 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / October 2004Who are teh BIGGEST Quacks of all!
. From www.nofreelunch.org/comments For T. Comeau: to bookend your article posted today re: Merck Pfizer benefits. Zee Subject: You missed the biggest problem Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:53:51 -0600 From: <gorby@wt.net> To: <justsayno@nofreelunch.org> The worst problem with drug promotion lies not with the sales reps but with industry-funded research. I personally witnessed the excesses for 8 years while on the faculty of a major medical school. This operates at several levels. First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like catching fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs. They didn't pay Hank Aaron for his fielding. It isn't just the publishing and reflected glory to the institution that drives academicians to do research. The institution takes a cut of every grant, whether it's industry money or an NIH grant. The percentages vary, but they are rather large; a $10MM grant yields several million for the hospital, school, or whatever institution the grantee works for. Those who bring in grant money have *power*. What can they get with that power? A raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time actually having to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in academics it seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager). Also, although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily from grant money, one can usually buy a few new computers or other toys that may find their way home. Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at fun places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to boot. Yes, the drug companies >. > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >boot. Yes, >the drug companies And when these favourable findings can't be replicated by peer researchers? And the fraud hits the fan? I think you grossly exaggerate the incidence of this. It might be more common in US, of course where very few vote and take an interest in government policy. > >. > > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > exaggerate the incidence of this. It might be more common in US, of > course where very few vote and take an interest in government policy. Its a major problem here in the US, aside from the research fraud, which results in a lot of damage, the costs are most often 200% sometimes 500% higher we have old folks on school teachers retirement for example living on cat food, sharing an appartment, cutting back on food, and cutting thier pills in half to survive... do you think its fair that they are being charged say 400 dollars a month for medications candadians or mexicans or europeans age getting for 150 dollars or so? Thats corruption friend. and its killing people... dead Phil Scott > > >. > > > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Phil Scott They have generics that are much cheaper. Experimental drugs or recent release patent drugs, same thing, are much higher in price. They should not be on these drugs for various reasons the foremost being that they are dangerous. You want to give old people potentially dangerous high cost drugs with no long term safety records. From a safety point of view and my point has been validated time and time again that if you take a new drug then you are in constant danger. If Canadians charge a dollar a pill on a new drug does not make the drug safer and that is bullshit my friend. The only argument you have is money. There are many alternate health care treatments including herbs if you can not afford the new drugs. Anybody in a third world country understands this but the first world must always speak in terms of I deserve the most expensive drugs because I have a right to them. Your arguments are that they are very expensive when it should be they don't need them because. 1 they are dangerous 2 they have not been over the long time proven to be effective. You keep on saying that all trial studies are bogus drug setups and then you say that people are dying because they don't have access to them. Which is it? "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message "If Canadians charge a dollar a pill on a new drug does not make the drug safer and that is bullshit my friend. " What logic? stunning. eye wateringly brilliant! Incisive.. the work of geeenius. > "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What logic? stunning. eye wateringly brilliant! > Incisive.. the work of geeenius. Let me simply it for you idiot. The same new drug that costs 200 dollars a pill in the US when bought from Canada for 50 cents does not mean that the one bought in Canada is safer idiot. Lawsuits follow the safety concern of drugs and not what the person bought the drug for moron. Generics are not by themselves safe either just because they are cheap. They only have a longer track record in which to evaluate complications. You know how the king would force his food taster to sample food before he would take himself? Why? Because even though it was the best food out there compared to commoners there was poison out there. Let the rich pay for the high expense of newer drugs and let them die if the drug companies are lying about safety drug trials. After 10 years or so according to patent rights then the common people can partake based on safety. Or let the insurance companies pay for them and you pay nothing but you still take the risk. Stop crying about the cost of drugs. Insurance companies pay for them, Medicaid pays for them, Medicare pays for them, supplemental insurance on Medicare pays for them, and on and on. If you can't afford them then chew on coca leaves. >> "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >pill in the US when bought from Canada for 50 cents does not mean that the >one bought in Canada is safer idiot. Made by the same company, idiot? Bullshit. A stupid canard. But I agree that importing from Canada is NOT the answer. The answer is for the government in the US to institute price controls and develop a single payer healthcare system. No, that won't hurt the greedy goose. In fact, it may actually STIMULATE research. God knows the unfettered monopolies of patents and the ghastly pricing that causes horrible suffering and death on a global scale is simply FAILING to do that. George M. Carter > >> "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bullshit. A stupid canard. Read what I said again. "THE SAME DRUG" made anywhere in the world does not mean the safety record changes because of where it is made. > But I agree that importing from Canada is NOT the answer. I wasn't talking about importing. That is an economic arguement IN FAVOR of having more people on the drug. When people argue that the drug companies lie and cheat on the safety studies concerning US production for FDA approval then that is an arguement AGAINST having people on the drug. When people argue that they cheat to have an unsafe drug approved in order to have high profits then that is a DOUBLE AGAINST people taking the drug. If you take the first group of people then they are taking a risk in pushing for more people on taking a new drug without a long safety record. That is the common thread among all three arguements. > The answer is for the government in the US to institute price controls > and develop a single payer healthcare system. It has nothing to do with price of drugs as in Canada. They have price controls there and they still complain about the cost of drugs, just look at ZEE. The arguement as with HIV drugs will always be that if the person can not afford 5 cents for a drug and he needs it then the drug is over priced or it needs to be given "free". Nothing in life is free. The price of drugs are what the market prices will allow. The price of drugs are cheaper in Mexico because no one will buy 500 dollars a pill. If people can not afford the drug they use alternatives. In the US because of the culture they can get away with 500 dollars a pill. They must have the pill at all costs. > No, that won't hurt the greedy goose. In fact, it may actually > STIMULATE research. God knows the unfettered monopolies of patents and > the ghastly pricing that causes horrible suffering and death on a > global scale is simply FAILING to do that. > > George M. Carter > Nothing in life is free. The price of drugs >are what the market prices will allow. So why not remove the market? Afterall, you don't go down to the shop to buy your police service, or to get your road and freeway mended or swept, or to get you garbage removed, or your country defended? Isn't health as important as these to be not left to the whim of the market? Same with education, I believe. > > Nothing in life is free. The price of drugs > >are what the market prices will allow. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Isn't health as important as these to be not left to the whim of the > market? Same with education, I believe. What isn't important in maintaining life? Isn't food important? Then why allow market prices? What about electricity, water, a house to live in? Why do you have to pay for anything if everything is essential for life? Marxists have tried it and it doesn't work. >> > Nothing in life is free. The price of drugs >> >are what the market prices will allow. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Isn't health as important as these to be not left to the whim of the >> market? Same with education, I believe. >What isn't important in maintaining life? Some things are crucial, and don't get provided well under a market system. >Isn't food important? Absolutely, but providers can be very small and diverse, whereas some staples to life don't work at all well when left to the market. >Then why allow market prices? As I said, food production works very well under a free market regime. There is nothing wrong with either system, just that some things are very suited to one or the other. Folk driven by ideaology the it must be one way or the other are doomed to failure, if you study history. >What about electricity, water, a house to live in? Electricity and water have tried to be privatised here and the result was an absolute failure. The private firms just maximisre profits with the likelihood that there will be no competitors and they run the infrastructure down and failures result.You have experienced such failures in the US. >Why do you have to pay for anything if everything is essential for life? Of course you must pay for everything. Whoever said otherwise? It's HOW you pay for it. Who and how you subsidise different members of the community. The market will let the weak perish and the strong take all. OK in some activities where lots of competition is involved. We have a government telecom monopoly that they are trying to sell, and the worry is that the private monopoly will cherry-pick the profitable areas and neglect the not-so-profitable, and as we've voted for a system that provides equal facilities to every citizen in the country, we don't want this monopoly sold. Same for the postal service. We insist that a letter sent to the other side of the country costs the same as sending it next door. We don't want private companies concentrating on large city postal services to the detriment of remote folk. >Marxists have tried it and it doesn't work. Where have they tried it and it dosen't work? Works fine here and in your country, in many different areas. >> >. >> > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > Thats corruption friend. and its killing people... dead Why is it corruption? Are private companies not free to charge market rates in your country? We have elected a goverment which looks after the old, the poor and the disadvantaged. Old folks here pay a maximum of about $120 per year for all the medications they will need. Diabetics get their requirements for vitually nothing. Health is taken very seriously here, not left to the "law of the jungle" market place. > >> >. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > Why is it corruption? Are private companies not free to charge market > rates in your country? Oh please its the LIES that make it FRAUD... not the prices. The bullshit pricing is just one aspect of the fraud. Sort of like a child molester charging the kiddies for service... the CRIME is the issue...not the pricing...thats an ancilliary issue. >We have elected a goverment which looks after > the old, the poor and the disadvantaged. Old folks here pay a maximum > of about $120 per year for all the medications they will need. Make that just the deductable for most old folks in the US...with net costs to them in the range of $5,000 a year...on an income of maybe $10,000.. as they eat catfood. Why? the same drugs the majors sell in america for 5 dollars a pill, sell for half or a fourth of that in most other countries... thats price fixing in the US...its illegal. its also govt supported because of drug company donations to politicans. > Diabetics get their requirements for vitually nothing. Health is taken > very seriously here, not left to the "law of the jungle" market place. Im sure thats true... you mix of remarks and logic indicates that you are deliberately wasting time, or a little loopy.,, it unpleasant of you. Phil Scott >> >> >. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] >for service... the CRIME is the issue...not the >pricing...thats an ancilliary issue. So where are all these lies? All I see mostly is whinges about the prices. >>We h >ave elected a goverment which looks after [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >US...with net costs to them in the range of $5,000 a year...on >an income of maybe $10,000.. as they eat catfood. And yet you blame the drug companies who are the same drug companies for us? The only difference is the governments that we elect. >Why? the same drugs the majors sell in america for 5 dollars >a pill, sell for half or a fourth of that in most other >countries... thats price fixing in the US...its illegal. its >also govt supported because of drug company donations to >politicans. And you vote for this corrupt system? I would hope that we would turf corrupt bastards out of office before their feet could touch, if we ever got to that parlous state of affairs that you say you suffer. >> Diabetics get their requirements for vitually nothing. >Health is taken [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >indicates that you are deliberately wasting time, or a little >loopy.,, it unpleasant of you. Huh? Can I not ask questions about what you say? You mention many lies (fraud?) and then go on with much evidence about high prices and the shortcomings of your government in not looking after the disadvantaged in your country. OK, if you don't want to answer... >Its a major problem here in the US, aside from the research >fraud, which results in a lot of damage, the costs are most [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Phil Scott Make up your mind. Charging what the market will stand is not fraud. Look it up, and then make up your mind which it is, fraud or charging you more than you'd like to pay. |
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.