Medical Forum / General / General / May 2005
LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value
|
|
Thread rating:  |
john - 09 Feb 2005 16:52 GMT LIFE UNDER CODEX
By Helke Ferrie
Vitality Magazine February 2005
It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.
Robert Houghwout Jackson, Chief Judge, War-Crimes Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945
If the following information were a horror movie, we could all sit back with our popcorn and enjoy it. Unfortunately, this is not fiction - and if you don't do something about it, this nightmare will become waking reality in Canada sometime soon after August 1. Whatever happens, you will never forget Codex Alimentarius.
CODEX
Codex is a sub-committee of the United Nations mandated to establish guidelines on food trade issues. Such guidelines are not legally binding for any nation, but nations which are part of the World Trade Organization can be severely sanctioned anyway. In the early 1990's, Codex began to look at establishing internationally "harmonized"standards for food supplements. In 2002 a European Union Directive produced such guidelines for Codex. It turns out, their effect will with certainty be to stop the availability of all vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and most other essential nutrients as food supplements; they are slated to be treated as pharmaceutical drugs, eventually available on prescription only and manufactured by pharmaceutical companies from synthetic materials, including from genetically engineered substances.
Due to interlocking international treaties, specifically the WTO established in 1995, and the still to be ratified Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), Canada and the US would be faced with serious sanctions if they do not adopt these guidelines. Codex authority is already part of these treaty texts. Australia, Norway, Denmark and Germany have already adopted these "foods as drugs" guidelines.
Health Canada's website already lists the European Parliament Commission's "upper safe limits" on supplements as desirable for Canadians to follow. Without parliamentary debate, Health Canada snuck up on us and moved all supplements under the "drug"category effective January 2004, in order to get us ready to be "harmonized". This treachery prompted Bill C-420 (discussed below).
Consumer groups and various medical associations throughout the world have joined forces with the "Alliance for Natural Health", Europe's voice for the supplement industries to challenge this Directive in the International Court in Luxemburg as a violation of the EU Constitution. The 25 EU member states differ widely in medical norms. Article 152 of the EU Constitution expressly forbids any harmonization regarding availability of medicinal and food substances related to health. This provides a solid legal argument for the case to be heard on January 25th. The decision will be published in March. Because the biotech and pharmaceutical industries dominate Codex and the EU food regulatory authority, which wrote this Directive, the International Court's decision will be decisive for either consumer freedom of choice or the multi-national corporations.
LIFE UNDER CODEX
In the mid-1990's my mother, then in her 80's, had a stroke. She lived in Germany. When she left hospital, I was ready with a nutritional plan that included high-dose vitamins: C, E, and B - especially Inositol, as well as Co-enzyme Q 10. I went to the pharmacy, whose owner was a family friend for some 25 years, and handed him my list.
Hew gave me a small packet with a price sticker of DM 200 (then about $ 200) containing vitamin E capsules manufactured by one of Germany's largest pharmaceutical companies. The source was synthetic, not the "mixed" version from living plant sources I wanted which contains the whole E spectrum. The package contained a total of 10,000 international units of E, the equivalent of a mere 25 capsules of 400 IU each that we are used to buying (I take that many in 3 days). Our bottles contain 90 capsules and cost about $ 20. If Codex rules in Canada, we will likely pay $ 800 for a bottle of 90 capsules of low-quality vitamin E - if Health Canada lets us buy that many at once, and if you can find a doctor willing to prescribe it.
He then handed me a tube-shaped metal container with vitamin C effervescent tablets. Each tablet , when dissolved in water would release 10 mg of vitamin C in a refined sugar solution. Thus, this ridiculously low amount, was to be taken in a toxic medium that would neutralize the vitamin without it doing anything at all. The cost: about $ 10 for 12 tablets.
Then he asked me, "What's Co-enzyme Q 10? Are you allowed to buy all this in Canada in such dangerous dosages?" When I told him what I take daily, his eyes popped. Then I asked, "Why can't I buy these supplements here?" He replied, "Well, Germany is a Codex country." Oddly, Germany has several government-run hospitals where environmental illness is treated with nutrients only, intravenous vitamin C etc. Life is full of paradoxes and few more follow below.
CODEX AND THE EU
Dr. Carolyn Dean, a medical doctor and naturopath well known to Toronto readers, is currently the president of "Friends of Freedom International" in which capacity she attended the Codex meeting in Bonn last November. She describes Codex as "the ultimate Big Brother marching backwards into the future."
Effective August 1, all vitamin and mineral supplements on the so-called "positive list", including everything from Beta Carotene to Zinc, will only be available in the 25 EU countries if they comply with specific rules set out in the June 10, 2002, EU Directive Relating to Food Supplements. All products must show maximum safe levels "as established by science". Those nutrients found in the mythic "balanced diet" are to be subtracted from the final values, and Article 6 (2) decrees that labels shall "not attribute to food supplements the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, or refer to such properties." So, the Directive's "science" knows nothing of Vitamin C preventing and curing scurvy, Vitamin D preventing and curing rickets and osteoporosis, or vitamin B curing and preventing anemia. It also ignores the mountain of evidence showing our diets are chronically deficient in essential nutrients because of factory-style farming practices. To "ensure a high level of protection for consumers and facilitate their choice", they even included baking soda and table salt. We must assume they will be unavailable as of August 1 anywhere in Europe - with interesting consequences for the tourist industry in the baked goods paradises Austria, Switzerland and France.
Now, there is also a "negative list" covering essential fatty acids, phytonutrients, all the enzymes and more. Those cannot be marketed at all, until the EU scientific committee in charge has made a final decision. So, forget omega-3 and omega-6 fats, cod liver oil, and much more. The effect of this directive will be that thousands of products and businesses will be gone this year. In the UK alone some 21 million people will suddenly have no access to any supplement vitamins, minerals, enzymes, fatty acids and more. Since the onus is on businesses to produce the scientific information on safety, they can't produce or sell anything - not even to physicians who have the power to prescribe any toxic drug as well as any essential nutrient. Obviously, there will be ludicrous enforcement issues: Picture basement-concocted vitamins sold in dark alleys alongside crack and Ecstasy.
TOBACCO SCIENCE
Health Canada's famous food safety activist, Dr. Shiv Chopra, refers to corporate-generated pseudo-science (designed to look snazzy but being in fact sleazy) as "tobacco science", which is what obviously informed the Directive. For example, the misleadingly named "International Alliance of Dietary Supplements" (see iadsa-exposed.tripod.com ) has already started the process of establishing "safety limits" for supplements by providing Codex with a report: it is based on outdated secondary literature, cites no evidence of dead bodies from vitamin overdosing, asserts nonetheless that we are all overdosing, and it is produced by a "scientific" committee chaired by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer's very own Randy Dennin.
Nutrients are essential to life and cannot be subjected to safety analyses like environmental toxins or synthetic drugs. Virtually all research published in mainstream journals is focused on how essential nutrients heal organisms on the cellular level, which nutrients act together to bring about organ repair, and how they cause systemic healing when given in very high doses. Science has known for at least a century that deficiencies cause standard diseases. In the presence of certain viruses and environmental toxins, such deficiencies are major contributing factor to AIDS and all cancers. Indeed, the South Africans recently renamed AIDS to NAIDS which stands for "Nutritionally Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" because recent research showed that for the HIV virus to cause illness, a person must also be deficient in the immune-system-controlling mineral Selenium (Foster 2004).
Toxicity studies basically don't exist for essential nutrients (one of a few is vitamin A under certain circumstances). To establish the "lethal dose 50", half of a hundred lab rats or mice dies at a substance's concentration which is then designated as the toxic level. Well, you can't do that with Vitamin C or essential fatty acids, for example. They can't kill. The body metabolizes these substances and excretes excesses. The occasional individual allergy to a specific type of vitamin does not invalidate general biocompatibility. Meeting the August 1 deadline is impossible in principle and in practice. It is a trap.
By contrast, all synthetic drugs without exception are systemically toxic, meaning they are toxic to more than one body system as well as on a cellular level . Hence the constant need to weigh the benefits of their use with the known risks of their toxicity, specific doses of just so many mg, timing of ingestion, duration of treatment - and the prescription requirement. All this doesn't apply to apples, magnesium or probiotics. If you eat too many apples, you get the runs - same mess for too much vitamin C. Furthermore, all drugs, from Aspirin to Zocor, also deplete essential nutrients. Most accumulate in body tissues because they cannot be metabolized by our enzymes which freak out when encountering this phony chemistry and simply move on. Used for a long time, drugs frequently shut down the body's natural detoxification center, the liver, and in extreme cases destroy it - necessitating a liver transplant. Of course, essential nutrients are readily metabolized and distributed in accordance with the laws of nature, while simultaneously nourishing the liver.
RESISTANCE
About 800,000 people die every year in North America from properly prescribed and ingested drugs. No toxicity levels are ever published on drugs. They are assumed and were protected by a conspiracy of silence until Johns Hopkins Medical School published the data on this carnage in 2003 (see Dean below). Codex's effort to save us all from supposedly dangerous food supplements, by requiring their (non-existent) toxicity levels, is a determined backlash against the turn medical science took starting with Linus Pauling, Abram Hoffer, Carl Pfeiffer and Roger Williams in the 1950's. They established the concepts of bio-individuality in absorption and detoxification, high-dose essential nutrients as disease curing, and environmental toxins acting as nutrient depleting. Today, we have a flood of evidence showing that drugs have a very limited usefulness and that high-dose nutrients can do anything better than drugs can.
The pharmaceutical industry is anything but slow-witted, and good business practice dictates outfoxing the competition - one way or another - to secure the market. If this Directive is not stopped, there will be only one medical world: the pharmaceutical world. When this Codex project began in 2001, some 180 million protest letters reached their office, but Codex doesn't give up on protecting us. Now the fight is on in each country, because Codex is now our problem as well.
South Africa announced on January 17th that it will not follow the foods-as-drugs Directive. Minister of Health Manto Tshabalala-Msimang stated her country disagrees with the "false dichotomy between natural and allopathic medicine, a division fostered by the need to make money from patented drugs through discrediting the use of natural products." At the November Codex meeting the South African delegate, Dr. Anthony Rees (a naturopath and medical doctor) stood firm on rejecting the Directive's notion that supplements don't treat , prevent or cure, but the Codex chairman, who is routinely supported by the EU delegate commanding 25 votes, simply stonewalled all opposition, even the World Health Organization's report entitled Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Disease. Since chronic disease is the source of Big Pharma's wealth (see my book), the last thing Codex wants is prevention.
Dr. Dean described how India's delegate, who represents one third of the human race with one vote, objected to the Codex and EU-promoted baby formulas containing chemicals that cause brain-destroying inflammation in susceptible babies. He was ignored. When he insisted on debate, he was removed from the room. Naturally, India is mounting its resistance to Codex, the EU Directive, the WTO and all the rest of the regulatory alphabet soup.
Despite Bush the Bizarre in the White House, the US has bill H.R. 4004 before Congress, sponsored by Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. Known as the Health Freedom Bill, it is an anti-Codex, anti-harmonization bill that would ensure supplements to remain foods available according to individual choice. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons expressed their opposition to Codex by formally adopting on December 10th last year a resolution "supporting freedom for patients and physicians to choose natural remedies". The Dietary Supplement Education Alliance presented recently before Congress an extensive analysis of the effect of supplements taken on the basis of individual choice. Their data showed that supporting such health freedom would save the government a minimum of US 15 billion annually. Doctors' associations also prepared a superb rebuttal to the reports Codex relies on. One of the most important tools is available for free to the health activist on www.garynull.com where you can download the entire available mainstream scientific information on all vitamins and minerals up to 2003. This material was assembled with Dr. Carolyn Dean's assistance specifically to counteract Codex's tobacco science.
In the UK, physicians practicing natural medicine have been equally active. They are supported by many members of the House of Lords and the Royal Family who subscribe to homeopathy. Tony Blair's pro-Codex policy was attacked publicly by his wife's personal trainer, who supervises the Blairs' supplement regime; she accused the Blairs of hypocrisy and urged Britons not to vote for him.
In Canada we have an utterly unique opportunity to save freedom of choice by supporting Bill C-420 which is going into second reading in Parliament in early March. By that time MPs Dr. James Lunney and Dr. Colin Carrie need to show the government that their bill is supported by Canadians - just as we did a few years ago with more than a million letters. At that time, Health Canada was poised to place all 60,000 natural products into the drug category. This immense protest resulted in a promise to establish a "third category". Without debate or public knowledge , all natural products were simply moved into the drug category January 1, 2004. Outraged by this treachery, MP Dr.J. Lunney launched bill C-420 which would change the definition of food and drugs such as to achieve what that publicly supported "third category" would have done. Now we have a minority government and a chance to win. The simple fact is that if our supplements are defined, in law, as foods, Codex has no jurisdiction.
So, what can you do?
First: Go to my website www.kospublishing.com, scroll down to Make A Difference , go to "CODEX Action Canada". A letter for our Minister of Health and detailed instructions are provided, with the addresses and e-mails of the relevant MPs. You may write your own letter, of course. For a hard copy 519-927-1049. It demands (summary below):
1. Support Bill C -420, which is coming up for second reading in March. 2. Take the necessary steps to implement the CAUT recommendations by Canada's university teachers (i.e. stop Health Canada from doing Big Pharma's bidding). 3. Initiate a "Truth Commission" composed of medical, toxicology, and research experts with no ties to the pharmaceutical industry, charged to investigate the validity and reliability of the research of every drug in the current Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (CPS) 4. Amend the regulatory requirements of Health Canada such that, beginning with the 2005 edition of the CPS, every drug therein must show its toxicity level in addition to potential adverse effects. 5. Support the Minister's call for compulsory adverse event reports on drugs.
Second: Become a member for $ 25 annually of Friends of Freedom International. Download membership form and information on Bill C-420 from my website, or call me for a hard copy. They handle the most important current legal actions against Health Canada.
If everyone of the 50,000 readers of this article were to act now, Canadians would ensure their right to freedom of choice in medicine. In a minority-government, Bill C-420 is certain to pass with public support, and the pending law suits against Health Canada's high-handed attack on vitamin and supplements could be won. Instead of having your (tax) money support the pharmaceutical industry, this would be certain support for Life and Health.
Sources:
On Codex and the EU Directive : www.friendsoffreedom.org and www.alliance-natural-health.org. For international treaties affecting supplements www.citizen.org
M. Angell, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive us And What To Do About It, Random House, 2004 J. Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, Viking, 2004 H. Ferrie, Dispatches from the War Zone of Environmental Health, Kos 2004 H. Foster, What Really Causes AIDS, Trafford 2002 S. & H. Hickey, MDs, The Ridiculous Dietary Allowance (type LULU into GOOGLE and download free edition of this book) S. Rampton & J. Stauber, Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future, Tarcher-Putnam, 2001
Jeff - 10 Feb 2005 02:38 GMT Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity of supplements.
Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?
You can learn more about the program here: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
Jeff
Juhana Harju - 15 Mar 2005 08:39 GMT :: Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity of :: supplements. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: You can learn more about the program here: :: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp I am not involved in sales of any products but I know that it is very costly to get any product through that kind of process. It happens that even if a product is good and safe it can't be brought to market because of the high costs involved.
 Signature Juhana
Laurie Brandt - 09 Apr 2005 16:04 GMT Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in to. Laurie
> :: Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity of > :: supplements. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > even if a product is good and safe it can't be brought to market because > of the high costs involved. Jeff - 09 Apr 2005 21:12 GMT > Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The > pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential > oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in > to. Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins and other supplements.
However, these supplemements don't really compete with real medicine, because they don't do much.
Jeff
> Laurie > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> even if a product is good and safe it can't be brought to market because >> of the high costs involved. GMCarter - 10 Apr 2005 10:34 GMT >> Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The >> pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins and other >supplements. Indeed. They also have gotten into the botanical industry.
>However, these supplemements don't really compete with real medicine, >because they don't do much. LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been caught in a price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements" didn't do much. It's such a silly statement, it makes you sound like a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist.
George M. Carter
Jeff - 10 Apr 2005 18:15 GMT >>> Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. >>> The [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > silly statement, it makes you sound like a pharmaceutical industry > lobbyist. You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do not do much to help people. I mean they don't cure disease or anything.
They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.
And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.
Jeff
> George M. Carter GMCarter - 11 Apr 2005 10:00 GMT >>>> Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. >>>> The [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do not do much to >help people. I mean they don't cure disease or anything. Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement. Many drugs don't cure people of diseases. They help symptoms only.
And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that term.
But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help people.
>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines. > >And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like. They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom line. A good example would be St. John's wort which treats mild-to-moderate depression as well as many antidepressant drugs (which do not cure but merely ameliorate depression).
Jeff - 11 Apr 2005 13:03 GMT (...)
>>You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do not do much to >>help people. I mean they don't cure disease or anything. > > Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement. Many drugs don't > cure people of diseases. They help symptoms only. And supplements rarely even help symptoms.
> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many > disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that > term. References please.
> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help people. It > is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help people. As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely help people.
>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > depression as well as many antidepressant drugs (which do not cure but > merely ameliorate depression). Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St. John's wort is very helpful. But this is a very rare example of where supplements have been shown to help.
Jeff
GMCarter - 12 Apr 2005 11:34 GMT >(...) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And supplements rarely even help symptoms. I see. You're a bigot. Oh well.
>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many >> disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that >> term. > >References please. I could ask the same of you--but I realize you are not worth the time. There are AMPLE data to show the evidence for a range of micronutrients and botanicals. Glutamine for villous atrophy, for protease inhibitor-related diarrhea. Silybum marianum for liver disease. St. John's wort for mild-to-moderate depression. Niacin for cholesterol. On and on....but the data would not impress you because you're a close-minded bigot.
>> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help people. It >> is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help people. > >As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely help people. A recent JAMA report suggested that all adult Americans (and by extrapolation, others) would benefit from a multivitamin.
But I do agree that a healthy diet FIRST is foremost, at least in terms of the use of a multi. Also, exercise, avoiding/quitting smoking, etc.
>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >very helpful. But this is a very rare example of where supplements have >been shown to help. LOL. You're ignorant. And no, the study you refer to, I suspect since you provide no reference, was for SEVERE depression and the comparison drug in that study fared no better. Not surprisingly. Most antidepressant drugs don't work so well in that context.
George M. Carter
Jeff - 12 Apr 2005 12:23 GMT >>(...) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I see. You're a bigot. Oh well. Well, if i am wrong, please show the studies that show that supplements often help symptoms.
I mean the symptoms that the person takes them has.
I know it helps the empty wallet symptoms that the person selling them has.
>>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many >>> disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cholesterol. On and on....but the data would not impress you because > you're a close-minded bigot. In other words, you won't back your claims.
However, the vast majority of claims for the usefulness of botonicals and micronutrients are not backed by science. However, you forgot supplement for joint pain.
>>> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help people. It >>> is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help people. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > terms of the use of a multi. Also, exercise, avoiding/quitting > smoking, etc. We both agree here. I take a multivitamin. But taking megadoses of vitmains or taking vitamins or supplements for a particular condition rarely help people.
>>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > drug in that study fared no better. Not surprisingly. Most > antidepressant drugs don't work so well in that context. Actually, this was what I was referring to:
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-10 Related Articles, Links
St John's wort for depression: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Linde K, Berner M, Egger M, Mulrow C.
Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universitat Munchen, Munich, Germany. Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
BACKGROUND: Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) are widely used to treat depression. Evidence for its efficacy has been criticised on methodological grounds. AIMS: To update evidence from randomised trials regarding the effectiveness of Hypericum extracts. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 double-blind randomised controlled trials that compared clinical effects of Hypericum monopreparation with either placebo or a standard antidepressant in adults with depressive disorders. RESULTS: Larger placebo-controlled trials restricted to patients with major depression showed only minor effects over placebo, while older and smaller trials not restricted to patients with major depression showed marked effects. Compared with standard antidepressants Hypericum extracts had similar effects. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding Hypericum extracts is inconsistent and confusing. In patients who meet criteria for major depression, several recent placebo-controlled trials suggest that Hypericum has minimal beneficial effects while other trials suggest that Hypericum and standard antidepressants have similar beneficial effects.
Jeff
> George M. Carter GMCarter - 13 Apr 2005 11:44 GMT >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message snip...
>>>And supplements rarely even help symptoms. >> >> I see. You're a bigot. Oh well. > >Well, if i am wrong, please show the studies that show that supplements >often help symptoms. I listed (below) a number of interventions based on the studies. You know how to use google? Pubmed?
>I mean the symptoms that the person takes them has. Yes? You're incapable of doing research?
>I know it helps the empty wallet symptoms that the person selling them has. One can genuinely say that about ALL pharmaceutical drugs, regardless of their efficacy! And to a far more despicable degree.
>>>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many >>>> disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >In other words, you won't back your claims. Not for you, I won't. Why bother? You mind is set in stone.
>However, the vast majority of claims for the usefulness of botonicals and >micronutrients are not backed by science. However, you forgot supplement for >joint pain. I have a supplement for joint pain? Wow. I had no idea. Thanks for your virtual inventory! lol
>>>> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help people. It >>>> is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help people. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >or taking vitamins or supplements for a particular condition rarely help >people. Bully for you! What multi?
Your statement, again, is vague and strange. If you mean that some people take stuff for no appreciable reason other than being swayed by marketing and this may represent a waste of resources, I wouldn't be surprised. But your belief is just a hypothesis, not based on any data. To the extent it is true, however, it is undoubtedly true that many people use pharrmaceutical drugs with no appreciable benefit and, indeed, a much great risk of harm.
>>>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-10 Related Articles, Links Thanks for the reference though it appears to be inaccurate. Indeed, it conforms with what I stated (and is not a study but a meta-analysis.) For major depression, SJW is not very effective. Nor are antidepressants. For less than severe depression it has "marked effects." Therefore, you hypothesis that supplements do not help is rendered invalid. Here is the abstract from PubMed:
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-107. Related Articles, Links Click here to read St John's wort for depression: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Linde K, Berner M, Egger M, Mulrow C.
Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universitat Munchen, Munich, Germany. Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
BACKGROUND: Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) are widely used to treat depression. Evidence for its efficacy has been criticised on methodological grounds. AIMS: To update evidence from randomised trials regarding the effectiveness of Hypericum extracts. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 double-blind randomised controlled trials that compared clinical effects of Hypericum monopreparation with either placebo or a standard antidepressant in adults with depressive disorders. RESULTS: Larger placebo-controlled trials restricted to patients with major depression showed only minor effects over placebo, while older and smaller trials not restricted to patients with major depression showed marked effects. Compared with standard antidepressants Hypericum extracts had similar effects. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding Hypericum extracts is inconsistent and confusing. In patients who meet criteria for major depression, several recent placebo-controlled trials suggest that Hypericum has minimal beneficial effects while other trials suggest that Hypericum and standard antidepressants have similar beneficial effects.
I believe there are significantly more than 37 studies but have not read the full paper to understand their selection criteria for evaluating studies.
George M. Carter
Jeff - 13 Apr 2005 12:35 GMT >>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > snip... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I listed (below) a number of interventions based on the studies. You > know how to use google? Pubmed? In other words, you can't back your claims. Fine with me.
>>I mean the symptoms that the person takes them has. > > Yes? You're incapable of doing research? Apparently, you are. It is not up to me to back your claims.
>>I know it helps the empty wallet symptoms that the person selling them >>has. > > One can genuinely say that about ALL pharmaceutical drugs, regardless > of their efficacy! And to a far more despicable degree. Correct.
This week we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of licensing of polio vaccine. This lead to the empty iron-lung syndrome. And kept a few thousand graves empty. Nothing wrong with getting paid for drugs that work.
>>>>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many >>>>> disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Not for you, I won't. Why bother? You mind is set in stone. Then you lose the debate.
>>However, the vast majority of claims for the usefulness of botonicals and >>micronutrients are not backed by science. However, you forgot supplement [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Bully for you! What multi? Whatever one is cheapest. Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't monitor the quality of the multivitamins, so I have no reason to beleive that the cheap Target multivitamin is any worse than any other one.
> Your statement, again, is vague and strange. If you mean that some > people take stuff for no appreciable reason other than being swayed by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many people use pharrmaceutical drugs with no appreciable benefit and, > indeed, a much great risk of harm. However, each and every drug out there has been shown to work in clinical trials and almost every one has backing in basic science. AFAK, there has been no clinical trial that shows that multivitamins help those who eat a healthy diet. However, there is some good basic science to suspect that it will, and this is a cheap and safe intervention.
>>>>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > it conforms with what I stated (and is not a study but a > meta-analysis.) A meta-analysis is a study.
> For major depression, SJW is not very effective. Nor > are antidepressants. For less than severe depression it has "marked > effects." Therefore, you hypothesis that supplements do not help is > rendered invalid. Here is the abstract from PubMed: No. I said that the effectiveness of SJW has been called into question. It has been.
Jeff
> Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-107. Related Articles, Link > Click here to read [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > George M. Carter GMCarter - 14 Apr 2005 10:10 GMT >>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> snip... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >In other words, you can't back your claims. Fine with me. Yet again, you make a fatuous claim based on nothing. I can certainly back my claims. I simply choose not to with you. Or at least only to the extent I wish.
>>>I mean the symptoms that the person takes them has. >> >> Yes? You're incapable of doing research? > >Apparently, you are. It is not up to me to back your claims. LOL. No, but you don't back your own claims.
>>>I know it helps the empty wallet symptoms that the person selling them >>>has. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >vaccine. This lead to the empty iron-lung syndrome. And kept a few thousand >graves empty. Nothing wrong with getting paid for drugs that work. Interesting you would pick polio. Do you know its discoverer's views on patenting vaccines?
I have nothing against reasonable profit. What the pharmaceutical industry is doing is not capitalism. It is rape.
>>>>>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many >>>>>> disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Then you lose the debate. And you may go in peace.
>>>However, the vast majority of claims for the usefulness of botonicals and >>>micronutrients are not backed by science. However, you forgot supplement [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >of the multivitamins, so I have no reason to beleive that the cheap Target >multivitamin is any worse than any other one. You can review www.consumerlab.com for a better idea.
I find it interesting that someone who seeks proof is willing to spend money of--to you--unknown quality for no apparent reason?
>> Your statement, again, is vague and strange. If you mean that some >> people take stuff for no appreciable reason other than being swayed by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >However, each and every drug out there has been shown to work in clinical >trials and almost every one has backing in basic science. Where in the WORLD do you get that statement??? (Speaking of not backing claims: you don't either.) Indeed, only some 20% of drugs currently used have clinical trials info to back them. A good chunk of the rest are prescribed "off-label" oftentimes at the urging of pharma reps.
>AFAK, there has >been no clinical trial that shows that multivitamins help those who eat a >healthy diet. However, there is some good basic science to suspect that it >will, and this is a cheap and safe intervention. Help "those" means nothing. In general, I agree with your comment, however there are also data underscoring that for specific conditions, use of a multi can, for example, slow HIV disease progression by about 30% and reduce morbidity and mortality among people with AIDS (i.e., low CD4 count, detectable viral load).
>>>>>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >A meta-analysis is a study. Yes.
>> For major depression, SJW is not very effective. Nor >> are antidepressants. For less than severe depression it has "marked [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No. I said that the effectiveness of SJW has been called into question. It >has been. LOL. The efficacy of many drugs has been called into question. I call your sincerity into question! So what?
Wow. You are pretty inflexibly stupid, frankly. I'm sorry for you, guy. You have no idea how to use your mind, your heart. I hope you find healing for that lesion of bigotry!
George M. Carter
GMCarter - 13 Apr 2005 12:56 GMT lay article so take it with a grain of ascorbate...
** Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:35:24 -0400 Subject: The Independent - on C
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=628538 Vitamin C may be a life-saver Mega-doses of Vitamin C can counter avian flu, hepatitis and herpes, and can even control the advance of Aids By Jane Feinmann
12 April 2005
Imagine that a deadly virus is sweeping the world, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of children. Nothing seems able to stop it - until a doctor stands up at the American Medical Association and reports on 60 cases involving severely infected children, all of whom have been cured. Yet his work, subsequently reported in a peer-review journal, is ignored, leaving the virus to wreak havoc for decades.
This isn't a docudrama about some futuristic plague - it's a true story about what happened in June 1949 when polio was at its peak. Dr Frederick Klenner, a clinical researcher from Reidsville, North Carolina, reported that a massive intravenous dose of Vitamin C - up to 20,000mg daily for three days (today's recommended daily allowance is 60mg) - had cured 60 of his patients. The findings were published in a medical journal, yet there was virtually no interest. Apart from a couple of minor trials, no attempt was made to find out if they had any scientific substance.
Relating this curious incident in a new book, Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases & Toxins: Curing the Incurable, Dr Thomas Levy, a US cardiologist, admits to being gripped by a range of emotions when he came across Klenner's work and other studies that replicated it. "To know that polio had been easily cured yet so many people continued to die, or survived to be permanently crippled by it, was difficult to accept."
Levy argues that the medical profession has routinely ignored research showing that high doses of Vitamin C can combat bacteria, toxins and severe viral infections including avian flu, SARS, hepatitis and herpes. And this is not a case of doctors sniffing at anecdotal evidence from a handful of enthusiasts. "Vitamin C is possibly the best-researched substance in the world. There are more than 24,000 papers and articles on the authoritative clinical website, Medline. Yet virtually the all the evidence has been dismissed." Levy even claims that Aids can be controlled if a high enough dosage of Vitamin C is maintained.
This is not the first time doctors have had their cages rattled over the benefits of Vitamin C. The controversy has been simmering since 1753, when just a couple of sucks of a lime were shown to prevent scurvy. In the 1950s the chemist Linus Pauling, a double Nobel prize-winner, promoted the use of mega-doses of Vitamin C, but his research was rubbished by clinicians.
Recently, the anti-Vitamin C sentiment has grown. It has been blamed for causing the formation of kidney stones, and a study published in the journal Science in 2001 found that even 200mg doses of Vitamin C "facilitated the production of DNA-damaging agents associated with a variety of cancers". This finding was widely interpreted as proving that Vitamin C causes cancer.
Britain's Food Standards Agency recommends taking a maximum of 1,000mg of Vitamin C a day. But a directive going through the European Parliament aims to reduce this to less than 100mg in an attempt to harmonise dosages across the Continent. Despite being dubbed "illegal" by the advocate general of the European Court of Justice last week, the directive could still be passed.
The controversy has not put off consumers, many of whom take Vitamin C to ward off colds. The 1,000 mg capsule is the most popular single vitamin in Britain, with the 500mg version second.
Some people argue that we can get sufficient Vitamin C from a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, but Levy disagrees. The problem, he says, is that a genetic design fault makes us unable to synthesise our own Vitamin C. Levy claims that while recommended daily allowances of 60mg are enough to prevent the development of scurvy in otherwise healthy people, much higher levels are required to maintain health when an infection strikes. At such times, the body begins to "metabolise unusually large amounts of vitamin C, keeping stores so depleted that the recommended daily allowance will not even prevent many of the symptoms of scurvy from developing".
Levy claims that the reason why most animals stay healthy throughout their lives, while humans spend years coping with one or more chronic diseases, is that animals make their own Vitamin C. The wild goat, for instance, makes around 13,000mg a day, rising to 100,000mg when faced with life-threatening infectious or toxic stress, according to a 1961 study published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
So, is Levy right? Should everyone be taking mega-doses every day and having intravenous infusions when they fall ill? Possibly.
Dr Rodney Adeniyi-Jones regularly gives 20,000mg doses to people with arterial disease and as part of a flu treatment protocol, describing its effects as "beneficial... but not miraculous". And Professor George Lewith of the Centre for Complementary and Integrated Medicine says that while Vitamin C is not a panacea, it does have clinical benefits depending on the dosage. "There may be doses that are therapeutic, while another dose may be damaging for the same condition. It is not a dose-response curve as with pharmaceuticals, and we need to be cautious until this is better understood."
But he also warns that: "Many of the [Vitamin C] trials have been badly done and what evidence exists is mixed. Both those in favour and against high doses frequently misinterpret the data."
Levy may well be seen to have an axe to grind, yet the evidence seems to support his view that apart from causing diarrhoea, mega-doses of Vitamin C are not toxic. He says that a series of studies published in leading journals have shown that, far from causing cancer, Vitamin C is a safe supplement for chronic cancer patients. Further large studies suggest that supplements do not put a normal person at greater risk of developing kidney stones.
According to Levy, the problem is not that people might take too much, but that they won't take enough - and thus won't get the desired effects. "There's a popular medical view that taking Vitamin C just makes expensive urine. Some of it is lost in urine, but the more you consume, the more stays in your body."
With a new book on the way claiming that Vitamin C deficiency is also a primary cause of cardiovascular disease, Levy cannot be accused of underselling his case. Nor can he overcome the fact that proper clinical trials are still desperately needed. Considering its overall safety, there appears to be no good reason why anyone with a chronic or acute health problem should not try, at the very least, a couple of week's regime of two or three 1,000mg tablets of Vitamin C a day.
Need to Know: So how much should you take?
* For a cold
Three 1,000mg doses a day, according to the campaign group Consumers for Health Choice.
* For flu
Although it's more serious, the viral load is similar, according to research, and taking up to 20,000mg a day could be beneficial.
* For shingles
Research has shown that this painful post-viral condition can be pretty well cured by an injection of 3,000mg of vitamin C. Taking four 1,000mg tablets orally for three days could be worthwhile as well.
* For a hangover
Taking 1,000mg daily in the week before a booze-up reduces stress on the liver. If you're drunk and want to look sober, a large dose of vitamin C will prevent drunken behaviour, according to a 1986 study, "Alcohol and Alcoholism".
* To maintain your health
A 1,000mg daily dose is regarded as safe by the Food Standards Agency, and adequate to keep sufficient vitamin C in the plasma and tissues. "We believe this is absolutely safe and definitely beneficial to people's health," says Sue Croft of Consumers for Health Choice.
maison.mousse - 12 Apr 2005 13:26 GMT GMCarter a ?crit dans le message ...
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:03:04 GMT, " SNIP<Silybum marianum for liver disease. St. John's wort for mild-to-moderate depression. <
> George M. Carter Silybum is not known to treat any disease. In particular liver disease. An extract from the seeds of the plant is sold in Europe as the drug "legalon". It has no approved usage but is allowed for sell with the PROPOSED use for digestive troubles. It's side effects are listed as abdominal pain and diarrh?es. Silymarine (silibinine) is not found in the green parts of the plant at all. Only the seeds. Eating the seeds with not supply the drug nor will attempting to make an infusion of the tea work. Silymarine (silibinine) is found in usable amounts in the eatable part of the artichoke. The artichoke has been used in European folk medicine to treat digestive problems associated with insufficient liver bile production. It may help with digestion of cholesterol.
It is not as claimed used in European hospitals for any reason.
St. John's wort has not been shown to be any more effective for mild or moderate depression or any kind of depression than a placebo. Phytotherapy is a very useful adjunct to other types of medical care. It is not done by amateurs and bares no relationship at all to "herbalism". Over half of all medications used in the west are either chemicals from plants, analogs of chemicals found in plants or higher plant parts. The chemistry and use of these chemicals are known and because even in the case of plant parts or extracts they are tested and standardized so dosage can be controlled. Information on legalon and other products containing Silymarine (silibinine) is from OMS and "Dictionnaire Des M?dicaments" by Dr. Vittorio Fattorusso.
GMCarter - 13 Apr 2005 11:49 GMT >GMCarter a écrit dans le message ... >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:03:04 GMT, " [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Silybum is not known to treat any disease. Nonsense. It is known to treat liver disease.
Whether it is approved by some regulatory agencies or not for that indication, I don't know but that is a different issue.
The extent to which it works for various liver problems needs to be better evaluated. But data show it can help reverse fibrosis (see below). However, for conditions like hepatitis C, it is not clear if it is of benefit (see small study of Egyptian patients).
George M. Carter
** J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003 Oct;37(4):336-9. Related Articles, Links Click here to read Silymarin retards the progression of alcohol-induced hepatic fibrosis in baboons.
Lieber CS, Leo MA, Cao Q, Ren C, DeCarli LM.
Section of Liver Disease & Nutrition, Bronx VA Medical Center & Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10468, USA. liebercs@aol.com
GOAL/BACKGROUND: Hepatoprotective effects of silymarin in patients with alcoholic liver disease are controversial. For strict control, this was assessed in non-human primates.STUDY Twelve baboons were fed alcohol with or without silymarin for 3 years with a nutritionally adequate diet. RESULTS: Silymarin opposed the alcohol-induced oxidative stress (assessed by plasma 4-hydroxynonenal) and the rise in liver lipids and circulating ALT. Alcohol also increased hepatic collagen type I by 50% over the 3 years with a significant rise in mRNA for alpha1 (I) procollagen, both prevented by silymarin. There were corresponding morphologic changes: at 36 months, 2 of 6 animals fed alcohol had cirrhosis and 2 septal fibrosis, with perivenular fibrosis in 2, whereas with alcohol + silymarin, there was only 1 cirrhosis and 1 septal fibrosis, with perivenular fibrosis in 2, and virtually no lesions in the remaining 2. CONCLUSIONS: Silymarin retards the development of alcohol-induced hepatic fibrosis in baboons, consistent with several positive clinical trials. The negative outcome observed in other trials possibly reflects poor compliance resulting in irregular or low silymarin intake. Thus, in view of the innocuity of silymarin, it might be advisable in future clinical studies to insure the controlled administration of sufficient amounts of silymarin.
** Dig Liver Dis. 2004 Nov;36(11):752-9. Related Articles, Links
Randomised double-blinded trial evaluating silymarin for chronic hepatitis C in an Egyptian village: study description and 12-month results.
Tanamly MD, Tadros F, Labeeb S, Makld H, Shehata M, Mikhail N, Abdel-Hamid M, Shehata M, Abu-Baki L, Medhat A, Magder LS, Afdhal NH, Strickland GT.
International Health Division, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 660 West Redwood St. Suite 100, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: A double-blinded trial evaluating silymarin, an herbal supplement for liver disease, to prevent complications of chronic hepatitis C virus infection has not been done. SUBJECTS: One hundred and seventy-seven consenting residents of an Egyptian village with chronic hepatitis C virus were randomly assigned to receive either silymarin or multivitamin supplements. METHODS: Participants had baseline and follow-up clinical, ultrasound, blood tests and quality-of-life assessments. Community nurses visited weekly to ascertain compliance, distribute supplements and record adverse effects. RESULTS: At 12 months almost all of 141 remaining subjects reported feeling better, although symptoms and quality-of-life scores did not differ between the silymarin and multivitamin groups. Both the silymarin and vitamins were tolerated equally well; and >95% of supplements were taken by >95% of subjects. One in each group had no detectable hepatitis C virus antibodies while two in the silymarin group and three receiving multivitamins had undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA. Serum alanine aminotransferase elevations did not differ between groups. Serum hepatic fibrosis marker, hyaluronic acid and YKL-40, and abdominal ultrasound results were similar in both groups and may have progressed slightly at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended dose of silymarin can be safely taken for 1 year and improves symptoms and general well-being, but has no effect upon hepatitis C virus viremia, serum ALT, or serum and ultrasound markers for hepatic fibrosis. More prolonged evaluation and a higher dose may be required to ascertain whether milk thistle supplements prevent complications of chronic hepatitis C virus.
John Que - 13 Apr 2005 02:37 GMT > (...) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And supplements rarely even help symptoms. Myo-Inositol is very effective for panic attacks. There is reason to believe alpha tocopheryl succinate is useful in the context of cancer and cancer treatment. Vitamin D at higher levels in the infant and the young prevents autoimmune disorders. B-12 prevents declines in the CNS. CoQ-10 slows Parkinson's disease. Vitamin D supplementation helps with pain. Vitamin K is useful in preventing and/or treating osteoporosis, osteopenia and ectopic calcification. Vitamin D supplementation prevents falls. Alpha lipoic acid is useful in slowing and reversing diabetic related neuropathy. High dose B-2 is really good in reducing the frequency of migrane attacks. B-12, folate, B-6, betaine improves genomic stabilty.
I could provide references but since ever time I provide references or caught a factual error by my opposite, all I get is dead silence or lazy "weaseling" for the other side, I don't feel moved.
Your conventional Doc is not trained in the use of vitamins, nutrients, nutrient-like compounds, and botanicals. They aren't even very well trained in the use of most hormones. In short, they aren't looking. In other words, "rarely" is in the eye of the behavior.
> > And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many > > disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that > > term. > > References please. Quinine is a botanically derived agent. You'd better not a reference for that one. DIM which is used to reduce the conversion T to E2 can be found in botanical sources as I recall. Quite a range of botanicals that reduce inflammation. Since you are a older male, I suggest you try some Eurycoma longfolia;-)
> > But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help people. It > > is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help people. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > very helpful. But this is a very rare example of where supplements have > been shown to help. Were is your reference? Is it case of setting the example?
> Jeff Eric Bohlman - 14 Apr 2005 06:53 GMT > LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been caught in a > price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements" didn't do much. It's such a > silly statement, it makes you sound like a pharmaceutical industry > lobbyist. Sorry, that simply doesn't follow. In order for a company to have an incentive to get involved in a price-fixing scam, it's hardly necessary for their products to actually "do much." All that's necessary is for a lot of people to want to buy them. And that can happen for quite a variety of reasons other than the true efficacy of the products. Brand loyalty, perceived benefit independent of demonstrated benefit, "just in case" mentality, the list goes on. The simple fact is that few if any products or services are purchased by _homo economicus_, who is to economics what the celebrated "perfectly spherical frictionless cow" is to physics: an oversimplifying assumption used for pedagogy.
GMCarter - 14 Apr 2005 10:29 GMT >> LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been caught in a >> price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements" didn't do much. It's such a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >their products to actually "do much." All that's necessary is for a lot of >people to want to buy them. Agreed. Roche, tho, didn't DIRECTLY market their vitamin products through the vitamin division. Other companies purchase the raw material to make end-user products.
See http://www.econ.ucy.ac.cy/~sofronis/classes/vitamins.html
and interestingly, they don't give up: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/87582
but finally appear to have abandoned the business: http://www.roche.com/med-cor-2003-02-10c
>And that can happen for quite a variety of >reasons other than the true efficacy of the products. Brand loyalty, >perceived benefit independent of demonstrated benefit, "just in case" >mentality, the list goes on. Sure--but in this case, people were NOT purchasing based on brand loyalty, etc. They bought what they could get and the "competition" piece of the equation was removed. "Price fixing" in short.
Roche was just doing to vitamins what they already do through the distortions upon intellectual property right, where they, as others in the industry, appear to feel they have a legitimate claim to hiding behind the intent of IP law to justify price gouging and other forms of fiscal rape.
Indeed, Roche has not limited its nefarious activities to vitamins. They attempted to patent Centella asiatica and sell it locally in Madagascar at a higher price. Fortunately, locals rejected the notion and their efforts were rebuffed. A similar attempt occurred when the U. of Mississippi attempted to place patent on curcumin for wound healing and the Indian government successfully overturned the attempt, citing prior art.
The effects of the pharmaceutical industry on indigenous knowledge and intellectual property represents a significant threat to local ability to develop economically. In short, big business, give a fraction of a chance, will screw and rape the crap out of local peoples for profit. Not always, happily, but more routinely and "fair trade" is the exception, not the rule. Indeed, the US Trade Representative has worked with religious fervor to obtain unilateral trade agreements that abrogate the rights of developing nations, even those developed by the World Trade Organization, hardly a bastion of human rights.
See, e.g., http://www.icsf.net/jsp/publication/occasionalpapers/trip_english.pdf
>The simple fact is that few if any products >or services are purchased by _homo economicus_, who is to economics what >the celebrated "perfectly spherical frictionless cow" is to physics: an >oversimplifying assumption used for pedagogy. One must indeed beware of oversimplifying, I agree.
George M. Carter
GK - 13 Apr 2005 18:04 GMT >>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The >>pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jeff Actually, they often do quite alot, depending upon the herbs and the ailment. In China for example, only herbs are used in treating hepatitis. Herbs cannot cure the disease, but they can halt it's progression and reverse the damage (fibrosis) done to your liver. Traditional western medicine, IFN/RBV has approximately a 50% cure rate for all types of Hep C combined because not everyone responds to the drugs, furthermore it makes almost all people very sick. For those who do not respond to these drugs or cannot tolerate the sickness, they can often switch treatment to specific herbs that allow them to live out normal lives while the virus still exists in the body. You can do your own googling and research if your interested.
However, you are correct that in some cases herbs just can't do what western medicine does. For example, no herb has the anti-viral power of modern anti-biotics. But it would be very narrow minded, incomplete, and incorrect to conclude that herbs are not helpful for treating a plethora or illnesses.
David Wright - 09 Apr 2005 21:39 GMT >Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The >pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential >oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in >to. Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in herbs, the big pharma companies will just buy up the small ones, or force them out of business. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if they weren't already in that business. They're already firmly in the vitamin business.
(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the nature of the remedy.)
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)
>Laurie > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> even if a product is good and safe it can't be brought to market because >> of the high costs involved. GMCarter - 10 Apr 2005 10:38 GMT >>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The >>pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >big pharma companies will just buy up the small ones, or force them >out of business. Indeed, they have tried to do this. And there is a good deal of money to be made in botanical medicine.
But you can't patent a botanical as readily as a drug. And if there is a competition between a drug, like a statin, say, and other interventions which cannot be patented, the profit margin falls dramatically. And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the market place, rather than the distorted perversion of intellectual property rights that the pharmaceutical industry hides behind to justify price gouging, which results in destabilizing the dismal health care access in the United States causing massive suffering and death.
Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and have worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV medications and treaments for opportunitistic infections, resulting in literally MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of men, women and children.
>In fact, I'd be quite surprised if they weren't >already in that business. They're already firmly in the vitamin >business. They are.
>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling >high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either >water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the nature of the >remedy.) Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the other on the system of homeopathy.
George M. Carter
David Wright - 11 Apr 2005 02:42 GMT >>>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The >>>pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >interventions which cannot be patented, the profit margin falls >dramatically. And yet -- there are generic drug companies that are doing just fine. And even big pharma makes vitamins. It's almost enough to make one think there's money in it.
>And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the >market place, rather than the distorted perversion of intellectual >property rights that the pharmaceutical industry hides behind to >justify price gouging, which results in destabilizing the dismal >health care access in the United States causing massive suffering and >death. You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's certainly true in the case of some persons, no question, but since only about 10% of health care dollars go to prescription costs, even if you cut that to zero, things are still going to be expensive and the system is still broken.
>Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and have >worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV medications and >treaments for opportunitistic infections, resulting in literally >MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of men, women and children. Well, it's kind of a difficult thing for a capitalistic company, isn't it? I mean, if you give everything away, how do you stay in business.
This is not to say I'm a big fan of big pharma, who still have a preposterously high return on equity. I just don't demonize them.
>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling >>high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either >>water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the nature of the >>remedy.) > >Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your statement. And most of it doesn't. In fact, the whole question of how you distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an interesting one.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)
GMCarter - 11 Apr 2005 10:06 GMT >>>>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The >>>>pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >And even big pharma makes vitamins. It's almost enough to make one >think there's money in it. Yes, indeed there is. And where there's money, there's potential for corruption, no doubt.
But the BIG difference is that where generics are available, the original drug is off-patent and thus there is COMPETITION. So there isn't the same degree of outrageous price gouging that pharma now uses, hiding behind IP as a slim justification for destroying the US healthcare system.
>>And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the >>market place, rather than the distorted perversion of intellectual [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >zero, things are still going to be expensive and the system is still >broken. Where did you get the 10% figure? But I agree that prescription drug costs are only a part of the issue. Drugs, diagnostics and devices all play a role, as well as hospital fees, etc.
>>Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and have >>worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV medications and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Well, it's kind of a difficult thing for a capitalistic company, isn't >it? I mean, if you give everything away, how do you stay in business. LOL. PHARMA isn't capitalism which is rooted in notions of competition and open markets, yes? Pharma is selected products upon which peoples' lives depend, and upon which they exert monopolistic control.
>This is not to say I'm a big fan of big pharma, who still have a >preposterously high return on equity. I just don't demonize them. I do. I've watched friends die waiting for drugs that pharma had worked so assiduously to prevent them from accessing.
>>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling >>>high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >And most of it doesn't. So you claim. I take it you've read all the extant studies? Or can you point to a meta-analysis? (Please don't bother with Stephen Barrett; he is completely discredited as far as I'm concerned as a knee-jerk bigot.)
>In fact, the whole question of how you >distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an >interesting one. Yep! Absolultely. Lots of fascinating questions regarding health, etc. embedded in that, not to mention the physics of water molecules.
George M. Carter
David Wright - 16 Apr 2005 22:53 GMT >>>>>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The >>>>>pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >uses, hiding behind IP as a slim justification for destroying the US >healthcare system. There's lots of competition even in patented pharmaceuticals, as each company comes out with its "me too" drug -- statins, for example. Lots and lots of expensive drugs that we don't really need.
>>>And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the >>>market place, rather than the distorted perversion of intellectual [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Where did you get the 10% figure? Newsweek.
>But I agree that prescription drug costs are only a part of the >issue. Drugs, diagnostics and devices all play a role, as well as >hospital fees, etc. The most outrageous one by far is that the potential big single payer, the government, is typically prohibited from negotiating for better prices. The other biggie is the vast amount (hundreds of billions) wasted through all the insurance company processing.
>>>Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and have >>>worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV medications and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and open markets, yes? Pharma is selected products upon which peoples' >lives depend, and upon which they exert monopolistic control. That's sometimes true and sometimes not. But then their patents run out.
>>>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling >>>>high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >he is completely discredited as far as I'm concerned as a knee-jerk >bigot.) The meta-analysis in the Lancet was pretty damning, even though it's the one the pro-homeopathy folks like to cite. In any event, trying to find positive results that anyone else has managed to replicate is nearly impossible. If homeopathy really worked, it wouldn't be THAT hard to demonstrate.
>>In fact, the whole question of how you >>distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an >>interesting one. > >Yep! Absolultely. Lots of fascinating questions regarding health, etc. >embedded in that, not to mention the physics of water molecules. And the non-existent "memory" of same.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)
GMCarter - 17 Apr 2005 11:13 GMT snip...
>>But the BIG difference is that where generics are available, the >>original drug is off-patent and thus there is COMPETITION. So there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >company comes out with its "me too" drug -- statins, for example. >Lots and lots of expensive drugs that we don't really need. Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used to be. Different statins have different drug-drug interaction profiles and levels of efficacy. Pravastatin is not the same as atorvastatin.
But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one company can make atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent runs out. There is NO competition for that drug and thus it is THE biggest drug seller on the market, making the company BILLIONS of dollars per year.
Worse, because this fits in the "blockbuster" profile, it means other drugs fail to be developed or investigated. That is, statins treat a chronic disease and do NOT cure it--they manage lipid dyscrasias. They are taken for life. And they charge whatever they can get away with.
Meanwhile, an infectious disease--a bacterial or fungal infection--that is cured via a short course of treatment is not interesting to study. Not enough money. Thus, multidrug resistant strains of Staph, strep, TB, cryptococcal meningitis and other infections, let alone ones that afflict MILLIONS but are not perceived as money makers--are ignored.
So you're NOT arguing the merits of capitalism versus socialism. What pharma does--and this extends to patenting all sorts of things that affect the development of drugs, diagnostics, devices, in vitro testing, etc.--is a distortion of patent law that destroys its intent. Reward for discovery is used as a shield to justify price gouging. And discovery is more and more narrowly defined--it must fall under the rubric of "blockbuster" to appease the parasites on Wall Street who produce nothing but shuffle money around and suck the cream off the top.
And in terms of global public health, "globalization" should mean healthcare. As the world becomes smaller, do you think outbreaks, like Marburg in Angola, are going to remain geographically restricted? Or H5N1?
>>>>And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the >>>>market place, rather than the distorted perversion of intellectual [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Newsweek. A great peer-reviewed journal, I see. So. Issue? Article?
>>But I agree that prescription drug costs are only a part of the >>issue. Drugs, diagnostics and devices all play a role, as well as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >prices. The other biggie is the vast amount (hundreds of billions) >wasted through all the insurance company processing. Absolutely agree here--Medicare drug benefit was intentionally PREVENTED from negotiating prices by politicians who all suffer BTS with pharma, an incurable disease.
>>>>Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and have >>>>worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV medications and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >That's sometimes true and sometimes not. But then their patents run >out. Meantime, millions of people have died needlessly of AIDS while pharma has blocked access to generic medications in Ghana, Thailand, South Africa and elsewhere.
>>>>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling >>>>>high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >nearly impossible. If homeopathy really worked, it wouldn't be THAT >hard to demonstrate. Depends on your criteria for what works. Can you see though that you're asking about whether a SYSTEM works or not? Does allopathy work? You could cite a failed drug study that was dropped due to QT prolongation or other serious adverse event. Then would that mean allopathy doesn't work?
>>>In fact, the whole question of how you >>>distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >And the non-existent "memory" of same. Really? You're sure of that?
George M. Carter
David Wright - 22 Apr 2005 04:06 GMT >snip... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Different statins have different drug-drug interaction profiles and >levels of efficacy. Pravastatin is not the same as atorvastatin. No, but it's highly questionable that we need *all* the statins out there right now.
>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one company can make >atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent runs out. There is NO >competition for that drug and thus it is THE biggest drug seller on >the market, making the company BILLIONS of dollars per year. You have to recover the hundreds of millions burned up by testing somehow. What's your alternative? I can't figure out how you're going to both allow anyone to make the stuff, and still give the companies some way to make back their costs.
>Worse, because this fits in the "blockbuster" profile, it means other >drugs fail to be developed or investigated. That is, statins treat a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >infections, let alone ones that afflict MILLIONS but are not perceived >as money makers--are ignored. Are you sure this is the real explanation? The industry got really complacent about infectious disease, only now we have multidrug resistant strep and staph, meaning the battle is rejoined, and there is plenty of money waiting to be made for some new class of antibiotics that will handle the resistant bugs.
>So you're NOT arguing the merits of capitalism versus socialism. What >pharma does--and this extends to patenting all sorts of things that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >produce nothing but shuffle money around and suck the cream off the >top. Patent has always implied monopoly, and monopoly has always implied "all that the traffic will bear." OK, you don't *have* to do it that way, but you can.
>And in terms of global public health, "globalization" should mean >healthcare. As the world becomes smaller, do you think outbreaks, like >Marburg in Angola, are going to remain geographically restricted? Or >H5N1? More the latter than the former, at least based on previous history.
>>>>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's certainly true >>>>in the case of some persons, no question, but since only about 10% of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >A great peer-reviewed journal, I see. So. Issue? Article? Hell, I don't have it off hand. But I've seen the same figure elsewhere. If you don't believe me, fine. I don't care whether you believe me or not.
>>The meta-analysis in the Lancet was pretty damning, even though it's >>the one the pro-homeopathy folks like to cite. In any event, trying [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >prolongation or other serious adverse event. Then would that mean >allopathy doesn't work? But there are plenty of allopathic remedies where they obviously do work, whereas there is NO homeopathic remedy in the same category. But there would be, if homeopathy worked as wonderfully as its adherents claim.
>>And the non-existent "memory" of same. > >Really? You're sure of that? Yep.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)
GMCarter - 22 Apr 2005 10:38 GMT >>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used to be. >>Different statins have different drug-drug interaction profiles and >>levels of efficacy. Pravastatin is not the same as atorvastatin. > >No, but it's highly questionable that we need *all* the statins out >there right now. How many are out there? (That haven't been taken off the market for one reason or another.)
>>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one company can make >>atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent runs out. There is NO [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >going to both allow anyone to make the stuff, and still give the >companies some way to make back their costs. Well, first the costs of development are a TINY fraction of the profits. A lot of the monies are put into advertising (a dreadful idea for medicine), PR and litigation. As well as CEO golden parachutes, etc. The profits made by the industry and the inflationary charges of drugs WAY exceed any other industry.
They hold our lives hostage to their greed.
Second, the costs of development are grossly inflated. In PART through the dense thicket of patents that jack up costs for licensing fees all along the stream of development, from in vitro assays to animal testing to human clinical studies.
So I don't buy this "pay our price or we'll stop investigating." Indeed, the new drug pipeline for many large companies has dried up as they spend all their efforts on keeping stockholders happy (little realizing that they're screwing themselves as they screw us by failing to undertake genuine R&D).
>>Worse, because this fits in the "blockbuster" profile, it means other >>drugs fail to be developed or investigated. That is, statins treat a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >is plenty of money waiting to be made for some new class of >antibiotics that will handle the resistant bugs. No, there ISN'T -- at least not enough for the rapacious greed of pharma as PUSHED by Wall Street. Short of a chronic, longterm blockbuster drug that people take for life, it's NOT interesting to the portfolio managers. Unless they can figure a way to jack up the price enormously, as they've tried to do with fluconazole and ciprofloxacin.
>>So you're NOT arguing the merits of capitalism versus socialism. What >>pharma does--and this extends to patenting all sorts of things that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >"all that the traffic will bear." OK, you don't *have* to do it that >way, but you can. I just wish people wouldn't confuse capitalism/free markets and competition with what pharma is doing. They're not the same by any stretch.
Patent law is a fine idea. But like any good idea, it is open to being warped and distorted by greed.
>>And in terms of global public health, "globalization" should mean >>healthcare. As the world becomes smaller, do you think outbreaks, like >>Marburg in Angola, are going to remain geographically restricted? Or >>H5N1? > >More the latter than the former, at least based on previous history. Perhaps. Better to try to avoid both!
>>>>>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's certainly true >>>>>in the case of some persons, no question, but since only about 10% of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >elsewhere. If you don't believe me, fine. I don't care whether you >believe me or not. OK. I don't believe you. Don't take it personally.
>>>The meta-analysis in the Lancet was pretty damning, even though it's >>>the one the pro-homeopathy folks like to cite. In any event, trying [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >But there would be, if homeopathy worked as wonderfully as its >adherents claim. LOL. OK, you may be right. But I have provided some citations that suggest evidence for efficacy for some remedies when, based on the notion that the multiple dilutions render ANY homeopathic agent essentially inert, there should NEVER be EVER any evidence for efficacy. And yet there are some data.
Does this mean there is something wrong with the vaunted DBPC methodology? What might that suggest for DBPC methods used for drug trials?
Or might it mean that somehow, despite the very understandable objections, homeopathic techniques can have some effect (and therefore, shaking/diluting does not necessarily result in an inert substance)?
It's a set of interesting questions that arise that, from a scientific point of view, are intriguing and, to a certain extent at least, being investigated. Except for the thornier question of the limitations of DBPC design.
>>>And the non-existent "memory" of same. >> >>Really? You're sure of that? > >Yep. A man of faith!
George M. Carter
David Wright - 24 Apr 2005 20:10 GMT >>>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used to be. >>>Different statins have different drug-drug interaction profiles and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >How many are out there? (That haven't been taken off the market for >one reason or another.) I don't even try to keep track. But I still don't think that having so many is a good use of resources (in terms of public health).
>>>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one company can make >>>atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent runs out. There is NO [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Well, first the costs of development are a TINY fraction of the >profits. That's true on the blockbusters. What about the others? Most drugs aren't blockbusters, but that doesn't mean they cost less to develop. By the way, I'm not in favor of mass-market prescription drug advertising and I think it was a sad day when it was allowed.
>The profits made by the industry and the inflationary charges of >drugs WAY exceed any other industry. The inflation does, and the ROI is at the head of the class, but it's not double the second-place category or anything.
>They hold our lives hostage to their greed. You still aren't telling me what your fix is.
>>Patent has always implied monopoly, and monopoly has always implied >>"all that the traffic will bear." OK, you don't *have* to do it that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >competition with what pharma is doing. They're not the same by any >stretch. As long as patents exist, you're going to see this sort of thing. Your solution is?
>>>>>>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's certainly true >>>>>>in the case of some persons, no question, but since only about 10% of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >OK. I don't believe you. Don't take it personally. This is a few years out of date, but it was almost exactly 10% then. Note also the amount taken by insurers.
http://www.healthaffairs.org/press/janfeb0301.htm
>>>Depends on your criteria for what works. Can you see though that >>>you're asking about whether a SYSTEM works or not? Does allopathy [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >methodology? What might that suggest for DBPC methods used for drug >trials? Nothing, really. In fact, it shows the value of DBPC trials. The original homeopathic pharmacopia was created with trials that were anything *but* double-blind. It's way too easy to convince yourself of something under those conditions, even when you're trying to be scrupulously honest.
>Or might it mean that somehow, despite the very understandable >objections, homeopathic techniques can have some effect (and >therefore, shaking/diluting does not necessarily result in an inert >substance)? Doubtful. This does also send us back to the widely-varying definition of "homeopathic," since 2X and 12C dilutions are very different.
>>>>And the non-existent "memory" of same. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >A man of faith! Gotta start somewhere. The evidence thus far has been highly unconvincing.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)
GMCarter - 24 Apr 2005 22:02 GMT >>>>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used to be. >>>>Different statins have different drug-drug interaction profiles and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I don't even try to keep track. But I still don't think that having >so many is a good use of resources (in terms of public health). Isn't that for market forces?
Or physicians?
>>>>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one company can make >>>>atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent runs out. There is NO [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >That's true on the blockbusters. What about the others? Most drugs >aren't blockbusters, but that doesn't mean they cost less to develop. I believe in general the economic analyses are for the industry or for specific companies as a whole and not "blockbuster"-dependent.
Overall, profits WAY exceed R&D costs.
>By the way, I'm not in favor of mass-market prescription drug >advertising and I think it was a sad day when it was allowed. Agreed. And the consequences of this boneheaded move for public health are becoming more and more apparent. As a physician said to me yesterday, if someone has to ask their doctor for a prescription for erythropoietin, they oughta fire the doctor.
>>The profits made by the industry and the inflationary charges of >>drugs WAY exceed any other industry. > >The inflation does, and the ROI is at the head of the class, but it's >not double the second-place category or anything. I don't understand what you're saying here.
>>They hold our lives hostage to their greed. > >You still aren't telling me what your fix is. Did you ask?
Actually, I think an interlocking set of changes are essential, including:
1) Price controls on drugs, diagnostics, devices; 2) Patent reform; 3) A robust single payer healthcare system; and 4) Increased public spending on drug development and open-sourcing of inventor discoveries. 5) Increased incentives for INDIVIDUAL discoverer's of novel agents, etc. rather than screwing the inventor in favor of giving it to the company CEO's and their golden parachutes, etc.
These, in toto, will vastly alleviate the suffering and death the current system causes as well as being fiscally being more responsible--we could undoubtedly reduce the portion of the GDP utilized for healthcare from 15% or more to about 9-10% or possibly less--and cover everyone.
Plus, a robust system would allow for parallel private insurance (e.g., Germany) and would still allow for a vigorous and very profitable private sector industry.
One NON-fix is the notion people should get their prescriptions filled in Canada. That's ridiculous.
Those, of course, are only some of the measures that could be undertaken. Other things might include stopping the US Trade Representative from forging these vile trade deals that screw countries out of the right to access generic medications (TRIPS Plus) in the context of diseases ranging from dengue to AIDS.
>>>Patent has always implied monopoly, and monopoly has always implied >>>"all that the traffic will bear." OK, you don't *have* to do it that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines]< |
|