Take your pick. There’s plenty to choose from. However, this post is about who is not at the root of all evil.

Pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, I know that I have said many uncomplementary things about them, but I still don’t think that they are necessarily bad. Rather, like most large corporations, they tend to lose their way sometimes, when they put profit before all else–even if it means marketing a dubious drug or one with potentially frightening side effects.

But in order to change Big Pharma, we need to change a lot of other things. For example, there are many rare illnesses that have no treatment or cures. Most pharm companies aren’t interested in working in this area, and rightly so. They need to spend hundreds of millions to research and develop a therapy, and then they may not be able to even recoup their expenditure.

Many natural remedies are not pursued or tested, because they can’t be patented. Therefore, anyone can make them and sell them.

The fundamental methodology of our drug discovery system needs to be changed. There has to be a way of reducing the cost of getting a drug approved by the FDA, and there is a lot of inane red tape that can be clipped. There needs to be more incentive for drug companies to pursue other areas of research, rather than the chronic diseases (high blood pressure, arthritis, etc) which reap the highest buck. I also don’t think that pharma should be advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers–they spend billions on that to assure that potential customers will ask their physcian to prescribe a new expensive drug which they may not need, or that doesn’t work any better than the older cheap generic medication that they currently use. Those billions could be better spent elsewhere, like on discovery and development.

So it is a multi-faceted problem, one which is not solved by simply pointing a finger at big pharma and screaming, “It’s all your fault.” Just like a politician should be able to run for office without having to spend millions on a campaign (which eliminates a good chunk of the population) it should not have to cost upwards of $500 million to bring a drug to market. Something is wrong here.

I’ve spoken with a number of people working in the pharm industry over the course of several years, and they are, in general, smart, ethical and hardworking. Decent people who believe in what they’re doing. Not the stereotype scumbag who doesn’t care who dies from their “miracle drug.” But the way our current system works, it is far too easy to be swayed by the relatively easy profits of making “me too” drugs, rather than something really unique.

I guess my point is that big pharma is only part of the equation. And if we want lower drug prices and more innovative products, then we need to demand changes from the bottom up.

Now here is a curious piece of news. Everyone is always screaming about how the elderly should get themselves pierced by a sharp needle, as in getting a flu shot. Supposedly, without the flu shot, they are doomed to die of a respiratory infection.

Last year’s flu shot shortage proved the theory wrong. Even though far less people got flu shots, the death rate from influenza was no higher than in previous years, nor was the rate of hospitalization. And now the clincher. Flu shots are relatively ineffective in older folks.

Flu Shots Not As Beneficial For Elderly

New research indicates that flu shots aren’t as effective in the elderly as previously thought.

An international group of scientists found the vaccine is only about 28 percent effective when given to people over 65.

Older people are particularly vulnerable to influenza. Health officials said older people should still get the vaccinations anyway.

Now is this biazarre or what. The flu shot is only effective in about a quarter of the people over the age of 65, yet health officials still “recommend it.” Why? So the companies manufacturing it can be paid, and make back the money that it cost to produce an ineffective vaccine?

Would you get a vaccine, or take a drug (and we’re not talking about a disease that is highly lethal–most people do not die of the flu) that was only 28% effective? Of course not. You’d have to be out of your mind. It’s one thing if you’re dying of an incurable illness, and some new remedy comes along that carries a 28% chance of cure. That you’d jump at because there is no other choice. But for a flu vaccine?

Instead of trying to improve the vaccine, and make it more effective; the “experts” are telling people to go ahead and get it anyway. What’s a little stick in the arm? And who knows, there’s a slight chance that it may help keep you from getting the flu.

The Indy Channel