|
The lead front page article in today's New York Times reports: "A poll last month showed that only 9 percent of Americans believed drug companies were generally honest, down from 14 percent in 2004. In contrast, 34 percent of people said they trusted banks, and 39 percent trusted supermarkets." "A year after Merck's withdrawal of its arthritis medicine Vioxx led to an industrywide credibility crisis, the Food and Drug Administration is blocking new medicines that might previously have passed muster. Doctors are writing fewer prescriptions for antidepressants and other drugs whose safety has been challenged, like hormone replacement therapies for women in menopause." "Consumers have been irritated for years by drug prices in the United States, which are higher than in other industrialized countries. But anger at the industry reached a new pitch in the summer of 2004, with the disclosure that several companies had suppressed the results of clinical trials that showed an increased risk of suicidal thoughts by people taking antidepressants." But the drug industry's defining spin about its fraudulent claims and corrupt marketing practices goes to Sidney Taurel, chief executive of Eli Lilly & Company, and former congressman, Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America who blame the public for "unrealistic" expectations about drugs. Taurel: "Executives at the major drug companies say they are concerned that consumer mistrust has led to unrealistic expectations about drug safety and risks, stunting the development of new medicines." Tuzin: "We've created an impression with the American public that when a drug is approved, it's perfectly safe." "Unrealistic" to expect safety to be the first priority in the drug development and approval process? "Unrealistic" to expect pharmaceutical companies not to operate like the purveyors of snake oil who made false claims and concealed their products' lethal side effects? "Unrealistic " to texpect an industry that is given long-term patent exclusivity--as no other industry recieves--would not violate the public trust by concealing from physicians and customers lethal risks? "Unrealistic" to expect that the FDA would not approve a medicine to be widely marketed as "safe and effective" when it has triggered severe, potentially lethal side effects in clinical trials? "Untealistic" to trust that an FDA-approved medicine will not trigger cardiac arrest, or cause liver damage, or diabetes, or mania, psychosis, and /or violent suicidal or homicidal outbursts? |
