The pharmaceutical company's first duty is to the corporate share holders.
The prime purpose of their modus vivendi is to make money. Yes, they
create new products used as palliatives to ease different afflictions because
they have to compete in the market place and they want the market place to
remain open as long as possible.
Most of the 'cures' have not come primarily from the pharmaceutical industry
but rather from individual researchers mostly from the medical field.  Doctors
have always been at the forefront in finding 'cures' like Ehrlich 'magic bullet'
for syphylis to Fleming for penicillin which opened the door for over 100
antibiotics to heal infections, to Sabine for the oral pill that prevents the
dreaded disease of  the first half of this century:  polio.  It should also be
noted that the new drugs on the market are very expensive because the
industry will charge whatever the traffic will bear.
No possible one time cash payment could compensate for the horn of
plenty that Mirepex or Requip can fill with the beautiful sound of new $
bills.  The withdrawal of Tasmar or any other drug from the market is
fought strenuously by industry just like any recalls from automobile
manufacturers.  Of course, the claim that very expensive research was
needed to create new drugs and needs to be compensated is always
there as the primary pretext.
I worked as a research analytical chemist with the Food and Drug
Administration for nearly forty years, and I have seen a few doozies.
Do not misunderstand me, I wish for a cure for Parkinson as much
as anyone.  My wife Barbara's case is getting more debilitating after
ten years and I am getting more frustrated as the Sinemets increase
with doses and frequency and new drugs (Celexa, Aricept, Seroquel,
Ambien, etc.) are added to counteract many of the side effects.  I am
now contacting personnel agencies to get an aide, a companion, a
relief.
Do we get shmarter as we get older, or as we get just old?

EWith love

Michel Margosis
'Carpe Diem'