Posted by Adam on December 6, 1999, at 9:27:47
In reply to Re: aCk! 8*P, posted by dj on December 6, 1999, at 0:50:45
I wouldn't say they "cook the books". It is in no one's interest to ignore or grossly distort evidence of
serious adverse effects. Drug companies, after all, don't want to get sued. I think it is fair to say, though,
that where data can be massaged to paint an optimistic picture, it will be massaged. It's not lying, its
selling. Drug companies aren't in the business for purely altruistic reasons. They're making money. If a
respectible publication gives evidence, say, that SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction occurs in 10% of patients
and another says 40%, which study will they report at conferences and in advertisements, etc.? Nobody makes
a profit by vaunting the worst-case scenerio. However, it's not like parmaceutical companies make up false
claims about adverse side effects. I've never seen anyone lie.
I see reports of the kind Noa cited as a positive rather than a negative. Supply is driven by demand. If the
depressed consumer wants something better, and a pharmaceutical company can provide it, they get the business.
The more aware of consumer dissatisfaction they become, the greater the threat that their enourmous investment
in drug discovery and development and threatened by the anti-psychiatrist camp, alternative medicince, and the
like, the harder they will work to get your money. None of this would appeal to the idealist, I would imagine.
But we must dispense with idealism when it comes to drug development: It's a long, arduous, and incredibly
expensive process. Until we feel like spending more of our tax dollars on basic research than ballistic
missiles, you can bet than only potent economic incentives will drive the drug discovery process forward.
> And the anti-psychs. are correct in that the drug companies cook the books, perhaps not to the degree that they sometimes insinuate BUT there is a basis in fact for the insinuations which are based on sloppy and distorted research methodolgy. The latter was noted in a meta-review of pharmaceutical studies which I heard cited recently, on CBC-Radio, I believe...PT Barnum lives!
> > > more fuel for the anti-psychiatrists ... blech.
> > >
> > > b
> > Not necessarily fuel for the anti-psychiatrists...real stats for the drug companies, to encourage them to come up with new AD's that don't have so many bad side-effects (including the infamous SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction that the drug companies pretend doesn't happen and doesn't matter)!--Cindy