Scientific medicine and Big Pharma
Apr/08/09 08:42 Filed in: Medical devices | Pharmaceuticals | Pseudoscience | Healthcare Policy | Evidence based medicine | Medical products
I keep reading across the blogosphere that Big Pharma (for the sake of this discussion, defined as all medical products companies, including ones that don’t manufacture or market pharmaceuticals) somehow blocks either positive or negative results to further their profits. The accusations come from a wide variety of sources, some of the more vocal being the anti-science proponents, such as the anti-vaccination movement. Utilizing an ad hominem argument of personalizing the issues and then attacking the motives or character of others, usually those who dispute the claims made by pseudoscience.
Even during the recent Larry King interview, Jenny McCarthy and her fellow Google University graduate, Jim Carrey, make wild accusations about the ethics of the pharmaceutical industry:
KING: Drug companies want to keep this (allowing vaccines to stay on the market) going?
CARREY: This is a huge business. Vaccines are the largest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry. $13 billion.
MCCARTHY: They control medical schools. I mean these doctors are not learning about prevention or vitamins or diet.
CARREY: What we're asking is for them to take a loss for the good of our children. That's a tough sell in a board room.
The implication from this conversation is that somehow the profit motive of medical products corporations supersedes ethical and scientific considerations. Instead of providing evidence that there is some kind of link between autism and vaccines, they instead accuse the medical industry of some nefarious conspiracy to keep information from the public, thereby harming children.
Setting aside the blatant falsehoods that drug companies control medical schools (I think that medical schools allow too much pseudoscientific woo in their teaching as it is) or that physicians aren’t taught miracle prevention techniques to keep children from being infected by polio or whooping cough, why would medical products companies act unethically? Are we to assume that only sociopaths find careers in the pharmaceutical industry?
Most of the research into the links between autism and vaccines, for example, has been done in respectable research institutions, who base their reputations on being independent from corporate pressure. In a review of all literature that investigated the possible link, the Cochrane Reviews, one of the most respected reviewers of clinical research, has concluded that:
That’s a scientific review by an independent group, and it’s not a tool of Big Pharma. But more importantly, I am personally offended that some individuals can make such a broad and libelous accusation against this industry. The industry is staffed by scientists, physicians, and engineers who use the scientific method to develop new products that prolong human life. Are they perfect? Probably not, but in general, they are highly ethical. There are just too many controls on the industry, from litigation to regulatory agencies. Of course, the ethical standards of much of the industry is incredibly high, as opposed to the suspect ethics of the anti-vaccination movement. Before any product comes to market, there are years of pre-clinical and clinical research performed before it can even be reviewed by regulatory bodies. And after the product is on the market, there are constant post-market studies to rule out possible issues.
Then there are the physicians who prescribe the products. It is true that some accept the statements of Big Pharma without a serious critique, but most want to do what’s best for their patient. My guess is that the physician’s training tells them that the prevention of serious diseases with vaccinations far outweighs the risks. And I’m not considering the autism link a risk, since it doesn’t appear to exist.
I once helped manage an important clinical trial in interventional cardiology. If it worked, there would have been a significant revenue stream for the organization. It didn’t, and it was published as such.
The anti-science, woo-pushing crowd should bring scientific evidence, not appeals to emotion. Since there is no scientific evidence, then we can continue to expect these silly arguments and false accusations about the ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.
By Michael W Simpson
Even during the recent Larry King interview, Jenny McCarthy and her fellow Google University graduate, Jim Carrey, make wild accusations about the ethics of the pharmaceutical industry:
KING: Drug companies want to keep this (allowing vaccines to stay on the market) going?
CARREY: This is a huge business. Vaccines are the largest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry. $13 billion.
MCCARTHY: They control medical schools. I mean these doctors are not learning about prevention or vitamins or diet.
CARREY: What we're asking is for them to take a loss for the good of our children. That's a tough sell in a board room.
The implication from this conversation is that somehow the profit motive of medical products corporations supersedes ethical and scientific considerations. Instead of providing evidence that there is some kind of link between autism and vaccines, they instead accuse the medical industry of some nefarious conspiracy to keep information from the public, thereby harming children.
Setting aside the blatant falsehoods that drug companies control medical schools (I think that medical schools allow too much pseudoscientific woo in their teaching as it is) or that physicians aren’t taught miracle prevention techniques to keep children from being infected by polio or whooping cough, why would medical products companies act unethically? Are we to assume that only sociopaths find careers in the pharmaceutical industry?
Most of the research into the links between autism and vaccines, for example, has been done in respectable research institutions, who base their reputations on being independent from corporate pressure. In a review of all literature that investigated the possible link, the Cochrane Reviews, one of the most respected reviewers of clinical research, has concluded that:
1 There is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and any long-term disability,including Crohn’s disease and autism.
2 MMR is an important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications where the vaccine is not used consistently.
3 The lack of confidence in MMR has caused great damage to public health.
4 People arguing for or against the use of any therapy need to make sure that they base their conclusions on carefully collected evidence, not just on biased opinion, speculation or suspicion.
That’s a scientific review by an independent group, and it’s not a tool of Big Pharma. But more importantly, I am personally offended that some individuals can make such a broad and libelous accusation against this industry. The industry is staffed by scientists, physicians, and engineers who use the scientific method to develop new products that prolong human life. Are they perfect? Probably not, but in general, they are highly ethical. There are just too many controls on the industry, from litigation to regulatory agencies. Of course, the ethical standards of much of the industry is incredibly high, as opposed to the suspect ethics of the anti-vaccination movement. Before any product comes to market, there are years of pre-clinical and clinical research performed before it can even be reviewed by regulatory bodies. And after the product is on the market, there are constant post-market studies to rule out possible issues.
Then there are the physicians who prescribe the products. It is true that some accept the statements of Big Pharma without a serious critique, but most want to do what’s best for their patient. My guess is that the physician’s training tells them that the prevention of serious diseases with vaccinations far outweighs the risks. And I’m not considering the autism link a risk, since it doesn’t appear to exist.
I once helped manage an important clinical trial in interventional cardiology. If it worked, there would have been a significant revenue stream for the organization. It didn’t, and it was published as such.
The anti-science, woo-pushing crowd should bring scientific evidence, not appeals to emotion. Since there is no scientific evidence, then we can continue to expect these silly arguments and false accusations about the ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.
By Michael W Simpson