3 ms·

a bit of a weird review. mixes trial design, which is international, with inherent US issues like the ok to advertise prescription drugs. i postulate that phar

a bit of a weird review. mixes trial design, which is international, with inherent US issues like the ok to advertise prescription drugs. i postulate that pharma is actually working, better than a lot of other industries. pharma has a working patent system that balances the need for profit and expiration dates (see the recent patent cliff that wreaked havoc, in a good way, on the entire industry). it has to scientifically prove that their products actually work and don't kill people in obvious ways. you think trials are easy? look at how many products fail in phase 2 and 3 studies. you think the industry likes pissing away all that money? you have the FDA, but then also the various EU country hurdles - where they might approve your product, but not cover it due to insignificant benefits over older products. HIV is under control, Hep C is cured. Certain cancer survival rates are way better than 25 years ago. Your chances of survival into old age are going up all the time. You can bone your wife at 70, any time you want. While big bad pharma attempts to cure cancer, for massive profits, other industries create sugar drinks and chat apps. BioTechs are the ultimate start ups, try creating a complex molecule/protein and prove it does something significant. I'll take Genentech over Facebook, anytime.

shas3 12y ago
"you think X is easy?" is a pointless statement. Everything is easy or difficult to different extents to different people. Also, the difficulty of solving a problem is not the primary criterion for choosing whether to attempt or expect to solve the problem. More importantly, there are no excuses for unethical behavior and fraudulent research. I haven't read the book but I have read a lot of Ben Goldacre's articles (http://www.badscience.net/ http://www.badscience.net/). His arguments are typically about how quacks, kooks, and pharmas practice 'bad' and fraudulent 'science' and are dishonest in presenting the results of their 'research'. A vast majority of the population is inept at understanding the kind of statistical language in which drug companies misrepresent results. In addition to innate human propensity for logical fallacies (e.g. Type 1 thinking- Kahneman, Tversky, etc.), our perception is tainted by the personal dimensions of issues related to health and suffering. Ben Goldacre is a darn good science 'popularizer' and does a great job of explaining these things to a general audience.
socialist_coder 12y ago
No one is arguing that good things don't come out of big pharma. The complaint is that trying to figure out if a drug is effective & safe (or not) is near impossible. The trial data you have access to is incomplete because drug companies selectively release results. Doctors are also financially motivated to prescribe the drugs, tainting the decision making process. Those are major complaints.

shas3 12y ago

"you think X is easy?" is a pointless statement. Everything is easy or difficult to different extents to different people. Also, the difficulty of solving a problem is not the primary criterion for choosing whether to attempt or expect to solve the problem. More importantly, there are no excuses for unethical behavior and fraudulent research. I haven't read the book but I have read a lot of Ben Goldacre's articles (http://www.badscience.net/ http://www.badscience.net/). His arguments are typically about how quacks, kooks, and pharmas practice 'bad' and fraudulent 'science' and are dishonest in presenting the results of their 'research'. A vast majority of the population is inept at understanding the kind of statistical language in which drug companies misrepresent results. In addition to innate human propensity for logical fallacies (e.g. Type 1 thinking- Kahneman, Tversky, etc.), our perception is tainted by the personal dimensions of issues related to health and suffering. Ben Goldacre is a darn good science 'popularizer' and does a great job of explaining these things to a general audience.

socialist_coder 12y ago

No one is arguing that good things don't come out of big pharma. The complaint is that trying to figure out if a drug is effective & safe (or not) is near impossible. The trial data you have access to is incomplete because drug companies selectively release results. Doctors are also financially motivated to prescribe the drugs, tainting the decision making process. Those are major complaints.