Making Sense Of Modern Medicine With Big Pharma And The FDA Sleeping Together

Estimado James,

Thanks for dissecting the cozy relationship between Big Pharma and the FDA.

Do you know Marcia Angell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Angell 

It is rare that a person so committed to Inconvenient Truth rises so high in The Apparatus.  

Here is her article, "Taking Back The FDA." http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/02/26/taking_back_the_fda/

And here is her book, "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It" https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946

Paz contigo

Alan

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:45 AM, JK wrote:

Thanks Alan and Patrick for these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Burzynski#Stanislaw_Burzynski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic

I find it interesting that institutions once revered are now in shadows of doubt and mistrust. Long ago the FDA was criticied by Big Pharma and other business interests because it was independently funded with taxpayer dollars in order to protect American citizens from dangerous drugs and not be beholding to industry.

Its research was strict and unaffected by outside monies.  It demanded proof of safety.

Pharma said it was too strict and kept good drugs from the US market.  There was some truth to this.

My European compatriots were using drugs the US had no legal access to, nor general knowledge of.

To cut government size and spending, and its "interference with good business" funding was cut, starting with Reagan and it continues.  Now the FDA even accepts Big Pharma research statistics as evidence of drug efficacy.

Fox and hen house mentality?

Big Pharma ignores drugs with low levels of potential sales, "orphan drugs."  Too small a market to invest in Research & Development  (R&D). Just tweak a molecule when its parent is out of patent and available generically. Same-same but costlier. Then they claim the new one  is so much better it is worth paying so much more for it. 

Often carefully reading these long laborious articles reveals well hidden findings deleterious to the product. Knowing doctors are time pressed they do them a favor! To make it easier to "understand" and avoiding the need to read the details carefully, a short synopsis will start the article.  It states the purpose of the drug and its effects.  This is carefully worded by the researchers, "investigators," employees of the drug company.  No bias of course!

My lecturers often said be cautious with US drug info.  Unless the total paper and research numbers vs conclusions are crunched by oneself the bad stuff lies buried in an article extolling a new drug, often later to be withdrawn from the market "when such problems" are "found" to be numerous and obvious.

Such drugs are often pulled from a lucrative market, of course after huge profits were made, and settlements for ill effects do not dent these immense profits.  It was labeled "The cost of doing business" by some.  Items like Thalidomide, the Dalkon shield, and various anti-inflammatory drugs' complications were ignored or hidden.  Much later, after damage had been done, pulled from sales. 

When I attended Medical conferences we had reputable University based ER specialists dissecting Big Pharma claims regarding their drugs.  They would point out how bad effects were buried or the goal of the drug and its claims changed with such discoveries prior to presentation for review and clearance to market.

Often the difference in outcomes vs an older known but less profitable drug were, including placebo effect, near negligible.  Sometimes the number to help vs the number to harm were dangerously close.

It is difficult in such times to know who is right, wrong, truthful, lying, or just ignoring some facts for gain.