don't take drugs....they are bad for you

[IndiReloaded]

but Indie...in earlier threads we discussed the fact that pharma lies to the FDA to get drugs approved like vioxx and many other cases of documents with wrong information given to the FDA for approval....so you're in the medical field....

Yes, falsification happens. And shit hits the fan for it. Ultimately, its non-productive for a company & gets found out. The scientific community IS pretty self-regulating. Merck has suffered for it, and its changing the way papers are accepted. NEMJ was NOT happy; its a pretty well-respected journal & prides itself on the quality of its papers.

BTW, a lot of ppl were *very* unhappy about the removal of the drug in Canada. There are lots of ppl, even with those CV side effects, who still want the drug. It was the only thing that gave their arthritis relief.

You might also be interested to know that there's a great antiemetic (anti-sickness) drug out there that was similarly banned. It works very well and has very little side effects, tho its not recommended for pregnancy.

The drug is called thalidomide.

[ecojeanne]

indie it wasn't just the side effects....people actually died during the research and they lied about it to the FDA. what else has been forged that people don't know about....they proved they were untrustworthy....

they have marketed themselves as trustworthy and people therefore trust them on a wide scale.....

i looked up thalidomide....its interesting that you would bring it up because it was originally specifically for pregnant mothers......

From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000children in Africa and Europe were born with severe malformities, including phocomelia, because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy.

so i'm not surprised it was banned.....its good that it helps the right people now....but a bit late for those mothers....

anyway the point is...people are trusting the pharma industry too much and the way society is now there is less social interaction with people therefore people can more easily be manipulated by the marketing and even doctors by the sales reps. People are quicker to think something is wrong with them than actually looking at their diet and instead take a pill...its quicker and easier but in the long run can be devastating.....it's not right what the pharma industry is doing.....they are keeping people sick instead of curing them....because once a person starts then it becomes more and more pills to mask each side effect for each pill....so on and so forth.....more money for the pharma industry....because afterall it is a business as you so well pointed out earlier............

but is it an ethical one

[misombra]

there are some good pharmaceutical drugs that have done a lot of good things for people.

but to deny the bad things they've done and how they've turned the whole market into a monopoly and how they try to sell useless shit to people is silly.

[ecojeanne]

they are selling 'some' useless shit to people with made up conditions/syndroms.....because lets face it...more profit. It should not be about the bottom line...thats where it becomes unethical....like i said not all drugs are useless.

some drugs are not researched and tested enough to be brought out into the market so quickly like the examples we discussed. They come out quickly because so much money has been spent researching them and they need to make some money back asap. if it fails during the research stage thats when the documents get forged. My opinion is that the structure needs to change in these companies. I think thats is where the discussion ends because its about who gets voted into politics and their ability to change things for the people they represent.

[IndiReloaded]

indie it wasn't just the side effects....people actually died during the research and they lied about it to the FDA. what else has been forged that people don't know about....they proved they were untrustworthy....

they have marketed themselves as trustworthy and people therefore trust them on a wide scale.....

i looked up thalidomide....its interesting that you would bring it up because it was originally specifically for pregnant mothers......

From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000children in Africa and Europe were born with severe malformities, including phocomelia, because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy.

so i'm not surprised it was banned.....its good that it helps the right people now....but a bit late for those mothers....

anyway the point is...people are trusting the pharma industry too much and the way society is now there is less social interaction with people therefore people can more easily be manipulated by the marketing and even doctors by the sales reps. People are quicker to think something is wrong with them than actually looking at their diet and instead take a pill...its quicker and easier but in the long run can be devastating.....it's not right what the pharma industry is doing.....they are keeping people sick instead of curing them....because once a person starts then it becomes more and more pills to mask each side effect for each pill....so on and so forth.....more money for the pharma industry....because afterall it is a business as you so well pointed out earlier............

but is it an ethical one

I don't disagree with you. Ppl *are* overmedicated & Big Pharma does need to report more objectively. However, I think its silly to say that all drugs are bad. Far more ppl have been helped by drugs than harmed.

I gave the thalidomide example specifically, to give you something to think about. Its a very effective drug, like I say. But, b/c of those early side effects & its total ban by the FDA, we have lost a useful drug from the pharmacopia.

Drugs work in a biological context. This is something scientists are only just starting to appreciate. There will *always* be someone, someplace who will have an adverse reaction to a drug. Long ago, children died from being given *asprin* (a very useful drug) until we learned about Reye's Syndrome. I still don't think its understood what causes it.

My point is, until we know a lot more, we won't always be able to predict adverse effects. Ultimately, it comes back to personal responsibility. I don't take a single thing, even Tylenol, without thinking about risk vs benefit. Which is why, mostly, I will drink a glass of water & lie down rather than take that pill.

I'm not justifying how Vioxx was handled at all. Like I say, lots of scientists & physicians are angry at Merck for what happened. It affects the science community as a whole. But to dismiss all pharma as 'bad' is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If people who got relief from vioxx want the drug still, I say give it to them. So long as the adverse effects are clearly labelled. No different from tobacco, really.

[IndiReloaded]

they are selling 'some' useless shit to people with made up conditions/syndroms.....because lets face it...more profit. It should not be about the bottom line...thats where it becomes unethical....like i said not all drugs are useless.

some drugs are not researched and tested enough to be brought out into the market so quickly like the examples we discussed. They come out quickly because so much money has been spent researching them and they need to make some money back asap. if it fails during the research stage thats when the documents get forged. My opinion is that the structure needs to change in these companies. I think thats is where the discussion ends because its about who gets voted into politics and their ability to change things for the people they represent.

What are you trying to say, Eco? Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to work out if you are merely ranting or are going someplace with this?

Really, there are only two things I can think of to address your issues:

- heavily penalize companies who demonstrably release drugs with false data--pretty sure there are a number of suits against Merck for vioxx right now

- CLEARLY label drugs that have been 'fast tracked' as having potentially unknown & dangerous side effects. Let the Phase IV data come in for a couple years before changing a drugs status. This would require extending the patent laws, I imagine. The FDA is really reluctant to do this kind of thing, but I personally think that ppl should take MORE personal responsibility for their health & not rely on gov't to 'protect' them. Clearly they can't, always.

I don't think the FDA review process can be made any more stringent, really. Its actually a pretty good, if slow, process (if anything, its overcumbersome). As far as something like vioxx is concerned, its pretty much a case of garbage-in, garbage-out. At some level, you have to believe the scientists are running decent studies. Otherwise, the FDA might as well run all the clinical trials themselves.

And, like I said & we all have seen, eventually the data WILL come out. It always does.

[ecojeanne]

i personally think that pharma should not be allowed to advertise....thats a major point of mine. I can't believe it is allowed in America. Its not allowed here. sales reps...ethically because they are sales people they analyse the personality of the doctors and use sales techniques. the art of reciprocation etc etc. should not be allowed. the bottom line....i personally don't know how that should be handled....should it go anywhere specific...should they even be on the stock market? i don't know....all i know the profits are huge...humungus and so they will do anything to increase it and protect it...ethically wrong considering the industry that it is.....it is supposed to help people get better....

so stratagies for a company would be how to make more money...well of course make up conditions and create drugs for them....like i mentioned earlier one drug leads to another and another to mask all the side effects....now that is a dream come true for a profitable company....don't ya think?

they are not out to get you completely...i agree some drugs do help but some seriously don't at the cost of millions of lives every year

[IndiReloaded]

Eco, I think you have been brainwashed by the media in your thinking.

I don't know a single person over the age of 50 who wouldn't be DEAD if it wasn't for a drug at some point in their life.

As for profits, yes, they are large. However, its also very expensive to produce a new drug. Most don't make it. Lots of biotech cos go under each year, or get bought out even if their projects ARE successful. ICOS, for example.

Until the public decides to invest directly in basic-to-applied research, this is how it goes. Taxpayers have decided to pay for their drugs *when* they need them, as a service industry, instead of a societal investment. The result is about what you'd expect. Sorry, but convince your neighbour to vote for more research funding & politicians who understand these things better if you want to see change.

[ecojeanne]

Eco, I think you have been brainwashed by the media in your thinking..

i totally expected that statement at some stage from you considering you work in the medical field. you don't like what i have to say...so be it. Why do you think pharma advertising is not allowed over here? do you think millions of people are wrong over here?

[IndiReloaded]

I haven't actually told you what I do, so you're making assumptions. And you are wrong.

[IndiReloaded]

Why do you think pharma advertising is not allowed over here? do you think millions of people are wrong over here?

Even if advertising isn't allowed, ppl still take the drugs right? Merck & Pfizer sell plenty of drugs in the UK too. So, again, what is your point?

[ecojeanne]

you didn't answer my question.......

[IndiReloaded]

Your question wasn't phrased in a way that made any sense. You have this tendency to ignore points, esp when they are presented by someone who clearly understands an issue better than you do. There are several important points I have made I notice you have ignored.

But, as regards the advertising, how about this: do you think that banning advertising will fix the problem of falsifying data? If so, I'm for it.

It won't, however. You are simply not focussed on the real problem. I will repeat it for you:

Until the public decides to invest directly in basic-to-applied research, this is how it goes. Taxpayers have decided to pay for their drugs *when* they need them, as a service industry, instead of a societal investment.

You don't see adverts for medicinal-use marijuana, do you? Those are gov't-sponsored programs, at least in Canada.

So, if you are serious about this issue & want to effect change, THIS is where you need to focus. Otherwise, you are basically generating a half-baked rant. No person who actually knows something about this area will take you seriously otherwise.

[ecojeanne]

i think its very telling in this discussion the following you freely admitted in DM's thread 'social sciences'

your quote: FWIW, the only class I ever came close to failing was Medical Ethics. Showing up counted, & I could only bring myself to show up to just over 1/2 (so I could pass).






what is it then that you do....if you're 'not' in a medical field of some sort???????

some people are manipulated into taking drugs through their previously manipulated doctors or the advertising....get it??

[IndiReloaded]

Ads convince ppl to BUY things?? Really??

You don't actually need to know what I do, EJ. Tho, if you really want to know, you could figure it out. Do some research.

I've also taken college-level music courses, language & physics courses. None of those makes me a musician, linguist, or physicist. It does make me an intellectual omnivore. Noone here would disagree.

Your comment about advertising is superficial. Its pretty clear you haven't thought this through. Perhaps think about it a bit more, then answer my post about the real problem.