Regulatory capture. Used to be a term we used to criticize corrupt developing countries. Nowadays it appears to be at the root of so many problems facing America.
What are you talking about? Regulatory capture assumes a working rule of law, and describes a process by which people subject to the rules of the game try to rewrite them. In corrupt developing countries the power owns the rules outright, and regulatory capture is no longer a process. I guess you could call it "trivial regulatory capture" but it won't get you any Nobel Prizes. The theory was developed by Chicago School economists who liked to criticize big government.
Regulatory capture has always been a bug of advanced, sufficiently honest societies. This is important because it tells us that well-intentioned rule of law is insufficient for running a democracy if you're not paying attention. I don't think anyone at the FDA wakes up and says, "I think I'll spend today getting in the way of good medical care and helping big pharma make money."
The problem is the privatization of critical infrastructure, a cancer spreading all over the world.
To quote the last sentence of the article: "Many academic physicians are required by their universities to generate a substantial portion of their salaries by obtaining research grants."
Healthcare, basic transportation, energy and water distribution as well as basic telecommunication infrastructure must be in the hands of the state. The free market has massively failed in each of these areas, everywhere in the world. Just look at the US electricity grid, the Berlin water privatization disaster (less service, more expensive), the US (and partially, German too) broadband Internet service, the Berlin S-Bahn problems, the (recently HN frontpaged) problems in the US healthcare system...
Why can't we learn from the countless mistakes made all over the world?!
I think we have learned from the mistake made all around the world, particularly the ones where government run organizations lose billions of dollars through their shoddy operation of industries.
For anyone interested in the generally fucked up state of clinical drug trials, I highly recommend Ben Goldacre's excellent book Bad Pharma. It'll make you angry.
I think the biggest lesson to learn from this case is that there has to be a independent entity in double-blind studies which knows the relation between test subject and the substance and has the power to interrupt or terminate a study when people's lifes are at risk.
Again, another fine example of how capitalism does not take unforeseen issues into account - to refuse to drop out Dan of the study program is "manslaughter by neglicence" for me (not by malice, as the responsible actors could not have definite knowledge that Dan would kill himself).
You site capitalism, when all rules governing a clinical trial are strictly enforced by the FDA which is a government entity. The FDA has study rules and the entity conducting the study is not the drug company. It is an independent entity (for example http://clinicaltrials.mayo.edu) paid by the drug company under the supervision of the FDA (in the US).
That is some really utterly fascinating spin right there.
Next up: criminals are not really responsible for crime, since "government entities" like municipal police forces supposedly "strictly enforce" criminal conduct.
I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume you've never had anything whatsoever to do with a clinical trial, because the modern FDA has almost nothing to do with the way a clinical trial is conducted.
A pharma company (the capitalists) writes the protocol the way they want, and hires a university/researcher to run the study. They file a simple two page form with the FDA to apply for an "indication" to study a treatment. The university/researcher gets the university IRB to sign off on the study protocol. Sometimes, if the IRB is any good at all, they'll tweak the protocol to try to protect the research subjects. But guess who picks the IRB members? The university/researcher making money off the capitalist pharma company. Guess how that influences an IRB.
The FDA has no input. There is no supervision in any meaningful sense by the FDA. The capitalists - researcher and sponsor - run every aspect of the study. Each decision is theirs.
The decisions spelled out in the article were made by the capitalists - the pharma company and researchers.
Barring some complete misstep like all the active arm study patients suddenly dropping dead, the FDA will eventually (read: years after the study is completed) examine the data (typically highly massaged by the capitalists) from the study to make a determination on whether to approve a medication for sale.
But pretending that the FDA (especially after years of being stripped of regulatory powers by, you guessed it, capitalists who buy and sell legislators) has much of anything to do with the way a clinical trial is conducted is complete bullshit.
Wow, that is a very inaccurate description of how clinical trials are run.
How do you explain the clinical holds the FDA puts on clinical studies? The FDA does monitor clinical studies and stops the bad ones. The often stop them before a trial is over.
I'm guessing you minimal experience with how clinical trials are run. Most drug companies walk on egg shells around the FDA since they know how much power their yield.
I worked in clinical trials and you are totally out to lunch on how they worked. Saying the FDA has no power is the dumbest thing I have ever heard and belongs on a conspiracy website, not HN.
I would go farther than that. I think the FDA has to interpose itself between the drug developer and the entity doing the study. The developer should provide a sufficient amount of the drug to do the study, and write a large check. Everything else should be handled between the FDA and the university or whoever it is doing the study; the latter should have no contact with the developer. Ideally, the drug developer and the university should not even know each other's identities. The university would be answerable to the FDA for the quality of its work and to no one else.
I don't see any solution short of doing this. A study can't be considered truly blind unless the study design itself is done by researchers who do not know the "desired" outcome.
This article has left me speechless.. It reminds me of what my stats prof said about this kind of research..Researchers doing this kind of research have to believe that they will find the results the pharmaceutical company wants before they conduct the study. In other words, they are not testing if the drug works; they are just showing that the drug works.
Most of these clinical trials are triple-blinded. The doctor, patient and person analyzing the data don't know who took the drug and who took a placebo.
Not all studies are effectively blinded, nor effectively randomised.
Merck-funded researchers trivialised the problems of Vioxx. Those researchers were not evil or stupid. Subtle influences are hard to spot in yourself.
When you look at the data there's a remarkable gap between independently funded studies and company funded studies. It's very clear that studies funded by companies more often show benefits and less often show harm. (There are several published studies on this.)
And even if the blinding and randomising is effective there's no requirement to publish. Thus, a company can run ten trials and only publish the one that's positive.
By asking the right questions. In this case by aiming to find no significant difference between the 3 drugs under study then making sure the sample size was too small to find a difference no matter what.
In some cases, according to the article, by manipulating the dosages. The drugs they don't want to do well are given at either too low a dose, so as to be ineffective, or too high, so as to have an excess of side effects.
There are many choices to make when statistically analyzing the data, and it is not terribly hard to play around with choices until you get a favorable result. For example, one common problem is truth inflation: clinical trials are conducted with too-small sample sizes, so they can't detect the result they're looking for. If you run enough of these, the only statistically significant results you will get will significantly exaggerate the true effects of the drug.
Some explanation and citations here, along with many other statistical tricks:
There's also a well-known problem called "vibration of effects" where you can play with controlling different variables, using different analyses methods, and so on, resulting in an estimate of a drug's effects that oscillates by a factor of two. Look for John Ioannidis' paper "Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated".
The problem goes deeper than that. "Healthcare industry" is an oxymoron. The incentives of pharmaceutical firms and patients are not aligned, and will not for the foreseeable future (not that I have a better model to offer :-/).
One suggested solution is to remove all patenting on drugs. That way, competition will force prices down, and result in two things. In countries with national healthcare such as the UK, the NHS bill could be drastically reduced, and the government could give grants to drug companies for R&D purposes. In countries with no healthcare system like the US, the general population will have much more money, and so taxes could be increased (hopefully not all the way back up) and grants could be given again.
For those who think that drug companies need high prices for recouping R&D costs, their marketing budgets are far greater than R&D budgets, so this isn't really true. In the UK they aren't allowed to market to end-users, so the advertising costs are generally much lower here.
It hasn't been a free market since we created the FDA (and I'm not looking to get rid of it), and with patents and advertising law, etc, it's never going to be free.
So why don't we change the accounting? Instead of making drugs companies advertise and exploit to be able to pay the regulatory costs, and R&D, etc, why not recognize that they create drugs for us and this is our hurdle - not theirs.
We want the product, so we shouldn't dump costs on the drug companies and pretend we've dealt with them.
So we should pay for the regulatory testing. 100%.
But that leaves an inventive to push expensive and unneeded or dangerous drugs through the system because they don't pay and yet get rewarded. So we need to make these our drugs - by paying for the R&D up front, so that there's no need to game our own system.
Now there's no need for secrecy so there's no need for patents to reward letting it go, and everything gets simpler again.
When you strip the patents, the marketing, and the legal games, our drugs would get a lot cheaper and more reliable.
We'd still be paying for all, maybe even more, tests, but at least we wouldn't have to trust someone whose motive clearly (and reasonably in this system) is to rush to market.
Yes, because government agencies are well known for
- cost efficiency
- openness to exploring new avenues of research
- obeying their own regulatory regimes
It'll certainly reduce some gaming of the current system, but I can't see how this will materially improve the situation as a whole.
Medication compliance (people taking meds correctly) is a severe problem. The UK spends about £9bn on medication, and about half of that is wasted by non-compliance.
It's not the severity of the illness; many organ transplants fail because of med non-compliance. It's not the lack of cost of the meds; figures are similar in the US.
Getting patients to take meds correctly is a problem waiting for a solution, and there's money to be made from it.
Australia's National Medicines Policy aims to 'meet medication and related needs, so that both optimal health outcomes and economic objectives are achieved for Australians'.3 In response to the rising cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), the Australian Government has introduced policies to encourage the use of generic
drugs. Probably the most significant of these to date have been the Brand Premium Policy (1990) and the Brand Substitution Policy (1994).4 Under the
Brand Premium Policy, pharmaceutical manufacturers were allowed to set their own prices for the different brands of the same medicine. The PBS subsidy was determined by the lowest priced brand, the
so-called 'benchmark brand'. Patients must pay the difference between the price of the dispensed drug and the benchmark brand. The Brand Substitution Policy allows pharmacists to substitute
bioequivalent generic medicines without seeking advice from prescribers, unless otherwise indicated on the prescription.
The solution to many problems is eliminating patents, and not just in one area. We, collectively, act as if we're enriching inventors when probably we're hurting them with these laws.
If we really cared about rewarding invention we'd pay inventors. But instead all we do is give them a letter of marque and tell them to steal it from others.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, pass a law to confiscate it.
I highly suggest reading some of the critical reviews of Goldacre's work. He gets a lot of things wrong and some of his ideas just simple won't work with the current system.
He's writing a book about an industry that everyone loves to hate. Few people question a book when it agrees with their preconceived views.
I've seen some critical reviews that are just nonsense. I don't want to spend time wading through nonsense, but I realise that maybe he's made mistakes, so I'd welcome curated suggestions.
I read the article and the various replies from Goldacre and the author, including Goldacre's post of the passage in question. I find Goldacre far more persuasive.
LaMattina claims that Goldacre is cherry-picking data, and gives his presumably best example. But this example isn't "data"; it's Goldacre explaining the conclusions of a govenmental report about an incident where 6 experimental subjects nearly died. In writing about science for the general public, you need to give examples. This seems like a fine example for people to understand why a culture that promotes publishing everything could save lives.
The critical reviews are all irrelevant nit-picking. The vast bulk of Bad Pharma is an attempt to explain to the layperson the implications of a very dry but very important problem. He makes it clear that most of the book consists of illustrative anecdotes.
His core argument is extremely simple: If you conduct any sort of medical research, you have a moral duty to publish all anonymised data associated with that research, promptly and in full. There is absolutely no reason why that should not also be a legal duty.
I'd like to see specific examples of issues that Goldacre gets wrong, as I see his work recommended by a lot of astute doctors and medical researchers, and I'd especially appreciate you making the effort, for the community here, to link to the "critical reviews of Goldacre's work" that have public-visible links that you most recommend. I'm willing to hear you out, but please give those of us reading along in this discussion more to follow up on.
You know, I am a big fan of capitalism. Having started 5 companies, I'd have to be.
But MBA-style capitalism is a technology for producing short-term wins and substantial profits next quarter. If you also care about long-term wins or negative externalities, it's an insufficient technology to apply on its own.
And of course, we hackers know that. Jeff Bezos has been telling the quarterly-profits people to go fuck themselves for 15 years. And he has been right to do so. AWS, Amazon Prime, the Kindle, and now their local delivery stuff: all impossible to achieve if you're more interested in beating quarterly profit predictions than reshaping the world.
I should note that allowing pharma companies to advertise to the public is a relatively recent change. 1997, I think. And the US is one of only two countries that allow it. We could change it back.
Its not really the advertising that is a problem. That is the symptom of the short time frame most drugs need to pay for themselves. Quite a lot of them only have 3 - 5 years to make the money back.
So, either we figure out a way to make drugs cost less or we extend the timeframe for profit. Killing the advertising just means the number sold will be less and much higher for those buying it.
It is an advertising problem. Big pharma makes massive profits, so you can't cite profits as a source of justification for advertising drugs to people who don't need them. Maybe you should have taken 30 seconds to google GSK's profits last year, or AstraZeneca who had a bad year last year but still make 2 BILLION dollars.
It goes beyond selling drugs to people who don't need them though, they over exaggerate and create new attractive names for illnesses. "Social Anxiety", for example, is not a thing. It's actually called "Social Phobia". A research study showed that marketing "Social Anxiety" yielded a more positive result, so big pharma called it just that. I'll leave you to figure out how much big pharma made off of that little stunt.
Two billion dollars on how much revenue? What are their capital investments? You have to remember pharma has laid off over 100,000 employees in the last few years due to a lack of new products.
I know a lot of people don't like drug advertizing, but you do realize that it gets a lot of people to their doctors talking about their health right? And it's not like a patient can prescribe a drug for themselves, its the doctor who ultimately decides which treatment to pursue.
"And it's not like a patient can prescribe a drug for themselves, its the doctor who ultimately decides which treatment to pursue."
Clearly you don't know very many people in the health field. If a patient comes in asking for a specific medication, most doctors will just prescribe that medication assuming the person is suffering from the illness required for the medication. Where do they get the information for making a diagnosis? Don't worry, Big Pharma will host an info session or hand out pamphlets so that doctors know what to look for...
It may be a conversation, but it's the wrong one. Big pharma is notorious for increasing the potential number of patients for an illness by putting out advertisements that widen the net for the given illness. Social Anxiety is great example here, as is ADD. 5% of children in the US are diagnosed with ADD, only 0.5% are diagnosed with ADD in france. The issue of ADD specifically goes beyond just advertisements; it speaks to the fact that drug reps have a real impact on the treatment options doctors present. In France if a child is having a tough time concentrating in school the find the root of the problem, in the US they throw meds at the kid and shove him out the door.
The marketing strategies of big pharma are nothing but pure evil. Get people on more meds, to make more money next quarter.
If a doctor is prescribing a medication because the patient asked for it, the doctor isn't doing their job.
I was talking to an oncologist the other day and he thought the patient education/advertising was great. Patients who would put off coming to him, make an appointment because a drug company made them aware that their symptoms may be a sign of a more serious disease.
Also, he has patients coming to him saying "Hey, I just heard about this new cancer drug, is it the right one for me?" He thinks the more you can get patients involved in their own health, the better.
Are there doctors who are too lazy to push back on a patient that demands a prescription? Of course. Look at how many patients with viral diseases get antibiotics. Are you going to blame the pharma companies for that as well?
Patients being involved in their health, and in their health care is very important. What is more important is where they get that information. If the information is coming from big pharma it isn't informing patients, it's selling patients by making them think they have something that they don't.
Additionally, big pharma has had a massive impact on how we identify illnesses. The DSM is a great example of this. The more diseases we can convince people they have the more drugs we can sell them. The issue is especially true for mental illness where they continue to push the definitions of illnesses so broad that everyone has a mental illness.
Read the book I recommended. Seriously, it's a great and easy read. If you are all about patient education, then you need to understand the full picture.
In a for-profit context, is the job of the doctor to maximize revenues? Or long-term patient health? In a customer service context, the customer is always right, after all.
And that's not even counting the doctors who get paid to manipulate other doctors and their prescription habits.
I am perfectly happy to blame pharma companies for the "everything should be solved with a pill" notion. After all, that's what the advertising tells both patients and doctors. One of the major goals of advertising is demand generation.
I will also blame consumers for falling for it, of course. And for having the weaknesses of character that advertising exploits. But I'm more willing to forgive the consumers, in that pharmaceutical companies are professional manipulators, while the consumers are amateur defenders against manipulation.
I can read their financials[1] along with their competitor[2]. As well, I can see their R&D budget and pipeline table. What would have been acceptable profits for them?
How much money is the real question? We don't know the full costs of researching and bringing a drug to market? I've never seen a study that outlines these costs in detail.
I have looked at the 10-K filings for many publicly traded pharmaceutical companies. They use creative accounting techniques that prevent true analysis of what it costs to bring a drug to market. The specific questions I want to answer are related to the following. For one therapeutic drug......
Labor?
Machinery?
Experimentation?
LogisticS?
While they are in the business of making pharmaceuticals, they have cloaked the actual costs with accounting practices.
If they are doing studies to generate marketing claims, then advertising has to be part of the problem, in that it's a major vector for marketing claims. There could be other vectors, and I would be happy to eliminate those as well.
The total amount of money spent on pharmaceutical marketing is enormous. We would be much better served if doctors could pay for subscriptions to research companies that only take money from doctors.
They are doing studies to find drugs that treat a condition. If a drug looks like it can treat something new, then they do another study. They are required to report side effects (that "may cause..." in ever advertisement) found in the study.
"We would be much better served if doctors could pay for subscriptions to research companies that only take money from doctors."
For what purpose? If your thinking a Forrester or Gartner model, then given how bad those companies advice has been in IT, I can only imagine what would happen in medicine.
These requirements are most often ignored. The law requires that trials be registered and their results published within a year of completion, but most registered trials never have published results:
The results are simply buried if they're not sufficiently favorable. There have been a number of meta-analyses which dig up unpublished results (which is very difficult) and demonstrate that medications no longer have statistically significant effects when you include the unpublished data. For example:
The case reported in the Mother Jones article happened at my alma mater, a state university with many biomedical research studies going on at any given time. The article author later published a follow-up piece
examines some of the trade-offs involved in the still flawed, but still necessary, process of conducting clinical trials of proposed new treatments. Human beings who propose new treatments often have a bias to suppose that the new treaments are more safe and more effective than previous treatments--especially if they have a financial interest in the new treatment. People who have a financial interest in other treatments, or in not seeking effective treatment at all (e.g., faith healers) may have a bias that runs in the other direction. The way to check the safety and effectiveness of a treatment is to run an honest clinical trial with adequate justification from known science and sufficient statistical power. But keeping the trial honest involves human beings disciplining themselves not to jump to conclusions. As Richard Feynman said to graduates of Caltech: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."
59 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] threadRegulatory capture has always been a bug of advanced, sufficiently honest societies. This is important because it tells us that well-intentioned rule of law is insufficient for running a democracy if you're not paying attention. I don't think anyone at the FDA wakes up and says, "I think I'll spend today getting in the way of good medical care and helping big pharma make money."
To quote the last sentence of the article: "Many academic physicians are required by their universities to generate a substantial portion of their salaries by obtaining research grants."
Healthcare, basic transportation, energy and water distribution as well as basic telecommunication infrastructure must be in the hands of the state. The free market has massively failed in each of these areas, everywhere in the world. Just look at the US electricity grid, the Berlin water privatization disaster (less service, more expensive), the US (and partially, German too) broadband Internet service, the Berlin S-Bahn problems, the (recently HN frontpaged) problems in the US healthcare system...
Why can't we learn from the countless mistakes made all over the world?!
The Emperor of All Maladies gives a candid and almost frank overview on how clinical drug trials are performed "from the inside".
Aspirin the Story of a Wonder Drug is also a nice account of "drug development" in practice.
I think the biggest lesson to learn from this case is that there has to be a independent entity in double-blind studies which knows the relation between test subject and the substance and has the power to interrupt or terminate a study when people's lifes are at risk.
Again, another fine example of how capitalism does not take unforeseen issues into account - to refuse to drop out Dan of the study program is "manslaughter by neglicence" for me (not by malice, as the responsible actors could not have definite knowledge that Dan would kill himself).
Next up: criminals are not really responsible for crime, since "government entities" like municipal police forces supposedly "strictly enforce" criminal conduct.
I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume you've never had anything whatsoever to do with a clinical trial, because the modern FDA has almost nothing to do with the way a clinical trial is conducted.
A pharma company (the capitalists) writes the protocol the way they want, and hires a university/researcher to run the study. They file a simple two page form with the FDA to apply for an "indication" to study a treatment. The university/researcher gets the university IRB to sign off on the study protocol. Sometimes, if the IRB is any good at all, they'll tweak the protocol to try to protect the research subjects. But guess who picks the IRB members? The university/researcher making money off the capitalist pharma company. Guess how that influences an IRB.
The FDA has no input. There is no supervision in any meaningful sense by the FDA. The capitalists - researcher and sponsor - run every aspect of the study. Each decision is theirs.
The decisions spelled out in the article were made by the capitalists - the pharma company and researchers.
Barring some complete misstep like all the active arm study patients suddenly dropping dead, the FDA will eventually (read: years after the study is completed) examine the data (typically highly massaged by the capitalists) from the study to make a determination on whether to approve a medication for sale.
But pretending that the FDA (especially after years of being stripped of regulatory powers by, you guessed it, capitalists who buy and sell legislators) has much of anything to do with the way a clinical trial is conducted is complete bullshit.
How do you explain the clinical holds the FDA puts on clinical studies? The FDA does monitor clinical studies and stops the bad ones. The often stop them before a trial is over.
I'm guessing you minimal experience with how clinical trials are run. Most drug companies walk on egg shells around the FDA since they know how much power their yield.
I don't see any solution short of doing this. A study can't be considered truly blind unless the study design itself is done by researchers who do not know the "desired" outcome.
How do they bias the results in that case?
Merck-funded researchers trivialised the problems of Vioxx. Those researchers were not evil or stupid. Subtle influences are hard to spot in yourself.
When you look at the data there's a remarkable gap between independently funded studies and company funded studies. It's very clear that studies funded by companies more often show benefits and less often show harm. (There are several published studies on this.)
And even if the blinding and randomising is effective there's no requirement to publish. Thus, a company can run ten trials and only publish the one that's positive.
Some explanation and citations here, along with many other statistical tricks:
http://www.refsmmat.com/articles/statistics.html#truth-infla...
There's also a well-known problem called "vibration of effects" where you can play with controlling different variables, using different analyses methods, and so on, resulting in an estimate of a drug's effects that oscillates by a factor of two. Look for John Ioannidis' paper "Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated".
See his campaign site: http://www.alltrials.net/
His blog/news site: http://www.badscience.net/
His Ted talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_kno...
For those who think that drug companies need high prices for recouping R&D costs, their marketing budgets are far greater than R&D budgets, so this isn't really true. In the UK they aren't allowed to market to end-users, so the advertising costs are generally much lower here.
And how exactly do you compete when your competitors can clone your product with ease?
And the NHS spends < 10% of drugs, most of which are already available as generics, so there is not a lot of scope for cost reduction.
I'm not saying that aren't improvements that can be made, but people need to wake up and realise that there are no simple answers.
Also, their costs would be much lower because we'd be paying for the clinical trials and there wouldn't be marketing costs.
Glad to have that cleared up.
It hasn't been a free market since we created the FDA (and I'm not looking to get rid of it), and with patents and advertising law, etc, it's never going to be free.
So why don't we change the accounting? Instead of making drugs companies advertise and exploit to be able to pay the regulatory costs, and R&D, etc, why not recognize that they create drugs for us and this is our hurdle - not theirs.
We want the product, so we shouldn't dump costs on the drug companies and pretend we've dealt with them.
So we should pay for the regulatory testing. 100%.
But that leaves an inventive to push expensive and unneeded or dangerous drugs through the system because they don't pay and yet get rewarded. So we need to make these our drugs - by paying for the R&D up front, so that there's no need to game our own system.
Now there's no need for secrecy so there's no need for patents to reward letting it go, and everything gets simpler again.
When you strip the patents, the marketing, and the legal games, our drugs would get a lot cheaper and more reliable.
We'd still be paying for all, maybe even more, tests, but at least we wouldn't have to trust someone whose motive clearly (and reasonably in this system) is to rush to market.
It'll certainly reduce some gaming of the current system, but I can't see how this will materially improve the situation as a whole.
Medication compliance (people taking meds correctly) is a severe problem. The UK spends about £9bn on medication, and about half of that is wasted by non-compliance.
It's not the severity of the illness; many organ transplants fail because of med non-compliance. It's not the lack of cost of the meds; figures are similar in the US.
Getting patients to take meds correctly is a problem waiting for a solution, and there's money to be made from it.
http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/27/4/80/1
If we really cared about rewarding invention we'd pay inventors. But instead all we do is give them a letter of marque and tell them to steal it from others.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, pass a law to confiscate it.
Companies engaging in illegal, anti-competitive behaviour such as "pay to delay"[1] need to have some realistic punishment applied.
[1] (http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175043758/supreme-court-hears-...)
He's writing a book about an industry that everyone loves to hate. Few people question a book when it agrees with their preconceived views.
I've seen some critical reviews that are just nonsense. I don't want to spend time wading through nonsense, but I realise that maybe he's made mistakes, so I'd welcome curated suggestions.
This is a good critique of only one aspect of Goldacre's book, but it's a good one.
However, since was written by a former pharma exec, I'm sure people will dismiss it without reading it.
I read the article and the various replies from Goldacre and the author, including Goldacre's post of the passage in question. I find Goldacre far more persuasive.
LaMattina claims that Goldacre is cherry-picking data, and gives his presumably best example. But this example isn't "data"; it's Goldacre explaining the conclusions of a govenmental report about an incident where 6 experimental subjects nearly died. In writing about science for the general public, you need to give examples. This seems like a fine example for people to understand why a culture that promotes publishing everything could save lives.
His core argument is extremely simple: If you conduct any sort of medical research, you have a moral duty to publish all anonymised data associated with that research, promptly and in full. There is absolutely no reason why that should not also be a legal duty.
I'd like to see specific examples of issues that Goldacre gets wrong, as I see his work recommended by a lot of astute doctors and medical researchers, and I'd especially appreciate you making the effort, for the community here, to link to the "critical reviews of Goldacre's work" that have public-visible links that you most recommend. I'm willing to hear you out, but please give those of us reading along in this discussion more to follow up on.
But MBA-style capitalism is a technology for producing short-term wins and substantial profits next quarter. If you also care about long-term wins or negative externalities, it's an insufficient technology to apply on its own.
And of course, we hackers know that. Jeff Bezos has been telling the quarterly-profits people to go fuck themselves for 15 years. And he has been right to do so. AWS, Amazon Prime, the Kindle, and now their local delivery stuff: all impossible to achieve if you're more interested in beating quarterly profit predictions than reshaping the world.
Health care is another area where it doesn't work so well. Consider, for example, these graphs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/2...
I should note that allowing pharma companies to advertise to the public is a relatively recent change. 1997, I think. And the US is one of only two countries that allow it. We could change it back.
So, either we figure out a way to make drugs cost less or we extend the timeframe for profit. Killing the advertising just means the number sold will be less and much higher for those buying it.
Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Sickness-Pharmaceutical-Compan...
It is an advertising problem. Big pharma makes massive profits, so you can't cite profits as a source of justification for advertising drugs to people who don't need them. Maybe you should have taken 30 seconds to google GSK's profits last year, or AstraZeneca who had a bad year last year but still make 2 BILLION dollars.
It goes beyond selling drugs to people who don't need them though, they over exaggerate and create new attractive names for illnesses. "Social Anxiety", for example, is not a thing. It's actually called "Social Phobia". A research study showed that marketing "Social Anxiety" yielded a more positive result, so big pharma called it just that. I'll leave you to figure out how much big pharma made off of that little stunt.
I know a lot of people don't like drug advertizing, but you do realize that it gets a lot of people to their doctors talking about their health right? And it's not like a patient can prescribe a drug for themselves, its the doctor who ultimately decides which treatment to pursue.
Clearly you don't know very many people in the health field. If a patient comes in asking for a specific medication, most doctors will just prescribe that medication assuming the person is suffering from the illness required for the medication. Where do they get the information for making a diagnosis? Don't worry, Big Pharma will host an info session or hand out pamphlets so that doctors know what to look for...
It may be a conversation, but it's the wrong one. Big pharma is notorious for increasing the potential number of patients for an illness by putting out advertisements that widen the net for the given illness. Social Anxiety is great example here, as is ADD. 5% of children in the US are diagnosed with ADD, only 0.5% are diagnosed with ADD in france. The issue of ADD specifically goes beyond just advertisements; it speaks to the fact that drug reps have a real impact on the treatment options doctors present. In France if a child is having a tough time concentrating in school the find the root of the problem, in the US they throw meds at the kid and shove him out the door.
The marketing strategies of big pharma are nothing but pure evil. Get people on more meds, to make more money next quarter.
I was talking to an oncologist the other day and he thought the patient education/advertising was great. Patients who would put off coming to him, make an appointment because a drug company made them aware that their symptoms may be a sign of a more serious disease.
Also, he has patients coming to him saying "Hey, I just heard about this new cancer drug, is it the right one for me?" He thinks the more you can get patients involved in their own health, the better.
Are there doctors who are too lazy to push back on a patient that demands a prescription? Of course. Look at how many patients with viral diseases get antibiotics. Are you going to blame the pharma companies for that as well?
Additionally, big pharma has had a massive impact on how we identify illnesses. The DSM is a great example of this. The more diseases we can convince people they have the more drugs we can sell them. The issue is especially true for mental illness where they continue to push the definitions of illnesses so broad that everyone has a mental illness.
Read the book I recommended. Seriously, it's a great and easy read. If you are all about patient education, then you need to understand the full picture.
In a for-profit context, is the job of the doctor to maximize revenues? Or long-term patient health? In a customer service context, the customer is always right, after all.
And that's not even counting the doctors who get paid to manipulate other doctors and their prescription habits.
I am perfectly happy to blame pharma companies for the "everything should be solved with a pill" notion. After all, that's what the advertising tells both patients and doctors. One of the major goals of advertising is demand generation.
I will also blame consumers for falling for it, of course. And for having the weaknesses of character that advertising exploits. But I'm more willing to forgive the consumers, in that pharmaceutical companies are professional manipulators, while the consumers are amateur defenders against manipulation.
1) http://www.astrazeneca.com/Investors/financial-information/F... http://www.astrazeneca.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&...
2) http://www.mercknewsroom.com/press-release/corporate-news/me...
The total amount of money spent on pharmaceutical marketing is enormous. We would be much better served if doctors could pay for subscriptions to research companies that only take money from doctors.
"We would be much better served if doctors could pay for subscriptions to research companies that only take money from doctors."
For what purpose? If your thinking a Forrester or Gartner model, then given how bad those companies advice has been in IT, I can only imagine what would happen in medicine.
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d7373
The results are simply buried if they're not sufficiently favorable. There have been a number of meta-analyses which dig up unpublished results (which is very difficult) and demonstrate that medications no longer have statistically significant effects when you include the unpublished data. For example:
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4737
(Both these papers are open access, so you can read them if you'd like.)
The case reported in the Mother Jones article happened at my alma mater, a state university with many biomedical research studies going on at any given time. The article author later published a follow-up piece
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id...
in another publication. Two articles by different authors in local publications last year
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/11/dan_markingsons_s...
and just last month
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/03/controversy-o...
provide further updates about this particular local case.
A group blog post about medical research from 6 January 2012, "Why Do We Really Need Clinical Trials?"
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/why-do-we-real...
examines some of the trade-offs involved in the still flawed, but still necessary, process of conducting clinical trials of proposed new treatments. Human beings who propose new treatments often have a bias to suppose that the new treaments are more safe and more effective than previous treatments--especially if they have a financial interest in the new treatment. People who have a financial interest in other treatments, or in not seeking effective treatment at all (e.g., faith healers) may have a bias that runs in the other direction. The way to check the safety and effectiveness of a treatment is to run an honest clinical trial with adequate justification from known science and sufficient statistical power. But keeping the trial honest involves human beings disciplining themselves not to jump to conclusions. As Richard Feynman said to graduates of Caltech: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."