Pay Off or Pay Out: What Pharma Corps Will Do to Sell You Drugs

Despite the dominant presence of pharmaceutical companies in psychiatry and their influence over clinical trials and research, the direction and focus of some current blogs I have explored reveal that there are others beside myself who are concerned with the current trend of drug treatment in the United States and the role these corporations are playing in it. The first post: “Drug Research: To Test or to Tout?” specifically addresses the issue of corporations such as Eli Lilly paying off state officials to get atypical antipsychotics put at the front of the market, causing doctors to prescribe patients drugs that cost far more and prove no more effective than their predecessors. These drugs, unlike ones before them, are also known to cause diabetes and severe weight gain. It follows the successes of Allen Jones, one of the current legal heads of the anti-pharmaceutical movement in psychiatry. The second post: “Pharma Pursues Its Wet Dream Legal Fantasy, Gets Paxil and Zoloft Suicide Lawsuits Denied” is a response to a current legal matter which has claimed Paxil and Zoloft victor of suicide lawsuits against their anti-depressant medications. Apparently, Zoloft and Paxil did not include increased risk of suicide on their lists of side effects despite several studies proving this to be true, and they are not being held accountable for risking the lives of consumers. However, the outcome of the case isn’t as important as the case itself. The fact that Zoloft and Paxil manufacturers attempted to hide such severe and fatal side effects from patients reveals the nature of the corporations producing them, and what they will do in order to increase sales. I have offered my own comments on both of these posts below, responding to the current issues with pharmaceutical companies and offering my own opinions and analysis.

Comment: "Drug Research: To Test or to Tout?"

First I would like to thank you for drawing the public eye to the questionable ethics of pharmaceutical corporations such as Eli Lilly. After having done extensive research on the effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics and their predecessors, it comes as no surprise to me that these new drugs are no more effective and pharmaceutical companies are doing everything they can to cash in on them anyway. Although this article does not address the greater issue of the severe negative effects of antipsychotics in general, giving consumers a reason to question their prescriptions and begin researching these drugs themselves is the ultimate goal, and this is definitely the type of provocative post that could cause such a phenomenon. It is important that patients realize that they can not rely solely on FDA approval as evidence that medications are safe and effective; that much of what the FDA approves is influenced by biased research conducted by these corporations, and that even those that the FDA attempts to restrain manage to spearhead through direct marketing to practicing physicians. In criticism, however, I would like to mention that many sources and studies are alluded to, but no direct references or links to references are given besides the link to the St. Petersburg Times. When confronting an issue of such a purely scientific nature with so much contention in the research field, linking to authoritative electronic resources is truly a necessity in order to drive home the point. Although a minor issue, I also believe this post could have been improved upon by use of graphics or visual media, as these elements are essential in harnessing a would-be reader’s attention. I only offer these suggestions because I truly believe in what your blog is doing. I am an avid reader of Atypical Antipsychotics and look forward to many more insightful posts in the future.

Comment: "Pharma Pursues its Wet Dream Legal Phantasy, Gets Paxil and Zoloft Suicide Lawsuits Denied"

Philip:I’d like to start by thanking you for attacking the growing issue of pharmaceutical companies in an argumentative fashion that demands attention. I too believe that the growing power of the already colossal Big Pharma within the legal and research spheres is a frightening problem. However, I would like to contest your comment that “We all know that pharma companies dream about little but money and will go to damn near any length to create a market, hide problems with their drugs from the public and regulators, and manipulate their way to the latest blockbuster.” It is my belief that an epidemic of patient ignorance is the only thing truly responsible for these drugs becoming “the latest blockbuster.” If people understood that their marketing, their labels, and the doctors who prescribe them are not to be trusted, I would hope that sales would be on the decrease instead of the rise. Just from my personal experience with individuals on anti-depressants and anti-psychotic medications, I can say that there are still too many people who trust their drugs more than they trust themselves to cope with a problem. I agree with your response to the third circuit court’s ruling and I have little doubt that the reason for this ruling is checks being written on both sides of the table – in fact I just commented on another blog that addressed this issue in particular. The bigger pharmaceutical corporations get, the less chance anyone has of tackling them through the court system. This is why I believe our primary goal should be raising the awareness of consumers about the ineffective and destructive nature of antipsychotic and anti-depressant drugs. Your indirect approach to this matter is quite effective. If people start asking why Big Pharma would hide the suicide risk on drug labels, maybe they’ll start asking why doctors are prescribing them, and why they don’t seem to be getting any better. I appreciate your post and hope to see more like it in the future.