Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.
Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."
Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewelry boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicized fact known to the drugs industry for many years.
"Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues," said one industry scientist. "He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug."
Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of "pharmacogenomics" - the application of human genetics to drug development - and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realize that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes.
http://www.rense.com/general69/glax.htm
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on December 14, 2005]
Note: http://www.rense.com/ge...
Glaxo Chief - 'Our Drugs Do Not Work On Most Patients'
Posted on Wednesday, December 14 at 10:32 by DiogenesContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
in Canada.
Okay,......Well, name any drug developed and produced in
Canada during the last 10 years.
( crickets ,...chirping )
Think aboooot it !
Tamoxifen.
Cold-FX.
Quick! Name one antibotic developed by *any* drug company in the last 20 years!
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
Cold FX was however developed in Canada.
( sound of teeth gnashing ? )
B.C. Bud,.......yeah baby !
( sound of bong gurgling ..... whoppie ! )
So, what happened ? Has deregulation and free trade opened, or closed more labs ? Do we now have more, or less research, more or less employed in the business?
For our part, we gave up on drugs many years ago when we saw how our old friends, who started going on medications, also started going downhill with dozens of jars and bottles, one counteracting the other's side effects, in their medicine cabinets.
9,000 people are killed by prescription drugs in Canada every year, yet they're pushing to "control healthfoods", that don't kill anyone.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
A British physician in a U.K. mag called the Ecologist noted that the FDA recorded that about 68% (or so, my memory is fuzzy) of the drugs released on the market contain no new significant compounds in relation to previously released drugs. The physician also noted that at least 70% of drugs released on the market were essentially reformulated so that patents could be extended yet no new health benefits would be derived from these drugs.
Most senior citizens are overmedicated.
Half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are medical related.
Paxil turned out to be a fraud. The placebos where known to be just as effective in 50% of the cases and in some instances Paxil heightened the disorder it was supposed to address in teenagers driving them to suicide.
Celebrex was supposed to be an improvement to existing drugs but in fact was just a potent as the other drugs including the inheirant gastrointestal pains. By October 2000, Health Canada had received hundreds of reports of serious adverse reactions to Celebrex including 70 cases of stomach bleeding and 10 deaths.
Vioxx, Merck's second most profitable drug, was pulled after research showed the drug could increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Eli Lilly is being sued over its most profitable drug: zyprexa. It has been linked to causing diabetes in those who take it. There is no history of diabetes on either side of my family yet my father has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. He was also taking zyprexa at the time.
Considering the above I happen to believe it when he says that most drugs do not work for most people. I would not be surprised to lear that Big Pharma companies calculate the costs they may incur over a law suit against the profits they could earn during a drugs shelf life. If people die or are harmed in the mean time than who cares? As long as a profit is made is guess and that's what really matters.
I dont think creating long term drug dependencies is helping people at all especially when they cost as much as they do.
And wouldn't you want your money back once you learned that you fall into the 50% of takers of whom the drug was ineffective?
"But drugs are still a lot better than they were decades ago and they help many people." I guess that's reason enough to allow Pharmaceutical Companies to continue to manufacture useless and harmful drugs. As more and more drugs are exposed for the frauds they are it appears the Pharmaceutical industry is nothing more than a cesspool of snake-oil merchants.