I couldn't disagree with you more. I have two letters from two pharma companies, one of which is the company w?

who without getting into medico-legal problems confirmed to e that the above named drugs were only testes for twelve weeks. One of the scientists at Actavis of Devon not only called me but e-mailed me the trial results published over the years. So the response that it would take GP's to long to explain all the side effects is surely based on getting bums on seats for ten minutes at a time to bring more money in. And apart from that, the guidelines of the GMC, BMA and RCGP all state that the GP/doctor has a duty to inform patients of the adverse effects of drugs they prescribe. So I ask again, why don't GP's tell us guinea pigs about the adverse side effects. If we don't accept them or buy them the GP's don't earn money from the burgeoning market of big bucks for bad drugs. Is that following the hippocratic declaration of 'first do no harm?' I think not. An unpatronising response would be appreciated.