I can think of no scenario in which this practice could be considered unbiased and for that reason, I can think of no situation where it should be allowed.
I read yesterday about a growing number of instances where pharmaceutical companies are farming out their clinical drug trials. (outsourcing) That part sounds like a very good idea - except when that outsourcing goes to other countries (another outrage - as we can't buy from other countries but we can rely on them to tell us our meds are safe? what is that?).
The FDA requires (what we have been led to believe is) rigorous testing of new medications in order to show that they are firstly safe, secondly that they are effective in a statistically significant way and lastly, that the benefits of the drug are greater than the risk. We are also becoming, as consumers, more privy to the research trials, not just the ones that showed what the drug companies hoped, but all of them. Having access to the studies can allow for comparative research from I hope, neutral third parties who want to to see which drugs work best in head to head competition. But what I read yesterday...
A company that does work for one of the major drug companies has, some time ago, bought stock in that company. In the article I read and did not bookmark (dang it) the CEO of the research company (it started with a G) talked about the need for the drug makers to have cash flow to develop new drugs. The CEO also mentioned using the money from his company to market the drug once it was FDA approved. The research company spokesperson presented this as a win-win situation for all involved. In my opinion, it is a big LOSE for us - the people who become guinea pigs en masse.
I do think independent testing of drugs needs to be the rule and that those doing the research need to have NO , I mean NO, vested interested in the approval and use of said drug.
No comments:
Post a Comment