Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Corrupt?

[aj47]

When people ask me what area of work I would like to go in to, I usually mention my interests in Chemistry and Pharamacology and talk about how I would like to go into something related. Fairly often when I say this the person will suddenly look deadly serious and say 'what ever you do don't work for a pharmaceutical company, they're evil you know'.

 

I always ask why but so far everyone has just bantered on vaugley never really giving me a satisfactory answer to my question.

 

So do you agree? Is the pharmaceutical industry corrupt?

[Phi for All]

Your definition of corrupt, please.

 

Astronomical markups can't really count in a free market, can they? If there are alternatives that are cheaper we can't really bitch about what they charge. These guys are offering the quick fix so you can go back to doing what made you sick in the first place and they claim that's worth a lot. Excuse me, a LOT.

[swansont]

There is undoubtedly some corruption in dealings with doctors, but on the research side, and overall, really, I have to second Phi's call for your definition of "corrupt." Making a buck while helping sick people is not evil, in my book. If it were, doctors would all have to be considered evil. It's not like pharmaceuticals are trying to bilk people with sham treatments; the con-artists who do that are evil.

[doG]

No. People think the phramaceutical companies are making a killing but they're not. For any one drug the industry gets approved for use in the U.S.A. they half to literally try to get hundreds through the approval process at enormous expense. Expense they can't recoup without passing on that cost. Then, once they get one through, they have a tremendous liability insurance premium to pay to cover the risk that one in a million won't be injured and litigate a lottery payout. That's why countries like Canada have cheaper drugs, a cheaper approval process and caps on lawsuits. The U.S. wants to have it's cake and eat it to, there's a price for that.

[aj47]

I agree and I too wouldn't call a company corrupt for overpricing thier products, however i'm referring to claims of exploitation that I think anyone would class as corrupt. The claims I often hear, some of which i'm skeptical of others not, are things like pharmaceutical companys exploiting third world countries through unpaid drug trials, creating psuedo illnesses or overstating symptoms for sales and bribery to cover up illness and deaths associated with thier products.

 

Sorry I can't be more specific but thats the reason for this thread as so far everybody I have spoken to has been too vauge with thier claims. Yet the sheer number of people who have made them leads me to believe there might be some truth in it.

[Royston]

I agree and I too wouldn't call a company corrupt for overpricing thier products, however i'm referring to claims of exploitation that I think anyone would class as corrupt. The claims I often hear, some of which i'm skeptical of others not, are things like pharmaceutical companys exploiting third world countries through unpaid drug trials, creating psuedo illnesses or overstating symptoms for sales and bribery to cover up illness and deaths associated with thier products.

 

This is slightly different to your OP, I thought you were enquiring as to the here say your friends were spouting, and the vague, perhaps media driven views they had on pharmaceutical companies, and if these suspicions were correct.

 

The stringency of drug testing differs from country to country, due to the amount of money a certain country has...so the drugs available over the counter in Bolivia for example are a far cry from what you order over the counter in the UK.

 

This isn't corrupt per se, but certain countries are more lenient in what is prescribed and what is available with 'no questions asked' so to speak, just due to the amount of money it takes for drugs to be tested and go through insurance, and liability processes. Medicine and care are always big issues with any government, so they strive to deliver.

 

The media...especially in the UK, will look for any slip ups, and this makes it even more expensive. Remember to prescribe a drug through a Practioner, has many more overheads than over the counter drugs.

 

The drugs are available, but it's more the processes they go through to make them available, and I certainly can't pinpoint where the source of the problem is, as much as anyone.

[Pangloss]

I have almost as many concerns about the pharmaceutical industry as I do about the insurance industry. Corrupt might not be the right word for it; it might be more accurate to say that the problems are systemic and extend beyond the companies themselves, to the way our healthcare industry works.

[Phi for All]

I have almost as many concerns about the pharmaceutical industry as I do about the insurance industry. Corrupt might not be the right word for it; it might be more accurate to say that the problems are systemic and extend beyond the companies themselves, to the way our healthcare industry works.

Both industries have burdensome bureaucracies that seem to simultaneously give companies the right to underperform while making hideously huge amounts of profit.

[Mokele]

I have almost as many concerns about the pharmaceutical industry as I do about the insurance industry. Corrupt might not be the right word for it; it might be more accurate to say that the problems are systemic and extend beyond the companies themselves, to the way our healthcare industry works.

 

The problem is, I've got similar concerns, but they're vague and nebulous, from what I've heard here and there, as I haven't studied it hard enough to wade through all the biased crap.

 

It'd be nice to have some sort of objective report that thoroughly details the inner workings of the associated companies (drug, insurance, etc), just to actually see what's what without all the endless agenda-driven bickering.

 

I think that's one of my cheif annoyances with the world in general; there are numerous important issues, like capitalism vs socialism or the US healthcare system vs alternatives, where it's literally *impossible* to find accurate, unbiased information, and it frustrates the hell out of me.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

The problem is, I've got similar concerns, but they're vague and nebulous, from what I've heard here and there, as I haven't studied it hard enough to wade through all the biased crap.

Bias doesn't mean wrong, either. It just means slanted by POV.

It'd be nice to have some sort of objective report that thoroughly details the inner workings of the associated companies (drug, insurance, etc), just to actually see what's what without all the endless agenda-driven bickering.

Peer-reviewed and cross-checked, reliable and above reproach. That *would* be sweet.

 

Your first issue would probably be your last. They'd find you with a broken neck at the bottom of your basement steps with a fingerprint-free banana peel near your shoe.

 

I think that's one of my cheif annoyances with the world in general; there are numerous important issues, like capitalism vs socialism or the US healthcare system vs alternatives, where it's literally *impossible* to find accurate, unbiased information, and it frustrates the hell out of me.

This dovetails nicely with the fact that most corruption is only found out long after we've ceased to care about it. Accurate, unbiased information is almost never *timely*, accurate, unbiased information.

[Sisyphus]

I don't see how you can watch a commercial for restless leg syndrome meds and NOT think the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt.

[SmallIsPower]

We get drugs pushed on us from every direction, but the first question to be asked is your question political/philosophical or is it personal? If it's personal, do the simple stuff first, we forget the importance of biology, eat right, spend time with people who are decent, get some sun and nature, then consider medicine. Drugs don't always do what they're expected to do, Viagra was introduced as a heart medication, LSD was developed to stop migranes.

[JuliaS]

Yes, I definitely believe that many pharmaceutical companies are corrupt.

 

When you have drug companies that pay researchers to conduct the studies on their own drugs, the results these researchers find are bound to be favorable to the drugs they are “studying.” Add to this the fact that, when they publish their results in professional publications, many of these researchers don’t divulge the fact that they have pharmaceutical company ties, and you have real trouble.

 

I hope that visitors to this forum will be interested in reading several articles, and visiting several websites, that I have discovered over the past year or so that do an excellent job of exposing this terrible crisis.

 

Although there is not enough space here to give scores of examples of relevant websites and articles, I can refer you to a few: http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/, http://the-whistleblower-by-peter-rost.blogspot.com/, http://clinpsyc.blogspot.com/, http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/ and http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/. I hope you will visit them all; the information they contain is eye-opening. Please plan to spend some serious time on Dr. Aubrey Blumsohn’s Scientific Misconduct blog (link above). The facts that Dr. Blumsohn reveals about his own personal saga at the hands of one of the largest and most powerful pharmaceutical companies may shock you. Well worth your time.

 

One article I hope you will also want to read is a 3-parter on my website, http://www.honestmedicine.com,'>http://www.honestmedicine.com, entitled "The JAMA Controversy," in which I elaborate on the flak that ensued after the “Wall Street Journal” revealed that the “Journal of the American Medical Association” (JAMA) had published a study whose physician/authors had serious financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. You may (or may not) be shocked to learn that my research for this article turned up the fact that JAMA actually used video news releases (VNRs, or “fake news”) to publicize these “studies.”

 

In addition, several articles that I link to from the left-hand side of my site, http://www.honestmedicine.com -- especially the links under "PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES" and "CANCER" –- give numerous examples of pharmaceutical company corruption, as does my JAMA article, which can be found at http://301url.com/jama-all

 

Thanks for allowing me to air my views. This seems to be a wonderful forum!

 

Julia Schopick

http://www.honestmedicine.typepad.com

[bascule]

To sidestep the question, I think government run programs are the best way to go in terms of pharmeceutical research. Why would a private industry pursue cures when they can simply find expensive treatments? That's not to say that the private sector doesn't pursue cures, but from purely a cost/benefits perspective, investing in a treatment is a lot more sound than investing in a cure.

[psynapse]

Well most medical research is funded by drug companies so if you asked me I would say all of it is biased. I wouldn't go as far as to say corrupt because I would like to believe the medical community wants what's best for mankind.

[michael]

There are problems. That does not mean your future has to add to the mess. You can work in research There are interesting things being done at Harvard and Shaman Pharmaceutics in pharmocognosy for example.

You can always take a scientifically honest and moral stance and if the company you work for does not like it blow-the-whistle or quit.

 

In India the industry is definitely corrupt. They will "copy" any drug you like at any, or even no, strength you like. The drugs are packaged to look just like the real thing. This is causing many problems in Africa.

A recent USA volunteer surgery team operating on babies hearts in Africa had to withdraw their services as babies were dying because the drugs were counterfeit. Sorry I can't remember the African country involved.

 

I object to things like tetrogenic Thalidomide still being sold in S. America without proper care. As consequence another generation of Thalidomide babies is being born.

 

Iatrogenic disease is rife with drugs

In the US there are 2,000,000 "adverse drug reactions"(ADR) p.a. resulting in 100,000 deaths. This is between the 4th-6th leading cause of death.

In the UK 250,000 people are admitted to hospital each year from ADR

In Australia there are 140,000 ADR admissions p.a. and 1 in 10 GP consultations are patients who have suffered an ADR.

 

Drug companies PR firms are good at keeping these figures out of the public eye.

 

It is hoped that in the future pharmacogenomic testing will help reduce these appalling and alarming statistics.

 

--

michael

[Pangloss]

I don't see the connection between Thalidomide misuse and drug company corruption. Could you clarify what you mean there?

 

I'm surprised to hear of "another generation of Thalidomide babies". Hasn't that situation been made fairly clear to the public, via warning labels and general information? What part of "DO NOT TAKE IF PREGNANT" don't they understand? There are always going to be drugs that are useful for treating one disease but incredibly dangerous when used incorrectly. That's why we have doctors.

 

But maybe I'm just missing your point there -- feel free to clarify.

[Phi for All]

Question #1:

 

Do you consider it "corrupt" to spend time and money for research, development, production and distribution of drugs which allow the user to live with the effects of a disease (thus insuring your future market base), rather than researching a *cure* for those diseases?

 

Question #2:

 

Do you think that the pharmaceutical industry has led us to believe they are working just as diligently on actual cures as on symptom suppressors?

[bascule]

Do you consider it "corrupt" to spend time and money for research, development, production and distribution of drugs which allow the user to live with the effects of a disease (thus insuring your future market base), rather than researching a *cure* for those diseases?

 

No. The larger problem is this: to make a viable business of pharmeceutical research, you must subsidize your R&D by patenting your findings then marketing the drug. The patent grants you a monopoly on a basic methodologies for what it hopes to accomplish, so pharmeceuticals charge exhorbatant prices both to profit and to cover their R&D losses.

 

For example, the drug Zofran, sold to cancer patients to relieve the nausea associated with chemotherapy, retails for $75/PILL. To me, that's extortion, or to put it more bluntly, raping cancer victims up the ass.

 

Patents are a necessary evil of commercially subsidized medicine, because without them, there's no way pharmeceuticals could subsizide their R&D.

 

Perhaps what's needed is a shorter amount of time a pharmeceutical can hold a patent on a medicine before it can be generically cloned, especially for medicines which treat potentially terminal problems. Nobody should die because they can't afford expensive treatments.

 

Do you think that the pharmaceutical industry has led us to believe they are working just as diligently on actual cures as on symptom suppressors?

 

No, but I believe that if pharmeceutical research were a purely public pursuit, the problem of requiring a patent system to make private R&D viable would be solved completely and pharmeceutical research nationwide would focus more on looking for cures, rather than treatments.

 

The tendency to pursue treatments, rather than cures, is a necessary consequence of a privately funded system.

 

Let me ask you this question: would pharmeceutical research be more effective in finding cures if it were all conducted through a publically funded agency?

 

Or, to put it bluntly, what if instead of researching drugs like viagra and cialis, more people were researching HIV/AIDS and cancer?

[ParanoiA]

Question #1:

 

Do you consider it "corrupt" to spend time and money for research, development, production and distribution of drugs which allow the user to live with the effects of a disease (thus insuring your future market base), rather than researching a *cure* for those diseases?

 

 

I wouldn't consider it corrupt at all. But that's where I think the government would actually do a decent job of competing by funding R&D. Instead of casting judgment on business and medicine, I'd rather utilize the free market and help to create that competition that fuels invention and innovation.

 

 

Question #2:

 

Do you think that the pharmaceutical industry has led us to believe they are working just as diligently on actual cures as on symptom suppressors

 

I don't think the pharmaceutical industry has led us to believe anything. They go where the money is, just like all business. Which is why, in this case, government involvment is a good thing, if not downright necessary.

[Sisyphus]

No, but I believe that if pharmeceutical research were a purely public pursuit, the problem of requiring a patent system to make private R&D viable would be solved completely and pharmeceutical research nationwide would focus more on looking for cures, rather than treatments.

 

The tendency to pursue treatments, rather than cures, is a necessary consequence of a privately funded system.

 

Let me ask you this question: would pharmeceutical research be more effective in finding cures if it were all conducted through a publically funded agency?

 

Or, to put it bluntly, what if instead of researching drugs like viagra and cialis, more people were researching HIV/AIDS and cancer?

 

I agree that pharmaceutical companies research with aims to profit, which means expensive treatments and not necessarily better treatments (although if some other company comes up with a better treatment...), but I don't really understand what your position is. Are you actually suggesting forbidding private medical research?

[CPL.Luke]

a massiv cost overrun and inefficiency are products of purely public medical research.

 

A company can't get away with producing treatments when there are cures around, because someone else would just come out with a cure and then the first company is out of business.

 

As for drug approvals you have to keep in mind that the US is a much larger country than most, and thus some side effects that aren't statistically significant in some european countries, suddenly become very significant in a population like the US.

[bascule]

I agree that pharmaceutical companies research with aims to profit, which means expensive treatments and not necessarily better treatments (although if some other company comes up with a better treatment...), but I don't really understand what your position is. Are you actually suggesting forbidding private medical research?

 

I'm suggesting public pharmeceutical research as part of a comprehensive socialized medicine program

[GutZ]

Well one thing that is different from most companies is the extensive knowledge behind the product. The average person has no idea how certian elements affect them, unlike say...car companies. You buy a vehicle from a dealer, you can test drive it, and the basic understanding of how a good car should be is not so difficult, except maybe the metallurgical aspect of it. Even then it's just a car, Unless your from the 60's your probably not into mass experimentation.

 

When I was 18 I use to work for a pharmacy (Delievery Techologist [so bad...]). I personally knew quite a bit about it (and had no objection to experimenation either) because of my condition, and alot of the time I would hear, hey try this, it's new. I didn't feel like they were putting my best interest first so, I looked it up.

 

At best though my medication was 40$ a refill. Now seeing the prices of some of the medication that the elderly people,and really sick people had, was one of the biggest shocks I've seen. Some guy would come in having to pay 1000$ per month, maybe even bi-weekly, completely uncovered...They had no choice(at least at that time). I personally wouldn't say that's corrupt, but I'd have a hard time sleeping at night.

[swansont]

Pharma doesn't work on cures? I guess antibiotics don't count for anything. The polio vaccine was purely a privately-funded venture. I think it was either Sabin or Salk that noted that, had the federal government been involved in polio research, the result would have been a really, really good iron lung.

 

The problem with government involvement is that it is inherently inefficient. Since there is no bottom line of profit to which one can point, it becomes a game of keeping your budget intact while others get whittled. You spend too much time defending your money to people that have a different agenda, so a cost-benefit analysis can be meaningless. At least with a private system there is that question of "can we make a profit with this?" The current US system that involves government research and further government funding of research still has the problems of the political wrangling over what research happens, since some of it is unpalatable to certain slices of the population, which has affected e.g. stem cell research. But it's still a reasonable compromise, since a lot of basic inquiry is done with federal dollars.