BIG PHARMA at work
Home
Shortages in Essential Drugs--Big PhARMA at work
MOST drugs are from China and India
Medical Device Makers cannot be sued, Supreme Court Rules
Ghost writing the norm for over a decade
journal articles are advertising dressed as science--examples
Top 10 Drug Recalls and Warnings of 07
FDA Fraud Program
Big PhARMA ghost writes journal articles
Big PHARMA pays generic manufacturers to not ...
New CANCER drugs add little to life expectancy--why
Big Pharma influences the DSM manual
Most Drugs Now are both Imported and not Tested for Purity
Slash taxes or we move our facilities
RU-486 comes from China, now--more tainted drugs
Antidepressants Proven useless for most
Heart Medication kills 22,000 in 2 years
Statin combination Vytorin doesn't work, etc.
Off Label Drug Pushers
0ff Prescription Market Law Eli Lilly violates for Zyprexa
Price Gouging for Orphan Drugs
Marketing department ran massive drug trial for VIOXX
Direct to consumer spending on the rise
Pharma Lobby and Democrats
U.S. Pharma Moves to China and India
Research and Production moves to China and India
Cancer Generic Drug Shortage increases sales of patented drugs

New CANCER drugs add little to life expectancy--why

 

 

Big PhARMA wants us to improve their bottom line.  The article below is advertising paraded in academic clothes.  The main reason for the increase in life expectancy comes from the reduction in MI and strokes.  A person who smokes a pack a day over his lifetime has over doubled in any given year of having a heart attack.  Cigarettes shorten the life of a smoker 14 years compared to nonsmokers.  Corresponding to the increase in longevity is a reduction in the percentage of smokers.  Smoking has gone from nearly 50% for male adults in 1950 to 26 percent. 

 

Drugs have made little difference.   The best treatment for high blood pressure is diaretics, available and used 50 years ago.  Statins which lower cholesterol have little impact upon mortality.  And as for cancer treatment, 90% of the cures are brought about through surgery and radiation (published in BMJ) article.  A few cancers are successfully treated with drug (but they are not the most common ones), and chemo therapy typically produces a only modest increase in life.  The most significant improvement has come through treatment of MI and strokes with clot busting medications—but this is a one-time treatment during the event.    

 

Guess who is the biggest advertiser in the Washington Post?  Any wonder why they have published this bull shit.  In the footer is Some of his [author’s] previous research has been funded by unrestricted grants from the pharmaceutical industry.  By the way, the presidential branch spends over $1 billion per year of federal funding on promoting its neoliberal agenda—done through appropriations of the various departments.  Our press system is a business first. The article below is paid for advertising of big PhARMA published as informative reporting--jk.     

 

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001468.html

 

Yes, New Drugs Save Lives

By Frank R. Lichtenberg

Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page A15

A typical baby born in this country in 1900 was expected to live to about age 45. Today, life expectancy at birth is about 78 and climbing. Americans are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. But we have never been more concerned about the risks and costs associated with new prescription drugs and medical devices.

Rising health-care costs and safety problems with FDA-approved products such as the painkiller Vioxx, drug-coated stents and implanted defibrillators have led some to worry that recent medical innovations may be doing us more harm than good.

The debate over the relative speed (and caution) with which new medical products should be approved has crystallized in Congress as it crafts legislation reauthorizing the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. Since 1992 the act has been a critical funding source for the Food and Drug Administration. Lawmakers should be careful to balance safety and cost concerns, and additional regulatory burdens for product developers, with benefits to patients -- specifically, the measurable impact that new medical innovations have on Americans' longevity and quality of life.

How have medical innovations affected American health? In a study the Manhattan Institute is releasing today -- "Why Has Life Expectancy Increased More in Some States Than in Others?" -- I explain that incremental medical innovations, particularly the use of newer drugs, have played a major role in increasing American longevity in recent years.

I began by looking at the interstate variation in life expectancy. Most Americans would probably be surprised to discover that, on average, residents of Hawaii (81.3 years) and Minnesota (80.3 years) lived six or seven years longer than residents of Mississippi and Louisiana (74.2 years).

And while U.S. life expectancy increased by 2.33 years from 1991 to 2004, some jurisdictions -- the District of Columbia (5.7 years), New York (4.3 years), California (3.4 years) and New Jersey (3.3 years) -- led the way, while others, such as Oklahoma (0.3 years), Tennessee (0.8 years) and Utah (0.9 years), trailed the national average by significant margins. (Between 1991 and 2004, life expectancy in Maryland and Virginia increased by 2.5 and 2.6 years, respectively.)

To find out why this longevity "increase gap" exists, I examined several factors that researchers generally agree affect life expectancy, including medical innovation, obesity rates, smoking and HIV-AIDS infection rates. While each of these factors had an impact on longevity, the most important factor was medical innovation. In particular, I found that longevity increased the most in those states where access to newer drugs -- measured by their mean "vintage," or FDA approval year -- in Medicaid and Medicare programs has increased the most.

According to my econometric model, about two-thirds (63 percent) of the potential increase in longevity during this period -- the increase that would have occurred if obesity, income and other factors had not changed -- can be attributed to the use of newer drugs. In fact, for every year increase in average drug vintage there was an almost two-month gain in life expectancy.

Increasing access to newer drugs was not associated with above-average annual spending on health care; and the use of newer medicines seems to have increased labor productivity (output per employee) by about 1 percent per year, perhaps because of reduced absenteeism from chronic ailments. Overall, my findings contradicted the common assumption that advances in medical technology automatically result in increased health-care expenditures.

Congressional debate over the Prescription Drug User Fee Act is a microcosm of the national debate over the appropriate balance between safety and rapid access to new and sometimes very expensive medical innovations. While this debate is complex, my research indicates that the best way to achieve sustained improvements in health, longevity and productivity is by continuing to support policies that encourage medical innovation and the new medical goods and services it produces.

By Frank R. Lichtenberg is a professor at Columbia University School of Business, and he has been in the pay of big PhARMA. 

 

 

There are oodles and oodles of reports about big PhARMA acting not in the public’s interest—only very few of them are deemed news worthy.  A few of the articles published by the industry website at www.fiercepharma.com

and also for www.pharmalot.com

 

  FiercePharma:  Today's (4/18/08) Top Stories:
1. Woe is Pfizer, analysts say
2. Dems pitch big safety bill
3. Pharma fighting back in Washington
4. Incontinence meds may impair thinking
5. Neurontin fails bipolar med review

 

Spotlight:
Baxter: No big legal troubles from heparin

 

At http://www.pharmalot.com/news/topic/European_Union/ the news is similar:

Featured Pharmalot posts

Slimming down is least of U.S. health concerns

Resarchers charge Merck misrepresented Vioxx data

The rules dictate performance:  When the principle standard by which top executives is measured is profits these results follow.