Death to Diabetes 1-800-813-1927
Drug Companies & the Pharmaceutical Industry
Author's Perspective: The medical and healthcare industries have gone astray because of
their focus on profits that they receive via the drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, these industries are flourishing while the public suffers physical, emotionally, and financially.
As the economy soured further in 2002-2003, many drug companies continued to grow and thrive. with record profits
And, despite the severe recession in 2008, the profits of these drug companies continued to grow, and has skyrocketed to over $100 billion!
According to IMS Health, pharmaceutical companies will bring in $880 billion in global sales in 2011, representing a growth rate of 5-7%. IMS Health studies show that the U.S. remains the largest market in the world for pharmaceuticals with total sales of $330 billion in 2011.
And, the number of people with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and arthritis, obesity, and other diseases also skyrocketed, growing more than 47%!
A 47% increase in disease and a 300% increase in drug profits. Does that make any sense? It does -- if your goal is to make money at the expense of the sick.
So, do you think that your friendly doctor and the drug companies are trying to help you improve your health by convincing you to take more and more drugs?
And, are you aware that you (as a diabetic patient) generate an average of almost $190,000 of revenue during your lifetime for the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies? That's right! You're seen as a "cash cow" by the medical doctors, hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. And, if you happen to have a good job with a good salary, it's closer to $250,000 -- a quarter of a million dollars!! Can you say ka-ching?
Many people with diabetes (or any similar disease) rationalize what they're spending for medical care. They have no idea that it's going to get worse, much worse. It's really sad -- many people (not just diabetics) lose their homes because of medical debt ... It's one of America's dirty little secrets:
Medical debt is the Number 1 cause of bankruptcy in the good ol' USA.
And, to make matters worse:
Medical debt is also the Number 1 cause of homelessness in the US.
And, we accept this as the norm!
In the meantime ...
The Drug Companies Are Laughing at Us - All the Way to the Bank
The drug companies are laughing at us -- laughing all the way to the bank, while we give them our money to buy their toxic drugs:.
The pharmaceutical companies tell me that I'm wasting my time trying to recruit you to promote a better life. But, I believe that at least some of you will step up -- if not for ourselves, then, for our children.
Let's take that smirky smile off their faces. Please help us (and you help the world!) in the fight against diabetes and the drug companies by becoming a Fan of Death to Diabetes and by joining us on Facebook.
And, if you want to help even more, just go the bottom of this web page for a list of things that you can do that will take less than 2 minutes to accomplish; and, help us fight these giants of the drug industry.
Let's show them that we're not ready to lie down and let them walk all over us.
The Drug Companies Are Egotistical!
During a medical conference, after Mr. McCulley gave one of his inspirational talks, a couple of the pharmaceutical company reps told him:
"You have a great story, but you're wasting your time. People won't listen to you. People prefer to take our drugs instead of change the way they eat. It's easier to pop up pill than change your diet."
Mr. McCulley disagreed with them, but they said: "Okay, you're an engineer, right? Just take a look at the numbers: There are millions of diabetics who take our drugs, and we make billions of dollars off those drugs, and our revenues are going up every year."
Another pharmaceutical rep said: "And, it's not just the diabetes drugs. We make a lot of money off the pain medications, the cholesterol drugs, and high blood pressure drugs -- just to name a few."
The first pharmaceutical rep said: "People are hypocrites." They tell you they love your story, but they don't buy your book. Instead, they buy our drugs."
Another pharmaceutical rep joined the conversation, and said: "I heard you mention that you're trying to get on TV, radio, and Facebook. You're wasting your time. We control a lot of the TV ads. TV isn't going to risk losing big revenue from us to air your story. Radio is passé -- who listens to the radio? And, forget about Facebook! People don't want to hear about diabetes and dieting on Facebook. People like to gossip -- that's why Facebook is so popular."
"People tell you they don't like taking our drugs, but they do -- just look at the numbers. They tell you that because they're in denial, and they believe our drugs are safe. Think about it -- people aren't going to put something in their mouth if they didn't think it was safe."
"People are clueless. They feed their faces at McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Burger King, ... they get fat, they develop high blood pressure, high cholesterol. They go to their doctor for a magic pill. And, they run back to McDonald's, Burger King ... Why? Because fast food is cheap, convenient, easy to find, and it taste really good. People are addicted to fast food!"
"Then, they develop diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, ... And, they run back to their doctor for another pill."
"People buy our drugs for 3 reasons: (1) They trust their doctor; (2) They believe the drugs will cure them; and, (3) Taking a pill is convenient -- it's a lot easier than changing one's diet."
Mr. McCulley countered: "OK, I agree that most people trust their doctors, but if they were aware of another choice, they would prefer not to take the drugs. When I was sick, I took the drugs because I was unaware of a better choice."
The second rep: "Yeah, somehow you figured out how to get off our drugs, but you're not the norm. Look --- you're a pretty smart guy -- you should give up while you still have your dignity. You can't change this -- people may not love us, but they love our pills. And, they trust their doctor. It's a beautiful system."
Mr. McCulley was steaming on the inside, but he smiled and said: "You underestimate the will of the people. They're tired of being lied to, they're tired of being sick and relying on your drugs. They're going to rise up against you and reject your drugs. It's already starting to happen. People are smarter and more resourceful than you think. You'll see ..."
All the reps walked away from Mr. McCulley, laughing loudly and shaking their heads ...
[Mr. McCulley told us later: "Wow, nobody is going to believe this! I wish I had recorded that conversation ...]
Are we really as stupid as the pharmaceutical companies and doctors think we are?
Well, we do eat a lot of processed foods and fast foods (i.e. Kraft macaroni 'n cheese, cereal, bread, McDonald's, KFC, Taco Bell, Burger King, etc.). This eventually leads to discomfort, which leads to OTC drugs, and eventually leads to a disease like diabetes. When the OTC drugs stop working, we go to the doctor, who doesn't fix the problem. He/she gives us a prescription drugs which leads to more disease, plus the drugs cause side effects, leading to more prescription drugs, and eventually surgery, and finally death.
Now, I know that we all have to die of something, but, there's just got to be a better way to live! [And, there is a better way: Thanks to "Death to Diabetes!"]
But, we can't rely on "Death to Diabetes" and the other health advocates out there. We need to start a health revolution! -- if not for ourselves, then, for our children.
If you want to help, but you're just too busy, go the bottom of this web page for a list of things that you can do that will take less than 2 minutes to accomplish.
Do Doctors Have a Conflict of Interest?
Visit any doctor's office and you'll see drug reps giving doctors samples to promote their products. Drug companies are known to lobby doctors and health care providers but until now there was no way to find out how much money doctors were being paid by pharmaceutical companies.
Diabetes treatment costs more than any other disease (over $132 billion annually), but diabetes treatment also generates the most revenue for the healthcare industry (over $210 billion annually!).
Is this a conflict of interest for an industry that is more focused on a “sick” care strategy that creates drug- dependent patients – instead of a “health” care strategy that cures the actual ailment or disease?
Your doctor makes money when you pay for the appointment. Your doctor makes more money when the drug company pays him to "push" their drugs. And, you pay for the drugs and the doctor appointment. So ... how's that workin' for ya?
Are you getting better? Do you find yourself spending more money for the drugs? Have you discovered that you're taking more drugs today than you were taking just 3-5 years ago? And, you're spending more money for the drugs, the doctors, the hospitals, the health insurance. But, in the meantime, your health continues to go downhill!
WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!
Pharmaceutical companies have readily admitted that they routinely pay insurance companies to increase the use of their products and to be added to the recommended list of drugs. They admit that they give rewards and kickbacks to both pharmacists and doctors for switching patients from one brand of medication to a rival. And, they admit that they provide all sorts of gifts and gratuities to doctors, ranging from financial aid to educational programs to bags and writing pads, to encourage doctors to prescribe their brand of drugs.
If you are concerned with your doctor “pushing” drugs onto you, consider asking if he/she receives any financial gifts or benefits from the drug manufacturer. Such questions are uncomfortable, but ethical questions often are -- and they may be more uncomfortable for your doctor than for you.
Otherwise, go to www.naturopathic.org to contact a naturopathic doctor who subscribes to the motto “Doctor do no harm.”
Doctor Kickbacks: Getting Paid by the Drug Companies
Most people have gotten a doctor's prescription at some point in their lives for a medicine they have needed. Some people need prescription medication on a regular basis due to their medical problems. The question is, to what degree can you trust that your doctor writes a prescription based only on your best interests as a patient?
That seems like a strange question - after all, what else would a doctor have in mind? Shouldn't the doctor's choice of medication depend solely upon what your needs are as a patient? That does sound like the way things should be, but recent revelations suggest that something very different is going on: pharmaceuticals companies may be exercising undue and unethical influence on doctors and what doctors prescribe.
Drug makers have readily admitted that they routinely pay insurance companies to increase the use of their products and to be added to the recommended list of drugs. They admit that they give rewards to both pharmacists and doctors for switching patients from one brand of medication to a rival. Finally, they admit that they provide all sorts of gifts and gratuities to doctors, ranging from financial aid to educational programs to bags and writing pads, in the hopes that they will encourage doctors to remember and perhaps prescribe their brand of drugs.
Not everyone approves of such actions. In October of 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services stated that many gifts and gratuities are suspicious because they looked like illegal kickbacks. Various consumer groups such as the AARP have expressed their support for further restrictions on such gifts, and the government is considering implementing such restrictions.
Unfortunately, further restrictions may be unlikely because the consumer groups are vastly outnumbered by doctors, insurers, and of course drug companies who have flooded the government with letters criticizing proposals to restrict gifts. Perhaps the first impression about giving gifts is mistaken and there are good reasons for them - so, what arguments do the companies use in their defense?
It seems that the most common defense is that the practice of giving gifts is, well, common. According to Solvay Pharmaceuticals, "a policy statement that declares well-established commercial practices potentially criminal creates a chilling effect on commerce and ultimately harms all consumers." A a coalition of 19 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Eli Lilly has said proposals to restrict gifts were "not grounded in an understanding of industry practices."
The recipients of the gifts agree. According to the American Association of Health Plans, representing most of the nation's H.M.O.'s, the proposed changes would "cast doubt on the propriety of many well-established practices undertaken by health plans to develop and administer their drug benefits."
In other words, because it is a common industry practice for drug companies to give gifts to those who prescribe more of their drugs, it should be permitted to continue. That, unfortunately, is a logical fallacy; the mere fact that something is common does not make it ethical. If that is the best that the various interest groups can offer, the practices should be discontinued.
Fortunately, there are a couple of other arguments to consider. One is that restrictions on gifts could have a "chilling effect" on efforts to cut costs - for some reason, HMOs think that if it becomes illegal for them to receive financial gifts from drug makers, then drug makers will be afraid to give bulk discounts. That sounds like nonsense, but just to allay their fears, it would be reasonable to make a provision permitting bulk discounts.
Another argument, this time from the American Medical Association, contends that drug companies should be allowed to give doctors pens, notepads and other items of "nominal value" that have "no correlation to any service provided by the physician to the pharmaceutical company." According to the AMA, such items are "harmless."
That leads us to address just what all of the fuss is about in the first place. Who cares if drug companies are giving pens, pads, bags, or even cash to doctors, HMOs, and others who make decisions about what drugs you use? The problem is, patients are under the perception that doctors recommend particular drugs because they will have the best balance of good effects vs. bad effects for their particular situation. In other words, this drug should do the best job at alleviating symptoms and curing an illness without producing too many negative side effects.
However, gifts from powerful drug companies begin to skew that situation. What if a doctor is being influenced to prescribe heart medication A over heart medication B not because it is more effective, but because the manufacturer provides greater financial gifts to her and and to the insurance plan? To return to the statement from the AMA, are even "nominal" gifts really so "harmless"?
The fact of the matter is, even though the gifts are "nominal" to the physician, the costs of producing so many are not insignificant - and the drug manufacturers would not bother if they didn't serve as an effective form of advertising. As the Massachusetts Medical Society has asked:
Is the physician who writes a prescription with a company's logo on the pen more likely to write a prescription for that advertiser? Are patients more likely to request a certain drug because they see the notepad on the doctor's desk?
Sadly, physicians themselves don't seem to be entirely cognizant of the problem. In the January 19, 2000 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ashley Wazana revealed that while 85% of medical students belived it improper for politicians to accept gifts from lobbyists, only 46% thought it improper for doctors to receive gifts from drug companies. Evidently, while they distrust the ability of politicians to remain uninfluenced, they do trust themselves to be free of such burdens.
The next time your doctor prescribes a medication, considering asking why that drug rather than some other drug. Consider asking the doctor if she receives any financial gifts or benefits from the manufacturer of that drug. If you see "nominal" items advertising the drug, consider asking if they influence the doctor's decision. Such questions are uncomfortable, but ethical questions often are - and they may be more uncomfortable for your physician than for you.
Is any of this true? Well, the first part certainly is. Prescription drug costs are indeed high—and rising fast. Americans now spend a staggering $200 billion a year on prescription drugs, and that figure is growing at a rate of about 12 percent a year (down from a high of 18 percent in 1999). Drugs are the fastest-growing part of the health care bill — which itself is rising at an alarming rate. The increase in drug spending reflects, in almost equal parts, the facts that people are taking a lot more drugs than they used to, that those drugs are more likely to be expensive new ones instead of older, cheaper ones, and that the prices of the most heavily prescribed drugs are routinely jacked up, sometimes several times a year.
Paying for prescription drugs is no longer a problem just for poor people. As the economy continues to struggle, health insurance is shrinking. Employers are requiring workers to pay more of the costs themselves, and many businesses are dropping health benefits altogether. Since prescription drug costs are rising so fast, payers are particularly eager to get out from under them by shifting costs to individuals. The result is that more people have to pay a greater fraction of their drug bills out of pocket.
Many of them simply can’t do it. They trade off drugs against home heating or food. Some people try to string out their drugs by taking them less often than prescribed, or sharing them with a spouse. Others, too embarrassed to admit that they can’t afford to pay for drugs, leave their doctors’ offices with prescriptions in hand but don’t have them filled. Not only do these patients go without needed treatment but their doctors sometimes wrongly conclude that the drugs they prescribed haven’t worked and prescribe yet others—thus compounding the problem.
The people hurting most are the elderly. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, people took far fewer prescription drugs and they were cheap. For that reason, no one thought it necessary to include an outpatient prescription drug benefit in the program. In those days, senior citizens could generally afford to buy whatever drugs they needed out of pocket. Approximately half to two thirds of the elderly have supplementary insurance that partly covers prescription drugs, but that percentage is dropping as employers and insurers decide it is a losing proposition for them. At the end of 2003, Congress passed a Medicare reform bill that included a prescription drug benefit scheduled to begin in 2006, but as we shall see later, its benefits are inadequate to begin with and will quickly be overtaken by rising prices and administrative costs.
For obvious reasons, the elderly tend to need more prescription drugs than younger people—mainly for chronic conditions like arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol. In 2001, nearly one in four seniors reported that they skipped doses or did not fill prescriptions because of the cost. (That fraction is almost certainly higher now.) Sadly, the frailest are the least likely to have supplementary insurance. At an average cost of $1,500 a year for each drug, someone without supplementary insurance who takes six different prescription drugs—and this is not rare—would have to spend $9,000 out of pocket. Not many among the old and frail have such deep pockets.
Furthermore, in one of the more perverse of the pharmaceutical industry’s practices, prices are much higher for precisely the people who most need the drugs and can least afford them. The industry charges Medicare recipients without supplementary insurance much more than it does favored customers, such as large HMOs or the Veterans Affairs (VA) system. Because the latter buy in bulk, they can bargain for steep discounts or rebates. People without insurance have no bargaining power; and so they pay the highest prices.
In the past two years, we have started to see, for the first time, the beginnings of public resistance to rapacious pricing and other dubious practices of the pharmaceutical industry. It is mainly because of this resistance that drug companies are now blanketing us with public relations messages. And the magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.
But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. (In 2003, for the first time, the industry lost its first-place position, coming in third, behind “mining, crude oil production,” and “commercial banks.”) The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.
Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of “new” drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called “me-too” drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first. As Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, put it,
Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative—and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights.
And there is nothing peculiarly American about this industry. It is the very essence of a global enterprise. Roughly half of the largest drug companies are based in Europe. (The exact count shifts because of mergers.) In 2002, the top ten were the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, putting it in third place). All are much alike in their operations. All price their drugs much higher here than in other markets.
Since the United States is the major profit center, it is simply good public relations for drug companies to pass themselves off as American, whether they are or not. It is true, however, that some of the European companies are now locating their R&D operations in the United States. They claim the reason for this is that we don’t regulate prices, as does much of the rest of the world. But more likely it is that they want to feed on the unparalleled research output of American universities and the NIH. In other words, it’s not private enterprise that draws them here but the very opposite—our publicly sponsored research enterprise.
Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)
If prescription drugs were like ordinary consumer goods, all this might not matter very much. But drugs are different. People depend on them for their health and even their lives. In the words of Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), “It’s not like buying a car or tennis shoes or peanut butter.” People need to know that there are some checks and balances on this industry, so that its quest for profits doesn’t push every other consideration aside. But there aren’t such checks and balances.
The Medical Industry relies too much on drugs and surgery to generate revenues instead of servicing the public with real health solutions.
The Healthcare Industry focuses its insurance coverage on drug treatments instead of on wellness and disease preventive strategies.
The Pharmaceutical Industry rewards the medical and healthcare industries by focusing its multi-billion dollar research and clinical studies on drugs instead of food and nutritional science. Nutritional science research would lead to real cures that would eliminate the need for expensive drug treatments that keep the patient in a diseased state.
Drug Companies Make Lots of Money at Our Expense!
Many years ago, the United States was a national power that was
well-known for manufacturing automobiles, computers, new technologies,
and so much more. But, that has all changed ...
Today, our great country is no longer known for producing automobiles, computers, etc. Do you have any idea what our country is known for producing today?
This product is advertised on television every 30 seconds, several hundred times a day. More than 250 million Americans consume this product every day.
Americans buy this product even if they don't have the money. -- they rely on insurance to get this product for free or at discount They even encourage their children to buy this product -- they encourage implicitly, not explicitly.
Have you figured out what this popular product is?
It's drugs! -- prescription drugs, as well as OTC drugs.
Ironically, there is a "war on drugs" against cocaine, heroin, crack, and other street drugs. But, the top-selling drugs in America are the prescription and OTC drugs!
Prescription drugs generate bigger profits and revenue than any other singular product in the United States of America. This product is consumed by more than 4 out of every 5 Americans every day! 
As the economy soured further in 2002-2003, many drug companies continued to grow and thrive. with record profits
And, despite the severe recession in 2008, the profits of these drug companies continued to grow, and has skyrocketed to over $100 billion!
According to IMS Health, pharmaceutical companies will bring in $880 billion in global sales in 2011, representing a growth rate of 5-7%. IMS Health studies show that the U.S. remains the largest market in the world for pharmaceuticals with total sales of $330 billion in 2011.
And, the number of people with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and arthritis, obesity, and other diseases also skyrocketed, growing more than 47%!
A 47% increase in disease and a 300% increase in drug profits. Does that make any sense? It does -- if your goal is to make money at the expense of the sick.
So, do you think that your friendly doctor and the drug companies are trying to help you improve your health by convincing you to take more and more drugs?
And, are you aware that you (as a diabetic patient) generate an average of almost $190,000 of revenue during your lifetime for the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies? That's right! You're seen as a "cash cow" by the medical doctors, hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. And, if you happen to have a good job with a good salary, it's closer to $250,000 -- a quarter of a million dollars!! Can you say ka-ching?
Many people with diabetes (or any similar disease) rationalize what they're spending for medical care. They have no idea that it's going to get worse, much worse. It's really sad -- many people (not just diabetics) lose their homes because of medical debt ... It's one of America's dirty little secrets:
Medical debt is the Number 1 cause of bankruptcy in the good ol' USA.
And, to make matters worse:
Medical debt is also the Number 1 cause of homelessness in the US.
And, we accept this as the norm!
In the meantime ...
The Drug Companies Are Laughing at Us - All the Way to the Bank
The drug companies are laughing at us -- laughing all the way to the bank, while we give them our money to buy their toxic drugs:.
- They make drugs that hide the symptoms of our disease, but don't cure the disease.
- They make drugs that make us chemically dependent on the drugs for the rest of our lives.
- They have the perfect person to "push" their drugs onto us -- your family doctor, who ensures us that the drugs are safe and will help improve your health.
- They pay the doctors kickbacks as incentives to "push" the drugs onto us.
- They pay the TV and radio networks to advertise their drugs to us.
- They spend almost twice as much money on promotion (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines,, Internet) as they do on research and development.
- They make a tremendous profit from the drugs to make even more drugs.
- They mark up the price on every drug, including the more popular drugs (for allergy, arthritis, diabetes, blood pressure). The mark up is 100 to 500 times the actual manufacturing cost! Wow -- talk about being greedy!
- They convince actors and other celebrities to ask us to give them money for research -- the money is not to find a cure -- it's to come up with new drugs!
- They see us as cattle (followers) who will do whatever they tell us to do.
- They work with the food industry to ensure we eat chemically-laden food that eventually makes us sick, and leads us to taking their drugs.
The pharmaceutical companies tell me that I'm wasting my time trying to recruit you to promote a better life. But, I believe that at least some of you will step up -- if not for ourselves, then, for our children.
Let's take that smirky smile off their faces. Please help us (and you help the world!) in the fight against diabetes and the drug companies by becoming a Fan of Death to Diabetes and by joining us on Facebook.
And, if you want to help even more, just go the bottom of this web page for a list of things that you can do that will take less than 2 minutes to accomplish; and, help us fight these giants of the drug industry.
Let's show them that we're not ready to lie down and let them walk all over us.
The Drug Companies Are Egotistical!
During a medical conference, after Mr. McCulley gave one of his inspirational talks, a couple of the pharmaceutical company reps told him:
"You have a great story, but you're wasting your time. People won't listen to you. People prefer to take our drugs instead of change the way they eat. It's easier to pop up pill than change your diet."
Mr. McCulley disagreed with them, but they said: "Okay, you're an engineer, right? Just take a look at the numbers: There are millions of diabetics who take our drugs, and we make billions of dollars off those drugs, and our revenues are going up every year."
Another pharmaceutical rep said: "And, it's not just the diabetes drugs. We make a lot of money off the pain medications, the cholesterol drugs, and high blood pressure drugs -- just to name a few."
The first pharmaceutical rep said: "People are hypocrites." They tell you they love your story, but they don't buy your book. Instead, they buy our drugs."
Another pharmaceutical rep joined the conversation, and said: "I heard you mention that you're trying to get on TV, radio, and Facebook. You're wasting your time. We control a lot of the TV ads. TV isn't going to risk losing big revenue from us to air your story. Radio is passé -- who listens to the radio? And, forget about Facebook! People don't want to hear about diabetes and dieting on Facebook. People like to gossip -- that's why Facebook is so popular."
"People tell you they don't like taking our drugs, but they do -- just look at the numbers. They tell you that because they're in denial, and they believe our drugs are safe. Think about it -- people aren't going to put something in their mouth if they didn't think it was safe."
"People are clueless. They feed their faces at McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Burger King, ... they get fat, they develop high blood pressure, high cholesterol. They go to their doctor for a magic pill. And, they run back to McDonald's, Burger King ... Why? Because fast food is cheap, convenient, easy to find, and it taste really good. People are addicted to fast food!"
"Then, they develop diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, ... And, they run back to their doctor for another pill."
"People buy our drugs for 3 reasons: (1) They trust their doctor; (2) They believe the drugs will cure them; and, (3) Taking a pill is convenient -- it's a lot easier than changing one's diet."
Mr. McCulley countered: "OK, I agree that most people trust their doctors, but if they were aware of another choice, they would prefer not to take the drugs. When I was sick, I took the drugs because I was unaware of a better choice."
The second rep: "Yeah, somehow you figured out how to get off our drugs, but you're not the norm. Look --- you're a pretty smart guy -- you should give up while you still have your dignity. You can't change this -- people may not love us, but they love our pills. And, they trust their doctor. It's a beautiful system."
Mr. McCulley was steaming on the inside, but he smiled and said: "You underestimate the will of the people. They're tired of being lied to, they're tired of being sick and relying on your drugs. They're going to rise up against you and reject your drugs. It's already starting to happen. People are smarter and more resourceful than you think. You'll see ..."
All the reps walked away from Mr. McCulley, laughing loudly and shaking their heads ...
[Mr. McCulley told us later: "Wow, nobody is going to believe this! I wish I had recorded that conversation ...]
Wake Up People! Connect the Dots!
Before we put all the blame on the money-hungry drug companies, let's not forget that it's us who demand many of these drugs. Without our demand, the supply would dry up and profits would diminish.Are we really as stupid as the pharmaceutical companies and doctors think we are?
Well, we do eat a lot of processed foods and fast foods (i.e. Kraft macaroni 'n cheese, cereal, bread, McDonald's, KFC, Taco Bell, Burger King, etc.). This eventually leads to discomfort, which leads to OTC drugs, and eventually leads to a disease like diabetes. When the OTC drugs stop working, we go to the doctor, who doesn't fix the problem. He/she gives us a prescription drugs which leads to more disease, plus the drugs cause side effects, leading to more prescription drugs, and eventually surgery, and finally death.
Now, I know that we all have to die of something, but, there's just got to be a better way to live! [And, there is a better way: Thanks to "Death to Diabetes!"]
But, we can't rely on "Death to Diabetes" and the other health advocates out there. We need to start a health revolution! -- if not for ourselves, then, for our children.
If you want to help, but you're just too busy, go the bottom of this web page for a list of things that you can do that will take less than 2 minutes to accomplish.
Do Doctors Have a Conflict of Interest?
Visit any doctor's office and you'll see drug reps giving doctors samples to promote their products. Drug companies are known to lobby doctors and health care providers but until now there was no way to find out how much money doctors were being paid by pharmaceutical companies.
Diabetes treatment costs more than any other disease (over $132 billion annually), but diabetes treatment also generates the most revenue for the healthcare industry (over $210 billion annually!).
Is this a conflict of interest for an industry that is more focused on a “sick” care strategy that creates drug- dependent patients – instead of a “health” care strategy that cures the actual ailment or disease?
Your doctor makes money when you pay for the appointment. Your doctor makes more money when the drug company pays him to "push" their drugs. And, you pay for the drugs and the doctor appointment. So ... how's that workin' for ya?
Are you getting better? Do you find yourself spending more money for the drugs? Have you discovered that you're taking more drugs today than you were taking just 3-5 years ago? And, you're spending more money for the drugs, the doctors, the hospitals, the health insurance. But, in the meantime, your health continues to go downhill!
WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!
Pharmaceutical companies have readily admitted that they routinely pay insurance companies to increase the use of their products and to be added to the recommended list of drugs. They admit that they give rewards and kickbacks to both pharmacists and doctors for switching patients from one brand of medication to a rival. And, they admit that they provide all sorts of gifts and gratuities to doctors, ranging from financial aid to educational programs to bags and writing pads, to encourage doctors to prescribe their brand of drugs.
If you are concerned with your doctor “pushing” drugs onto you, consider asking if he/she receives any financial gifts or benefits from the drug manufacturer. Such questions are uncomfortable, but ethical questions often are -- and they may be more uncomfortable for your doctor than for you.
Otherwise, go to www.naturopathic.org to contact a naturopathic doctor who subscribes to the motto “Doctor do no harm.”
Doctor Kickbacks: Getting Paid by the Drug Companies
Most people have gotten a doctor's prescription at some point in their lives for a medicine they have needed. Some people need prescription medication on a regular basis due to their medical problems. The question is, to what degree can you trust that your doctor writes a prescription based only on your best interests as a patient?
That seems like a strange question - after all, what else would a doctor have in mind? Shouldn't the doctor's choice of medication depend solely upon what your needs are as a patient? That does sound like the way things should be, but recent revelations suggest that something very different is going on: pharmaceuticals companies may be exercising undue and unethical influence on doctors and what doctors prescribe.
Drug makers have readily admitted that they routinely pay insurance companies to increase the use of their products and to be added to the recommended list of drugs. They admit that they give rewards to both pharmacists and doctors for switching patients from one brand of medication to a rival. Finally, they admit that they provide all sorts of gifts and gratuities to doctors, ranging from financial aid to educational programs to bags and writing pads, in the hopes that they will encourage doctors to remember and perhaps prescribe their brand of drugs.
Not everyone approves of such actions. In October of 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services stated that many gifts and gratuities are suspicious because they looked like illegal kickbacks. Various consumer groups such as the AARP have expressed their support for further restrictions on such gifts, and the government is considering implementing such restrictions.
Unfortunately, further restrictions may be unlikely because the consumer groups are vastly outnumbered by doctors, insurers, and of course drug companies who have flooded the government with letters criticizing proposals to restrict gifts. Perhaps the first impression about giving gifts is mistaken and there are good reasons for them - so, what arguments do the companies use in their defense?
It seems that the most common defense is that the practice of giving gifts is, well, common. According to Solvay Pharmaceuticals, "a policy statement that declares well-established commercial practices potentially criminal creates a chilling effect on commerce and ultimately harms all consumers." A a coalition of 19 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Eli Lilly has said proposals to restrict gifts were "not grounded in an understanding of industry practices."
The recipients of the gifts agree. According to the American Association of Health Plans, representing most of the nation's H.M.O.'s, the proposed changes would "cast doubt on the propriety of many well-established practices undertaken by health plans to develop and administer their drug benefits."
In other words, because it is a common industry practice for drug companies to give gifts to those who prescribe more of their drugs, it should be permitted to continue. That, unfortunately, is a logical fallacy; the mere fact that something is common does not make it ethical. If that is the best that the various interest groups can offer, the practices should be discontinued.
Fortunately, there are a couple of other arguments to consider. One is that restrictions on gifts could have a "chilling effect" on efforts to cut costs - for some reason, HMOs think that if it becomes illegal for them to receive financial gifts from drug makers, then drug makers will be afraid to give bulk discounts. That sounds like nonsense, but just to allay their fears, it would be reasonable to make a provision permitting bulk discounts.
Another argument, this time from the American Medical Association, contends that drug companies should be allowed to give doctors pens, notepads and other items of "nominal value" that have "no correlation to any service provided by the physician to the pharmaceutical company." According to the AMA, such items are "harmless."
That leads us to address just what all of the fuss is about in the first place. Who cares if drug companies are giving pens, pads, bags, or even cash to doctors, HMOs, and others who make decisions about what drugs you use? The problem is, patients are under the perception that doctors recommend particular drugs because they will have the best balance of good effects vs. bad effects for their particular situation. In other words, this drug should do the best job at alleviating symptoms and curing an illness without producing too many negative side effects.
However, gifts from powerful drug companies begin to skew that situation. What if a doctor is being influenced to prescribe heart medication A over heart medication B not because it is more effective, but because the manufacturer provides greater financial gifts to her and and to the insurance plan? To return to the statement from the AMA, are even "nominal" gifts really so "harmless"?
The fact of the matter is, even though the gifts are "nominal" to the physician, the costs of producing so many are not insignificant - and the drug manufacturers would not bother if they didn't serve as an effective form of advertising. As the Massachusetts Medical Society has asked:
Is the physician who writes a prescription with a company's logo on the pen more likely to write a prescription for that advertiser? Are patients more likely to request a certain drug because they see the notepad on the doctor's desk?
Sadly, physicians themselves don't seem to be entirely cognizant of the problem. In the January 19, 2000 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ashley Wazana revealed that while 85% of medical students belived it improper for politicians to accept gifts from lobbyists, only 46% thought it improper for doctors to receive gifts from drug companies. Evidently, while they distrust the ability of politicians to remain uninfluenced, they do trust themselves to be free of such burdens.
The next time your doctor prescribes a medication, considering asking why that drug rather than some other drug. Consider asking the doctor if she receives any financial gifts or benefits from the manufacturer of that drug. If you see "nominal" items advertising the drug, consider asking if they influence the doctor's decision. Such questions are uncomfortable, but ethical questions often are - and they may be more uncomfortable for your physician than for you.
The Truth About the Drug Companies
Every day Americans are subjected to a barrage of advertising by the pharmaceutical industry, especially on TV. Mixed in with the pitches for a particular drug—usually featuring beautiful people enjoying themselves in the great outdoors—is a more general message. Boiled down to its essentials, it is this: “Yes, prescription drugs are expensive, but that shows how valuable they are. Besides, our research and development costs are enormous, and we need to cover them somehow. As ‘research-based’ companies, we turn out a steady stream of innovative medicines that lengthen life, enhance its quality, and avert more expensive medical care. You are the beneficiaries of this ongoing achievement of the American free enterprise system, so be grateful, quit whining, and pay up.”Is any of this true? Well, the first part certainly is. Prescription drug costs are indeed high—and rising fast. Americans now spend a staggering $200 billion a year on prescription drugs, and that figure is growing at a rate of about 12 percent a year (down from a high of 18 percent in 1999). Drugs are the fastest-growing part of the health care bill — which itself is rising at an alarming rate. The increase in drug spending reflects, in almost equal parts, the facts that people are taking a lot more drugs than they used to, that those drugs are more likely to be expensive new ones instead of older, cheaper ones, and that the prices of the most heavily prescribed drugs are routinely jacked up, sometimes several times a year.
Paying for prescription drugs is no longer a problem just for poor people. As the economy continues to struggle, health insurance is shrinking. Employers are requiring workers to pay more of the costs themselves, and many businesses are dropping health benefits altogether. Since prescription drug costs are rising so fast, payers are particularly eager to get out from under them by shifting costs to individuals. The result is that more people have to pay a greater fraction of their drug bills out of pocket.
Many of them simply can’t do it. They trade off drugs against home heating or food. Some people try to string out their drugs by taking them less often than prescribed, or sharing them with a spouse. Others, too embarrassed to admit that they can’t afford to pay for drugs, leave their doctors’ offices with prescriptions in hand but don’t have them filled. Not only do these patients go without needed treatment but their doctors sometimes wrongly conclude that the drugs they prescribed haven’t worked and prescribe yet others—thus compounding the problem.
The people hurting most are the elderly. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, people took far fewer prescription drugs and they were cheap. For that reason, no one thought it necessary to include an outpatient prescription drug benefit in the program. In those days, senior citizens could generally afford to buy whatever drugs they needed out of pocket. Approximately half to two thirds of the elderly have supplementary insurance that partly covers prescription drugs, but that percentage is dropping as employers and insurers decide it is a losing proposition for them. At the end of 2003, Congress passed a Medicare reform bill that included a prescription drug benefit scheduled to begin in 2006, but as we shall see later, its benefits are inadequate to begin with and will quickly be overtaken by rising prices and administrative costs.
For obvious reasons, the elderly tend to need more prescription drugs than younger people—mainly for chronic conditions like arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol. In 2001, nearly one in four seniors reported that they skipped doses or did not fill prescriptions because of the cost. (That fraction is almost certainly higher now.) Sadly, the frailest are the least likely to have supplementary insurance. At an average cost of $1,500 a year for each drug, someone without supplementary insurance who takes six different prescription drugs—and this is not rare—would have to spend $9,000 out of pocket. Not many among the old and frail have such deep pockets.
Furthermore, in one of the more perverse of the pharmaceutical industry’s practices, prices are much higher for precisely the people who most need the drugs and can least afford them. The industry charges Medicare recipients without supplementary insurance much more than it does favored customers, such as large HMOs or the Veterans Affairs (VA) system. Because the latter buy in bulk, they can bargain for steep discounts or rebates. People without insurance have no bargaining power; and so they pay the highest prices.
In the past two years, we have started to see, for the first time, the beginnings of public resistance to rapacious pricing and other dubious practices of the pharmaceutical industry. It is mainly because of this resistance that drug companies are now blanketing us with public relations messages. And the magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.
But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. (In 2003, for the first time, the industry lost its first-place position, coming in third, behind “mining, crude oil production,” and “commercial banks.”) The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.
Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of “new” drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called “me-too” drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first. As Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, put it,
Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative—and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights.
And there is nothing peculiarly American about this industry. It is the very essence of a global enterprise. Roughly half of the largest drug companies are based in Europe. (The exact count shifts because of mergers.) In 2002, the top ten were the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, putting it in third place). All are much alike in their operations. All price their drugs much higher here than in other markets.
Since the United States is the major profit center, it is simply good public relations for drug companies to pass themselves off as American, whether they are or not. It is true, however, that some of the European companies are now locating their R&D operations in the United States. They claim the reason for this is that we don’t regulate prices, as does much of the rest of the world. But more likely it is that they want to feed on the unparalleled research output of American universities and the NIH. In other words, it’s not private enterprise that draws them here but the very opposite—our publicly sponsored research enterprise.
Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)
If prescription drugs were like ordinary consumer goods, all this might not matter very much. But drugs are different. People depend on them for their health and even their lives. In the words of Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), “It’s not like buying a car or tennis shoes or peanut butter.” People need to know that there are some checks and balances on this industry, so that its quest for profits doesn’t push every other consideration aside. But there aren’t such checks and balances.
Drugs Are Big Business!
The claim that drugs are a $200 billion industry is an understatement.
According to government sources, Americans spent more than $200 billion on prescription drugs in 2002. That figure refers to direct consumer purchases at drugstores and mail-order pharmacies (whether paid for out of pocket or not), and it includes the nearly 25 percent markup for wholesalers, pharmacists, and other middlemen and retailers. 
But it does not include the large amounts spent for drugs administered in hospitals, nursing homes, or doctors’ offices (as is the case for many cancer drugs). In most analyses, they are allocated to costs for those facilities.
Drug company revenues (or sales) are a little different, at least as they are reported in summaries of corporate annual reports. They usually refer to a company’s worldwide sales, including those to health facilities. But they do not include the revenues of middlemen and retailers.
Perhaps the most quoted source of statistics on the pharmaceutical industry, IMS Health, estimated total worldwide sales for prescription drugs to be about $400 billion in 2002. About half were in the United States. So the $200 billion colossus is really $400 billion. Bottom-line, drugs are a big business! and it's growing leaps and bounds!
The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was perhaps the fundamental element in the rapid rise of Big Pharma—the collective name for the largest drug companies. With the Reagan administration came a strong pro-business shift not only in government policies but in society at large. And with the shift, the public attitude toward great wealth changed.
Before then, there was something faintly disreputable about really big fortunes. You could choose to do well or you could choose to do good, but most people who had any choice in the matter thought it difficult to do both. That belief was particularly strong among scientists and other intellectuals. They could choose to live a comfortable but not luxurious life in academia, hoping to do exciting cutting-edge research, or they could “sell out” to industry and do less important but more remunerative work.
Starting in the Reagan years and continuing through the 1990s, Americans changed their tune. It became not only reputable to be wealthy, but something close to virtuous. There were “winners” and there were “losers,” and the winners were rich and deserved to be. The gap between the rich and poor, which had been narrowing since World War II, suddenly began to widen again, until today it is a chasm.
Recently the public has shown signs of being fed up.
Are you fed up yet? Or, are you going to continue to be a victim of the diabetes and the drugs?
The fact that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than Europeans and Canadians is now widely known. An estimated one to two million Americans buy their medicines from Canadian drugstores over the Internet, despite the fact that in 1987, in response to heavy industry lobbying, a compliant Congress had made it illegal for anyone other than manufacturers to import prescription drugs from other countries.15
In addition, there is a brisk traffic in bus trips for people in border states, particularly the elderly, to travel to Canada or Mexico to buy prescription drugs. Their resentment is palpable, and they constitute a powerful voter block—a fact not lost on Congress or state legislatures.
But it does not include the large amounts spent for drugs administered in hospitals, nursing homes, or doctors’ offices (as is the case for many cancer drugs). In most analyses, they are allocated to costs for those facilities.
Drug company revenues (or sales) are a little different, at least as they are reported in summaries of corporate annual reports. They usually refer to a company’s worldwide sales, including those to health facilities. But they do not include the revenues of middlemen and retailers.
Perhaps the most quoted source of statistics on the pharmaceutical industry, IMS Health, estimated total worldwide sales for prescription drugs to be about $400 billion in 2002. About half were in the United States. So the $200 billion colossus is really $400 billion. Bottom-line, drugs are a big business! and it's growing leaps and bounds!
The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was perhaps the fundamental element in the rapid rise of Big Pharma—the collective name for the largest drug companies. With the Reagan administration came a strong pro-business shift not only in government policies but in society at large. And with the shift, the public attitude toward great wealth changed.
Before then, there was something faintly disreputable about really big fortunes. You could choose to do well or you could choose to do good, but most people who had any choice in the matter thought it difficult to do both. That belief was particularly strong among scientists and other intellectuals. They could choose to live a comfortable but not luxurious life in academia, hoping to do exciting cutting-edge research, or they could “sell out” to industry and do less important but more remunerative work.
Starting in the Reagan years and continuing through the 1990s, Americans changed their tune. It became not only reputable to be wealthy, but something close to virtuous. There were “winners” and there were “losers,” and the winners were rich and deserved to be. The gap between the rich and poor, which had been narrowing since World War II, suddenly began to widen again, until today it is a chasm.
Recently the public has shown signs of being fed up.
Are you fed up yet? Or, are you going to continue to be a victim of the diabetes and the drugs?
The fact that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than Europeans and Canadians is now widely known. An estimated one to two million Americans buy their medicines from Canadian drugstores over the Internet, despite the fact that in 1987, in response to heavy industry lobbying, a compliant Congress had made it illegal for anyone other than manufacturers to import prescription drugs from other countries.15
In addition, there is a brisk traffic in bus trips for people in border states, particularly the elderly, to travel to Canada or Mexico to buy prescription drugs. Their resentment is palpable, and they constitute a powerful voter block—a fact not lost on Congress or state legislatures.
So, what do you do next?
Educate yourself about diabetes and drugs, and stop being a victim, and become a victor of wellness. Take back the power and take back your life.
Note: For more shocking facts about the pharmaceutical companies, go to this external web page.
References
- ^ a b Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels (2005). Selling Sickness: How Drug Companies are Turning Us All Into Patients. Allen & Unwin. New York. ISBN 1-74114-579-1
- ^ a b "Why Drugs Cost So Much". Medicine.net. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18892.
- ^ "How Many New Drugs Did FDA Approve Last Year?". pharmalot.com. http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/02/how-many-new-drugs-did-fda-approve-last-year/.
- ^ Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development
- ^ a b c The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA
- ^ Sheila Campbell, et al (June 2007). "Federal Support for Research and Development". Congressional Budget Office. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8221&type=0.
- ^ Garattini, S. (1997), "Are me-too drugs justificed?", Journal of Nephrology 10 (6): 283–294, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9442441
- ^ "CDER 2004 Report to the Nation: Improving Public Health Through Human Drugs". Food and Drug Administration. 2005. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/WhatWeDo/UCM078941.pdf.
- ^ Angel, Marcia (7 December 2004), "Excess in the pharmaceutical industry", Canadian Medical Association Journal 171 (12), doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041594., http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/12/1451#R5-12
- ^ "Correspondence: "Me-Too" Products – Friend or Foe?". The New England Journal of Medicine. 13 May 2004. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200405133502019#t=article.
- ^ "Me too! Me too!". The Economist. 17 April 2007. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/me_too_me_too.
- ^ DiMasi, JA; Faden, LD (January 2011), "Competitiveness in follow-on drug R&D: a race or imitation?", Nat Rev Drug Discov. 10 (1): 23–27, http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n1/full/nrd3296.html
- ^ Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schunemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ (2004-02-17). "Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials". PubMed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14970094&dopt=Abstract. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
- ^ a b Moynihan R (2003-05- cvc31). Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. 2: Disentanglement. BMJ: British Medical Journal. Volume 326, Issue 7400, Pages 1193–1196. Retrieved on 2007-10-06.
- ^ "Hogan & Hartson Update on Pharmaceutical Trial Registration" (PDF). 2008-03-03. http://www.hhlaw.com/files/Publication/edbf3429-125c-41c9-9442-b552e69b756c/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/972a9053-8c8d-46e4-ac96-ecf4892a8643/Pharma.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
- ^ Barnett, Antony (2003-12-07). "Revealed: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals". London: The Observer. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1101680,00.html. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
- ^ "How whistleblowing cost one doctor £550000". PubMed. 2002-05-25. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1123215. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
- ^ Lenzer, Jeanne (2005-05-27). "What Can We Learn from Medical Whistleblowers?". PubMed. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1140678. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
- ^ "US Congress Warned of Gathering Storm at FDA". PharmaTimes. http://www.pharmatimes.com/WorldNews/article.aspx?id=12822. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
- ^ "Electronic Orange Book". U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/cder/ob/default.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-31.
- ^ "The Orphan Drug Act (as amended)". U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/orphan/oda.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-24.
- ^ Harris, Gardiner (2008-12-03). "British Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&incamp=article_popular_3. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
- ^ a b Herper, Matthew and Kang, Peter (2006-03-22). "The World's Ten Best-Selling Drugs". Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/home/sciencesandmedicine/2006/03/21/pfizer-merck-amgen-cx_mh_pk_0321topdrugs.html. Retrieved 2007-05-31.
- ^ "IMS Reports 11.5 Percent Dollar Growth in '03 U.S. Prescription Sales". IMS Health. 2004-02-17. http://www.imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/0,2777,6025_3665_44771558,00.html. Retrieved 2007-06-01.
- ^ [1] "Why We Pay So Much," TIME magazine, Feb. 2, 2004
- ^ "IMS Health Forecasts 5 to 6 Percent Growth for Global Pharmaceutical Market in 2007". IMS Health. 2006-10-24. http://www.imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/0,2777,6025_3665_79210022,00.html. Retrieved 2007-06-19.
- ^ "Prescription for change". Teradata Magazine online. March 2005. Archived from the original on 2007-09-28. http://web.archive.org/web/20070928024747/http://www.teradata.com/t/page/131951/. Retrieved 2007-06-19.
- ^ Med Ad News, September 2007
- ^ IMS Health 2008, Top 15 Global corporations
- ^ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- ^ "New Drug Approvals in 2006" (PDF). March 2007. Archived from the original on 2008-02-28. http://web.archive.org/web/20080228023631/http://www.phrma.org/files/NDA2006.pdf. Retrieved 2008-02-23.
- ^ "Assessment of Authorized Generics in the U.S." (PDF). IMS Consulting. June 2006. Archived from the original on 2008-02-28. http://web.archive.org/web/20080228023633/http://www.phrma.org/files/IMS+Authorized+Generics+Report_6-22-06.pdf. Retrieved 2008-02-23.
- ^ http://www.dddmag.com/news-Sanofi-Laying-Off-1700-in-US-101110.aspx
- ^ "The medicare Prescriptions Drug Benefit" (PDF). Kaiser Family Foundation. September 2005. Archived from the original on 2006-02-17. http://web.archive.org/web/20060217051127/http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7044-02.pdf. Retrieved 2007-06-12.
- ^ a b "ZS Associates; Pharmaceutical". http://www.zsassociates.com/news_events/news_media/the_doctor_wont_see_you_mr_pharma_rep_now/.
- ^ "No Free Lunch". http://www.nofreelunch.org/. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- ^ Kaufman, Marc (2005-05-06). "Merck CEO Resigns as Drug Probe Continues". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501115_pf.html. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- ^ "Drug Lobby Second to None: How the pharmaceutical industry gets its way in Washington". publicintegrity.org. 2005-07-07. http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=723. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- ^ Ray Moynihan (2003-05-31). Drug company sponsorship of education could be replaced at a fraction of its cost. BMJ: British Medical Journal, Volume 326, Issue 7400, Page 1163. Retrieved on 2007-10-07.
- ^ "Senators Who Weakened Drug Bill Got Millions From Industry," USA Today, May 10, 2007
- ^ Koerner BI (March/April, 2003), Dr. No Free Lunch. Mother Jones, Retrieved on 2007-10-06.
- ^ "A Collection of Articles on Disease Mongering". Public Library of Science. http://collections.plos.org/plosmedicine/diseasemongering-2006.php. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- ^ "UK parliamentarians put the pharma industry under the spotlight". European Public Health Alliance. http://www.epha.org/a/1773. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- ^ Buchkowsky SS, Jewesson PJ. (2004) Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years. Ann Pharmacother. 2004 Apr;38(4):579-85. PMID 14982982
- ^ Perlis RH, Perlis CS, Wu Y, Hwang C, Joseph M, Nierenberg AA. (2005) Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry Am J Psychiatry. Oct;162(10):1957-60.
- ^ Tungaraza T, Poole R. (2007) Influence of drug company authorship and sponsorship on drug trial outcomes. Br J Psychiatry. 2007 Jul;191:82-3. PMID 17602130
- ^ Medical schools and journals fight drug industry influence
- ^ Healy D (2006) The Latest Mania: Selling Bipolar Disorder PLoS Med 3(4): e185.
- ^ Cosgrove, Lisa, Krimsky, Sheldon,Vijayaraghavan, Manisha, Schneider, Lisa,Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry
- ^ Sharfstein, SS. (2005) Big Pharma and American Psychiatry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Psychiatric News August 19, 2005 Volume 40 Number 16
- ^ Stephens, Joe (2000-12-17). "As Drug Testing Spreads, Profits and Lives Hang in Balance". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11939-2000Dec15. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
- ^ "Nigerians to sue US drug company over meningitis treatment". BMJ. 2001-09-15. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/323/7313/592/b. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
- ^ Wise, Jacqui (2001-01-27). "Pfizer accused of testing new drug without ethical approval". BMJ. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7280/194. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
- ^ "Dying For Drugs". channel4.com. http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/D/dying_for_drugs/resources4.html. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
The following is a list of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies, ranked by global prescription drug sales for the 12 months through September 2009, according to
pharmaceutical market research company IMS Health Inc.
The chart shows sales -- in billions of U.S. dollars -- and percent change over the period. The data does not include the results from mega acquisitions by Pfizer (PFE.N) and Merck (MRK.N), as their deals for Wyeth and Schering-Plough, respectively, were completed in the fourth quarter.
pharmaceutical market research company IMS Health Inc.
The chart shows sales -- in billions of U.S. dollars -- and percent change over the period. The data does not include the results from mega acquisitions by Pfizer (PFE.N) and Merck (MRK.N), as their deals for Wyeth and Schering-Plough, respectively, were completed in the fourth quarter.
Company Sales pct change
1) Pfizer $41.7 (0.8)
2) Novartis $36.7 7.0
3) Sanofi-Aventis $35.1 3.3
4) GlaxoSmithKline $34.3 (3.4)
5) AstraZeneca $33.2 7.8
6) Roche $31.3 8.6
7) Johnson & Johnson $26.9 (6.6)
8) Merck & Co $25.0 (4.1)
9) Eli Lilly $19.6 8.3
10) Abbott $19.4 5.5
11) Teva $15.7 12.3
12) Bayer $15.4 3.9
13) Wyeth $14.8 (2.3)
14) Amgen $14.8 (3.1)
15) Boehringer $14.6 10.4
16) Takeda $14.4 2.1
17) Bristol-Myers $14.2 5.8
18) Schering-Plough $13.1 4.3
19) Daiichi Sankyo $8.5 3.1
20) Novo Nordisk $8.2 11.6
