editors question truth of studies

[Steamix]

It's not just big pharma - doctors do get bonuses when performing a certain number of surgeries.
All that expensive hardware needs to be utilized to the max - means that surgeries might not be just for the patient's benefit alone.
Our tendency to put a price tag, a profit margin on everything and anything., this rampant mercantilism will eventually lead to the demise of the humanity in humans...

Scary new world.

 

[WattWick]

Can't help thinking of a Kurt Vonnegut quote from Breakfast of Champions:

"We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane."

 

[Kent C]

Thrasher" data-source="post: 15998493" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Contrary to popular belief the fda does no actual testing itself, its just a regulatory agency that reviews the data submitted.

The EPA, while not involved in epidemiological studies (ie.'testing') did, however, pick and choose studies in the case of second hand smoke and applied non-standard statistical analyses to come to their false conclusion. This was proven in a court of law, subsequently. So while they may not do the actual testing, the results can be skewed by their own analysis or false analysis.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Why do I think that even "trust but verify" is no longer even available?

 

[Caro123]

Why do I think that even "trust but verify" is no longer even available?

I am no longer sure if I have become jaded or enlightened. I do know that over the years I personally have become more skeptical of Health Canada and the World Health Organization and the influence of multinational corporations with very deep pockets and monetary agendas. The list of whistle blowers seems to be getting longer and longer and the medication today that is the flavour of the week is next years class action lawsuit.

 

[Oliver]

The problem in medicine relates, as I see it, to "Erooms" law - the diminishing return of pharmaceutical R&D over time. It's the exact opposite of Moore's law (check this out for the latest on Moore's law).

So, corporations which seek principally to provide maximal returns to shareholders (ie, almost all corporations) will necessarily become malfeasant in a situation where the economics of growth only favor malfeasance.

This is the primary structural issue with pharma and I can only see it changing if the industry adopts a more enlightened approach to who the primary stakeholders are (shareholders or patients?).

That said, there is a new discipline being pioneered in the USA: translational medicine which is worth reading on, if you're interested.

 

[KattMamma]

This is the primary structural issue with pharma and I can only see it changing if the industry adopts a more enlightened approach to who the primary stakeholders are (shareholders or patients?).

Yes, shareholders just want more, more, more profit. But making sick people well does not increase that profit. I doubt many of the stockholders think of it that way, but the result is the same regardless.

I was waiting in line at a pharmacy behind an elderly woman (I'd guess she was 70ish). I seriously had to bite my tongue as the pharmacist proceeded to fill about 15 prescriptions for her. This is one of the ways those stockholders make "more more more" money - get people on as many drugs as possible, for the rest of their life.

I take several drugs myself, but they have all been on the market for decades and I know the risks. Yet my dr continually pushes new drugs, which I continually refuse. I don't think she's evil - I think she's brainwashed. I have yet to visit the drs office without seeing a drug rep coming or going.

Translational medicine sounds promising - at least better than what we have now.

 

[Robino1]

Every time I go to any doctor, they all act surprised when they ask what meds I am on and I state none. Not even an aspirin. They are seriously surprised.

I figure that once it starts, then it becomes you need something to counteract what the first one does and so on and so forth.

 

[CarolT]

What is the % of people who DON'T die or get harmed from pharmaceuticals?


Yes, some people do drop dead from taking "1" FDA approved penicillan tablet.

There will always be a % of the population who will not tolerate a medication.

Keep in mind there are millions (and probably billions) of people taking pharmaceuticals who are greatly helped and probably staying alive due to the meds.

Early chemo drugs were also pretty harsh....but it was either that, or do nothing. It was all we had. Trying to kill cancer cells is not an exact science.

I took Chantix and got off cigs (way before ecigs were available) for 5+ years, and had absolutely no side effects. Wellbutrin, however, made me hallucinate. Yet my obgyn/gyne says that wellbutrin is an older and very well tolerated drug, and can even be taken by pregnant women for anti depressant.

They say the same thing about erythromycin.......one of oldest antibiotics and I am one of few people I've ever heard of who is allergic to it.

Sorry, but I'm not going to paint the entire pharma and fda with a broad brush just because they havent' gotten it right yet with vaping.

Also, some of those bad effects may affect so few people that it would have required ridiculously large studies just to detect them. Or they may not appear for so many years that studies would have had to be ridiculously long, while people with diseases wait and wait.

Plus, the gang at the FDA committee on tobacco is NOT drawn from the same professionals who are involved with real pharmaceuticals. They are drawn from the tobacco control gangsters, and that explains everything.

 

[caramel]

Putting Big Pharma spending in perspective | Randal S. Olson

 

[Kent C]

So, corporations which seek principally to provide maximal returns to shareholders (ie, almost all corporations) will necessarily become malfeasant in a situation where the economics of growth only favor malfeasance.

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Is it that corporations will deliberately produce harmful products that would actually decrease their profits, because "economic growth" demands it?

Sounds like the 'anti-monopoly' reasoning we sometimes hear - that a company with a big share of the market will intentionally price themselves out of the market. :- )

And basic vs. translational research can be quite complex. Imo, translational research tends to put the cart before the horse. It reminds me of the new age idea of 'alpha waves' - one can observe that people in a relaxed state produce alpha waves, and it is then presumed that IF one can produce alpha waves in a person, THEN it would 'relax' that person. This is just a confusion on the process of cause and effect (hence cart before the horse). That somehow if you can simulate the effect, you can somehow achieve the cause.

The perils of translational research - The Curious Wavefunction - Scientific American Blog Network

Because some of the most astounding breakthroughs in basic research have "seem to have happened by accident" (which is not necessarily the case - see link), that one can use that "method" in order to 'fill the gap' between research and application by "recycling" or "repurposing" drugs no longer used or rejected by basic research for one illness, toward other specific illnesses - a path that has not led to much success but the 'wording' of it certainly follows 'recent trends' in political correctness, and is just as likely (or more so) to result in the malfeasance mentioned above, esp. with grants from gov't for that specific purpose.

 

[caramel]

But Kent, currently tobacco is equivalent to a government monopoly (think BATF - nothing moves without their markup) and they're surely trying to price it out of the market.....

 

[jaytex1969]

But Kent, currently tobacco is equivalent to a government monopoly (think BATF - nothing moves without their markup) and they're surely trying to price it out of the market.....

Reminds me of Chris Rock on Bullet Control....


Jay

 

[Kent C]

But Kent, currently tobacco is equivalent to a government monopoly (think BATF - nothing moves without their markup) and they're surely trying to price it out of the market.....

That's the gov't, not the company, that's trying to price it out of the market. If it were up to Phillip Morris only, a pack of cigarettes would be about $1.40.

 

[azb8496]

I've been saying this since I first noticed biased "research" in engineering school over 10 years ago: science being referenced in politics is one thing, but it's a terrible thing when politics enters science. The problem has become so pervasive in every aspect of our society that it has created a complete ecosystem for its cancerous growth and reign over reason. From reporting turning to the subjective over objective, to conflicts of interest becoming commonplace and ethically accepted, one is hard to see just how far it will take us, and how debilitated we'll have become when reason finally enthrones itself again.

Thanks for sharing the article, btw!

 

[DC2]

I've been saying this since I first noticed biased "research" in engineering school over 10 years ago: science being referenced in politics is one thing, but it's a terrible thing when politics enters science. The problem has become so pervasive in every aspect of our society that it has created a complete ecosystem for its cancerous growth and reign over reason. From reporting turning to the subjective over objective, to conflicts of interest becoming commonplace and ethically accepted, one is hard to see just how far it will take us, and how debilitated we'll have become when reason finally enthrones itself again.

Yes, it's all very ungood.