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.
During trials, they find out that the drug being tested affects a group of symptoms. Then they group the symptoms under a condition and name the condition.
Then they market the drug to people who have the "condition."
It absolutely happens. PCOS is one.
And according to my sister's doctor, her husband caused her shingles when he got the vaccine.
You cannot "catch" shingles from contact with someone who has taken either the shingles vaccine or the chickenpox vaccine. You get shingles because you have already been infected with the chickenpox virus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
Is it? I guess each of us can post sites saying how much money is spent on research Vs finding a cure, into we're blue in the face. I can't see drug companies wanting to find a cure for diseases like cancer,etc.
There is just too much money in the treatments for it we spend billions on our military but not enough finding a cure for these diseases. Even more considering how much money drug companies spend on lobbyist every year.
Why would there not be money in cures for anything? There will always be new cases of the disease that need to be cured unless the cure could completely eliminate the disease. Vaccines do not cure diseases, they prevent them, but it is possible to eliminate some diseases for which we have vaccines. Smallpox has been totally eradicated and polio is on the way out, for example. No one in the world routinely vaccinates against smallpox now. That vaccine market is gone. When polio is eradicated we can stop using polio vaccine, too.
The people who run drug companies get the same diseases as everyone else. They want cures as much as the rest of us do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
During trials, they find out that the drug being tested affects a group of symptoms.
Then they group the symptoms under a condition and name the condition.
Then they market the drug to people who have the "condition."
It absolutely happens. PCOS is one.
How is that "group of symptoms" chosen if the "condition" was not already known? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
There is no single drug "marketed" for PCOS. Different drugs are used to treat different features of the syndrome. PCOS was originally called Stein-Leventhal syndrome, after the people who first described it - in 1935. Effective treatments did not come along until the advent of oral contraceptives, then other medications. It was found that treating the associated glucose intolerance could help PCOS patients ovulate and get pregnant. No one invented PCOS in order to sell drugs.
[I see 2sleepy beat me to this one]
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
No. They drugs being tested do NOT have to be better than anything on the market. They only have to be better than placebo.
And then with a great marketing plan, tons of CME activities to get doctors on board, the crappy drug becomes a huge success, to the detriment of the patients.
There are #metoo drugs. They are called biosimilars.
Drugs being tested for conditions for which there is already an effective treatment have to be shown to be equivalent to or superior to the existing treatment, not a placebo. Using a placebo would be unethical in such a case because it would deprive trial participants of a known treatment that works.
I do not know anyone who would continue using any drug that was not helping them, and doctors would not continue prescribing them.
As far as "me too" drugs are concerned, I would think that having multiple sources of the same or similar drugs would be beneficial by fostering competition and lowering prices.
You cannot "catch" shingles from contact with someone who has taken either the shingles vaccine or the chickenpox vaccine. You get shingles because you have already been infected with the chickenpox virus.
Why would there not be money in cures for anything? There will always be new cases of the disease that need to be cured unless the cure could completely eliminate the disease. Vaccines do not cure diseases, they prevent them, but it is possible to eliminate some diseases for which we have vaccines. Smallpox has been totally eradicated and polio is on the way out, for example. No one in the world routinely vaccinates against smallpox now. That vaccine market is gone. When polio is eradicated we can stop using polio vaccine, too.
The people who run drug companies get the same diseases as everyone else. They want cures as much as the rest of us do.
How is that "group of symptoms" chosen if the "condition" was not already known? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
There is no single drug "marketed" for PCOS. Different drugs are used to treat different features of the syndrome. PCOS was originally called Stein-Leventhal syndrome, after the people who first described it - in 1935. Effective treatments did not come along until the advent of oral contraceptives, then other medications. It was found that treating the associated glucose intolerance could help PCOS patients ovulate and get pregnant. No one invented PCOS in order to sell drugs.
Drugs being tested for conditions for which there is already an effective treatment have to be shown to be equivalent to or superior to the existing treatment, not a placebo. Using a placebo would be unethical in such a case because it would deprive trial participants of a known treatment that works.
I do not know anyone who would continue using any drug that was not helping them, and doctors would not continue prescribing them.
As far as "me too" drugs are concerned, I would think that having multiple sources of the same or similar drugs would be beneficial by fostering competition and lowering prices.
Hey, this drug seems to improve this symptoms or causes these adverse effects. Let's combine them into a condition and market the drug to address the condition.
Pretty simple.
And if you are pretending you are not aware of this, any credibility that you have is gone. And mean GONE. If you are knowledgeable about pharma as you pretend to be, you would already know this as fact.
It happens.
What also happens? A primary drug causes adverse effects. Secondary drug is marked specifically to the population to treat the adverse effects. And if you deny THAT happens, you have confirmed every suspicion I have regarding your intentions posting here.
Hey, this drug seems to improve this symptoms or causes these adverse effects. Let's combine them into a condition and market the drug to address the condition.
Pretty simple.
And if you are pretending you are not aware of this, any credibility that you have is gone. And mean GONE. If you are knowledgeable about pharma as you pretend to be, you would already know this as fact.
It happens.
What also happens? A primary drug causes adverse effects. Secondary drug is marked specifically to the population to treat the adverse effects. And if you deny THAT happens, you have confirmed every suspicion I have regarding your intentions posting here.
Please give an example of "this drug". Your use of PCOS has already been shot down.
Thank you.
Yes, sometimes a second drug is used to counteract an adverse effect of another. An example would be misoprostol for people who need anti-inflammatory medication for arthritis, to reduce the risk of GI bleeding. The goal is to allow the patient to get pain relief more safely. How is that a bad thing?
My "intention" in posting here is to counter misinformation (such as what you said about treatment of PCOS) and pseudoscience.
You are welcome to your "suspicions" but they are not true, no matter how many times you repeat them.
I've had this theory for years on the chol and statin drugs -- which was invented first.
My folks lived into their 90's and chol and statins for sure were not even a word in their vocabulary.
And why more dementia than ever -- more statins.
When will it end, probably never, as long as the masses continue to be the sheepole.
Adding to my own posting here.
For the last 15 yrs or so I've been seeing ONLY integrative MD's and their main thrust has been testing homocysteine levels and not that concerned about the cholesterol/statin twins. The money being made from this cholesterol fraud (MAYBE)....I don't know anything for sure and no one does. But others are doing other work to look into the heart disease causes.
How many here have MD's who have looked at homocysteine?
Why are there so many papers and BOOKS written about the cholesterol myth? Just a bunch of writers with nothing to do but make up info and write books on the "myth"?
BTW: I never heard of the word cholesterol until about 25 yrs ago and I'm 80 very soon.
Nor did my parents lives and they lived into 90's and ate everything and no statin drugs. Their hearts would not stop when they were so ready to leave this planet.
Think about it folks all you who live in fear of cholesterol...remember our brains need it and the statins are depriving our brains of good fats.
I can see it where it’s become common practice to vaccinate every baby at birth for Hep B, something that is mostly transmitted via sharing needles and via unprotected sex. Hep B was not something that parents of infants or young children used to worry about but now that there is a vaccine, the fear is up.
I also see it in the marketing of the HPV vaccine. Most people will get HPV at one point or another during their lives and most people’s immune systems will clear the virus from the body without any intervention. Most women who get regular Pap smears will catch any changes caused by HPV early enough to treat, prior to it turning cancerous. Most people who get HPV associated cancers also have contributing risk factors such as smoking and drinking alcohol. Prior to the vaccine, there was not a huge fear over this but now that there is a vaccine, the fear is escalating. There are ad campaigns including commercials that utilize parental guilt in order to convince parents to get this vaccine.
Same for the flu vaccine. Same for the chicken pox vaccine. What used to not be a big deal, suddenly becomes a big deal when a drug is made and is available for marketing. Disease Mongering at it’s finest. I’m sure we’ll see some examples of it in response to this post by hobbyists or paid lobbyists, not sure which.
Last edited by MissTerri; 07-12-2018 at 12:47 PM..
For the last 15 yrs or so I've been seeing ONLY integrative MD's and their main thrust has been testing homocysteine levels and not that concerned about the cholesterol/statin twins. The money being made from this cholesterol fraud (MAYBE)....I don't know anything for sure and no one does. But others are doing other work to look into the heart disease causes.
How many here have MD's who have looked at homocysteine?
Why are there so many papers and BOOKS written about the cholesterol myth? Just a bunch of writers with nothing to do but make up info and write books on the "myth"?
BTW: I never heard of the word cholesterol until about 25 yrs ago and I'm 80 very soon.
Nor did my parents lives and they lived into 90's and ate everything and no statin drugs. Their hearts would not stop when they were so ready to leave this planet.
Think about it folks all you who live in fear of cholesterol...remember our brains need it and the statins are depriving our brains of good fats.
Homocysteine has been "looked at" extensively.
There is no evidence that lowering it will help prevent cardiovascular disease.
All those book writers hope to make money from their books.
When you first heard about cholesterol and what your parents knew about it are irrelevant and do not prove that what the lipid experts say about cholesterol is wrong. The only thing your family anecdotes tell us is that apparently you have good genes that protect you against heart disease. Many folks are not so lucky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Another term for this is “disease mongering”.
I can see in instances where it’s become common practice to vaccinate every baby at birth for Hep B, something that is mostly transmitted via sharing needles and via unprotected sex.
I also see it in the marketing of the HPV vaccine. Most people will get HPV at one point or another during their lives and most people’s immune systems will clear the virus from the body without any intervention. Most women who get regular Pap smears will catch any changes caused by HPV early enough to treat, prior to it turning cancerous. Most people who get HPV associated cancers also have contributing risk factors such as smoking and drinking alcohol.
Same for the flu vaccine. Same for the chicken pox vaccine. What used to not be a big deal, suddenly becomes a big deal when a drug is made and is available for marketing. Disease Mongering at it’s finest. I’m sure we’ll see some examples of it in response to this post by hobbyists or paid lobbyists, not sure which.
Most is not all.
The hepatitis B vaccine is given at birth because for children who become infected the source is often never determined. Infection in childhood increases the risk of becoming a chronic carrier and developing liver cancer. Hepatitis B can be transferred by any exposure to blood, not just needle sharing or sex.
Sure, most of us are infected with HPV and it's never a problem. For some who are infected with certain strains it can be a Very Big Problem. Cervical infections are not the only sites of concern. You have never explained to me how cervical Pap smears can help detect vulvar, anal, and throat cancers.
HPV infection may not be sufficient by itself and other cofactors may be involved, but it is necessary for the cancers with which it is associated. The vaccine is highly effective against the strains that cause most cervical cancer. Prevent those strains and you prevent the need for painful, expensive testing and treatment. Why wait for an abnormal Pap when the abnormal Pap can be prevented?
"Each year, more than 3.5 million cases of varicella, 9,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths are prevented by varicella vaccination in the United States."
Do not vaccinate if you do not want to. As far as the HPV vaccine is concerned, I suspect that in the future there are going to be some people with certain cancers who are very angry that their parents did not have them vaccinated.
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.
