They Warned Us that allowing the pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products would end up like this.
Good Idea; Too Bad It's Wrong.
The amazing thing one finds in the report Here: is that the "testing" for these drugs was woefully insufficient, even purposeless - mainly aimed at determining if they could alter the blood chemistry. I gotta say, so, big whoop! How about my health? If I'm gonna pay a fortune for fancy and heavily advertised drugs, I want to be sure they do something positive for me: like the drugs Rush Limbaugh got so many prescriptions for. I heard those are pretty spectacular. Now, before the current President started hiring his cronys to essentially dismantle the federal government, the basic requirement for FDA licensing of a drug was that it had to be "proven safe and efficacious". The testing as described in the New York Times article did no such thing. Nor did it even attempt to do anything of the sort. It was basically a smokescreen; some "testing" that could be cited with some obscure numbers regarding cholesterol levels in blood. Of course, I can't say for sure; this kind of rancid oversight of the drug industry might have been the Food & Drug Administration's standard of regulation for some time now. It kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing though. If there's no real difference between an "FDA appoved" drug and Dr. Toad's Snake Oil, why bother? Toss 'em out, and go back to the old Caveat Emptor standard.
Come to think of it, that's pretty much the way things are now.
Just witness the way the Finance and Lending Industry has been looked after since George W. Bush was selected president.
The $ are just too tempting to turn away from.
So now, it turns out, the advertising for "Two widely prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs" convinces people that a pill is the solution to their problems. When, in fact, an actual study of what happens to these drug users shows that Vytorin and Zetia might make things worse for them! A perfect example of my main thesis:Good Idea; Too Bad It's Wrong.
The amazing thing one finds in the report Here: is that the "testing" for these drugs was woefully insufficient, even purposeless - mainly aimed at determining if they could alter the blood chemistry. I gotta say, so, big whoop! How about my health? If I'm gonna pay a fortune for fancy and heavily advertised drugs, I want to be sure they do something positive for me: like the drugs Rush Limbaugh got so many prescriptions for. I heard those are pretty spectacular. Now, before the current President started hiring his cronys to essentially dismantle the federal government, the basic requirement for FDA licensing of a drug was that it had to be "proven safe and efficacious". The testing as described in the New York Times article did no such thing. Nor did it even attempt to do anything of the sort. It was basically a smokescreen; some "testing" that could be cited with some obscure numbers regarding cholesterol levels in blood. Of course, I can't say for sure; this kind of rancid oversight of the drug industry might have been the Food & Drug Administration's standard of regulation for some time now. It kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing though. If there's no real difference between an "FDA appoved" drug and Dr. Toad's Snake Oil, why bother? Toss 'em out, and go back to the old Caveat Emptor standard.
Come to think of it, that's pretty much the way things are now.
Just witness the way the Finance and Lending Industry has been looked after since George W. Bush was selected president.
No comments:
Post a Comment