2024-10-24
Two examples arrive today of the way in which demand is drummed up for Big Pharma drugs.
A) The Telegraph reports that the dastardly NHS is refusing to fund the latest "wonder drug" for Alzheimer's dementia.
"Regulators have declared the new treatment for the disease safe for use but the rationing body has immediately ruled that it is too expensive for NHS patients"
"Immediately"! The unfeeling apparatchiks! Still counting the pennies whilst we die a slow and highly undesirable death!
Cue everybody writes in high indignation to whatever authority they please to demand that the government fund whatever outrageous price tag Big Pharma demand for their new drug (which "slows the progress" and, some might think, merely prolongs the agony), thereby keeping the wolves from Big Pharma's door. Not to mention the regulator's door, largely funded as they are by Big Pharma.
With sufficient outcry behind them, the regulator will approve.
Maybe, just maybe, the newspapers would perform a better service to the public by investigating the relevant clinical trials and reporting on the true efficacy and safety of the products on offer - human nature being what it is, and the monies involved being so gargantuan, I'm sure there must be some rich pickings somewhere in this department, just waiting for exposure ...
B) Investigate Europe also report on the opaque but apparently startling price discrepancies of various "life-saving medications" as demanded by Big Pharma in different European countries.
"Deadly prices is our major investigation that exposed the hidden costs behind crucial medicines"
"Some news is great: the pharmaceutical pipeline is bursting with new therapies that seem like gamechangers"
Note the weasel words.
"The investigation has been nominated for the Daphne Caruana Galizia Prize, a prestigious award for outstanding journalism"
Another weasel word - they haven't actually won anything.
Exactly the same criticism applies - they take the safety and efficacy of such "life-saving" for granted. Did they learn nothing from thalidomide?
Even Wikipedia agrees: "It was introduced as a sedative and medication for morning sickness without having been tested on pregnant women"
So if our regulators will not protect us, and our newspapers are similarly asleep (or worse - their advertising revenue likely depends upon their lazy somnolence) then it is up to us the public to demand answers to the pertinent questions, especially when newspapers and others would divert us down less important avenues of enquiry that may ultimately lead to little effect except the swelling of Big Pharma's coffers.
