Until legislation is passed enforcing pharmaceutical companies to
pool a percentage of their profits into a research fund, managed by
individuals distanced from the medical world, the NHS will always be a
free-for-all for pharmaceutical companies.
Boot's study of levothyroxine was quite significant for thyroid
patients, not just because it showed that their product was no better than
other makes, but because it has helped us to look at other myths
surrounding synthetic thyroxin. For example; the consensus that synthetic
T4 is the same compound as a measure of T4/T3/T2 and other residues mixed
together. It also helped to highlight the disempowering treatment,
especially for British patients compared to the rest of the world.
All British doctors should know that synthetic thyroxin was 'not'
introduced with scientific studies to support it, hence the FDA's change
of heart on its status as a grandfathered drug now.
In contrast, our Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has continued its use
without a review of any kind, simply on the basis that it is medicine used
for chronic conditions. Under their review system someone who needs a one
off painkiller for a headache has 100% more protection from the MCA than
someone whose life, and quality of life, is dependant on daily drugs, as
bazaar as this may seem.
No one has proved that synthetic thyroxin is better for the patient
than naturally derived products, nor do they have to call a product by the
same name. Yet British doctors do not give patients a choice of medicines,
supporting the perception that patients are partners in their care, why?
Given the findings of the Boots study it may prove too much of a challenge
for the makers of synthetic thyroxin's to carry out comparative studies,
but until then should it be assumed by GP's that one medicine is better
than the other?
Therefore there can be no scientific reason for the prescribing
habits of British GPs and their disempowerment of their thyroid patients,
other than an over baring influence of the pharmaceutical industry. There
is no reason to believe that similar situations are not echoed with the
treatment of other chronic conditions.
Another point is that the drug is unlikely to be anymore stable in
Britain than it is in America, despite an obvious assumption from British
doctors that it is. The MCA's reviewing procedure for drugs used for
chronic conditions supports a market without the safety measures all
people expect daily from the food industry. So it is unlikely that British
patients will ever know how stable their drug is, until they have
experienced the nasty effects of a new batch, as I did one time.
As a patient and lay person I puzzle at such articles which discuss
ethics and integrity as if it could exist alongside commercialism. There
is not, and never will be either concept, as long as there is money to be
made in medicines. I have absolutely no doubt that any patient who has
ever laid in a NHS hospital bed next to one which is being used for drugs
trials would agree with me. In fact, like me, they might find much of the
pharmaceutical and medical world antics obscene and inexcusable.
Rapid Response:
The Obscenities of the Pharmaceutical World
Until legislation is passed enforcing pharmaceutical companies to
pool a percentage of their profits into a research fund, managed by
individuals distanced from the medical world, the NHS will always be a
free-for-all for pharmaceutical companies.
Boot's study of levothyroxine was quite significant for thyroid
patients, not just because it showed that their product was no better than
other makes, but because it has helped us to look at other myths
surrounding synthetic thyroxin. For example; the consensus that synthetic
T4 is the same compound as a measure of T4/T3/T2 and other residues mixed
together. It also helped to highlight the disempowering treatment,
especially for British patients compared to the rest of the world.
All British doctors should know that synthetic thyroxin was 'not'
introduced with scientific studies to support it, hence the FDA's change
of heart on its status as a grandfathered drug now.
In contrast, our Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has continued its use
without a review of any kind, simply on the basis that it is medicine used
for chronic conditions. Under their review system someone who needs a one
off painkiller for a headache has 100% more protection from the MCA than
someone whose life, and quality of life, is dependant on daily drugs, as
bazaar as this may seem.
No one has proved that synthetic thyroxin is better for the patient
than naturally derived products, nor do they have to call a product by the
same name. Yet British doctors do not give patients a choice of medicines,
supporting the perception that patients are partners in their care, why?
Given the findings of the Boots study it may prove too much of a challenge
for the makers of synthetic thyroxin's to carry out comparative studies,
but until then should it be assumed by GP's that one medicine is better
than the other?
Therefore there can be no scientific reason for the prescribing
habits of British GPs and their disempowerment of their thyroid patients,
other than an over baring influence of the pharmaceutical industry. There
is no reason to believe that similar situations are not echoed with the
treatment of other chronic conditions.
Another point is that the drug is unlikely to be anymore stable in
Britain than it is in America, despite an obvious assumption from British
doctors that it is. The MCA's reviewing procedure for drugs used for
chronic conditions supports a market without the safety measures all
people expect daily from the food industry. So it is unlikely that British
patients will ever know how stable their drug is, until they have
experienced the nasty effects of a new batch, as I did one time.
As a patient and lay person I puzzle at such articles which discuss
ethics and integrity as if it could exist alongside commercialism. There
is not, and never will be either concept, as long as there is money to be
made in medicines. I have absolutely no doubt that any patient who has
ever laid in a NHS hospital bed next to one which is being used for drugs
trials would agree with me. In fact, like me, they might find much of the
pharmaceutical and medical world antics obscene and inexcusable.
Competing interests: No competing interests