4 ms·
I think Vioxx is a great case study in why people are growing skeptical of not just vaccines, but pharma solutions to daily problems in general. I find it hard
by secstate 6y ago
I think Vioxx is a great case study in why people are growing skeptical of not just vaccines, but pharma solutions to daily problems in general.
I find it hard to be too critical with people who are skeptical of modern medical science, given we know the Replication Crisis [0] has yet to be resolved. Between the human brain's chronic inability to parse statistics properly and the incredible amount of money to be made in solutions that make chronic conditions or deadly diseases go away, I do my best to be tolerant.
Ironically, another post that's currently sitting on the HNews frontpage has some fun ads from the 60s encouraging women to slam sugar before lunch so they don't eat as much. I'm sure this advice was being peddled alongside physicians who not only smoked in their patient rooms, but encouraged smoking for it's weight loss side-effect.
Separating the human from science is unfathomably difficult. Humans are cruel, selfish and misguided about many things. Assuming because something was published in JAMA or NEJM by someone who spent 6 years in a PhD program at an accredited university, that it's the gospel truth should be discouraged. People should ask questions and think for themselves. And as a result, some people will make horrible decisions and some may even die directly from those decisions or from the long term consequences. But then again, there were probably plenty of doctors in the 60s who had a gut feeling about the safety of smoking and ended up dying of some horrible and preventable cancer. But what the hell, they had a medical degree, so they probably knew better than everyone else.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Edited to add missing link
- wavepruner 6y agoOne big issue that gets lost in the discussion is how many of these treatments are reasonably safe for perfectly healthy people, and it's the people with risk factors who need to be concerned. That's why informed consent and choice are so important. Maybe Vioxx was fine for most, and the decrease in digestive symptoms made it the ideal medication for many. Maybe doctors could have withheld prescriptions for people at risk of heart attack. Maybe a big warning could have been placed on every bottle so patients could decide for themselves. But instead it blew up into a drama-fest because one side has to be 100% correct and the other crazy or fraudsters. If this either/or dynamic was addressed we could come close to having our cake and eating it too. But instead everyone is shoe horned into limited studies, and those less-than-healthy people on the fringes are demonized and ostracized as luddites destroying human civilization. Except every once in a while when big pharma gets the blame for pushing safety risks too far.