Hi: For some reason I always have trouble picking up links from the messages on the PEN site - they never connect [Is this just my problem?].
So I did not read the full article. Nonetheless: The problems identifed as below, did not seem to me as simply & easily dealt with by the proposed solutions that were proffered by the writer. Again I could not read the whole lot... But: These four central problems - short of the profit motive itself - [With which 'short views' I do indeed entirely agree with as being key components] were identifed as: "1) excessive marketing expenses, as firms seek to pursue the monopoly profits associated with patent protection data from the industry suggests that marketing costs are currently comparable to the amount of money spent on research; 2) wasted research spending into duplicative drugs industry data indicates that roughly two thirds of research spending goes to developing duplicative drugs rather than drugs that represent qualitative breakthroughs over existing drugs; 3) the neglect of research that is not likely to lead to patentable drugs; 4) concealing research findings in ways that impede the progress of research, and prevent the medical profession and the public from becoming aware of evidence that some drugs may not be effective, or could even be harmful." ............ Interestingly enough, a later message alerted to the FDA (Jim Devine) & issues to do with women's health - the FDA is a central part of the problem as I understand the matter. A set of 'easier' methods that might part-reform the drugs industry include such as these: (i) Mandatory legislation forcing all research on any human subjects, in any part of the world, to be filed in an easily accesible data-base for all biomedical reserchers & patients rights advocates & potential users of the drug; (ii) Legislation backing up the Helsinki Declarations on Ethics to be made entirely mandatory for all physician bodies including those out of the reach of Review Ethics Boards (REB's) such as family docs etc; this to be enforced up to risk of loss of licensure for transgressions. (iii) Chains on the cosy relationships of the FDA to the drugs companies; including perhaps - Patient representatives mandated to sit on all deliberation bodies of the FDA for approval drugs/devices; Insistence that prospective Randomised trials do NOT include a placebo - but DO include an approved "standard of care" control arm. (iv) Legislation forcing before any start-up of a research recruiting patients, that the prospective proposed research is registered/filed/ & possibly even peer-reviewed; by an independent above-the-fray body. That this legislation ensures that there is a meta-analyis of all available studies on the question. Of course scepticsm that this will ever happen under the rule of Mammon-Capital are entirely legitimate. But SOME elements of these proposals, would possibly work as there is a huge resonance for them in the bio-medical community. I have not yet read Catherine de Angeleis (former editor of the NEJM) new book on related issues. Has anyone? H
