CSN Login
Members Online: 9

The drugs don't work: a modern medical scandal

manwithnoname
Posts: 409
Joined: Jun 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/21/drugs-industry-scandal-ben-goldacre

After reading this and finding out the truth of chemo success rates recently (or lack of them) it's becoming clearer and clearer...

The system is flawed, and controlled by money, they are NOT interested in our health.

abackhou
Posts: 77
Joined: Jan 2012

Interesting article about these drugs we take. It does not surprise me about these drug companies doing little research on various drugs which may be prescribed to us unsuspecting patients. Our doctors are SO BUSY with heavy workloads and do not have enough time to learn enough about the drugs themselves, also while we are on that point, I do not have much faith in docs or oncologists when it comes down to it. Oncologists titles should be renamed to Toxic Chemotherapy Practioners TCP's. I rather trust my life with an experienced NURSE any day, at least they know about the drugs and other life and Side effects etc…

Andrew Backhouse

manwithnoname
Posts: 409
Joined: Jun 2012

I like it, we also have 'slash n burn' = surgeon and Onc. Our Onc. is a HUGE fan of radiation, and she's way too busy to ever answer the phone. (probably a good thing)

Take care Andy.

pete43lost_at_sea's picture
pete43lost_at_sea
Posts: 3915
Joined: Nov 2010

I never would have guessed.

interesting read.

hugs,
Pete

ps where did I learn my shotgun approach to supplements, from the drug companies shotgun approach to clinical trials.

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4691
Joined: May 2005

His TED talk was good too. He spoke of solutions which if only they would do could help things. I think the term he used was "professional bias" but I may be wrong (and can't watch the video right now) but ALL clinical trials should be listed, it shouldn't be cherry-picked.
Money Makes the World Go Around....

We can only hope we get doctors who try to do the right thing.
-p

coloCan
Posts: 1894
Joined: Oct 2009

newswise.com/articles/view/594132/?sc=dwhn

and two additional disturbing articles:

ironmagazine.com/blog/2012/fda-looking-to-ban-b6-supplements-give-boost-to-big-pharma/

ironmagazine.com/blog/2012/nearly-every-major-drug-company-convicted-of-criminal-behavior-in-three-year-11-billion-sweep/

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4691
Joined: May 2005

Bacon with peanut butter on toast (after anti-nausea medicine)
Yum!
I'd die smiling
:-)

coloCan
Posts: 1894
Joined: Oct 2009

emaxhealth.com/8782/five-new-hidden-hazard-supermarket-secrets-you-need-to-know

(and watch the brand of pb used as there's currently recalls)

tanstaafl's picture
tanstaafl
Posts: 1074
Joined: Oct 2010

It warms hearts to hear a "conventional convert" or "skeptic" that something really is wrong in pharma land. It would have been even more warming 10-12 years earlier.

I am wary of Ben Goldacre as potentially posturing for trojan horse policy changes and broader credibility with less familiar readers. From two previous areas of concern, I have my doubts: his previous attacks on alternative therapeutic nutrition where some of the bad or dangerous science might be his, and his potential "reforms" that might lead to dramatically increased prices of formerly cheap nutrients. Such incidents have already happened in the US to pyridoxamine, an FDA politicized vitamin B6 that disappeared in the US, which one might say that I subsequently had to go to the (other) end of the earth to get; L5MTHF, the healthy form, human active, natural folate; and even more so, Europe's Codex that disappeared many supplements in the most effective forms and sizes.

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4691
Joined: May 2005

It warms hearts to hear his skepticism about Big Pharm but you're concerned about his attacks on alternative therapeutic nutrition and reform that could increase the price of nutrients?
Just wondering why the distinction?
Isn't Bad Science/Bad Medicine BAD no matter if it's Big Pharm or Big Alternatives?
-phil

tanstaafl's picture
tanstaafl
Posts: 1074
Joined: Oct 2010

It is not a symmetric situation.

Many of the biologically alternatives with real merit have been relentlessly attacked with various poorly founded arguments, literally bad science, looking for a quick dismissal from everyone, including the doctors, regulators and politicians. Goldacre has previously participated in some of these pile-ons that I have contempt for technically.

Now 10-12 years later, after even the former editors of JAMA, NEJM and BMJ have pointed the pharma scandals out too, Goldacre suddenly gets religion and putative consistency, hops on a bandwagon that acknowledges some pharma sins on buried studies. But his criticism, in consideration with prior positions, reeks of "scientific solutions" or "reforms" that will actually aggravate the current problems with price and continued availability of, or access to, "unintended" bystanders like cheap off label generics and supplements. In reality, cheap gets targeted for removal or monopolization. "Chastised" pharma cries to the bank, again.

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4691
Joined: May 2005

Than Never

thxmiker's picture
thxmiker
Posts: 1283
Joined: Oct 2010

Face it if Blueberries and melon cured a disease there is zero money in that knowledge.

Best Always, mike

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4691
Joined: May 2005

The best way to avoid cancer is to not get it!

You heard it here first!
I bet blueberries would be even more expensive not to mention melons...

Subscribe with RSS
About Cancer Society

The content on this site is for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your condition. Use of this online service is subject to the disclaimer and the terms and conditions.

Copyright 2000-2015 © Cancer Survivors Network