• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug companies

Good4Nothin

Good4Nothin

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
13,199
Reaction score
2,896
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think the big drug companies are dominating healthcare in the US, and this could be one reason we are in a health crisis. Medical professionals, the media, and the public, have all been convinced that drugs are necessary for health, and almost everyone should be on one or more of them.

In many cases, the drugs are an unnecessary expense. But more importantly, they are more likely to cause disease than cure it.

The medical industry tells us that our lives are longer and healthier than ever before. They say that we are having epidemics of serious diseases, such as dementia and cancer, mainly because they are diseases of aging, and more people are living to old age.

That statement is not easy to confirm or deny, and most people simply accept it.

It is just as likely -- much more likely I think -- that diseases supposedly cause by age are actually caused by unhealthy lifestyles, environmental toxins (in food, air and water), and longterm use of multiple prescription drugs.

It's a fact that a lot of drug research is deceptive. MDs don't have time to read all the research carefully, so they believe the claims of safety and effectiveness, even if not actually supported by the data.

Faith in drugs can also cause MDs and their patients to undervalue lifestyle in preventing disease. So-called diseases of aging are more likely the result of decades of an unhealthy lifestyle. It adds up, so it is more likely to cause disease in the old than in the young.

We know there is an obesity epidemic, and we know that obesity is a factor in the major "age-related" diseases. And we know that the answer to obesity is lifestyle, not drugs. Unfortunately, however, MDs very often give their patients bad advice about nutrition and exercise.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I think the big drug companies are dominating healthcare in the US, and this could be one reason we are in a health crisis. Medical professionals, the media, and the public, have all been convinced that drugs are necessary for health, and almost everyone should be on one or more of them.

In many cases, the drugs are an unnecessary expense. But more importantly, they are more likely to cause disease than cure it.

The medical industry tells us that our lives are longer and healthier than ever before. They say that we are having epidemics of serious diseases, such as dementia and cancer, mainly because they are diseases of aging, and more people are living to old age.

That statement is not easy to confirm or deny, and most people simply accept it.

It is just as likely -- much more likely I think -- that diseases supposedly cause by age are actually caused by unhealthy lifestyles, environmental toxins (in food, air and water), and longterm use of multiple prescription drugs.

It's a fact that a lot of drug research is deceptive. MDs don't have time to read all the research carefully, so they believe the claims of safety and effectiveness, even if not actually supported by the data.

Faith in drugs can also cause MDs and their patients to undervalue lifestyle in preventing disease. So-called diseases of aging are more likely the result of decades of an unhealthy lifestyle. It adds up, so it is more likely to cause disease in the old than in the young.

We know there is an obesity epidemic, and we know that obesity is a factor in the major "age-related" diseases. And we know that the answer to obesity is lifestyle, not drugs. Unfortunately, however, MDs very often give their patients bad advice about nutrition and exercise.
Click to expand...

Did you watch 60 Minutes on Sunday? If you have not you should really check it out (it's online). If you think you have a bad impression of drug companies now, you just wait.
 
Middleground said:
Did you watch 60 Minutes on Sunday? If you have not you should really check it out (it's online). If you think you have a bad impression of drug companies now, you just wait.
Click to expand...

I would like to watch it. Do you know the title of the episode, or a link?
 
noonereal said:
This is not factual.
Click to expand...

What do you think is not factual? That they say it? Or that our lives are longer and healthier?

I know they say it, and I know we are not generally healthier. Average life is longer, but mostly because young children very often used to die.
 
Good4Nothin said:
What do you think is not factual? That they say it? Or that our lives are longer and healthier?

I know they say it, and I know we are not generally healthier. Average life is longer, but mostly because young children very often used to die.
Click to expand...

The average life is not longer the last two years.
 
noonereal said:
The average life is not longer the last two years.
Click to expand...

But they are talking about now compared to a hundred years ago, for example. The average lifespan has increased since then, but only because young children aren't dying now like they were then (maybe because of antibiotics).

In the last couple of years, lifespan may have decreased because of obesity-related diseases.

But my point is, we are not healthier now. We might be one of the unhealthiest societies ever. Modern medicine does cure certain kinds of things that can be cured by antibiotics or surgery.

But they can't do much at all for everything else. Dementia, cancer, autoimmune disorders, etc., mostly cannot be helped by drugs. Yet there is so much publicity and propaganda, and so many people believe it.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I think the big drug companies are dominating healthcare in the US, and this could be one reason we are in a health crisis.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, just this month Cutler et al published some research suggesting that one-quarter of the slowdown in Medicare cost growth in the early part of this century might be due to various cardiovascular meds alone.

Dyl9kqWX0AI_DXB.jpg

Dyl-GyFWsAA4_Rc.jpg


Capture.png
 
Greenbeard said:
On the other hand, just this month Cutler et al published some research suggesting that one-quarter of the slowdown in Medicare cost growth in the early part of this century might be due to various cardiovascular meds alone.

Dyl9kqWX0AI_DXB.jpg

Dyl-GyFWsAA4_Rc.jpg


Capture.png
Click to expand...


How do they know it's because of the drugs? Smoking has decreased, for one thing. This sounds like more drug company propaganda.
 
I am very skeptical of that study, because its whole point is to advocate prescribing more cholesterol and blood pressure drugs. Exactly what the drugs companies have been striving for, by funding deceptive research.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I am very skeptical of that study, because its whole point is to advocate prescribing more cholesterol and blood pressure drugs. Exactly what the drugs companies have been striving for, by funding deceptive research.
Click to expand...

That study wasn't funded by industry, it was funded by the federal government (the NIH, specifically the National Institute on Aging).
 
Greenbeard said:
That study wasn't funded by industry, it was funded by the federal government (the NIH, specifically the National Institute on Aging).
Click to expand...

I know, but the drug effectiveness information came from research that is mostly paid for by drug companies.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I think the big drug companies are dominating healthcare in the US, and this could be one reason we are in a health crisis. Medical professionals, the media, and the public, have all been convinced that drugs are necessary for health, and almost everyone should be on one or more of them.

In many cases, the drugs are an unnecessary expense. But more importantly, they are more likely to cause disease than cure it.

The medical industry tells us that our lives are longer and healthier than ever before. They say that we are having epidemics of serious diseases, such as dementia and cancer, mainly because they are diseases of aging, and more people are living to old age.

That statement is not easy to confirm or deny, and most people simply accept it.

It is just as likely -- much more likely I think -- that diseases supposedly cause by age are actually caused by unhealthy lifestyles, environmental toxins (in food, air and water), and longterm use of multiple prescription drugs.

It's a fact that a lot of drug research is deceptive. MDs don't have time to read all the research carefully, so they believe the claims of safety and effectiveness, even if not actually supported by the data.

Faith in drugs can also cause MDs and their patients to undervalue lifestyle in preventing disease. So-called diseases of aging are more likely the result of decades of an unhealthy lifestyle. It adds up, so it is more likely to cause disease in the old than in the young.

We know there is an obesity epidemic, and we know that obesity is a factor in the major "age-related" diseases. And we know that the answer to obesity is lifestyle, not drugs. Unfortunately, however, MDs very often give their patients bad advice about nutrition and exercise.
Click to expand...

Too true.

Another example is the very common prescribing of psychoactive drugs "off label" to youngsters. Those youngsters are effectively guinea pigs for pharma, as that age group was not tested in the approval process.

The end result is that the behavior of the youth is greatly influenced, usually in negative fashion. We also have gynecomastia as a common condition these days as a result.

The huge number of possible side effects named in the barrage of advertising is testimony to your point.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Too true.

Another example is the very common prescribing of psychoactive drugs "off label" to youngsters. Those youngsters are effectively guinea pigs for pharma, as that age group was not tested in the approval process.

The end result is that the behavior of the youth is greatly influenced, usually in negative fashion. We also have gynecomastia as a common condition these days as a result.

The huge number of possible side effects named in the barrage of advertising is testimony to your point.
Click to expand...

Yes, psychiatric drugs for children is one of the worst things the drug companies are doing now. No one knows the long term effects, even for adults. But a child's brain is developing, so it could be much worse.

In general, interactions between drugs and long term adverse effects are not known, for the commonly prescribed drugs.

Cholesterol lowering drugs are another big problem, which I have read a lot about recently. The research is intentionally deceptive, making tiny benefits look huge, for example, and minimizing adverse effects.

Here is an exaggerated example of how they make statin side effects seem minor. Muscle problems are very common with these drugs, since they interfere with some essential life processes. But the research reports can say only a very small percentage of patients experience them. Here's how:

Muscle weakness in arms: 2%
Muscle weakness in left leg: 2%
Muscle weakness in right leg: 2%
Muscle weakness in upper back: 2%
Muscle weakness in lower back: 2%
Muscle pain in right leg: 2%
Muscle pain in upper back: 2%
Muscle pain in lower back: 2%
Muscle pain in big toe: 2%
Muscle pain in fingers: 2%


Well, you get the point. If 20% of patients are experiencing muscle pain or weakness, the drug company can still say each side effect occurred in only 2% of patients.

And they don't know how many patients get muscle problems after taking statins for many years, or for decades. They are prescribed for life, but long term damage is not known. And, of course, all those aches and pains are blamed on normal aging.

Lots of other problems with statins. And they are striving to get almost all adults over 50 to take them.
 
There is some degree of truth to the idea that the rest of the world benefits from the innovation that is enabled by U.S. approach to Big Pharma. The best innovation is going to come from whatever place there is the strongest profit incentive to make the gigantic investment in developing and testing a drug (before it can even be taken to market). If there is no ability to make a profit, then no private sector entity is going to take on the enormous cost and risk without the upside.

Typically the anti-corporate ideologues will step in to point out that the reason the same drugs are cheaper abroad is because of price controls in effect in those countries, as an apparent suggestion that if the US simply imposed its own similar cost controls, all our Big Pharma problems would be solved. But that is a very basic thinking error that (as usual) assumes zero real world consequence to constricting or cutting off revenue streams to entire industries. If global drug innovation is disproportionately reliant on U.S. consumers as its financing mechanism, then choking off that mechanism fundamentally alters the risk/benefit equation for investing in new drug innovations.

On the other hand, pharmaceuticals involve patent rights, which are government-approved monopolies, and pharmaceuticals are considered health care, which is widely considered a public good (mostly). A price-unregulated private monopoly over a public good is always, always going be perceived as highly problematic. And at its core, that's what we have, global innovation in this industry is being funded by corporate monopoly power over a (mostly) public good.

I think this is a quintessential conundrum that requires a high level of understanding and intellectual maturity to really grasp. I'm not an expert in this particular area but I at least am able to set aside the dogmatic ideology. The intellectually lazy are always going to pick sides and selectively consider only what supports their attitude. E.g., posts #2 and #3.
 
Neomalthusian said:
There is some degree of truth to the idea that the rest of the world benefits from the innovation that is enabled by U.S. approach to Big Pharma. The best innovation is going to come from whatever place there is the strongest profit incentive to make the gigantic investment in developing and testing a drug (before it can even be taken to market). If there is no ability to make a profit, then no private sector entity is going to take on the enormous cost and risk without the upside.

Typically the anti-corporate ideologues will step in to point out that the reason the same drugs are cheaper abroad is because of price controls in effect in those countries, as an apparent suggestion that if the US simply imposed its own similar cost controls, all our Big Pharma problems would be solved. But that is a very basic thinking error that (as usual) assumes zero real world consequence to constricting or cutting off revenue streams to entire industries. If global drug innovation is disproportionately reliant on U.S. consumers as its financing mechanism, then choking off that mechanism fundamentally alters the risk/benefit equation for investing in new drug innovations.

On the other hand, pharmaceuticals involve patent rights, which are government-approved monopolies, and pharmaceuticals are considered health care, which is widely considered a public good (mostly). A price-unregulated private monopoly over a public good is always, always going be perceived as highly problematic. And at its core, that's what we have, global innovation in this industry is being funded by corporate monopoly power over a (mostly) public good.

I think this is a quintessential conundrum that requires a high level of understanding and intellectual maturity to really grasp. I'm not an expert in this particular area but I at least am able to set aside the dogmatic ideology. The intellectually lazy are always going to pick sides and selectively consider only what supports their attitude. E.g., posts #2 and #3.
Click to expand...

That is not what my original post was about. I understand that drug companies need to make money, and they need to do research. I am talking about the deception that is going on. Deceptive research and deceptive marketing, mainstream news repeating the deception.
 
Good4Nothin said:
That is not what my original post was about. I understand that drug companies need to make money, and they need to do research. I am talking about the deception that is going on. Deceptive research and deceptive marketing, mainstream news repeating the deception.
Click to expand...

I realize I deviated a bit from what you were talking about.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I think the big drug companies are dominating healthcare in the US, and this could be one reason we are in a health crisis. Medical professionals, the media, and the public, have all been convinced that drugs are necessary for health, and almost everyone should be on one or more of them.

In many cases, the drugs are an unnecessary expense. But more importantly, they are more likely to cause disease than cure it.

The medical industry tells us that our lives are longer and healthier than ever before. They say that we are having epidemics of serious diseases, such as dementia and cancer, mainly because they are diseases of aging, and more people are living to old age.

That statement is not easy to confirm or deny, and most people simply accept it.

It is just as likely -- much more likely I think -- that diseases supposedly cause by age are actually caused by unhealthy lifestyles, environmental toxins (in food, air and water), and longterm use of multiple prescription drugs.

It's a fact that a lot of drug research is deceptive. MDs don't have time to read all the research carefully, so they believe the claims of safety and effectiveness, even if not actually supported by the data.

Faith in drugs can also cause MDs and their patients to undervalue lifestyle in preventing disease. So-called diseases of aging are more likely the result of decades of an unhealthy lifestyle. It adds up, so it is more likely to cause disease in the old than in the young.

We know there is an obesity epidemic, and we know that obesity is a factor in the major "age-related" diseases. And we know that the answer to obesity is lifestyle, not drugs. Unfortunately, however, MDs very often give their patients bad advice about nutrition and exercise.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure where to start.... virtually everything in your post is wrong.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Yes, psychiatric drugs for children is one of the worst things the drug companies are doing now. No one knows the long term effects, even for adults. But a child's brain is developing, so it could be much worse.

In general, interactions between drugs and long term adverse effects are not known, for the commonly prescribed drugs.

Cholesterol lowering drugs are another big problem, which I have read a lot about recently. The research is intentionally deceptive, making tiny benefits look huge, for example, and minimizing adverse effects.

Here is an exaggerated example of how they make statin side effects seem minor. Muscle problems are very common with these drugs, since they interfere with some essential life processes. But the research reports can say only a very small percentage of patients experience them. Here's how:

Muscle weakness in arms: 2%
Muscle weakness in left leg: 2%
Muscle weakness in right leg: 2%
Muscle weakness in upper back: 2%
Muscle weakness in lower back: 2%
Muscle pain in right leg: 2%
Muscle pain in upper back: 2%
Muscle pain in lower back: 2%
Muscle pain in big toe: 2%
Muscle pain in fingers: 2%


Well, you get the point. If 20% of patients are experiencing muscle pain or weakness, the drug company can still say each side effect occurred in only 2% of patients.

And they don't know how many patients get muscle problems after taking statins for many years, or for decades. They are prescribed for life, but long term damage is not known. And, of course, all those aches and pains are blamed on normal aging.

Lots of other problems with statins. And they are striving to get almost all adults over 50 to take them.
Click to expand...

Again... this is almost all wrong.

I’ve been working with statins for 30 years, and been involved in a lot of the research for decades.

Statin benefits are tremendous, especially on a population scale, and well tolerated by over 90% of patients. We DO know about the long term effects of these drugs... like I said, they’ve been used for decades and we even have 20 year data for some, which is really outstanding, to tell you the truth.

Legacy effect of statins: 20-year follow up of the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS)

What we should be doing is striving for even younger patients to take them.... the legacy effects and disease modifying effects look very, very real.

Cardiovascular disease is a normal process in humans and virtually everyone in their 70s will develop it to some degree. Statins are a drug that literally may be the best bet for delaying that inevitable progression with an amazing safety profile.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again... this is almost all wrong.

I’ve been working with statins for 30 years, and been involved in a lot of the research for decades.

Statin benefits are tremendous, especially on a population scale, and well tolerated by over 90% of patients. We DO know about the long term effects of these drugs... like I said, they’ve been used for decades and we even have 20 year data for some, which is really outstanding, to tell you the truth.

Legacy effect of statins: 20-year follow up of the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS)

What we should be doing is striving for even younger patients to take them.... the legacy effects and disease modifying effects look very, very real.

Cardiovascular disease is a normal process in humans and virtually everyone in their 70s will develop it to some degree. Statins are a drug that literally may be the best bet for delaying that inevitable progression with an amazing safety profile.
Click to expand...

Your comment is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT GARBAGE.

You are obviously a PR person for a drug company. Brainwashed. Dangerous.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Your comment is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT GARBAGE.

You are obviously a PR person for a drug company. Brainwashed. Dangerous.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you know (which, given your posts, is a damn likely possibility), but statins are no longer branded drugs.

In fact, the generic competition with these drugs makes them incredibly low cost these days- to the point where pharmacies and insurance companies literally give them out for free.
 
Statin drugs have been shown to have a small benefit for patients who have already had a heart attack. They might have a tiny benefit for primary prevention. They are really only necessary for people whose cholesterol is extremely high because of genetic defects -- but that is less than one percent of the population.

The benefits of statins are reported as relative risk reduction, which can make a very small benefit seem impressive. For example, let's say they reduce the risk of a heart attack in healthy people from 2% to 1% -- that is a one percent absolute reduction, but a fifty percent relative reduction. That is one way the public is deceived.

Statin drugs interfere with some critical life processes, and therefore side effects are common, especially involving the muscles. Doctors should encourage their patients to exercise, but drugs that cause muscle pain and weakness make exercise difficult. Some degree of muscle problems are NOT rare side effects of statins, they are very common.

In addition, high cholesterol has not been shown to be a major cause of heart disease, except in those patients whose cholesterol is extremely high because of genetic defects (a small minority of the general population). The major cause of heart disease is type 2 diabetes, which causes chronic inflammation. And guess what -- statins increase the risk of diabetes.

And furthermore -- cholesterol is something every cell of the body needs, especially the brain. It has all kinds of essential functions. Keeping cholesterol very low in healthy people is INSANE.

Ok, maybe the drug companies no longer make huge profits from statins. Maybe the medical industry is trying to get almost everyone over 50 on statins because they sincerely want to help. But it is still INSANE.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Statin drugs have been shown to have a small benefit for patients who have already had a heart attack. They might have a tiny benefit for primary prevention. They are really only necessary for people whose cholesterol is extremely high because of genetic defects -- but that is less than one percent of the population.

The benefits of statins are reported as relative risk reduction, which can make a very small benefit seem impressive. For example, let's say they reduce the risk of a heart attack in healthy people from 2% to 1% -- that is a one percent absolute reduction, but a fifty percent relative reduction. That is one way the public is deceived.

Statin drugs interfere with some critical life processes, and therefore side effects are common, especially involving the muscles. Doctors should encourage their patients to exercise, but drugs that cause muscle pain and weakness make exercise difficult. Some degree of muscle problems are NOT rare side effects of statins, they are very common.

In addition, high cholesterol has not been shown to be a major cause of heart disease, except in those patients whose cholesterol is extremely high because of genetic defects (a small minority of the general population). The major cause of heart disease is type 2 diabetes, which causes chronic inflammation. And guess what -- statins increase the risk of diabetes.

And furthermore -- cholesterol is something every cell of the body needs, especially the brain. It has all kinds of essential functions. Keeping cholesterol very low in healthy people is INSANE.

Ok, maybe the drug companies no longer make huge profits from statins. Maybe the medical industry is trying to get almost everyone over 50 on statins because they sincerely want to help. But it is still INSANE.
Click to expand...

LOL.

You pack more misinformation in one post than anyone I know.

The absolute risk reduction of 1% in PP and 2% in secondary prevention is HUGE. That’s additive... so a decade on a statin reduces CV events by 10-20%... two decades 20-40%.

Relative risk reduction isn’t ‘decieving’ anyone who isn’t an idiot.

The impact on public health is huge, as has been pointed out above, especially combined with BP reduction and better diabetes control among other things.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

You pack more misinformation in one post than anyone I know.

The absolute risk reduction of 1% in PP and 2% in secondary prevention is HUGE. That’s additive... so a decade on a statin reduces CV events by 10-20%... two decades 20-40%.

Relative risk reduction isn’t ‘decieving’ anyone who isn’t an idiot.

The impact on public health is huge, as has been pointed out above, especially combined with BP reduction and better diabetes control among other things.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer most of what I said. And no, a one percent absolute risk reduction is NOT huge! It is NOT worth the increased risk of diabetes, which is the MAJOR CAUSE of heart disease. NOT cholesterol!

And relative risk reduction is deceiving almost everyone! News reports are saying that statins decrease heart attacks by 40 or 50%, and they do NOT explain that it's relative, not absolute.

And side effects are downplayed. All those aches and pains, and all that tiredness and weakness, is blamed on normal aging and never reported.

And what about the long term side effects, since these drugs are prescribed for life? No one knows.

The medical industry has the public convinced that putting artificial chemicals into their bodies, every day, for a lifetime, improves health. No, that is BS.

Why do we have an epidemic of dementia in older adults? No one knows. I'm sure you think it's because drugs are giving us longer healthier lives. That is a dangerous lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom