Drug thugs
Rushlimbo
Posts: 832
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/drugthugs;_ylt=ApHpBxxVKM..IxgrPRB6TfEDW7oF
When professor John Buse of the University of North Carolina's medical school reported in 1999 that the popular diabetes drug Avandia was associated with an elevated risk of chest pain and heart attacks, he was doing what researchers do: engaging in scientific inquiry and presenting his findings.
Such unfettered research is one reason America is the world's scientific and technological leader. But, as Buse found out, some drugmakers put profit concerns above academic freedom, not to mention public safety.
Buse told a House panel Wednesday that when he expressed doubts about Avandia, he received calls from the drug's maker, the company now known as GlaxoSmithKline, that characterized him as "a liar" and threatened to hold him liable for a possible multi-billion dollar drop in the company's stock market value. This episode echoes Merck's efforts in 2000 to silence a Stanford University doctor, by shutting him out of important conferences, when he began to question the safety of the painkiller Vioxx.
The chilling of independent research is just the latest evidence of questionable conduct in the drug industry. Both Glaxo and Merck hid data showing elevated health risks. (The Food and Drug Administration wants the toughest "black box" safety warning on Avandia; Vioxx was pulled from the market.) And drugmakers routinely reward doctors who write lots of prescriptions for their products and lavish grants on researchers who come to their preferred conclusions.
What can be done to better protect researchers and patients? New laws, perhaps even criminal sanctions, might be needed in some cases. But a better approach is transparency.
A bill sponsored by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would open the vast data collected by Medicare, which processes 500 million health claims a year, to outside researchers who could use the privacy-protected information to examine the safety and effectiveness of various treatments. Another approach would be to insist that the FDA do a better job monitoring and publicizing studies conducted by the companies themselves.
More transparency would make it harder for drug companies to distort results. It would help protect academic freedom at America's research institutions. And it would make patients more likely to receive the safest and most appropriate treatments.
When professor John Buse of the University of North Carolina's medical school reported in 1999 that the popular diabetes drug Avandia was associated with an elevated risk of chest pain and heart attacks, he was doing what researchers do: engaging in scientific inquiry and presenting his findings.
Such unfettered research is one reason America is the world's scientific and technological leader. But, as Buse found out, some drugmakers put profit concerns above academic freedom, not to mention public safety.
Buse told a House panel Wednesday that when he expressed doubts about Avandia, he received calls from the drug's maker, the company now known as GlaxoSmithKline, that characterized him as "a liar" and threatened to hold him liable for a possible multi-billion dollar drop in the company's stock market value. This episode echoes Merck's efforts in 2000 to silence a Stanford University doctor, by shutting him out of important conferences, when he began to question the safety of the painkiller Vioxx.
The chilling of independent research is just the latest evidence of questionable conduct in the drug industry. Both Glaxo and Merck hid data showing elevated health risks. (The Food and Drug Administration wants the toughest "black box" safety warning on Avandia; Vioxx was pulled from the market.) And drugmakers routinely reward doctors who write lots of prescriptions for their products and lavish grants on researchers who come to their preferred conclusions.
What can be done to better protect researchers and patients? New laws, perhaps even criminal sanctions, might be needed in some cases. But a better approach is transparency.
A bill sponsored by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would open the vast data collected by Medicare, which processes 500 million health claims a year, to outside researchers who could use the privacy-protected information to examine the safety and effectiveness of various treatments. Another approach would be to insist that the FDA do a better job monitoring and publicizing studies conducted by the companies themselves.
More transparency would make it harder for drug companies to distort results. It would help protect academic freedom at America's research institutions. And it would make patients more likely to receive the safest and most appropriate treatments.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
They aren't operating unfettered. Government already has oversight and it clearly doesn't work. I like the approach that is presented in the article that Rush posted. Create transparency, and allow independent monitoring, study & analysis of the data (independent of both the drug manufacturer AND the government). Allow those independent auditors to report their findings and allow doctors and consumers to make informed decisions.
This article wasn't a call for more or bigger government. This article was a call for better independent oversight and verification.
i know that ... my comment was a general one ...
the problem with that is that these companies currently control gov't policy ... why do you think enviro policies are so lax and fda, epa, and any a take their instructions from politicians ... none of those bodies work independently ...