and I did not speak out, because I was not a Merck shareholder.
Then, they came for Pfizer
and I did not speak out, because I was short Pfizer.
Then when I got MS, there was nobody to make drugs for me...
I apologize to Pastor Martin Niemöller for borrowing this powerful poem. It's out of line to cheapen it.
Yet the deionization of the pharmaceutical industry buggers belief. The ambulance chasers are already trolling for Vioxx users on Cable TV. And they just got an early Christmas present with the report on Celebrex. Pretty soon everybody taking pain medication will be a client -- who needs John Edwards in the Vice Presidency?
My buddy Hugh Hewitt can be way too socially conservative for me. But his economics is always spot on. Today he examines -- as the MSM will not -- the cost of not taking, developing, or investing in drugs.
Quick: What did the new study say about Celebrex? And how many people died from Vioxx? The media's not well known for calculating risk-return ratios, but since no one will ever be able to figure out lives lost due to the nonappearance of drugs that might have saved them, reporters will never have to answer for the cures they prevented even as they conducted weekly cheering sections for embryonic stem cell research.The last thing we need is a witch hunt that shutters the drug development process. The "buy Canadian drugs" chorus is already targeting the American pharmaceutical industry, an industry already absorbing the extraordinary costs of the plaintiffs' bar. I am still on the right side of 50, but seniors and sufferers from any serious disease should shudder when the Lou's and Aaron's of the world start calling for more regulation, which means fewer drugs and fewer cures.
John Stossel's Give Me a Break is one of my favorite books on this topic. Stossel covers several of the great media scares from BIC lighters to spontaneously-combusting Mr. Coffee pots. He shows what a microscopic risk they are compared to real but quotidian risks like automobile accidents. Stossel also shows the lives lost to poverty.
The witch hunts have begun. Hewitt’s story hinges on two cable specials about Merck and Vioxx. They are adding little to the public debate -- but they make seniors afraid to take their medication -- and rational people afraid to invest in the pharmaceutical sector and fund the next generation of cures.
I guess Silence is right. Maybe the free market does kill people. The media and the trial bar have a full court press on to keep me from ever finding a cure.
This is in keeping with my theory that the main bias in the MSM is that of sensationalism, or bias toward whatever telling of the story will bring in the most readers/listeners/viewers.
As for the disposition of the Cox-2 inhibitor drugs, my understanding is that Vio xx was undergoing a similar trial where higher dosages (2-3X of the standard for pain and anti-inflammatory) were being tested for efficacy in treating certain forms of cancer. To date, no studies have linked lower dosages to the increased risk of heart disease. As such, it seems that the drugs should stay on the market and the prescribing of them be regulated by the user and their physician who would weigh the risks against the reward of alleviating the inflammation and pain of arthritis. Unsafe drugs should certainly be pulled from the shelves, but if we followed that practice for any risks or side effects we really would have no drugs on the market.
My thought for the day: We keep the rigorous testing required for FDA approval of drugs, but include with certification a level of protection from litigation of disclosed risks and side effects. Let this certification be amendable if risks or side effects are found with further study. This would provide an incentive for the Pharma Co.'s and protect the public simultaneously
Posted by: Silence Dogood at December 20, 2004 03:38 PMGood idea. How about we go one better, and release a drug that has completed a quick and basic centerline approval process for general safety. Then, disclose that and allow physicians and patients who want to use cutting edge medications to try them.
Posted by: jk at December 20, 2004 04:20 PMOn second thought, wouldn't the FDA be a great candidate for Privatization? Reputable P h a r m a c i e s will only carry a drug if it has passed JKDA or SilenceSecure testing. Drug firms pay the firms to complete testing.
Cheating would ruin the business of the private firms and open them up to tremendous lawsuits. Most people do trust the government to be less corruptible, but is it empirically warranted?
Privatization could work, along the lines of UL? I suspect however that certain agressive states such as CA might step in to oversee the certification industry if it was private. I agree with the quick program to certify drugs as "experimental" and allow their use by patients willing to take some risk. This gets us toward the goal of freedom with responsibility, the freedom to use such experimental drugs provided you take the responsibility for unknown risks or side effects.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at December 21, 2004 12:15 PMI was thinking of UL. You and I both know that they are not my first choice example for an efficient, private firm, but it is a model.
If the FDA stops, drug buyers can look for different levels of "severity" for the approval process.