very bad premise.
No doubt there's a jungle out there, and greed trumps need, but it's not nearly so dark and sinister as you paint it. There aren't very many truly new drugs brought to market. Those that are have often been developed cooperatively with our NIH and licensed competitively. The patent holder must carry out an approved FDA clinical trial to have exclusive rights for a limited number of years. If the potential market is big enough, companies can pay out huge sums for licenses, patent protection, and clinical trials--and still make out like bandits.
That hardly ever happens these days, so a whole lot of weaseling goes on. Products that are approved for one health condition are proscribed for a completely different health condition--without additional clinical trials. Products approved in the world market can be grandfathered in to our US market with fewer test safeguards. The federal government makes exclusive arrangements to provide products for public health--like flu vaccines. Generic manufacturers stand ready to jump in when intellectual rights expire.
The problem almost never is due to the carrying out of a clinical trial--or the results. The problem is interpreting the results--and those results are often impossible to evaluate in terms of risk. During R&D, negative scientific results may be withheld from publication against the wishes of the investigator--but that doesn't happen so often.
Nobody in this food chain wants to be found guilty of harming the public in any way. The costs of such harm in lawsuits could put a company out of business; so the weaseling has it's limits.
|Sighting Self-citing Scientists||714||Dr. Troglodyte||21-Aug-19 14:14|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||50||D-Archer||21-Aug-19 15:59|
|A New Drug||47||Lost_In_Place||22-Aug-19 08:55|
|Re: exaggerated||59||Lost_In_Place||22-Aug-19 20:42|