The FDA and drug companies: Must read

Anonymous · February 2012

Pretty weird eh? Would be funny if some of these drugs didn't result in deaths!! You really saw one that said 'may result in sudden urge to gamble'??? What a hoot!

Yes, I think there are more side effects to drugs these days. Some are being outsourced & who knows what's in it. My hubby and I laugh over some of the disclaimers...I mean, who'd want to take it? You'd end up with 100 more bad side effects that the original problem.

There is one state, Michigan, where it is actually illegal to sue drug companies. What a racket they have going there. Not sure how many other states adopted that idiotic law.

Anonymous · February 2012

When you read that the markup for Big Pharma drugs is 500,000% (yes you read it right) over the cost of the raw materials it makes me want to barf.

These are people's lives these jerks are playing with. This is one bubble that needs to burst.

Not only are these drugs unsafe but they cost and arm and leg. Who's watching the FDA?

tucker

LtotheK · February 2012

Tuckertwo, I'm pretty sure you don't mean it, but your tone is combative. I'm just trying to have a conversation. From the NY Times, posted on a doctor's site: http://www.jeffreymd.com/2007/12/08/physician-salaries-on-the-decline/

This is a much discussed issue.

I used to be much more critical of my oncologist. I now understand that she works her fingers to the bone. She and her staff manage all of my tests, both in office and with every other doctor I need to see, she makes appointments with me to spend hours going over findings, answers emails on the weekend, and has time to hug her patients and remember what they have planned for the upcoming months.

Basically, I think she's a good person. But I also think, yes, her high salary contributes to the level of care I get.

chef127 · February 2012

75% of her salary is dependant on how much chemo she administers.

Anonymous · February 2012

chef127 - Exactly. The chart below from Medscape doesn't include the perks docs get from the drug companies. As I posted earlier, you can check the site Propublica to see how much your doc gets.

http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/oncology

The average oncologist makes over $500,000 a year. Not including perks from Big Pharma. You can type in any speciality of medicine to see how much docs make.

Yup. They sure are underpaid Tongue out Cry me a river..........

tucker

chef127 · February 2012

tucker,

I don't deny anyone from making a living, but when it depends on treating people with poisons it becomes suspect. Will my MO continue to treat me if I deline the chemo and hormone theropy? I did. I'm no longer a profitable patient. But they are supposed to be the experts on cancer tx and should know the right tests to run and when.

My only option is education. And then try to find a dr who will work with ME.

I was an Exec chef and food service directer in a facility with 150 residents. I treated them with my medicine FOOD and worked my fingers to the bone. I gave them more than any dr did. Where is my 500,000$.

LtotheK · February 2012

Tuckertwo's link requires a password.

Here is a credible source on the issue, which does report the potential conflict of interest regarding chemotherapy: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/us/drug-sales-bring-huge-profits-and-scrutiny-to-cancer-doctors.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

It is rather outrageous, and I'm reading a lot now. I believe chemos can kill, I also believe they can save and extend lives, so I don't share the opinion they are snake oil. My MO did not refuse to work with me if I declined treatment. And my second and third opinion suggested I not to chemo, or consider it carefully, so they clearly wouldn't have "fired" me, either.

Regarding oncologist treatment plans, hospital tumor boards oversee decision making. My oncologist made her decision with a group, not individually, at my hospital. And her choices are supported by NCI guidelines.

It is also up to patients, clearly, to do the homework, which of course makes the poor and less educated victims of the system. I got three opinions, and researched rigorously both for and against. I got an Oncotype test because I qualified.

Sadly, by the time many poor individuals get diagnosed at all, chemotherapy is too late. If you want to talk about pure evil, it's that level of care is determined by insurance plans.

LtotheK · February 2012

And...there is reform on the horizon: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/October/20/chemotherapy.aspx

Fromt the article: The insurer aims to "separate oncologists’ income from their drug selection" and "start searching for the best practices and move to them," says Dr. Lee Newcomer, United’s senior vice president for oncology.

rosemary-b · February 2012

Do I have the only onc in the US who cares about his patients? That is sure what thia conversation sounds like.

I have known him for almost 30 years and well enough to know he is not just in it for the money.

pickle · February 2012

Tucker, in your original post you stated "Chemotherapy is a sham and has absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever. (Yes, it shrinks tumors, but it adds nothing to a patient's lifespan.)"

Regardless of you you feel about big Pharma, That statement is absolutely false. My niece had leukemia at 3 1/2....she is now 34. My brother died of the same type of leukemia 46 years ago because they didn't have the same treatments. My Aunt had non-hodgkins lymphoma ( mixed diffused) ...she has been NED for 9 years and still going strong. I am sure there are many people on this board that can attest to the fact that they themselves or someone they know have reaped the benfits of Chemo.

Cheers

Beth

LtotheK · February 2012

Rosemary B, no, I like my onc, too. I don't think she's perfect, but anyone who calls me on the weekend 2 years after treatment to check on my anxiety and tests is not a horrible person, IMO.

Oncologists are not qualified at good hospitals to give chemotherapy to people who truly don't need it for sure (again, the role of tumor boards) and against patient will. If you read online carefully, the whole issue is quite fascinating. Patients and doctors often have very difficult decisions to make to "be alive for little Joey's wedding". It's not as dastardly as "mwhaahaha, I'm an oncologist, who can I convince to take my expensive meds that doesn't need it?" There are other immoral ways to make a million, believe me.

I do, however, find it scary as all getout that they can make money on chemo, and there are credible sources reporting that.

I want to respect all opinions, because I have learned something new in this forum despite not agreeing with everyone.

rosemary-b · February 2012

I know my onc makes money on chemo but so many people make money from our cancer, whether we choose conventional or alternative treatments that I am glad that some of mine is going to someone I like and respect. I know my case went to the tumor board even though it was not a complicated case.

ETA: I have also learned from this discussion.

rosemary-b · February 2012

A bit of serendipity here. My aunt sent me a big box of books and the one I picked out of it happened to be a thriller by Catherine Coulter called Whiplash.which is in part about a drug manufacturer causing a shortage of a cancer drug so they can sell something more expensive. It is fiction but it is strange that that is the book I picked out of the box, only because of the pretty cover and the author.

Anonymous · February 2012

Hello ladies!

The link I posted on Medscape does require a password; however, it is very easy to register and log in to get information. It is a very reputable website that the medical profession uses for a variety of reasons. Computer savvy gals who post here would have no problem logging in. The link shows updated info on doctors salaries, by speciality. Not one makes under 100 grand a year.

I was amazed to see that Oncologists, a good 15% or more, make over $500,000 per year.

LtotheK, I don't think anyone deserves or has the right to make that much money. ESPECIALLY off of people who have cancer. The word ghoul comes to mind.....and I don't think I am alone when I say that!

And I have to disagree with your prior comment, LtotheK, that level of care is tied to the physicians income. If that's why most doctors become doctors, it's a sad state of affairs. You must have very good insurance?

rosemary, this thread is not about doctor care. The topic is 'The FDA and drug companies' and how they are basically in bed with each other when it comes to marketing a new drug. Many drugs are unsafe yet they make it past the research and development stage and onto pharmacy shelves, where we can act as their guinea pigs. Being a DES Daughter I already know what that feels like. DES (a synthetic estrogen) has given women cancer for decades. How did it sneak past the FDA?

Pickle - thanks for your post. I'd like to address your comments, then return the topic to the FDA and drug companies.

I'm glad to hear that chemo worked so well for your family members. Leukemias and some lymphomas do sometimes respond to chemo. Chemo is more effective with leukemias and lymphomas than with solid tumors. Sadly, many of these cancers do not. If they did there would not be Children's Hospitals filled with children sick with leukemia. There are several different types of lymphoma (non Hodgkins) mantle cell responds poorly to chemo. Follicular lymphoma have a median survival of 10-15 yrs. Initial tx get a good response but remission time gets shorter. Chemo has been shown to actually reduce lifespan by about 5 years. I was bummed to hear that as my onc never mentioned it. For a few generations now, whenever a really poisonous substance was found in nature or made in a lab, it was immediately sent to the cancer research facilities to be evaluated as a cancer drug. Most chemo drugs are known to cause cancer.

Chemo is not as well proven (except in testicular cancer which are only 3% of cancer to good scientific standards to have a positive influence on survival or quality of life. 75% of oncology doctors say they would not participate in a chemo trial if they had cancer due to 'its ineffectivesness and its unacceptable toxicity'. They also said they would not undergo chemo or recommend it to a loved one. This sort of attitude has cost the medical profession a lot of credibility with patients.

In some states such as California and New York, it is ILLEGAL for a physican to treat cancer by any other method than chemo drugs, surgery and radiation!! This is a case where the courts stuck their noses in....I'm sure that the FDA and powerful Big Pharma lobbyists in those two states had nothing to do with the decision.

I hope there is some change on the horizon regarding transparency between drug companies, FDA and physicians. Wherever there is big money there is corruption.

Thank you for your posts. I'm learning too. I'd like to stick my head in the sand and forget about it, but I have a daughter who will need mammos soon. She is also exposed, thru me, to DES so has a big breast cancer risk.

1Athena1 · February 2012

It doesn't bother me than oncs may be rich. It bothers me that they cannot cure us - but it's not really their fault. I blame message dominatrixes like Komen more than individual practitioners, who I think are as varied as any human being. Doctors in the US make money not based on the cure rate but on the expense of the procedure.

But that is a good thing; otherwise the incentive to care for the weak and suffering would not be there for many. Imagine if you only got paid based on the rate of curability.

ETA: I know you know this....I suppose we all feel frustrated at the lack of a known cure, and the fact that treatments have such varied outcomes. At this point, I wonder if the publicity BC gets is detrimental to a cure because every single debate surrounding our disease gets politicized and held up for scrutiny by interest groups. The use of mammograms, Avastin, etc.... all seem to devolve into fights. Sometimes I wonder if we would be closer to a cure if our researchers operated in the dark with less pressure.

kingjr66 · February 2012

Let us remember that this thread is about FDA and the drug companies. Whether we like it or not, doctors do make money off the drugs provided by the FDA and the drug companies. It's a no brainer. What each of us need to do is to become aware of what is exactly being put into our bodies. Be your own advocate. Tuckertwo has very strong points. We are sick and drugs can make you sicker only to be countered by drugs that make you better. It's a merry-go-round. Ladies, be aware. Since you all have access to the internet don't you think you should take a looksee at what is in your medicine cabinet and how it came to be there.

LtotheK · February 2012

Threads routinely spiral, it's the nature of these boards.

"Since you all have access to the internet don't you think you should take a looksee at what is in your medicine cabinet and how it came to be there."

Please don't assume what I haven't done in terms of research. I may not be the most intelligent person on these threads (we've got some super-smarties, I'm thrilled to say), but I worked my behind off researching ALL sides, reading, using databases, talking to alternative, allopathic, and integrative specialists. I'm well aware of what I'm dealing with in terms of drugs. It's why I probably am going to ditch my Fosamax, I'm pretty clear the stuff is bunk in my case.

I'm with Athena re: incentives. And I think we'd all agree there is a considerable amount of corruption in the medical industry overall.

Unfortunately, spirulina, exercise, yoga, weight watching, vegetarianism and supplements didn't keep me from getting cancer. I still love Komen for ONE thing: they have a risk assessment tool online. It taught me that those things in my control, like diet and exercise, are but a shadow of my real risk factors I have no control over, like not having children before age 30, and dense breasts.

I think stress is well worth talking about--I heard a report on NPR that it literally breaks DNA.

Denise2730 · February 2012

I remember reading somewhere that doctors learn very little about pharmaceuticals in med school. When I refused chemo my now ex-boyfriend was really pissed. He didn't believe me about all the stuff that you posted here. How can any doctor give you medicine in good faith if he is gaining something by it whether it be a trip to Hawaii or a Rolex?

Denise

Anonymous · February 2012

Hi athena and kingjr,

Thanks for your replies ladies. I appreciate your intelligent comments and reiterating that the focus here is the FDA and drugs that are approved and not safe. The FDA is quick to ban natural supplements & vitamins that can help, yet drugs such as Fosamex are marketed to the unwary and this includes doctors who don't take time to research, but depend on the drug reps to explain the efficacy of a particular drug. Docs are also keen to get their 'perks' for doing business with a particular drug company.

Check out the following:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/fda-and-big-pharma-watchdog-or-lapdog

Question: Why don't major health insurance companies do something about the huge 500,000% markup of drug costs? Health insurance co's should put limitations on what they will allow. Ultimately, it is YOU the consumer who has to suck it up in high premiums, right? Or does the FDA regulate prices?

tucker

1Athena1 · February 2012

The answer to your last question is no - the US government does not regulate drug prices and has resisted efforts that it do so. It is believed that drug companies ramp up their prices in the US to make up for price controls in other countries. But this is questionable. In any case, generic drugs in the US are quite cheap - less expensive than in other countries. What kill the wallet here are brand name drugs, mostly. Drugs that are administered intravenously are also more expensive, of course, making cancer treatment the expensive process that it is. Insurance companies alone cannot and will not do anything about this - there is no incentive for them to act.

It is in everyone's interest that drug prices come down. It is the highest rising main ticket item in health care. It imposes enormous inflationary and fiscal pressures on our economy - this applies whether you pay out of pocket, with private insurance or via Medicare/Medicaid, BTW. The inflationary pressure is exerted by all of us, and because of our aging population and drugs that prolong lives, this problem is not going away any time soon.

But at least prescription medicine is FDA regulated (with all of its faults).

In the FDAs defense, despite its faults, I prefer that it allow drugs with serious SEs than that it not allow anything but the safest option. It used to be overly cautious and that is why AIDS drugs were taking so long to be approved, and people were dying. It makes mistakes and frequently has to backtrack, but meds should be available. What is often missing is the doctor-patient communication. Doctors do an abysmal job of communicating SEs to patients, IMO. In all disciplines. Medical schools must address this. The more complex our health technology (which includes medications) the more the obligation of the practitioner to actively educate the patient, IMO.

Denise2730 · February 2012

About 10 years ago my GP prescribed something for my fibromyalgia pain. I think it was Celebrex or one of those type drugs. I asked him if it was okay to take with my history of stomach ulcers. He said yes. Doublechecked on my way out with the nurse practicioner and she said it was okay.

Went to the pharmacy, picked up the meds and when I read the side effects, which I do with EVERY new medication, it said it was not recommended for people with stomach issues such as ulcers!! I called my GP and when I told him this he said "well you shouldn't take it if you have had ulcers in the past"! WTF! I told him!! It's obvious that most doctors are clueless about the drugs they give out.

Anonymous · February 2012

i like it when the warnings say - if the seizures or migraines become bothersome, contact your physician or the pharmacist.

pickle · February 2012

Tuckertwo...thanks for your comments...however..I am well aware that children' s hospitals may be filled with leukemia patients...question is ...are they there to receive treatment or just there to pass time until they die? I surmise that they are there to recieve treatment so they get a shot at a longer life and chemo that has PROVEN to extend their life and even perhaps negate and wipe out their cancers forever. K

I have a question...your stats say stage 2...what did you do for treatment...and if you did NOTHING....as in chemo or rads?...how far out are you? Are you a 20 year survivor that is part of a large group of women with the same stats that can attest to chemo not working?

As far as the big pharma conspiracy...in canada our doctors don't get paid that way....oh wait...i believe you are Canadian and already know that.

Do you know that many women are surving and thriving with breast cancer because of the treatments...the treatments are not perfect...and we deserve better.. Women deserve a cure ..We absolutely need a cure....but in reality...we don't have a cure yet..but .many women's lives have been extended and many have had fairly good years ...some not so good ..but the reality is... death is the alternative. The mothers that bravely choose the best available treatments such as surgery..chemo...more chemo etc...may get to see their children's remarkable milestones and children get to have their mothers for another day...the current treatments are their best shots...not perfect...but their best shots that are known today....please don't disparage the courage and strength of these heroes.

BTW.. Please don't infer that you know the ins and outs of all types of cancer Ie: leukemia and lymphoma....you are not the expert and as we can all attest to...a cancer may have a generic name such as breast cancer....but in reality the differences from person to person are incredible....otherwise the solution/cure would be simple....oh sorry...I forgot...it's not simple because your big pharma is all about $$$....

pickle · February 2012

My head spins when I hear the OP refer to this as a medical holocaust....such BS. Is there no respect for the scientific/medical communiity anymore?

1Athena1 · February 2012

I think she has reprinted an article - an opinion piece by someone else. But it would be helpful to put the excerpted part in quotations or italics so that we know one way or the other. Also, I think we are not supposed to publish entire articles. Tuckertwo, could you clarify?

I don't agree with the piece either.

Anonymous · February 2012

Ex Drug Rep -- Manipulating Doctors www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOW8LNU2hFE

Gwen Olsen, a former Bristol Myers drug rep, tells how she was taught how to not discuss SEs when she "educates" doctors about drugs and manipulate them. It took this woman 15 years to realize that what she was doing was wrong! This is scary. Before taking any drugs, do your own research. Don't believe the commercials. Doctors are not properly trained to determine if a drug is "right for you".

rosemary-b · February 2012

Why was my comment about doctors offensive when others were not? I am not asking to be snotty. I would really like to know why I was singled out by name when mine was not the first comment about what doctors made nor the last.

rosemary-b · February 2012

Guess I don't belong here.

Anonymous · February 2012

http://www.ofspirit.com/dannysiegenthaler1.htm

Why doesn't the FDA ok natural and herbal products? What Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You To Know About Herbal Medicine!

tucker

orange1 · February 2012

Chef - if you decline treatment (and I am not arguing with your choice) why do you need to see a medical oncologist at all? - except if you develop symptoms of recurrence. Seems like a waste of your time and $$ to me.

The FDA and drug companies: Must read

Comments

Categories