Glaxo Chief: Our Drugs Do Not Work on Most Patients

This is another old blog post but nothing appears to have changed. Now you know why I believe a low carb high fat diet for diabetics is the only way to control type two diabetes and nil/minimal drugs is the only method that works, and keeps on working. Some members may remember when I have posted this sort of post on other forums, it has lead to uproar from certain owners and mods for being a scaremonger. The last thing so many want to hear is the truth and they will use all sorts of methods to suppress the truth, why that is, is beyond me.

A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them. It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year.

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.

Link to the Ratner moment here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/glaxo-chief-our-drugs-do-not-work-on-most-patients-575942.html

Also surely some of the people who the drugs appear to work for will actually be getting the 'placebo' effect anyway? If a drug is say 50% effective as against a placebo that was 15% effective, then surely only around 35% of the patients are really getting benefit from the drug?  Or is this already taken into account? I know it's measured in the trials, but when it is brought into use even though there are 'active' ingredients in the drug, it doesn't mean those are what's working for the patient.  It could still be placebo effect, just with the added problems of side effects from the active ingredients.  

edit:  I added a sentence to my original post because I'm not sure I made my point clear.  I'm still feeling the effects of a flu jab that is meant to be made from a dead virus so you can't get even mild flu from it

The placebo affect is taken into account Zand so the actual numbers where drugs work would be even less ! Unbelievable !

So I want placebos instead of drugs, then my brain can think they are working and they will work. No side effects.

zand wrote:So I want placebos instead of drugs, then my brain can think they are working and they will work.  No side effects.  

As with so much of what big pharma gets up to, placebos are a very murky area as well. I blogged this two years ago.

Should Placebo Ingredients Be Disclosed In Trials?

When we talk about the placebo effect, the assumption is that the dummy pill is essentially identical to the real medication, but lacks the active ingredient. But what if that wasn’t so? What if the placebo contained something that might skew results? And how would anyone know if the the ingredients in a placebo are not disclosed? Which leads us to another question – should the contents be disclosed?

However, they also note that bias favoring the active drug can occur. For instance, a study of a cancer treatment using a placebo pill that contained lactose and there were few gastrointestinal problems in the experimental group. “Because lactose intolerance is prevalent in cancer, promoted by both chemotherapy and radiation therapy, adverse effects of the lactose placebo to gastrointestinal symptoms may have contributed to the appearance of benefit from the drug.

The “failure to describe placebo ingredients breaches basic scientific standards of rigor,” write the authors, who were led by Beatrice Golomb, a professor of medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

It is stunning to note, but 100% true: the FDA does not currently have required standards for placebo ingredients in clinical trials. Nor does the FDA even require that placebo ingredients are listed in published clinical trials of drugs. According to the latest data from the Annals of Medicine, just 8% of the 167 clinical trials they reviewed published the ingredients of their placebos!

Info from here my bold http://blog.placeboeffect.com/placebo-ingredients/

Eddie

Now I hadn't heard any of that before at all! Thanks. OK no placebo then, I'll just tell myself to get better with the help of a nutritious diet. It's a pity I really am not good at cooking.

Wow ! So in reality, no such thing as a placebo ? I just thought they were basically sugar coated nothings !! Just found this which backs Eddies post up ! Terrible !


http://www.healthiertalk.com/placebo-pills-more-just-sugar-027

Yes I thought the only thing to worry about was a bit of sugar!

Good grief Mo thats thats just well struthl!

mo1905 wrote:

A horror story but this does not have to be.

Albert Einstein said, Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Our NHS and DUK should take note. They do the same thing over and over again with their dietary recommendations. Despite having dietitians and a never ending stream of new drugs at their disposal, the dietary insanity continues. Nothing illustrates Einstein’s quote better than the NHS own audits. The big question, are they stupid, insane, or do they want to continue the carnage ?

Results for England. The National Diabetes Audit 2010-2011

Percentage of registered Type 1 patients in England

HbA1c >= 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) = 92.6%
HbA1c > 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) = 71.3%
HbA1c > 10.0% (86 mmol/mol) = 18.1%

Percentage of registered Type 2 patients in England
HbA1c >= 6.5% (48 mmol/mol = 72.5%
HbA1c > 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) = 32.6%
HbA1c >10.0% (86 mmol/mol) = 6.8%

These pitiful results are very similar to those obtained in previous NHS audits over the past 5 - 6 years.

As you can see these are percentage figures. The actual total number of diagnosed diabetics over the last five years has escalated greatly, and continues north by the day. Last word to Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.

“The reality is that over the years, and around the world we have killed literally millions of diabetics by advising them to eat a high-carb diet and avoid fats. Only now is it being recognised that previous advice was and remains useless, dangerous and scientifically illiterate"

Big argument with the vet yesterday over the placebos. He said data is published and l stated it was not it was just given he refused to believe me...his loss at least all he is testing (think first as well) is a spray on bandage and l can not see that being a whole lot of use other than for a simple cut.