[quote name='chiwii']You think that the CEOs of large pharma company tell the scientists to intentionally develop medications with side effects? Side effects are probably ignored or downplayed in the pharma industry, but intentinally causing side effects? I doubt that.
Fyi - there isn't one "pill." There are many methods of hormonal birth control, some of which were developed fairly recently. And, there are some truly absurb side effects associated with any hormonal birth control for women, such as blood clots, which can cause death.[/QUOTE]
Then why are there pills whose almost sole purpose masks side effects of other pills now? My mentality is that even if they don't intentionally go out and do it that they see it as a benefit, likely under the sentence I first put up. Bottom line, I trust drugs developed in the 80/ early 90's or earlier(only a FEW years after the FDA advertisement ruling) because of the combo that the regulations were most strict or at least followed and the fact they weren't even close to capping out the profit margin in the current market. Compare this to now when they're doing whatever they can to squeeze more money out, part of which involves getting it to market regardless of the number of side effects. I also realize that for every person who has a side effect you have to report it but I truly doubt they were as bad in the past as now. This likely has to do with the fact that greater numbers of pharmaceutical drugs were likely based off some chemical structure of a plant.
