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.

 

western medicine corruption

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
ok i think pain killers like tylenol and advil are just money making pills for drug compaines. they are just about treating the symptoms and never the causes. noone ever got a headache for not having tylenol.

i think its a shame how all this money that the drug companies are making are not going towards trying to heal people. and whenever there seems to be a cure for things, the drug companies buy out the cure.

western medicine has become corrupted and it will stay this way as long as tghe drug compaies and the governemnts are filled with corrupt people.




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Well, interesting that just today I was talking to a wife of a Doctor....she told me the drug companies have the prices so high, so as to recoup the money they invested into the research for these new drugs. She also explained that they only have 20 years for their patents for whatever medicine they develop.....so that is why the price is so very high, as when that time is up....anyone can use their formulas and produce the same drugs for alot cheaper.

Makes sense now....

Faeryland



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
This is simple.

Sometimes, it's not feasible to treat the cause. Sometimes it's not even possible. That's why we have Tylenol and the like - because it can sort out the pain in the meantime.

Can you truthfully seriously suggest that drug companies don't make drugs to heal people?

Here's a few examples:

Cervical cancer vaccine within 5 years

Interleukin to fight cancer

Synthroid, which fights hypothyroidism

Fosamax, which fights bone loss in post-menopausal women

Transplant anti-rejection drug

Antibiotics, capable of fighting infections that might otherwise kill the patient

Let's be realistic. There are millions of people alive today who simply would not be if it wasn't for various pharmaceutical discoveries.

Yes, it's also about making money. Drug research isn't cheap, and drugs don't pay for themselves. Could it be cheaper? Absolutely! Have you bothered to look into Canada and the UK, in terms of how the same drugs are much cheaper in those places? That's where a large part of the problem lies - with marketing and regulatory affairs.

With all due respect Josh, to say carte blanche that "it's just about treating the symptoms, and never the causes" is not seeing the big picture at all.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Sorry to burst your bubble Tinkleflower...

The truth is people are just NOT told the truth about the drugs, the actual impact of the drugs so freely prescribed by the MD establishment, or the often outright fabrication of the 'underlying causes' that supposedly lead to the need for the drugs.

If that wasn't bad enough... The devastating cost in terms of human lives lost/damaged everyday is quite staggering AND is minimized, rationalized, and essentially kept away from the public.

Just take Tylenol... For something so safe that it doesn't always require a prescription, why are there so many deaths attributed to overdoses/adverse reactions?

The drug industry has lost ALL credilibity and it is totally about making insane sums of money.

As to worries about the drug companies pricing themselves out of business... Don't worry, that will NEVER happen.

The last the drug companies want is the public figuring that people who can no longer afford the drugs are actually healthier than those people who can!




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Tylenol, incidentally, carries risk warnings on the label. Now, if someone is either too dense, or too careless, to read the warnings and manages to overdose, that's hardly the fault of the manufacturer. Keep it in context. The ratio of bad reactions to Tylenol, and no reaction at all, is strongly in favour of Tylenol's relative safety.

And if that same patient had simply taken too much naturally-obtained willow bark (say he didn't like acetaminophen anyway, but wanted to avoid that equally nasty manufactured aspirin stuff), would you still be blaming drug companies?

How about the self-medicating patient who decides that belladonna is a "healthier, more natural" alternative to the MD-prescribed atropine medication? I suppose his overdosing is the fault of the pharmaceutical industry, too?

Your agenda is clear, golemina. I know that you have a vast mistrust of the medical establishment; contrary to your perception, I don't think even I have disputed that drugs can kill people (and do so with an alarming frequency), but you seem to be missing that point. That's fine - completely your prerogative. But don't let your judgment be clouded by ignoring the obvious:

Millions of people have had their lives saved by pharmaceutical intervention.

End of story.

Or are you going to try and claim this isn't true?

Let me reiterate:

Nobody is disputing that a) Pharma. companies are in it for money. They are a business, let's face it; or b) Too many drugs have been approved and later withdrawn for safety reasons. Nobody has disputed this. Nobody. However, jumping to "All drug companies are bad and evil and are not out to help anybody" is just illogical, and more than a little misguided. Heck, I'm the first to criticize when it's appropriate - I saw first hand the damage caused by phen-fen, and worked for the class-action lawsuit team - and I've never disputed that some companies will go out of their way to hide results. But assuming that this is the case for all of those companies is ludicrous.

Europe has it's own very successful pharma. industry, with similar adverse event reporting methods and controls. It's often harder to get a drug approved in Europe than it is in the US - and yet it still happens, and as a rule with far less of a profit margin. If "all the drug companies" were part of a conspiracy, then they'd be sorely missing their mark, wouldn't they?

And in general, all of this information - the adverse events, the drug approvals themselves etc - is available to the public. It just involves knowing where to look, and having the desire to do so.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
ok i think pain killers like tylenol and advil are just money making pills for drug compaines. they are just about treating the symptoms and never the causes. noone ever got a headache for not having tylenol.

i think its a shame how all this money that the drug companies are making are not going towards trying to heal people. and whenever there seems to be a cure for things, the drug companies buy out the cure.

western medicine has become corrupted and it will stay this way as long as tghe drug compaies and the governemnts are filled with corrupt people.


Some things such as PAIN can't be healed, but only treated....this is why Tylenol exists, and other meds, Codeine, Morphine...for accidents, hurts, headaches.....these various companies have developed ways for us, and our children to relieve the pain, so they can focus on recoveirng properly, without being in pain, which I think is inhumane to leave anyone in pain...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I haven't needed a painkiller since the day I realised they were placebos, about 4 years ago. I have no doubt that painkillers like Morphine are very effective and not placebos. But the low level, "headache" pills like Paracetamol, deliver nothing compared to what your own body can in terms of pain relief. They work, because no one in their "right" mind wouldn't expect them too, thats the reason. A painkiller does nothing for me anymore, if I get a headache I just sit it through, because on the rare occasions in the last few years I have tried a paracetemol, it has had ABSOLUTE ZERO effect, even on small pains. It just doesn't work for me. If I was a painkiller junkie and my bodie had got used to them I'd use that as an explanation, but no. They don't work anymore on me because - how can a placebo work if you know it's a placebo? Impossible.

Thats my opinion anywhoo



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Depends on the cause of the pain.

If the pain is caused by inflammation, anti-inflammatories can and do work quite well.

Opiates mask the pain, whilst anti-inflammatories at least directly work on the cause.

Stress/tension headaches can be eased by some medications, but honestly? Stress-reduction techniques work much better (obviously!).

Pain is a strange animal - it's a condition heavily influenced by individual perception, and what feels like an 8 on the pain scale to me might not even register a 3 to you.

And that's another reason why acetaminophen works better on some people than others



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
I haven't needed a painkiller since the day I realised they were placebos, about 4 years ago. I have no doubt that painkillers like Morphine are very effective and not placebos. But the low level, "headache" pills like Paracetamol, deliver nothing compared to what your own body can in terms of pain relief. They work, because no one in their "right" mind wouldn't expect them too, thats the reason. A painkiller does nothing for me anymore, if I get a headache I just sit it through, because on the rare occasions in the last few years I have tried a paracetemol, it has had ABSOLUTE ZERO effect, even on small pains. It just doesn't work for me. If I was a painkiller junkie and my bodie had got used to them I'd use that as an explanation, but no. They don't work anymore on me because - how can a placebo work if you know it's a placebo? Impossible.

Thats my opinion anywhoo


Well, that's what morphines for then.


They do actually work, which is proven by clinical trials, seeing how they work, by reducing inflammation of the target inflamed area, muscle sore, headache, ect.

I agree though, Moprhine is just wonderful......It's a billion times better.

...However, for the average pain, morphine shouldn't be used.....hence the use of Tylenol, and such....

You are allowed to take 2 extra strength, if it's not enough........according to the dosage..obviously I've taken more, and don't recommend doing this due to safety reasons, not any bad affects, but I think that's sufficient for most people I know to help their headaches.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
This is simple.

Sometimes, it's not feasible to treat the cause. Sometimes it's not even possible. That's why we have Tylenol and the like - because it can sort out the pain in the meantime.

Can you truthfully seriously suggest that drug companies don't make drugs to heal people?

Here's a few examples:


I know for a FACT that the Cervical cancer vaccine was NOT developed by a drug company! And I will take a wild guess and assume that some of the others may not be aswell.

The Cervical Cancer vaccine was developed by Science Researches not working for a drug company, though now it has been developed i'm sure a drug company will come along and buy the rights to it and sell them for hundreds of dollars a pop to every woman in the world.. -- because they want to help people? NO! Because they want to make money.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make, ekul. Would you mind terribly showing us more about these "facts" you're claiming?

Two researchers working for themselves eventually need the help of someone else to either verify their work (that's where drug companies often come in), or aid with financing, etc.

Do you think that Joe and Ed Researcher are somehow unwillingly and/or unwittingly being forced to hand over their work?

If so, do you have anything at all that would support your claim?

Either way, isn't the point that the vaccine is being developed and will be available to women who need it? And many (if not most) will not be paying for it?

Yeah, that's right. Most women will never pay for the vaccine. You know why? Because most women who will receive this vaccine don't live in a nation where the citizen is ultimately bearing the brunt of the cost of treatment. Let's take...Canada...England...Australia...South Africa..most sub-Saharan countries...most of Europe.

Big conspiracy?

Nope.

And your wild guesses won't really do much to support the facts at all.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
It seems medicine is poison.

"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good." Dr. Anthony Morris
www.whale.to...

"Is the astonishing rise in autism a medical mystery or a pharmaceutical shame?"
www.salon.com...

"Public policy regarding vaccines is fundamentally flawed. It is permeated by conflicts of interest. It is based on poor scientific methodology...." Jane Orient MD, Executive Director Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Inc. www.whale.to/vaccines/orient.html

Last week my aching back urged me to take a trip to an acupuncturist. As she needled me, we easily slipped into a conversation about medicine and health. She remarked that all medicine is toxic and affects the liver.
"The doctors are taught poorly," she continued. www.judyandreas.com...


[edit on 13-8-2005 by Ghaele]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Ghaele, do a search for the vaccine-relevant threads; there are many links, many relating to the lack of credible evidence relating to autism etc (in particular where you'd expect a country without the MMR virus to have a lower rate of autism, yet this isn't the case), and some which would support the claims.

Happy reading...particularly the cases not relating to the US



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
This is simple.

Sometimes, it's not feasible to treat the cause. Sometimes it's not even possible. That's why we have Tylenol and the like - because it can sort out the pain in the meantime.

Can you truthfully seriously suggest that drug companies don't make drugs to heal people?

Here's a few examples:

Cervical cancer vaccine within 5 years

Interleukin to fight cancer

Synthroid, which fights hypothyroidism

Fosamax, which fights bone loss in post-menopausal women

Transplant anti-rejection drug

Antibiotics, capable of fighting infections that might otherwise kill the patient

Let's be realistic. There are millions of people alive today who simply would not be if it wasn't for various pharmaceutical discoveries.

Yes, it's also about making money. Drug research isn't cheap, and drugs don't pay for themselves. Could it be cheaper? Absolutely! Have you bothered to look into Canada and the UK, in terms of how the same drugs are much cheaper in those places? That's where a large part of the problem lies - with marketing and regulatory affairs.

With all due respect Josh, to say carte blanche that "it's just about treating the symptoms, and never the causes" is not seeing the big picture at all.


Tink and I have had differences of opinion when it comes to medicine, but I agree with her here. From first hand experience I know that there is no cure for diabetes, but the medicines I take keep it controlled. I tried diet and exercise alone....in my case, it wasn't enough.

www.rxlist.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I really feel for you, chrmdrx. Living with a type I diabetic (as I do), I've seen first hand the reality: diet and exercise can't cure or treat everything.

Without insulin, he'd die. It's that simple. No amount of dietary changes or exercise regimes will cure his diabetes.

I truly hope that you're feeling good, and you have things under control there


Take care of yourself.

Tinkles.



Edited because I keep misspelling your name. I suck


[edit on 13-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Even more health hazards in the west;

www.rense.com...
In Health & Nutrition Secrets, page 125, Dr. Blaylock says: "So, in the case of diet drinks in aluminum cans, the very toxic brain aluminum fluoride compound co-exists with multiple toxins found in aspartame, thus creating the most powerful government-approved toxic soup imaginable.

But also some happy news ;

news.bbc.co.uk...
Eating plenty of folic acid - found in oranges, lemons and green vegetables - can halve the risk of Alzheimer's disease



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Unfortunately rense.com has a habit of using articles that carry little, if any, proof to support the claims made therein; that's not to say every article must be discounted, but it does sadly put into question the veracity and accuracy of the work contained on the site.

Much as I've enjoyed reading most of Dr Blaylock's articles - they give a new twist to many subjects - the page mentioned is particularly poorly researched when it comes to aspartame and Gulf War Syndrome. We see a lot of conjecture, but no studies to support his claims.

I'd love to see studies pertaining to this topic though.

As for folic acid...does anyone else remember health ed. classes specifically aimed at the importance of folic acid? I remember being bored witless (c'mon, I was 14, it was 1987 and I wanted to watch Duran Duran, darn it!) having to sit through the slides of little cartoon characters holding up balloons with messages like "Folic acid = protection against Spina Bifida and Some Types Of Dementia!" plastered all over 'em.




top topics



 
0

log in

join