It appears our friend, Constipated Mathematician, is a Scientologist. While I have nothing good to say of the organization, individuals within it, as always, vary. However, I think this is worthy of note in this thread, insofar as the same would be true if a thread of the same nature were to be started by a Christian Scientist, a Jehovah’s Witness, or a member of the Nation of Islam.
Friend, I believe that it is possible that you have been taught things that are untrue. These things you have been taught have given you a perspective other than what the rest of the world sees.
Do correct me if I am wrong, but I know Scientology preaches against certain aspects of the medical field. Does this extend to the pharma companies?
You have a unique chance to ask a real, live, flesh and blood employee of the companies a question. Go ahead.
Another thing that I would like to point out is that only about half of the bioscience research in this nation is funded by the drug companies.
The other half is through government spending via agencies such as the NIH.
So, even if “Big Pharma” was all together on creating a massive conspiracy to produce drugs that will treat and prolong life without curing, then presumably publicly funded labs would also be able to step in and produce meaningful cures. They haven’t. In fact I think that per dollar spent (even after pharmaceutical spending on advertising and buying week-long vacations in Hawaii for nephrologists) private industry produces far more meaningful research for effective treatments.
I actually think that a legitimate complaint that has been alluded to in this thread is the choice of diseases that get money, and in what allocation.
There is a lot of money currently going into the aforementioned Crohn’s disease and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in general. Not that IBD isn’t a horrible disease and quite debilitating for those who have it, but it is not fatal. It gets a lot of funding because it is a disease that generally afflicts the western world, and seems to actually be worse among the wealthy. There’s a lot of hypotheses around why this is, but for this discussion, it is of note that companies are targeting it because it is a large and affluent market.
Could this money be better spent on cancer? Possibly, but with cancer, I don’t think money is the issue. Cancers get plenty of money, and capital in the form of sheer numbers of people working on it.
Malaria though? Probably. But there’s not much of a market there.
But, in the end, you can’t fault the companies. It costs huge sums of money to bring a drug to market. How could you possibly explain to the stockholders that you’re going to try to bring a drug to market that HAS no market?
Too bad DDT was banned, that thing could still be saving so many people today.
But as an uninformed outsider, I’d have to say it’s for profit and good will. Alot of the people get into the actual research I imagine because it effects them or a family member, and the business guys see money, of course.
I busted out laughing at this post. For the record, I am not and never have been (and as far as I know, do not know personally) a Scientologist.
Cripes, let it go already… Bleed me in the pit thread if you must, but this was a serious question.
I have to say… some of the conspiracy theories I’ve been reading about the scientologists remind me a lot of the goofy stories of the Illuminatti (sp?). In your world, Scientologists control the police, judges, the media… I never knew their power until entering that thread in the pit. I don’t even know how big their “church” membership is. You, on the other hand, know everything about them, and you are trying to stop people from falling under their spell. Good for you! Have you read some of those links in that thread? Scary stuff!
I have very little idea of what scientologists believe, other than a strong disregard for psychiatry. Oh, and someone/thing named Xena. But denying a tie to Scientology is just proving it, right? :dubious: Is that how it works? I feel trapped! OK, I admit it. I’ve see a couple of Tom Cruise films. And I loved John Travolta in Pulp Fiction.
The truth is I am a mathematician. And I’m constipated. Other than that, I’m just asking a question. And I’ve already thanked **Fiveyearlurker ** for his most informative post.
By the way, Fiveyearlurker, any work going into cures for constipation?
(one’s that don’t turn the condition into a case of the trots, I mean).
Feast or famine.
OK, back to the debate.
I think the point that **DrDeth ** makes is valid, in that the prestige of finding a cure would be a tremendous motive for a scientist. But I can see this more in a university setting, where profit isn’t necessarily the main motive. Was Jonas Salk working for a pharma, or was he doing research at the University of Pittsburgh when he found the cure for polio? Menocchio says:
Well, yes and no. If you (or your company) found a cure for AIDS, you couldn’t make it cost prohibitive. That wouldn’t be moral, would it? After all, we are talking about a life-saving vaccine. I would think that there would be a lot of pressure to provide this cure at a reasonable price. I’m also guessing that for goodwill, a company or a government would give it away for free to some third world countries which have a large AIDS problem.
Did Salk (or whoever held the patient for the polio vaccine) have the ability to set a price point, or did the government step in? It’s part of the childhood innoculations. Everyone gets it. So it has to be afforded to the masses for the good of the population as a whole, correct?
Ive got family in Pharm. A few years ago my brother told me there was a big conference and pharm was getting a change. The cholesteral levels that people were supposed to attain had been lowerered. He was laughing because the level was almost impossible to reach without drugs. They were going to sell drugs to healthy people and make a new market. A simple change like that would make them billions. And he suggested I stay away from cholesterol drugs because the projected side effects could be devastating.
When big Pharm writes the laws it wont make life cheaper for you.
I’m not sure that I disagree with this point. My doctor wanted to put me on blood pressure medicine. I’m a marathon runner, weight lifter and general healthy guy. My blood pressure, in a single reading, came up at about 130/90. Slightly high, but not exactly something to worry about. I told her that I wasn’t interested.
So, this is a likely a valid argument. I’m not sure if the pressure is coming from the companies (not saying that it isn’t, I just don’t know).
This is something to be concerned about, isn’t it? Feeding people drugs they don’t need? Changing the “acceptable levels” of cholesterol so you can’t possibly reach them without the drugs? Statins (like all drugs) have serious side effects. That just seems unethical to me. This goes beyond helping people. This is where profit kicks in. Sell more pills, customer for life, and all that.
**Fiveyearlurker ** has seen this in his own life.
This is classic marketing. Increase market share, increase usage, increase profits. Remember when Orange Juice marketed “It’s not just for breakfast anymore.”
Same principle. Increase people drinking a glass of juice for lunch, and increase the volume of juice consumed. Coke did the same thing with trying (and in my canse succeeding) in getting me to drink a coke for breakfast (instead of a cup of coffee).
Doing this with medicine is troubling. But not surprising.
You have to remember though, when a drug gets FDA approval, doctor’s don’t technically have carte blanche to perscribe it. Drugs are approved for certain conditions, even certain stages of disease. The companies work with the FDA VERY closely to describe what can and can’t be said on the label and in advertisements. It is up to the doctor’s to diagnose that and perscribe it. Drugs are often said to be used “off label” though.
You might argue that the doctor’s are at the behest of the companies. To be honest I’m not highly placed enough (yet) to know how any of that works or if it is a legitimate beef.
One push I have seen lately, that goes against what you’re saying is a move toward diagnostics. Companies want to find out who is going to respond to their drugs BEFORE they are given. This helps the companies because it will be easier to parse the data if we are only giving drug to those most likely to respond. If 10% of people respond to a drug, but we can identify those before clinical trials, then the clinical trials will be more targeted, and more likely to succeed.
But at the same time, it does diminish market share, as the drug will only be approved for that subpopulation of people. It also, obviously helps the patients.
This is why there are so many serious drug recalls. The Pharm donates big to pols and they are allowed to craft the legislation themselves. They have very little interest in providing services. They are capitalists. Increase profits ,kill regulation.
I think this may be an overstatement of the influence of the pharma lobby. Yes, pharma companies give a big chunk to pols. But that is not a direct line to “crafting legislation” (any specific piece you’re thinking of?). Further, the FDA as a longstanding government agency is probably more motivated by internal ambition, politics, and the machinery of bureaucracy, than the handful of Congresspeople who may be in pharma’s pocket.
The biggest complaint I hear (I work in pharma on the business side) is not that regulations exist (i.e. the FDA), but that it is often difficult to know what standards we have to hit to prove safety and efficacy. After the Vioxx fiasco, the feeling was the FDA had no incentive to approve any drug, and the hurdles to approval would be set inappropriately high (no cite, but I think that has been borne out in a reduced number of drugs approved). I think you could legitimately argue whether that was good (i.e. it’s better to be safe than sorry) or bad ( every day without Drug X on the market is a nother day of suffering or inconvenience for patients).
Pharma is a business of course, and it’s naive to think there’s never been or never will be an ethical lapse. But, as has been stated above, a signifcant portion of the employees in this industry (in research and the business side) have been attracted in part by the chance to help their fellow man.
They crafted the legislation . Not tantamount. Yhey crafted it. Like the energy companies wrote our energy policies. Cheney still wont release the names of the people in the meeting that wrote it. How do you think the medicare provision that we could not seek cheaper prices by group buying and price shopping got into the act. Their control is absolute.
Well, there is pressure to fast track drugs - but not just from pharma companies, but also from patients groups who may benefit.
But, don’t you think that the real reason for recalls is that the body is a complex web of interacting systems, and that given 300 million people with different sensitivities some are going to have side effects?
I don’t work for a drug company (though my wife used to) but I am involved with microprocessor design. A billion transistor processor is a lot simpler than the body, and we have the advantage of designing it from scratch, and knowing exactly what goes where. There are still bugs. As people design more subtle drugs, it would be a miracle if there were no unexpected interactions. You don’t need to look for conspiracies to understand why.
When my wife describes some mechanisms to me (she’s working on a cancer book now) my reaction, as an engineer, is to consider the body a gigantic kludge. That’s what evolution gave us. If it were up to me, I’d throw the entire design out and work on rev 2.0.
Hey, Fonzie, there’s this thing we often ask for on the Dope – “evidence.” Also “data,” or, when that is unavailable, “logic.” I understand that those were unavailable back in the 50s, but they’re nice. Look into them.
FWIW, my experience in biotech tells me it’s both. I’ve not had the opportunity to work on any feasibly curable diseases, but I work with people who tried mightily to find cures for certain genetic disorders and failed. We’re talking a decade+ long effort that cost tens, if not hundreds of millions, and simply ran into nature’s currently-insurmountables. Since they gave up, no one has managed to improve upon their results. So, instead, much of the research on these diseases has gone into finding ways to control the symptoms, which, of course, would require life-long treatment. Any purely profit-oriented approach to the problem would have practically mandated an expensive drug that must be administered chronically, but this approach has gained prominance only because attempts to cure were an enormously expensive failure. The sad truth is even the palliative approach has generated few encouraging results, and we’re now, by necessity, largely out of that business, because we can see no feasible way to even recoup the expenses, much less generate a profit. Should academic collaborators discover something better that our in-house scientists were able to, then industry R&D would likely ramp up again, but until that time, it’s been a tragic defeat. Those people I know who worked on those projects were deeply disappointed by their own lack of progress, though they’re blameless, as far as I can tell.
Honestly, it’s not all about the money. There’s no question profit’s important, as for-profit pharma is, by definition, not a charity, but I just don’t see the vast conspiracy to keep the world sick and dependent. The world is doing a bang-up job keeping itself sick and dependent without pharma’s help.
As I say in all such threads: Don’t like us? Please, then: don’t smoke; don’t drink too much; don’t eat too much; for fuck’s sake, get off your duff and exercise; get regular checkups; never consume trans fats; put on the damn sunscreen; avoid excessive stress. You get the idea.
