Doctor's Receiving Kickbacks from Pharmaceutical Companies for Needless Prescriptions

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

It's true.....if I tell an MD like yourself to go read a book called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price or the book Politics in Healing by Daniell Haley you'll refer me to the obviously bias and fraudulent website like quackwatch. So unless it's some sort of establishment study i.e. put out by the medical community why would you ever listen or agree with anything I say?

I would probably ask you for a free source of the information, rather than one requiring me to pay for someone's "knowledge". Anytime someone offers a "cure" or "treatment", but requires you to purchase a book in order to learn it, I am immediately suspect.

Have you ever heard of Weston A Price?

Yes, in the context that he was dentist and higher-up in the ADA.

I'll give you another issue that is dear to my heart. Raw milk. I've personally witnessed the health beneifts of drinking raw milk. It's practically impossible to find any mainstream medical studies on raw milk. But there is plenty of circumstantical evidence and historical evidence proving it's claim as a healthy and superior food product capable of reversing many chronic health problems such as asthma and diabetes.

A quick, two-word Pubmed search for "unpasteurized milk" returned 269 studies, 53 of which require no subscription and are free to read by anyone. Of the 269 studies, 27 are from 2009 and 88 are from the past 5 years. I'm sure that that number would increase greatly if you broadened the search terms.

Now, how do you find it "impossible" to find any studies on raw milk?

Take Royal Rife for example. There is SUBSTANTIAL evidence in favor of his microscope and wave frequencies being able to cure cancer. But people like you will read a website like quackwatch because it's establishment and believe it over any other source. You're the type of person that believes in the status quo and I'm the one that questions it vehemently. We'll never agree on anything.

I actually read most of Rife's original research on Rife.org before I read anything else about the man or his machines. They're bunk, and I challenge you to provide any reliable research to the contrary.

I also find it hilarious that you assume my prime source is QuackWatch. To be honest, I had never heard of the site until I came here. It's not exactly the first line of defense for medical professionals when we have patients like yourself. We prefer to use reliable, reproducible, and peer-reviewed research rather than a blog. Maybe you should consider the same.

Your first article DOES NOT specify which european countries were used in the study. It mentions Belgium, Sweden, and Switzerland and the UK. The others are NOT european countries and enjoy a higher standard of living than say Bulgaria or Russia.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

I wouldnt doubt it. I have been dealing with a lot of health issues that they still cant seem to figure out after 2 years. All I get is "Try this and if this doesnt work we'll try something else" meanwhile my health continues to deteriorate.

I refuse to take any more perscriptions. Ive told them to run more tests and then when you figure out what the hell is wrong with me, Ill take the appropriat medication. They refuse to do more tests so I end up walking out.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


It mentions those as they are the highest and median values seen in the study, I expect. It mentions several times that Sweden, at the time of the articles writing, had the highest rates for several cancers.

Also, it's worth noting that you also lumped "Europe" into one category with your statement:

France and other European countries seem to be much more into alternative medicine andthinking outside the box as far as treating chronic health and disease. For example, mistletoe is actually used by mainstream doctors in European countries to fight and treat cancer.

France and "other European countries"? It seems you suffer from the same inaccuracies that you are complaining about in the article I posted.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


FIND ME ONE study on raw milk that has been done in a double blind placebo controlled study?

Most studies are done on unpasteurized milk as it relates to food borne illness and food borne outbreaks not on the health benefits of raw milk.

www.raw-milk-facts.com
Raw milk was at one time used effectively as an effective treatment for diabetes at the Mayo Clinic. Many mothers have switched from pasteurized milk to raw milk and saw their children's allergies disappear. People that drink raw milk have zero lactose intolerance. You won't see those studies published in mainstream medical journals.

If you find any study done on raw milk health benefits it will usually exist prior to the 1950s if it is in a major medical journal.

As far as Rife goes it's your opinion. NO ONE can prove his research as bunk one way or the other. It's like the Kennedy assassination and many other "conspiracies". You have to trust your gut when it comes to the truth.


[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

I would probably ask you for a free source of the information, rather than one requiring me to pay for someone's "knowledge". Anytime someone offers a "cure" or "treatment", but requires you to purchase a book in order to learn it, I am immediately suspect.


LMAO! What do you think happens in college? You pay people not only for what they tell you in the book but what they lecture you about in class.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

FIND ME ONE study on raw milk that has been done in a double blind placebo controlled study?

Double-blind placebo study for...what? How would you propose we perform such a study? Ask participants to ingest ONLY unpasteurized milk versus some sort of milk-like placebo from birth to death, and then we analyze their relative health? Please explain how one would test for the "health benefits" of raw milk, considering you would have to control for the person's other dietary components, age, genetics/epigenetics, etc.?

The reason most studies focus on raw milk as it pertain to foodborne illness is simple: communities in which raw milk is consumed have a higher rate of foodborne illness.

I'm truly interested in what your idea of an adequate study on raw milk is. You seem to love moving the goal line. Everytime I present a study that answers your question, you response is, "but, but, but..." and then some further question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

www.raw-milk-facts.com
Raw milk was at one time used effectively as an effective treatment for diabetes at the Mayo Clinic.

Megadoses of vitamin C were also tested there to no effect. What's your point? Mayo isn't the end-all and be-all of medical science, especially that long ago.

If you find any study done on raw milk health benefits it will usually exist prior to the 1950s if it is in a major medical journal.

Again, please explain how one would test for the "health benefits" of raw milk, considering you would have to control for the person's other dietary components, age, genetics/epigenetics, etc.?

As far as Rife goes it's your opinion. NO ONE can prove his research as bunk one way or the other. It's like the Kennedy assassination and many other "conspiracies". You have to trust your gut when it comes to the truth.

All of his original work is out there and free on the internet. Why do I need to have "faith" in a device that is clearly a fraud?

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
LMAO! What do you think happens in college? You pay people not only for what they tell you in the book but what they lecture you about in class.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

Most of my classes were taught using periodicals and research, with optional textbooks for reference should you need them. The same goes for college. We had an organ-system based medical education, meaning that when we did the brain, a group of neurologists would lecture us on the current research regarding neuroanatomy, neuropathology, neuroscience, etc. The same goes for every other organ system. The only thing I paid for was tuition, which pays the salaries of the lecturers/administrators and the maintenance/campus fees.

You know nothing about raw milk, agricutlure or farming. There is no such thing as "raw milk drinking" communities. Unless you consider mennonites and amish communities as such which if that's the case I'd love for you to find one major outbreak of raw milk food borne illness in thsoe communities. And if you do have any background in food borne illness you'd understand that there have been more pasteurized food products/vegetables etc. responsible for outbreaks and deaths than raw milk. And it's safe to say you know nothing about nutrition or exercise like most doctors. Have you EVER tried raw milk? Do you know anything about organic farming and dairy science? Or because you are a "scientist" you're an expert on everything? LOL. www.organicpastures.com I'd love for you to try to argue with someone like Mark McAfee WHO ACTUALLY RAISES COWS and PRODUCES RAW MILK and has the customers to prove the health benefits of raw milk.

You just like to argue for argument's sake. You will only believe in something if SOMEONE ELSE is telling you it's true i.e. academic professionals. You lack any intuition or 6th sense when it comes to the human body which isn't your fault. This mindset is rampant among doctors and the healthcare establishment.

Don't bother responding as I'm done with this thread. It's pointless.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
You know nothing about raw milk, agricutlure or farming. There is no such thing as "raw milk drinking" communities. I'd love for you to find one major outbreak of raw milk food borne illness in thsoe communities.

Rural Canadian community that drinks unpasteurized milk

Two campylobacter outbreaks linked to unpasteurized milk

Tick-borne encephalitis in Hungary caused by unpasteurized goat milk

Brucellosis transmission in Kenya linked to unpasteurized milk

Breast abcesses and brucellosis in Saudi Arabia linked to unpasteurized milk

Coagulase-positi ve Staph in unpasteurized milk in Morocco

Listeria linked to unpasteurized milk in Ireland

Increased risk of Toxoplasmosis gondii in unpasteurized milk

Intrathoracic tuberculosis in children from the Dominican Republic linked to unpasteurized milk

And if you do have any background in food borne illness you'd understand that there have been more pasteurized food products/vegetables etc. responsible for outbreaks and deaths than raw milk.

Source?

Have you EVER tried raw milk?

Yep, when I was a child in Russia. Even the Soviet government made an effort to pasteurize all government-sourced milk to reduce foodborne illness.

Do you know anything about organic farming and dairy science? Or because you are a "scientist" you're an expert on everything? LOL. www.organicpastures.com I'd love for you to try to argue with someone like Mark McAfee WHO ACTUALLY RAISES COWS and PRODUCES RAW MILK and has the customers to prove the health benefits of raw milk.

Correlation =/= causation

You just like to argue for argument's sake. You will only believe in something if SOMEONE ELSE is telling you it's true i.e. academic professionals. You lack any intuition or 6th sense when it comes to the human body which isn't your fault. This mindset is rampant among doctors and the healthcare establishment.

So, basically, if someone disagrees with you, it's sole because YOU have some sort of intrinsic special sense that tells you you're right? Does this inner voice ever tell you to hurt yourself or do bad things?

Don't bother responding as I'm done with this thread. It's pointless.

That's a shame. I'm still waiting for your response on the Native American claims you made and then couldn't support.

[edit on 1/27/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

While raw milk is an interesting side topic ( ), please try not to lose track of the bigger issue, which is Doctor's Receiving Kickbacks from Pharmaceutical Companies for Needless Prescriptions.

Civil debate also requires cool heads.

Thank you.

Probably the most blatant example of the doctor drug scam -- whether it's corporate or state controlled -- is drug patent laws -- and solving the AIDS crisis is being further threatened regarding Novartis against India:

www.alertnet.org...

crossborderbiotech.ca... -india/



reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by drew hempel
Probably the most blatant example of the doctor drug scam -- whether it's corporate or state controlled -- is drug patent laws -- and solving the AIDS crisis is being further threatened regarding Novartis against India:

www.alertnet.org...

crossborderbiotech.ca... -india/



reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

The corruption in drug patent laws is absolutely disgusting. Dr. Angell, a former editor of NEJM, wrote a wonderful book("The Truth About the Drug Companies) and has given many lectures about the topic, and much of her information was republished in NEJM and online for free perusal.

Basically, the companies know that they can expect X number of dollars in federal fines every year for misrepresenting drugs or violating patent laws, so they set aside the amount of their profits every year to pay fines while still going about their business, doing whatever they please. Of course, this only really applies in the United States where we are still beholden to these companies and won't let the government bargain with them or tie them down with strict patent laws.

Well when you take into account "bio-piracy" where traditional medicine and nutritional food in other countries are "patented" by U.S. corporations this issue is certainly not limited to the U.S. In fact the World Trade Organization was set up and is controlled by U.S. corporations (who meet secretly) and that is the reason why India changed its patent laws on chemicals -- to kiss up to Novartis:

www.aids.org...

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

reply to post by drew hempel


I wouldn't doubt it. You should have seen the uproar in all the genetics journals about a decade or so ago when the breast cancer genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) were successfully patented by the lab that found them. Nothing like that had ever happened, and few had thought anyone would actually issue a patent for a human gene! Now the ONLY company allowed to test for BRCA mutations (a common first step in breast cancer risk assessment) is that company who holds the patent.

Disgusting.

Well now that you mention it I researched this issue of patented genes at the University of Minnesota and I then grew suspicious of these posters for non-whites to get tested for asthma -- a blood test.

So I went to the lab advertising for "free asthma" experimental drug treatment if you were latino. I then asked the lab researchers if they were taking blood samples of the latinos who were being tested for asthma. The answer, of course, was yes. I then asked if their treatment was based on a different ethnic genetics for asthma. The answer was yes.

I then asked if the lab was patenting this ethnic gene for the asthma treatment and if so had they received any lucrative offers to sell the patent. The answer was YES -- and not only was it YES but it was very much an enthusiastic yes -- that they successfully had drug company offers for a partnership based on this patented latino gene for asthma and the spin off drug.

So then I reported this in a graduate self-directed class I did on the corporate control of the University -- the whole history of the corporate control going back 150 years. I then passed out my paper -- 400 copies of it or so -- first to the President of the University, then to all the professors attending the Presidents "State of the University" annual speech. Then to other activists.

I then held up a sign protesting the genetic corporate corruption at the U of MN -- in particular an administrator telling Monsanto that for enough $$ the University could give Monsanto "tomatoes the size of basketballs."

Anyway it was in the paper and many people read my expose. Then a couple years later it was reported in the University of Minnesota Daily newspaper that someone had broken into the asthma lab and stole their blood samples. The lab innocently stated they could not think why someone would do this. When I read this I almost sent in a letter to explain why it probably happened but instead just laughed about it.

"Needless Medications" is the first and most important term, second is percription and nonprecription drugs, then lastly controled drugs.

There are very few medications that are "precription" only that actually offer cures. So "Needless Medications" meaning those category of drugs that dont really cure anything..that would be probably 80-90% of precription drugs and most non-precription (Over The Counter) OTC drugs.
Once this is understood then you are talking about symptomatic or palladative care drugs that alliavate symptoms of a disease process but doesnt really cure anything. The major of diseases the human body is capable of healing itself without sequlae, others disease have serious sequlae if not treated and some can and do lead to death.
Now that you have he term "needless medications" somewhat bracketed we can go on to answer the rest of your question.

Many companies are in compettition to sell the same drug, so combination drugs that do the much the same as other but lets say are easier to take, once a day verus 2 tablets every 6 hours. To entice practionereers to precribe their medication, drug reps will give clinics samples to give to patients. There are companies that make medications "Wholesale" or generic versus brand name products at a cheaper rate. I cant say that I was ever reimbursed in cash for prescibing anyone drug, other that than,,medcial conferences in the Bahama's, staff lunchs at the best restruants where CME was given while you eat lobster and steak..many many ways to add perks.

I usually ask what drugs the patient had been using in the past and if they worked for them. On prescription pads there is a box where generic replacement is allowed to allow the patient to decide if they want the exspensive name brand or generic.

For anyone skeptical of what they have been diagnosised with or treated with there are numerous free on-line, physician supported medical guidance web-sites. If you have a clear understanding of your medical problem you can easily quiry one of these websites and see if and why you need a peticular medication and if there is a cheaper replacement for it.
Sanja Guptah at your service live from Haiti , not doing brain surgery! hehe just joking!

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


This milk debate is moot. The smart thing to do is not to drink something that is meant for calves to grow in to 1000lbs animals. The IGF-1 hormone in milk is bioidentical to the one in humans. So ingesting this hormone in to your body throws that balance out of whack and could lead to all kinds of cancers and other diseases. Anyway, just a FYI...carry on people.

reply to post by Roid_Rage27


I agree. It's also one of the main culprits in the earlier age of puberty in children we are seeing (coupled with hormones in other foods and higher body mass).

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

 

I'll have to disagree. I'm an RN and I work in the healthcare field. I think MANY doctors mean well but are just completely uninformed when it comes to many areas of health. It sounds VERY ironic but you have to understand VERY few doctors think outside the box in western medicine. And I would say allopathic doctors trained in the USA are worse than anyone as far as thinking outside the box. What I mean is medicine in the west is WAY TOO PATERNALISTIC as are so many aspects of our society. This is partly the fault of doctors themselves but more importantly the fault of the bureaucracy that exists in medicine and our higher learning institutions. Colleges are businesses and they get HUGE support from the government in the form of research grants and student loans etc. and we all know who is pulling the strings in government nowadays.......THE CORPORATION! Doctors in the USA on average are just victims of indoctrination. This is evident in the HUGE cholesterol/heart disease scam that has been perpetrated agains the American people.

France and other European countries seem to be much more into alternative medicine andthinking outside the box as far as treating chronic health and disease. For example, mistletoe is actually used by mainstream doctors in European countries to fight and treat cancer. The FDA has not approved it in the USA. The FDA, NIH, NCI are very corrupt and deceitful organizations. AHA etc. These organizations are funded by big business, if you dig deep enough you will see that the same old wealthy elite are behind the American healthcare system.

I think there are some wonderful doctors, especially many that truly mean well, but I don't think they are a majority in the USA sorry.. Just look at the state of alternative medicine in this country. Lots of doctors still refuse to even pay attention to anything having to do with alternative medicine.

I work in an acute care hospital as an RN. The stuff I see that goes on daily is scary. I have a lot of respect for medicine and but it's like government. Too many bad apples have spoiled the bunch and our medical system has been bought and paid for by corporate interests.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

I am inclined to agree with you except I have a small problem with one little concept....


You're saying that businessmen know better what is good for you than a physician does?

I am not ruling this out... I just think it's odd that your "well-meaning doctors" aren't DOING THE DANGED RESEARCH just like our friendly business folk who DO NOT MEAN WELL.

So, basically, it's okay to mean well and not use your brain but it's NOT okay to NOT mean well and DO USE YOUR BRAIN?

Here's a little phrase I thought up one day when talking with someone who was consistently making the same mistakes...

"I do NOT CARE if you didn't mean to. You have to MEAN NOT TO."

Well, the same applies to these "well-meaning doctors". I don't care if you don't know. YOU HAVE TO KNOW.

But I know better than to get on a plane or let a doctor put something inside of me. I still would rather the pilots and doctors pay attention and know what they're doing because I can't keep all humanity from being foolish enough to give in to all these things and I really don't like for people to suffer.