person said:
There is no need for me to extensively verify my points because I have no intention of going into legal battles with the aforementioned company. It is fundamentally common sense that a company (perhaps subconsciously) would interpret their findings in favour of the financial gains. Medecine is a business like anything else. Where there is money to be made someone will cash in. Do you really think the people behind propecia thought: 'hey it is such a shame that this over-populated world is going bald.' Let's drop the cancer research and help these over-sensitive males grow back their hair.' Pondle they did this my dear because they knew they would become rich.
Person, don't be so naive. The only reason why firms exist, indeed the only reason why there is any form of economic activity at all in a capitalist system, is because of the profit motive. This is called economics. If you don't like capitalism, well there was a nice alternative tried in the Soviet Union and that turned out to be a roaring success, didn't it?
Look, OF COURSE Merck devised Propecia to make a profit. :roll: It's the only reason any drug company does anything. Profit is the reward for risk taken by enterprise. But firms exist in a regulated system. In the US the FDA regulates drugs to ensure safety and effectiveness. A broadly equivalent body called the MHRA exists here in the UK. Other countries have their own similar arrangements.
The FDA mandates that a pharmaceutical company seeking to bring a new drug to market must to submit accurate information to the FDA proving that a new drug is safe and effective. A pharma company has to submit an "investigational new drug" (IND) application to the FDA. Then it has to conduct sufficient trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy. The results of those trials might be published in peer-reviewed journals. Clinical trial results have to be submitted, along with information on manufacturing specifications, drug stability, bioavailability, suggested packaging and labelling, as a "new drug application" (NDA) to the FDA.
The NDA is then reviewed by physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists who assess the validity of the claims. FDA inspectors also examine the facilities in which the sponsor intends to manufacture the drug. It's not a perfect system but then what is?
Besides, if a pharmaceutical company fabricated its data, it would face litigation, legal sanctions and commercial disaster. I'm not saying it's never happened, but any serious player that tried to get away with it would need not just corrupt but extraordinarily inept and stupid management.
