Big Pharma helping or hurting?
Some of the employees working in pharmaceutical companies might be ignorant, hungry for money, whatever.. but I have been on 100 mg Zoloft and I don't regret it one bit. I was so depressed/anxious to the point where I was hearing mild auditory hallucinations when I was 16, but I was put on Zoloft and I feel much better. I am now 18, in college studying biology and aspiring to become an orthopedic surgeon (orthopedic surgery is one of my autistic interests). So I give pharmaceutical research credit for helping me, along with psychiatric care.
I know that pharmaceuticals don't help everyone, but they have helped me. I've also noticed that a lot of people (not everyone, though) who work against pharmaceuticals are somehow related to Scientology... Uuggh I can't stand those freaks.
Well it makes sense. They are an industry, and their number one goal is to make to a profit. Pharmaceutical companies have a nice little monopoly going on now in the US; no outside competition, extended patents so generics can't be made, and the government can't even negotiate with them over drug prices (Thanks Obama) so they can charge whatever they want.
I do think some people are over-medicated and it unnecessarily eats up people's incomes. But I'm not saying all drugs are useless, they do have their role in making ill people live better lives, but they probably work best in conjunction with eating well and exercising. I think the media out there is part of the problem too as I think all the drug ads out there have gotten people into the mindset of taking a magic pill will fix their problems without actually looking at their own lifestyle as a potential cause of illness.
_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors
Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/
I have to agree, all classes of medication, not just psychiatric medication (SSRIs, benzodiazepines) seem to be over-prescribed. In my case, I really benefitted from SSRIs for example, but I get irritated when SSRIs are prescribed to teenage girls who have ended a relationship, etc. I get the sense that people perceive the message sent by antidepressant commercials the wrong way, once again for example, the commercials are very well done and describe depression to a good extent, but there are so many of them out there that these commercials make depression seem kind of silly, which it isn't. People then take this message the wrong way and either make fun of people who are legitimately depressed, or ask for SSRIs when they have ended a relationship (and sometimes get their prescription). So while medication is required and essential for a legitimate case, overprescription is to some extent a problem. Actually one more example, I have mild acne, I'm only 18, but it's there and I didn't want to do anything about it but my family doctor pressured me into seeing a dermatologist and the dermatologist wanted to prescribe Accutane, which is contraindicated in people who have minor acne, but more importantly who have a history of mental illness. Accutane is used as a chemotherapeutic agent, and I don't need the medication. Hence, overprescription... I am trying to look at both sides of this 'Big Pharma' topic though unlike many of these anti-pharmaceutical whatever you want to call them.
CockneyRebel
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 121,179
Location: In my own little country
Doesn't bother me......if my GP were to recommend tablets, I'd consider it but I'd never take his recommendation as authoritative, it would be completely my choice, and if I said no I'd expect him to respect my decision. Likewise I'd control the dose of anything I did take, and if I felt it was making me feel bad then I'd stop, albeit with proper regard for withdrawal effects.....and I'd also consider stopping any tablets I'd been on for many months, simply on the grounds that long-term drug taking is usually risky.
I'm sure there are many cases where the balance of risks indicates taking the tabs. Just that it's important to be aware that a lot of these things are overprescribed and doctors tend to ignore possible side effects. I reckon the thing to bear in mind is that many tablets are completely new substances that haven't really stood the test of time. There's loads of data about them but if it's a newish compound, nobody can really know if it's safe longterm.
Gwen Olsen, author of Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher
www.gwenolsen.com/
---
In contrast to the above, there are books about FDA approved medicines where the authors report that the medicines actually work for them a little which surprised them - books like:
A Remarkable Medicine by Jack Dreyfus about the epilepsy medicine - Dilantin (not a cure) and
A How To (understand) book by C. Thomas Wild about FDA approved alerting aids - Tirend, NoDoz (contain caffeine - 100 mg) (not a cure) which work for ADHD Inattentive better than Ritalin/other stronger medicines.
In my view, medicines do work for a few persons (not everyone).
Part of the trouble comes in when the news media/whatever enters the picture and tends to imply that a certain medicine/whatever works for everyone who takes it and never has any side-effects. It's that kind of overselling which hurts everyone.
Also, it can take many persons weeks, months, even years to find a medicine which works a little. The current process of finding a medicine which works for a person is often a crap shoot (but that fact is missing from many advertisements).
Are medicines cures? No.
Can some medicines temporarily reduce some symptoms for some users (not everyone)? Yes.
Meds do not work for everyone.
In some cases, the right choice is to be med-free. That's my understanding.
What?! Drug companies are in it for the MONEY??! !!
I get all the information I need on drugs from watching TV ads. Watch the drug ads on now. Six months, a year, or maybe in two years, those drugs will be in lawyer's ads, suing the drug companies for the damages they've done.
That pretty much sums up the drug industry for me. ![]()
_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...
The global multi billion dollar pharmaceutical industry has never been about soliciting people's health, it is simply about disease maintenance, and their heinous and interminable profit making agenda. Retrospectively, pharmaceutical companies have once saved millions of lives from virulent and debilitating medical conditions, nowadays however thanks to the emergence of corporate greed conceptualization, they have "invented" diseases by advertently redefining behavioral normalcies such as grief and hyperactivity (not ADHD) as an excuse to aid their political measures in order to convince the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve generic, ill conceived, and dangerously mind altering psychotropic drugs, despite the possibility of the long term and adverse implications associated with them. Independent sources have citied the substantiations from experiments of possible drug contraindications from medical journals.
Yes, lots of patients require medication for medical conditions like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, psychoses, manic depression, multiple personality disorder, epilepsy, HIV, allergies and acne. These individuals who have been prescribed with such medicines have significantly improved one's mental and physical ability to function in society; nevertheless, the drawbacks tend to outweigh the benefits as certain individuals (dependent on genetic individuality and metabolism) are not responsive to them, and these prescribed medications have a multitude of adverse pharmacological effects which can inflict havoc on one's psychological, immunological, and physiological well-being. Many of these chemical substances are immunosuppressive (efficacy reduction) and can alter one's metabolism, which gradually makes one's propensity to developing several diseases such as type II diabetes, cancer or life threatening infections at an accumulated rate throughout their lifetime. Also, the disproportional adverse effects can only be treated with a variety of different and necessitous prescription drugs, thus enhancing the revenue of the pharmaceutical monopoly. Over-prescription also has a substantial impact on one's well-being, heritage and household incomes, and a proportion of these individuals subjected to multiple drugs (esp. psychiatric) have an increased risk for developing a substance abuse disorder (which can also be treated with SSRIs), especially amongst people who are also alcoholics and/or cigarette smokers.
Anti psychotics such as Zyprexa, which purposely alleviate or manage the presence of psychosis (disordered thoughts, hallucinations, delusions), have been linked to metabolic syndrome, tardive dyskinesia (long term usage of excessive dosage), weight gain, dysphoria, anxiety, dystonia, intrusive violent thoughts and sexual dysfunction (e.g. abstinence of libido).
Psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Prozac (Fluoxetine; 94% sodium fluoride), are probably one of the most perilous drugs ever innovated by the Big Pharma. Ritalin was officially approved in the 1960's by the FDA to treat the once rare attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and Prozac was devised by Eli Lilly in the 1970's and was approved by the FDA in 1987. The International Journal of the Addictions list over 105 adverse reactions to Ritalin, including anxiety, hair loss, weight gain, disruptive or antisocial behavior, convulsions, hallucinations, suicidal propensities, nausea, insomnia, headaches, stomach pains, weight loss, stunted growth, and compulsive nervous behaviors. The evidence of these psychoactive medications (especially SSRIs) construed as the denominating culprit behind school shootings, teenage suicides, and other violent behaviors is disturbingly compelling, such as the possible case of Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook shooter). It has been hypothesized by psychiatrists and the mass media that psychotropic drugs may have contributed to his malicious purposefulness to carry out the massacre, rather than long term negative conditioning from his paranoid and gun obsessed mother; nevertheless, toxicological investigation results of an autopsy concluded that Adam wasn't under the influence of such chemical substances when he carried out the shootings. Methylphenidate, has also been classified by the National Toxicology program as "possible human carcinogen," on the emphasis of carcinogenicity tests on rats conducted during clinical trials.
http://campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/13090 ... cancer.htm
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/13/ ... -massacre/
http://www.angelfire.com/co2/RayThomas/ritalin2.html
Although ADHD is undeniably a neurobehavioural entity determined by a genetic and environmental aetiology, a certain number of cases are likely to manifest as an implication of negative parenting or inadequate nurturing practices, such as a lack of discipline, and poor nutrition. Conspiracy researchers have argued that ADHD was wholly innovated by prestigious and influential psychiatrists who uphold strong financial ties and incentives with the pharmaceutical companies. There appears to a significant correlation between conspicuous symptomatic portends of ADHD, and the consumption of chemical additives such as aspartame, monosodium glutamate, HFCS, and artificial flavors and colors. In my perspective people with non-genuine and misdiagnosed cases of ADHD are over prescribed and should alter their nutrition levels of their diet in order to ameliorate most, if not all of the symptomatic aspects of ADHD. Many of these people are likely to grow out of the disorder before adulthood.
DTC advertising has become an insidiously emergent promotional tool in recent years thanks to the FDA easing restrictions in the late 1990's on such drug ad formulations. An anti-inflammatory drug known as Vioxx (Rofecoxib), devised by Merck and Co in 1999, was withdrawn from the pharmaceutical market five years later due to Merck withholding the risks of heart attacks and strokes associated with long term and excessive dosage. It once obtained disseminated acknowledgment among physicians and patients due to it's efficaciousness in treating acute pain and osteoarthritis. During the time when the drug was approved by the FDA, excessive DTC marketing had magnified it's ultimate detriment on the many thousands of patients prescribed with the drug. This exemplifies that the Big Pharma cares more about promotion than developing safer medicines; however, their insidious malfeasance is far from acknowledgment by the government and has gained public awareness recently.
Goddard joined 29 other state Attorneys General in the settlement.
Arizona's share will be $2,317,913. The settlement will also restrict Merck's ability to deceptively promote any of its products.
"In addition to the monetary settlement, the comprehensive injunctive relief obtained is outstanding and addresses all concerns identified through our investigation," Goddard said.
Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., withdrew Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after research showed that the painkiller significantly increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Tuesday's settlement requires Merck to submit all "direct to consumer" (DTC) television drug ads to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval. Merck is required to wait for approval and comply with FDA comments before running any ad. The drug company must also comply with any recommendation by FDA to delay DTC advertising for new Merck pain-relieving drugs.
The state Attorneys General expressed concerns regarding the negative effect of DTC advertising that starts immediately with the release of a new drug before doctors have an opportunity to gain experience with the drug and understand its potential side effects.
"Merck's aggressive, premature promotion of Vioxx drove hundreds of thousands of consumers to seek prescriptions before Vioxx's risks were fully understood," Goddard said. "This settlement gives the FDA clear discretion and authority to assess new Merck pain drugs and requires Merck to submit television ads to the FDA for suggested revisions and acceptance before they run."
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=842595&r=1
Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical manufacturer, was ordered to pay a $2.3 billion civil penalty after the US government serendipitously discovered their unscrupulous and illicit prescription drug promotions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8234533.stm
Glaxosmithkline (GSK), the second largest pharmaceutical corporation after Pfizer, were fined for $3 billion dollars in July 2012 after admitting they bribed doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children, such as Paxil and Wellbutrin, as clinical trials signified them to be inefficacious according to prosecutors. GSK's diabetes drug avandia, as-well as their asthma drug advair were also found to be under scrutiny due to health concerns.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... aceuticals
It's clear that our $600 billion dollar pharmaceutical monopoly is highly corrupt, favoring profit and exploitation of the public well-being, Big Pharma has formal alliances with the food industry (such as Coca Cola and the additives industry), the American Psychiatric Association (to innovate new pseudo-scientific labels), Monsanto (pernicious effects of genetically modified food), and even the demoralizing Autism Speaks (they partially fund the Big Pharma's autism research investments and psychiatry agenda - they also recently hired a new science chief who is also head of Pfizer's ASD research unit). Abstinence from consumption of processed foods, chemical additives, and getting enough exercise is the one of several pathways to avoid becoming a pharmaceutical guinea pig.
_________________
Diagnosed with "Classical" Asperger's syndrome in 1998 (Clinical psychologist).
RAADS-R: 237/240
Aspie score: 199 out of 200
Neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 1 out of 200
Alexithymia Questionnaire: 166/185 AQ: 49/50 EQ: 9/80
Last edited by TheRedPedant93 on 02 Jul 2013, 6:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
The pharmaceutical industry's greed and lust for money has had other more profound consequences. Like the breeding of superbugs, bacteria that is immune to antibiotics. God knows what will happen if we don't stop over prescribing antibiotics. Soon, there will be no antibiotics out there that will be effective.
Just because you see something on YouTube does not make it true.
Where would we be without "Big Pharma"?
Aspirin would still be only a component of Black Willow sap.
Penicillin would still be only an odd-looking smear in a petri dish.
"The Pill" would still be only a rich woman's drug, and the "Morning-After Pill" would likely not exist at all.
Smallpox, polio, and AIDS would devastate entire countries.
More?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Commercials for antidepressants?
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas
