Re: Science has to be exact or else : Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:10 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Completely wrong. Most drugs do indeed "cure" things. For a start, the most overwhelmingly widely prescribed/administered drugs aimed 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 know my 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 know my "take" on profit making enterprises.
(clue: for many years I ran such entities).

Therefore your ad hominem 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.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:52 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: ... Of the top 5 drugs prescribed in this country 3 are for hyper-tension and cholesterol the top ... 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. I've done the Googling for you: there's plenty here on Dr Malcolm Kendrick's work on this. The one at the top is a particularly interesting essay on the subject. 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.

Sal Paradise wrote: ... Of the top 5 drugs prescribed in this country 3 are for hyper-tension and cholesterol the top ... 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. I've done the Googling for you: there's plenty here on Dr Malcolm Kendrick's work on this. The one at the top is a particularly interesting essay on the subject. 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.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:44 am  

More evidence of the caring-sharing side of healthcare companies

More evidence of the caring-sharing side of healthcare companies

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:13 pm  

Mintball wrote: 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. I've done the Googling for you: there's plenty here on Dr Malcolm Kendrick's work on this. The one at the top is a particularly interesting essay on the subject. 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. 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.

Mintball wrote: 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. I've done the Googling for you: there's plenty here on Dr Malcolm Kendrick's work on this. The one at the top is a particularly interesting essay on the subject. 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. 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.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:37 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

1. Your first point is complete rubbish -

and then

"- 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."

QED

the vast majority of drugs manage conditions they don't cure them

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?

- If you take headache pills it gives you temporary relief it doesn't stop you getting another.

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.

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.

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. (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)

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.

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 prove 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.

Pot to Kettle wrote:

3. You need to think before you post or at least use Google - but your arrogance prevents you doing a little research

... this, from the man who posted:

Pot's previous effort wrote:

..maybe we should still be using leeches!!

...... thinking it was a cracking point! Couldn't make it up

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:35 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:08 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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?

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:38 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

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

You'd need a brain cell or two more.

I never said drug companies prescribe drugs.

You said:

Sal Paradise wrote:

... Drug companies do not prescribe drugs...

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

Are you really as stupid as you make out?

Sal Paradise wrote:

suggesting all these people have been hoodwinked? seriously even for you that is a bit far fetched.

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.

Sal Paradise wrote:

... As someone who has inherited high cholesterol I am perhaps in a better position than you to comment....

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 X Factor or other similar trash.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:46 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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. (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)

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 prove 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

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.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:06 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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 X Factor or other similar trash.

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.