Drug Companies and Foundations

[Guest guest]

Hi...Here is a rambling email in response to the issue of the level " GHT bias "

in the MAGIC foundation.

I think you can only assume that most medical foundations have funding from drug

companies. It is interesting, however, how we tend to be " suspicious " of

these connections!

For example, if there was a type of chemotherapy out there that could

miraculously cure a child's cancer, I'm sure there would be sense of relief and

gratitude that the companies had spent the money to invest and develop the

treatment. Would the parent of a child receiving that drug care if the company

had influenced foundations to " promote " the product? It is foolish and naive to

think that any company produces products for altruistic reasons. At the end of

the year, Eli Lilly and Merck and all the other companies want to post high

profits. High profits mean more stockholder investments. MOre investments mean

more R & D. More R & D means the development of more drugs. More drugs lead to

(well, here's the debate, I suppose) enhanced life as well as reduction of

illness and death.

Ultimately, I think it is absolutely crucial that, as parents, we make informed

decisions. What is disturbing is that the FDA is a governmental agency that

SHOULD be unbiased and independent, but you have got to wonder what the effects

of all the government lobbying by drug companies has on the level of scrutiny of

their products. (Do you think the tobacco companies would have " on their own "

posted the warnings on cigarette packages??? hah!). REmember Thalidomide and

birth defects? Propolsid and heart problems? Fen Phen and heart problems?

It's easy to get worried about the level of FDA scrutiny, but I suppose

sometimes you can't know a product is working and safe until you get enough

human data. Rat data may not be enough.

For some reason, GHT seems to be such an emotionally charged issue. In general,

I think parents think nothing of

--changing the look of their children's teeth by giving them braces to enhance

self esteem

--giving their children contact lenses instead of glasses to enhance self esteem

Yet, changing height seems much more intrusive, doesn't it? The one issue that

swayed our decision to put on GHT was this: supposedely, if a child

doesn't grow to the height potential he/she should be, there is a danger of

greater fat deposits surrounding the heart; musculature will be hypotonic;

speech development could be impaird due to poor muscle tone; endurance/strength

could be impacted.

Anyway, back to the GHT/Magic Foundation issue. You should also know that many

doctors (and, I believe Dr. H. is one of them) provide data back to GHT

companies. It would be very interesting to know if doctors like Dr. H. are

" rewarded " for the number of patients they submit data for. At the same time,

because of this relationship, we know that companies are getting data which

helps them determine the effectiveness of GHT.

Anyway, I think I have strayed....but, I know that every night when I push that

hypodermic needle into 's little butt, I am tortured over the

" intrusiveness " of it. I look at 's sweet little face and think, " there is

nothing wrong with you, why am doing this to you? " Then, I think of how

resistant I was to giving Periactin--and now, if you look at his growth

charts, you see that it literally " saved " . I guess I will have to hope that

the " few " inches that gains will be worth the shots.

Katy