Would pharmaceutical companies stoop so low?

[DrYazz]

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/baxter-...

As Wikileaks is rather topical and fashionable at the moment, and pharmaceutical companies have been cited as 'security-critical' installations...........

.................What are your thoughts on the article above?

Personally think the article is a pile of excrement.

[EDLT]

Started off interesting then flushed itself down the crazy pan.

[Mr Dave]

Of course they would.

Not in this case as this is crazy talk but I like to think of big Pharmaceutical companies being large faceless corporations in massive HQs with business people in smart suits, researchers in lab coats in the basements and a massive boardroom full of evil CEOs and so on doing evil things purely for the bottom line.

[singlecoil]

Mr Dave said:

I like to think of big Pharmaceutical companies being large faceless corporations in massive HQs with business people in smart suits, researchers in lab coats in the basements and a massive boardroom full of evil CEOs and so on doing evil things purely for the bottom line.

That's certainly the image portrayed in countless screen fictions. The pharmaceutical company suppressing adverse results so they can foist their dangerous new drug on an unsuspecting innocent victims, and the protagonists fighting to reveal the truth.

As if any drug company would want multiple class actions brought against them just so they can make some money for a few months until the patients start dying.

[Jinx]

singlecoil said:

Mr Dave said:

I like to think of big Pharmaceutical companies being large faceless corporations in massive HQs with business people in smart suits, researchers in lab coats in the basements and a massive boardroom full of evil CEOs and so on doing evil things purely for the bottom line.

That's certainly the image portrayed in countless screen fictions. The pharmaceutical company suppressing adverse results so they can foist their dangerous new drug on an unsuspecting innocent victims, and the protagonists fighting to reveal the truth.

As if any drug company would want multiple class actions brought against them just so they can make some money for a few months until the patients start dying.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-20/health/avandia....

Almost killed my dad.

[singlecoil]

Jinx said:

singlecoil said:

Mr Dave said:

I like to think of big Pharmaceutical companies being large faceless corporations in massive HQs with business people in smart suits, researchers in lab coats in the basements and a massive boardroom full of evil CEOs and so on doing evil things purely for the bottom line.

That's certainly the image portrayed in countless screen fictions. The pharmaceutical company suppressing adverse results so they can foist their dangerous new drug on an unsuspecting innocent victims, and the protagonists fighting to reveal the truth.

As if any drug company would want multiple class actions brought against them just so they can make some money for a few months until the patients start dying.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-20/health/avandia....

Almost killed my dad.

And yet the FDA are not convinced.

[Jinx]

singlecoil said:

Jinx said:

Almost killed my dad.

And yet the FDA are not convinced.

But Europe are http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1314714/...

[singlecoil]

Jinx said:

singlecoil said:

Jinx said:

Almost killed my dad.

And yet the FDA are not convinced.

But Europe are http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1314714/...

But even if the risks are found to outweigh the benefits, the issue here is whether or not the manufacturers not only knew that the drug was dangerous, and that they deliberately chose to suppress test results showing the danger and continue to market it. That does seem a little unlikely.

[Jinx]

singlecoil said:

But even if the risks are found to outweigh the benefits, the issue here is whether or not the manufacturers not only knew that the drug was dangerous, and that they deliberately chose to suppress test results showing the danger and continue to market it. That does seem a little unlikely.

Not beyond the realm of possibility though. Producing a drug is an expensive business and given the limited time scales from when you have a patent on the formula (10 years IIRC) you only have a limited time to recoop the development costs and make profit (collect underpants, something, something, profit) .
Given as it takes 5-7 years development to get a patented formula to market this is only a small time frame to reap the profits (before your competitors can join in the fun) . As such if your drug has been shown to have rather unfortunately side effects (e.g. death) within this short exculsive profit time frame is it too much of a stretch to hope you can weather the storm until the patent runs out?

[singlecoil]

Jinx said:

singlecoil said:

But even if the risks are found to outweigh the benefits, the issue here is whether or not the manufacturers not only knew that the drug was dangerous, and that they deliberately chose to suppress test results showing the danger and continue to market it. That does seem a little unlikely.

Not beyond the realm of possibility though. Producing a drug is an expensive business and given the limited time scales from when you have a patent on the formula (10 years IIRC) you only have a limited time to recoop the development costs and make profit (collect underpants, something, something, profit) .
Given as it takes 5-7 years development to get a patented formula to market this is only a small time frame to reap the profits (before your competitors can join in the fun) . As such if your drug has been shown to have rather unfortunately side effects (e.g. death) within this short exculsive profit time frame is it too much of a stretch to hope you can weather the storm until the patent runs out?

For me, yes. If it was one individual making the decision then I could believe it, for a large organisation then that's a stretch too far (especially in this era of whistle blowing).

[Halb]

Jinx said:

singlecoil said:

Jinx said:

Almost killed my dad.

And yet the FDA are not convinced.

But Europe are http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1314714/...

Quite.
In answer to the OP I reckon Pharma companies would stoop as low as they think they could get away with, along with Tobacco companies and other entities like Monsanto etc. The bottom line will always be the red line for these types of companies.

I remember seeing a programme aboot how a type of cigarette which wasn't as bad as others (there was less tar build up or something) was buried buy the tobacco companies because the only way you could market it would be to acknowledge how bad ciggies were for you in the first place.

[Jinx]

singlecoil said:

For me, yes. If it was one individual making the decision then I could believe it, for a large organisation then that's a stretch too far (especially in this era of whistle blowing).

Let's try it this way around then. It probably takes at least 2 years statistical research to find your drug may be implicated with an increase in death amoungst the people using it in the wild (normally quite ill people given as healthy people don't tend to use your drugs much) . Do you stop supply immediately pending expensive investigations or allow the status quo to continue and collecting "data from the wild" . At what point do you accept the statistical corrolation? 3 years? 4 years? - until the end of the patent? Until you are forced by the authorities?
This is a low ball situation and doing nothing doesn't cost anything (the drug has already passed the tests it needed to) .

[singlecoil]

Jinx said:

singlecoil said:

For me, yes. If it was one individual making the decision then I could believe it, for a large organisation then that's a stretch too far (especially in this era of whistle blowing).

Let's try it this way around then. It probably takes at least 2 years statistical research to find your drug may be implicated with an increase in death amoungst the people using it in the wild (normally quite ill people given as healthy people don't tend to use your drugs much) . Do you stop supply immediately pending expensive investigations or allow the status quo to continue and collecting "data from the wild" . At what point do you accept the statistical corrolation? 3 years? 4 years? - until the end of the patent? Until you are forced by the authorities?
This is a low ball situation and doing nothing doesn't cost anything (the drug has already passed the tests it needed to) .

That would be easier to swallow than the 'deliberate suppression of adverse test results' scenario.

[CommanderJameson]

My initial reaction to this thread was, "Yes. Now what's the question?"

[MilnerR]

Jinx said:

Given as it takes 5-7 years development to get a patented formula to market

if only! The industry average is closer to 10years with most of us taking a lot longer. The average costs are in the region of a billion USD. Given that a drug could make up to 10 times that in it's product life cycle, recouping R&D costs for a successful drug is easy. It's the 20 that failed that are expensive. Most compounds don't get through tox screening tbh.

For all those conspiracy types, you're giving pharma too much credit!

[Jinx]

MilnerR said:

if only! The industry average is closer to 10years with most of us taking a lot longer. The average costs are in the region of a billion USD. Given that a drug could make up to 10 times that in it's product life cycle, recouping R&D costs for a successful drug is easy. It's the 20 that failed that are expensive. Most compounds don't get through tox screening tbh.

For all those conspiracy types, you're giving pharma too much credit!

Only going by what I was told during work experience at places such as SKB, Roche, Glaxo (now all one happy company IIRC, all were still separate in my youth) . If it was longer than the 10 years then they wouldn't ever get a product to market within the patent period.
BTW this is 5-7 years after getting the patent not 5-7 years total (no point patenting a compound if it doesn't show any promise yet) .

[Prof Prolapse]

singlecoil said:

Jinx said:

singlecoil said:

For me, yes. If it was one individual making the decision then I could believe it, for a large organisation then that's a stretch too far (especially in this era of whistle blowing).

Let's try it this way around then. It probably takes at least 2 years statistical research to find your drug may be implicated with an increase in death amoungst the people using it in the wild (normally quite ill people given as healthy people don't tend to use your drugs much) . Do you stop supply immediately pending expensive investigations or allow the status quo to continue and collecting "data from the wild" . At what point do you accept the statistical corrolation? 3 years? 4 years? - until the end of the patent? Until you are forced by the authorities?
This is a low ball situation and doing nothing doesn't cost anything (the drug has already passed the tests it needed to) .

That would be easier to swallow than the 'deliberate suppression of adverse test results' scenario.

You really can't suppress adverse events when it comes to testing medications in a clinical environment.

It's independently verified about a dozen or so times and you need to record them if you want your marketing authorisation. Also if it's deemed serious there's even regulatory authorities which reviews reactions to drugs which you have to report to within a very strict time frame.

They are also reknowed for being utterly ruthless when it comes dealing with Pharmaceuticals.

[Prof Prolapse]

Jinx said:

singlecoil said:

For me, yes. If it was one individual making the decision then I could believe it, for a large organisation then that's a stretch too far (especially in this era of whistle blowing).

Let's try it this way around then. It probably takes at least 2 years statistical research to find your drug may be implicated with an increase in death amoungst the people using it in the wild (normally quite ill people given as healthy people don't tend to use your drugs much) . Do you stop supply immediately pending expensive investigations or allow the status quo to continue and collecting "data from the wild" . At what point do you accept the statistical corrolation? 3 years? 4 years? - until the end of the patent? Until you are forced by the authorities?
This is a low ball situation and doing nothing doesn't cost anything (the drug has already passed the tests it needed to) .

Do you mean drug or medicine? I.e. Licenced or unlicenced?

Either way adverse events are reported the regulatory authority. They analyse the reports and they do pull drugs immediately for the duration of an investigation if they believe it's appropriate.

The licence holder has fk all choice in the matter.

The diabetes and heart disease corrrelation came up for me recently in one of our studies. The FDA have just recommended that licence holders carry out research to effectively try and prove their study drugs are safe in the population.

Don't forget that Type 2 diabetes patients are often fat bds with fk all respect for their own health so you would expect the correlation of cardiovascular incidence to be higher in that patient population anyway. Causality does not equal causation and all that.

[Jinx]

Prof Prolapse said:

Do you mean drug or medicine? I.e. Licenced or unlicenced?

Either way adverse events are reported the regulatory authority. They analyse the reports and they do pull drugs immediately for the duration of an investigation if they believe it's appropriate.

The licence holder has fk all choice in the matter.

The diabetes and heart disease corrrelation came up for me recently in one of our studies. The FDA have just recommended that licence holders carry out research to effectively try and prove their study drugs are safe in the population.

Don't forget that Type 2 diabetes patients are often fat bds with fk all respect for their own health so you would expect the correlation of cardiovascular incidence to be higher in that patient population anyway. Causality does not equal causation and all that.

You did read my first comment didn't you? (and for the record my father was under weight at the time with a cholestoral level of about 2.9) .
Your comment has not particularly refuted the OPs question. Ergo from the above; a licenced medicine making nice healthy exclusive profits (until the patent runs out) will only get pulled by the licencing authority not by the Pharmaceutical company?

[singlecoil]

Jinx said:

Prof Prolapse said:

Do you mean drug or medicine? I.e. Licenced or unlicenced?

Either way adverse events are reported the regulatory authority. They analyse the reports and they do pull drugs immediately for the duration of an investigation if they believe it's appropriate.

The licence holder has fk all choice in the matter.

The diabetes and heart disease corrrelation came up for me recently in one of our studies. The FDA have just recommended that licence holders carry out research to effectively try and prove their study drugs are safe in the population.

Don't forget that Type 2 diabetes patients are often fat bds with fk all respect for their own health so you would expect the correlation of cardiovascular incidence to be higher in that patient population anyway. Causality does not equal causation and all that.

You did read my first comment didn't you? (and for the record my father was under weight at the time with a cholestoral level of about 2.9) .
Your comment has not particularly refuted the OPs question. Ergo from the above; a licenced medicine making nice healthy exclusive profits (until the patent runs out) will only get pulled by the licencing authority not by the Pharmaceutical company?

Well, the OP's questions was "Would pharmaceutical companies stoop so low?"

Now it's one thing to suggest that pharmaceutical companies might not be as quick to take a drug off sale as many people think they should be, but it's something else altogether to ask questions like that, and expect to be taken seriously. The idea just doesn't pass the believability test. It might just pass in lower grade fiction, but that's not what we are discussing here.