Letters to the editor

Changes in pharma

Re "Pharma's queasy feeling," Opinion, Jan. 27

Melody Petersen distorts and interprets facts to prove an illogical position. One example is her use of Zantac to prove her point. Zantac took over the market because it was an improvement over the market leader, Tagamet. Zantac could be taken twice a day, versus four times a day for Tagamet. This improved patient compliance and thus showed greater efficacy. Zantac could be prescribed more easily for cardiac patients who received anticoagulant therapy. Cost per pill did increase, but only two pills were needed a day.

It is true that companies did more research in fields that had a greater potential for sales. But the profits from "blockbuster" drugs helped pay for research into small markets.

Petersen does a disservice, through bias, ignorance or her profit motive, to an industry that is heavily regulated. If she had her way, healthcare professionals would be spending their weekends digging herbs.

Angelo P. Calfo

Thousand Oaks



The article never comes to any conclusion. It just generally maintains that new drugs do not help patients more than sugar pills; that they kill patients unnecessarily; and it rejoices that companies will soon have their patents expire. Of course, the few remaining years of patent protection means that companies have little time to recover their investment and thus must heavily market drugs. Those who want to destroy the ability of pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs usually begin by denying 50 years of progress. They should feel free to refuse any drugs developed in that time.

The implied point can be only that research funded by private investors should be eliminated and replaced with government research, which has the advantage of never having to get results. Is it better to let people remain ill and die than to tolerate someone profiting from making them better? Such is the compassion of socialism.

Richard E. Ralston

Newport Beach

The writer is executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Not a clear-cut case

Re "Lebanon held hostage," editorial, Jan. 30

Your editorial was accurate on one count: The U.N. investigation "has made enormous progress." The investigative team has worked diligently with several countries, including Syria, to find out who was behind this heinous crime.

Never has a crime investigation amassed so much money, manpower and technology. However, no suspects have been named to date, and to mislead your readers into thinking that this is a clear-cut case goes against journalistic integrity.

Syria has cooperated with the investigation -- a fact conveyed by the investigative team in each of its last reports -- and will continue to do so. The murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was detrimental to Syria as well as Lebanon, and it is in our paramount national interest to expose the true perpetrators. Along with the conclusion of the Hariri investigation, we hope for a stable Lebanon that can thwart the constructive-chaos theory that some are trying to implement in our region.

Ahmed Salkini

Press Secretary

Embassy of Syria