|
|
|
|
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 7:37:48 PM |
I agree with you but one slight correction. The LAST thing the medical community and drug companies want to do is fix problems ....they would rather "maintain" them. If their drugs and medical procedures actually "fixed" these problems they would lose money. There's much more profit for them if they maintain. They don't want to cure...they want people to stay sick and live a life of depenency on their pharmaceutical products and treatments.
If this were true, then we would still see smallpox, and there would be no once-in-a-lifetime vaccines for measles, mumps, chickenpox, etc. If this were true, then doctors wouldn't be telling us to quit smoking, exercise more, and eat better, and they wouldn't be warning us to stay out of the sun or cover up because of the increased risk of cancer. Oh, and let's add to the list the flu shot. If the medical community and pharmacists really wanted us to buy their drugs throughout an entire flu season, then they wouldn't promote our getting the flu shot. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 10:31:49 PM | Great topic.
I absolutely believe "big pharma" are manufacturing illness. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 5:08:22 AM | Educate yourself about SV-40.
http://www.albionmonitor.com/free2/poliovaccine.html
It appears our government didn't wish to create a public panic or to discredit the public health service. Instead of recalling the tainted vaccines, it quietly ordered the manufacturers to continue production and find a monkey free of SV-40. By 1963 a safer polio vaccine was in production; the rhesus monkey had been replaced with the African green monkey. But between 1955 and 1963, as many as 98 million Americans had received the contaminated SV-40 polio vaccines.
Flash ahead to Loyola University in the early 1990s. Michele Carbone, Assistant Professor of Pathology, isolated fragments of SV-40 in human cancers. The viral contaminate from the 1950s appeared in up to 40 percent of bone cancers and 60 percent of mesotheliomas, a particularly nasty form of lung cancer. He believed this could explain why half of the current mesotheliomas being treated were no longer linked with their traditional cause -- asbestos exposure.
Senior epidemiologist at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Howard Strickler, used maps to help confirm the link between cancers and the tainted vaccine. People who lived in Massachusetts and Illinois who received identified lot numbers of the contaminated vaccine administered in the 1950s are now demonstrating ten times the rate of the osteosarcoma bone tumors as those who received vaccine free of the SV-40 contaminate in other parts of the country.
Already sounding like bad science fiction, more terrible news was yet to come. Italian researchers found the monkey virus in between 14 and 83 percent of human brain tumors
http://www.sv40foundation.org/
Upon the discovery that SV40 was an animal carcinogen that had found its way into the polio vaccines, a new federal law was passed in 1961 that required that no vaccines contain this virus. However, this law did not require that SV40 contaminated vaccines be thrown away or that the contaminated seed material (used to make all polio vaccines for the next four decades) be discarded. As a result, known SV40 contaminated vaccines were injected into children up until 1963. In addition, it has been alleged that there have been SV40-contaminated batches of oral polio vaccine administered to some children until the end of the 1990's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40
An analysis presented at the Vaccine Cell Substrate Conference in 2004[14] suggested that vaccines used in the former Soviet bloc countries, China, Japan, and Africa, could have been contaminated up to 1980, meaning that hundreds of millions more could have been exposed to the virus knowingly. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 5:58:02 AM | http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_152.cfm
A recent study published in the Spring 2006 volume of the peer-reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons shows that the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders in children has decreased following the removal of thimerosal from most American childhood vaccines. However, only about a third of the 11 million children vaccinated for influenza this year will receive mercury-free vaccines. At the end of last year, President Bush signed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA), granting blanket immunity to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine-induced injuries.
According to one prominent member of the committee, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), "This legislation was unilaterally and arrogantly inserted into the bill after the conference committee was over. It was a blatant power play by the two most powerful men in Congress." Sen. Ted Kennedy called the legislation "a blank check for the industry." Sen. Robert Byrd, dean of Senate rules, opined: "There should be no dispute. The processes leading to passage of this bill [was] an absolute travesty."[2] The PREPA is unconstitutional. It removes the right to due process and judicial review for persons injured by vaccines, thus granting a virtual license to kill. Under the new law, companies making vaccines can be grossly negligent and act with wanton recklessness and still escape liability as long as they can show that their misconduct wasn't "willful." It is impossible to conceive of a lower standard for the drug companies or a higher burden of proof for injured parties.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/22/health/main555154.shtml
BAYER sold HIV tainted Meds....
The company's statement was in response to a New York Times report that it sold millions of dollars worth of an older version of the medication in Latin America and Asia while marketing a newer, safer product in the United States and Europe.
Bayer division Cutter Biological continued selling old stocks of the medicine for more than a year after it introduced a version in February 1984 that was heat-treated to kill HIV, according to documents obtained by the Times.
Cutter also sold the older medicine in Argentina, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore after February 1984, according to the documents. The newspaper said Cutter shipped more than 100,000 vials of unheated concentrate, worth more than $4 million, after it began selling the safer product.
The sales continued partly because of Cutter's desire to deplete stocks of the older medicine, and partly because of fixed-price contracts, for which the company believed the older product would be cheaper to make, the newspaper said.
In late 1984, as Hong Kong hemophiliacs began testing positive for HIV, some doctors wondered whether Cutter was sending "AIDS-tainted" medicine into less-developed nations.
But the company assured its distributor that the unheated product posed "no severe hazard" and was the "same fine product we have supplied for years."
In May 1985, Dr. Harry M. Meyer Jr., the Food and Drug Administration's blood-products official, called the companies to a meeting, believing they had broken an agreement to stop selling the older medicine, the Times said. But Meyer decided to handle the matter quietly instead of notifying the public, the newspaper said. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 8:55:05 AM |
Educate yourself about SV-40.
I did some quick research on it. The evidence seems to be equivocal here. You have to remember that viruses are fairly specific to their hosts. You are exposed to other host's viruses every day with no risk of developing the disease. When a virus that crosses a species barrier, it's a fairly remarkable event (swine flu, Asian bird flu, etc.). Note the role of cowpox in the development of the vaccine against human smallpox. Anyway, the incidence of brain cancer in the US has not spiked in the last 20 years which it would have if sv-40 actually caused brain cancer so I can't take it too serously.
springazure44, I don't really mind if you scare yourself with this stuff. I do mind if you scare others who don't have the training to fight back the misinformation you spread. I noted that your links are articles about studies, not studies themselves. Atricles like that are usually misleading because they cherry-pick the facts from the original work without mentioning the warnings the original researchers had included in their peer-reviewed paper. You do this yoursef, I note. You've cited the Wikipedia article on sv-40 with a fairly scary quote. However, you've omitted the following quote from the same article:
However, the United States National Cancer Institute announced in 2004 that although SV40 does cause cancer in some animal models, "substantial epidemiological evidence has accumulated to indicate that SV40 likely does not cause cancer in humans".
Cherry-picking facts and quote-mining are considered very intellectually dishonest, especially in scientific circles. Take my advice and give it up. Unless, of course, you're building up a career as a scaremonger for fun and profit. | |
|
| |
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 9:25:15 AM | springazure44,
This is getting tiresome. Again, you've given us a URL that is not the original work. As a matter of fact, the original work does not say what that website says. The origional article is a review of statistics that the author claims insinuates a downward trend since thimerosal was excluded. (There is controversy about the statistical approach Geier took as the CDC monitors what is done with their database and found that Geier had imporoperly analyzed it one time and shut him off from doing the same thing a second time before he completed the task.)
Anyway, no thanks to you, I found Geier's original article. The Conclusions do not say what you have stated. That was probably due to the peer review process where other experts review work for originality and misleading text. Peer review is NOT a system of verification of scientific correctness. Anyway, here is an interesting section found at the end of Geier's article:
Potential conflict of interest David Geier has been a consultant in
vaccine/biologic cases before the no-fault National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (NVICP) and in civil litigation. Dr. Mark Geier has
been an expert witness and a consultant in vaccine/biologic cases before
the no-fault NVICP and in civil litigation.
Far from a disinterested researcher, I would say. As a matter of fact, there is great concern for Geier's ethics among his peers. I certainly wouldn't build a case around him. Especially as many court cases that have been built around his "research" have been thrown out of court due to Geier's lack of credential.
If you want to read the Geier's paper yourself, you can find it at:
http://www.a-champ.org/documents/geier%20Early%20Downward%20Trends%20JAPS%203-1-06.pdf
Please school yourself in epidemiology and statistics. Stop being so credulous. Your tenedency to believe only the worst will probably the agent of your bad health, if indeed you have such. If you don't, you can be thankful to the medical practices you are trying to defame. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 11:03:26 AM | If this were true, then we would still see smallpox, and there would be no once-in-a-lifetime vaccines for measles, mumps, chickenpox, etc. If this were true, then doctors wouldn't be telling us to quit smoking, exercise more, and eat better, and they wouldn't be warning us to stay out of the sun or cover up because of the increased risk of cancer. Oh, and let's add to the list the flu shot. If the medical community and pharmacists really wanted us to buy their drugs throughout an entire flu season, then they wouldn't promote our getting the flu shot.
I'm not saying that some drugs don't ever successfully prevent disease but for the most part, and if the drug co's and AMA could have their way (and they do get their way most of the time), they'll choose to maintain disease and sickness rather than cure it.
Over the years they have made a mockery of alternative medicine and holisitc healing,. They have done everything in their power to discredit them, when many times these other methods were proven better and actually cure. Don't forget that the phamaceutical industry is a muli-billion dollar industry and they look at profit above anything else. Sometimes they aren't left with much choice other than finding a cure, but for the most part, the well being of the public is very low on thier priority list....especially if it cuts into their profits.
Of course it's in their best interest to - from time to time - find cures and actually do what's best for the people. This creates trust in them and give people hope. This is not to say that everyone who works in the drug industry or is in the medical field don't care. But the people who are the higher ups and make all the decisions don't give two shits about us. People need to understand how powerful this industry is and how much influence they have in what policies are placed by our goverment. Do you actually trust a group with THAT much power and influence? I don't! | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 11:25:03 AM |
Over the years they have made a mockery of alternative medicine and holisitc healing
That's because alternative medicine and holistic healing *are* a mockery. There are virtually no controlled studies to determine the efficacy of alternative practices and when there are, they are shown to be as ineffective as placebos. And what's worse, we're starting to see that some of these alternative practices are doing more harm than good.
Besides, if something like echinacea was, indeed, shown to be effective, the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't be suppressing it. They'd be extracting or manufacturing its active ingredients and marketing it themselves. They'd make a killing.
when many times these other methods were proven better and actually cure
Cite some controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals.
I'm not saying that none of these practices work, but I am saying that alternative practices should be subjected to the same amount of scrutiny and research as any new pharmaceutical. But because of the alternative medicine lobby, the FDA was rendered virtually impotent and people are allowed to sell all sorts of snake oils.
Don't forget that the phamaceutical industry is a muli-billion dollar industry and they look at profit above anything else.
Don't forget that the alternative medicine industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and they look at profit above anything else. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 3:53:27 PM |
I'm not saying that some drugs don't ever successfully prevent disease but for the most part, and if the drug co's and AMA could have their way (and they do get their way most of the time), they'll choose to maintain disease and sickness rather than cure it.
That's a hypothesis, but what is it based on? Do you have a specific instance in mind where the AMA or drug co's are trying to maintain a specific disease rather than find a cure? Plus, I go back to my point about physicians trying to convince patients to eat well, stop smoking, exercise, and not get too much sun exposure. If there were truly a conspiracy to keep us sick, then they wouldn't be giving us that advice.
If we did follow that advice we'd be taking control over our health to the largest extent possible and the only illnesses left would be due to the environment, genetics, and accidents. Since physicians have no control over those 3 variables, and they're advising us to take control of the variables we can change, then the only conclusion I can draw is that the AMA really does care about our health. Of course I'm from Canada, so I'm assuming that physicians in the US do give the same advice as Canadian physicians.
Oh, and the comments about vaccines causing side effects: unless the government or drug companies purposefully concocted a vaccine that would cause ailment after its administration, then it's not related to the original topic, because it wasn't purposefully done to keep people sick. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 5:25:09 PM |
10% of American males, and 4% of American females have been diagnosed with ADD. The most common symptoms of ADHD are distractibility, difficulty with concentration and focus, short term memory loss, procrastination, problems organizing ideas and belongings, tardiness, impulsivity, and weak planning and execution. Most "normal" people suffer from at least 3 or four of these things, on a regular basis. I myself can say that I run late, procrastinate, have difficulty concentrating at times, and am the least organized person I know. Somehow I get through my days without medication to control these things. Excuse me, but have you ever been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD and subsequently been treated for it? If not - kindly do not go there. For the record, my youngest daughter was off the charts ADHD and it wasn't until Ritalin was introduced at age 7 that she could learn anything, even basic language. After she started on Ritalin, she blossomed like a rose in ALL areas. I had no idea how off the charts difficult it can be (and was for her) to filter everyday environmental distractions internally until post-TBI that same vulnerability was ignited in me - her mother. I will be on Adderall the rest of my life and I thank God it's there because I cannot filter without it - takes circuit overload to unimaginable levels without it. OP - I would highly suggest that you limit your subjective judgments to conditions you have personal, direct and/or professional experience in, rather than promote the ignorant hype propagated by people who have no clue what the h*ll they are talking about.
I was diagnosed with ADD when I was 8 years old, wasn't even anything me or my mother asked that brought it about, was the school having doctors come in to examine classes for students that may have it. They put me on Ritalin, I seen that stuff work great on someone who actually does have ADD, but on someone who doesn't have ADD, it turns you into a zombie. I went to school for almost a whole year in a zombie-like state, came home in a zombie-like state.
At 9 years old I got the idea that it just might be the medicine, and told my mom about what I experienced and why I thought it was the medicine. Went 2 or 3 weeks without after that and all was fine, grades went up a huge amount in school, and I was a bit more social. We went to the family doctor to talk to him about it, he told me to stop taking the stuff and scheduled an eye exam based on what my mother remembered of the original description of what the doctors the school brought in believed to be ADD symptoms. I never had a clue what lead them to believe that and being so young stepped back to the adults judgment. My family doctor and the eye doctor he recommended figured out I just had bad eyesight in one of my eyes, which was correctable with just a couple years of wearing reading glasses in most cases with the results that came back.
Within just 2 years of being off Ritalin and wearing glasses while reading, I was well beyond any of the math teachers in my area in my understanding of mathematics. And my GPA staid steadily above 3.0 average. Also found such wonderful worlds in books that I would have previously dreaded trying to read through.
Ritalin however had one side effect I don't much like. I can remember my childhood, all the way back to around the age of 5 or 6 very clearly, except for that year I was on Ritalin which is just a haze of disconnected facts with no imagery to accompany them. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 7:52:25 PM |
I seen that stuff work great on someone who actually does have ADD, but on someone who doesn't have ADD, it turns you into a zombie. I went to school for almost a whole year in a zombie-like state, came home in a zombie-like state.
A very astute observation, and therein lies a contributory part of the misconceptions about ADD/ADHD and other conditions actually.
Not suggesting that this was the case for you, chrono1985, okay? There are far too many parents hopping on the bandwagon when their children are acting out behaviorally that assume ADD/ADHD is the reason when it isn't necessarily the case for that particular child - to use one such example. These same parents will pressure the pediatrician to prescribe as a "quick fix". Much of ADD/ADHD identification is relative to behavioral rating scores and such from all sources having direct access to the child. Unfortunately, those assessments are not a finite science. The medication aspect begins as a trial to confirm the ADD/ADHD diagnosis, or rule it out.
Whatever happened in chrono1985's situation, something most assuredly got lost in the communication process between the parents and the doctor at the onset. I know that when my daughter was started on Ritalin, all of her assessments were redone a month after she started Ritalin as well as on-going monitoring assessments. Her dosage was actually increased to another one in the early afternoon to get her through the school day as the morning assessments were wonderful, yet Ritalin then only lasted 4 hours so when it wore off, there was the hurricane again.
You're right in that if there is no ADD/ADHD, the medication is going to adversely affect the child in all manner of ways - up to and including an addiction in some cases. Yet for the person who truly is ADD/ADHD, it's a night and day noticeably positive difference. I regret that you had that experience.
My daughter was actually diagnosed when she entered kindergarten but I declined the suggestion of Ritalin that year, and even her repeat year of Kindergarten. Worse decision I ever made as a parent actually was to listen to the teacher suggest that immaturity was preventing her from learning. When she started Ritalin at the onset of 1st grade, she still struggled as she also had been assessed with a severe learning disability but the difference was, she was learning - slowly, but still learning. Her LD was addressed in the learning environment.
Unlike chrono1985's experience with Ritalin, my daughter's memory of her entire childhood is quite amazing, even as early as her infant years. She has no gaps in memory. Even with her LD aspect, she is exceptionally intelligent and gifted artistically. The only side effects I had concerns about with her was the rebound once the Ritalin wore off (her hyperactivity and impulsivity was the equivalent of a category 5 hurricane in the evenings) and it did affect her appetite.
The tragedy, IMO, about some of the abuses relevant to medications is the impact on the legitimate need for some people to have them. I wasn't diagnosed with ADHD until after I sustained a traumatic brain injury. It was a consequence of my particular injury. There's no describing what it was like to be overwhelmed with a tornado of sensory overload when that aspect of my brain could not process the external input fast enough. Adderall brings that aspect of my "processor" back up to normal speed again. It took 23 years post-trauma just to be treated for a partial complex seizure disorder and no way in this lifetime will I go without seizure meds again. Sometimes - medications ARE necessary.
Directed to the thread: It's one thing for posters in general to offer opinions in a general sense, but it does behoove all of us to be mindful that, although there are certainly medication abuses, there are also as many success stories.
At the end of the day, speaking from the adult aspect of decision and accountability, any adult patient has the choice to say no to any medication (barring of course the obvious circumstances when an adult would not be able to make that decision). Blaming the pharmaceutical companies, blaming the doctors, blaming marketers, etc. does not at all absolve the adult patient's accountability and ownership of the choice to take that prescribed medication or not.
 | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 8:17:01 PM | ^^^^
Very well put, angelheart3!
Nice to see that the discussion is starting to get somewhere interesting, and different views/experiences are being offered for the pure sake of discussion!
no way in this lifetime will I go without seizure meds again. Sometimes - medications ARE necessary.
Out of curiousity, do you feel that the meds are beneficial to you? I am not entirely sure of the extent of the trauma you suffered, but am geniuinely curious to see if you've noticed a difference being on the meds?
The reason I ask is because my most recent trip to the neurologist (I suffered from seizures, this past winter, as a result of slight pressure on the brain from a very, very large tumor that was trying to invade!) resulted in being told, that even though the cause of the seizures is no longer there, i'm still at risk, and will be on the meds indefinitely. I haven't had any seizures in months, and was told by my other docs that I could come off them. I do understand that standard practice is to wait one year before clearing someone.
What i've noticed, though, is that the meds create a lot of anxiety for me, and require other meds to counter this. They are also quite expensive, and my health plan refuses to cover it. So, before flying off the handle about this, I decided to cut the meds for 7 days, and found only that I slept a lot better at night. It makes me wonder if they are necessary, or just being prescribed for the sake of it. That's where it becomes sort of relevant to this thread.
As I said before, I have cancer, and have experienced just about every medication known to man, over the past 6 months. I've had very extreme complications and reactions, that have resulted in using meds that are not often used, nor covered by most health plans.
This is why the topic sort of peaked my interest. I am fortunate to have been given coverage for most of the meds, but others I had to pay for out of my own pocket, and most of them, I had to discontinue using because they clashed with other meds, were not effective, dosages changed, etc. One doctor says something is necessary, while another says it's not. Who do you believe? | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/8/2008 9:49:49 PM | Lucretia21 - what you describe as far as the tumor is what is called an acquired brain injury. Follow the advice of your neurologist/oncologist primarily. Seizures can be elusive events. Most people think of grand mal or even petite mal when they hear seizures yet those are not the only kind. Also, most seizure disorders rarely show on EEG's unless the seizure is occurring at the time of the EEG. Mine is a partial complex seizure type with hx of grand mal followed by weeks of petite mal initiated by a separate medical event that resulted in emergency surgery 18 years ago. The partial complex type is so subtle that it's not even observable to people you interact with day to day.
I absolutely notice a very GOOD difference and was for the first time since my original injury actually treated specifically for seizures beginning this past January (not for lack of trying on my part). Then a month later Adderall was re-introduced and I am me again for the first time since my MVA 23 years ago. As to the degree of trauma? Head-on multi-trauma near-fatal MVA with another vehicle. I was told that. given the rate of speed - both vehicles, it was the equivalent of hitting a brick wall at 90 MPH. I was not wearing a seat belt. It took the fire department reportedly almost 45 minutes to extricate me from my vehicle. My engine block had been forced through the dash from the force of impact thereby pushing me into the rear passenger seat. As far as the brain injury aspect?
At that time, two strikes by virtue of timing. Very little was known then about closed head injury and the multiple surgeons were so focused on my pervasive internal injuries and my code blues that I was not officially diagnosed ergot no rehab. My records had to be forensically reconstructed basically. Bottom line - diffuse axonal injury compounded with cumulative frontal lobe injury - period of coma, GRS nose-dived, retro-grade and anterio-grade amnesia. I did my own rehab basically all the while not knowing that I had a on-going pervasive seizure disorder lurking in the shadows. I basically have had to learn to manually perform some brain functions that the uninjured brain can do autonomically. It's never boring!
However, acquired brain injury is different from traumatic brain injury in that it's generally limited to a specific area of the brain (depending on the cause), whereas a traumatic brain injury can impact on many areas of brain function (to varying degrees). And every brain injury impact on the individual is as uniquely different as people are. No two are precisely the same nor is the outcome the same. However, it is consistent that intelligence remains intact - go figure!
Email me directly and I can send you some links to information that you may find helpful as well as informative (including a very good support site for just about every condition imaginable plus patient feedback on treatments, etc.).
As far as your question about managing medications, it's complex to manage all of that, especially when you have multiple physicians involved in your medical care. I finally found a way that works for me that perhaps would be helpful to you in finding what works effectively for you. There are other strategies that you may need to implement as compensatory to your tumor situation.
You're doing the right thing in asking questions. I'm not familiar with the Canadian health care system, but I have found that in the US, it has become necessary to be very proactive in communicating between all the physicians involved in my care. I have comparable challenges with meds - compounded by multiple allergies, and lest we should forget - those that are contraindicated for people with seizure disorders and migraines. It's the physicians though - not the pharmaceutical companies. The physicians don't communicate with each other like they did before medicine got so flipping specialized.
 | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/14/2008 7:43:02 PM | I agree 100% with what InstantKarma is saying. Current pharmacueticals can prevent disease but only in the person whom receives it. Most diseases present themselves due to a genetic link or defect within the DNA strand. Molecules duplicate themselves, and in doing so, duplicate the entire genetic make-up of that cell, including the disease. The only way to successfully rid the human body of disease is isolate the gene that is defective BEFORE birth. Now rumor has it that we currently have the ability to do this and some companies are electing to require this test to determine the rate of incident with certain disease before health insurance coverage can be offered to it's employees. But don't get me on that bandwagon...I'll be here for days!
Holistic and alternative medicine have taken a back burner to current pharmaceuticals, much to our disadvantage. All pharmaceuticals began as plants, mostly herbs, from there the plant's original makeup is altered using chemical formulas that are much cheaper to duplicate. Once the alteration is complete, it is then classified as a drug. I'm not saying that herbal medicine is for everyone...indeed it is not. Certain herbs can be, and often are, more dangerous to the human body than their pharmaceutical cousins. Something as simple as the mineral zinc is very deadly to those who don't know to properly administer it to themselves and to others.
The pharmaceutical industry does NOT want cures. There's no money in a cure only in the treatment and/or possible prevention. Never believe they are not out for your money! How many of you out there remember the cure for HIV/AIDS that was discovered by 2 UNC Chapel Hill grad students and a research scientist in the late 80's? 99% of you won't...that's because the FDA, the AMA, and the pharmaceutical giants had the project shut down. Remember, actions always speak louder than words...and in this case our governments actions proved they were not interested in a cure. Why? Because it doesn't make money! But they are not about to admit it to the public.
Why do the pharmaceutical giants weld all this power? Because we ignored our better judgment and chose to believe what they tell us. WE gave them that power! Doctors are paid to prescribe those drugs, many without bothering to research the possible long-term and/or deadly side effects. These giants appeal to the greed of man and as long as they have the capital to spend they will control what happens within the medical industry. WE have placed our lives into their hands. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/14/2008 8:23:08 PM | luvsthebeach,
Modern pharmaceuticals do cure stuff but exactly what depends on what you call curing and what you call disease. Antibiotics certainly cure an infection that the body would not be able to deal with single-handedly. Aspirin cures pain. You might think of these cures as trivial because they happen every day but these medicines were not always around.
To be fair, there may be some alternative medicines that work. They are very rare. Unfortunately, that field is infested with frauds trying to sell sticky-pads and enemas that detoxify the body. Sorry, that doesn't happen. Chakras or meridians out of line? Chi out of line? Here drink this stuff that only gets stronger the more you dilute it.
You have the process of pharmaceutical discovery upside down. The entire aim of that science is to identify active substances. If they're OK as they are, they are copied exactly wether it be by reproducing the molecule in the test tube or, if that't not possible, by growing that plant/fungus/bacterium en masse. Only if the original molecule has a dangerous side-effect or if the root of the molecule could have other uses is the molecule played with to find safer forms.
As far as the pharmaceutical industry not wanting cures because it could make more money from the disease, that's not true. Try to apply that logic to polio, smallpox, chickenpox, rubella, and so on. Aren't those pretty much under control now? Why? Don't you think the pharma industry could make more money selling decongestants, antispasmodics and iron lungs to polio victims?
BTW, death is a side-effect of life. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/14/2008 9:41:37 PM |
BTW, death is a side-effect of life.
There's the philosophy for this philosophy/science post! :)
I love that, by the way. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/14/2008 11:49:08 PM | I think we need a Tinfoil Hat forum. Oh, and if you've ever known someone with ADD, Lyme Disease, or any of the other diseases you think have been 'invented by the drug companies', then you'd know they're absolutely real and often devastating to sufferers and their families.
But, hey, why learn the truth about these things when you can denigrate the sufferers as having 'imaginary' diseases based on the bogus rantings of conspiracy theorists? | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/15/2008 4:27:12 AM | | One thing about looking at past data on how a person died is that it wasn't very good. In the eighteen hundreds your barber might also be your doctor. How in the world they could diagnose an internal cancer is beyond me. Many people that die from cancer today don't really die from cancer, they die from a secondary infection such as pneumonia. So I'm guessing that 150 years ago if anyone bother to investigate a cause of death, the cause would be the secondary. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/15/2008 5:15:38 AM |
I think we need a Tinfoil Hat forum.
I have thought that more and more lately. Problem is, for many of these people, this is their reality, so they would always be posting in the wrong forum.
I personally believe that disease mongering goes on, but do not connect it to 9/11 or the Illuminati. However, the public is as much a part of this as the drug companies.
I knew a child with ADD, and saw what Ritalin could do for her, so I have no doubts it is a real condition. Problem is, people look at some of the symptoms, decide a bored child has it, and drug them up because it takes less resources.
Do some men suffer impotence (oh - I'm sorry, "erectile dysfunction")? Of course. Is Viagra a useful drug for that? Yes. Do most of the men buying it and taking it need it? That is debatable.
Don't you think that this behaviour of buying an unnecessary drug might send a message to the drug companies that research into these kinds of things is profitable? Is that the drug companies fault? They are supposed to make money. If you owned shares in Pfizer, would you want them to sell Viagra, or spend your money researching a cure for a disease contracted by 0.0001% of the population where they will never make a return on investment?
People confuse that fact that corporations are amoral with the perception that they are immoral. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/15/2008 5:25:04 AM |
People confuse that fact that corporations are amoral with the perception that they are immoral.
Amen. I've never heard that stated better. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/15/2008 9:41:27 AM |
Many people that die from cancer today don't really die from cancer, they die from a secondary infection such as pneumonia. So I'm guessing that 150 years ago if anyone bother to investigate a cause of death, the cause would be the secondary.
That's today. Back then, the only way to diagnose a disease like cancer, I imagine would be doing a post-mortem biopsy, being that it is so internal and they didn't have the luxury of MRIs and CT scans and the like.
The reason that many people die of secondary infections is mostly due to the treatment, to be honest. Being that chemo and radiation eliminate all rapidly dividing cells, when a person is being treated for cancer, their immune system is basically non-existant, rendering them pretty much defenceless against infections. True, as the body deteriorates naturally it is more susceptible, but most of the cases of death by infection, etc are due to treatment.
My theory is that "back then" they wouldn't be able to know there was a growth inside a person before it was far too late, and the person was dead. No chance to get secondary infections, etc. But yeah, i'm sort of arguing a moot point. Just wanted to throw the large part of the reason people die of secondary causes.
For the record, I don't think disorders such as the primary two that have been mentioned are made up. I think they happen. Do I think that they are blown way out of proportion in 80% (or more) of the cases? Absolutely. Do I think it's because the drug companies make more money when people who don't need the product buy the product? Absolutely. That's the entire point of the thread.
I'm not against medications that help people or anything. I just think it's an interesting point to discusss. I'm not going to boycott drug companies or point fingers and call people fakers, but I do think it's quite interesting to reflect on the fact that the drug companies' main concern is making money, and there are kids running around out there on Ritalin when, as a previous poster said, they're probably just bored. When as a society, we think we can (and need to) treat boredom with a pill (and this goes for Viagara too...haha!) then yeah, there's a big problem with the way our society and the medical field is going. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 7/15/2008 10:09:22 AM | | Up until recent times most people died at home and unless it was suspected that they were murder or that they were famous/rich there wasn't an autopsy. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
