Drug Trial Goes Horribly Wrong - Consumerist Comments

Drug Trial Goes Horribly Wrong

kerry — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:35:24 EST

Pharmaceutical companies do awful things, I can go on for hours, but I don't think they would have been allowed to run clinical trials if they had known about the reaction the drug would cause in humans. Not so fast ... the makers of Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra (those last two are the same company) knew from human trials that their drug could cause heart disease in the elderly, but the drug still got past the FDA. There's a big difference between knowing about a problem and making that data public. If the drug company in this case knew that their drug had killed a few dogs, but had reason to believe it was not drug related they could easily suppress that information and go on to human trials, in an effort to bring their drug to market (and profitability) faster. They take a chance and play the odds that a few dead dogs won't translate to a few dead people.

kerry

Drug Trial Goes Horribly Wrong

Paul D — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:43:00 EST

Clearly it isn't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies to kill people, since dead people buy fewer drugs. This is the same bullshit reasoning given by tobacco apologists. The truth is that the companies don't think that far ahead. They're in it for the dollars they can make off you now, and if you die...there's always your kids.

Paul D

Drug Trial Goes Horribly Wrong

Nick — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:29:03 EST

Certainly they weren't _trying_ to kill anyone, but I don't think it's out of the question that they may have been less then thorough in their procedures leading up to testing. When there's commercial pressure to get something to a marketable state as soon as possible, there's always the temptation to cut corners, and I'm sure speeding up the timeline for human testing without finishing exhaustive tests on animals first is one way to do that. From at least one article I've read, the experimental procedure wasn't ideal, either - they gave the doses to all the test subjects at the same time, even though the pre-eminent textbook on the subject strongly advises staggering trials for exactly this reason - if the outcome is catastrophic, the minimum of people are exposed to it.

Nick

Drug Trial Goes Horribly Wrong

Ben Popken — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:48:57 EST

Jane writes: Hi, I jut thought you'd be interested in this post, written by a British blog that covers medical and drug-related topics occasionally. http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1306 It's a fairly reasoned argument on aspects of the whole drug trial issue. While I understand you guys are interested in keeping consumers informed, your coverage of the topic at this time (10:38 EST) leaves the impression the drug company knowingly injured drug testers. Clearly it isn't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies to kill people, since dead people buy fewer drugs. Pharmaceutical companies do awful things, I can go on for hours, but I don't think they would have been allowed to run clinical trials if they had known about the reaction the drug would cause in humans. There's also an interesting interview with one of the men who recieved the placebo in the study, here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4813478.stm Jane

Ben Popken

Drug Trial Goes Horribly Wrong

airship — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:51:01 EST

Much as I hate drug companies, I am alive today because of the research they do. I doubt seriously they were trying to kill anyone. Not because they are so moral or anything, but because there's no money in it. Drug testing is inherently dangerous, and I hope that no draconian regulations are implemented because of this. I'm sure I'm going to be needing even more drugs in the future to keep my sad, overweight carcass alive, and I'd hate to drop dead just because drug companies are unduly hindered from testing new drugs. That being said, I really feel sorry for these guys and their families.

airship