Americans are the most over-medicated people in the world. Hence, the drug companies work hard to make sure that Americans pay the highest drug costs in the world as well.
Many smart people are figuring out that the drug companies are no better than the witch doctors from the days of old. Most people when they hear the magic words "New scientific studies have shown that Drug X is good for your health and that Vitamin C causes cancer" they store that little nugget inside their little heads and proclaim it as gospel.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041204/D86P2IH01.html
Vitamins represent the greatest threat to the pharmaceutical establishment. Why are they working overtime to ban the sale of natural vitamins and herbs?
http://curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=237&i=597
PeakOil is You
THE Pharmacy / Pharmaceutical Thread (merged)
Prescription drugs: The God That Failed
by cador » Sun 05 Dec 2004, 11:24:32
Last edited by Ferretlover on Wed 01 Apr 2009, 09:45:38, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Pharmacy / Pharmaceutical Thread.
Reason: Merged with THE Pharmacy / Pharmaceutical Thread.
- cador
- Peat
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu 04 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by ailrickson73 » Sun 05 Dec 2004, 12:26:24
Is there anything in this world that isn't a racket?
I agree Mr. Cador, that the stance on banning vitamins is ridiculous. I give my kids vitamins every day.
Cough sirop is not a cure for the cold, it simply alleviates the symptoms until the body rids itself of the disease. That is a popular misconception, and I am certain that if researched many other examples of this type can be found. Publicity tries to sell things, not tell the truth.
Good point. You advance another silver liging to peak oil. Once the SHTF, companies will not be able to afford to advertise these things, and people will not be able to buy new TVs to hear them even if they did.
I agree Mr. Cador, that the stance on banning vitamins is ridiculous. I give my kids vitamins every day.
Cough sirop is not a cure for the cold, it simply alleviates the symptoms until the body rids itself of the disease. That is a popular misconception, and I am certain that if researched many other examples of this type can be found. Publicity tries to sell things, not tell the truth.
Good point. You advance another silver liging to peak oil. Once the SHTF, companies will not be able to afford to advertise these things, and people will not be able to buy new TVs to hear them even if they did.
-
ailrickson73 - Wood
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Tue 30 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by Specop_007 » Sun 05 Dec 2004, 12:49:04
Actually, Americas medical costs are so high because we foot the bill for the R&D for the rest of the world.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
-
Specop_007 - Expert
- Posts: 5586
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by MarkR » Sun 05 Dec 2004, 18:17:41
Prescription drugs are expensive, because R&D is expensive. Currently, it costs around $250-$400 million to develop a new medication and bring it to market. Because of the time limits on patents and length of development, the company may only have 5-8 years monopoly on that drug during which it has to recoup its investment.
Another part of the reason that US drug costs are so high is because litigation within the US is so high.
The big pharma companies have 'legal funds' which are used to defend them if they are sued because of a drug. Some lawsuits are inevitable, because it is impossible to identify all side-effects, especially rare ones, before a drug is released onto the open market.
In the US, it's common for prescription drugs to be twice the price of the same drug, from the same company, in other countries - the difference is in the 'insurance premium' that is paid into the defence fund.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy are they working overtime to ban the sale of natural vitamins and herbs?
Another part of the reason that US drug costs are so high is because litigation within the US is so high.
The big pharma companies have 'legal funds' which are used to defend them if they are sued because of a drug. Some lawsuits are inevitable, because it is impossible to identify all side-effects, especially rare ones, before a drug is released onto the open market.
In the US, it's common for prescription drugs to be twice the price of the same drug, from the same company, in other countries - the difference is in the 'insurance premium' that is paid into the defence fund.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy are they working overtime to ban the sale of natural vitamins and herbs?
Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it is safe.
Vitamins are essential nutrients, but excessive consumption (in unnatural doses) can be harmful. Low-dose vitamin supplements are generally safe, although are not necessary for the vast majority of people. Yet, it's not uncommon to see high-dose vitamin preparations offered as supplements. At some of the doses offered there are genuine health risks from vitamins, and there are recognised syndromes of vitamin poisoning.
The EU directive, discussed above, does not ban the production of supplements, it only limits the ingredients to those known to be safe, and limits the doses to safe prescribed levels. I cannot see anything in the proposed legislation that would outlaw the sale of safe vitamin supplements.
Herbal remedies are a seperate issue, but currently sale of herbal remedies is essentially unregulateed. When you sell a herbal remedy you do not need to be able to prove that it works, and you do not need to prove that it is safe, you do not have to test the dose in each batch, nor indeed do you have to test whether there is any active ingredient at all. (All these safeguards are mandatory before a prescription medication can be sold).
There are a number of herbal remedies, with potent pharmacological effects (e.g. St John's wort) and their use requires the same level of care as prescription drugs. In fact SJW is notorious for it's long list of side-effects, and potentially fatal interactions with other medications and certain illnesses.
A review of the sale of herbal remedies is sorely needed.
- MarkR
- Peat
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
by smiley » Sun 05 Dec 2004, 18:51:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') agree Mr. Cador, that the stance on banning vitamins is ridiculous. I give my kids vitamins every day.
Did you know that vitamin overdose is the most common cause of infant poisoning deaths among infants in the US as well as in Europe? A lot of these deaths are caused by parents which are not aware that vitamins can have unhealthy effects.
Indeed the media campaign around the multivits and the food supplements seem to suggest that the more vitamins you take the healthier you become. The reality is that we are already consuming a more than enough vitamins and that children are now frequently subjected to an overdose of vitamins.
Vitamins are a drug and like most drugs there is a fine line between a healthy, unhealthy or even lethal dose. More than 10 mg of iron per kilogram of bodyweight (about 5 pills) will kill your child just as easily as your average cleaning agent. Too much vitamin A has bad and irreversible effects on your child's liver. It will eventually kill your child. Calcium will also cause permanent damage to your child's kidneys.
That doesn't mean that vitamins are bad, just that you need to handle them with care like every drug. You have to read the label on the bottle and to take care that your child's intake does not exceed the allowed limit.
And when you do please take care of the bodyweight factor. For a child that weighs six time less than you do the maximum dose will also be six time less. Therefore never give a young child multivitamins that are designed for adults.
I'm sure that you use vitamins in a responsible way, but please realize that the task of monitoring your child's vitamin intake becomes increasingly difficult when manufacturers start putting vitamin supplements in their food. Do you for instance know how much energy bars your child eats? Nowadays these bars contain as much vitamins as the supplement pills themselves.
Therefore I don't think it is a good idea to put vitamins in food and I support this ban.
If you think that I'm overreacting please ask your local doctor and he will confirm this story. Alternatively just google for vitamin poisoning and you'll get all the information you need.
-
smiley - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2274
- Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
by cador » Mon 06 Dec 2004, 13:43:09
Great website about Vitamin C and cancer:
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/
Oh, and what do you all think of the Vioxx scandal? I mean, i thought that the pharmaceuticals were our friends?
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/
Oh, and what do you all think of the Vioxx scandal? I mean, i thought that the pharmaceuticals were our friends?
- cador
- Peat
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu 04 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by MarkR » Mon 06 Dec 2004, 15:25:38
I have to confess, that I've not looked into the Vioxx issue that closely. I don't know if there was evidence of cover-up or not, as I'm not really in a position to find out.
As I understand it, a study incidentally found that vioxx was associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack compared to not taking it. This was a side effect that pre-marketing studies on 5000 people had not demonstrated, nor had routine post-launch surveillance (where doctors are advised to report possible side effects, for new drugs, even if they are unsure).
When this incidental finding came to light, the manufacturer immediately withdrew the drug from sale, without even a request from the FDA.
It's difficult to cast blame on MSD for their actions, from this perspective. In the absence of evidence of harm, and lots of evidence for significant benefit (vioxx is a much safer drug than alternatives like advil), it seems reasonable that it should have got approval for use.
Perhaps the blame could be cast on the FDA for approving the drug based on an insufficiently large study - especially for a drug that had such an enormous market, and therefore opportunity to harm. However, you have to accept that the size of pre-launch studies is limited, and that rare side-effects are not always identifiable in such studies.
As I understand it, a study incidentally found that vioxx was associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack compared to not taking it. This was a side effect that pre-marketing studies on 5000 people had not demonstrated, nor had routine post-launch surveillance (where doctors are advised to report possible side effects, for new drugs, even if they are unsure).
When this incidental finding came to light, the manufacturer immediately withdrew the drug from sale, without even a request from the FDA.
It's difficult to cast blame on MSD for their actions, from this perspective. In the absence of evidence of harm, and lots of evidence for significant benefit (vioxx is a much safer drug than alternatives like advil), it seems reasonable that it should have got approval for use.
Perhaps the blame could be cast on the FDA for approving the drug based on an insufficiently large study - especially for a drug that had such an enormous market, and therefore opportunity to harm. However, you have to accept that the size of pre-launch studies is limited, and that rare side-effects are not always identifiable in such studies.
- MarkR
- Peat
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
by cador » Mon 06 Dec 2004, 18:40:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MarkR', 'T')he EU directive, discussed above, does not ban the production of supplements, it only limits the ingredients to those known to be safe, and limits the doses to safe prescribed levels. I cannot see anything in the proposed legislation that would outlaw the sale of safe vitamin supplements.
The other day I had a nasty flu. I consumed about 6000 mg of vitamin C that day and the next day I woke up feeling much better. Now, I would consume the entire 6000 mg by taking it in several portions throughout the day.
Did the vitamin C help with my condition? Maybe yes, maybe no. Perhaps it was the 12 continuous hours of bed rest which really did the trick. Maybe it was a little bit of both. Well, in the old days where I relied on NyQuil, NeoCitran and other cold remedies I spent upwards of $10-$20 to fight my cold/flu.
The EU directive if applied to North America would make it impossible for me to buy Vitamin C in 500 mg tablets. I would be forced to buy 90 mg tablets at pretty much the same price. Anything higher than that would require a prescription and force me to buy the 500mg tablets from big Pharmacare.
The story of Linus Pauling is a great one. He had gotten stomach cancer and he kept his cancer in remission for 30 years by taking 20,000 mg of vitamin C every day. He did eventually die of stomach cancer -- at the ripe young age of 94.
Vitamin C is a miracle immune system booster. The big pharmaceuticals want it banned because they want ordinary people to buy the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe them.
- cador
- Peat
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu 04 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by MarkR » Mon 06 Dec 2004, 19:44:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')itamin C is a miracle immune system booster. The big pharmaceuticals want it banned because they want ordinary people to buy the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe them.
You are welcome to your belief, but there are no credible scientific studies that suggest immune boosting from large doses of Vitamin C. Equally, there are no good studies that demonstrate a reduction in the severity or duration of colds or 'flu, nor any studies that demonstrate any benefit in gastric, or any other, cancer.
There are lots of reports or studies which are oft quoted by proponents of vitamin C therapy - however, their value is debateable at best due to small study sizes, or their study methods are severely flawed (e.g. uncontrolled or poorly blinded studies).
The story of Linus Pauling is a tragic one. He was a truely brilliant scientist, but in his later years he developed an obsessive fascination with Vitamin C. The result was that his belief in the benefits of Vit C were simply delusions - which studies have tried, but failed, to replicate. He remained deluded to the end, claiming that his prostate cancer had been kept in remission for 30 years - despite him first being diagnosed at the age of 93.
It's fortunate that vitamin C is of very low toxicity, so it is essentially impossible to overdose - however, long term use does pre-dispose to kidney stones, so excessive consumption is not recommended. There is no scientific basis to take more than about 200 mg per day.
- MarkR
- Peat
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
