14 Conspiracy Theories That The Media Now Admits Are Conspiracy Facts

Di0genes

ed2hands wrote: »

Oh dear. If you're not shocked by those figures then i'm also shocked that you're not shocked.



It's all there in the Vanity Fair article in black and white mate. If you think 200,000 deaths is "dwarfed" then please let's have a look at the figures from somewhere on a year on year basis.

There's 300milion americans. At least half take one prescription medicine a year. So that's 148,000,000 Americans who take Prescription medicine to manage things from infections to chronic life threatening conditions, and 200,000 who die from complications.

Your point about penicillin and allergies is a lame response to this outrage.

What outrage? Should Americans stop taking Insulin? Heart Medication?

Overprescription causes deaths does it not??

I would imagine under prescription of medicine to manage chronic conditions would cause more deaths.

You have a neck saying my points up there are "conspiracy theory".

Your points up there a conspiracy theory/

Moving the goalposts my arse.

You are.

How about avoiding the elephant in the room with a retort based on penicillen and allergies?

So we shouldn't discuss antibotics and allergy medicine?

ed2hands

Di0genes wrote: »

There's 300milion americans. At least half take one prescription medicine a year. So that's 148,000,000 Americans who take Prescription medicine to manage things from infections to chronic life threatening conditions, and 200,000 who die from complications

That 200,000 would be a lot less i wager if the greedy c#nts tested them adequately and didn't overprescribe yes?

Di0genes wrote: »

What outrage? Should Americans stop taking Insulin? Heart Medication?

No they shouldn't. The outrage here is contained in the OP.

Di0genes wrote: »

I would imagine under prescription of medicine to manage chronic conditions would cause more deaths.

Chronic conditions yes. Ofcourse****ingofcourse.

Overprescription is rampant.

Di0genes wrote: »

Your points up there a conspiracy theory/

You are.

:pac:
Is it ****! Excuse my French diogenes but if you don't realise that large swathes of the US population are under attack from one big legalised drugs pushing orgy, then you're for the birds.

Di0genes wrote: »

So we shouldn't discuss antibotics and allergy medicine?

Didn't say that. It's only part of the cause though. Would appreciate some info/stats on allergies and antibiotics in relation to this from you rather than just us banging heads for the sake of it. Links please.

Di0genes

ed2hands wrote: »

That 200,000 would be a lot less i wager if the greedy c#nts tested them adequately and didn't overprescribe yes?

Thats a massive presumption. Can you show how many of those 200,000 are improper testing, and not allergic reactions to the drugs for example?

No they shouldn't. The outrage here is contained in the OP.

Yes, and you've dumped on a huge stack on non sequiturs on there as well.

Chronic conditions yes. Ofcourse****ingofcourse.

Overprescription is rampant.

So we shouldn't prescript insulin or blood thinners or anything.

Your rage is incoherent.

:pac:
Is it ****! Excuse my French diogenes but if you don't realise that large swathes of the US population are under attack from one big legalised drugs pushing orgy, then you're for the birds.

Not a compelling argument there. And for the blindingly obvious point, no one is forcing people to take drugs? Legal or Illegal....

Didn't say that. It's only part of the cause though. Would appreciate some info/stats on allergies and antibiotics in relation to this from you rather than just us banging heads for the sake of it. Links please.

Allergies are one of the most common ways people die from prescription drugs

http://www.acaai.org/allergist/allergies/Types/drug-allergy/Pages/default.aspx

Have you ever been admitted to hospital? One of the first things you'll be asked is "are you allergic to Penicillin?"

The only way you'll find out you're allergic to Pencillin is to be given Penicillin and finding out if you have a adverse reaction to it.

Now (and I think we've been over this ground before) because some people are allergic to pencillin should we stop using this lifesaving drug?

No. So we have to take the fact that of the hundreds of millions of people who take prescription drugs to manage or cure serious illness, and a few hundred thousand will have adverse reaction to this drugs, should we stop using these drugs just because of the adverse reaction?

jargon buster

Maybe doctors are pissed off with cry babies always at his door whining about something or other, some people like being ill, it gives them something to moan about.

Just give them some more tablets and make them happy, so you could say over prescribing is actually a good thing for some people.

Monty Burnz

One interesting thing about the evil drug companies is that they haven't really been doing the business for investors for the last decade - or at least, some of them haven't. I remember looking at GlaxoSmithKline with an eye to investing a few grand in them a decade ago, because the price had dropped to about 13 pounds. The price today is about 13 pounds, ten years later. Ok, you'd have got a couple of percent p/a in dividends, but in reality that's a pretty poor return for ten years of capital investment when you consider that inflation would have eaten all your dividends anyway.

So whatever way they are evilly scheming to rob the public, they'd really want to get their acts together and do a better job of it.

ed2hands

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats a massive presumption. Can you show how many of those 200,000 are improper testing, and not allergic reactions to the drugs for example?

Nope.
Nice asking questions you know the answers to isn't it?

I can use my brain to deduct, based on the facts, that if the drugs that are supposedly tested adequately and are deemed "safe" by the FDA are not actually tested adequately and are therefore not as safe as they could be; or even worse: they're poisonous and dangerous to those that don't require them, then yes i feel comfortable in making that presumption.

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes, and you've dumped on a huge stack on non sequiturs on there as well.

I apologise for those.

Di0genes wrote: »

So we shouldn't prescript insulin or blood thinners or anything.

Any less silly questions?

Di0genes wrote: »

Your rage is incoherent.

So is your defence.

Di0genes wrote: »

Not a compelling argument there. And for the blindingly obvious point, no one is forcing people to take drugs? Legal or Illegal....

Correct. They're being persuaded by mass marketing, dishonesty and lies.

Di0genes wrote: »

Allergies are one of the most common ways people die from prescription drugs

http://www.acaai.org/allergist/allergies/Types/drug-allergy/Pages/default.aspx

Have you ever been admitted to hospital? One of the first things you'll be asked is "are you allergic to Penicillin?"

The only way you'll find out you're allergic to Pencillin is to be given Penicillin and finding out if you have a adverse reaction to it.

Now (and I think we've been over this ground before) because some people are allergic to pencillin should we stop using this lifesaving drug?

Overprescription = more allergies = more very nasty side effects and deaths. Ta for the link. No stats in there though. Maybe someone more knowledgable than me might be prepared to flesh this out a bit.

Di0genes wrote: »

No. So we have to take the fact that of the hundreds of millions of people who take prescription drugs to manage or cure serious illness, and a few hundred thousand will have adverse reaction to this drugs,

The bit i bolded. Serious illness? I doubt that. Most would not have a serious condition i gather. Some just get nervous at family gatherings and are told by Troy McClure on TV that there's a drug to help with that.

Di0genes wrote: »

should we stop using these drugs just because of the adverse reaction?

Well if you're talking about the drugs to alleviate/cure symptons of serious illness, the answer would be no they shouldn't stop them.

Side effects for all drugs are deliberately and routinely downplayed and hidden.

ed2hands

jargon buster wrote: »

Maybe doctors are pissed off with cry babies always at his door whining about something or other, some people like being ill, it gives them something to moan about.

Just give them some more tablets and make them happy, so you could say over prescribing is actually a good thing for some people.

What a pile of horse manure. Thanks for wasting 3o seconds of my night.

Di0genes

ed2hands wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats a massive presumption. Can you show how many of those 200,000 are improper testing, and not allergic reactions to the drugs for example?

Nope.
Nice asking questions you know the answers to isn't it?

I can use my brain to deduct, based on the facts, that if the drugs that are supposedly tested adequately and are deemed "safe" by the FDA are not actually tested adequately and are therefore not as safe as they could be; or even worse: they're poisonous and dangerous to those that don't require them, then yes i feel comfortable in making that presumption.

It's logic Jim but not as we know it. They can test the drugs adequately, and understand that the drugs present a allergy risk to some of the population, but the overall benefit to the population as whole it is worth the risk.

Some people are allergic to certain antibotics, should we not use these antibotics at all because of this tiny minority?



I apologise for those.

Di0genes wrote: »

So we shouldn't prescript insulin or blood thinners or anything.

Any less silly questions?

It's a very serious question

You're talking about over prescription, these are prescription drugs prescribed to millions upon millions of people.

Di0genes wrote: »

Allergies are one of the most common ways people die from prescription drugs

http://www.acaai.org/allergist/allergies/Types/drug-allergy/Pages/default.aspx

Have you ever been admitted to hospital? One of the first things you'll be asked is "are you allergic to Penicillin?"

The only way you'll find out you're allergic to Pencillin is to be given Penicillin and finding out if you have a adverse reaction to it.

Now (and I think we've been over this ground before) because some people are allergic to pencillin should we stop using this lifesaving drug?

Overprescription = more allergies =

Thats a leap of causality.

Di0genes wrote: »

No. So we have to take the fact that of the hundreds of millions of people who take prescription drugs to manage or cure serious illness, and a few hundred thousand will have adverse reaction to this drugs,

The bit i bolded. Serious illness? I doubt that

Diabetes isn't serious? Cancer?

. Most would not have a serious condition i gather. Some just get nervous at family gatherings and are told by Troy McClure on TV that there's a drug to help with that.

Thats editorialising. Are you claiming that the major of drugs prescribed in the US are more mental health issues.

Any chance of any proof for this claim?

Di0genes wrote: »

should we stop using these drugs just because of the adverse reaction?

Well if you're talking about the drugs to alleviate/cure symptons of serious illness, the answer would be no they shouldn't stop them.

Side effects for all drugs are deliberately and routinely downplayed and hidden.

Again two complete non sequiturs.

jargon buster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malingering


Are you suggesting over prescribing would be upsetting to these people?

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, but how will this work? How do you recognise Christians in a largely Christian community? Who do you get to turn against the overwhelming majority population?

The usual stuff? Watch the other hand etc...

Mahatma coat

another one Confirmed on the news tonight

The IRA Trained ANC Activists in Apartheid South Africa

May not come as a surprise to most of us, but it was Vehemently denied for a very long time.

ed2hands

Diogenes can you tidy up your post please so i can get what you're saying. Might not respond till tomorrow though. Thanks.

ed2hands

jargon buster wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malingering


Are you suggesting over prescribing would be upsetting to these people?

Hello again.

I see you're not content with poisoning just one thread with your own particular brand of social darwinisms.

I won't be answering your dumbass question.

How about you come back when you're interested in dicussing the topic seriously and not puking out your odious pompous trollish garbage.

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

The usual stuff? Watch the other hand etc...

Sorry Obey, you've lost me again man! The usual way you'd spot a religious minority in Western society is because they look and/or dress differently and/or behave differently. You could work in an office for years these days and not know whether your colleagues are COI or Catholic, or atheist/agnostic. They don't exactly stand out from the crowd - they are the crowd.

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sorry Obey, you've lost me again man! The usual way you'd spot a religious minority in Western society is because they look and/or dress differently and/or behave differently. You could work in an office for years these days and not know whether your colleagues are COI or Catholic, or atheist/agnostic. They don't exactly stand out from the crowd - they are the crowd.

They said that he was " a fundamental Christian", " a businessman", " a freemason", "a businessman", "an avid internet user", "an organic farmer" amongst other things! Just some examples. Several other groups were implicated before they even had the guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KJ3rUVvGhQ

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

They said that he was " a fundamental Christian", " a businessman", " a freemason", "a businessman", "an avid internet user", "an organic farmer" amongst other things! Just some examples. Several other groups were implicated before they even had the guy...

Right, but that doesn't address my point. You are making it sound like 'they' are coming for Christians. I'm saying that - seeing as most people in the US/UK/Ireland etc. are Christian, or shall we say 'Christian cultured' - who or what is to be turned against the Christians? How could anyone make the majority population look like terrorists if they aren't?

You can see how it would happen with a minority, as in the US where anyone wearing a turban is seen in some quarters as a terrorist. But with a majority?

Let's flip this around: can you imagine a conspiracy to make the people of Egypt think that all Muslims are terrorists? And what would be the upshot? The Christian minority chase out the Muslim majority?

Laika1986

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't see how Christians can be portrayed as terrorists unless they start terrorist campaigns?

And if Christian groups start such campaigns, then by definition they are terrorists. But do you really think that ordinary Christians and non-religious people here or in the US or whatever will suddenly see all Christians as terrorists?

Hint: In Muslim countries they don't think all Muslims are terrorists.

Cheers for the Hint!I think ya kinda took me up wrong. For example the riots in England, the majority of the younger generation will be resented by the rest therefore creating mistrust and alienating them from society. So now in England there is mistrust of Muslims and the youth(I don't mean to generalise just the easiest way of describing them). Maybe another section of society is next.

As regards Christian Terrorism perhaps the recent killing spree could be the beginning of this. I remember the reading here that a lot of people around Europe agreed with his ideals but obviously not his actions.

I'm not saying any of this is happening or I'm onto something it's just the way I see it panning out.

Monty Burnz

Laika1986 wrote: »

For example the riots in England, the majority of the younger generation will be resented by the rest therefore creating mistrust and alienating them from society. So now in England there is mistrust of Muslims and the youth(I don't mean to generalise just the easiest way of describing them). Maybe another section of society is next.

Ok, I understand your point now. But do you think the riots were caused by 'them'? Because to me, it looked like a bunch of mindless morons trashing their own neighbourhood for what they could steal.

ed2hands

Di0genes wrote: »

Allergies are one of the most common ways people die from prescription drugs

http://www.acaai.org/allergist/allergies/Types/drug-allergy/Pages/default.aspx

That link you gave doesn't seem to verify your claim above.
I'll take it as untrue unless you can provide something better than that.

Did a quick search and didn't find anything much except this:

Drug Allergy

• Anaphylactic reactions to penicillin cause 400 deaths.7
• Between 6% and 10% of adverse drug reactions are allergic or immunologic in nature.15

http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/allergy-statistics.aspx#General_Statistics


(2009 - harms of prescription drugs) "Each year offers new examples of injuries and deaths caused by untoward dangers in prescription drugs. Prominent illustrations from recent years include Vioxx, a popular arthritis painkiller that more than doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes,6 a risk that lingered long after users stopped taking the drug;7 “Phen-fen,” a diet drug that caused heart damage;8 and Propulsid, a drug that reduced gastric acid but also threatened patients’ hearts.9 Once information on these side-effects became known to the public, the manufacturers of each of these drugs stopped selling them and, eventually, paid millions or billions of dollars to settle claims for resulting injuries.10 Merck, for example, having withdrawn the profitable Vioxx drug11 from the market in 2004, settled nearly 50,000 Vioxx cases in late 2007 for $4.85 billion.12 In 2009, Eli Lilly agreed to plead guilty and pay $1.415 billion in criminal and civil penalties for promoting its antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa, as suitable for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).13 These cases may be among the more prominent, but they represent just the tip of the iceberg of damage caused by prescription drugs."
Source:
Owen, David G., "Dangers in Prescription Drugs: Filling a Private Law Gap in the Healthcare Debate," Connecticut Law Review (Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut School of Law, February 2010) Volume 42, Number 3, p. 737.
http://connecticutlawreview.org/documents/DavidG.Owen-DangersinPrescript...

Di0genes wrote: »

Are you claiming that the major of drugs prescribed in the US are more mental health issues.

No.

Di0genes wrote: »

Any chance of any proof for this claim?

Didn't make it. I said "some".


Now why are we talking about penicillen and allergies in relation to deaths when we should be talking about testing and overprescription?

Monty Burnz

ed2hands wrote: »

Now why are we talking about penicillen and allergies in relation to deaths when we should be talking about testing and overprescription?

Ed, I hope I'm not taking this O/T, but every single system I've ever looked at is flawed. If doctors are over-prescribing (and of course, prescribing the wrong stuff) isn't it much more likely that this is due to human nature? For example, a sick patient wants results, and the doctor prescribes something that might work but probably won't. Or the doctor prescribes something for another complaint with similar symptoms. Both seem more likely (and more human) than some big conspiracy to sell more drugs (which the pharmacists would benefit a lot more from, rather than the doctors).

With regard to testing, I confess I don't know much about it. I imagine that nearly every drug has side-effects, and a drug will presumably be deemed useful if it (say) saves a hundred lives, but costs one. Or drastically improves the quality of life of 99.9% of those who take it, but kills .1%.

I'm just reminded of a drug that Elan were testing, called 'Tysbari' or something like that, for Multiple Sclerosis. In stage 2 or 3 clinical trials, it was found that a few people who took it died and I seem to recall the trial was scrapped. But I see that it is on sale now - clearly someone made the decision that a couple of deaths where the drug was a contributing factor is outweighed by the relief it gives to the vast majority of MS patients.

Medicine is full of trade-offs like that. We could really do with a bit of medical expertise in this discussion!

jh79

@ed2hands

Seeing as you have such strong opinions on the big pharma drug pushers you must have done alot of research into the area?

How about giving us a list of your top 10 dangerous drugs that are pushed on us and how each poses a health risk?

jackiebaron

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats a massive presumption. Can you show how many of those 200,000 are improper testing, and not allergic reactions to the drugs for example?



Yes, and you've dumped on a huge stack on non sequiturs on there as well.



So we shouldn't prescript insulin or blood thinners or anything.

Your rage is incoherent.






Not a compelling argument there. And for the blindingly obvious point, no one is forcing people to take drugs? Legal or Illegal....



Allergies are one of the most common ways people die from prescription drugs

http://www.acaai.org/allergist/allergies/Types/drug-allergy/Pages/default.aspx

Have you ever been admitted to hospital? One of the first things you'll be asked is "are you allergic to Penicillin?"

The only way you'll find out you're allergic to Pencillin is to be given Penicillin and finding out if you have a adverse reaction to it.

Now (and I think we've been over this ground before) because some people are allergic to pencillin should we stop using this lifesaving drug?

No. So we have to take the fact that of the hundreds of millions of people who take prescription drugs to manage or cure serious illness, and a few hundred thousand will have adverse reaction to this drugs, should we stop using these drugs just because of the adverse reaction?

Di0,

The pharmaceutical industry in the US is a horror show. A scandal. A kid jumps around climbs trees, gets excited, does generally .. you know...what kids do....and all of a sudden he's got ADHD according to his clueless parents and the know-nothing shrink that they send him to. Solution: Stick him on Ritalin for the next 10 years. Then when the levels of dompamine in his brain have been so fcuked with that he has come downs worse than Ecstasy-heads at noon on Sunday then they stick him on Prozac. Half the kids is america are drugged up to the friggin' eyeballs for no good reason.
They give them Ritalin (which has similar effects and side effects as cocaine use) just because they are deemed to be hypreactive (maybe cut down on the gallon dosage of Pepsi you give them each day) or obese (Pepsi again!) or depressed (maybe get them playing outside instead of glued to a TV away from the sunlight playing violent video games), etc.

50% of Americans are on some kind of prescription drug and they're mostly not needed or are prescribed for completely preventable conditions. Granted, once you develop diabetes you're pretty much on insulin for the rest of your days....but the diabetes is preventable as is the depression that so many of these people are suffering from. What the fuck are teenage schoolgirls doing popping Xanax and Prozac and Oxycontin like it's some kind of fashion statement?
When I was in school the only time anyone got any medication was Disprin when you had a cold, LemSip when you had a flu, maybe antiobitics for a chest infection and an anaesthetic for a tooth extraction.

In Ireland / Europe, chemists/pharmacies are generally the size of small newsagents. In the US, drugstores like Duane-Reade and Genovese are the size of friggin IKEA. The whole damn country's on something.

jh79

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ed, I hope I'm not taking this O/T, but every single system I've ever looked at is flawed. If doctors are over-prescribing (and of course, prescribing the wrong stuff) isn't it much more likely that this is due to human nature? For example, a sick patient wants results, and the doctor prescribes something that might work but probably won't. Or the doctor prescribes something for another complaint with similar symptoms. Both seem more likely (and more human) than some big conspiracy to sell more drugs (which the pharmacists would benefit a lot more from, rather than the doctors).

With regard to testing, I confess I don't know much about it. I imagine that nearly every drug has side-effects, and a drug will presumably be deemed useful if it (say) saves a hundred lives, but costs one. Or drastically improves the quality of life of 99.9% of those who take it, but kills .1%.

I'm just reminded of a drug that Elan were testing, called 'Tysbari' or something like that, for Multiple Sclerosis. In stage 2 or 3 clinical trials, it was found that a few people who took it died and I seem to recall the trial was scrapped. But I see that it is on sale now - clearly someone made the decision that a couple of deaths where the drug was a contributing factor is outweighed by the relief it gives to the vast majority of MS patients.

Medicine is full of trade-offs like that. We could really do with a bit of medical expertise in this discussion!

The anti-pharma crowd try to convince people that regulations are getting laxer but the opposite is the case, its harder now than it ever was, if aspirin was invented today it wouldn't make it past clinical trial due to its side effects.

If the regulators are in the companies pockets the Elan thing would never of happened , they nearly went under over that

@ed2hands, did you ever question why the websites you find your "info" from are so vague on the technical side? Surely that must raise your suspicsions?

@Monty, any medical info posted would be ingnored or met with tabloid like "speed to babies" type replies so whats the point

ed2hands

jh79 wrote: »

@ed2hands

Seeing as you have such strong opinions on the big pharma drug pushers you must have done alot of research into the area?

Not loads and loads. Are you saying that big pharma are not blatant drug pushers? Hope you're not going to parrot the other ostriches that blame da public for being the guilty party in all this.

jh79 wrote: »

How about giving us a list of your top 10 dangerous drugs that are pushed on us and how each poses a health risk?

No disrespect jh79 but don't have time. You can do a bit of typing there by all means to try and convince me there's no overprescribing, adequate testing and ethical marketing instead of throwing out requests to fetch info for you.

Laika1986

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, I understand your point now. But do you think the riots were caused by 'them'? Because to me, it looked like a bunch of mindless morons trashing their own neighbourhood for what they could steal.

I'd agree with you there but the consequences of the riots(new laws, possible restriction on social networks and the internet) is where i draw my conclusions from. The british people will demand these laws. Sound familiar?

Old_-_School

None of those were proper conspiracy theories.
A proper conspiracy theory is something like:
- the first moonlanding was faked
- JFK was killed by the CIA
- The twin towers collapsing was due to dynamite planted by the US government

Gold increasing in price is a conspiracy theory? *facepalm*

ed2hands

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ed, I hope I'm not taking this O/T, but every single system I've ever looked at is flawed. If doctors are over-prescribing (and of course, prescribing the wrong stuff) isn't it much more likely that this is due to human nature? For example, a sick patient wants results, and the doctor prescribes something that might work but probably won't. Or the doctor prescribes something for another complaint with similar symptoms. Both seem more likely (and more human) than some big conspiracy to sell more drugs (which the pharmacists would benefit a lot more from, rather than the doctors).

With regard to testing, I confess I don't know much about it. I imagine that nearly every drug has side-effects, and a drug will presumably be deemed useful if it (say) saves a hundred lives, but costs one. Or drastically improves the quality of life of 99.9% of those who take it, but kills .1%.

I'm just reminded of a drug that Elan were testing, called 'Tysbari' or something like that, for Multiple Sclerosis. In stage 2 or 3 clinical trials, it was found that a few people who took it died and I seem to recall the trial was scrapped. But I see that it is on sale now - clearly someone made the decision that a couple of deaths where the drug was a contributing factor is outweighed by the relief it gives to the vast majority of MS patients.

Medicine is full of trade-offs like that. We could really do with a bit of medical expertise in this discussion!

Thanks Monty. Yes fair points and yes we need some medical expertise here.

Edit: Is off label prescribing properly monitored by the FDA in the US? Should it be allowed? Is it causing deaths?
Maybe someone can enlighten us..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use

jh79

ed2hands wrote: »

Not loads and loads. Are you saying that big pharma are not blatant drug pushers? Hope you're not going to parrot the other ostriches that blame da public for being the guilty party in all this.



No disrespect jh79 but don't have time. You can do a bit of typing there by all means to try and convince me there's no overprescribing, adequate testing and ethical marketing instead of throwing out requests to fetch info for you.

Pharma invents, doctors perscribe, the morals of doctors is hard to regulate. SSRI's such as Prozac do work and have improved the lives of millions of people. Culturale differences in terms of consumerism in the US has affected perscription rates and everyone in the chain are resonsible to different degrees but the doctor has the final say. That doesn't mean we should listen to bull from alt medicine website questioning the effectiveness of these treatments

Adequate testing is done on these drugs, but no system is perfect and fraud can occur

Why didn't Elan just bribe the FDA then if there is a big conspiracy

I wasn't throwing out requests for you to fetch info for me, your hysterical posts (speed to babies) lack substance from a medical / scientific point of view and a bit of education would soften your stance on big pharma and hopefully turn you off those ridiculous alt medicine sites

jackiebaron

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ed, I hope I'm not taking this O/T, but every single system I've ever looked at is flawed. If doctors are over-prescribing (and of course, prescribing the wrong stuff) isn't it much more likely that this is due to human nature? For example, a sick patient wants results, and the doctor prescribes something that might work but probably won't. Or the doctor prescribes something for another complaint with similar symptoms. Both seem more likely (and more human) than some big conspiracy to sell more drugs (which the pharmacists would benefit a lot more from, rather than the doctors).

With regard to testing, I confess I don't know much about it. I imagine that nearly every drug has side-effects, and a drug will presumably be deemed useful if it (say) saves a hundred lives, but costs one. Or drastically improves the quality of life of 99.9% of those who take it, but kills .1%.

I'm just reminded of a drug that Elan were testing, called 'Tysbari' or something like that, for Multiple Sclerosis. In stage 2 or 3 clinical trials, it was found that a few people who took it died and I seem to recall the trial was scrapped. But I see that it is on sale now - clearly someone made the decision that a couple of deaths where the drug was a contributing factor is outweighed by the relief it gives to the vast majority of MS patients.

Medicine is full of trade-offs like that. We could really do with a bit of medical expertise in this discussion!

You make good points Monty but it seems that when it comes to doctors' advice or patients' expectations/demands in the States, then pressure or impatience prevail where common sense should.

If someone goes to the doctor complaining of constipation and when they eventually can squeeze one out it generally rips their asshole open, he doesn't need prescribe a laxative. Tell them to stop eating steak for breakfast, lunch and dinner and go have a few days of eating fruit and veg and beans. They'll be sorted. Acid reflux? You don't need Pepto-Bismol or Mylanta...just stop eating deep fried bacon sandwiches or drink more milk. This neurosis is everywhere. I worked in a company in New York and someone had strep-throat. This twit of a girl immediately took it upon herself to spray lysol on all the phone receivers. I told the dolt that aerosol lysol contained carcinogens and that breathing it in could make people very nauseous and told the dummy to go round wiping clean all the phones again.
So you get strep....the sh!t clears up by itself in a few days anyway.
It's just that there's a drug culture in the US that has been fomented and harvested by the pharmaceutical industry so now it's almost as if the patient knows best. A drug is peddled on TV for every single Michael Mouse malady when a balanced diet or more fibre or more exercise or more sleep or less sugar would simply do the trick. I even knew a guy who got headaches everyday and was sucking down Tylenol like smarties. The cretin didn't even think to see the correlation between his headaches and the 20 cups of black coffee he consumed between 9am and 1pm.
I bet Johnson & Johnson were raging when I told him to try decaf or herbal tea.

ed2hands

jh79 wrote: »

Pharma invents, doctors perscribe, the morals of doctors is hard to regulate. SSRI's such as Prozac do work and have improved the lives of millions of people. Culturale differences in terms of consumerism in the US has affected perscription rates and everyone in the chain are resonsible to different degrees but the doctor has the final say. That doesn't mean we should listen to bull from alt medicine website questioning the effectiveness of these treatments

Adequate testing is done on these drugs, but no system is perfect and fraud can occur

Why didn't Elan just bribe the FDA then if there is a big conspiracy

Please drop the slagging of alt medicine as it has **** all to do with what we're discussing. That was a rubbish response by the way. Is that the best you can offer up and you in the industry and with a science qualification? Expected a more detailed defense than the "such is life" BS.

jh79 wrote: »

I wasn't throwing out requests for you to fetch info for me, your hysterical posts (speed to babies) lack substance from a medical / scientific point of view and a bit of education would soften your stance on big pharma and hopefully turn you off those ridiculous alt medicine sites

Condescending patronising drivel wastes my time.

Are you saying that dishing out speed to babies shouldn't be met with a hysterical response?

Again with the alt science bit. I don't get this info from any of those sites so drop that angle.