China Sentences Former Drug Regulator to Death – New York Times
The former head of China’s top food and drug safety agency was sentenced to death today after pleading guilty to corruption and accepting bribes, according to the state-controlled news media.
That’s barbaric, we may have our problems with the FDA, but kill someone for taking a bribe? That’s medieval justice.
Thinking about implanting an RFID microchip under your skin? Don’t do it! Why would the FDA approve something that was linked to cancers in rats?
Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors – washingtonpost.com:
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients’ medical records almost instantly. The FDA found ‘reasonable assurance’ the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005’s top ‘innovative technologies.’
But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had ‘induced’ malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.
‘The transponders were the cause of the tumors,’ said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich.
Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.
To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla.
Legal wrangle puts India’s generic drugs at risk – health – 29 January 2007 – New Scientist
Tens of thousands of people being treated for AIDS will suffer if Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis succeeds in changing India’s patent law, the humanitarian agency Medecins Sans Frontieres warned on Monday. Novartis is challenging a specific provision of India’s patent law that, if overturned, would see patents being granted far more widely, heavily restricting the availability of affordable generic medicines, MSF says.
In 2000, antiretroviral (ARV) treatment cost was estimated at $10,000 per patient annually. But the availability of generic drugs produced mainly in India, allowed costs to plummet to about $70 per patient per year, Mwangi adds.
You’ve got to love the friendly multinational arguing to make extra billions while people die. But I don’t think any Indian judge will overthrow Indian patent law. And there is a national interest exemption built into most patent statutes, per the TRIPs agreements.
if you have not been following the Avandia story, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that Avandia, a popular drug used in diabetes control significantly increased the threat of heart attacks and heart failure. A couple of things to note here, firstly, this fact was known to the FDA in 2002 per this memo obtained by Public Citizen. So, why the FDA (and GSK) thought that no one would notice, is beyond me. Secondly, when the drug was introduced in Europe, it was contra-indicated for people with heart disease. This fact must have been known to the FDA and GSK as well. It is one thing for GSk to not want to run long term epidemiological and safety studies on their drugs, but other people did the work, and the FDA just stood by and watched until the work was published in the US. The European Drug agency had acted on this information quite a while back.
So, when I come across this article in the NY Times about a “downside” to full disclosure, I don’t really know what to say. I don’t care whether there is a downside to GSK or not. If I work as a waiter in a restaurant, there is a “downside” to reporting my tip income to the IRS (yes, higher taxes!). This does not mean I should not pay my taxes! This is a matter of life and death for people. Diabetes and heart disease go together in thousands of people, they needed to know if the drug they were taking to control one disease would kill them off with the other disease.
For Drug Makers, a Downside to Full Disclosure – New York Times
This week, GlaxoSmithKline learned what that greater disclosure could mean.
A cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Steven Nissen, stumbled onto the Glaxo Web site while researching Avandia last April. He and a colleague quickly analyzed the data, and on Monday, The New England Journal of Medicine released its finding that Avandia posed a heightened cardiac risk.
“It was a treasure trove,” Dr. Nissen said about the Web site.
GlaxoSmithKline has disputed the journal’s interpretation. Officials with the Food and Drug Administration said they were reviewing whether to take any action on Avandia.
Also, note this “concern” from the FDA, no less:
“I would be very concerned about wholesale posting of thousands of clinical trials leading to mass confusion,” said Dr. Steven Galson, the director for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the F.D.A.
Yes, respond to results in a very prestigious peer reviewed journal by pretending that some dude with a computer in his basement (yes, all computers reside in basements) randomly picked up a couple of clinical trials and created “mass confusion”. The FDA should at least pretend to care…
The risks and benefits involved with taking a drug to control a chronic condition are completely different from those you would take for an acute, immediately life threatening condition. If you are treating cancer, you expect side effects, and deal with them because the alternative is certain death. When you’re dealing with diabetes, you have alternatives that will not kill you. In addition, millions of people have diabetes and use Avandia. So, a small percentage increase in a side-effect can affect thousands. And, they need to know because there are alternatives that would work for them.
GSK is not going to tell them because there is an obvious conflict of interest. They need to sell their new and expensive drug even if other alternatives work. This is why we have the FDA, and full disclosure of all clinical trials, not just the ones that worked for you.
Cheaper vaccines from India are forcing global giants to slash prices. GSK announced its rotavirus vaccines at $2.50 per dose — or $5 to fully immunise a child — in response to a current tender administered by UNICEF.The offer is a 67% reduction in the current lowest available public price.
This is good news for many reasons. Preventable diseases kill over a million people every year, and one of the biggest factors in getting vaccinated is cost. India’s healthcare spending was estimated at US$ 40 billion in 2008, going up to 300+ billion in 2023. Forty billion is less than $40 per person, so saving 7-8 dollars on vaccinations alone for every one of the 26 million children born every year is a huge deal.
Development costs of vaccines and drugs are high and success is often uncertain. Pharmaceutical companies have used this to justify government enforced monopolies and per dose prices that are sometimes a 1000 times higher than the incremental cost of production. While this makes for good profits, it means severe lack of access in India, many African countries, and many excess deaths that could have been prevented. For years, India had what was called a process patent, not a product patent, which meant that if you could make a drug with a slightly different process, it would not get patent protection any more. How did this help India?
Of course, this also meant that India was considered an outlaw, and Indian pharmaceutical industry came under great pressure from the WTO to tighten patent laws, which it did. At the time, the concern (rightly) was that tightening patent restrictions would harm India’s pharmaceutical industry and reduce access to drugs. Has this come to pass? In some ways, yes. But the Indian pharmaceutical industry has also matured, and with government help, has been able to do its own development, clinical trials and production (which it was always good at). The focus on tropical diseases like rotavirus also means that US, European Companies, which have since moved away to treating chronic conditions like high cholesterol, erectile dysfunction, etc., have much more competition in the tropical diseases area and cannot charge premium prices to poor people any more.
So dear Canada, while you are negotiating with Europe about “free trade”, and trying to give European companies much greater patent protection for their drugs, know that this will very surely raise costs in the short term. Two important questions:
Um, let’s take a look at Canada’s top 10 in 2009:
| Rank | Leading Companies | Country | Market Share (%) |
| 1 | Pfizer | US | 13.4 |
| 2 | Apotex | Canada | 7 |
| 3 | AstraZeneca | UK | 6.6 |
| 9 | Merck | US | 6 |
| 4 | Johnson & Johnson | US | 5.3 |
| 6 | Novopharm (Teva) | Israel | 4.2 |
| 7 | Novartis | Switzerland | 4 |
| 5 | GlaxoSmithKline | UK | 4 |
| 8 | Abbott | US | 3.9 |
| 10 | Roche | Switzerland | 3.1 |
| Source: IMS Health | |||
There is one Canadian company in the top 10, and four European companies. Our pharmaceutical industry is not well positioned to be independent, or work to reduce Canadian drug prices, especially if laws strengthening patent protections for European companies come into effect. This will serve to weaken Apotex, and Canada does not have a big independent pharmaceutical company network born out of years of “isolation” to take advantage of any competition, or competitive advantages. So, while patent “reform” seems to not have hurt Indian industry as much as feared, it sure will hurt Canadian consumers.
This is the headline I would have used on this story. An incentive scheme to use a paticular product in a situation like this is a bribe.
Doctors Reap Millions for Anemia Drugs – New York Times
Two of the world’s largest drug companies are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors every year in return for giving their patients anemia medicines, which regulators now say may be unsafe at commonly used doses.
The payments are legal, but very few people outside of the doctors who receive them are aware of their size. Critics, including prominent cancer and kidney doctors, say the payments give physicians an incentive to prescribe the medicines at levels that might increase patients’ risks of heart attacks or strokes.
Industry analysts estimate that such payments — to cancer doctors and the other big users of the drugs, kidney dialysis centers — total hundreds of millions of dollars a year and are an important source of profit for doctors and the centers. The payments have risen over the last several years, as the makers of the drugs, Amgen and Johnson & Johnson, compete for market share and try to expand the overall business.
So how does this kickback scheme work?
Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay for drugs, like the anemia medicines, which they dispense in their offices as part of treatment. The anemia drugs are injected or given intravenously in physicians’ offices or dialysis centers. Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors’ purchase price.
Medicare has changed its payment structure since 2003 to reduce the markup, but private insurers still often pay more. Combined with those insurance reimbursements, the rebates enable many doctors to profit substantially on the medicines they buy and then give to patients.
The rebates are related to the amount of drugs that doctors buy, and physicians that agree to use one company’s drugs exclusively typically receive higher rebates.
Wow, that’s a scheme that would be illegal in almost any situation. I buy 10 widgets from the manufacturer for $100. The manufacturer then gives me $50 in “rebate”. I charge the person on whose behalf I am buying these widgets $200 even though I am not supposed to make a profit on this transaction, and pocket $150 from a transaction. I also promise to use more of this widget, on people who may or may not need it, but on whom I have such a knowledge gap and power gap that I know that they will use it whether it is actually good for them or not. I also promise not to use a competitor product even though I know that there are cases where one product will be better than the other. Well, who pays, all of us in increased health insurance premiums and healthcare costs so a bunch of rich doctors can drive their Range Rovers around.
The USA is no different from India when it comes to schemes like this. The money involved is greater, and somehow, this is not called a bribe by the media.
What does the pharma spokesperson have to say?
Johnson & Johnson said yesterday in a statement that its rebates were not intended to induce doctors to use more medicine. Instead, the rebates “reflect intense competition” in the market for the drugs, the company said.
Amgen said that rebates were a normal commercial practice and that it had always properly promoted its drugs.
Yes, it’s competitive out there, and to ensure that our product gets used, we will bribe people.
The “consumer” is the person who pays for the product or service. The “consumer” here is the end user, the patient. The patient does not get the rebate, instead having to pay high prices so doctors can add to their six figure incomes. Nice!
Homeopathy was all around me growing up in India, so I read this article with interest as it jogged many memories of visiting the family homeopath with my parents.
Faith Healing with Homeopathy — In These Times
Homeopathy rests on three unproven tenets: First, “Like treats like.” Because arsenic causes shortness of breath, for example, homeopaths prescribe its “spirit” to treat diseases such as asthma. Second, the arsenic or other active ingredient is diluted in water and then that dilution is diluted again and so on, dozens of times, guaranteeing—for better and worse—that even if the dose has no therapeutic value, it does no harm. And third, the potion is shaken vigorously so that it retains a “memory” of the allegedly curative ingredient, a spirit-like essence that revives the body’s “vital force.”
Fooey, the description of the science is hilariously pseudoscientific, but homeopathy is no laughing matter in India. It is estimated to be a Rs. 250 Crore (that is 2.5 billion rupees or about $58 million) industry as of 2002-2003. I do not think this includes doctors and clinics. This website lists 158 colleges in India offering the valid (it is like an MD!) degree of Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery, or BHMS. My parents swear by it, most of my family living in India has either visited, or regularly visit one. It is hugely popular for hepatitis and liver disease, more so than conventional medicine in India.
What’s the deal? Why is it so popular? I think Terry Allen is on the right track, this sentence here, buried in the middle, hits the nail on the head…
Part of the effect comes from the ritual of consultation with a practitioner who treats the patient like a person rather than a body part on an assembly line.
Allen does not quite grasp the significance of this sentence and tracks away into placebo effects and evil pharma. But here’s the deal: A lot of Indians (who can afford $4-$5 consultation fee) visit their homeopath every month. When I tagged along with my parents, we would go on a Sunday afternoon at 2 PM to this homeopath’s office, which was a wing of his house (a big house, I might add!). It was a relaxed and leisurely time, he spent 10-15 minutes with each of us (yes, my parents made me!) talking about the previous month, what we were up to, how stressed we’d been, how our ailments from the previous month were doing, had we noticed any changes to our health over the month, etc. We would be interrupted occasionally by his little kid, or his assistant relaying a message from his wife, it was as far removed from a doctor’s visit as possible. And yes, he would take your blood pressure, run simple blood tests, etc. At the end of it, he would give you little sugar pills/sugar coated powder formulations to take home. The formulations were individually dosed, it was all categorized and labeled for you.
This is like having a mini physical every month. Surely, just the act of talking to someone made you feel better, the act of ritually opening up little packets of “medicine” and following detailed instructions for 5 days helped, surely the homely and relaxing atmosphere of visiting a family friend helped, I don’t know.
Metrics? both my parents occasionally had their hypertension treated with homeopathy. This worked as long as they were borderline, and simple stress management would get the numbers down. This doctor was/is very good at stress management because he talked calmly, yet firmly, he would listen and tease their little everyday stressors out of them and that was probably good for a 10 point reduction. But I remember the homeopath sending mom off to a doctor for a more conventional treatment regimen as soon as she hit 160.
It never ever worked for me because I was way too sceptical to buy into the process, so I would not listen, or relax enough to talk. I would take my pills, but it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Of course, he was trying to treat me for severe sinus related issues probably brought on by pollution, and by sleepless nights spent on a beach looking for turtles!
I am sure that for every good homeopath, there were two bad ones who just handed out pills of sugar. But my parents’ homeopath was, and continues to be part Dr. Phil, part candyman, part cheerleader!
Homeopathy probably “works” because it makes people take the time to think about their life and what’s ailing them. It’s a lesson that American primary care providers could do well to learn.