4 ms·

This is old, but regardless, one thing I've noticed in the Covid Era is that there are many people giving pharma companies the benefit of the doubt, when there'

This is old, but regardless, one thing I've noticed in the Covid Era is that there are many people giving pharma companies the benefit of the doubt, when there's plenty of evidence suggesting that we should instead be constantly skeptical of them. It's not cynicism when there's history to point to.

CameronNemo 5y ago
Johnson&Johnson has certainly had their own troubles in the past.
goldcd 5y ago
We should be skeptial of any organization who's primary purpose in exicting is to extract as much money from us as possible. However, the fact we have 'big pharma' is what let us ramp up the vaccine program and save an awful lot of lives. Not just 'the lives' - but society would have had some serious issues if we had to decide to keep people in or let them out to die (only need to look at Brazil or India, where lack of vaccines and populism didn't work out well)
desine 5y ago
I had a close circle of friends that were pretty anti-establishment in ~2010. We bonded over beers and whiskey, and deep discussions of the news media control of information and thought, and the lobbying power of big pharma. Many of them don't really talk to me much anymore. I've grown more skeptical of the news media and big pharma. A few of them are silent only because they're dead after moving from recreational prescription opiates to heroin and eventual overdose. But the majority that I don't see anymore, I suspect their reasoning is that I'm too far "alt-right", or "anti-science". At least based on their social media posts before I deleted my accounts. I still don't trust big pharma any farther than I can throw a multi-billion dollar industry. And I still believe the same logic we all shared, that the news media's top shareholders and board members are not primarily interested in the free exchange of information. I don't doubt that I've shifted positions in 10 years. Though, I feel they have somehow shifted position even more. It saddens me to have lost those close friendships. I think society is changing at a more rapid pace than it did previously. The internet and social media are likely partially to blame. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. It's my day off and I've had a couple afternoon beers while doing chores. Probably just getting something off my mind on what was one of the few remaining rationalist websites. Though I feel like even here the tide is changing. Sad times, friends.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  It's pretty depressing when friendships end over something as shallow as political opinions but I've seen it several times. One day people are going to have to realize that your allegiance to the guy right in front of you matters more than your allegiance to some guy who wouldn't even want to meet you if he ever heard of you.
  - petertodd 5y ago
    Political opinions aren't just allegiance to some guy you haven't met. That's party allegiance. True, core, political opinions are much more about allegiance to principals and ways of thinking. IMO that's much more important than allegiance to individuals. If I witnessed a family member commit murder, what's ultimately my core political views are what would determine if I did or did not turn them in for it. And I probably would turn them in.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  It is possible, and rational, to be skeptical and trust others simultaneously. Life is more fun if you do not believe everyone is out to get you, and that there are shades of gray.
  - desine 5y ago
    I dislike that phrase. I've heard it a lot. Believing everyone is out to get you. Nobody is out to get you, because you're a nobody. There's no grand conspiracy to take down some internet shitposter. People are out for themselves. And if someone is in your way, and takes some hit because you have the Chevy Suburban and they're on a Honda SuperCub, so be it. It's not that you hate their beautiful red and beige paintjob, it's that they were in the wrong lane at the wrong time when you decided to overtake whoever was in front of you. Colloquial pronouns, of course.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      That is a good point. I guess a better way of saying it is that I assume (or hope) most people are behaving mostly well most of the time and at least in the short term interest of most people. This is also an assumption that is a luxury due to me living and growing up in a stable and prosperous country, and I can certainly see different circumstances producing different mindsets. But I also think there is plenty of good being done by organizations (at least the ones I’m familiar with in the US) to justify giving them some benefit of the doubt.
treeman79 5y ago
There has also been fraud where clinical trials are held in China with questionable results. Pay for good results being the allegation. Discovered this after having crazy side effects to eliquis. A number of my doctors have noticed problems with it, but prescribing doctor was in full denial of problems. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/fraud-found-at-china-site-for-key-study-of-pfizer-and-bristol-s-eliquis https://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/fraud-found-at-china-site-...
mumblemumble 5y ago
We should be skeptical of them. Though, very few of us have the knowledge, expertise, or resources to do so effectively. Better to pool our resources and create an organization to handle that for us. It's not a perfect system, but the general trend over time has been for it to get better. One of the great ironies here is that, the better the FDA gets at finding problems, the more people criticize it for not finding problems. It's so difficult to consistently remember the full implications of the principle that absence of evidence is not, in and of itself, evidence of absence. This case is particularly interesting because it happened immediately before the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, which included a considerable strengthening of the US's preregistration requirements. This clamped down on a way that pharmaceutical companies game the system that the general public, and even the majority of doctors, is ill-equipped to even understand, let alone push back against. Granted, that act didn't, I don't think, include anything specifically about off-label usage. So it's somewhat tangential to the issue in question. I'm more trying to point out the shape of the situation. It's sort of a game of 4D chess, and, if one side were to be playing it in a purely "Twitch plays Pokémon" fashion, it would be at a severe disadvantage.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  I think one reasonable and effective way to act in this sort of complexity is to reduce your dependency on pharmaceuticals as much as possible. It may not be doable for some, but those that can stay healthy while avoiding pharmaceuticals are likely to be better off.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    There's an almost solipsistic angle to that. "I'm young and healthy so I'm gonna just check out of the situation," only works for as long as you can remain young and healthy. As soon as that stops being the case - which could be any day now - you might find yourself being much more personally interested in having an effective system for getting new treatments onto the market while maintaining reasonable standards of safety and efficacy.
    - 5y ago
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Very few people possess the knowledge and expertise to judge the actions of pharma companies. Their only option is to demand transparency and trust the vetting at multiple third parties who do have the knowledge and expertise, such as FDA, CDC, WHO, NHS, or other similar organizations.
- whoisninja 5y ago
  what expertise? having a three letter agencies magically makes them "experts" in vetting science? what about conflicts of interest? who is the main person heading drug approvals? ex pfizer exec https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrizia-cavazzoni-2752071b1/?trk=people-guest_people_search-card https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrizia-cavazzoni-2752071b1/?tr...
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    People are not all bad, and not all good, and not the same all the time. You can intensely focus on all the bad and choose to view the world through those lens, but I prefer to look at the good also, and assume that people are not solely without concern for others.
    - briefcomment 5y ago
      Ignoring negative outcomes makes you vulnerable to negative black swan events.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        You should not ignore negative outcomes. And you should not ignore positive outcomes. Yes, there's lots of money involved in FDA approvals. Yes, there has been and will continue to be corruption. But over my short life, the access to information has gotten better. The knowledge has gotten better. Most medicines have gotten better. There was the opiate crisis. There was the nutritional pyramid nonsense. There was the ignorance of sugar and erroneous focus on fat. There was also the shingles vaccine, hep C treatments, fixes to the nutritional recommendations and acknowledgement of problems with sugar. But I do not have a better option. I certainly am not capable of understanding the human machine by myself. My only hope is that multiple organizations consist of multiple people who are mostly good and mostly right most of the time. And that is something, I think, Americans can be proud about with regards to their civilian agencies.
kmos17 5y ago
After the number of deaths and the complete turn around thanks to vaccines it’s not giving the benefit of the doubt, it’s just common sense. Yes we should all be skeptical of big pharma but it doesn’t mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and discount the amazing medical advances coming out the research happening either.

CameronNemo 5y ago

Johnson&Johnson has certainly had their own troubles in the past.

goldcd 5y ago

We should be skeptial of any organization who's primary purpose in exicting is to extract as much money from us as possible. However, the fact we have 'big pharma' is what let us ramp up the vaccine program and save an awful lot of lives. Not just 'the lives' - but society would have had some serious issues if we had to decide to keep people in or let them out to die (only need to look at Brazil or India, where lack of vaccines and populism didn't work out well)

desine 5y ago

I had a close circle of friends that were pretty anti-establishment in ~2010. We bonded over beers and whiskey, and deep discussions of the news media control of information and thought, and the lobbying power of big pharma. Many of them don't really talk to me much anymore. I've grown more skeptical of the news media and big pharma. A few of them are silent only because they're dead after moving from recreational prescription opiates to heroin and eventual overdose. But the majority that I don't see anymore, I suspect their reasoning is that I'm too far "alt-right", or "anti-science". At least based on their social media posts before I deleted my accounts. I still don't trust big pharma any farther than I can throw a multi-billion dollar industry. And I still believe the same logic we all shared, that the news media's top shareholders and board members are not primarily interested in the free exchange of information. I don't doubt that I've shifted positions in 10 years. Though, I feel they have somehow shifted position even more. It saddens me to have lost those close friendships. I think society is changing at a more rapid pace than it did previously. The internet and social media are likely partially to blame. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. It's my day off and I've had a couple afternoon beers while doing chores. Probably just getting something off my mind on what was one of the few remaining rationalist websites. Though I feel like even here the tide is changing. Sad times, friends.

whatshisface 5y ago
It's pretty depressing when friendships end over something as shallow as political opinions but I've seen it several times. One day people are going to have to realize that your allegiance to the guy right in front of you matters more than your allegiance to some guy who wouldn't even want to meet you if he ever heard of you.
- petertodd 5y ago
  Political opinions aren't just allegiance to some guy you haven't met. That's party allegiance. True, core, political opinions are much more about allegiance to principals and ways of thinking. IMO that's much more important than allegiance to individuals. If I witnessed a family member commit murder, what's ultimately my core political views are what would determine if I did or did not turn them in for it. And I probably would turn them in.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
It is possible, and rational, to be skeptical and trust others simultaneously. Life is more fun if you do not believe everyone is out to get you, and that there are shades of gray.
- desine 5y ago
  I dislike that phrase. I've heard it a lot. Believing everyone is out to get you. Nobody is out to get you, because you're a nobody. There's no grand conspiracy to take down some internet shitposter. People are out for themselves. And if someone is in your way, and takes some hit because you have the Chevy Suburban and they're on a Honda SuperCub, so be it. It's not that you hate their beautiful red and beige paintjob, it's that they were in the wrong lane at the wrong time when you decided to overtake whoever was in front of you. Colloquial pronouns, of course.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    That is a good point. I guess a better way of saying it is that I assume (or hope) most people are behaving mostly well most of the time and at least in the short term interest of most people. This is also an assumption that is a luxury due to me living and growing up in a stable and prosperous country, and I can certainly see different circumstances producing different mindsets. But I also think there is plenty of good being done by organizations (at least the ones I’m familiar with in the US) to justify giving them some benefit of the doubt.

treeman79 5y ago

There has also been fraud where clinical trials are held in China with questionable results. Pay for good results being the allegation. Discovered this after having crazy side effects to eliquis. A number of my doctors have noticed problems with it, but prescribing doctor was in full denial of problems. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/fraud-found-at-china-site-for-key-study-of-pfizer-and-bristol-s-eliquis https://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/fraud-found-at-china-site-...

mumblemumble 5y ago

We should be skeptical of them. Though, very few of us have the knowledge, expertise, or resources to do so effectively. Better to pool our resources and create an organization to handle that for us. It's not a perfect system, but the general trend over time has been for it to get better. One of the great ironies here is that, the better the FDA gets at finding problems, the more people criticize it for not finding problems. It's so difficult to consistently remember the full implications of the principle that absence of evidence is not, in and of itself, evidence of absence. This case is particularly interesting because it happened immediately before the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, which included a considerable strengthening of the US's preregistration requirements. This clamped down on a way that pharmaceutical companies game the system that the general public, and even the majority of doctors, is ill-equipped to even understand, let alone push back against. Granted, that act didn't, I don't think, include anything specifically about off-label usage. So it's somewhat tangential to the issue in question. I'm more trying to point out the shape of the situation. It's sort of a game of 4D chess, and, if one side were to be playing it in a purely "Twitch plays Pokémon" fashion, it would be at a severe disadvantage.

briefcomment 5y ago
I think one reasonable and effective way to act in this sort of complexity is to reduce your dependency on pharmaceuticals as much as possible. It may not be doable for some, but those that can stay healthy while avoiding pharmaceuticals are likely to be better off.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  There's an almost solipsistic angle to that. "I'm young and healthy so I'm gonna just check out of the situation," only works for as long as you can remain young and healthy. As soon as that stops being the case - which could be any day now - you might find yourself being much more personally interested in having an effective system for getting new treatments onto the market while maintaining reasonable standards of safety and efficacy.
  - 5y ago

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Very few people possess the knowledge and expertise to judge the actions of pharma companies. Their only option is to demand transparency and trust the vetting at multiple third parties who do have the knowledge and expertise, such as FDA, CDC, WHO, NHS, or other similar organizations.

whoisninja 5y ago
what expertise? having a three letter agencies magically makes them "experts" in vetting science? what about conflicts of interest? who is the main person heading drug approvals? ex pfizer exec https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrizia-cavazzoni-2752071b1/?trk=people-guest_people_search-card https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrizia-cavazzoni-2752071b1/?tr...
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  People are not all bad, and not all good, and not the same all the time. You can intensely focus on all the bad and choose to view the world through those lens, but I prefer to look at the good also, and assume that people are not solely without concern for others.
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    Ignoring negative outcomes makes you vulnerable to negative black swan events.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      You should not ignore negative outcomes. And you should not ignore positive outcomes. Yes, there's lots of money involved in FDA approvals. Yes, there has been and will continue to be corruption. But over my short life, the access to information has gotten better. The knowledge has gotten better. Most medicines have gotten better. There was the opiate crisis. There was the nutritional pyramid nonsense. There was the ignorance of sugar and erroneous focus on fat. There was also the shingles vaccine, hep C treatments, fixes to the nutritional recommendations and acknowledgement of problems with sugar. But I do not have a better option. I certainly am not capable of understanding the human machine by myself. My only hope is that multiple organizations consist of multiple people who are mostly good and mostly right most of the time. And that is something, I think, Americans can be proud about with regards to their civilian agencies.

kmos17 5y ago

After the number of deaths and the complete turn around thanks to vaccines it’s not giving the benefit of the doubt, it’s just common sense. Yes we should all be skeptical of big pharma but it doesn’t mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and discount the amazing medical advances coming out the research happening either.