CovanceCruelty.com

Or this:
Warning: naughty words

 

PETA goes way overboard a large majority of the time. Not to say I condone the poor treatment of these animals in any way. I think if animals are used for research they should be treated with all the dignity any life should receive. There are strict rules for animal work, as all researchers know. I am surprised IACUC hasn't revoked their license if the problems are as bad as PETA states. But like I said, they tend to go overboard...

Would you really want to take a drug that hasn't been thoroughly evaluated? This is a crucial step in deciding whether a drug will make it to market, and dangerous drugs are sent back to the companies that made them for re-development. Would you prefer that thousands of people with families die and leave their loved ones with no financial support because the FDA didn't require strict testing for toxic effects? This is a consequence of the world's building complexity.

Sorry to say it, but animal testing is an unfortunate reality in today's world.

 

Given the recent number of medications that have been withdrawn after the report of horrendous side effects - including death - I rather doubt most of the medications are "thoroughly evaluated."

Especially when we learn that the pharmaceutical company involved cleverly covered-up the results.

I generally think PETA is a solution in search of a problem, but at the same time they do have a legitimate point about what is done to animals in research labs.

If you attempt to do the same sort of "research" on humans, the end result is the Nuremberg Trial. So unless that video is creative special effects, somebody better come down on them.

 

I too do not condone the poor treatment (torturing) of animals.

Given the choice between taking a lifesaving medication, or avoiding it because it was animal-tested, what percentage of PETA members do you think would fail . . . or pass, depending on your perspective?

Does PETA have a list of life saving, but animal-tested, medicines which they say should be boycotted? If not, why?

 

Patrick:

Not that I've seen.

Which is odd, as you think at least Greens and PETA members would demand some sort of Non Cruel medicine. I actually would like to see a lot more research into alternative medications with potential for fewer side effects.

Nah, I also doubt *that* would ever happen!

Jay

 

Jay-

Yes, there are things that get through the testing process. I guess as a pharmacologist-in-training I am set to "optimistic" mode.

However, there are a lot of errors on the side of doctors and patients as well. (no offense to the forum docs here) Look at the facts. If something hurts, a patient is far more likely to take matters into his own hands and up his dosage without consulting a doc than not- right? People think medicines are as safe as, say, cookies. They're not. What I was taught in intro to pharm was that drugs are "selective poisons" and in almost every case, that's true. More poison in the body, more side effects will pop up.

Of course things will slip through and hopefully will be caught early and pulled from market. That's the downside to the whole business. What helps some may hurt others, and while we may not have a solution yet for the 'others' they receive available treatments that may not be appropriate for their family history/genetic background/lifestyle, you name it. Just to give them something. Because otherwise they'll say it's not fair to them.

There's a ton of factors that go into this kind of thing. For now, the FDA has a pretty rigorous evaluation system that eliminates a large number of dangerous drugs from possible marketing. It could be improved, but our technology has to improve to do that. I will be the first to admit that science has tremendous limits.

One more thing- in order to have a drug with fewer side effects you have to have higher specificity. It's insanely difficult to find a substance that is specific to only one receptor/enzyme/protein, not to mention ridiculously expensive. And drugs cost enough as it is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy\";p=\"91032)</div>

There is at least one PETA executive who takes an animal tested drug to keep her alive. Check the Penn&Teller URL in the second post on this thread. Somewhere in cyberspace there is a reply from her that by taking the drug she is doing more good for some animals than was done bad to other animals. A very Vulcan moral calculus.

 

I had never considered it before we purchased our Golden Retriever; but, after living with this animal and being very active with her for the last 9 years, we're convinced that animals go to heaven. A very wise man once said that if there were no room in heaven for dogs and horses, we might consider taking our chances in Hell. We hope, when she gets to heaven, that our Golden puts in a good word for us...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"91088)</div>

Sorry I've worked in the pharma industry and am a pessimist.

There is a clear difference between an "oops we missed that" and a deliberate coverup. As rigorous as the FDA process is, it's staggering that a medication with *known* serious side-effects can "slip through."

I used to do a lot of process engineering work for pharma, lately concentrating on chemicals instead. I was always under the impression that the only line was the bottom line.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"91088)</div>

Well, whose fault is that? Up until very recently, the long scary list of expected and potential side effects was buried as an insert in the box. And usually the font and size was so teeny a near-sighted guy like me still had a hard time reading it.

I find it contradictory that the pharma industry started doing *very* expensive glitzy advertising with catchy tunes. Remember Vioxx? Up until very recently, there was absolutely *no* mention in any TV pharma ad of the expected and potential side effects. Just a feel-good message.

Since the average consumer has no knowledge whatsoever about prescription medications, for example COX-2 NSAID, the only thing that consumer has to go on is the glitzy ad. Well, the highly paid actors in the ad certainly appear to be cheerful, maybe I will be too.

Doctors are already inundated with pitches from "detailers" (Basically salespeople employed by the pharma in question) and doctors are usually, though not always, well aware of side effects.

The average patient is understandably clueless about the risks of prescription medication, so pharma's have no business whatsoever pitching confusing and contradictory ad campaigns to them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"91088)</div>

Yes, true. But you certainly won't achieve branding in the average consumer with a scary and true message like that, will you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"91088)</div>

Yes, almost impossible too. That's why medications should be presented as very serious things, with possibly deadly consequences. Not glitzy jingles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"91401)</div>

Well, whose fault is that? Up until very recently, the long scary list of expected and potential side effects was buried as an insert in the box. And usually the font and size was so teeny a near-sighted guy like me still had a hard time reading it.

I find it contradictory that the pharma industry started doing *very* expensive glitzy advertising with catchy tunes. Remember Vioxx? Up until very recently, there was absolutely *no* mention in any TV pharma ad of the expected and potential side effects. Just a feel-good message.

Since the average consumer has no knowledge whatsoever about prescription medications, for example COX-2 NSAID, the only thing that consumer has to go on is the glitzy ad. Well, the highly paid actors in the ad certainly appear to be cheerful, maybe I will be too.

Doctors are already inundated with pitches from "detailers" (Basically salespeople employed by the pharma in question) and doctors are usually, though not always, well aware of side effects.

The average patient is understandably clueless about the risks of prescription medication, so pharma's have no business whatsoever pitching confusing and contradictory ad campaigns to them.
[/b][/quote]

Not to place blame on one specific party here, but doctors are responsible for consulting patients regarding side effects they may expect during the course of treatment. Not commercials. An MD-level degree has to stand for something that a commercial can't fulfill. Pharmacies are responsible for answering any patient questions regarding usage. And patients themselves do have to take an active role in their own healthcare. You have to always be responsible for you and aware of what's going on around you.

So if I see an advertisement for Tide and the lady doing laundry is so happy- that doesn't mean I buy Tide to be happy while I do laundry. That's the advertising industry. They want their product to sound happy because people in general are not happy. Maybe not the best match for drugs, but they are selling a product.

Liek I said, there are limits to what science can do. I'm out to help as many people as I can.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"91415)</div>

The few times I've had to go to a doctor (Torn ligament, sprains, etc) the doctor was *very* careful to discuss treatment options, and especially the long scary list of expected and potential side effects.

At no point have I ever blabbed about the latest Medical Miracle advertised on television. Just as I wouldn't expect my doctor to blabber on about the latest HART or DeviceNet field programmer or configuration file.

It helps that I'm not naive enough to believe that meds are as safe as cookies. Come to think of it, cookies aren't safe either.

Where I draw the line is the constant advertising for *serious* medical conditions that *should* be referred to a specialist. These meds obviously require a prescription, they are in most cases *not* OTC. So why advertise them to a gullable public with no medical training whatsoever?

So the patient, with a real or maybe even an imaginary problem (Hey that sounds like *my* condition! The commercial says so!) will pester their doctor for the latest and greatest advertised medication. If the doctor dismisses the patient's request, or suggests an alternative that may be safer and/or less expensive, more often than not the doctor has lost a patient.

So I really do have to question the pharma industry spending hundreds of millions - correction *billions* - targeting Joe Q. Public on matters that belong in the doctor's care. If anything, this self-serving crap has served to further disenfranchise and alienate the doctor-patient relationship.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"91422)</div>

You have a valid point. I agree. But how else are drug companies supposed to spread the word about new treatment options? I mean, in a lot of cases these drugs are a brand new treatment for a condition that may not have had a good therapeutic solution previously. And here in the US, widespread lack of health insurance chases a large number of people (like me) away from dcotor's offices. Fear of doctors is another. If you have to go to the doctor to hear about these things, most people will never know about them.

I could see an overhaul of advertising requirements, but how to go about it without chasing away quite a few people who may potentially be helped? Public fear is easy to provoke.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"91427)</div>

The "detailers" have always been out in force. These folks are highly paid salespersons who constantly pitch their wonders to the doctors. So I'm sure most doctors are already well aware of all the latest and greatest pharma wonders.

Patients are supposed to consult with their *doctor* about the best modality. Since the vast majority of patients are *not* trained MD's, they should *not* be guessing and "suggesting" treatments to their doctor.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"91427)</div>

These are *prescription* medications! You *have* to get a doctor's prescription to even legally obtain them! We're not talking about OTC analgesics that are battling it out for market share.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"91427)</div>

The constant pharma advertisements take advantage of the "fear" you mention all the time. They reassure a gullible and poorly educated public that their med will magically solve all their problems. Only very recently have the ads been required to spell out some of the more serious side effects, which sort of ruins the jingle, don't you think?

The problem is when the patient marches into the doctors office and *demands* a prescription for Vioxx or Celebrex, since the catchy jingle has been blabbing about it. The doctor may be very reluctant to write an Rx: lab tests may need to be done to check for liver/kidney problems, maybe play it safe and run an ECG, and since those pills are so pricey, maybe try a coated aspirin if the patient can stomach it.

So the doctor is now between a rock and a hard place. If the doctor suggests all the expensive lab tests, which if you read the legal tiny type in the insert are *required* anyway, the patient assumes their doctor is a quack and leaves. If the doctor tries to suggest a more common analgesic, say an OTC that is far cheaper, the patient assumes the doctor isn't "educated" enough and leaves.

So either way the level of fear and mistrust the patient feels towards their doctor will only grow. Because thanks to the simplistic and catchy ads, there is now a huge disconnect between the doctor and the patient.

Eventually, the patient will find a doctor who will just write the Rx and be done with it. Surprise surprise, the patient has a very serious side effect, which if they had bothered to get a magnifying glass to read the insert it was warned about anyway, so they have no choice but to join a class-action suit against the pharma.

A lot of this is self serving crap from the pharma. Trying to "educate" the patient is a hopeless task anyway, since the vast majority of patients are *not* MD's. So they have to resort to catchy jingles in a 30 sec spot to brand a product.

Since the "detailer" has probably already pitched the product, what exactly is the point of a catchy 30 sec spot on tv? Or is the patient expected to march into their doctor exam room, demand an Rx, and be done with it?

Look, my background is primarily process automation. I could care less what the end product is, just tell me what you want the process to do to make the end product. It's my job to know about process automation solutions and I keep regularly updated on process automation techniques.

By the same token, I have no desire whatsoever to learn anything about biology or pharma or medicine in general. It completely turns me off.

If I have a complaint, say I pull my back again while working on something at my hobby farm, I see my doctor. Here is the conversation:

Me: "I pulled my back again and it feels like an ice pick is embedded in there. Fix it."

Doctor: "Okey dokey, let me poke and prod you for a few minutes, then I'll send you to the lab, then after we get the results I'll write up an Rx. Or do you just want to try the arthrotec again?"

Me: "Whatever. You're the expert. My back is killing me."

Doctor: "Okey dokey. No trouble last time from the arthrotec? Tummy upset? Any tingling in your legs?"

Me: "Nope, everything was okey dokey."

Doctor: "Alrighty then. Let me know if you're not feeling any better by next week. Did you catch that game with the Moose?"

Me: "Nah I missed it."

Doctor: "Too bad, good game. Try to exercise your back and maybe do some stretches before you work so much. Bye bye."

Me: "Yeah, I keep forgetting to stretch before picking up something heavy. Bye bye."

See, I deferred the decision to the doctor, who asked a few questions since my last visit. I got my arthrotec, back felt much better in 3 days, and everybody was happy. At least until the next time I sprain my back.

 

The point I was trying to get across was this:

Most people are hesitant to go to a doctor. Now if you're under the impression that there are very few or no options for your condition, why go at all if you're afraid?

For instance- a relative of mine has a condition called RRMS. She went in and was diagnosed, and then was told there was very little out there as far as effective treatments for her. They gave her a bunch of info on things she should and shouldn't do, etc and told her to 'monitor' her daily condition and report flare-ups. So what did she do? Didn't bother to go to the doctor. Why pay to be told they can't do anything for you?

Since then, a more promising therapy has come out. She found out about it online. And went and asked her doctor. And it turned out to help her out quite a bit.

So if she had just continued to not go to the doctor, she would have never known about it. Sure you have to go to the doctor to get a prescription. Obviously. But if you don't go in the first place you may be missing out on something that would really help you. One of those commercials might put an idea in someone's head that they SHOULD go to the doctor and discuss what new options are out there for their condition. But, like I said, they really should be overhauled to be more informative in non-technical language.

I think that is the folly in leaving all prescription information to doctors. Hording all that information in doctor's offices realistically makes it off-limits to everyday people.

 

First of all, why does the fear exist at all? This isn't the Dark Ages, and it's not like going to a Nazi Death Camp. The creative advertising has done more to create that fear, by exploiting the fear that persons with medical problems naturally experience, to the advantage of the pharma.

If a person has a special or rare condition, like the one you mentioned, then that person should be frequently seeing a specialist who is familiar with that condition. You mentioned that "eventually" a modality was developed. What was the timescale? Months? Years? So it's possible that with frequent doctor visits she eventually would have been told about it?

Doctors are inundated by the "detailers" so if it's a condition that rarely shows up, they can't be expected to remember every fanciful pitch from the "detailer." And most of the "detailers" use questionable practices to say the least.

At least we're starting to see more warnings about the side effects. The pharma industry fought tooth-n-nail on that issue, worried it would "scare off" many potential customers.

I rather doubt the glitzy advertising has served to "educate" the public. The primary focus of glitzy advertising is to brand a product, then sell that product. If the pharma industry was so concerned about helping people, they wouldn't have glossed over all the side effects, would they?

Of more serious concern is the entire generation of legal prescription junkies we've created. They go from doctor to doctor, spouting off whatever magical treatment they've heard about, and eventually a doctor will just write the Rx to get rid of them.

What we need is a national secure Rx database, so the use/abuse of these potentially lethal Rx's can be tracked. I imagine that would be difficult under HPIAA guidelines, and probably the pharma industry would also fight it tooth-n-nail.

If it was up to the pharma industry, everything would be OTC, like it is in third world countries.

 

No advertising is about "educating" the public, unless it's one of those corny ABC Public Service Announcements. Commercials are about making someone say "hey I could use that" and seeking the product.

This treatment I mentioned came to market abour 3 years after her diagnosis. However since her condition causes very slow accumulation of irreveversible damage, it's one of those "the sooner the better" situations as far as using this drug goes. Since she was told only to "monitor her daily condition" and "report flare-ups" that's all she did. No doctor appointments unless her day to day life was starting to become more affected.

You can't really justify most public fears. Doctors is one of them. Some people just hate going. Won't visit friends in the hospital because they can't bear to go into that place. Sure it's probably not rationalized but that's the way people are.

Human nature has to be accounted for in everything related to biomedical science. One big problem is that we're all raised to think that drugs are a universal solution for any problem you have. Depression is a prime example. The efficacy of these drugs is around 50%. Yet more and more people want them- most of what relief they see is PLACEBO. They think this little pill will make them better, and that combined with being under a doctor's supervision makes them feel better. Really what most people need is counseling, not a pill. There are many other situations where the drug doesn't treat the underlying cause and simply causes a superficial sense of wellness. I think we need to start educating people in high schools about responsible use of all drug compounds along with other health education curricula.

All in all, this is a tough issue to debate and both sides have some good points. I think blame has to be taken all around. All parties involved are doing something to contribute to the problem here. Big pharma is far from perfect and is driven by profit. Doctors need to stress side effects more strongly and be more firm with patients who insist on having a prescription that will do them no good. Patients need to be educated- hopefully when younger- and understand that medicine isn't magic and each pill comes with its own set of risks that may outweigh the benefits for them.

 

I agree that blame is to go all around.

The misleading and dangerous advertising campaigns by the pharma industry has not helped one bit. For the most part, this has led to *increased* confusion for the consumer, and increased abuse of prescription medication.