This study lays open one of the dirtiest little secrets of the pharmaceutical industry: new, massively hyped drugs are often no better than the older drugs they are replacing -- just more expensive for you, which means more profits for the drug companies. Since most of these drugs are required for life, it is an ongoing annuity for them.

The profit window for a drug is considered to be the lifespan of its patent. Once the patent runs out, the price can no longer be artificially inflated, as cheaper, generic versions of the drug can be made by other companies.  So companies quickly bring other patented drugs on the market, claiming that they are newer, better, more effective, and safer than the older versions.

In fact, they are often minor variations on the older versions, changed just enough for a new patent. Even when there are significant differences, as in the case of this study, the side effects are often just as bad, and the effectiveness just as poor. A drug they can sell for a higher price is much more important to them than a drug that is more effective.

And the difference in price can be astonishing. A month's supply of the older drug in this study, perphenazine, was $60. The same amount of Zyprexa was $520. Pretty steep for a drug that might give you diabetes.

If you're wondering why the results of this study sound so logical and rational, yet so downbeat for the mega-drug companies, note that it was financed largely by the government, with few connections to the drug industry.

Another dirty little secret of the drug companies is that their drugs' shelf lives are typically much longer than they note. They put short shelf lives on them so you will throw any older drugs away and increase their revenues by purchasing more. This is a major issue for the military and a review five years ago tore open the secrets on this issue.