Book review: Bad Pharma
blogs.law.harvard.edu
Book review: Bad Pharma
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#2On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. I found the effects of SSRIs very noticeable, and every doctor prescribing them knows of patients who suddenly were able to leave the bed, or deeply depressive patients switching into a manic episode. The latter might not sound like an improvement, but for the patients, quality of life improves immensely. This can explain why doctors and regulators look favourably on drugs with a long history of clinical use.
I'd also criticize the conclusion that there's nothing better than Aspirin on the market. Which hasn't been known since ancient times by the way. The original salicylic acid was much worse on the stomach. Both Ibuprofene and Diclofenac have better analgesic properties, again very noticeable, and metamizole has different properties, again much more useful than asparin. There's really nothing to argue with that, except some hand-waving "placebo" talk, which often isn't so scientific either.
I'm more familiar with the veterinary side of things, and there the situation is that there are both independant trials, and a sort of "grapevine" where veterinarians compare notes on different drugs.
You can't really argue with anesthesia drugs. Either they work or they don't. Either they have a high incidence of accidents in a particular species, or they don't. Antibiotics much the same, especially when performing individual lab tests. Sure there is a lot of hyperbole or bad advertising, but it's not just "bad pharma".
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#3That's a review? There's almost no criticism, or even considered discussion, of the book at all. He's just copied and pasted sections that he thinks are important or interesting, and called it a day.
Not that there's anything wrong with quoting sections of a work that you think are worthy of spreading to a wider audience (assuming proper attribution), but IMNSHO it's a bit disingenuous to call QFTing a "review".
(FWIW, I thought the book was both excellent and terrifying, and that you should read it. That's also not a review, just an opinion. :-p )
Edit: downvotes? Am I really being unfair? Can you explain what it is you think the author of the review has added here?
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#4On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. I found the effects of SSRIs very noticeable, and every doctor prescribing them knows of patients who suddenly were able to leave the bed, or deeply depressive patients switching into a manic episode. The latter might not sound like an improvement, but for the patients, qua…
The argument that painkillers haven't progressed in efficacy since Aspirin seems like it'd be thwarted simply by comparing Advil, Aspirin, and Tylenol, which seem to have noticeably different anti-inflammatory properties (acetaminophen being better for headaches and ibuprofen better for toothaches, for instance).
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#5On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. I found the effects of SSRIs very noticeable, and every doctor prescribing them knows of patients who suddenly were able to leave the bed, or deeply depressive patients switching into a manic episode. The latter might not sound like an improvement, but for the patients, qua…
>On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them.
I hear the same thing about the power of prayer and Reiki.
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#6That's a review? There's almost no criticism, or even considered discussion, of the book at all . He's just copied and pasted sections that he thinks are important or interesting, and called it a day. Not that there's anything wrong with quoting sections of a work that you think are worthy of spreading to a wider audience (assuming proper attribution), but IMNSHO it's a bit disingenuous to call QFTing a "review". (FW…
Greenspun did a good job of characterizing (even summarizing) the information that you can find in the book. I learned new things from reading his review. Since I didn't read the book, this was more valuable to me than a "discussion".
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#7On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. I found the effects of SSRIs very noticeable, and every doctor prescribing them knows of patients who suddenly were able to leave the bed, or deeply depressive patients switching into a manic episode. The latter might not sound like an improvement, but for the patients, qua…
>On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. I hear the same thing about the power of prayer and Reiki.
If your disease is something that's subjective in the first place, that's not as much of a problem.
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#8That's a review? There's almost no criticism, or even considered discussion, of the book at all . He's just copied and pasted sections that he thinks are important or interesting, and called it a day. Not that there's anything wrong with quoting sections of a work that you think are worthy of spreading to a wider audience (assuming proper attribution), but IMNSHO it's a bit disingenuous to call QFTing a "review". (FW…
Greenspun did a good job of characterizing (even summarizing) the information that you can find in the book. I learned new things from reading his review. Since I didn't read the book, this was more valuable to me than a "discussion".
Ah, OK. Thanks for that. But in that case, you might find the book's Wikipedia article even more valuable.
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#9On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. I found the effects of SSRIs very noticeable, and every doctor prescribing them knows of patients who suddenly were able to leave the bed, or deeply depressive patients switching into a manic episode. The latter might not sound like an improvement, but for the patients, qua…
> On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them.
This is what people who take homeopathy say. It's what doctors and patients said about knee arthroscopy for rheumatoid arthritus until they did a trial involving sham operations.
When Prozac was introduced in the UK we were told that it made people "better than well", and that everyone should have it and that the UK prescription laws were seriously flawed because this drug was restricted to people who had a diagnosed illness and was not available to everyone.
It's that kind of behaviour which is sleazy. The deliberate hyping of medications.
The brutal cynicism of using dying cancer patients to campaign for your ineffective very expensive cancer medication is really disgusting.
I'm not sure whether you're critiquing the book or what you've read in the review.
Re: Book review: Bad Pharma
#10On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. I found the effects of SSRIs very noticeable, and every doctor prescribing them knows of patients who suddenly were able to leave the bed, or deeply depressive patients switching into a manic episode. The latter might not sound like an improvement, but for the patients, qua…
> On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. This is what people who take homeopathy say. It's what doctors and patients said about knee arthroscopy for rheumatoid arthritus until they did a trial involving sham operations. When Prozac was introduced in the UK we were told that it made people "better than well", and…
>It's what doctors and patients said about knee arthroscopy for rheumatoid arthritus until they did a trial involving sham operations.
small correction; The NEJM studies (below), to which your comment was probably referring, were actually for arthroscopic surgery in osteoarthritis patients, not rheumatoid.
It's quite common to think these conditions are similar, but are really rather different, with diverse etiologies. RA is considered an autoimmune disease, whereas OA is not.
update: included subsequent years
(2002) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa013259