 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / May 2007New York Times: Free Drug Samples? Bad Idea, Some Say
Free Drug Samples? Bad Idea, Some Say http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/health/01cons.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin This may require creating an account. (If you don't want to create an account, please don't come back and say you don't want to create an account, because I don't care. And I won't paste copyrighted material.) Jeff > Free Drug Samples? Bad Idea, Some Say > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jeff To all....I didn't comment on the long thread on a similar subject that preceded this, but could not resist on this new fresh thread by Jeff. This is a very serious and "real" problem. IMO, the pharmaceutical companies are controlling the medical arena (which includes their influence on the lowering of blood test ranges, and blood pressure ranges - which is critical when considering starting a patient on a lifetime regimen of cholesterol, or BP pills (two of the largest sellers), which may mess you up if you really don't need them (the statins especially), because perhaps you are getting on in age, and you used to be at the upper limit, and now the range has been lowered (largely due to the friggen pharmaceutical lobbyists), and your doctor decides to start you on the pills. This is not to say there are not other research type agencies involved, but the pharma impact is huge. This is vicious and nasty stuff that keeps getting worse each day. The TV commercials are sickening - especially the "ask your doctor crap". Chances are your doctor knows less about the damn drug you are asking about than you can learn about yourself (if you are a halfway intelligent person - if you are a dumbass, you are screwed - and boy do I hate it when the old people (and even worse, many young people also) don't even know what the names of their drugs are - ie, "I don't know, my doctor told me to take it - duh!). I have been to approx 75 doctors in my life, and have been studying medicine intensely for 15 years, and I doubt that the vast majority of doctors even take the time to read the package inserts of the friggen samples they receive. I have seen this by experience, since (as an example) the doctor may not even know what the different strengths are for the particular medication, and give you the wrong answer when you ask him/her. They get the sales pitch from the rep and start prescribing it on a trial basis, especially if it is real popular, with lots of commercials. I do not totally disagree with free samples, but I definitely agree with Jeff on his previous comments that an older proven drug that is available as a generic, can be just as good if not better (since it has a proven track record). I am all for new technology, if it is indeed better for the patient, but once you start prescribing a long term "brand name" drug to a patient, it will not go generic for many years (say 14-17 for talking purposes), and the patient may not be able to afford it (or want to pay for it even if they could pay for it, and still get by, sacrificing other things). Always remember that the drug companies are big business, out to make the almighty dollar, and there are no more "Marcus Welby's" or "Patch Adam's" left in the world anymore, and the doctors themselves have also succumbed to the system, IMHO. What a shame. Just look at it this way - Nexium is the left side of the optical isomer for Prilosec. Why do you think that is. It is very simple - it is so the Pharma could start up another long term patent for something they already invented. It's all about patent laws and making money. I think the patient is just a pawn being moved around. And of course, we don't want to even mention the subject of curing a disease, versus keeping it at bay - not good for big Pharma - a subject constantly discussed in this, and many other ng's :-) . Pete >> Free Drug Samples? Bad Idea, Some Say >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the pills. This is not to say there are not other research type agencies > involved, but the pharma impact is huge. I think, for recent blood pressure and cholesterol normal value changes, the changes were justified by the science. I would have to look more closely. Big pharma is definitely increasing the number of men who are diagnosed with ED (and the number of older ladies who wish for peace and quiet). I think big pharma has played a valuable role when it made people with various issues, like male pattern baldness and bladder problems, more aware that there was a treatment involved. However, I have no doubt that there are a lot of people who are treated for many diseases who would be better off without the treatment (including those I mentioned above). > This is vicious and nasty stuff that keeps getting worse each day. The TV > commercials are sickening - especially the "ask your doctor crap". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what the names of their drugs are - ie, "I don't know, my doctor told me > to take it - duh!). I think the vast majority of direct advertising for prescription drugs should not be allowed. > I have been to approx 75 doctors in my life, and have been studying > medicine intensely for 15 years, and I doubt that the vast majority of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on a trial basis, especially if it is real popular, with lots of > commercials. Just what the sales reps and drug companies want. I would rather pay a few bucks for a drug the doc is familar with. > I do not totally disagree with free samples, but I definitely agree with > Jeff on his previous comments that an older proven drug that is available [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > almighty dollar, and there are no more "Marcus Welby's" or "Patch Adam's" > left in the world anymore, I totally disagree. Drug companies have some of these people working for them, like in research and development. And some drug reps really want to help doctors practice better medicine. But, reseachers are also interested in making a big bonus by discovering a new blockbuster drug. And the drug reps have an obvious conflict of internest. Drug companies are in business to make money. Nothing wrong with that. But, just like the corner garage wants to change oil more often to make money (they may really beleive that you need to change oil every 3000 mi), drug companies want to sell their product, too. So beware! There are many doctors who are in business to help people, not to make a furtune. > and the doctors themselves have also succumbed to the system, IMHO. What > a shame. The system is definitely a negative factor. > Just look at it this way - Nexium is the left side of the optical isomer > for Prilosec. Why do you think that is. It is very simple - it is so the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bay - not good for big Pharma - a subject constantly discussed in this, > and many other ng's :-) . Yet, if a cure for a disease were available, some drug company would start to make it. They care about their profit, not other pharma companies' profit. Jeff > Pete >> Just look at it this way - Nexium is the left side of the optical >> isomer for Prilosec. Why do you think that is. It is very simple - [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff That's the whole point Jeff. If they find a cure, they will lose their continuing profit which they get from all the maintenance type drugs that people take long term. That is where they get most of their money from. It is a basic concept of the dog eat dog capitalistic world we live in. I didn't want to get into a discussion on this last part of my post, and I just tossed it in as kind of an aside for some levity. But I don't understand your logic on this, and doubt whether very many people would agree with you. I see no incentive for big Pharma to try to cure a disease and get a one time profit (so to speak) - it's not logical, even though it is rather inhumane. Like I said, this has been discussed at length in many ng's for years, as you are well aware of. Pete > That's the whole point Jeff. If they find a cure, they will lose their > continuing profit which they get from all the maintenance type drugs that > people take long term. That is where they get most of their money from. It > is a basic concept of the dog eat dog capitalistic world we live in. Well then go ahead and cure a disease. Let me know how well it works Cancers get cured, most infections (non-viral) get cured, etc. There are many that get cured, even many cancers. Polio prevented and cured before hand. Most of the rest are waiting on ways to redo the body (for example rewire the brain and correct chemical imbalances for schizophrenia) before cures can be effected. For some reason you are holding the pharm companies solely responsible for the state of the art in medicine and our knowledge of physiology, etc. > I didn't want to get into a discussion on this last part of my post, and I > just tossed it in as kind of an aside for some levity. But I don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is rather inhumane. Like I said, this has been discussed at length in many > ng's for years, as you are well aware of. Of course there is a reason to cure. It ain't one time. I get a disorder of some sort. It is cured. But there are always more with this disorder coming up behind me. You think the advent of penicillin took away all cases of sore throat in kids? >> That's the whole point Jeff. If they find a cure, they will lose >> their continuing profit which they get from all the maintenance type [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > this disorder coming up behind me. You think the advent of penicillin > took away all cases of sore throat in kids? Kurt...I figured someone would say something like that, and was going to mention it, but figured most people would know that is not the "kind of cure for a disease" that we are talking about here. A sore throat is usually a simple disease process (unless there is a more serious underlying cause for it) that may be cured, or cleared up by antibiotics, or just go away naturally with salt water gargling, and letting the body's immune system do it's job. And for the more serious and difficult to solve disease processes (that the Pharma's do not want to try to cure, but do want to try to keep them at bay), I also figured someone like you would mention the people coming up from behind, if there was a cure. But there is a tremendous difference between the people coming up from behind and being cured, and those same people taking lifelong "brand name" (ie expensive) drugs instead, if they were not cured. The total sale for the lifelong medication will far exceed the cost for the one time cure (by a magnitude of 100's to 1000's of times, depending on how long the person lives). And even when the drug eventually goes generic, there will be newer drug to replace it, that will say it is better, blah blah blah. Penicillin is probably the greatest single drug discovery to date, but that is not what we are talking about here. I'll stand on what I said. The big Pharma's do not want to find cures for the puzzling and difficult to solve disease processes, when they can make way more money controlling symptoms by long term maintenance use of their drugs. There is no doubt in my mind that this is true, and I believe it is basic common sense and logic, and a simple result of real world economics (unfortunate as it is). Pete > >> That's the whole point Jeff. If they find a cure, they will lose > >> their continuing profit which they get from all the maintenance type [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > naturally with salt water gargling, and letting the body's immune system do > it's job. Actually you just made the main argument as to why your idea is wrong. These are processes and you don't just wave a magic wand and fix them once and for all. I used pcn specifically because it is a simple process and low hanging fruit. The more complex you get, then the more trouble it is to cure. How would you cure diabetes short of a transplant, for instance. Once the damage is done, it is done. You can't cure it with the current state of the art. How do you suggest we make permanent changes to brain chemistry to cure schizophrenia or depression? If lifestyle changes don't cure hypertension, how else would you suggest the pharm companies attack this problem. Assuming you are right, which diseases do you think the pharm companies can cure based on current state of the art but don't? Give me an example of an illness where it is well enough understood that one could design a one time treatment or medication regimen (like pencillin) that would cure it. > Penicillin is probably the greatest single drug discovery to date, but that > is not what we are talking about here. I'll stand on what I said. The big [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this is true, and I believe it is basic common sense and logic, and a simple > result of real world economics (unfortunate as it is). I think that it is based more on misunderstanding of the state of the art in medicine overall. > >> That's the whole point Jeff. If they find a cure, they will lose > >> their continuing profit which they get from all the maintenance type [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Pete ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pete, Someone in another newsgroup mentioned a small drug company that was developing a drug that would CURE some types of kidney diseases. A huge drug company was already selling a medicaiton that was designed to TREAT at least one of those kidney diseases. That huge drug company purchased the rights to that medication that could cure some types of kidney diseases. Lots of people that had kidney diseases were HOPING that new drug would eventually cure their kidneys diseases. GUESS WHAT? That huge drug company did continue to develop that medication. The reason is related to MONEY. They knew that they could make much more money by NEVER developing that medicaiton that could cure some types of kidney disease. They could make much more money from their medications that could TREAT those kidney diseases. Follow the money. Don't ask me for proof since I failed to write down the name of that drug Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In article <Jason-0205071620540001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Someone in another newsgroup mentioned a small drug company that was > developing a drug that would CURE some types of kidney diseases. A huge [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > those kidney diseases. Follow the money. Don't ask me for proof since I > failed to write down the name of that drug Just out of personal curiosity, you got any names of medications and names of companies to go with that? In article <kurtullman-57B1ED.18234902052007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > In article > <Jason-0205071620540001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Just out of personal curiosity, you got any names of medications > and names of companies to go with that? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No--I saw the post in at least one of these newsgroups: alt.support.kidney-failure alt.support.kidney-diesease In article <Jason-0205071808160001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > related to MONEY. They knew that they could make much more money by NEVER > > > developing that medicaiton that could cure some types of kidney disease. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > alt.support.kidney-failure > alt.support.kidney-diesease Sorry I missed the part about you not writing down the name earlier or I wouldn't have asked. Forgive if I don't take your word for its existence. In article <kurtullman-7BF347.23094502052007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > In article > <Jason-0205071808160001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > or I wouldn't have asked. Forgive if I don't take your word for its > existence. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If I had more free time, I would find it for you but it would involve reading hundreds of boring posts that I have already read. The name of the medication might be Ac-SDKP but I am not sure. In article <Jason-0205072212540001@66-52-22-92.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Ac-SDKP If that was it, a Medline search shows about 15 published articles in just 2007 and 2006 for a number of different diseases. Seems like a rather robust research effort to me. BTW: It appears that these are still rat studies for the most part, can't find any reason to think they are in human trials yet. In article <kurtullman-0B4DAC.07573403052007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > In article > <Jason-0205072212540001@66-52-22-92.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > still rat studies for the most part, can't find any reason to think they > are in human trials yet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I googled the newsgroup and found the exact post that I mentioned in my last two posts. It now appeared that my memory is not perfect but I already knew that--the drug does not CURE kidney disease like I stated in my post-sorry for the error. I left out the name of the person and that person's email address. Here it is: Newsgroups: alt.support.kidney-failure Date: 17 Oct 2006 12:12:51 -0700 Local: Tues, Oct 17 2006 12:12 pm Subject: BMP-7 and the kidney This is the drug that Ortho Biotech licensed from Curis in late 2002. Unfortunately there is no evidence that Ortho has done anything with BMP-7 since then. Is this because it is puts their current blockbuster drug Procit/Epoetin (http://www.orthobiotech.com/procrit.html) at risk? I really hope not, but who knows? BMP-7 and the Kidney, Introduction: Several recent studies have demonstrated unequivocally that administration of bone morphogenic protein-7 (BMP-7) has a therapeutic effect in various animal models of acute and chronic renal injury (Table 1). However, the underlying mechanisms of BMP-7 action in the kidney remained largely unknown in these initial reports. Here, novel aspects regarding the biology of BMP-7 in the kidney will be discussed. Full study: http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/568 Ortho licensing BMP-7 from Curis: http://curis.com/product_detail.php?id=3 How can we get Ortho to actually do something with BMP-7, besides sitting on it? In article <Jason-0305071319480001@66-52-22-60.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > bone morphogenic protein-7 > I googled the newsgroup and found the exact post that I mentioned in my > last two posts. It now appeared that my memory is not perfect but I > already knew that--the drug does not CURE kidney disease like I stated in > my post-sorry for the error. I left out the name of the person and that > person's email address. > Here it is: Since you cited this as one evidence that they sat on medications that were cures in favor of those that were curative, you don't have a good example of that. Correct? Again a quick tiptoe through Medline found 17 article on the subject over 2006 and 2007 over a whole bunch of different diseases. In article <kurtullman-1C96CE.16053903052007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > In article > <Jason-0305071319480001@66-52-22-60.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Again a quick tiptoe through Medline found 17 article on the > subject over 2006 and 2007 over a whole bunch of different diseases. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are correct. It was not a cure. However, it was a drug that MAY have caused them to lose millions of dollars if it worked better than the drug they were selling. That, in my opinion, is the main reason they purchased all rights for that new drug and failed to develop that drug. Follow the money. That drug company failed to develop a drug that could have helped people that have kidney disease. Do you think that was a good thing to do or a bad thing to do? Which was the real reason for that decision: money or a concern for patients that may have benefitted from the new drug? Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > You are correct. It was not a cure. However, it was a drug that MAY have > caused them to lose millions of dollars if it worked better than the drug [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or a concern for patients that may have benefitted from the new drug? > Jason SCRRECH, the sound of moving goal posts (g). And may not have. Of course since there have been over 17 new studies completed on the molecule since January of 2006 (a mere 16 month ago) it would be hard to say that they have failed to continue development. In article <kurtullman-E42411.18585703052007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > molecule since January of 2006 (a mere 16 month ago) it would be hard to > say that they have failed to continue development. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You won the debate. In this case, I'm glad I lost. I hope that drug passes all of the tests. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In article <Jason-0305072057380001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > In article > <kurtullman-E42411.18585703052007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You won the debate. In this case, I'm glad I lost. I hope that drug passes > all of the tests. Heck I didn't "win" anything. Just gave someone some updated information and hopefully we both learned something from the experience. One of the problems with USENET exchanges is that they too soon degenerate into yelling matches instead of learning experiences. To quote someone "A discussion is an exchange of knowledge, as opposed to an argument which is an exchange of ignorance." In article <kurtullman-9B6B11.07205704052007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > In article > <Jason-0305072057380001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > To quote someone "A discussion is an exchange of knowledge, as opposed > to an argument which is an exchange of ignorance." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good point. We are on the same team so we both won. I did learn something from your post. I am a member of a kidney support newsgroup. Some of the people in that newsgroup ATTACK almost anyone that posts in that newsgroup. The end result of their attacks is that on most days--there are NO new posts in that newsgroup. I call it a NON-SUPPORT newsgroup. How sad. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.