Author Archive

Big Pharma’s Big Credo: Money is King

September 8th, 2011. By Hunter West

A long time ago, in a different life, the instructor in a business course I was taking asked the class the Number One Reason why people go into businesses. The answers varied from creating jobs, to bringing new products to market, to the prestige that can come with being a business owner, to ultimately helping mankind and make the world a better place.

As I sat there, listening to all of this, it suddenly struck me what the basic foundation for any business enterprise was, is and always will be.

“Making money,” I blurted out.

And apparently, I was right.

The successful former businessman in his own right, the founder of his share of multi-million dollar corporations, maintained that different businesses would have different credos, goals and objectives.

But all of that takes a back seat to profits. You don’t have any of the other stuff—prestige, job creation, R&D, charitable good works—without the money.

It’s all about the money, stupid. Show Me The Money.

Think about that the next time you take that pill for the umpteenth time, or undergo that hip replacement, or accept that pacemaker.

The drugs, the devices available to prolong our lives in the modern age are, in many ways, nothing short of remarkable. They really are. And I like to think that the doctor, who prescribes all this stuff to me, truly has my best health and welfare uppermost in his mind.

But you have to wonder at a regulator like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that is partially funded by the industry over which it is charged to police on our behalf.

You have to wonder about the various loopholes and shortcuts that allow manufacturers to bring ‘promising’ new product to market faster—with minimal testing—only to have a lot of these drugs and medical devices turn out to be hugely problematic, if not outright dangerous.

You have to wonder at an FDA that acknowledges side effects as a necessary evil to the ingestion of chemicals whose benefits outweigh the risks for the largest segment of the population (there is no such thing, therefore, as a completely safe drug…).

You also have to wonder, the next time your grandmother breaks out her pill organizer and proceeds to ingest an insane number of different-colored pills…

How many of those pills are actually prescribed to treat an actual condition, v. the number that are needed to counteract the side effects from other pills?

And I wonder just how important that is to the drug companies, and their respective bottom lines? (And, I’m not the only one who’s wondered–I’m recalling the documentary “Big Bucks Big Pharma” from a few years ago.)

Their profits…

Pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers appear to be licenses to print money—especially with the large Baby Boomer sector approaching retirement. There’s so much money, in fact, that the cost of defending lawsuits is simply a cost of doing business.

There’s that word again. Business. Profits, and revenue, and dividends for shareholders. How important is it for drug companies to know their products are helping us to live longer, v. the money they are making off of us to their ultimate benefit and that of their investors?

I know what my business instructor, all those years ago, would say…

There’s nothing wrong with running a business—with making profits. That’s what business does.

What bothers me about the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, is that the consumer doesn’t have a choice…

Need a car? You can buy GM, or Toyota, or Honda, or Chrysler Fiat, or Mitsubishi…

If you need a TV, there’s Samsung, or LG, or Sony, or…

Or maybe you don’t want to buy one at all…

The difference with prescription drugs and medical devices is that more often than not, we don’t have a choice. We are mandated to take it, conscripted to do it. We rarely have the capacity to choose. And, if we’re lucky, the one choice we might get is to go for the generic version.

I’m at the age now where I’m on a low-dose aspirin a day, to keep my blood from getting as thick as my own head. I’ll probably be doing that for the rest of my life. But I’m also on a statin for high cholesterol, and I hate it. The sooner I can get my bad cholesterol in check by my own hand—diet and exercise—the happier I will be, and I can kiss the statin goodbye.

Ultimately, I don’t want to take something that I don’t need. But beyond that, I loathe being made to take something against my free will—something with which Big Pharma is laughing all the way to the bank.

I’ve always maintained that health—products, devices, drugs, health care of any kind—should be not-for-profit, free from greed and the blind pursuit of revenue.

But then, it wouldn’t be America, would it?

Tags: Big Pharma, Drugs, FDA, medical devices, pharmaceuticals
Posted in Drugs/Medical | 85093 Comments »2011-09-08+14%3A50%3A17Hunter+West

When Cancer Research is Faulty, is it Fraud?

August 30th, 2011. By Hunter West

Cancer is so widespread that it touches us all in some way. Either you have lost a loved one or friend to cancer, you know someone who is afflicted—or you, yourself might be in the throes of battling some kind of cancer. It’s everywhere. Without getting into the debate as to why cancer rates appear to be rising, at least we can take solace in the research that we hope will one day result in a cure.

But perhaps that day may never happen. And recent events involving cancer research and fundraising have raised some doubts as to the effectiveness—and worth—of the cancer machine.

The New York Times recently chronicled the rise and fall of Dr. Anil Potti, a cancer researcher at Duke University Medical Center. Dr. Potti and colleagues had undertaken promising studies on genomic testing for molecular traits of cancerous tumors, and determining which chemotherapy treatment would be most appropriate.

Lung cancer patient Juliet Jacobs had a lot to gain and everything to lose, to that promise. Jacobs was part of the Duke University study, hoping for a breakthrough that would prolong her life.

Instead, the promising research was discredited due to the discovery of errors. Four gene signature papers were retracted, three trials at Duke were shuttered and the lead researcher resigned.

Juliet Jacobs died a few months following treatment that promised much but proved ineffective. Her family has launched a lawsuit, as have the relatives of other similarly doomed patients who had high hopes from the Duke research, since dashed.

Then, there’s the controversy in Canada over the allocation of fundraised dollars to research, compared with other needs of an apparently ravenous cancer machine.

A consumer advocacy arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last month looked at the financial records of the Canadian Cancer Society, following a complaint from a cancer researcher that research dollars appear to be harder to get—even though more people are Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Cancer Drug Clinical Trials, Cancer Drugs, Cancer Research, Cancer Society, Duke University Medical Center
Posted in Drugs/Medical | 8383No Comments »2011-08-30+13%3A38%3A34Hunter+West

Asbestos: Safe Enough to Sell, So Long as it Goes to India

August 15th, 2011. By Hunter West

The Canadian government was talking out of both sides of its mouth recently when it decided to reject a recommendation from Health Canada, the Canadian answer to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to add asbestos to the so-called Rotterdam list of dangerous substances.

That’s partly because Canada still mines and exports the stuff. It’s worth about $90 million dollars a year to the economy of Quebec alone. And the Prime Minster said that as long as there are people willing to buy it, Canada would export it.

Well, Stephen Harper has a point. There are countries around the globe—especially India—that consider asbestos to be a cheap and handy commodity for the building trade. If the rest of the world is taking it out of their buildings, they don’t seem to care.

And Canada is not prepared to take a moral stand, as some countries have done, by either placing asbestos on a blacklist, or banning its use altogether. The US hasn’t banned it, either.

It does serve to illustrate that in the shadow of big business, health often takes a back seat.

Drug companies have for years been doing an end run around safety in the quest for profits and revenue, to the point where they have the FDA—described by some as largely a political entity—largely in their back pocket. The FDA, for its part, has never required a drug or medical device to be completely safe before it is allowed on the market. So long as the benefits outweigh the risks for those to whom the drugs are directed and intended, then all is well.

So long as a drug, or medical device company makes more revenue from a drug than the money they lose defending it, then…well…that’s just good business, isn’t it?

In Canada’s case given the asbestos issue, the reasons why the feds rejected the recommendation from their health regulator are both economic and political.

First, the sudden ending of a $90 million dollar-per-year industry would have a huge impact on the Quebec economy, as well as the country as a whole. Canada, while geographically larger than the US, is sparely populated in comparison.

From the political side, the largely French-speaking Quebec has been waffling over its wish to disenfranchise with Canada and go it alone as an independent, sovereign state since the beginning of time. At the moment, the separation flame has cooled and the government wishes to avoid doing anything that may turn up the heat.

And—the governing Conservative Party is hoping to take Quebec seats away form the New Democratic Party in the next election, which is five years away. The NDP took a whack of seats away from the Bloc Quebecois—a separatist party—this past May, and the governing Conservatives see that as an opportunity.

So let’s do nothing to upset Quebec. So what if Heath Canada urges a ban on asbestos? It comes from Quebec. So asbestos mining stays, and asbestos continues to be exported.

Besides, Health Canada notes that while it can’t say asbestos is safe (nobody can), it does admit to the fact that in its view chrysotile asbestos—which is the stuff that comes from Quebec—is not quite as destructive as other forms of asbestos. Of course, the feds have seized on that point, too.

Here’s the thing. If asbestos is so bad, why has that same Canadian government been removing asbestos from Canada’s Parliament buildings, and from the official residence of the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister was asked about that very contrast. His response? As long as people are willing to buy it, the government won’t stand in its way.

“This government will not put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted,” Harper said.

And yet three years ago, the stated in an editorial “Canada is the only Western democracy to have consistently opposed international efforts to regulate the global trade in asbestos. And the government of Canada has done so with shameful political manipulation of science.”

It should be noted that all countries participating in the Rotterdam Convention met June 20^th. Canada has yet to formulate a position on asbestos, and presumably will continue to waffle for at least the next five years.

If someone came up with a way to replace that $90 million dollar windfall every year with something safe and clean, then watch it happen.

If drug companies could make just as much, if not more from drugs that are completely safe, then watch it happen.

But as long as there are lobbyists making sure that drug and medical device manufacturers in their districts are happy and healthy—and as long as there are emerging countries ready and willing to buy a product that carries both health risks for the customer, but also political and economic risks for a government with an eye towards re-election, nothing will happen.

Asbestos will continue to be mined, and exported. Drugs and medical devices will continue to be marketed with risks both known and unknown.

It’s just business. It’s a democracy. It’s civilization. And we’re all so very, very civilized.

Tags: Asbestos, Asbestos Mesothelioma, asbestos_mesothelioma
Posted in Asbestos Mesothelioma | 8094No Comments »2011-08-15+13%3A00%3A53Hunter+West

Study Showing Arsenic, Lead in Lip Gloss has us asking: Is your Makeup Safe?

August 8th, 2011. By Hunter West

Insomuch as we are conditioned, in this day and age, to being picky about what we put IN our bodies, we may be falling down in the area of what we put ON our bodies.

Specifically, makeup.

Some women use makeup sparingly. Others don’t use it at all. Then there’s the gal who paints it on so thick, marauding mosquitoes would ultimately fail to find skin to penetrate.

Beauty has as many definitions, as there are individuals. However, beyond the vanity—or lack thereof—that serves as the foundation for makeup use, are the questions about what’s in the stuff.

A Canadian advocacy group known as Environmental Defense (ED) wondered just that. ED tested 49 common items used as makeup in search for the presence and levels of eight heavy metals, including lead and arsenic.

The result? All 49 products tested contained an average of four of the eight metals they were looking for. That’s the average: some had more, others less. But all products were found to contain at least two.

It’s not that manufacturers are deliberately putting heavy metals into makeup. What appears to be happening, however, is that impurities naturally occurring in the basic ingredients used in producing various forms of makeup are finding their way into the finished product.

The tested products were found, overall, to contain trace amounts of heavy metals that fell well below the impurity limits proposed by Health Canada.

But not all…

One of the lip glosses tested contained 110 parts-per-million (ppm) of lead, well above the 10 ppm limit proposed by Health Canada. The same lip gloss also was found to contain 70 ppm of arsenic, compared with a proposed limit of 3 ppm deemed safe for use.

Doctors and health care advocates claim that such high levels of heavy metals could be vastly reduced if manufacturers were motivated.

So, what would motivate them? Defective product lawsuits? What’s the long-term impact of makeup use? And what about those who habitually apply their foundation with a trowel? What is such exposure doing to them?

Does anyone look at the labels, to see what’s in this stuff? Are the labels even up-to-date?

Where is your makeup made? China? The latter republic has a reputation for putting lead into your kid’s toys. Is it in your makeup, too?

Those who never give their makeup a passing thought, need to hear the story of actor Buddy Ebsen, who was the original Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz (shown above in picture).

Ebsen, a young song-and-dance man at the time, assumed the role of the Tin Man after switching places with Ray Bolger—who had originally been cast as the Tin Man but was moved to the role of the Scarecrow instead.

Ebsen recorded the soundtrack and rehearsed all the scenes before filming started in full costume. Strangely, the young and energetic Ebsen began experiencing cramps and shortness of breath, and he was hospitalized.

It was determined that the cause of his illness was the aluminum dust used in his silver make-up. Inhaling the dust into his lungs caused the problem, and he was never able to go back to the role. His replacement, Jack Haley, went on to fame as the beloved Tin Man in the iconic movie—but only after producers switched to a paste makeup so the actor wouldn’t inhale the aluminum dust, as Ebsen had done.

Ebsen would later say that he suffered from lung issues the rest of his life, following his allergic reaction to inhaling aluminum dust when he was in his twenties.

So…what’s in your makeup? Is it safe? Or is it harming you over the long-term? What are the manufacturers doing about it? What’s their responsibility?

Food for thought, the next time you’re putting on your face…

Tags: Arsenic, Cosmectics, Cosmetic Ingredients, Lead, Lip Gloss, Makeup
Posted in Emerging Issues | 79282 Comments »2011-08-08+14%3A21%3A50Hunter+West

Cholesterol Drug and Cardiomyopathy – Why didn’t Anyone Tell me?

August 1st, 2011. By Hunter West

Mouse Pad available at Zazzle.com

Do you mind me venting?

I have just been put on a statin because my cholesterol is too high. Apparently my doctor says, at 54, I am at a high risk for heart attack and stroke.

Nice. This, in spite of the fact I have no history of heart disease in my family, I have never smoked, I have exercised semi-regularly and have always watched my weight.

Okay, maybe I haven’t been watching what I eat. I like my steaks and prime rib like everybody else. Butter on popcorn, if you please. And perhaps, on occasion, a beer or two, too many.

And okay, while never an exercise demon I was always a fairly active guy. Rode my bike to work. In the late 90′s I took up walking for health, and to lose a few pounds. Then in 2002 I took up running. I ran a half-marathon in under two hours. And I trained for a full marathon (although I never completed the actual race). I got myself down to my high school weight of 129.

But for the past five years I haven’t done a lot, due to work commitments. Is that the reason for my current troubles? Can five years of inactivity cancel out 40 years of fairly active living?

I guess…

So now I’m on low-dose Aspirin once a day, to thin the blood out. And now, as of last night, I’m on a statin to reduce my bad cholesterol.

Overall, statins are considered good things. And not all statins are created equal. Thankfully, I’m not on Zocor, or Vytorin. I’m on another one. But at 10mg, I’m on the highest dose Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Cardiomyopathy, Cholesterol, Crestor, Rhabdomyolysis, Statin drugs, statins
Posted in Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues | 83255 Comments »2011-08-01+13%3A01%3A07Hunter+West