Transcript · English → Indonesian
Discussion on Pharmaceutical Transparency Issues
Jika Anda menerbitkan hal-hal palsu—
Ya.
Seharusnya ada semacam konsekuensi
untuk itu, terutama jika Anda bisa membuktikan
nya.
Ya. Jadi cara mereka mengakalinya,
jika Anda melihat cara media
melaporkan, Anda tahu, studi perusahaan obat, adalah bahwa ada
lagi, persepsi keliru bahwa para regulator,
entah itu FDA di
AS atau MHR di Inggris, sebenarnya adalah pihak independen
yang mengevaluasi data dan berkata, "Ya,
ini bagus." Jadi begitulah mereka
mengakalinya. Namun kenyataannya tidak demikian. Ada bias.
Mereka menerima uang dari perusahaan farmasi. Mereka tidak, Anda tahu…
Saat penelaah sejawat meninjau artikel yang akan
diterbitkan di jurnal
medis, dan John Abramson dari Harvard menjelaskan hal ini
dengan sangat baik dalam bukunya,
Memuakkan: Bagaimana Big Pharma Merusak Layanan Kesehatan Amerika,
para penelaah sejawat tidak memiliki
akses ke data mentah. Jadi, yang mereka tinjau adalah versi tersaring dari apa yang
perusahaan farmasi katakan kepada mereka. Jadi, Anda tahu, dengan satu goresan pena,
berpotensi
dari Presiden Trump, pada dasarnya Anda bisa mengatakan mulai sekarang,
dan ini, Anda tahu,
sudah cukup, Steven. Selama bertahun-tahun, sudah sangat jelas,
karena kurangnya
transparansi data ini, jutaan demi jutaan orang telah terbunuh
selama beberapa dekade terakhir akibat manipulasi Big Pharma.
Tentu.
Kualitas, k-kehidupan orang-orang hancur. Sudah cukup, bukan?
Satu solusi sederhana adalah, mulai sekarang, perusahaan obat boleh mengembangkan obat,
tetapi mereka tak boleh lagi mengujinya sendiri.
End of transcript · 219 words · machine translated
Original transcript (English)
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.
