|
LTS: Khoahoc.net đặc biệt cống hiến bạn đọc chuyên
ngành tài liệu Tiếng Anh về vấn đề dược phẩm của Richard Tran.
Anh đã đề cập đến các lọai bệnh như Ung thư, HIV, Viêm khớp
xương, Tim mạch vành.. kể cả lọai thuốc trị dị ứng rất thông
dụng Claritin…”Họ đã thiết kế và xây dựng một hệ thống doanh
nghiệp mà thực chất dựa vào mưu gian”...
Rất tiếc chúng tôi
chỉ có bản tiếng Anh của Richard Tran. Bản nầy chưa được chuyển
ngữ sang Tiếng Việt.
* * *
In 2002, a female
Indian doctor, Dr. Indrani Sarkur and her team released a PhD
thesis which explained an enzyme that they had engineered which
recognizes and destroys the HIV virus which plagues more than
half the world. One would assume that such important news that
is beneficial to millions around the world would be all over
billboards and the news. Unfortunately, this is not what
happened. Most people probably didn’t even know such an enzyme
existed or had ever heard of Dr. Sarkur before reading this
paper. One might ponder why news of such importance is not well
known. This is a good example of the corruption that is
continuing to develop in pharmaceutical companies.
Pharmaceutical companies have been long criticized for not
following ethics and instead are putting profits before people.
Every year millions of people die from common diseases and
illness that could be easily treated with inexpensive existing
treatments and medicines. The corruption lies within all the
profit seeking pharmaceutical companies that devise plans
anchored towards yielding the most profit rather than benefiting
the people. The problem of these pharmaceutical companies can
be broken down and examined at three levels: research,
development, and the distribution of their drugs.
Innovation is a word that no longer coincides with
the pharmaceutical industry with respect to the way it carries
out the research and development of drugs. Research and
development tend to go hand in hand. The reality is that from
the billions of dollars these companies make each year a very
small percentage of it goes towards research and development of
new drugs. In recent years there have only been a small portion
of truly new drugs developed and they were mainly created from
taxpayer-funded research and academic institutions, small
companies, or the National Institutes of Health (Angell). In
other words, the bulk of important drugs were created through
means outside of the pharmaceutical giants. The pharmaceutical
companies have their own ideology for manufacturing drugs. They
take established drugs and produce a variation of it and
remarket it for profit. These type of drugs are called “me too”
drugs for the literal meaning (Angell). There are more than one
good example of these “me too” drugs. How often do you see a
commercial for an anti-depressant medication on T.V? We
currently have about 6 different drugs that serve the same
purpose of suppressing symptoms of depression. To name a few,
Zoloft and Prozac are among the most popular. This method of
bringing drugs to the market is very profitable because the idea
is if they can modify a molecule here and there and still have
it do the same thing they can remarket it as a “new” drug. This
method exploits the patent system. For each drug they can put a
patent on it which gives them sole ownership of the drug for 20
years. This means that no other companies can create any
generic versions of it and sell it for cheaper enabling them to
control the market.
In addition to
the lack of innovation in research and development, the research
of these pharmaceutical companies has also been criticized as
being fraudulent (Gumm). It has been argued that not only has
the money not been used properly for development of innovative
drugs but also it has also not been used to properly conduct
research for the treatment of the AIDS virus ("'Dangerously
Flawed' AIDS Research Criticized”). A
good example of this is a case in the late 1980’s when
pharmaceutical companies would refuse to release research data
to a congressional committee of the Intergovernmental Relations
and Human Resources. A representative of the committee went to
one of the companies and attempted to use the committee’s right
to review the company’s activity (Pear). The representative was
however denied access and said, “the employees would be
instructed to not answer questions about budget requests and
research plans being developed.” This leads into the idea that
rather than finding a specific cure for AIDS the companies are
working towards “me too” medicines that help subdue the symptoms
rather than get rid of the virus entirely (Gumm). Referring
back to the case of Indrani Sarkur the Indian doctor who
developed a potential cure, there is a good reason why news of
such a cure is not popularized. This is not the only case where
this has happened. Many times a new “breakthrough” treatment
might be developed and published on a few news sites and some
scientific journals but never goes worldwide or breaks
headlines. And within a few weeks you never really hear about
it again. Controversy boils around the idea that these
companies would rather have diseases and illnesses such as AIDS
and cancer exist than not. The most radical of the lot goes as
far as to criticize the pharmaceutical companies and claim there
probably could have been cures developed by now if it weren’t
for the censorship by the pharmaceutical companies. Looking at
the details, one can see that there are many incentives out
there for the pharmaceutical companies to commit such unethical
acts. Consider how much money these companies yield annually
supplying drugs that suppress or manage diseases such as
HIV/AIDS and cancer (Pear). Then consider the percentage of
money they would lose if that disease was wiped out and cured.
The sad fact is that as long as they virus is out there these
companies continue to rack up billions each year by aiding the
symptoms. This can be applied to almost any disease that
currently exists.
Fraudulent
research leads to poorly developed drugs, which then combined
with the method of cutting corners practiced by the
pharmaceutical companies is a recipe for fatality, which has
been the case in the past decade. Pharmaceutical drugs have
become one of the leading causes of death in developing
countries earning its way up there with a multitude of
diseases. It is quite ironic how the drugs that are supposed to
prevent and aid in treatment is now becoming a leading cause of
death rather than doing any good. This is not isolated to just
developing nations. It is also present in the United States.
In 1978 about 1.5 million Americans were hospitalized because of
drugs given to “cure” them. In the 1990’s there were about
180,000 medically induced deaths each year in the United States
("Why
Do Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill”).
These numbers represent only a small portion of the other larger
portion of administrative related damages that are kept hidden
or not reported. The underlying reason for such fatalities is
the testing and approval drugs being developed. Clinical trials
are a good example of how fraud is committed. Pharmaceutical
companies pay researchers to produce their desired results that
push toward acceptance of the new drug. Evidence shows that
researchers are paid up to $1,000 dollars to paid per subject
enabling some researchers to earn up to $1,000,000 a year aiding
drugs to get passed ("Why
Do Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill”).
Paying researchers is a costly bargain, which brings in the idea
of animal testing. Animal testing in its own regard has a lot
of ethical problems but putting that aside, animal testing does
not provide a solid basis for showing a drug is safe for human
use. A lot of times when animals are used in research, they are
perfectly healthy so in order to test a drug that is
specifically designed to cure a problem in humans, researchers
must artificially create the problem in the animal. This is not
at all related to how humans spontaneously develop illnesses
through lifestyle and other factors such as the environment. A
good example of this is osteoarthritis a human disease in which
there is a gradual development of joint deformity. To get this
to develop in animals, researchers must resort to cruel and
unethical methods such as beating them with hammers, injecting
them with irritating liquids, radiation, induced dislocation,
the list goes on and this only touches the surface of the
ethical concerns of using animals in research ("Why
Do Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill”).
One can see that the forced problems in the animals are not in
anyway in correlation to the human osteoarthritis and so testing
these drugs on these animals will not really yield any relevant
evidence in favor of the drug. What people must understand that
humans and animals are two completely different species with
very little in common. We react differently to certain things
than animals do and vice versa. Take for example dogs and
humans. Humans can relatively speaking eat pounds of chocolate
if they wanted to in a day and not suffer anything more than
obesity in the long run. However a small amount of chocolate to
a dog is toxic and can be lethal. The same goes for onions that
of which is healthy for us but for dogs and cats are lethal
because of an ingredient that is poisonous to them. Some
animals produce vitamin C naturally and don’t need any intake of
it but deprive a human of vitamin C for a while and we can die
from it (Day). These huge biological differences amongst humans
and animals alone can make it evident to even the most common
person that animal testing isn’t viable. Researchers from drug
companies will use animal testing to get approval for drugs and
claim that since it had years of testing and showed
effectiveness in animals it will be good for humans ("Why
Do Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill”).
The sad truth to this is that it works and it gets their drugs
approved but at the cost of thousands of lives every year as we
clearly saw earlier.
Corruption too
lies outside of the research and development of pharmaceutical
companies. Once drugs are released we can see that still
pharmaceutical companies are continuing to attempt to make the
most profit from it. One of the ways they do this is by cutting
the source of the drug. As we explained earlier, these
companies are not being innovative and instead they are creating
“me too” drugs. One of the sole purposes of this is because
each new drug they create they can earn a patent on it which
lasts 20 years. This patent enables them to own all rights to
the drug so that there won’t be any generic versions of it
created. This in turn enables them to control the market for
that particular drug. Since no one can create generic versions
of it people can only get it from them which means prices are
controlled by them and they can inflate it however they want. A
good example is the well-known allergy drug, Claritin. Before
its patent ran out, the company increased its price a staggering
14 time over the course of the last 5 years before its patent
ran out. This was a cumulative increase of more than 50
percent, which is more than 4 times the rate of inflation in the
United States (Angell). Pharmaceutical companies claim that
this inflation is normal and the money is reused in research and
development for new drugs. The truth behind this is that the
research and development is a relatively small section of the
budget for these companies and the budget is even smaller when
you factor in the billions that these companies make annually.
The prices these companies charge have very little correlation
to the costs of the actual manufacturing of the drugs. Prices
could be cut more than 50% which would make it more affordable
to a larger population of people who need it and still not come
anywhere near cutting into their budget or better yet their
profit.
The patent system
itself is flawed because this allows these pharmaceutical
companies to make minor adjustments to a drug and earn another
20 years worth of sole propriety. The companies know this and
exploit it to the fullest extent. This brings harm to a lot of
developing countries because they cannot afford the premium
price the companies are charging for the medicines and because
of the patents they cannot develop generic versions that would
be a lot cheaper and could save thousands of lives (Angell). It
has become so bad that thousands die each year from common
illnesses that have inexpensive treatments available but they
don’t get it because they cannot afford it. Imagine how many
lives could be saved a year if these countries were allowed to
create generic versions of these drugs. Because of the methods
these pharmaceutical companies use to market and distribute
their drugs thousands to millions die annually and for no better
reason than more profit for the companies themselves.
Ironically these companies not only have money but they have
also obtained a lot of political power. The U.S government
fully supports the patents that these companies put on their
drugs. If a country attempted to create generic versions of a
patented drug, the U.S asserts trade sanctions on them.
The distribution
of drugs is carefully reviewed to make sure the most profit is
being made. Pharmaceutical companies have been known to refuse
to distribute drugs that would save lives because it either
yielded low or no profit for them. A good example of this was a
drug called Eflornithine, which was developed to defend against
African sleeping sickness, which claims thousands of lives every
year (Angell). The company that produced it suddenly stopped
production claiming “commercial failure” without any further
comment. The company was not interested in marketing the drug
in a third world country such as Africa, which in this case is
where it was needed most. This is because it yielded them low
profits. Pharmaceutical companies use very selective marketing,
a drug like Eflornithine, which saves lives but is only good for
curing African sleeping sickness, which is only needed for a
relatively small portion of the world population, will be cut.
However a drug like Vaniqa, a drug produced by the same company
only a few months later that stopped unwanted facial hair in
women was marketed and distributed everywhere. Ironically it
was even distributed in Africa (Angell). Africa is a developing
country with more illnesses and diseases than a person would
bother to count. How likely is it they are worried about
unwanted facial hair rather than surviving to see the next
sunrise? It is very unlikely however, being a cosmetic drug, it
appealed to the world population and that is what sells and in
turn was the reason why it was widely distributed. It is sad
that a pharmaceutical company would be more likely to put out
more than double the effort to market a drug solely made for
aesthetic reasons rather than a drug developed to save thousands
of lives but this is the reality of how deep the corruption is
in our pharmaceutical companies.
The
corruption of distribution in these pharmaceutical companies
ranges further than just the drugs themselves. These companies
indirectly distribute and expand diseases. This is a highly
controversial statement and indeed would not be put forth
without strong hard evidence. There is evidence however, and a
lot of it. So much that pharmaceutical companies have been put
forth and accused of genocide before the ICC, the International
Crimes Court. Yes, it is the same court that has trials for war
crimes committed by terrorists, the likes of Saddam Hussein.
What are they charged for that is on such a scale that can be
regarded as genocide? They have designed and constructed a
system of business that essentially is built upon fraud (“Pharmaceutical
Corporations Accused of Genocide Before ICC in the Hague”).
Pharmaceutical companies create drugs that treat symptoms but do
not cure the underlying reason the problem in there in the first
place. It would be different if the problem were something that
we do not have a treatment for or something that we do not know
very much about but this is not the case for a lot of diseases.
A good example of this is coronary heart disease, which is the
structural weakening, and loss of function in artery walls due
to deficiencies of vitamins and nutrients (“Why Do
Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill”). Pharmaceutical
companies when developing drugs for this disease completely act
oblivious to this cause of the disease and focus on the symptoms
like high cholesterol. Because they avoid curing the disease
and just remove its symptoms, the long-term side effect is that
the disease leads to other diseases (“Pharmaceutical
Corporations Accused of Genocide before ICC in the Hague”).
In a way you can argue that because of the pharmaceutical
companies’ negligence, they indirectly cause the death of
millions of people every year. In addition to that, those new
diseases that occur from either the side effects of long term
use of a drug or from the avoidance of curing the initial
disease leads to new drug markets and thereby more money. This
is one of the pieces of evidence pertaining to how
pharmaceutical companies contribute to the distribution of
diseases which in turn leads to the loss of millions of lives.
A lot of these drugs administered to relieve symptoms in turn
lead to more serious diseases and sometimes can be the
underlying cause for a lot of deaths. To give a few examples,
cholesterol-lowering drugs are advertised to prevent heat
disease but it has been known to induce cancer at doses that are
currently given to people around the world. Aspirin, a drug now
mass marketed as a mechanism to prevent heart attacks and
strokes. Most people can recall that in recent years you hear
that “one aspirin a day will lower your chances of heart attacks
and strokes,” however, long term use of aspirin as been known to
destroy collagen which in turn increases the risk of heart
attacks and strokes and a multitude of other diseases such as
stomach ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeding. These are the
things that the people aren’t told and aren’t aware of. All
these examples support the idea that these pharmaceutical
companies indirectly commit the crime of killing millions of
people every year. This is all done for the sole purpose of
yielding the largest profit margins.
The
pharmaceutical industry started off as a very innovative machine
determined to save lives and progress toward the common good but
has ended up as a marketing mastermind funneling money in from
whatever ends it can disregarding the well being of the people.
In a few decades it has seemingly evolved into a corrupt and
power hungry entity that in a sense has broken all bounds.
There is no checks and balance with the pharmaceutical
industry. The corruptions within the pharmaceutical companies
seem to have a domino effect as one corruption leads to more
corruption. Poor research methods that lack innovations do
nothing more than give rise to development of drugs that lack
effectiveness in curing diseases. Development of drugs based
off poor research then leads unethical and fraudulent methods of
testing them so that they can be approved for release. And from
there marketing schemes devised towards yielding the profit
cripples the ability to do what the purpose of the drugs should
be and that is to help people and save lives. Profit devised
marketing plans distribute these drugs that in a sense put a
cloak over diseases by curing symptoms but not the underlying
cause. This then gives two possible scenario, either a new
disease develops because of the lack of treatment of the disease
in the first place or the prolonged use of the drug causes a
side effect that opens the door for new diseases. Either way,
the pharmaceutical companies will profit from it and that in the
end all that matters is well, profit.
Richard Tran
Works Cited
Angell,
Marcia. "The Truth About Drug Companies." The New York Review
of Books. 15 July 2005. 27 Nov. 2007
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244>.
"'Dangerously Flawed' AIDS Research Criticized." CNN. 22
Apr. 1997. 28 Nov. 2007
<http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9704/22/aids.experiments/>.
Day,
Cam. "Human Foods That Poison Pets." Petalia. 28 Nov.
2007
<http://www.petalia.com.au/templates/storytemplate_process.cfm?story_no=257>
Gumm, Brian. "Industry Challenges Impede Cancer Research and
Information." OMB Watch. 28 Aug. 2007. 27 Nov. 2007
<http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3964/1/192?TopicID=5>.
Pear, Robert. "House Panel in Dispute Over AIDS Research Data."
The New York Times.
5
June 1983. 1 Dec. 2007
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html
res=9C06E5DC173BF936A35755C0A965948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all>.
"Pharmaceutical Corporations Accused of Genocide Before ICC in
the Hague." New Media Explorer. 14 June 2003. 27 Nov.
2007 <http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/06/23/
pharmaceutical_corporations_accused_of_genocide_before_icc_in_the_hague.htm>.
"Why Do
Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill." New Media Explorer.
4 June 2003. 28 Nov. 2007
<http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/06/04
/why_do_pharmaceutical_drugs_injure_and_kill.htm>.
Trở về Trang Chính
| 