I don't buy it. >> reason to grant license to drugs of questionable medical benefit in order to reward big pharma and its generous support of the political pro

I don't buy it. >> reason to grant license to drugs of questionable medical benefit in order to reward big pharma and its generous support of the political process through campaign contributions Is a fair (although not proven) interpretation of the available data: 1. Big pharma make very large political campaign contributions, sometimes via indirect routes which has the effect (even if not the intention) of disguising the funding source. 2. Drugs are being tested against placebo, instead of the best available alternative. We know that unfavourable trial results are frequently not reported. It's fair to cast question on the medical benefit of such drugs. 3. The final question is the FDA's motivation to approve such borderline drugs - ostensibly it's to provide options to doctors where the preferred treatment is not possible (perhaps adverse reaction in the patient or everything else has already been tried), your parent posits that it could be as favour to these companies. While there's certainly no proof presented, i don't go along with the idea it can be cast aside as conspiracy theorist without some counter evidence. One side needs to provide evidence - you or your parent, your parent's point is left open otherwise and your response doesn't counter it.