1000 year old cure for MRSA

Akrasia · 31-03-2015 03:01PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

In every single post I stressed that western medicine is great for what it does well and that I wouldn't want to do without it. It's the usual attitude of "ye all live in caves and smear toad slime in your hair whilst reciting mystical incantations" attitude that I have found more prevalent here.
Why? because I dared to suggest that maybe we shouldn't immediately run to the doctor and demand pills if we have the sniffles.

Most doctors would probably prefer if people didn't waste their time with trivial ailments too.

I personally think that a healthy human immune system is capable of fighting off most common illnesses without any intervention from either western medicine or herbal remedies.

Herbal remedies and other alternative medicines tend to treat some of the symptoms rather than speeding up recovery from the underlying illness, and the symptom that they treat best is the psychological desire to take medicine when one is sick.

In other words, the placebo effect.

Nothing particularly wrong with it as long as people don't get carried away and recognise when a disease is severe enough to warrant medical attention.

dr.fuzzenstein · 31-03-2015 03:02PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

My 9 year old could see the daftness of that bit in bold from watching a few episodes of Horrible Histories

Even I wouldn't use HH as a serious medical guide. :cool:
A lot of medieval medicine had p*ss in it. Oh how we laughed. Maybe people will scoff at salt for skin conditions and go for cortisone, antibiotics and steroids, the holy trinity.
But more and more people will go for creams containing sol and urea. Very big in Germany right now.
I do admit when it comes to treating skin conditions with urea, I prefer the processed product over p*ssing on my leg. That is not to say it wouldn't work...

Jimoslimos · 31-03-2015 03:48PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If there was a €5 cure for AIDS, it would either be ignored or bought up and buried in the deepest vault on Earth.

Wrong. It is true to some extent that pharmaceutical companies baulk at the idea of developing expensive drugs primarily needed by the worlds poorest.

However no pharmaceutical company would pass up the chance of a) positive cheap publicity and b) people living longer and eventually needing access to expensive cancer/cardiac drugs.

31-03-2015 06:33PM

Akrasia wrote: »

I dunno about that. The first pharmaceutical company (or university) to isolate the active ingredients and conduct successfull clinical trials will still be able to patent their product and process for producing it.

Maybe so, but they won't be able to charge an extortionate amount for what is based on a 1000 year old recipe, pharma's have been anned from "evergreening*" drugs as it is.

*evergreening = tweaking the formula and claiming a new patent.

31-03-2015 06:39PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Which is exactly the point.
My wife worked for 10 years in a pharmaceutical. There where meetings upon meetings on production, output, streamlining, increasing productivity, profitability and everything else you can think of.
What was the one thing no pharmaceutical has ever had a single meeting about?
The end user.
If something does something and can be sold for a profit and enough of the pill-dumpsters (sorry, patients) survive, it's go. If that something is medicine number 56462782734564 for staying slim, it doesn't matter.
If there was a €5 cure for AIDS, it would either be ignored or bought up and buried in the deepest vault on Earth.
That's fine if you're an investment banker, we're used to them being vermin, but when you're producing life saving medicine for people, a little bit of altruism should intrude into your value system.

Point in case is the outlawing of herbal remedies that have worked for thousands of years and are harmless over pharmaceutical, chemical remedies that we KNOW kill thousands of people with side effects and I include anti-depressants that will drive you to suicide. Oh yes, that is MUCH better than St John's Wort. And of course now the doctor gets his €60 and pharma get their cut on the pills.
We in ireland have fallon over ourselves to just use patients as pill-dumpsters over natural remedies and counseling. it's a case of "I don't wanna hear it, here's some pills" We're supposed to worship the men in white coats as Gods and never question what they give us.

A colleague of mine also worked for a pharmaceutical company and has told similar stories.
The bottom line is to "control the condition" not cure it. The other thing that they factor in is the cost of not using certain drugs to the health services and set their price about 20% below, regardless of how much it actually costs.
for example untreated the HSE pay €100k a year
the drugs cost €2500 a year
the drugs company will sett to the hse for €80k
:mad:

Capt'n Midnight · 31-03-2015 10:37PM

jimgoose wrote: »

The Big Pharma trick is usually mainly to do with pure synthesis of the active substances and packaging.

Actually the Big Pharma trick is to convince people they are investing in R&D

They spend far more on sales and marketing than on R&D , and that's before when you factor in that tax breaks means they'll try and classify anything they can as R&D. And then they take even larger profits. I'd nearly argue that R&D could be classified under marketing.

This is what happens when the patents expire -
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

Once this happens, sales fall by 90%-plus. As Joshua Owide, director of healthcare industry dynamics at research company GlobalData, explains, "Unlike other sectors, brand loyalty goes out the window when patents expire."

This is why pharma companies go to such extraordinary lengths to extend their patents - a process known as evergreening - employing "floors full of lawyers" for this express purpose, one industry insider says.

pablohoney87 · 31-03-2015 11:55PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actually the Big Pharma trick is to convince people they are investing in R&D

They spend far more on sales and marketing than on R&D , and that's before when you factor in that tax breaks means they'll try and classify anything they can as R&D. And then they take even larger profits. I'd nearly argue that R&D could be classified under marketing.

This is what happens when the patents expire -
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

And if they couldn't get patents for as long as possible zero would go into R&D. R&D is paid for by the money brought in through sales.

Simple business and supply chain.

YFlyer · 31-03-2015 11:58PM

Ayurveda is the future of global health care.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-04-2015 12:44AM

pablohoney87 wrote: »

And if they couldn't get patents for as long as possible zero would go into R&D. R&D is paid for by the money brought in through sales.

Simple business and supply chain.

Big Pharma have been bleeding health systems dry with this myth of "being a special case because of R&D" for ages now.

Try telling that to Intel or AMD or Boeing or Airbus or EDF. Betting the company on the next big product is a common trait in high tech industries. And most have smaller margins than Big Pharma.

The other big difference is that health care is the main customer for Big Pharma and the costs force life and death decisions. IMHO a lot of the research could be done for a fraction of the cost by funding the education sector and banning patents for life saving drugs.

There is the argument that some drugs can cost a billion dollars to develop.

We are a small country The HSE drugs budget exceeded €1.8 billion in 2013

And all this brings us back to the point of Sales and Marketing.

We don't need new drugs. We need new medicines and treatments that work better than those we already have.

Far too many new drugs aren't appreciably better than the generics. Remove the profit margin and perhaps we can remove all the "Me Too" stuff being billed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Anyway if older treatments are evaluated and found to work then there are plenty of companies who can make generics. They just won't advertise them as much.

Another cure for MRSA might be phage or the new soil screening techniques that have revealed whole families of new compounds.

Also we need to stop farmers and others introducing antibiotics into the environment. Pumping cattle full of them globally has had a huge knock on cost on our health system. And I'd hate to think how much it would cost to remove antibiotics from the sewerage system. Then again new blood tests can tell if you need them in about 20 minutes so hopefully their use can be restricted to just humans and pets and possibly farm animals that need them.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 01-04-2015 09:03AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Big Pharma have been bleeding health systems dry with this myth of "being a special case because of R&D" for ages now.

Try telling that to Intel or AMD or Boeing or Airbus or EDF. Betting the company on the next big product is a common trait in high tech industries. And most have smaller margins than Big Pharma.

The other big difference is that health care is the main customer for Big Pharma and the costs force life and death decisions. IMHO a lot of the research could be done for a fraction of the cost by funding the education sector and banning patents for life saving drugs.

There is the argument that some drugs can cost a billion dollars to develop.

We are a small country The HSE drugs budget exceeded €1.8 billion in 2013

And all this brings us back to the point of Sales and Marketing.

We don't need new drugs. We need new medicines and treatments that work better than those we already have.

Far too many new drugs aren't appreciably better than the generics. Remove the profit margin and perhaps we can remove all the "Me Too" stuff being billed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Anyway if older treatments are evaluated and found to work then there are plenty of companies who can make generics. They just won't advertise them as much.

Another cure for MRSA might be phage or the new soil screening techniques that have revealed whole families of new compounds.

Also we need to stop farmers and others introducing antibiotics into the environment. Pumping cattle full of them globally has had a huge knock on cost on our health system. And I'd hate to think how much it would cost to remove antibiotics from the sewerage system. Then again new blood tests can tell if you need them in about 20 minutes so hopefully their use can be restricted to just humans and pets and possibly farm animals that need them.

Ok a couple of points here I'll try and address. You are partially correct that betting on the success of future products is par for the course for high tech industries. The difference between an Intel chip and a Pfizer drug is that it doesn't take 12-15 years and a whole load of regulatory rigmarole to get an Intel chip onto the market. Also, the Pfizer drug could fail at any stage on that pipeline. Say it gets to stage II clinical trials and is found to have an adverse effect of some kind. Development has to be immediately stopped and all the money that was spent has been effectively wasted. The next thing that Pfizer release therefore not only has to cover the cost of its own development, but also cover the cost of failed products. Depending on how late in the process a drug has to be withdrawn the cost of failure can run to billions. That is not an issue for Intel.

You also claim that research can be done for a fraction of the cost through education. Most people who work developing drugs have PhDs or many,many years experience. I don't really know how much more educated they could get. There is also a serious lack of appreciation by the general public about how difficult the research for drug development is. The whole field is littered with massive problems, such as pathway elucidation and off target effects, never mind about finding the actual drug molecule itself.

If you were to eliminate patents on "big pharma" findings, the industry would collapse overnight. There would be no incentive to spend billions on developing a drug as someone else could just immediately copy it and sell it at a fraction of the price (already happens a lot in India and China anyway but we won't go there). You might say "Great, we smashed evil big pharma", but you won't be so cheery when you or someone you know gets a serious illness and there are no drugs left to treat you.

New drugs are new medicines so I don't really know what you are getting at there. Do you really think removing the profit margin is a good way to incentivise research into new treatments? The companies are there to make money, not be a charity. Try cutting Intel's profit margin to zero and see how long it'll take them to collapse.

As regards older treatments, such as the one in the OP, yes many of them may work to treat a certain condition. But to get that into a marketable drug and past the FDA there is a vast amount of work to be done in isolating, synthesizing and evaluating the properties of the active ingredient in the older treatment. This takes time and costs money.

As for the agricultural stuff, I'm afraid I don't know much about that so I'll have to leave that for now.

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-04-2015 09:45AM

Well, right now I agree we are stuck with the pharma industry. And it's not all bad, we get some nifty drugs that way.
The problem with a purely profit driven venture is that the end result is driven by nothing else.
The aim is never "will this cure disease", but 100% always "will this make money". If you went to the annual shareholders meeting and announced you cured cancer, but this will not make profit, you'd be thrown out the backdoor into the trashcans.
So another (minutely different) variation of anti-depressant is made that's been around since the 60's so it can get a patent, this is then heavily incentivized for GP's and governments to use as "drug of choice" for the health service and privately.
In agriculture it's slightly different here, but in the US antibiotics are mixed in with the feed for lifestock as the norm, not just to treat infections. By the way, stay about as far away from farmed salmon as possible. You should only buy it if you are in need of a course of antibiotics.
Drug research should ideally be carried out by an institution that is not governed by profit, but by requirement. Or maybe the pharma industry should be incentivized, funded and maybe even required by the state to develop drugs that are not profit driven, but driven by requirement.

01-04-2015 09:57AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, right now I agree we are stuck with the pharma industry. And it's not all bad, we get some nifty drugs that way.
The problem with a purely profit driven venture is that the end result is driven by nothing else.
The aim is never "will this cure disease", but 100% always "will this make money". If you went to the annual shareholders meeting and announced you cured cancer, but this will not make profit, you'd be thrown out the backdoor into the trashcans.
So another (minutely different) variation of anti-depressant is made that's been around since the 60's so it can get a patent, this is then heavily incentivized for GP's and governments to use as "drug of choice" for the health service and privately.
In agriculture it's slightly different here, but in the US antibiotics are mixed in with the feed for lifestock as the norm, not just to treat infections. By the way, stay about as far away from farmed salmon as possible. You should only buy it if you are in need of a course of antibiotics.
Drug research should ideally be carried out by an institution that is not governed by profit, but by requirement. Or maybe the pharma industry should be incentivized, funded and maybe even required by the state to develop drugs that are not profit driven, but driven by requirement.

Cancer is a bad example, lots of cancers have been cured and it is extremely unlikely that a single cancer cure will ever be found.

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-04-2015 10:07AM

jh79 wrote: »

Cancer is a bad example, lots of cancers have been cured and it is extremely unlikely that a single cancer cure will ever be found.

Well, yes, insert appropriate example here.

01-04-2015 10:15AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, yes, insert appropriate example here.

Don't agree with your point, does an example exist?

ohnonotgmail · 01-04-2015 10:15AM

YFlyer wrote: »

Ayurveda is the future of global health care.

The origins of Ayurveda are also found in the Atharvaveda,[4][5] which contains 114 hymns and incantations described as magical cures for disease

A 1990 study on Ayurvedic medicines in India found that 41% of the products tested contained arsenic, and that 64% contained lead and mercury.[75] A 2004 study found toxic levels of heavy metals in 20% of Ayurvedic preparations made in South Asia and sold in the Boston area, and concluded that Ayurvedic products posed serious health risks and should be tested for heavy-metal contamination

I think i'll stick with the medication i'm on.

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-04-2015 10:20AM

jh79 wrote: »

Don't agree with your point, does an example exist?

So your point is that the pharma industry is only developing cures for the betterment of mankind and the good of our health? Get real.

01-04-2015 10:29AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So your point is that the pharma industry is only developing cures for the betterment of mankind and the good of our health? Get real.

Where did I say that? I don't believe they are actively avoiding cures as you state.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-hidden-cancer-cure/

Oryx · 01-04-2015 10:33AM

To go back to the original post; garlic and cow bile in your eyes? Sounds legit....

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-04-2015 10:36AM

jh79 wrote: »

Where did I say that? I don't believe they are actively avoiding cures as you state.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-hidden-cancer-cure/

My point was that the pharmaceutical industry is not developing anything for any other reason than profit. You said you disagreed with that point.
Disregarding the cancer example, what say you?

01-04-2015 10:46AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

My point was that the pharmaceutical industry is not developing anything for any other reason than profit. You said you disagreed with that point.
Disregarding the cancer example, what say you?

The aim is never "will this cure disease", but 100% always "will this make money". If you went to the annual shareholders meeting and announced you cured cancer, but this will not make profit, you'd be thrown out the backdoor into the trashcans.

This is the point i am disagreeing with..

The pharma industry has to make profits to exist, like any other industry.

The idea that cures are avoided to maximize profits is flawed as highlighted in the science based medicine link.

01-04-2015 10:53AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Which is exactly the point.
My wife worked for 10 years in a pharmaceutical. There where meetings upon meetings on production, output, streamlining, increasing productivity, profitability and everything else you can think of.
What was the one thing no pharmaceutical has ever had a single meeting about?
The end user.

Did your wife work in drug discovery / R&D? Is she a clinical scientist/ organic chemist/medicinal chemist etc? Those involved in the early stages of drug discovery?

More than likely she was involved in the last step of the process ie production of the approved product. So those are exactly the types of meetings you would expect.

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-04-2015 11:08AM

jh79 wrote: »

The aim is never "will this cure disease", but 100% always "will this make money". If you went to the annual shareholders meeting and announced you cured cancer, but this will not make profit, you'd be thrown out the backdoor into the trashcans.

This is the point i am disagreeing with..

The pharma industry has to make profits to exist, like any other industry.

The idea that cures are avoided to maximize profits is flawed as highlighted in the science based medicine link.

http://globalmedicine.nl/issues/issue-16/when-treating-a-disease-is-bad-business-orphan-and-neglected-diseases/

As a consequence, drug companies are reluctant to invest large amounts of money in drug development unless they can be assured that they will receive a return on their investment. Business (and regrettably, even the business of treating diseases and saving human lives) is about earning as much money as possible. And sometimes, investing money in curing a certain disease may not seem profitable enough to be considered “good business”.

Though I have to admit that might be changing:

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150329_Big_profits_seen_in_rare_diseases.html

But of course that is only the case because these drugs are sold at outrageous prices. And they have only been developed because there is now the possibility of profit. After all, that is the goal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/05/02/how-committed-is-big-pharma-to-rare-diseases/

Cerezyme is extremely effective – but it is also extremely expensive with annual treatment costs as high as $300,000/patient.

fleet_admiral · 01-04-2015 11:12AM

A vaccine for cellulitis would be good, I live in constant fear of catching it again

01-04-2015 11:19AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

http://globalmedicine.nl/issues/issue-16/when-treating-a-disease-is-bad-business-orphan-and-neglected-diseases/

Though I have to admit that might be changing:

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150329_Big_profits_seen_in_rare_diseases.html

But of course that is only the case because these drugs are sold at outrageous prices. And they have only been developed because there is now the possibility of profit. After all, that is the goal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/05/02/how-committed-is-big-pharma-to-rare-diseases/

Your original point was that they avoid cures in favor of more profitable treatments and that there is no money to be made in cures. This isn't the case as your link highlights.

YFlyer · 01-04-2015 12:03PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think i'll stick with the medication i'm on.

It has moved on from then, especially Maharishi Ayurveda.

ohnonotgmail · 01-04-2015 12:07PM

YFlyer wrote: »

It has moved on from then, especially Maharishi Ayurveda.

i dont think positive emotions are going to help with what i've got.

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-04-2015 12:08PM

jh79 wrote: »

Your original point was that they avoid cures in favor of more profitable treatments and that there is no money to be made in cures. This isn't the case as your link highlights.

I admit it has changed. They fixed the non-profitability issue by asking for astronomical sums of money.
So yes, profit rules.

YFlyer · 01-04-2015 12:14PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i dont think positive emotions are going to help with what i've got.

I don't understand what you mean.

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-04-2015 12:15PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i dont think positive emotions are going to help with what i've got.

Once you have it, it's too late, but it is pretty certain that stress and emotionally stressful situations cause a lot of diseases. Continuation of same won't help if you are trying to get better. So yes, I do believe that a healthy and happy environment contribute to our health and vice versa.
If you're taking any medication for a serious or very serious issue, i would never advise anyone to ditch the meds.
I'm just saying for the occasional itch, twinge, sniffle, rash, cough, I am happy with herbs and acupuncture (ducks for avalanche of sh*t about acupuncture)
Time is a great healer. Unless you got a rash, than you're better off with ointment.

ohnonotgmail · 01-04-2015 12:18PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Once you have it, it's too late, but it is pretty certain that stress and emotionally stressful situations cause a lot of diseases. Continuation of same won't help if you are trying to get better. So yes, I do believe that a healthy and happy environment contribute to our health and vice versa.
If you're taking any medication for a serious or very serious issue, i would never advise anyone to ditch the meds.
I'm just saying for the occasional itch, twinge, sniffle, rash, cough, I am happy with herbs and acupuncture (ducks for avalanche of sh*t about acupuncture)
Time is a great healer. Unless you got a rash, than you're better off with ointment.

stress did not cause what i have. I would hope you would not give medical advice to anybody, ever. you're not qualified to.

1000 year old cure for MRSA

Comments