Medical Truth or Fiction

[farang_subson]

Inamorato...

One concept that I've been trying to push is that you often DON'T need to defer to medical authority figures on these topics. You SHOULDN'T believe what I write. The research you see on pubmed and some other sites is the cream of the cream. If you want to know about the dangers of HIV transmission via mosquito, you have access to the same info as any doctor.

Typically, people get wayyy polarized over issues like aspartame, MSG, etc. Unfortunately, the literature is usually more nuanced than that. That's life.

Example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12180494?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[Stramash]

The only reason I became involved in this forum at all is because it was started aimed at me from the very first post.

OUT

Mike, I'm surprised at you. This forum was NEVER aimed at you; Tonia wanted to discuss urban myths as they relate to the medical field/health/illness.

A good example would be the many hoax health e mails regarding everything from cancer to weight loss that have been posted on site, supposedly from reputable institutions such as John Hopkins, but actually with no credibility behind them.

Don't take a huff Doc, open a cold one and get on with it!!

[Dr_Mike]

The only reason I became involved in this forum at all is because it was started aimed at me from the very first post.

OUT

Mike, I'm surprised at you. This forum was NEVER aimed at you; Tonia wanted to discuss urban myths as they relate to the medical field/health/illness.

A good example would be the many hoax health e mails regarding everything from cancer to weight loss that have been posted on site, supposedly from reputable institutions such as John Hopkins, but actually with no credibility behind them.

Don't take a huff Doc, open a cold one and get on with it!!

There may be a cute one in the morgue.....

[Stramash]

boom boom

(as the 2 suicide bombers said)

[inamorato25]

Inamorato...One concept that I've been trying to push is that you often DON'T need to defer to medical authority figures on these topics. You SHOULDN'T believe what I write. The research you see on pubmed and some other sites is the cream of the cream...

Agreed. I DON'T believe anything you write.

Just kidding.

Agreed -- that there are some fantastically reputable medical sites out there for the layman-- particularly if you have a chem/science/bio background and can make sense of the jargon. And it's also true that you don't always need to defer to M.D.s There's plenty of evidence that patients who are well informed about their medical conditions know far more than a doctor upon first consultation -- until the doctor can scoot back and do their homework in their office. It's good to challenge medical authority.

Actually, both my mom and my dad died because they didn't challenge that authority. My dad died of prostate cancer because his doctor felt that statistically he was probably going to die before the cancer got him, so they didn't remove the walnut. He was way wrong, but my dad just took him for his word. No second opinion, no second chances. And my mom -- this is a good one -- she went to the doctor a few years ago with white spots in her mouth that the doc felt was thrush, mouth ulcers...you name it. She finally got a second opinion a year after -- 2 years ago -- the doc said, and I quote, "I don't even need to test that. That's cancer."

Challenging a doctor who is searching for answers that they're not qualified to give is a good thing. Google can only scratch the surface. In my mom's case, she needed the experience of somebody more specialized. Too bad it was too late. (And too bad she smoked 35 years of her life -- which was the real cause of all this).

One thing that Mike said that I completely agree with is that more doctors -- when the don't have a clue what they're looking at -- need to lose their egos and insist that patients see somebody with the specialties to get the job done.

[digitalcat]

So which of my remaining four points do you still regard as "bull", Dr. Mike?

1) MSG is not aspartate.

2) MSG is not L-cystine.

3) Neither aspartame nor MSG is chlorinated.

4) It is unlikely that aspartame is catabolized into MSG.

Read the links on my post. They explain it exactly and accurately.

This is a pissing contest on a dating site.

SIZE does matter. Perhaps that is your issue?

I am off this forum.

Now now.... we have a forum for that topic.

http://www.thailandfriends.com/index.php?name=DB_phpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=365942#365942

[SweetieBabie]

The only reason I became involved in this forum at all is because it was started aimed at me from the very first post.

OUT

It was never aimed at you Dr. Mike. Sorry you took it a wrong way.

[Stramash]

The only reason I became involved in this forum at all is because it was started aimed at me from the very first post.

OUT

Mike, I'm surprised at you. This forum was NEVER aimed at you; Tonia wanted to discuss urban myths as they relate to the medical field/health/illness.

A good example would be the many hoax health e mails regarding everything from cancer to weight loss that have been posted on site, supposedly from reputable institutions such as John Hopkins, but actually with no credibility behind them.

Don't take a huff Doc, open a cold one and get on with it!!

There may be a cute one in the morgue.....

It was never aimed at you Dr. Mike. Sorry you took it a wrong way.

think it's just pre-wedding nerves Tonia.

[Hobbes]

The only reason I became involved in this forum at all is because it was started aimed at me from the very first post.

OUT

Mike, I'm surprised at you. This forum was NEVER aimed at you; Tonia wanted to discuss urban myths as they relate to the medical field/health/illness.

A good example would be the many hoax health e mails regarding everything from cancer to weight loss that have been posted on site, supposedly from reputable institutions such as John Hopkins, but actually with no credibility behind them.

Don't take a huff Doc, open a cold one and get on with it!!

There may be a cute one in the morgue.....

It was never aimed at you Dr. Mike. Sorry you took it a wrong way.

think it's just pre-wedding nerves Tonia.

To whom? The cutie in the morgue?!? :shock: :?

:rr:

[robbie36]

How to really annoy a chemist...

First check the drug on the internet and its side affects.

Then go to the chemist and ask for the drug.

Conversation goes like this...

'Take two twice daily'

'Really? The FDA recommends an adult dosage of one twice a day after meals'

'Well two wont do you any harm'

'Does it cause make you sleepy?'

'No'

'Oh, cos the FDA says it might cause drowsiness. Is it ok to take with anti-biotics?'

'Hmmm... I dont see why not'

'Well its just that the FDA says that you shouldnt. Not that I am taking any.'

'Look you obviously think you know more about this drug than I do. Do you want it or not?'

It must be a very irritating life being a chemist.

[Dr_Mike]

The only reason I became involved in this forum at all is because it was started aimed at me from the very first post.

OUT

It was never aimed at you Dr. Mike. Sorry you took it a wrong way.

Thank you sweetie Babie. I know that now, and I cherish my friendship with you as well.

[inamorato25]

How to really annoy a chemist...

First check the drug on the internet and its side affects.

Then go to the chemist and ask for the drug.

Conversation goes like this...

'Take two twice daily'

'Really? The FDA recommends an adult dosage of one twice a day after meals'

...'Look you obviously think you know more about this drug than I do. Do you want it or not?'

It must be a very irritating life being a chemist.

Yes, it's very irritating for them...

I see your point... It's much better that people just take drugs and die from accidental drug interactions. According to the CDC, drug interactions are now the second-leading cause of accidental death in the United States, after automobile accidents..

Yes, let's not upset the professionals.

[Stramash]

doctors are the most irresponsible drug dealers on the planet...

[Dr_Sassy]

It was never aimed at you Dr. Mike. Sorry you took it a wrong way.

think it's just pre-wedding nerves Tonia.

To whom? The cutie in the morgue?!? :shock: :? :rr:

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: errrr

[Stramash]

It was never aimed at you Dr. Mike. Sorry you took it a wrong way.

think it's just pre-wedding nerves Tonia.

To whom? The cutie in the morgue?!? :shock: :? :rr:

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: errrr

if Sassy is an example of a corpse, I'm taking up necrophilia tomorrow! :wink:

[eagle]

Inamorato...One concept that I've been trying to push is that you often DON'T need to defer to medical authority figures on these topics. You SHOULDN'T believe what I write. The research you see on pubmed and some other sites is the cream of the cream...

Agreed. I DON'T believe anything you write.

Just kidding.

Agreed -- that there are some fantastically reputable medical sites out there for the layman-- particularly if you have a chem/science/bio background and can make sense of the jargon. And it's also true that you don't always need to defer to M.D.s There's plenty of evidence that patients who are well informed about their medical conditions know far more than a doctor upon first consultation -- until the doctor can scoot back and do their homework in their office. It's good to challenge medical authority.

Actually, both my mom and my dad died because they didn't challenge that authority. My dad died of prostate cancer because his doctor felt that statistically he was probably going to die before the cancer got him, so they didn't remove the walnut. He was way wrong, but my dad just took him for his word. No second opinion, no second chances. And my mom -- this is a good one -- she went to the doctor a few years ago with white spots in her mouth that the doc felt was thrush, mouth ulcers...you name it. She finally got a second opinion a year after -- 2 years ago -- the doc said, and I quote, "I don't even need to test that. That's cancer."

Challenging a doctor who is searching for answers that they're not qualified to give is a good thing. Google can only scratch the surface. In my mom's case, she needed the experience of somebody more specialized. Too bad it was too late. (And too bad she smoked 35 years of her life -- which was the real cause of all this).

One thing that Mike said that I completely agree with is that more doctors -- when the don't have a clue what they're looking at -- need to lose their egos and insist that patients see somebody with the specialties to get the job done.

should always get second opinions also. sorry you went thru that ..

[inamorato25]

should always get second opinions also. sorry you went thru that ..

Thanks, bro!

[Stramash]

Inamorato...One concept that I've been trying to push is that you often DON'T need to defer to medical authority figures on these topics. You SHOULDN'T believe what I write. The research you see on pubmed and some other sites is the cream of the cream...

Agreed. I DON'T believe anything you write.

Just kidding.

Agreed -- that there are some fantastically reputable medical sites out there for the layman-- particularly if you have a chem/science/bio background and can make sense of the jargon. And it's also true that you don't always need to defer to M.D.s There's plenty of evidence that patients who are well informed about their medical conditions know far more than a doctor upon first consultation -- until the doctor can scoot back and do their homework in their office. It's good to challenge medical authority.

Actually, both my mom and my dad died because they didn't challenge that authority. My dad died of prostate cancer because his doctor felt that statistically he was probably going to die before the cancer got him, so they didn't remove the walnut. He was way wrong, but my dad just took him for his word. No second opinion, no second chances. And my mom -- this is a good one -- she went to the doctor a few years ago with white spots in her mouth that the doc felt was thrush, mouth ulcers...you name it. She finally got a second opinion a year after -- 2 years ago -- the doc said, and I quote, "I don't even need to test that. That's cancer."

Challenging a doctor who is searching for answers that they're not qualified to give is a good thing. Google can only scratch the surface. In my mom's case, she needed the experience of somebody more specialized. Too bad it was too late. (And too bad she smoked 35 years of her life -- which was the real cause of all this).

One thing that Mike said that I completely agree with is that more doctors -- when the don't have a clue what they're looking at -- need to lose their egos and insist that patients see somebody with the specialties to get the job done.

should always get second opinions also. sorry you went thru that ..

ditto - that's one of the worst examples I have heard. To go through it with one parent would be bad enough, but with two?

I thought I had it bad; when my dad died, her doctor (sic) prescribed prozac to cope with the bereavement; a drug which is reccomended for a course of around 6 months max. 2 years later she was still on it with no sign of the doc reducing or stopping the dosage. Another addict created by the medical 'profession'. Thankfully she managed to come off it over 6 months once we had switched GPs to a more proactive doc.

[eagle]

biatch wrote:

prescribed prozac to cope with the bereavement; a drug which is reccomended for a course of around 6 months max.

I have a friend who was one of the first to take prozac in treatment. Being a native in the US you get to be a guinea pig for new meds. Thats the Feds idea of free medical for natives. She was on it for 15 years being treated for clinical depression.

The pharmacy INDUSTRY has moved its research to INdia where they entice the poor to be guinea pigs for the latest drugs. They are shameless.........

[eagle]

Aloe Vera juice is good for you. It will help the body metabolize foriegn substances. My F has problems with kidney stones and I remembered it was good for internal cysts etc. She took it and her discomfort went away. It is good for burns as a topical lotion and internally as it is full of natural enzymes the body can use to do its own healing balancing work.

[Stramash]

Aloe Vera juice is good for you. It will help the body metabolize foriegn substances. My F has problems with kidney stones and I remembered it was good for internal cysts etc. She took it and her discomfort went away. It is good for burns as a topical lotion and internally as it is full of natural enzymes the body can use to do its own healing balancing work.

Gerry - you may be interested in trying to get this book from a recent BBC series by the excelllent James Wong - it covers a plethora of natural remedies that you can grow in your garden or find in the countryside. The eczema treatment he made from plants blew the socks off every cortisone cream or chemical compund used!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grow-Your-Own-Drugs-Remedies/dp/0007307136

[inamorato25]

One thing I should make clear -- I'm not anti-medical establishment nor anti big-pharma. Quite the opposite -- big-pharma drugs work. And doctors save lives every day.

I'm just saying that with the sheer volume of information required for accurate diagnosis and correct prescription, we need specialist -- and at the very least 2nd opinions.

But if you have a doctor who know what is to be done -- then they are likely to use the right drugs in the right dosages, with no unnecessary prescriptions to get you back on your feet. But if you feel your doctor is just groping for a solution and doesn't realllly know what is going on -- time to look elsewhere.

[Stramash]

Pharmaceutical patents are harmful

Patents on drugs, or pharmaceutical patents, have many negative effects.

* Pharmaceutical patents prevent hundreds of thousands of people in poor countries from receiving the drugs they need, even though the drugs exist and could save their lives.

* Pharmaceutical patents distort the pharmaceutical research priorities, since it becomes more profitable to treat the symptoms of diseases that come from a high standard of living, than to cure poor people from malaria.

* Pharmaceutical patents continue to lead to ever increasing costs for drugs in Sweden and Europe, outside any form of political control

Are pharmaceutical patents necessary?

Despite all these negative effects, there are many people who defend pharmaceutical patents, and say they are nevertheless necessary. Pharmaceutical research is very expensive, so we have to make sure it is properly funded. Otherwise we wouldn't get any new drugs in the future, and that would be even worse.

- Because it is so easy for anybody to copy a pharmaceutical substance that has cost billions in research money to develop, we unfortunately have to let the pharmaceutical companies have monopolies on new drugs, those who defend pharmaceutical patents say.

But that is not true.

The first part of the argument is of course valid. One way or another we have to make sure that there is serious money available for pharmaceutical research.

But the claim that pharmaceutical patents is the only conceivable system for raising that money, is simply not true.

The government pays for the research today

Today it is already the public sector (henceforth called "the government") that pays for the bulk of all drugs that are used in Europe, thanks to various systems for universal medical coverage. (See for example page 37 in this report from EFPIA, The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.) It is the government that pays for the pharmaceutical research today, by paying high prices to the pharmaceutical companies for patented drugs.

So there is no natural law that says that patents are the only way to get new drugs developed. If "the government" in the different countries funded the research directly, and made the results freely available, this would be at least as reasonable as today's model, where the government instead creates and maintains private monopolies for the pharmaceutical companies.

The relevant question is which model provides the most efficient and cost effective way of funding pharmaceutical research. Because nobody claims that pharmaceutical research is cheap. The average cost for developing a new drug is just over a billion US dollars.

But considering that "the government" already provides most of the income for the pharmaceutical companies, a reasonable first step would be to find out how much of that income actually goes to research.

Fortunately, this is very easy to do, as all the big pharmaceutical companies have their annual reports available online. As an example, we can look at the numbers for Novartis (page 143), Pfizer or AstraZeneca.

They all spend around 15% of their revenues on research. The other 85% go to other things, according to their own figures. The numbers are typical for the industry.

So the question is: does the patent system really give us, the taxpayers, the maximum amount of pharmaceutical research for the money we are spending on drugs? Or is there room for improvement, when even the pharma companies themselves admit spending 85% of the money we give them on other things?

If the government would instead take 20% of what it currently spends on drugs, and allocate it directly to pharmaceutical research, there would be more money than today for the research. If the results are made freely available, the pharmaceutical companies would be able to produce modern drugs without spending any money on research themselves. All that would remain for the government would be to pay for the actual substances.

Patent free drugs are cheap

How would it affect the price of drugs if there were no pharmaceutical patents? To answer this question, we can look at the experience we have from patent free generic drugs. In that market segment we already have a situation where different (private) manufacturers of the drugs compete with each other, and the government buys from from cheapest and best ones.

And it works!

According to a report from the Swedish Food and Drugs Administration (pdf in Swedish), the price for drugs dropped on average 70% when they became free of patents (page 13 in the pdf).

In the case of generic drugs we are talking about drugs that are more than 20 years old. For newer drugs the pharmaceutical companies add an even greater surcharge, so the actual savings if pharmaceutical patents are abolished would almost certainly be considerably more than 70%. But let us still be conservative and use that number.

Half the cost, more money to research!

The price for a substance will then drop to 30% if we get rid of the patents. Add 20% to fund future research according to the proposal presented here, and we have reduced the government's bill for drugs to 50% of what it is today. We would cut the cost in half, while still giving more money to pharmaceutical research.

Isn't this an idea worth exploring?

What arguments are there for keeping the pharmaceutical patents, and rejecting the cost savings and other benefits possible if we choose a different approach?

Summary

Let us summarize the main points of the proposal:

* In Europe it is already the government that provides most of the revenues for the pharmaceutical industry, thanks to universal medical coverage.

* The pharmaceutical companies spend 15% of their revenues on research, according to their own numbers. The remaining 85 are spent on other things (mostly marketing and profits).

* If the government would instead take 20% of what it currently spends on drugs, and allocate that money directly to pharmaceutical research, there would be more money for research. The pharmaceutical companies wouldn't have do do any research themselves, so there would be no need for pharmaceutical patents, as they would have no research costs to recoup.

* Without patents the price of the actual substances drop by at least 70% when they are manufactured on a free market with competition, instead of by a monopolist.

So: compared to today's system the government's cost would be 20% (for research) plus 30% (for the substances). A total of 50% of today's costs, and still more money than today for research.

Realistic on the European level

An obvious counterargument would be that this is not something that Sweden alone could reasonably do. This is true. But on the European level it is quite doable.

If the European governments wanted to, they could easily decide to get rid of pharmaceutical patents, and instead allocate sufficient funds directly to pharmaceutical research. Whether a country recognizes patents or not is entirely up to the legislative body of that country to decide. And it is already the government that pays most of the pharmaceutical bill in all European countries.

Europe is big enough and rich enough, both to fund a substantial part of the global pharmaceutical research so that nobody could accuse us of freeloading on others, and to withstand the diplomatic pressures that will no doubt be put upon us the day we choose the open road.

So, to repeat the billion dollar question:

What arguments are there to keep pharmaceutical patents, and to reject the cost savings and improvements that the open road would offer?

(http://www.piratpartiet.se/an_alternative_to_pharmaceutical_patents)

[eagle]

One thing I should make clear -- I'm not anti-medical establishment nor anti big-pharma. Quite the opposite -- big-pharma drugs work. And doctors save lives every day.

I'm just saying that with the sheer volume of information required for accurate diagnosis and correct prescription, we need specialist -- and at the very least 2nd opinions.

But if you have a doctor who know what is to be done -- then they are likely to use the right drugs in the right dosages, with no unnecessary prescriptions to get you back on your feet. But if you feel your doctor is just groping for a solution and doesn't realllly know what is going on -- time to look elsewhere.

I don't consider myself antiestablishment but I am against drugs being made for profit not healing. The pharmacy industry is out of control IMO

[eagle]

Aloe Vera juice is good for you. It will help the body metabolize foriegn substances. My F has problems with kidney stones and I remembered it was good for internal cysts etc. She took it and her discomfort went away. It is good for burns as a topical lotion and internally as it is full of natural enzymes the body can use to do its own healing balancing work.

Gerry - you may be interested in trying to get this book from a recent BBC series by the excelllent James Wong - it covers a plethora of natural remedies that you can grow in your garden or find in the countryside. The eczema treatment he made from plants blew the socks off every cortisone cream or chemical compund used!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grow-Your-Own-Drugs-Remedies/dp/0007307136

The human body has its own healing system and if we just give it what it needs it has the ability to ward of cancers etc.