"A new drug that proved to be so effective so quickly, the approval process was sped up," lauded CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric on March 13.
Couric and other reporters had reason to praise the newly FDA-approved drug Tykerb. The drug is approved for treatment of a specific kind of breast cancer, called HER-2 positive, and is showing tremendous promise.
Cancer patient Marsha Brekke told ABC "World News with Charles Gibson" that the drug was her last chance. Brekke has been cancer free for more than a year.
But what all three networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, left out of the evening newscasts on March 13 was any mention of the company that developed this breakthrough drug.
The company, GlaxoSmithKline, deserved credit for its 16 years of research to develop Tykerb, likely at a very high cost, but wasn't given any by the networks. Unfortunately, this is not unusual. The Business & Media Institute special report: Prescription for Bias states that the pharmaceutical industry is missing from nearly 80 percent of stories about prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The MSM are on the kind of dr
March 14, 2007 - 17:06 ET by HumanEventsThe MSM are on the kind of drugs not manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, like the one The Great Stainmaker didn't inhale.
I guess the MSM would rather give the credit to a GOVERNMENT agency (the FDA) for approving the drug that the company produced itself.
This is one bias, though, that is easier for me to swallow (no pun intended, [swallowing a presciption pill]) since the drug companies like GlaxoSmithKilne and Merck have gotten so huge to the point where they put their massive profits above consumer safety too much (trying to sell and convince doctors to buy massive amounts of massive new drugs to give to patients while ignoring safer and natural healing treatments, waiting too long to concede that a drug of theirs is indeed dangerous [again, putting profits ahead of safety]. The infamous Vioxx fiasco by Merck (the pain killer that caused some heart attacks, but Merck tarried a long time before confessing this because of all the $ they were making from the drug) is one of many examples.
But the FDA sure has a lot of fiascos of their own and have cost a lot of lives by their taking ridiculous amounts of years to approve a new drug. But the MSM never met a government agency it didn't like. Incompetence and corruption are completely irrelevant to people like Katie Couric and her bosses at CBS.
"drug companies like G
March 14, 2007 - 19:00 ET by ckc1227"drug companies like GlaxoSmithKilne and Merck have gotten so huge to the point where they put their massive profits above consumer safety too much (trying to sell and convince doctors to buy massive amounts of massive new drugs to give to patients while ignoring safer and natural healing treatments,"
That's because it isn't the drug companies objective to promote the competition, just like it isn't the cable companies objective to promote satellite television, or oil companies objective to promote solar energy.
Still, in the end, doctors decide what they give to their patients. If they feel a natural healing treatment is the better alternative, that's what they should recommend, no matter what the drug companies are selling.
Yeah I didn't word it that we
March 14, 2007 - 19:34 ET by HumanEventsYeah I didn't word it that well. What I meant was that the drug companies sell massive amounts of their new drugs in bulk to physicians and this in turn leads to the physicians tending to neglect alternative treatments to their patients. But your point is a good one. It's just like manufacturers of foods like cookies. Their objective is to sell their product, and highlight how delicious it is, not to warn about the detrimental health effects of sugar, fat, and lack of nutirition. They are free to create, advertise and sell. And the consumer is free to purchase food items and visit doctors that best meet our informed choices. (Unless Hillarycare cometh, then we'll be stuck with a doctor even if he/she goes against treatments we desire!).
How long will it take for ABC
March 14, 2007 - 18:06 ET by TEHow long will it take for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS and MSDNC to begin running stories (i.e., leftist campaign commercials) denouncing GlaxoSmithKline for actually charging money for the drug and expecting to get a return on the millions of dollars it spent developing the drug? It won't be long before ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS and MSDNC call up the Democrat party headquarters asking for women suffering from breast cancer to appear on TV who claim that they cannot afford this new drug and thus will die because the evil drug developer will not give away the drug for free.
Bingo, TE. That's exactly w
March 14, 2007 - 19:03 ET by ckc1227Bingo, TE. That's exactly when you'll learn the identity of the drug manufacturer.
Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes. 12 million illegal immigrants are counting on you.
That is very interesting. I
March 14, 2007 - 19:13 ET by mostlymoderateThat is very interesting. I wonder what those networks would think if the pharmaceuticals "pulled" all their advertising dollars from the networks. They should atleast give it a try. I mean *REALLY*...does anybody actually get a prescription because of a commercial they saw on television??? You take what your doctor tells you.
I say the pharmaceuticals protest by eliminating commercials. Then, apply the "savings" from not having to advertise on television to the consumer.
Big Pharma & big govern
March 15, 2007 - 00:51 ET by sarcasmoBig Pharma & big government also get little 'credit' in an uncurious & unscientific news media (especially TV, as usual) for their nicotine control-freakery..."If members of our society were empowered to make their own decisions…then the whole rationale for the [FDA] would cease to exist."
David Kessler. Quoted in James Bovard, "First Step To an FDA Cure: Dump Kessler," The Wall St. Journal, 12/8/94. (And needless to say, Kessler was never-dumped.)
JMR