Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit and the Public Health… Peter Jennings ABC Interview
Unfortunately, far too many doctors have only a superficial knowledge of the many medications they prescribe daily, both when it comes to diabetes prescriptions, or drugs for other health problems.
All too often, drugs are prescribed in potentially dangerous combinations, where apparent oversight seems to be obvious.
Now, with the assistance of the late news anchor Peter Jennings, we will evaluate the opinions of some medical experts that appear to have a conscience.
These are medical doctors who are totally aware of the corruption in the very powerful and profitable (legal) drug industry, and are not afraid to express their opinion. The following excerpts were taken from the ABC News Special Report - Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit and the Public Health. This report by Peter Jennings aired on Wednesday, May 29, 2004 on ABC.
Peter Jennings – …Dr. Drummond Rennie is an editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association. He says researchers who are critical get attacked all the time. Do you actually believe, Dr. Rennie, that drug companies are intent on keeping the consumer on drugs, which are not as good as older drugs, for the simple requirement of profit?
Dr. Drummond Rennie – Yes. Yes, very much so. Absolutely. …They’ve got to be prevented.
Peter Jennings – … The top 10 drug companies combined made profits of more than $37 billion in the year 2001. And you, the taxpayer, are subsidizing research that benefits the drug industry.
Peter Jennings – The majority of the drugs approved by the FDA are simply modifications of old drugs…Consumers spend $90 billion more on prescription drugs last year than was spent just six years ago. And are we $90 billion healthier? …But what critics call this ‘gaming of the system’ may have a much more damaging result.
Dr. Sharon Levine, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group – If I’m a manufacturer, and I can change one molecule and get another 20 years of patent life and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand … then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand new drugs?
Peter Jennings – The pharmaceutical industry has more registered lobbyists than the number of senators and congressmen combined.
Dr. Jerry Avorn, Brigham and Women’s Hospital – I think there’s a sense that, for example, when the FDA approves a drug, everything that needs to be known about it is known. I think patients believe that. I think doctors sometimes believe that. And that is not true.
Dr. Matt Handley, Group Health Cooperative – I would personally wait years for long-term safety from the FDA’s monitoring program before I’d consider taking them. If they were free, I would do that same thing.
Peter Jennings – What does this say about the social responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry? Or is the pharmaceutical industry supposed to have a social responsibility?
Dr. Sharon Levine – That’s a very good question that the American people need to answer, do we want to entrust critical elements of the public health to an industry whose purpose, whose mission is to earn return for shareholders?
Peter Jennings – Congress has never required the FDA to routinely compare new drugs with older drugs. This is costing consumers billions of dollars that we do not need to spend. And in some cases, it could be costing lives. …There is no law that says new drugs have to be proven 100 percent safe. … The government says they must be relatively safe, which means that every drug comes with risks. And the result of that is that sometimes new drugs turn out to be more dangerous than old drugs.
Dr. Jerry Avorn, Harvard Medical School – If patients were aware of the limitations that all of us physicians have in terms of what we know and what we wish we knew and what we don’t know, they would be more scared than they are at present. …The saying that a lot of doctors use sometimes in jest is, ‘Always wait a year before prescribing a new drug. And if it’s for a family member, wait five years.’ And that’s an awful thing to say, but it reveals a perception that we really don’t know as much as we would like to know about a drug until it’s been around. INSERT: In other words, tested on the public.
Peter Jennings – The fact is, drugs can be used for years before we really know how safe they are. …Dr. Drummond Rennie is an editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association. He says researchers who are critical get attacked all the time. Why do you think the industry is able to get away with what you have in the past called ‘bullying tactics’?
Dr. Drummond Rennie, Journal of the American Medical Association – Money. Because if the shareholders are happy, whom else do they have to answer for? These are multinationals. They have no masters.
Peter Jennings – Can we trust studies funded by companies that have a vested interest in the results? …Will the pharmaceutical industry do whatever it takes to get the results it wants from research?
Dr. Drummond Rennie – The temptation to spin those results is always there, and it’s frequently used. Frequently.
Peter Jennings – For nearly every drug on the market, doctors must wrestle with conflicting and sometimes inaccurate information.
Dr. Drummond Rennie – If only the good news about a drug is published, and never the bad news, then a false impression is given of the quality, effectiveness of that drug. It may be entirely false.
Peter Jennings – Does the drug industry, on occasion or regularly, suppress data?
Dr. Drummond Rennie – Oh, we suspect, and rather know, that this happens all the time.
Peter Jennings – Does a drug company ever not publish the results of a trial because it doesn’t like the results?
Dr. Drummond Rennie – Yes.
Peter Jennings – Do you actually believe, Dr. Rennie, that drug companies are intent on keeping the consumer on drugs, which are not as good as older drugs, for the simple requirement of profit?
Dr. Drummond Rennie – Yes. Yes, very much so. Absolutely. …They’ve got to be prevented.
Peter Jennings – There is one last thing this evening which we believe is important for all of us. The questions about what we are getting for our money cannot and must not be answered only by the drug companies. Virtually everyone we talked to for this broadcast agrees on that. The rules by which this hugely profitable industry operates do not always serve consumers adequately. And nothing is going to happen, no matter how angry consumers get, unless the Congress and the president decide that the time is come. The country can do better. I’m Peter Jennings. Thank you for joining us. Good night.
I can’t help but respect Peter Jennings for conducting the interview to help us better understand the corruption in medicine that I am fully aware of, although many in the nation are not. All too often we see announcements in the national news promoting the use of drugs in deceptive ways, and at times for unapproved uses.
A prime example is the woman who was interviewed on the national news, claiming that after stopping Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), she discovered that Paxil™ seemed to help reduce her hot flashes. That announcement was aired shortly after it was announced that HRT had many potential associated problems, so many women stopped their HRT drugs. Although there are natural supplements proven to resolve the hot flashes, taking Paxil™ is much more of a serious threat than HRT.
Paxil™ is a very serious antidepressant never approved for hot flashes, or anything other than depression. Paxil™ is the same basic class of antidepressants as Prozac™, but an even more potent version.
One woman was actually prescribed Paxil™ to help her stop biting her fingernails! She soon discovered that biting her nails was minor compared to the major problem she experienced from the use of Paxil™. For over a year she could no longer control her movements, and as a result was unable to work.
I would guess that after the interview on the national news indicating that Paxil™ might possibly help prevent hot flashes, many women likely asked their doctor if they could try Paxil™. Unfortunately, many doctors would likely accommodate them, and write a prescription for Paxil™, just like the doctor did for the lady who was biting her fingernails. Hot flashes are basically a walk in the park compared to the many potential side effects associated with this serious class of antidepressants (diabetes being just one of many).
- Dr. David W. Tanton