There is a big difference between "policies" and "practices." We have many policies that are not complied with. Current practices of scant ADR reporting and false drug trial reporting do not give credence to the claim that pharmacovigilance is even able to be reliably carried out . (A) Drug companies intentionally exclude some classes of patients from drug trials; (B) Drug companies have paid huge fines for deliberately withholding critical information from doctors about the risks of drugs (C) scientific misconduct in drug trial reporting is a major problem; (D) doctors are not reporting ADR's , generally (E) because often they don't realize the drug they prescribed is related to the ADR (F) Doctors play possum when they are advised that their patients have had an ADR (G) "Some side effects are so rare.... " Who can believe that, given the fraud being perpetrated by drug companies? If they write anything like, "The mechanism of action has not been perfectly characterized," then the drug is probably injurious.
You clearly have bias. "Drug companies" is not a mysterious, evil entity; you are talking about ordinary humans going to work. The things that you're stating or trying to suggest (e.g. fines, misconduct, and not realising something) exist in every sector.
There is a big difference between "policies" and "practices." We have many policies that are not complied with. Current practices of scant ADR reporting and false drug trial reporting do not give credence to the claim that pharmacovigilance is even able to be reliably carried out . (A) Drug companies intentionally exclude some classes of patients from drug trials; (B) Drug companies have paid huge fines for deliberately withholding critical information from doctors about the risks of drugs (C) scientific misconduct in drug trial reporting is a major problem; (D) doctors are not reporting ADR's , generally (E) because often they don't realize the drug they prescribed is related to the ADR (F) Doctors play possum when they are advised that their patients have had an ADR (G) "Some side effects are so rare.... " Who can believe that, given the fraud being perpetrated by drug companies? If they write anything like, "The mechanism of action has not been perfectly characterized," then the drug is probably injurious.
You clearly have bias.
"Drug companies" is not a mysterious, evil entity; you are talking about ordinary humans going to work. The things that you're stating or trying to suggest (e.g. fines, misconduct, and not realising something) exist in every sector.
accuracy and efficiency