It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Drug companies and medicines that don't work...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I feel that the average consumer is being duped into paying into the coffers of the drug companies for medicines that don't work as they are supposed to.

Many drug companies have ingnored cheaper, traditional cures for more expensive, lab developed, PATENTED drugs. There are many examples out there of traditional medicines that do work getting the sideline.
One such example is the use of a particular type of sea cucumber (called gamat) that has been used in Malaysia and Indonesia for hundreds of years as a natural antiseptic for wounds. Clinical tests in these countries have shown that topical applications of this medication can prevent and cure infection.
Other examples would be of the common and cheaply available 'honey and lemon' cure for a sore throat. About 70% of sore throats are viral infections in the first place. Antibiotics have no place in treating them. Yet, when you go to the doctor, you get the expensive antibiotic and lozenges that lighten your pocket that little bit more. How many of you have heard of Manuka honey from NZ that is being used successfully to treat chronic ulcers. The antiseptic property of this honey is well documented in scientific trials.
Also, the 'neem' leaf from india that has been used for well over 2000 years to treat some common skin ailments. Some US drug companies tried to patent it a few years ago by extracting the active compound from the leaf, and it caused uproar in India....basically, the companies were telling people that you don't own your traditional cure anymore.
And has anyone heard of the Buteyko breathing method that has helped thousands of sufferers of asthma. Most of them have gone off their medication or have needed very little inhalers with this method. I bet you most modern clinics will not teach you this method of breathing....it would after all affect the profits of the drug companies.
Also, how many times have you been to medical practioners and they give you some medication and tell you...see you in a month's time...month after month after month....maybe your disease is being slowed.....but cured....no way.
It isn't really in the interest of the medical profession and drug companies to cure you totally is it?




posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellfire3
I feel that the average consumer is being duped into paying into the coffers of the drug companies for medicines that don't work as they are supposed to.

Many drug companies have ingnored cheaper, traditional cures for more expensive, lab developed, PATENTED drugs. There are many examples out there of traditional medicines that do work getting the sideline.
One such example is the use of a particular type of sea cucumber (called gamat) that has been used in Malaysia and Indonesia for hundreds of years as a natural antiseptic for wounds. Clinical tests in these countries have shown that topical applications of this medication can prevent and cure infection.
Other examples would be of the common and cheaply available 'honey and lemon' cure for a sore throat. About 70% of sore throats are viral infections in the first place. Antibiotics have no place in treating them. Yet, when you go to the doctor, you get the expensive antibiotic and lozenges that lighten your pocket that little bit more. How many of you have heard of Manuka honey from NZ that is being used successfully to treat chronic ulcers. The antiseptic property of this honey is well documented in scientific trials.
Also, the 'neem' leaf from india that has been used for well over 2000 years to treat some common skin ailments. Some US drug companies tried to patent it a few years ago by extracting the active compound from the leaf, and it caused uproar in India....basically, the companies were telling people that you don't own your traditional cure anymore.
And has anyone heard of the Buteyko breathing method that has helped thousands of sufferers of asthma. Most of them have gone off their medication or have needed very little inhalers with this method. I bet you most modern clinics will not teach you this method of breathing....it would after all affect the profits of the drug companies.
Also, how many times have you been to medical practioners and they give you some medication and tell you...see you in a month's time...month after month after month....maybe your disease is being slowed.....but cured....no way.
It isn't really in the interest of the medical profession and drug companies to cure you totally is it?


AFAIK, they dont use the "cheaper" methods because they cant mass produce the stuff that way. And im not sure to make of your second point, it makes the medicine industry sound like the automobile industry, while it does sound plausible, there is a strong push for permanent cures.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
In all my years working in the medical arena I've never, ever come across a physician who will prescribe antibiotics for a viral condition**; they'll do it for a bacterial infection obviously, but honestly, even though it happens, I'd be surprised if it was as common as people would have us believe (if only because of the risks involved - lawsuits and malpractice insurance are two very real, very serious considerations to any prescribing physician).

It's only recently that we've discovered that most stomach ulcers are caused by the h.pylori bacterium; to that end, antibiotics are a great step forward (and cheaper, let's face it) and infinitely more effective than many other medicines which only treat the symptoms, rather than the case.

Don't get me wrong though - I'm painfully aware that pharmaceuticals are in this for the money; they are businesses, after all.


Some US drug companies tried to patent it a few years ago by extracting the active compound from the leaf, and it caused uproar in India....basically, the companies were telling people that you don't own your traditional cure anymore.


This one came down to the problem of quality control; the main reason the patent was being pursued was to guarantee content and purity. This is actually a problem with most (if not all) herbal supplements; having a system in place to regulate the purity of a substance is actually a very good thing....at the moment, there's virtually no way to ensure that one batch of St. John's Wort (to use a popular example) contains the same amount, or the same quality, of the herb than a different batch, and that doesn't help anyone.

The other factor is very simply, marketing. You're free to make up your own remedies; but as with a favourite home-made soup, you really do need to patent your recipe if you want to make money, or prevent someone from "stealing" your exact formula. Food manufacturers didn't invent the tomato or the leek, but we can see certain companies have patented certain varieties of soup.


(This is what happened with belladonna and willow bark - or, atropine and aspirin respectively)

To me, the bigger problem is the way drugs are marketed in the US; we have the same drugs in Europe, often as much as 78% cheaper than the US - and yet it's the same manufacturing process, the same clinical trial process, etc etc.

That really needs to be addressed - it's disgusting, quite frankly, that insurance companies here can charge $300 per month for a drug which would cost a third of that in the UK.

** though it must be conceded that some patients pester the physician to the point where he'll just give up and give them a prescription to shut 'em up.



[edit on 24-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Where's the profit in selling drugs that work?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
If it doesn't work, it won't be bought by the consumer for long, as a general rule.

That hurts profits.

Whilst I understand the argument, it's perhaps a little hasty to lump every drug under the same category....obviously, many drugs absolutely can (and do) cure certain illnesses.



[edit on 24-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I find it interesting that many medications pushed by pharmaceutical companies end up creating other ailments. Vioxx for example to treat pain was causing heart problems..many SSRI antidepressants inducing psychotic or even bipolar features in patients.

Just recently my mom went to the doctor for a serious bladder infection and her physician prescribed a very powerful antibiotic, probably more powerful than Cipro..it really tore her stomach up badly. Well, the bladder infection was cured but then she developed a very severe cough and wheezing in her lungs...she has had the cough for 3 weeks now. I guess I can see why she doesnt want to see the doctor again


If you notice the pharm companies are now pushing their drugs on TV saying it will help this but then they list a whole list of possible serious side effects. If you ask me,,if they have more side effects than what is being cured why does the FDA permit it to be released? It all boils down to $$$$$$$$ and alot of it.

I think maybe these medicines are purposely designed this way.(Cure one thing create another) Think about it for a moment. A sick society is profitable to the Pharm and Medical Industry. If they made us all healthy they would lose mega profits...the entire economic structure of the world might collapse.

The more I read that Secret Covenant the more it makes sense to me.
www.livingstonemusic.net...
[edit on 24-7-2005 by magnito_student]

[edit on 24-7-2005 by magnito_student]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
You're right, yes - many meds do have side effects.

Alas, that's the nature of the beast. If you were living 500 years ago and took belladonna, you'd be risking your life in a much greater capacity - the difference between therapeutic and toxic doses is very, very small.

Why are drugs with side effects approved and released? First, a bit about side effects:

During a clinical trial, the patient is asked a number of questions by his physician - these are then recorded. When the records (case report forms) are sent back to whoever is conducting the trial (which usually is not the drug company, but an independant CRO - Clinical Research Organisation), and tabulated. Invariably, the patient (and thus the physician) is required to list ANY side effect that has been experienced whilst the patient is taking the drug.

This means:

If you're participating in a study and you happen to have a bad headache after eating Chinese food (msg intolerance, perhaps), then that headache will be listed on the CRF as a side effect. Sometimes the doctor will be asked his opinion as to whether or not the side effect is directly due to the medication, but this isn't a given.

For most drugs, if a side effect is experienced by N % of the patient population, then by law, it MUST be listed by both the pharmco and the FDA as a possible side effect of the medicine - whether or not the meds actually caused the problem.

Now obviously, liver damage usually isn't going to be caused by your MSG-laden lo mein - that would be a probable effect of the meds, and it's fairly obvious which serious sequelae are drug related and which are not.

But the stomach upsets/headaches/joint aches/nausea/vomiting that are so prevalent in drug commercials might not be related at all - it only represents the fact that a number of patients reported these to their physicians, and is no indication of the drug itself (a common case in point is the clinical trials relating to a certain brand of antifungal cream aimed at women - many reported headaches, and it's quite, quite apparent that these headaches weren't related to the topical application of the cream, unless the patient was seriously confused as to where to put said cream...)

Now...in addition...

As sad as it is, we don't really start to see the "real" side effects in the population until after the drug has been approved and on the market for awhile. Generally, by the time a drug is on the market, it's been tested on less than 2000 human patients (and often less than half that number). This is why a drug can appear to be safe in a small population, but once it's out there with full availability, there can be side effects that either weren't noted during testing, or weren't noted to have a higher incidence than the placebo.

Finally, the general consensus of both the FDA and the drug companies is this:

If the benefits of a medicine outweigh the side effects, the drug is considered to be therapeutic and will be approved. This is what happens with chemotherapy, for one example.

It's not a perfect system, by any means; but it's the only one we really have.

Of course this doesn't address the mind-boggling differences in cost between the US and Europe for the same drug; I'm yet to actually find a viable reason for this.



Edited to add: Remember, not every drug company is based in the US, and not every company charges through the nose for a particular drug; the gouging is terribly US-centric at the moment, with Canada, the UK, Australia and most of Europe supplying similar (if not the same) drugs at a much, much lower cost....something to bear in mind while we're ranting about companies deliberately trying to prolong illness.


[edit on 24-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I would certainly agree very strongly about the side effect argument. Even a simple OTC medication such as aspirin can cause serious stomach bleed and precipitate the formation of stomach ulcers. And then you will be on another medication just to control these problem...such as Losec or Nexium. Who knows what side effects these medications have that will precipitate the need to prescribe yet another tablet to counter it and so on.


And also, it is true that medications cost much, much more in the USA. The drug companies base the argument that they need more money to develop even newer drugs. But then, on the stock markets, any rookie broker will tell you that a sure fire way of guaranteeing long term returns is to invest in a drug company. I'm sure investors in Pfizer were laughing all the way to the bank when Viagra came out.


At the end of the day, drug companies serve their shareholders....they are after all businesses. Anything that hurts the bottom line (cheap drugs) is bad and anything that increases profits (expensive drugs, patents, drugs that 'control' rather than 'cure') is good.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I'm getting a bit confused here.

Is it being suggested that the only drugs on the market should be those without any side effects?

I do hope not; because we'd be signing the death certificates of virtually anyone who takes a life-saving medicine.

Food sometimes gives you nasty side effects. Drugs are much the same - even herbal remedies can kill you. It's the nature of medicine, herbal or otherwise.

(fwiw, there are so many warnings on bottles of aspirin that we could recite 'em word for word without taking a second glance - this is where we, the customers, have a responsibility, too. It's up to us - to a large degree - to decide whether or not we want to risk side effects, or whether we'd rather just live with the illness).



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I'm getting a bit confused here.

Is it being suggested that the only drugs on the market should be those without any side effects?

I do hope not; because we'd be signing the death certificates of virtually anyone who takes a life-saving medicine.

Food sometimes gives you nasty side effects. Drugs are much the same - even herbal remedies can kill you. It's the nature of medicine, herbal or otherwise.

(fwiw, there are so many warnings on bottles of aspirin that we could recite 'em word for word without taking a second glance - this is where we, the customers, have a responsibility, too. It's up to us - to a large degree - to decide whether or not we want to risk side effects, or whether we'd rather just live with the illness).




such is the nature of the beast,

drugs are not very accurate by nature, and until we refine nanotech we wont be able to tackle viriii/diseases directly without side effects.

read this thread for more insight:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

When we go from drug cures to nanotech.. Think of this analogy : it will be like going from swatting a fly with a hammer and breaking your arm to kill it, to killing it with a laser beam from outer space and not even noticing theere was a bug in the first place.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Davood]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student
I find it interesting that many medications pushed by pharmaceutical companies end up creating other ailments.


Thats quite true. Viagra is a fameous example. It was intialy researched as a blood pressure / pulmonary hypertension drug. However, its noteworth side effects saw Pfizer change directions and market it as a lifestyle drug. We are currently using the drug in peds patients for pulmonary hypertension in human trials.




top topics



 
0

log in

join