Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Harvey Rolex
It just really looks like drug companies are completely profit driven.

As they should be; it's the protection they get from the FDA that distorts their intentions. Were they fully liable for side effects or abetting disease in order to sell a solution, they wouldn't do it quite so gleefully. Were there more alternatives to the FDA, private subscription watchdog companies as it were, themselves responsible for the accuraby of their information, the public and the medical profession could then do a better job of comparing competing therapies.

58 posted on 10/01/2004 7:50:28 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Privatizing environmental regulation is critical to national survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Carry_Okie; ZULU; doglover; JTHomes

Something else I should add to this conversation: friends of mine who either grew up on hog farms or were animal husbandry majors all told me the same thing: pigs get Crohns, a lot. The cure? Mass antibiotic treatment for a week and all is good.


61 posted on 10/01/2004 8:02:35 AM PDT by jb6 (Truth = Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: Carry_Okie

I don't believe they should be completely profit driven. I believe if they are to undertake such a responsibility as making drugs that are supposed to improve health, then they have an obligation to self governance in the production of these drugs. They need to be cure-driven not profit-driven. I understand many of the complexities of this market, but I also understand that vioxx, was solely for profit, and lacking self governance in its production and sale.


62 posted on 10/01/2004 8:07:54 AM PDT by Harvey Rolex (First thing we do - Kill all the Lawyers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson