I think gravity up there says it best:
Is it better to do a 10 yr study on the ultimate risks of a drug while people die of the disease it's supposed to fight?
For example: (not sure the status of it at this point) there was a "wonder" drug that was being developed to fight aids and HIV. Aids patients were dropping like flies and begging to be put on the drug as a trial yet the various drug FDA type ministries etc were saying no, you can't, die while we determine whether it is safe or not....so, they have a drug that might harm you, but at least you'll be alive or the trade off is die of the disease...
I also think insinuating that popping a pill instead of eating right and exercising is a pretty narrow minded view. Take me for instance: genetically, I am prone to high cholesteral. My whole family is. I rarely eat fried foods (think I had something fried last week and then that was the first time in 3 months), everything I eat is low or no fat, yet my cholesteral is still high. When I was first diagnosed I went on a strick diet of rice cakes (aka styrofoam), raisons, fruit only, and NO fat of any kind for 2 months. My LDL dropped by 2 points, and my weight dropped 10 lbs. Sure, I could lower my cholesteral to normal levels, but I'd die of starvation.....
Another example are people who contracted the HIV virus via blood transfusions. I guess they should just roll over and die because it was a lifestyle choice to need blood in the first place?
I did a LOT of work with Eli Lilly, Glaxo and others and my contacts there were in a constant battle to develope new drugs to fight diseases with no side effects. You have to weigh the pros and cons of a drug and make the determination whether you want to die early, or risk the side effects.
I mean, you could choose the "all natural" way of treating the disease: death. It's the second most natural thing we do....