The Reasoned Review

Just another weblog

Posts Tagged ‘pharmaceutical

LASIK Carries Unacknowledged Risks

leave a comment »

Failure Magazine has a great report on the risks of LASIK eye surgery:

The estimated $2.5 billion industry has recently come under fire for its failure to acknowledge potential risks. Last spring, the FDA inspected approximately 50 LASIK facilities and found that 17 had “inadequate” systems in place for collecting and transmitting data to the FDA on patients’ reports of post-surgical complications (“adverse events”), which commonly include dry eye, blurry vision, double vision, and problems with glare and starbursts.

In August of last year, Consumer Reports Health released the results of a survey, which found that 55 percent of Americans who’ve had laser vision correction surgery still wear glasses or contacts some of the time. Fifty-three percent experienced at least one side effect within the first four weeks of surgery, and 22 percent of patients still experienced side effects six months after surgery.


Written by pavanvan

February 28, 2010 at 11:43 pm

Let Them Eat Prozac

with 3 comments

Apropos anti-depressants, I would like to draw attention to this sublime New York Review of Books article from two years ago:

Drug makers earn their enormous profits from a very few market-leading products for which new applications are continually sought. If those uses don’t turn up through experimentation or serendipity, they can be conjured by means of “condition branding”—that is, coaching the masses to believe that one of their usual if stressful states actually partakes of a disorder requiring medication. A closely related term is more poetical: “astroturfing,” or the priming of a faux-grassroots movement from which a spontaneous-looking demand for the company’s miracle cure will emanate.In this instance Cohn & Wolfe, whose other clients have included Coca-Cola, Chevron Texaco, and Taco Bell, was using an athlete to help create a belief that shyness, a common trait that some societies associate with good manners and virtue, constitutes a deplorably neglected illness.

Given the altruistic aura of the occasion, it would have been tasteless to have Ricky Williams display a vial of Paxil on the spot. But later (before he was suspended from the football league for ingesting quite different drugs), a GSK press release placed his name beneath this boilerplate declaration:

As someone who has suffered from social anxiety disorder, I am so happy that new treatment options, like Paxil CR, are available today to help people with this condition.

It would almost be funny, if it weren’t so tragic.

The corporate giants popularly known as Big Pharma spend annually, worldwide, some $25 billion on marketing, and they employ more Washington lobbyists than there are legislators. Their power, in relation to all of the forces that might oppose their will, is so disproportionately huge that they can dictate how they are to be (lightly) regulated, shape much of the medical research agenda, spin the findings in their favor, conceal incriminating data, co-opt their potential critics, and insidiously colonize both our doctors’ minds and our own.

You would do well to read the entire article.

Written by pavanvan

February 7, 2010 at 3:58 pm

Antidepressants = Placebo

with 2 comments

Finally, Newsweek treats us to some real journalism. Entitled “Why Antidepressants are no better than Placebos”, this article won’t earn Newsweek any friends among the pharmaceutical industry. It brings to light a fact which has been known for some time, but which Big Pharma desperately wishes would just go away.

Antidepressants have become the drug of choice for more than 30 million Americans by 2009 – that is, one out of every ten men, women and children take these pills regularly. Pharma’s strategy – convincing America that it’s hopelessly depressed and that their pills are the only cure – took a big hit in 1998 when the first studies surfaced:

There is no question that the safety and efficacy of antidepressants rest on solid scientific evidence,” as psychiatry professor Richard Friedman of Weill Cornell Medical College recently wrote in The New York Times. But ever since a seminal study in 1998, whose findings were reinforced by landmark research in The Journal of the American Medical Association last month, that evidence has come with a big asterisk. Yes, the drugs are effective, in that they lift depression in most patients. But that benefit is hardly more than what patients get when they, unknowingly and as part of a study, take a dummy pill—a placebo. As more and more scientists who study depression and the drugs that treat it are concluding, that suggests that antidepressants are basically expensive Tic Tacs.

But still they trudge on, armed with thousands of loyal prescription-scribbling doctors, stubbornly defying a raft of studies which suggest that three quarters of the purported “effect” of antidepressants can be wholly attributed to the placebo effect. Nobody has any idea how antidepressants work (incidentally, we don’t have a good grasp of the placebo effect either), and their “effectiveness” is judged wholly by patient’s verbalization of his symptoms.

Needless to say, the pharmaceutical industry has expended quite some effort in keeping this information from doctors. As Newsweek notes:

But if experts know that antidepressants are hardly better than placebos, few patients or doctors do. Some doctors have changed their prescribing habits, says Kirsch, but more “reacted with anger and incredulity.”

Oh, but how could the FDA have approved the widespread use of drugs with such uncertain efficacy? Well, as Newsweek explains, the FDA only requires two clinical trials to show that a drug is more effective than a placebo. That’s it. Even if later on it turns out the drug isn’t more effective, it doesn’t matter. The FDA speaketh, and thine words be etched in stone. And the size of “more effective” can be as small as you like, so long as it’s “statistically significant”.

Some more great reporting:

Consider how research on drugs works. Patient volunteers are told they will receive either the drug or a placebo, and that neither they nor the scientists will know who is getting what. Most volunteers hope they get the drug, not the dummy pill. After taking the unknown meds for a while, some volunteers experience side effects. Bingo: a clue they’re on the real drug. About 80 percent guess right, and studies show that the worse side effects a patient experiences, the more effective the drug. Patients apparently think, this drug is so strong it’s making me vomit and hate sex, so it must be strong enough to lift my depression. In clinical-trial patients who figure out they’re receiving the drug and not the inert pill, expectations soar.

*sigh* So patients report a drug’s effectiveness based on its side effects, not based on whether or not it actually helps. If this is true, then even the minor advantage antidepressents have over placebos gets thrown into question. If patients who receive placebos know they’re getting placebos because of a lack of side effects, then that defeats the whole purpose behind a double-blind study.

So yeah, in conclusion, antidepressants are a worthless swindle. Given that pharmaceuticals turn over a $10,000,000,000 profit on these glorified tic-tacs alone, I think it’s safe to say they’re not going anywhere, despite direct evidence as to their uselessness. But hats off to Newsweek for bringing this to light (even though we’ve known about it since 2002.)

Written by pavanvan

February 4, 2010 at 10:52 am

The Public Option: DOA

leave a comment »

The Times reports Big Pharma to spend up to $150 million advertising Max Baucus’ healthcare plan (the one without a public health insurance option).

So much for that, I guess. With the furor already raised over “big government”, a few velvety advertisements from the friendly (and seductive) makers of Lexapril should squelch public option discussion once and for all.

No wonder the Times also ran a front page analysis yesterday, effectively declaring the public option dead.

Corporate interests, for the win!

Written by pavanvan

September 14, 2009 at 6:21 pm