Big pharma pays off medical schools

[the truth]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5738386/cana ... l-funding/ on and on it goes , big pharma controls everything , pure scum they are

[Merry]

The link between the medical profession and large Pharmaceutical Corporations is well documented, yet little has been done about it. Far too much of what doctors do is influenced by these "for profit" companies.

It's time to acknowledge that the pharmaceutical companies biggest priority is their "bottom line" more so than what's best for the patient.

[the truth]

sad thing is many on here do not believe that

[Merry]

I think part of the problem is that in our society the medical profession has been elevated almost to the level of "gods". Therefore, it is hard to believe that they are only human, and subject to the same human foibles as the rest of us.

I don't for one minute think that physicians are out to harm us, or even that pharmaceutical companies are. But we do need to recognize that for pharmaceutical companies, the bottom line is their number one priority. And that our current system allows such companies to have far too much influence over both the initial medical education, and the ongoing professional upgrading of physicians. We also rely far too much on research done by those same companies.

If the information those companies provided was viewed with a much more skeptical eye, by both physicians and the Government, we'd all be a lot better off.

[Jonrox]

It's time to acknowledge that the pharmaceutical companies biggest priority is their "bottom line" more so than what's best for the patient.

Am I supposed to be surprised that companies don't have making money as one of their top priorities?

In the case of Merck and their new drug Keytruda, which seems like it could be a game changer in the treatment of several types of cancer... Merck potentially stands to make a ton of money on it.

Is it so terrible that they produced a life-saving drug and will make a pile of money off it? Let's say their bottom line is the top priority so they developed a drug that will make them a ton of money... and people's lives will be saved. Would you rather they weren't motivated to make money, so didn't try to develop life-saving drugs like this?

I raise this point because a lot of people like to demonize these companies, making it seem like they serve no positive purpose. I'm not saying they're angels, because they're not. But a lot of their products do a lot of good, save millions of lives, and make life more comfortable for millions, if not billions, of people... in spite of their missteps.

[Merry]

It's time to acknowledge that the pharmaceutical companies biggest priority is their "bottom line" more so than what's best for the patient.

Am I supposed to be surprised that companies don't have making money as one of their top priorities?

There's nothing wrong with pharmaceutical companies making a profit. That's not the issue.

The issue is the influence those companies have on the medical training of physicians, as well as on their ongoing professional development.

If physicians prescribe pharmaceuticals based on advice given to them by companies that stand to benefit from that advice , there's a danger it could result in harm to the patient. Therefore, we need more scrutiny of the relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians they help train.

The Fentanyl crisis is a case in point; many of those addicted became so because of physician prescribed painkillers that the pharmaceutical companies had claimed would not become addictive. The physicians believed what the pharmaceutical companies told them, and it's now coming out that the companies knew at the time that the information they were providing was erroneous.

There are lots of other questionable prescribing practices that have their roots in erroneous info from the companies that make the drugs.

Another example is when we were told that we had to complete a full course (usually 10 days) of antibiotics in order to avoid resistance. That idea has now been debunked, and we're told that continuing to take antibiotics after the problem they were prescribed for has cleared up is actually what promotes resistance.

The following quotes are by Louis B. Rice, MD , the Joukowsky Family Professor of Medicine and chair of the Department of Medicine

there’s no scientific basis for many of the regimen lengths we prescribe.

The reality is any dose of antibiotics that you take beyond what is absolutely needed only promotes resistance. Now we have a big resistance problem and we must find ways of reducing our consumption of antibiotics in order to decrease the selective pressure for resistance. You can’t and shouldn’t withhold antibiotics at the time of an acute infection. But two days later, when the patient feels better, that’s when you have a lot of leeway to say, you probably don’t need it anymore.

https://medicine.at.brown.edu/article/a ... le-advice/

Just think how much money pharmaceutical companies made from all those decades of people taking more antibiotics than were necessary.

[Merry]

This problem has been "on the radar" since as far back as 2002

Medical practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry serve interests that sometimes overlap and sometimes conflict.

There is strong evidence that associations between industry and doctors influence the behaviour of the latter in relation to both clinical decision making and the conduct of research.

In view of the risk of compromising relationships with patients and the integrity of the research process, doctors must exercise care in their dealings with industry.

The basic principles underlying the conduct of doctors with respect to pharmaceutical companies should be openness and transparency.

Clearly articulated procedures should be developed to deal with specific issues such as travel subsidies, receipt of gifts, sponsorship of conferences and continuing education activities, and dualities of interest arising in clinical and research settings.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2002/176 ... ioners-and

But, despite being aware of the potential for conflict, not enough has been done to try to prevent it.

[Merry]

Here's more evidence of pharmaceutical companies making huge profits based on questionable advice they gave to physicians

Older adults who don't have a history of cardiovascular problems don't benefit from taking cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, says a new study of seniors with high blood pressure and moderately high cholesterol.

Researchers from New York University School of Medicine studied the data from 2,867 older adults and found that they had the same risk of dying as seniors who didn't take statins, and also suffered the same amount of heart attacks and strokes. In fact, statins may have caused more harm than good since more deaths occurred in the group taking statins.

https://www.newsmax.com/Health/Headline ... id/795616/

Think how many billions pharmaceutical companies have made on statins prior to this new study being released.

Although questions were being raised about that level of prescribing statins as far back as 2015 (my bold)

Statins have been overprescribed for decades

the controversy over whether the new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for reducing cholesterol will do more harm than good for people at low risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) reveals a lack of transparency in scientific research. It may also reflect the influence of commercial interests in communicating what medical science purportedly shows.

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/ ... Pass=false

In other words, one of the reasons statins were over-prescribed, was because of erroneous information from the same companies that benefited financially from all that over prescribing.

It wasn't the only reason, but it was part of the puzzle. And that kind of inappropriate influence from pharmaceutical companies on prescribing guidelines needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug.

[hutbephot3mien]

One Green Planet’s Erin Trauth wrote a very interesting article this year about “Why Your Doctor Can’t Help You with Nutrition,” and no doubt it’s beyond alarming how little the role of nutrition is emphasized in medical school. She cites that the typical medical student receives only 19.6 contact hours of nutrition education.