Drug firms are addicted to greed and dishonesty

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:08:39 -0800 (PST)

[sSRI-Research] Drug firms are addicted to greed and dishonesty

 

 

 

 

 

Second paragraph reads: " Actually, Duncan was the mildest-mannered man

you could imagine. He claimed the anti-depressant Prozac altered his

personality. I had never heard of Prozac until then, though it would

become a highly controversial drug, quoted in a number of violent

incidents worldwide. "

 

 

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=C2532006

 

Drug firms are addicted to greed and dishonesty

CATHERINE DEVENEY

 

I CONFESS I wasn't thrilled back in 1993 when asked to interview a

depressed man jailed for threatening his ex-girlfriend with a gun. I

sidled up his path thinking that maybe if I knocked quietly enough, I

could scurry away and claim he was out. (I don't want to sound a

coward here but let's just say that in my list of " causes worth dying

for " , a single column on page two isn't one of them.)

 

Actually, Duncan was the mildest-mannered man you could imagine. He

claimed the anti-depressant Prozac altered his personality. I had

never heard of Prozac until then, though it would become a highly

controversial drug, quoted in a number of violent incidents worldwide.

 

Drugs can be powerful, mind- altering substances. But we can argue

about the effects on the mind. Last week, there was no denying what

they can do to the body. In a trial in Harrow, six men were given a

new anti-inflammatory drug, TGN1412, with catastrophic results. It was

hoped the drug would help arthritis, leukaemia and multiple sclerosis.

Within minutes all six men were fighting for their lives and may never

recover.

 

Meeting Duncan was the start of an eye-opening experience. I began

writing various drug stories. Once upon a time I actually thought

drugs companies existed primarily to help sick people get better. Then

I grew up and realised they existed primarily to help rich people get

richer. Rich people who, for example, didn't much care if poor people

in Africa got affordable Aids drugs or not. Back then, I thought no

'reputable' company would put a single patient's life at risk for

profit. But I discovered cover-ups. Bribes. Misinformation. (If the

lawyers aren't reading this, I'd even say lies.)

 

One drug company I wrote critically about invited me to a private

meeting. Coffee, biscuits and a nice chat. They wanted me to

understand their product better. To see that their days were dedicated

to helping poor, sick people get better. They smiled less when I asked

them to explain why they had covered up drug trial information. They

almost snatched the biscuits back before I managed to grab a choccie one.

 

Obviously - because the lawyers are reading - there is almost nothing

we can yet say about last week's trial and who, if anyone, is to

blame. But interestingly, almost a week down the line, there is still

no clarity of information. We know the company is German, has been

around for only six years, has 15 staff and no marketable product to

date. Initially they were refused permission to test in Germany. But

what about animal tests? Monkeys and dogs, a solicitor for one of the

men claimed she had been told by the company. And one dog died. No

dogs, a company spokesman was reported as saying a few days later.

Just monkeys and rabbits.

 

I'll bet the confusion will last a lot longer, because potentially

massive profit is involved. Though not for the volunteers, obviously.

We're told it's immoral to pay volunteers large sums because then

desperate people would volunteer. But what that means is that the drug

companies save money and only the truly desperate take part; those who

are willing to take drugs for a leukaemia they don't have for what is,

compared with potential profits, an infinitesimal sum.

 

In the case of TGN1412, volunteers were to be paid £2,330 for three

nights and eleven days of their time. " A lot of money, " one volunteer

said. A lot of money? Last year, pharmaceutical company Schering made

profits of €928m. Merck made €883m. And Jean Pierre Garnier, boss of

GlaxoSmithKline, took home £3.8m. Now that's a lot of money.

 

This article: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=C2532006

 

Last updated: 19-Mar-06 00:24 GMT

orm