Drug Industry Too Healthy?

[Guest guest]

Vince Brown wrote:

< Dr. Siff posted an article from the New England Journal of Medicine, " one

of the world's most erudite academic journals " regarding the prices of

prescription drugs produced by pharmaceutical companines.

Very nicely put by s. If I could add on just a touch...

There has been a 300% increase in hiring and research costs since 1985 in the

industry. There hasn't been

even a 30% increase in the number of drugs to get to market.

Where does that money come from? If out of nowhere, a chemist walks into the

lab and finds something that

cures (fill in the blank), it will be close to 15 years before it has gone

thru all nessecary trials (in-house and FDA) and formulations to hit the

pharmacies. They will have 7 years to recoup that money, plus pay for all

the other projects that fail along that path. And that's not including all

the research it took for that one case alone. >

*** No matter which organisation is involved with anything on earth,

financial viability is always important for its survival, but finances should

not be used to manipulate, bias or modify research or affect the manner in

which any profession can act democratically and ethically. The New England

journal, way before that recent editorial which I quoted, initiated its

policy of authors disclosing their sources of funding because of increasing

evidence that the objectivity of research was regularly being compromised by

the financial and political influence of pharmaceutical companies.

The fact that the drug companies are among the most lucrative in the world

and regular evidence of self-serving pressures or enticements imposed upon

scientists, the medical profession and patients shows that they certainly

have devised a winning formula. Note that their profits do not indicate mere

survival, but reveal enormous returns for expenditure on research. The

insistence of drug companies on maintaining very high prices on anti-AIDS

medications, even to suffering and desperately poor Third World countries,

shows exactly the degree to which these companies wish to balance altruism

and profitability.

I simply cannot understand how one human with the personal power to alleviate

suffering in a fellow human can withhold that help. In this regard, above

the objectivity of science, there should always be an overriding morality to

science and I do not see enough evidence that most drug companies are

seriously addressing this issue.

Incidentally, the New England journal is by no means unique in the scientific

world, especially since reviewers of articles in many journals have been

coming across increasing evidence of author bias and falsification of

research. Some of these scientists are not at all naïve about commercial

realities, but still wish to preserve the classical approach to objective

application of science.

Whether despotic regimes control research for national philosophical or

political agenda or commercial giants try to do the same for financial

profiteering, the situation is just as reprehensible because it can

compromise much of what science stands for. The major example which the

editor of the N England journal focused upon still worries some scientists,

namely the fact that it is virtually impossible to find an article written on

antidepressants and other psychoactive drugs by any author who is not

financed by a drug company. Is it really possible to have truly unbiased

and objective information emerge from such sources, especially if one is

comparing the performance of " your " drug with that of a " rival " company or

with " naturoceuticals " or " herbals " which cannot be patented? To answer

this question, would anyone be able to cite articles by 'funded' researchers

which provide balanced and unbiased views on the efficacy or various drugs?

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA