Big Pharma just will not give up...
Replies
-
Haha. And better stay away from recreational rectal insertion of objects without handles.... or you'll wind up here.
2 -
All the way through Idiocracy, I kept starting to laugh until I realized how close we had become to living in that world and then I wanted to cry and/or throw up. It came out in 2006 and by the time I watched it in 2014, too much of it had come true given it was supposed to be looking 500 years in the future.0
-
Oh big evil pharma which develops and supports research and new treatments and donates tons of money to patient programs. Yup get rid of them and let's just let everyone die0
-
Nutrition policy didn't change that much once it was assigned to the ADA.0
-
Fortunately, the keto-adapted flora of the future got what they needed.0
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Oh big evil pharma which develops and supports research and new treatments and donates tons of money to patient programs. Yup get rid of them and let's just let everyone die
I am not against big pharma. I am a capitalist through and through. What I do oppose are not for profit organizations giving false information because they are funded by for for profit organizations and the hiding of valid scientific evidence which ordinary people could use to improve their health without the need for some of these drugs which all have some type of side effects.
To some extent, the public at large is responsible for the horrible state of medical care standards because of a lack of motivation to look beyond the quick fix. They/we are also to blame for the "it's not my fault/I'm the victim" mentality which leads to lawsuits over everything with ridiculous high payouts. This prevents many doctors from doing what they know is best for fear of going against the "experts" at organizations like the ADA.
I believe if a not for profit organization like the ADA is going to claim it is giving advice for the general good, it should 1) do so, and 2) clearly and obviously state who paid for the research backing up their advice.
When they shamelessly push drugs and high carb diets to treat diabetes while saying the best thing one can hope is to slow the progression, when plenty of research shows otherwise, that is at minimum a disservice.
When statins show more negative side effects than positive outcomes, but are pushed like they are, that is immoral. When the benefits they do show seem to come not from lowering cholesterol, but rather from reducing inflammation, we should get real and admit that. Then use treatments to reduce inflammation that don't cause all the negative side effects.
Again, I am a capitalist. However, I believe in transparency and truth. I do not believe in equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities. To have equal opportunities requires equal access to the truth.5 -
And we seem to be overlooking the fact that a simple change in diet can lower the risk of a whole suite of chronic diseases and mortality more than any drug or combination of chemicals they are pushing.
When the ADA starts recommending limiting your carbs then we'll start seeing a downward trend in chronic diseases all across the board. Who's going to get rich from that advice though?6 -
And we seem to be overlooking the fact that a simple change in diet can lower the risk of a whole suite of chronic diseases and mortality more than any drug or combination of chemicals they are pushing.
When the ADA starts recommending limiting your carbs then we'll start seeing a downward trend in chronic diseases all across the board. Who's going to get rich from that advice though?
Ay. A sick population is a profitable population.3 -
And we seem to be overlooking the fact that a simple change in diet can lower the risk of a whole suite of chronic diseases and mortality more than any drug or combination of chemicals they are pushing.
When the ADA starts recommending limiting your carbs then we'll start seeing a downward trend in chronic diseases all across the board. Who's going to get rich from that advice though?
And they still keep overlooking the fact lower cholesterol was actually not associated with longer life. Quite the opposite in fact.
They're still so hung up on the idea that cholesterol absolutely must be low. There's no actual reason for that.1 -
Yes, that's how therapy is determined; based on benefits vs. risk. A 1.1% risk is nothing & far better than average. Why take something you don't need? Unfortunately, generalizations about the American society are often portrayed as applying to everyone; which is not the case.tcunbeliever wrote: »a 10% increase in risk = take these drugs...so if my base risk is 1% and now a dr decides my risk is 1.1%, it's time for a daily prescription for the rest of my life
I'm so happy to have an herbalist 2 miles away
These guidelines (CPET ATP4) are written by an expert panel of cardiologists; they are not enforced or made up by Pharma. There is only 1 non-generic statin available (pitavastatin/LIVALO) which is not even recommended for high intensive therapy. If there is any influence from Pharma as of right now, it would be pushing PCSK-9 inhibitors when they are not necessary.
The only ones missing out are those who choose not to take statins when he/she has enough risk factors &/or history of cardiovascular events. He/she would essentially be forgoing mortality benefits as well as reversing damaged/inflamed/occluded blood vessels.
Not necessary for everyone
0 -
Spurlock is back in the news today... http://www.armstrongmywire.com/news/read/category/News/article/the_associated_press-super_size_me_filmmaker_brings_restaurant_idea_to-ap
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »And we seem to be overlooking the fact that a simple change in diet can lower the risk of a whole suite of chronic diseases and mortality more than any drug or combination of chemicals they are pushing.
When the ADA starts recommending limiting your carbs then we'll start seeing a downward trend in chronic diseases all across the board. Who's going to get rich from that advice though?
And they still keep overlooking the fact lower cholesterol was actually not associated with longer life. Quite the opposite in fact.
They're still so hung up on the idea that cholesterol absolutely must be low. There's no actual reason for that.
Yep, which is why ATP4 does NOT recommend treat to target LDL-C goals; yet clinicians who are not up to dare still treat to target anyways because they can use "clinical judgment". Did anyone even read the guidelines & analyze the changes? They are actually a lot less rigid & by the #s only. This was actually changed right around the end of 2013.
1 -
And we seem to be overlooking the fact that a simple change in diet can lower the risk of a whole suite of chronic diseases and mortality more than any drug or combination of chemicals they are pushing.
When the ADA starts recommending limiting your carbs then we'll start seeing a downward trend in chronic diseases all across the board. Who's going to get rich from that advice though?
To be fair, the beef, chicken, pork, and dairy industry leaders would probably give their collective left nut to have that kind of advice go out. Not to mention the supplement industry.
2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »And we seem to be overlooking the fact that a simple change in diet can lower the risk of a whole suite of chronic diseases and mortality more than any drug or combination of chemicals they are pushing.
When the ADA starts recommending limiting your carbs then we'll start seeing a downward trend in chronic diseases all across the board. Who's going to get rich from that advice though?
To be fair, the beef, chicken, pork, and dairy industry leaders would probably give their collective left nut to have that kind of advice go out. Not to mention the supplement industry.
Not going to happen. Big Pharma is a relatively small and absolutely wealthy lobbying group. The supplement industry is less wealthy and more scattered. All those other industries are extremely diverse and unorganized. In any event, supplement makers are just happy their products aren't subject to much in the way of regulation; they'd just as soon stay in the shade.1 -
If you know anyone who believes anything supporting statin use is on par with unicorns and cold fusion, here's an example of how a statin benefitted some patients with certain risk profiles, according to a prediction model fit to data from a large clinical trial:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184644
1 -
Thanks @RalfLott but the objective of the study you shared is testing out a prediction model. That the study uses data from a trial on a type of statins (rosuvastatin) holds no weight to your argument. You can’t judge the efficacy of a treatment on the results of a experimental statistical model in trial.
Moreover, the data used in the study you quote comes from a 'large multinational, long-terml trial (JUPITER), the conclusion of which actually leans towards support of rosuvastatin use.0 -
dancing_daisy wrote: »Moreover, the data used in the study you quote comes from a 'large multinational, long-terml trial (JUPITER), the conclusion of which actually leans towards support of rosuvastatin use.
Exactly. I take rosuvastatin for this very reason.
1 -
Think I misunderstood you :RalfLott I thought your comment about supporting statins and unicorns was saying something about people believing in fictionally magical drugs. Sorry about that lol.0
-
dancing_daisy wrote: »Think I misunderstood you :RalfLott I thought your comment about supporting statins and unicorns was saying something about people believing in fictionally magical drugs. Sorry about that lol. 0
-
Yep, which is why ATP4 does NOT recommend treat to target LDL-C goals; yet clinicians who are not up to dare still treat to target anyways because they can use "clinical judgment". Did anyone even read the guidelines & analyze the changes? They are actually a lot less rigid & by the #s only. This was actually changed right around the end of 2013.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, the way many clinicians "stay up to date" is by replacing actual first hand research and/or review of peer reviewed studies with CME (continuing medical education) sponsored by and paid for by big Pharma.
1
This discussion has been closed.