Page 2 of 5

Re: future of democracy

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:59 am
by NHE
jimmylegs wrote:ugh has everyone seen or read "corporation" here? another fun one.
Yes I have as a matter of fact. But that's probably not too surprising considering the other books I've recommended on the reading nook forum. For anyone who's interested, http://www.thecorporation.org

NHE

nook

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:41 am
by jimmylegs
ah ha i have not checked out the reading forum in some time. have u put any chomsky in there too NHE, i will go check out your list some time :)

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:02 am
by bromley
Bob,
I realized--over 30 years ago--there would never be a cure for cancer.
A vaccine is now on the market which should mean a massive reduction in the number of cases of cervical cancer saving thousands of lives in the future.

I know of several people who have survived throat cancer, breast cancer etc.... Their lives were saved because of drugs developed and sold by drugs companies.

The current thinking is that viruses may be the cause of several cancers and perhaps some of the so-called auto-immune diseases. Vaccines against these diseases will come and prevent people from getting the diseases.

I'm angry at drugs companies for not coming up with an effective drug for my disease but I take my hat off to those companies for the drugs they have developed for other conditions.

And the question is - who else would develop, trial and market drugs? Government? Charities?

So if (when) a company develops a very effective treatment to stop MS in its tracks, and a drugs which encourages the growth of brain tissues, is anyone really going to deny themself these drugs because the companies make too much profit? Not me - I'll be first in the queue and will rob a bank to get hold of them.

Ian

This also is worth a read -Big pharma calling journals' shot

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:17 pm
by Nemotoday
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... shots.html

Big pharma calling journals' shots?

Money talks, and the drug industry's dollar talks loud and clear through the pages of leading medical journals. That's the conclusion of Peter Gøtzsche and his team at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, Denmark, who compared reviews of drug studies funded by pharmaceutical companies with similar reviews done without industry support.

The Danish team was looking for bias in meta-analyses, which combine results from multiple drug studies to establish the effectiveness of an experimental drug compared with an established treatment............

Follow the link for more

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:28 pm
by Lyon
oo

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:19 pm
by dignan
I'm just going to play devil's advocate and ask, what if most serious diseases are just really difficult to cure?

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:01 pm
by Lyon
oo

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:25 pm
by Chris55
Much of the funding for "American" research comes from the federal government. These are MY TAX DOLLARS! and they are being grossly abused! But alas, we taxpayers have absolutely no say in the matter.

Embryonic stem cell research? ANY research company out there can conduct this kind of research--just not with federal dollars. If this was the magic key to all the ills, then why aren't private research facilities investing? Because no one KNOWS if this is really the magic bullet.

The National MS Society..geezz, what a joke! First, where do they get their money? Second, tell me how long and how many steps it takes for you to get that information from them? Now let's look at their drug trials, being conducted with OUR money, as they compare the CRAB drugs..one after another after another after another!

It IS out of control..it is criminal..it is costing/destroying innocent lives...it is bigger than all of us I fear!

So, self-education is the best medicine you can buy! You folks are really sharp and intelligent. Get your hands on anything and everything you can read. Look at what others are doing and if there is no harm, give something else a try!

Okay--I'm through ranting!!

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:26 pm
by bromley
Bob,

Sorry for mistaking you for Chris.

From the contact I have had with MS researcher (not drugs company researchers), MS is a very complicated disease. As are many cancers.

But we can forget the wonderful drugs that are around - to stop rejection of organ transplants, vaccines against MMR. Flu jabs. Drugs to combat HIV.

We talk about excessive profits but I don't know what their margins are. HSBC made £10 billion profit and all it did was lend money.

Drugs are a risky business financially.

The drugs companies are an easy target for our anger, which shoud be directed at God, mother nature, fate, or our own bodies for giving us the disease in the first place. If we didn't have the drugs companies we wouldn't have any hope of better treatments.

Ian

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:19 pm
by robbie
In many areas e.g. breast cancer, the drugs are saving lives and no-one would argue with the cost of these drugs. Average life expectancy is increasing every year as are survival rates from many cancers

http://www.terryfoxrun.org/english/rese ... lt.asp?s=1




Imagine thats just in Canada.


The drugs companies are an easy target for our anger

Your right there Ian

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:33 pm
by Lyon
oo

Re: yes, and also

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:24 pm
by notasperfectasyou
jimmylegs wrote:maybe some on quasi-research that we could do without?
I totally, understand, but even researchers and company executives are human. I recently made a point to my boss (in a rather sharply pointed way) by saying something like, Monday morning quarterbacking is for the weak - if we want to play at the professional level we have to be ready to take risks. Amazing I didn't get fired! I was mad though when I e-mailed this.

So I agree, but how can we know? They are trying to be as efficient as they can with the money. But, you obviously can't know if an idea is worthless until ....... you throw money at it and try it. So it's a catch 22. This is the nature of business, it is imprefect, but I don't know a better system to replace it with. napay

solution

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:32 pm
by notasperfectasyou
Lyon wrote:Realistically the drug companies have been out of control for some time.

It should be a supply and demand situation.......we demand cures and if the drug companies want our money they need to find and offer those cures but they long ago realized that the real profit is in manipulating the desperation of the victims.

They know that victim desperation creates a situation in which we're going to pay whatever we can for any limited effaciacy they send our way. The proof is in the CRABS, $20,000/year for MAYBE 30% effaciacy and they can't make the stuff fast enough.

Unfortunately there is no entity in the world with the financial means and desire to find real cures. It's pretty easy to see that we are at the mercy of the pharmas until enough people get upset enough to demand changes in the system and that isn't likely to happen.

IF enough people ever got together to demand a change, I'd like to see 10% of the drug company profits go to the educational research institutions to pay for research and clinical trials NOT of the drug companies chosing.

I find it an embarrassment that the richest countries in the world have no alternative means to finance clinical trials for things such as LDN/abx to either prove or dissprove their effaciaceness so that the matter of a few million dollars leaves us to permenantly guess.

Something is badly wrong with the picture when we have made the drug companies filthy rich and only they have the financial ability to fund the studies which obviously will always benefit them.

Bob
again, I agree. But, I don't believe in complaining without proposing something that is realistic to get to the end. IMHO, folks complain all the time. Complaining is cheap and easy, like monday morning quarterbacking. Hey, I'm a very unhappy redskins fan, ok. My point, talk is easy and finding others to share in ones anger is easy to. But, why not choose then to not be a victim? I say take this energy and run for public office. Or start a protest and get media attention? It's not that hard if you do it with compassion and smarts. Whether you agree or disagree with Cindy Sheehan, you know her name and what she stands for. Bingo. It can be done. She didn't sit at home complaining on internet bulletin boards.

again, I agree. I'm not making personal judgments about others here, I love our little group. I'm just saying how about harnessing some of the energy in an action oriented way if this is a common feeling. napay

Re: future of democracy

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:38 pm
by notasperfectasyou
jimmylegs wrote:ugh has everyone seen or read "corporation" here? another fun one. basically its point is that it is up to us to find a way through the corporate agenda, so i guess in the case of ms that would ideally be without supporting the crap half measures. i think in my case it's a little easier to buck the system because i don't really agree with the diagnosis - in fact i will restate here that i think the diagnostic tools are pretty useless and vague - and think my problem is primarily nutrition related. but i'm on the boycott the bad guys bandwagon for sure.

okay and furthermore, why the HELL, when there is so much research showing the highly significant differences in nutritional status of ms patients, aren't micronutrient status testing and supplementation part of the treatment you receive through your local ms clinic? it's INSANE. "just eat a balanced diet, you'll be fine, oh and take this massively expensive shot every couple of days to replace the function of an immune system that is out of whack because it doesn't have the chemical tools it needs to work with in your blood, but we haven't got any idea how to remedy that lack, no no." it should be illegal. malpractice maybe. well i have to go i'm supposedly writing an essay at the moment!
I definitely agree that nutrition has impact. I know your B12 experience and we have had a similar ascorbic acid experience. Problem is you can't patent a vitamin, but you can patent a combination of vitamins! This is where stuff like ambrotose and usana comes from. The area of research where there's no clear way to earn a profit needs to be filled by government. again, I say, which of us is ready to run for office? napay

Re: solution

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:08 pm
by Lyon
oo