The drugs don't work: a modern medical scandal

[semi-pro waster]

It's an interesting article but is somewhat naturally predicated towards the negative end of the spectrum. Realistically, sadly and predictably bad news sells and a book with the title of Bad Pharma is hardly likely to be singing the praises of the industry - even if in most cases the benefits to the products sold outweigh the (somewhat inevitable) side effects it doesn't play as well.

I don't have any doubts there are examples of what might generously be called 'sharp practice' or that the system could be improved in a number of ways but equally I don't think that sensationalising the issues necessarily makes for a better result for everyone - it can ultimately lead to a much more adversarial approach than otherwise might be adopted. If we're taking it that we want the best possible result and the most effective products with the fewest possible side effects then we need people in the healthcare industry to work together rather than fight each other at every step - it won't solve every problem but it's a whole lot easier to produce effective solutions when you're not diverting a lot of effort to another front.

 

[Jay.D]

Which is exactly what does occur in most cases. Does this improve on our current way of doing things.

Improves choice with modest improvements in treatment

which assumes that all patients respond to all drugs equally.

there is no "gold standard" drug for many applications as one patient will not respond to it but another will respond excellently.

Very true

A) NHS does that sort of
b) why take it to that level, why does a new drug need to beat the "gold standard". You do realize different drugs have different success rates, but while dug b might only have a 20% success rate, compared to 60% for drug A, drug b works on patients where drug A doesn't.


More and more work is looking at genetics and things like different variations of cancer and other dieseas. To better understand why drugs work on some and not other and trying to predict which drug will be successful and as such make a much more target approach.

Therefore drug trials should only be done against placebo to start with. You need to know it works. This is not a bad thing at all.

Context, 'drug a vs placebo' gives little context of where the new drug fits into the clinical setting.

'drug a vs gold standard' would at least show how the drug fairs versus the 'best' treatment.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere inbetween...only if drug companies were forced to compare to existing treatments would a balanced clinical picture be seen. I say 'forced' as there would be no motivation for companies to do so as this would invariably hurt their bottom line.

 

[LordSplodge]

i know i've gone through

and nothing touches it

Are you sure you actually have hay-fever and not some other condition with similar symptoms?

 

[Glaucus]

Context, 'drug a vs placebo' gives little context of where the new drug fits into the clinical setting.

'drug a vs gold standard' would at least show how the drug fairs versus the 'best' treatment.

.

It doesn't need to, the initial trials are about safety and that it works. In this country nhs then does a cost benefit study and will slowly get the data need for targeted usage.
For private, you don't need cost, effective would add years to the clinical trials, that's to good at all.
Once it's pored safe and works, it should be available for people to buy. I would hate to see a time when it would add years and I mean years for a drug to get approval, it already takes to long.

Drug vs gold standard is just silly, for the reasons point out, what don't you get abut it? Gold standard might be 60% sucesfull and drug B only 20% but will work on sub catogries of dieses(which we don't understand yet) or people who don't respond to drug A.

You need to know it works first and is safe, the system does that. You then need a huge and long trial to get the data needed to find out its targeted success rate.

 

[*Moangroan*]

Pharma is a massive industry....

I know it does not sound right but there is money to be made from keeping people ill....staggering amounts of money

 

[Heliospherez]

Correct - and as we are all living longer..... why not push out some magic pill to cure all those aches and pains

On a side note - I was just saying to workmates (and in another thread) how I've managed to stay virtually pill free all these years......I have probably had 10 tablets in the last 5 years (including over the counter pain killers - which in my eyes do more harm than good) I managed to get onto the subject of the so-called "Flu" pandemic scaremongering that hit a high note a few years ago..... then managed to quickly disappear before anyone started to question what actually happened in all those countries that didn't get sucked into the whole British panic.

These days - I'm amazed how quickly your average Joe turns to their GP's for a quick fix instead of actually getting to the root of the problem. It's as if everyone in Britain now thinks you can just trot off to the Doc for a Pill to cure everything. Then 2 or 3 weeks later they are complaining because the problem is still there and there have another 2 or 3 side effect related issues due to being prescribed a drug that was neither suitable or necessary.

What do people with no access to medical help do for that sore back - or that minor cold ? They get on with it.... and it usually clears up just as quickly and with no lasting side effects.

Then I remembered the Flu virus thread from a couple of years ago.....the amount of people that got sucked into getting the Flu Vaccine (and ended up in Hospital due to the Vaccine additives) - the ones who took the Tamiflu tablets (even though most had simple colds - or had normal full-blown standard Flu symptoms and felt even worse once they started the course of tablets) - and the ones who spouted that they had been "told" they had caught the HN51 strain even though they had no specific proof - or any positive analysis of the strain from a hospital.

Quote :
"No European countries had a particularly high rate of deaths due to the swine flue. Germany had the same death rate as Sweden, which was 0.31/100 000, although Sweden vaccinated 60% and Germany only 8%. This implies that the vaccine did little to prevent deaths. The responsible authorities have not yet commented on this matter of fact"

"In Sweden, at least 150 children are now suffering from narcolepsy caused by Pandemrix vaccine. In Finland, the number is approximately 100."

Just goes to show what a bit of media/Pharma scaremongering can do to a country. With a name like Pandemrix - even normal people get scared

 

[Xordium]

Improves choice with modest improvements in treatment.

Your point being, do you expect massive differences? That is hardly possible in all cases and often is sufficient.