Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bottom line: Most chronic illnesses are technically solvable, but in the current context there is no motivation to solve them. In fact, the strong motivation is to just keep doing what we are doing because a lot of people are making a lot of money, and hardly anyone makes any money if the problem is solved.
This where we disagree. The people you accuse of lack of motivation (and their families) have the same chronic illnesses as everyone else. They are motivated to find solutions.
If problems get solved, there will always be new people with those problems to treat and new problems to solve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790
No, I'm with renee63 on this: two people sniping at each other with this endless back and forht is tiresome. I just past those posts by.
Just dropping in and reading some recent postings. I didn't die but I thought I was going to due to a staph infection the brilliant doctors didn't find until over 3 months of it raging in my knee. I thought of all ways to end my life....finally they did an MRI and there it was .... long miserable story and 4.5 months in hospitals/rehabs. I'm home now and use a walker most of the time and can walk a little without it.
My 68 yr old sister died while I was in first rehab from a long battle with MS. I had her come to Calif to talk to a nutritionist who had MS herself and did a good job curing herself. My sister went back to East Coast and went back to her old habits of sugars/carbs and taking the drug after drug from her NYC specialists...they kept telling her the drugs would SLOW THE PROGRESSION of MS. To the contrary, I believe they advanced the disease. I brought some alternatives to her attention like LDN which some on some MS groups use and she didn't "hear me"..
She was aware of the Vit D connection as she brought that to my attention and found how deficient I was...I'm not now as I supplement daily.
The doctors had her hanging onto Stem Cells were going to save her. Nope.
I know the industry made staggering thousands on her disease. RIP dear Barb.
A personal alternative health tip: Pycnogenol and/or Grape Seed Extract has done wonders for my overall health for 22+ yrs. Threw away allergy drugs in 1995.
We were told these "may" prevent cancer(s) and I'm banking on that...many cancer research groups are now using these in their research.
Just dropping in and reading some recent postings. I didn't die but I thought I was going to due to a staph infection the brilliant doctors didn't find until over 3 months of it raging in my knee. I thought of all ways to end my life....finally they did an MRI and there it was .... long miserable story and 4.5 months in hospitals/rehabs. I'm home now and use a walker most of the time and can walk a little without it.
My 68 yr old sister died while I was in first rehab from a long battle with MS. I had her come to Calif to talk to a nutritionist who had MS herself and did a good job curing herself. My sister went back to East Coast and went back to her old habits of sugars/carbs and taking the drug after drug from her NYC specialists...they kept telling her the drugs would SLOW THE PROGRESSION of MS. To the contrary, I believe they advanced the disease. I brought some alternatives to her attention like LDN which some on some MS groups use and she didn't "hear me"..
She was aware of the Vit D connection as she brought that to my attention and found how deficient I was...I'm not now as I supplement daily.
The doctors had her hanging onto Stem Cells were going to save her. Nope.
I know the industry made staggering thousands on her disease. RIP dear Barb.
A personal alternative health tip: Pycnogenol and/or Grape Seed Extract has done wonders for my overall health for 22+ yrs. Threw away allergy drugs in 1995.
We were told these "may" prevent cancer(s) and I'm banking on that...many cancer research groups are now using these in their research.
I am sorry for the loss of your sister, but she had a bad disease for which modern medicine has no miraculous cure. The nature of the condition is for symptoms to remit and relapse but the disease never goes away. That nutritionist may have gone into remission - which sometimes may last many years - but she did not cure herself. The drugs may have failed to slow the progression of your sister's disease but it is unlikely they made it worse. If you are going to allege that they did you need to back up your claims with evidence.
I wonder how many people throw away the "Pycnogenol and/or Grape Seed Extract" because it does not live up to the hype?
You cannot be sure your pycnogenol or grape seed extract sold in the US even contains what the label says it does.
This where we disagree. The people you accuse of lack of motivation (and their families) have the same chronic illnesses as everyone else. They are motivated to find solutions.
I might agree, but there are some fairly clear examples of how economic and other personal motivations (politics, etc.) contribute to "cognitive blindness" (making it hard to think creatively and/or simply see what is really going on) and may, in some cases, cause something close to flat-out conspiracy. Tobacco is a classic example that is fairly well documented. Safety issues with consumer products (e.g., flawed designs in cars, etc.), and the actions of shady executives at Bayer provide a few examples of what can happen when profits conflict with public health.
But, mostly, the problem is that some things are not easy to figure out. Scientific studies need to be done to understand connections, and in some cases where entire industries could be threatened by the results, the studies just conveniently don't get done, or don't become widely known.
One example I happen to know a bit about: There are extremely good reasons to think that the whole push since the 1970s against high-fat, high-cholesterol diets is misguided and has actually done more harm than good because it led to a major portion of the food industry that produces "low-fat" products that essentially replace the fat with carbs, chemicals, and extra processing, all of which makes the food worse rather than better, which is especially bad considering that the supposed evidence in favor of the fat/cholesterol hypothesis was never very good to begin with. I'm pretty sure there was no conscious conspiracy to make this happen, but once the low-fat industry got going, it built up an economic and public-perception momentum that has continues to carry if forward even today, despite lots of evidence that it is a public health fiasco.
I might agree, but there are some fairly clear examples of how economic and other personal motivations (politics, etc.) contribute to "cognitive blindness" (making it hard to think creatively and/or simply see what is really going on) and may, in some cases, cause something close to flat-out conspiracy. Tobacco is a classic example that is fairly well documented. Safety issues with consumer products (e.g., flawed designs in cars, etc.), and the actions of shady executives at Bayer provide a few examples of what can happen when profits conflict with public health.
But, mostly, the problem is that some things are not easy to figure out. Scientific studies need to be done to understand connections, and in some cases where entire industries could be threatened by the results, the studies just conveniently don't get done, or don't become widely known.
One example I happen to know a bit about: There are extremely good reasons to think that the whole push since the 1970s against high-fat, high-cholesterol diets is misguided and has actually done more harm than good because it led to a major portion of the food industry that produces "low-fat" products that essentially replace the fat with carbs, chemicals, and extra processing, all of which makes the food worse rather than better, which is especially bad considering that the supposed evidence in favor of the fat/cholesterol hypothesis was never very good to begin with. I'm pretty sure there was no conscious conspiracy to make this happen, but once the low-fat industry got going, it built up an economic and public-perception momentum that has continues to carry if forward even today, despite lots of evidence that it is a public health fiasco.
You are being far too charitable to the industrial kyriarchy. The people that decide how much funding should go to medical research don't care about sick people. End of story.
All they want to do is get people on medication that covers up the symptoms but does not actually eliminate the disease itself. And of course, this approach can be very problematic, because it leads to patients being dependent on drugs. Drugs that can have dangerous side effects, interactions, and with uncertain future out-of-pocket costs, leaving the patient with big question marks in their head over their financial futures and essentially no ability to engage in estate planning in some cases due to the Medicaid look back period.
If the kyriarchs were as upset about prescription drugs as they are about illegal drugs, maybe something could be done. But the way things are now, if a drug makes money for the drug companies and their lobbyists, then it is a good drug. But if it doesn't, it's an excuse for sending someone to prison and ruining their life.
We should recognize that prescription drugs can be just as dangerous as illegal drugs, and we should put more funding towards curative treatments, and less towards mass incarceration of people who use drugs that don't fatten the pockets of the kyriarchs.
You are being far too charitable to the industrial kyriarchy. The people that decide how much funding should go to medical research don't care about sick people. End of story.
All they want to do is get people on medication that covers up the symptoms but does not actually eliminate the disease itself. And of course, this approach can be very problematic, because it leads to patients being dependent on drugs. Drugs that can have dangerous side effects, interactions, and with uncertain future out-of-pocket costs, leaving the patient with big question marks in their head over their financial futures and essentially no ability to engage in estate planning in some cases due to the Medicaid look back period.
If the kyriarchs were as upset about prescription drugs as they are about illegal drugs, maybe something could be done. But the way things are now, if a drug makes money for the drug companies and their lobbyists, then it is a good drug. But if it doesn't, it's an excuse for sending someone to prison and ruining their life.
We should recognize that prescription drugs can be just as dangerous as illegal drugs, and we should put more funding towards curative treatments, and less towards mass incarceration of people who use drugs that don't fatten the pockets of the kyriarchs.
Certainly drug companies are businesses that only exist to make money...THAT is the definition of a business. We seem to laud other types of companies that make money, but anyway...
Drugs have to be approved by the FDA and they have to not just "cover up symptoms":
For regular approval, it is critical that the applicant show direct evidence of clinical benefit or
improvement in an established surrogate for clinical benefit. In oncology, survival improvement
is considered an appropriate measure of clinical benefit. In addition, sponsors have used other
endpoints for cancer drug approval. In the 1970s, the FDA usually approved cancer drugs based
on objective response rate (ORR), determined by tumor assessments from radiological tests or
physical examinations. In the early 1980s, after discussion with the ODAC, the FDA determined
that cancer drug approval should be based on more direct evidence of clinical benefit, such as
improvement in survival, improvement in a patient’s quality of life (QOL), improved physical
functioning, or improved tumor-related symptoms.
Right - they have to show direct evidence of clinical benefit such as improvement in survival, quality of life etc. The drug companies don't just get to pick and choose how they measure "improvement". https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../UCM071590.pdf
You can argue that the FDA is biased but that is another topic. Standards do exist not only in terms of how improvement is defined and measured but how much is necessary to be considered clinically substantial.
Certainly drug companies are businesses that only exist to make money...THAT is the definition of a business. We seem to laud other types of companies that make money, but anyway...
Drugs have to be approved by the FDA and they have to not just "cover up symptoms":
For regular approval, it is critical that the applicant show direct evidence of clinical benefit or
improvement in an established surrogate for clinical benefit. In oncology, survival improvement
is considered an appropriate measure of clinical benefit. In addition, sponsors have used other
endpoints for cancer drug approval. In the 1970s, the FDA usually approved cancer drugs based
on objective response rate (ORR), determined by tumor assessments from radiological tests or
physical examinations. In the early 1980s, after discussion with the ODAC, the FDA determined
that cancer drug approval should be based on more direct evidence of clinical benefit, such as
improvement in survival, improvement in a patient’s quality of life (QOL), improved physical
functioning, or improved tumor-related symptoms.
Right - they have to show direct evidence of clinical benefit such as improvement in survival, quality of life etc. The drug companies don't just get to pick and choose how they measure "improvement". https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../UCM071590.pdf
You can argue that the FDA is biased but that is another topic. Standards do exist not only in terms of how improvement is defined and measured but how much is necessary to be considered clinically substantial.
Ok, I generalized too much perhaps. I should have noted that cancer drugs are an exception. However, consider by contrast, medications for pain, seizures, high blood pressure, migraines.
I might agree, but there are some fairly clear examples of how economic and other personal motivations (politics, etc.) contribute to "cognitive blindness" (making it hard to think creatively and/or simply see what is really going on) and may, in some cases, cause something close to flat-out conspiracy. Tobacco is a classic example that is fairly well documented. Safety issues with consumer products (e.g., flawed designs in cars, etc.), and the actions of shady executives at Bayer provide a few examples of what can happen when profits conflict with public health.
But, mostly, the problem is that some things are not easy to figure out. Scientific studies need to be done to understand connections, and in some cases where entire industries could be threatened by the results, the studies just conveniently don't get done, or don't become widely known.
One example I happen to know a bit about: There are extremely good reasons to think that the whole push since the 1970s against high-fat, high-cholesterol diets is misguided and has actually done more harm than good because it led to a major portion of the food industry that produces "low-fat" products that essentially replace the fat with carbs, chemicals, and extra processing, all of which makes the food worse rather than better, which is especially bad considering that the supposed evidence in favor of the fat/cholesterol hypothesis was never very good to begin with. I'm pretty sure there was no conscious conspiracy to make this happen, but once the low-fat industry got going, it built up an economic and public-perception momentum that has continues to carry if forward even today, despite lots of evidence that it is a public health fiasco.
The regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is far different from that of consumer goods. The studies are done and many of those done postmarketing are not funded by industry. The authors of every study have to disclose potential conflicts of interest, and such a conflict is a definite problem if not disclosed. However, each study should be evaluated on its merits. Potential conflicts need not result in bias in study results.
The recommendation to reduce fat in the diet never included a recommendation to eat more sugar. Two diets that are commonly suggested today are the DASH and Mediterranean plans, which are heavy on vegetables and include avoiding trans fat. Food manufacturers want to sell more products and to do so they have to make them tasty. The current obesity fiasco is primarily due to overconsumption, and sugar is a big part of that. No medical authority has ever said to replace fat with sugar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
You are being far too charitable to the industrial kyriarchy. The people that decide how much funding should go to medical research don't care about sick people. End of story.
All they want to do is get people on medication that covers up the symptoms but does not actually eliminate the disease itself. And of course, this approach can be very problematic, because it leads to patients being dependent on drugs. Drugs that can have dangerous side effects, interactions, and with uncertain future out-of-pocket costs, leaving the patient with big question marks in their head over their financial futures and essentially no ability to engage in estate planning in some cases due to the Medicaid look back period.
If the kyriarchs were as upset about prescription drugs as they are about illegal drugs, maybe something could be done. But the way things are now, if a drug makes money for the drug companies and their lobbyists, then it is a good drug. But if it doesn't, it's an excuse for sending someone to prison and ruining their life.
We should recognize that prescription drugs can be just as dangerous as illegal drugs, and we should put more funding towards curative treatments, and less towards mass incarceration of people who use drugs that don't fatten the pockets of the kyriarchs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
Ok, I generalized too much perhaps. I should have noted that cancer drugs are an exception. However, consider by contrast, medications for pain, seizures, high blood pressure, migraines.
The people who decide how much funding goes to medical research get sick, too. Do they not care about themselves?
They are not just trying to "get people on medication that covers up the symptoms but does not actually eliminate the disease itself." Plenty of people are working on cures. To develop a cure you have to know a cause. Until cures are developed, it is necessary to control the disease, such as hypertension, even if you cannot cure it. Speaking of hypertension, the cause is not known for the majority of people. For some it is secondary to another condition (including obesity); treat that and the high blood pressure goes away. It may be that a cause is someday found for "essential" hypertension, but curing that cause may be difficult and riskier than just treating the symptom: elevated blood pressure. We do have effective medications that do that.
Pharmaceuticals have nothing to do with the "Medicaid look back period." That applies to folks who anticipate needing Medicaid for nursing home care. What medications they are on will not make any difference, especially since most nursing home residents will be on Medicare and can get medications covered.
The vast majority of prescription drugs do not cause dependency. Drug companies have nothing to do with "mass incarceration" of those who use street drugs. Talk to your lawmakers about that.
I am sorry for the loss of your sister, but she had a bad disease for which modern medicine has no miraculous cure. The nature of the condition is for symptoms to remit and relapse but the disease never goes away. That nutritionist may have gone into remission - which sometimes may last many years - but she did not cure herself. The drugs may have failed to slow the progression of your sister's disease but it is unlikely they made it worse. If you are going to allege that they did you need to back up your claims with evidence.
I wonder how many people throw away the "Pycnogenol and/or Grape Seed Extract" because it does not live up to the hype?
You cannot be sure your pycnogenol or grape seed extract sold in the US even contains what the label says it does.
We can't be SURE of anything, this includes all the flack you spout. Just throwing away allergy/sinus drugs has been BIG enough for me. Those who want to be slaves to the conventional drugs, I say let them, pharma needs them.
Re: my sister who knows she may still be alive if she hadn't been pushed on the gross amount of drugs from the docs she trusted and kept hanging on for stem cells as they kept telling her. But she did it her way and her doctors and sadly not open to alternative adjuncts and there are many to the horrible MS. I know others MS and test a lot of waters for their disease.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
