Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Big Pharma Scores Big Win as medicinal Herbs Will Disappear in EU

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    sligopark wrote: »
    Next stop enforced public vaccination and medication

    political industrial co-operation

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYI-dC9G0us


  • Options
    #33
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    sligopark wrote: »
    Next stop enforced public vaccination and medication

    political industrial co-operation
    Never going to happen.

    Do remember that the WHO-based Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation, on which many of the heads of the pharmaceutical companies sit, recommended that the H1N1 be made mandatory yet it did not happen.


  • Options
    #34
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    gizmo wrote: »
    Never going to happen.

    Do remember that the WHO-based Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation, on which many of the heads of the pharmaceutical companies sit, recommended that the H1N1 be made mandatory yet it did not happen.

    The fact that they recommended it is troubling enough afaic.

    It's ludicrous that conflicts of interest are allowed to exist within the highest echelons of organisations like the WHO


  • Options
    #35
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    gizmo wrote: »
    Never going to happen.

    Do remember that the WHO-based Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation, on which many of the heads of the pharmaceutical companies sit, recommended that the H1N1 be made mandatory yet it did not happen.

    Maybe they will use some other method

    http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/978888/Swine-flu-vaccine-to-be-secretly-given-with-regular-flu-jab.html


  • Options
    #36
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    enno99 wrote: »
    Maybe they will use some other method

    http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/978888/Swine-flu-vaccine-to-be-secretly-given-with-regular-flu-jab.html


    Nobody is being forced to take the flu jab. Why would someone choose to get a flu jab to prevent the flu, but not want to be protected against swine flu? News of the World as usual sensationalising everything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    Nobody is being forced to take the flu jab. Why would someone choose to get a flu jab to prevent the flu, but not want to be protected against swine flu? News of the World as usual sensationalising everything.
    And of course they skip the relevant stat while "reporting"...
    "By March this year, that particular H1N1 vaccine had been given out 5.5million times and there have been no reported cases of narcolepsy in Britain."

    As for the recommendation URL, my main objection would be that the vaccination wasn't as thoroughly tested as others and as such shouldn't be forced on people. If there is a serious outbreak and people chose not to take it then they should at least have to sign a waiver saying they can't sue the government if they become infected. Unfortunately nothing would surprise me more than a bunch of people doing so claiming they hadn't been given enough information. :o

    As for the conflict of interest, well that's true but at the same time these people have risen up in the industry to get to those positions so they're still experts in the field. As long as they don't have anything close to a majority on a body which sets policy then I think it's alright.


  • Options
    #38
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    Nobody is being forced to take the flu jab. Why would someone choose to get a flu jab to prevent the flu, but not want to be protected against swine flu? News of the World as usual sensationalising everything.


    sensationalist alright but not so far fetched

    Reuters) - This year's seasonal flu vaccine in the northern hemisphere should include protection against three strains, including the pandemic H1N1 virus, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended on Thursday

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWLB737620100218


  • Options
    #39
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    enno99 wrote: »
    sensationalist alright but not so far fetched

    Reuters) - This year's seasonal flu vaccine in the northern hemisphere should include protection against three strains, including the pandemic H1N1 virus, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended on Thursday

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWLB737620100218


    I never said there wasn't any truth to the original article, just that it makes it out to be a bad thing, and as if it is forced on OAPs. The flu jab is changed every year to fight off whatever strain of the flu that happens to be knocking about at that point in time. As over hyped as the swine flu was it doesn't change the fact that it is a bad flu and is quite dangerous, like most flu's, for OAP's and pregnant woman to contract. So it makes sense to include it in this years flu jab.


  • Options
    #40
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Doesnt the flu mutate anyway? The vaccines are probably not up to date by the time they reach the customer.


  • Options
    #41
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    gizmo wrote: »
    And of course they skip the relevant stat while "reporting"...



    As for the recommendation URL, my main objection would be that the vaccination wasn't as thoroughly tested as others and as such shouldn't be forced on people. If there is a serious outbreak and people chose not to take it then they should at least have to sign a waiver saying they can't sue the government if they become infected. Unfortunately nothing would surprise me more than a bunch of people doing so claiming they hadn't been given enough information. :o

    As for the conflict of interest, well that's true but at the same time these people have risen up in the industry to get to those positions so they're still experts in the field. As long as they don't have anything close to a majority on a body which sets policy then I think it's alright.

    Funnily enough, the vaccine makers demanded & obtained legal immunity for the eventuality that there be problems with the vaccine. There are so many ties between parties recieving kickbacks and furthering their own agendas.. if this was happening in the motor industry people would be on trial because of it.

    Compartmentalisation of specialties is supposed to be a good thing, and yet when people are guilty of breaching the trust required to ensure it stays that way; the public are all too happy to say 'sure what can you do, they're the experts'. So much for science and reason if the unreasonable is allowed to pervail.

    And so much for the idea of Occrams Razor.. no longer is do vast amounts of people need to be involved for a conspiracy to happen.. not when the few who are involved are protected in a bubble of bullshit


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Hey, I used Occams Razor in a different thread, no fair! :p

    As for the issue regarding legal immunity, well that wasn't specific to the N1H1 vaccine, that's a broadly applied principle designed to encourage R&D despite the possible side effects of certain vaccinations on certain patients. Just as was discussed in another thread, if families wish to pursue legal action should one of their loved ones develop these side effects, they can do so through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.


  • Options
    #43
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    There's evidence that I haven't seen because it's not government- or FDA-approved? Do tell me where I might find such evidence. I see links to heated claims about conspiracies, but zero actual evidence.

    And as for the idea that requiring testing is tantamount to banning a substance: that's like saying that requiring a driving licence is tantamount to banning monkeys from driving. You can't sell a medical treatment for a condition without clear evidence that it works in treating that condition; if you can't afford the testing for your novel new treatment idea, then you don't get to sell it. That's not unfair; it's simply a requirement that anything sold as a treatment has to bloody well work.


  • Options
    #44
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    desertcircus wrote: »
    There's evidence that I haven't seen because it's not government- or FDA-approved? Do tell me where I might find such evidence. I see links to heated claims about conspiracies, but zero actual evidence.

    And as for the idea that requiring testing is tantamount to banning a substance: that's like saying that requiring a driving licence is tantamount to banning monkeys from driving. You can't sell a medical treatment for a condition without clear evidence that it works in treating that condition; if you can't afford the testing for your novel new treatment idea, then you don't get to sell it. That's not unfair; it's simply a requirement that anything sold as a treatment has to bloody well work.

    No its not the same as banning monkeys from driving, what an absurd analogy!

    As I said I'm all for regulation, I just bemoan the fact that cheaper possible treatments don't get the research dollars thrown at them and they don't have pharmaceutical reps promoting them to doctors because there is no money in it.

    A classic example is St. John's Wort. A moderately effective treatment for depression that was made prescription only. Most doctor's will never prescribe it over Prozac et. al, despite many anti-depressants showing little more effectiveness than placebo in many instances.


  • Options
    #45
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    El_Dangeroso wrote: »
    A classic example is St. John's Wort. A moderately effective treatment for depression that was made prescription only. Most doctor's will never prescribe it over Prozac et. al, despite many anti-depressants showing little more effectiveness than placebo in many instances.
    Personally I'm glad to see any medicine used in the treatment of depression being made prescription only. As for doctors not prescribing it, well it remains to be seen just how effective it is.
    National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and other NIH-affiliated organizations hold that St John's wort has minimal or no effects beyond placebo in the treatment of major depression

    Link


  • Options
    #46
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    Here is a decent video, that takes an objective and informative look at Herbal medicine vs Evidence based medicine. I agree with his conclusions for the most part. He also discusses St. John's Wort.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3yzXXPeLo0


    Here is a biased, but also much funnier take on the issue

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8


  • Options
    #47
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    gizmo wrote: »
    Personally I'm glad to see any medicine used in the treatment of depression being made prescription only. As for doctors not prescribing it, well it remains to be seen just how effective it is.



    Link

    I see your point, as I said, I'm all for regulation. However, st. john's wart has demonstrated neurological effects and has been shown in some studies to improve mild depression, problem being that compared to the research that has been done on SSRI's, it is a drop in the ocean.

    Here is a great review in the BMJ of the evidence surrounding the efficacy of conventional SSRI's:
    Summary points

    Recent meta-analyses show selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have no clinically meaningful advantage over placebo

    Claims that antidepressants are more effective in more severe conditions have little evidence to support them

    Methodological artefacts may account for the small degree of superiority shown over placebo

    Antidepressants have not been convincingly shown to affect the long term outcome of depression or suicide rates

    Given doubt about their benefits and concern about their risks, current recommendations for prescribing antidepressants should be reconsidered


Advertisement