Most drugs don't actually cure things - they enable the condition to be managed. Your body is like a machine over time it will wear out and can never be restored to its optimum.

If you have a heart condition surgery is really the only option and that will only work in conjunction with drugs like beta-blockers and AC inhibitors. Before these drugs were developed you would have been lucky to get to surgery.

You may consider this a bad thing because it involves "profit" but you should ask the anyone who takes them whether their quality of life has been improved because of them. You could do the same for the cancer treatments that have increased the quality and longevity of many peoples lives.

Without the drive for competitive advantage and ultimately profit these drugs would never have been developed as quickly as they have. They improve the quality of life for billions of people. Your view on drug companies says much about your irrational take on all things that involve profit making enterprises.

The average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $4bn in some cases it is almost 3 times that. If you think drugs that help manage conditions are a good thing for mankind as whole where would you suggest the money comes from if it not from private sector enterprises?

Medical science is not an exact science - the human body is a very complex organism that doesn't always react identically to the identical inputs. Like all science you will have views that can be polarised. For all the examples you have given you could google and get the opposite view - life is far too short.

I'm sure most reasonable people would agree that companies have the right to earn a decent profit on the investments they make in new products. During my OU studies, I did a case study in a similar field (agro chemicals) where we had to model an investment strategy. The percentage of products that make it to market is very small hence the huge R & D costs per product. So, I understand the requirement for the patenting and making profits from pharmecutical products. However, it would appear that pharmecutical companies are not being honest with the data that they release with regards to the efficacy and safety of their products when they have a moral obligation to do so. [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drugs-giant-roche-accused-of-sitting-on-trial-data-for-flu-treatment-8262319.htmlExample here.[/url

That was not what I commented on.

I was mentioning how such companies routinely avoid telling the whole truth about a drug in order to make it sound better than it might be (both in terms of efficacy and safety) and to improve sales, regardless of the cost to the patient.

And see Neil's post directly above this one.

Completely wrong. Most drugs do indeed "cure" things. For a start, the most overwhelmingly widely prescribed/administered drugs [iaimed[/i at "curing " things - antibiotics - do exactly that. They enable your body to eliminate the infection. Not to "manage" it, but to "cure" it.


I said no such thing, nor do I have anything against "profit".


Straw man. Whatever the answer, it has absolutely nothing to do with the point. The cancer drugs developed could be a bargain, or they could be a gross ripoff, or anything else, the answer to your question wouldn't shed any light on that.


Again, a statement of the bleedin obvious. As it would be to point out that one big drive for profit would be to invent drugs that people have to take forever, to "manage" conditions, as opposed to invent drugs that are only taken short term (to "cure" conditions).

That's not the same as saying that that's what all drug companies do in relation to all drugs - just that if they do NOT do this, then you'd have to conclude (and here's one for you to get your head round) that there was some driver for such conduct which was NOT to maximise profit. That's the bit you're struggling with.


1. You don't [iknow [/imy view on drug companies.
(clue: I don't have one generic view, and there are many drug companies, doing different things).
2. You don't [iknow[/i my "take" on profit making enterprises.
(clue: for many years I ran such entities).

Therefore your [iad hominem[/i is exposed as irrational garbage. If you want to discuss, do try to raise it above schoolboy yah-boo level.

1. Your first point is complete rubbish - the vast majority of drugs manage conditions they don't cure them - If you take headache pills it gives you temporary relief it doesn't stop you getting another. Of the top 5 drugs prescribed in this country 3 are for hyper-tension and cholesterol the top is a pain killer none of these cure anyone - you stop taking them and your condition will return.

2. Look at the top selling drugs - what they do is manage conditions if you go on to a hyper-tensive - beta blocker or AC inhibitor - drug you are on it for life and these drugs pretty much fill 60% of the top ten drugs prescribed in the UK. So you argument about cure doesn't stack up.

3. You need to think before you post or at least use Google - but your arrogance prevents you doing a little research - and you talk about irrational schoolyard stuff - you need to re-read what you type because the vast majority is simply hot headed garbage.

Indeed.

And there is a growing body of evidence that statins are a waste of time – they apparently do nothing whatsoever in female patients, and there is some suggestion that they may even actually be detrimental to older patients.

Cholesterol is a perfect example of an invented disease, which just happens to be massively profitable for drugs of highly dubious value and safety.

The process leading to this started, funnily enough, with a massive hiding of research data: in this case, by Ancel Keys, whose 'seven countries study' supposedly proved that there was a link between a diet high in saturated fat, which caused high cholesterol, which caused heart disease.

Unfortunately, he was a liar. He actually surveyed 22 countries – but then 'forgot' the results of 15 of them because the findings didn't suit what he wanted to find. (Frank Cooper is excellent on this) The fabricated conclusions of his 'research' have been at the heart of US and UK public health policy for 40-50 years, with major ramifications for diet, amongst other things.

It's a perfect illustration, on its own, of what happens when research and trial data is hidden.

[url=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=malcolm+kendrick+cholesterol+myth&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8I've done the Googling for you: there's plenty here on Dr Malcolm Kendrick's work on this.[/url

[url=http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htmThe one at the top is a particularly interesting essay on the subject.[/url Even Keys later admitted that cholesterol in diet does not enter the bloodstream. And, the older you get, then lower cholesterol levels are increasingly dangerous.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-profiteering-scandal-of-firm-hiding-vital-breast-cancer-data-8270020.htmlMore evidence of the caring-sharing side of healthcare companies[/url

Far too simplistic - it depends on the type of cholesterol, there are two types: LDL which clogs up arteries and can result in stroke or heart attack. HDL which removes the LDL into the liver. Too little HDL is as bad as too much LDL. To say cholesterol is an invented condition is completely barmy - even for you. Drug companies do not prescribe drugs and given these drugs have been available for many years if what you suggest was correct these drugs would have stopped being prescribed. Whatever you think of doctors most are highly intelligent ethical humans who genuinely want the best outcomes for their patients - given the volumes of statins prescribed are you seriously suggesting all these people have been hoodwinked? seriously even for you that is a bit far fetched.

QED




Except that the words I used were:
" Most drugs do indeed "cure" things. For a start, the most overwhelmingly widely prescribed/administered drugs aimed at "curing " things - antibiotics - do exactly that.

If you want to argue that point, which drugs that are "aimed at curing" things do you claim fail to cure things?


I'm not sure why you need to make silly points. If I have a headache, I'll take the drug which from experience I know works for me to cure my headache. And in half an hour or so, my headache is indeed cured.

I DO "stop taking" the analgesics. Indeed, in most cases, I'll only need to take the one dose. Once I have taken that dose, in a short time, my headache goes away. My headache is, indisputably, cured.

If you are really saying that if a few weeks later I get another headache it's only because "I stopped taking the drugs" then I'm sorry but that is just irrational. The new headache may be for any one of a number of reasons. The fact that I'm not permanently on analgesics certainly ain't one of them though.


The top is not a painkiller (its Simvastatin, which I happen to know as the doc told my missus that) but yes, painkillers are high in the charts, and for the reasons I have explained they do cure pain in huge numbers of cases. [size=85(There are of course people who suffer from chronic pain but that is usually managed in a variety of ways and the palliative drugs used are not in your top 20 chart)[/size


And? You have changed the argument completely as now you're talking about the "top selling drugs". Who referred to top sellers. You've mentioned three drugs. But there are around 13,000 prescription drugs, so you've a few to run through yet if that's the argument you want to adopt.

More to the point, it was I who pointed out that drugs which "cured" a condition rather than "manage" a condition are very clearly vastly less profitable to drug companies than a one-shot cure pill would be. Yet you fail to acknowledge the argument or the point, and bizarrely, quote stats which seem to [iprove[/i that the biggest earners for drug companies are non-cures! Why have the drug companies not invented a cure for hypertension, or a cure for high cholesterol, etc.? Would you agree that if they did, then they'd never sell another of these big earners?

You need to concentrate and try harder. And no, I haven't failed to notice that you omitted to concede that you don't actually know my view on drug companies, so should not have presumed, ditto that you don't know my "take" on profit making enterprises. You just made hot-headed assumptions which you are now trying to ignore instead of conceding that you were wrong.


... this, from the man who posted:
...... thinking it was a cracking point! Couldn't make it up

This is exactly why you should read the stuff I suggested (and more) before commenting.

And drug companies never prescribe drugs. That's what doctors do. And if you bother to actually read the Goldacre, at the very least, then you'll discover that doctors themselves are either conned or fed the wrong data or a lack of data in general.

And I repeat: cholesterol is an invented disease. I am not a medical expert. Neither are you. I, however, have tried - am trying - to educate myself. Do yourself a favour and do the same instead if first saying that life is 'too short" and then pretending that you actually know more than people who actually bother to read and research.

If you're not careful, you really are going to look very,very silly.

When I look as silly as you I will start to worry.

I never said drug companies prescribe drugs? not sure where you are coming from. Doctors are very educated individuals who are capable of doing the research themselves and all but the lazy do - to suggest the vast majority have been hood winked is plain barmy even for you.

As someone who has inherited high cholesterol I am perhaps in a better position than you to comment. The high Cholesterol I have helped to contribute to me needing a bi-pass last year - so the surgeon told me, he was obviously lying or so duped by the drug companies that he didn't know any better!! The fact you actually believe that says much about your inability to form a coherent argument without quoting spurious articles. Your view that Cholesterol is figment of someone's imagination is plain barmy and contradicts current medical thinking at the highest level. Now I know you love the sound of your fingers on the keyboard but seriously you are either trolling or stupid.

High Cholesterol is a condition that can me measured - lipid counts - it is not a disease - invented or otherwise. You only google the stuff that suits your argument - there are hundreds of research documents that link high cholesterol to other diseases!! perhaps for balance you might occasionally put both sides?

You'd need a brain cell or two more.

I never said drug companies prescribe drugs.

You said:



Indeed. Hence my comment: "drugs companies never prescribe drugs".

Are you really as stupid as you make out?



Listen sunshine, I know you've already claimed, in this context, that life is 'too short' to read the things I suggested. Well fair enough. But until you do, cut the waffle pretending that you have a clue. There's a good chap.



How the hell do you know, sunny Jim, eh?

And the point is that high cholesterol is not really a problem. It's an invented problem. Which just happens to be very, very profitable for drug companies. But then, life is too short for you to bother to educate yourself. Why would you want to waste time reading things that might help you make better decisions about your own health, eh? You'd be far better off watching [iX Factor[/i or other similar trash.

Which drugs actually cure stuff you have suggested antibiotics perhaps but they don't cure any viral infection, pain killers don't cure stuff they turn off the pain receptors until your body can get a grip, - taking morphine gives cancer patients relief stop taking it and the pain will return. I would have thought that was pretty simple for someone who has such a high view of their opinion.

You obviously struggle with reading too - the reason the drug companies cannot create a drug to cure hyper-tension is because the body over time naturally deteriorates and overtime the body cannot naturally repair the damage hence the need for surgery - you don't see many teenagers with hyper-tension? Drugs will not return a damaged heart back to its original condition. How often do we go to doctor before the condition starts never we go when we can no longer cope by which time the damage is done - again I would have thought that would have been a simple concept to get to grips with!!.

You would think if they could invent a cure they would release it as soon as their patent runs out and their expensive drugs are replaced by generic alternatives. It would also destroy the competition who maybe still had time to run on their patent!! If only it were so easy - the human body as as I also said on this thread not an exact known - it doesn't react exactly the same to the same inputs a challenge if ever there was one.

Of the 13,000 prescription drugs how many actually cure things - i.e. return them to their original state? For a start you can remove all the hypertensive drugs, all the statins, all the pain killers, all the mental health drugs, that's a pretty big chunk. Steriods might fall into your camp, certainly cured my eye condition.

You views on profit - just read back over your posts and your criticism of companies that make profits, maybe that is unkind but it is there in black and white. Maybe you are just jumping on the pseudo-lefty bandwagon that is the clicky RLfans sin bin.

Your view on the drugs companies seems to be they are cynically deliberately withholding cures in the hope that the drugs they do develop will be taken for ever - the only problem with your argument is the patent - they only get 10 years to max the profits before any man and his dog can produce it much cheaper as they has the recipe without the R&D.

You as a non medic think high cholesterol is a non problem - your arrogance has reached new levels - sunshine!! If I want to make a decision about my health I visit someone who has had years of training and years of experience in the area not some jumped up keyboard warrior who cannot cut the mustard. I have read plenty - prior to and after the bi-pass. The overwhelming independent evidence is high LDL cholesterol is a bad thing and contributes to other illness/conditions/diseases.

You need to read some stuff take some time to understand the subject - if high cholesterol wasn't an issue doctors would not prescribe the drugs they would save the money and spend it on something else. Surgeons - who I would suggest are at the cutting edge of medicine still believe lower LDL cholesterol is a good thing in combating heart disease - now I tend to believe those in at the sharp end than someone who is easily swayed but an article or two.

As usual you have to resort to other peoples stuff to create your argument just for once could you come to the table with an original thought of your own? Also don't get so jumpy when we don't bow down at your feet - we not all TB

it is a very bad trait of yours - to easy to wind up.

Not "perhaps", the word you are looking for is "yes".



they also do not predict lottery numbers, nor translate Serbo-Croat. Do you have any more such insider knowledge?


You are confused. Pain is not "real". Pain is a feeling generated by your brain but is not a physical entity. It is purely psychological. If I want to "cure" my headache then I take analgesics. It 100% does "cure" my pain. I had pain. Now I don't. You are suggesting that you know the cause of every headache, and that there is something physically ill which "causes" my headache, and that needs to be "cured". This is just muddled thinking. Paracetamool does not stop my head hurting by "curing" some illness or disease. The pain I feel is what is wrong with me, and the pills cure the pain. It isn't until "my body can get a grip". Grip of [iwhat[/i, exactly? What a quaint phrase when you can offer no medical explanation that fits your wrong take on the subject!

And even if you were right, I wouldn't care about the thing my body did not yet have a "grip" on. The argument is purely abstract. I acre about my real, if entirely illusory, headache. That's what i need curing and while you may refuse to "get" it, 99.9% of people will agree that when their paracetamol stops their head from hurting, that counts as a cure.


Trust me, I really don't. Why you feel the need to throw in such stuff is the issue. Do you have some sort of inferiority complex?


Or maybe, [url=http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/370.fullyou do[/url. Scientific studyfuls of them. Sorry to surprise you again. And I certainly wouldn't rule out that in the future treatements to "cure" rather than "control" hypertension could not be found. There is no reason why not. Indeed, stem cell research and gene therapy research are to me very obvious candidates, in the long term, to cure all sorts of presently incurable or intractable conditions.


How refreshing. You've moved from claiming to be certain they didn't, to frankly admitting you actually don't know! Bravo. Keep it up.


Here's the thing - almost NOTHING in your body is in its "original state". Once you get your head around that concept, maybe the reason why this is a nonsensical aim will suddenly light up in your understanding. I could go on but will try to be very brief:
1. Almost EVERY cell in your body was not there when you were born. Almost all die, and are replaced. If, in the future, we could find the way for the body to make the replacement cells for longer and better, as per the originals, then would we not be able to return any diseased organ, for example, subjectively to its "original state"? We can already grow human tissue and use it to make "as new" repairs. Do you disbelieve that in future we will gradually learn how to regrow body components? I have no doubt at all we will.
2. You are naively confusing curing a human with curing the human's components. It is a basic error, but fundamental. For example, curing you, as an entity, of an infection may make you, as a person, feel better, but it is curtains for trillions of what had pre-infection been happy Sol cells in gainful employment. They are all now dead. May be in paradiso. Who knows.


Seemingly, you indeed could. I read up following Mintball's links and it seems at least strongly arguable that they are seeking to address a problem which is not in fact real. Worrying stuff.

Er, no, we've doen that one...

Mental health drugs? I can't go along with that sweeping generalistaion. What are you referring to, specifically? I would say that there are many what you might call "mental health drugs" that are highly effective and do indeed work as a "cure" for purposes of any sensible discussion.


Completely wrong, I'm afraid. I criticise many people and many companies, but it is nothing to do with whether or not they make a profit, it is what they do, and/or how they make that profit that I am interested in.





Is your world really so black or white? No, no no! You cannot lump in every drug company, or more to the point, every person working for every drug company, and tar the lot with some brush as satanic mosnters or as virtuous crusaders for mankind. It is impossible to debate with someone who is incapable of seeing the complexities and shades of grey. In this context, I have tried to point out that a very obvious motive for preferring to work on lifelong drug dependency at the expense of one-off curse is that, indisputably, it is good for profit. You seem to somehow jump me to a position where Company X found a cure for Y, but is deliberately withholding it. A rather more likely scenario, for a company wanting to invent a drug that will make money for years, is that the company will only be researching and developing that type of drug, or concentrating most resources on doing so. If I'm not looking for a "cure" for Y, then I'm not likely to find it. am I?

I am not doing a "reverse Sol", and accusing you of believing that all international drugs companies are paragons of virtue, engaged in nothing but a selfless and profit-irrelevant search for cures for all ailments, but would suggest you at least consider that many may not be exactly that.


Ah, so [ithat's[/i why only Mother Theresa clones work in the pharmaceutical industry. Good to know.

Oddly enough, DRACO has been discovered and is being developed in the labs at MIT, funded only by grants from national institutes of health etc. Somehow, the trillions of dollars being spent in multinational pharmaceuticals didn't come up with it. But I expect it's a coincidence, don't you?

In fairness, this information on Cholesterol has been common knowledge for years. As a result there have been some significant changes in both dietary advice and prescribing behaviour. There may have been a gravy train but it went off the rails a while ago.

Seriously?



You know what antibiotics are for, right?


There are many causes of hypertension and just being old is NOT one of them. While your blood pressure does indeed rise as you get older, that does not inevitably lead to hypertension. Diet, weight, and genetics are far more important factors.

I'd pull you up on a few more fallacies - you seem to be pretty clueless - but, in your own words, life's too short.

As far as I am aware, antibiotics don't cure viral infections, [url=http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/antibiotic-use/know-and-do.htmlas the CDC would appear to confirm[/url

Of course they don't. They're designed to cure bacterial infections, not viral infections. You might as well complain about anvils making lousy parachutes.

Which was my point.

The BBC recently broadcast The Food Programme on LARD [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01npb10catch up on BBC iPlayer[/url

Are you saying antibiotic do cure viral infections?

I never said age was the only cause of hyper-tension just that it occurs more frequently as patients age.

Now which fallacies are we talking about?

To answer you points:
Drug companies are no different from all other companies they will bend the rules if they need to - I personally don't have a problem with that - you either believe they deliver more positives than negatives, I personally believe they do and am realistic in thinking they are not whiter than white, that is not an issues for me.

On pain killers - we both know how they work - unlike an antibiotic they don't attack whatever is causing the pain they simply turn off the receptors that makes you feel the pain.

On degenerative disease/conditions we are talking about the here and now not what might happen in 50/100/1000 years time - as it is now your body will fail over time, drugs cannot always put in right - hence the need for surgery - or ultimately death. Would you not agree?

On mental health, drugs such as - Zoloft, Effexor, the group used to treat depression, Zyprexa - you are not going to be cured of schizophrenia by taking this stuff etc. They may help to control your mental condition but they will not cure it, probably because our knowledge of the brain is pretty primitive.

Most drug big companies develop control drugs because cure drugs are very few and far between. Antibiotics but only for certain infections, medicine has yet to find a cure for any viral infection. Just think what a money spinner it would be if somebody could find a cure for the common cold or flu - a viral infection that re-occurs even after an instance is cured.

Personally I don't care how much money drug companies make, nor do I consider them especially unethical - compared to bankers they are Saints. drugs kept me alive long enough for a clever doctor to do a repair - without the drugs I would not have made it to the repair.

I'm saying that antibiotics don't cure viral infections because they have no effect on viruses whatsoever. They are anti-bacterial drugs (the clue is in the name), not anti-viral drugs. Anyone who makes that fundamental an error should probably avoid commenting on medical matters in general and drugs in particular.

Let's try again. On the basis of a great deal of material that I have been reading, which is written by people with medical training and knowledge, I am reaching a conclusion that, as Dr Malcolm Kendrick puts it, there is "a great cholesterol con".



Coming from someone who claims that "life is too short" to read the material that I have been and am reading, this really is hilarious. Take your own advice. And see Kosh's post on the subject.













This is the point. Exactly the point – about research being distorted by the drug companies – see Dr Ben Goldacre in particular but not uniquely. Dr Phil Hammond also talks of the "medicalisation" of the population, including of the creation, by the drug companies of new 'conditions' that need curing by their drugs.

Goldacre also goes into some depth about how regulation is flawed and about how even some of his fellow doctors are effectively bought off by drug companies with their huge entertainment budgets.



Ahhhh. So it's hunky dory for you to believe doctors and medically-trained people on an issue – but if I do it, I'm being unoriginal? You say A because medical staff have told you – I say B because I've read medical staff saying it, and yet I'm condemned for

a) commenting on medical matters without training;

b) not saying something that is original on matters of which I have no training – and which you seem to think you can happily quote from others.