The New York Times Follows My Lead.

For years I have been saying that the way the FDA approves new medicines is crappy. You see, when the FDA approves a new drug, contrary to what many customers and even doctors believe, that does NOT mean the new drug works better than the alternatives already on the market. It might even be less effective, as the legal standard for approval is simply that the new med has to show it works better than a placebo. Not even a lot better. Pass your safety tests, work a teeny bit better than a sugar pill, and you're good to go. Not only does this lead to pieces of shit in a box like Sarafem, but it means the medical community is on its own most of the time in finding out how the many blood pressure pills, anti-depressants, painkillers, and intestinal worm treatments compare against each other. (you don't know the frustration of being a patient and facing this type of dilemma. I don't want to give any clue as to what type of medical problem I was battling, as it's a bit embarrassing, but there was many a time I cursed the FDA as my stomach was quivering)

Drug companies will do these types of studies when they pick up the smell of money though, as in a recent trial where Eli Lilly was looking to expand the market for it's osteoporosis drug Evista. They had a hunch it might be able to prevent breast cancer as well, so they put it up against the current "gold standard" of breast cancer prevention, tamoxifen. They got mixed results, but enough that they'll soon probably be able to raise the price and start marketing it more widely. Doctors also have a clearer picture of what options are available for breast cancer patients. Yay. Exactly the win-win type of situation that would happen if Big Pharma and the FDA would just do what I say.

In comes The New York Times to marsh on my mellow. Seems like someone on their editorial board got wind of what the drugnazi has been telling dozens of disinterested people over the years. In an April 19th editorial they write:

Typically in this country, a drug is approved for marketing based on comparison with a placebo in clinical trials. This new study reinforces accumulating evidence that the most meaningful data is derived from comparing one drug with another. The government ought to sponsor more such comparative studies, and manufacturers should do the same.

Shameless. Absolutely shameless. My first thought was to immediately sue them for the way they blatantly ripped me off. After I cooled down a bit though, I've decided, that for the good of humanity, I will allow this to pass in the hope that reaching however many people read this paper, added to the ones I'm able to reach here, may further the advance of MY idea. In the future however I do at least expect credit for my intellectual property. New York Times, you have been put on notice.

Read the whole editorial here.