Pharmaceutical Transparency and the Case for Independent Drug Testing

If you publish false stuff-

Yeah

... there should be some type of ramification

for it, especially when you can prove

it.

Yeah. So the way that they get around this,

if you look at the way that media

reports on, you know, drug company studies, is that there is a,

again, false perception that the regulators,

whether it be the FDA in the

US or the MHR in the UK, are actually independent

actors evaluating the data and saying, "Yeah,

this is good." So that's how they get

around it. But the reality is that's not the case. There is biases.

They take money from pharma. They don't, you know...

When peer reviewers are reviewing an article that's being

published in a medical

journal, and John Abramson from Harvard points this

out very well in his book,

Sickening: How Big Pharma Broke American Healthcare,

the peer reviews do not have

access to the raw data. So what they are reviewing is a curated version of what

drug companies have told them. So, you know, with one stroke of a pen,

potentially

from President Trump, you could essentially say from now on,

and this is, you know,

enough is enough, Steven. It's very clear over the years,

because of these lack of

transparency in the data, millions and millions of people have been killed

over the last few decades from big pharma manipulations.

Absolutely.

Quality, p- people's lives destroyed. Enough is enough, right?

One simple solution is from now on, drug companies can develop drugs,

but they should no longer be allowed to test them themselves.