Big Pharma's criminal underworld

After actually getting a look at how the pharmaceutical industry works and seeing what it takes just to get a drug approved, I can safely say that statement was pure stupidity.

Nowadays, registering one decent medication costs roughly $300 million. So, I guess you tell me—is anyone really just throwing that kind of money around for fun?
Then there’s the whole gauntlet of clinical trials, pre-clinical testing, and specific studies involving kids, the elderly, pregnant women, people with kidney issues, and so on and so forth.

To everyone out there acting like medicine is some kind of scam: maybe you should try being consistent for once and just stop taking everything entirely. At least then you'd be sticking to your guns. A lot of these drugs originally came from nature, but they're synthesized now for good reason. There's nothing revolutionary about that.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Having actually worked alongside pharmacists and seen how drug registration works firsthand, I have to say that statement is just plain ignorant.

Getting a solid medication approved these days costs about $300 million... so yeah, think about whether anyone’s really just throwing money away like that.
Then you've got all the clinical trials, pre-clinical testing, and specific studies on kids, seniors, pregnant women, people with kidney issues, and so on...

To everyone out there claiming meds are some kind of scam, maybe just stay true to your word and don't take anything at all if you're gonna be that principled. A lot of drugs originally came from nature, and they're synthesized today for good reason—nothing new there.

Man, he really hit the nail on the head... 😁

That’s a pretty weak argument...

The Thalidomide scandal and the failures in MLS just go to show how flawed the system really is.

And what, if someone questions the pharmaceutical industry, they should just never take a single medication again? It’s like saying if you think the traffic in Chicago isn't perfectly organized—and needs work—you shouldn't drive on the road at all.

The human body is just so incredibly complex sometimes that you can never truly predict how it'll react. I mean, look at the massive settlements from the Talidomide scandal, and now we're seeing even more payouts this year... after stuff like that happens, people really shouldn't mess around with these things.

I was reacting to some guy who claimed:
People know certain drugs are harmful, but nobody cares. And many manufacturers actually know exactly how dangerous their products are, yet they just hide it.

I honestly don't get why someone would ever bother taking a medication if they genuinely believe it’s going to make them feel worse..

btw... I'm all for alternative medicine, but I still respect science.

The whole situation surrounding MLS is deeply alarming. We saw an entire marketing campaign drive a wedge through basic ethics, essentially rebranding a fundamental part of life as a disease. To make matters worse, they backed it up with supposedly "objective" scientific studies that misled people for years.
Beyond that, even now that the truth is out, you still see certain doctors prescribing that disastrous hormone therapy to women and actively encouraging them to take it. Specifically, here in the States. So many women going through menopause are on MLS simply because they haven't had the chance to read the research in specialized medical journals, and the American public just hasn't been properly informed.
Someone really needs to take a hard look at this... there ought to be some level of accountability.
Why isn't there more awareness in our country about how dangerous MLS actually is? And will the physicians who continue to push this kind of "therapy" ever be held responsible?
Honestly, I highly doubt it...

Kyle Nelson2 said:Having actually worked alongside pharma professionals and seen firsthand how the drug approval process works, I find this claim pretty idiotic.

Getting a decent medication approved these days costs roughly $300 million—so, you tell me if anyone’s just throwing money around for fun...
Then there are the clinical trials, pre-clinical testing, and specific studies involving infants, the elderly, pregnant women, people with kidney disease, and so on and so forth.

To everyone out there claiming medications are some kind of scam: I suggest you at least be consistent and stop taking any medicine at all, just so you can actually stick to what you preach. A lot of drugs originated in nature, but today they're synthetically produced for good reason—there's nothing revolutionary about that.

You're going to extremes here...

A drug isn't inherently bad. What's bad is letting an insufficiently tested product hit the market—which happens, whether you want to admit it or not. Often, it occurs simply because the race for market share is so cutthroat; companies rush to release something new just to beat the competition to the patent.

It’s just a marketing campaign that ignores basic ethics—they take an entire stage of life and rebrand it as a disease.

Exactly. It’s a perfectly normal phase of life, but now they’ve decided "male menopause" is a thing, so they’re pushing female Viagra... if you're feeling blue, don't be blue—here, have a pill for that. Some natural life processes should just be allowed to exist as they are. There are plenty of actual, incurable diseases out there that need research, but apparently, that's not profitable enough...

The biggest market today is basically "pseudo-patients"—people the industry convinces that it's not okay to have a low-energy day (quick, take a vitamin supplement!) or a few days where you feel down (here, take something for sleep). Meanwhile, actual terminal illnesses remain largely untreatable...

So I was reading this thread on a women's health forum—it's pretty eye-opening... apparently, those Diane birth control pills aren't actually meant for contraception at all. Yet, they're still being prescribed for the wrong reasons to dozens of young women, even though one woman literally died from the side effects. Everyone knows how risky this stuff is, but doctors just keep writing the scripts anyway...

dustycanyon6 said:If aspirin were being approved today, we probably wouldn't be able to just grab it off the shelf without a prescription—even though everyone treats it like it's totally harmless.

Honestly, aspirin wouldn't stand a chance passing modern clinical trials today... it almost certainly wouldn't even hit the market, whether it was prescription or over-the-counter. To me, that just goes to show that our current system for testing new drugs (as flawed as it absolutely is) is way better than what it used to be.

BTW, can anyone actually point to a human-made system and call it PERFECT? I'll be the first to admit that the way we handle clinical trials needs some serious tweaking, but I still think it's the best we can do right now... maybe...

Quote:>

Matthew Sullivan32 says: You're being way too extreme here. The drug itself isn't necessarily bad; the problem is letting an under-researched medication hit the market—whether you want to admit that or not. I guess it usually happens because the race to get there is just so cutthroat. Companies rush to release something new before their competitors can beat them to the patent.

Alright then, give me an example. Name one drug that was rushed onto the market without enough research.
Do you even have any clue how the FDA registration process actually works? Like, do you realize that process takes at least five years? So, maybe we shouldn't be talking about drugs being released "in a hurry."

Matthew Sullivan32 said:exactly, it’s just a normal stage of life. Now they’ve gone and labeled "male menopause" and suddenly everyone is demanding female Viagra. If you’re feeling down—well, hey, we have a pill for that too, I guess. Some things are just natural parts of aging and should be left alone. There are plenty of actual, incurable diseases out there that actually need research, right?

Look, identifying male menopause doesn't mean people are hunting for female Viagra.
The demand for something like female Viagra has been around since the days of the ancient Greeks when they dealt with low libido. And as for a cure for sadness? People have been using wine for that since the Romans.
This isn't some new invention from Big Pharma.

Just tell me why Aspirin wouldn't pass FDA registration today.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Public scrutiny is coming. There's a chance people will sue doctors over mistakes, which I’m against again—because honestly, everyone messes up. It's better if they just settle things among themselves.

There’s a massive difference between an honest mistake and pure negligence or reckless behavior toward a patient. For that stuff, you sue them and make sure they're punished. You don't let them handle it behind closed doors. They won't fix a damn thing that way.😉

It’s just frustrating seeing our women struggle with MLS issues, mostly because they aren't being kept in the loop. Doctors are aware of the situation, yet they keep writing those prescriptions anyway... and nobody seems to care.😢

Kyle Nelson2 said:Alright then, give me an example of a drug that’s already on the market but hasn't been properly researched.

Stories about drugs like that pop up all the time... like Vioxx back in 2004, or even certain blood thinners... but you're just choosing to look the other way if that makes things easier for you. It seems like your whole philosophy is just: What you don't know can't hurt you! 🙄

Anything we put into our bodies carries potential risk.

This applies equally to pharmaceutical drugs and all those various "medicinal" herbs... even St. John's Wort tea can be potentially very harmful. Anyone with a basic understanding of xenobiotic metabolism should find that obvious.

The key is weighing whether the potential benefit to the patient outweighs the possible side effects. No sane person would take chemotherapy to treat a common cold; you save that for serious illness.

(On that note, I've noticed that the very people who criticize modern medicine and big pharma at the slightest hint of a virus are the first ones panicking in a drugstore looking for "natural" remedies... as if those wouldn't cause harm too.)

As for HRT, that's a slightly different story, and I'm not entirely certain women aren't being properly informed. Menopause isn't a disease, but given how we live today, it can be incredibly disruptive. Most women are in the workforce now—back in the day, they might have just stayed home until the hot flashes passed—but menopause issues can be debilitating in a professional setting, and you have to work. Furthermore, our modern obsession with youth is so extreme that in certain professions, women practically have to fight aging to stay competitive.
My hairdresser says she wouldn't dream of giving up HRT, despite knowing the risks, because her menopause manifested as depression so severe she couldn't function. She argues she’d rather live a normal life until 60 than live as a shell of herself until 80.

It's true that the pharmaceutical industry has marketed this reality quite aggressively, but I suspect HRT will continue to be heavily prescribed specifically at the request of women... with the justification being an improvement in quality of life.

Menopause isn't a sickness; it's the beginning of aging. But if we're being logically consistent, arterial hypertension is also, in most cases, just a symptom of aging. Why doesn't anyone suggest: "Don't treat high blood pressure, it's just a natural part of getting old; just sit there and wait for a stroke to hit you"?
🙄

granitebadger25 said:When it comes to the NHL, it’s a different story and I don't think women aren't being told the truth... menopause isn't a disease, but with how we live today, it can be brutal. Most women are working now (instead of staying home waiting for hot flashes to pass), so those symptoms can really mess with your job performance when you actually have to show up. Plus, the youth culture obsession is so intense right now that in certain careers, women basically have to fight aging just to stay relevant.
My hairstylist says she wouldn't dream of skipping the NHL even if her life depended on it—and she knows the risks—because menopause hit her with depression so bad she couldn't function. She'd rather live a normal life until 60 than be a shell of herself until 80.

Sure, Big Pharma has definitely milked this for marketing, but I think the NHL will keep being prescribed because women are demanding it... calling it "improving quality of life."

It's all subjective. My mom was on the MLS, and throughout that whole stretch, she had nothing but issues—small stuff and big stuff—even ending up in the ER a few times. Basically, it didn't help her at all; it just delayed the inevitable. Once she stopped the MLS, everything cleared up and she felt way better.
If someone wants to take something that works for them, fine, as long as they know what they're doing and take the risk themselves. But one size doesn't fit all.
I agree with your point overall. 🙂

It is obvious that effects vary from person to person.

Regarding hormone replacement therapy, one should understand that its side effects aren't significantly different from those caused by hormonal birth control pills—both involve combinations of hormones.
The distinction lies in age: women undergoing menopause are older, whereas hormonal contraceptives are used by younger women, for whom any adverse complications are nothing short of catastrophic. It is fundamentally different to face a cardiovascular event or breast cancer in your 30s versus your 50s.

Interestingly, there seems to be no real panic regarding hormonal contraception (aside from certain religious groups, though most people ignore them) 😉... and by that same logic, pregnancy isn't a disease, so why prevent it? 😉
I am not against contraception; I am merely stating this so we can examine the full scope of the issue from all angles.

"A government commission in Germany released findings from a new international study showing that the harmful side effects of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) far outweigh the benefits.

The German commission's report wasn't actually calling for a total ban on HRT... the core issue is something this text omits: every medication must prove its efficacy through clinical trials for every specific indication. Pharmaceutical companies, working alongside "distinguished" physicians acting as opinion leaders, claimed HRT protected against osteoporosis and atherosclerosis (it was already known that breast cancer risk was higher under hormones) based purely on theoretical reasoning. However, once actual clinical trials were conducted here in the US, the results debunked the theory that HRT protects against heart attacks and atherosclerosis—in fact, the opposite was true—and showed that fracture rates from osteoporosis weren't significantly lower. The criticism stems from the fact that certain treatment indications were promoted before they were truly verified.
I completely agree with the German commission on this point.👍

Kyle Nelson2 said:Fine, give me one example of a drug that’s already on the market but hasn't been sufficiently researched.
How much do you actually know about the drug registration process? Do you even realize it takes at least five years? We can't just talk about releasing medications overnight...

I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing you, but this is all based on official literature written by medical professionals—basically, drugs that get prescribed despite the fact that they really should be banned. (I assume you know what the American Medical Association's annual reports or PubMed mean, since it seems like you're from the industry...) I won't list everything because my list is over 40 items long and we don't have all day—Actos tablets, Tylenol, Macrobid capsules, certain steroid creams like Neosporin, Advil tablets, Accutane—which gets prescribed like some kind of "beauty pill" even though the side effects are catastrophic and permanent—I could go on about that one alone for half an hour—and Plavix.

therefore, the issue isn't that they haven't been studied enough... it's that they have. The results are devastating, but the pharmaceutical companies—after dumping so much money into development—refuse to walk away from the profit, no matter the cost.

Kyle Nelson2 said:diagnosing male menopause isn't about hunting for female Viagra.

Just tell me why Aspirin wouldn't pass registration today...

Of course it doesn't—I have no idea where you got that idea from. Let's call female "frigidity"—it doesn't need pills, it just needs a better partner. From my limited experience, there are no frigid women, just bad lovers. And then you have those 70-year-old guys who can't accept the natural aging process their bodies are going through—so they load up on Viagra until things stop working entirely, and then they go crying to a pharma giant like 🙄 😁
...

the first cure for sadness has existed since wine was invented (the Romans and Greeks).

If you're comparing wine to something like Prozac, then I don't think we can continue this discussion. To me, there's a massive difference between the two. Besides, the first cure for sadness wasn't invented by the Greeks—it was Adam and Eve. You tell me what that is... I practically use that treatment almost every day.

Menopause isn't a disease—not by any definition—but given how we live today, it can be incredibly disruptive. Most women are out in the workforce now (instead of staying home waiting for hot flashes to pass), and dealing with those symptoms while trying to maintain a career is just... difficult. It limits you when you still have responsibilities to meet... .

That’s exactly the point. If we start treating perfectly normal biological processes as medical conditions, where does it end? Maybe in a few years some corporate climber decides pregnancy is too "inconvenient" because women aren't allowed to take time off to recover—what then? Are we supposed to hunt for a pill to fix it? Or just turn to IVF so we can stay productive all nine months?

...and she's fully aware of the risks, but since her menopause manifested as depression that makes it impossible to function normally...

So, hormone therapy is the *only* solution for depression?

I agree with the rest of what you wrote—whenever a new drug hits the market, they tend to slap labels on it that it doesn't actually deserve just to push it to the widest possible audience. The speculation involved in these cases usually leads to massive profits...

In case I haven't made this clear yet, I'm not anti-medication. I'm against the way drugs are overused and the way patients are exploited...