective against multiple types of cancer cells are more likely to be toxic to normal cells also. Metabolic diseases like diabetes are incredibly complex, and it's difficult to find compounds which will treat it without aggravating other things (like cardiovascular function, or causing weight gain... hardly a good thing in a disease where obesity is a leading cause).
Even if you're incredibly cynical about drug companies, keep in mind that a cure for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc. would be an unmatchable public relations coup that would pay way way above the cost of the "cure" itself for whatever company developed it.
The bottom line is that without the "evil drug companies" the world would be a sadder place... many many more people would be dying much younger of cancers which are now considered "treatable", not to mention little things like polio, tuberculosis (which was nearly wiped out but is now making a comeback in a more drug-resistant form), heart disease, and many other conditions.
The best treatment for diabetes is to recognize that you shouldn't be grossly overweight or obese (THE leading indicator) and to make changes in your life to control it before it becomes full-fledged diabetes. The best treatment for lung cancer is not to smoke, and if you're a smoker, to quit. Drug companies exist at least partially because most people choose not to make these healthier choices and instead demand treatments for these mostly preventable diseases.
As a patient, I am in agreement that if you can avoid taking a drug, that's probably the best policy, and if you can't, be sure that you are informed of possible side effects (and their likelihood). If you have an adverse drug reaction, make sure your doctor knows it and look into alternatives.
OK, rant over... now I'm donning my flame-proof suit.
