Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 > Told my doc that his anti-depressants sucked (tried four different > ones). Said I could get drugs that work far better, faster (none of > this 2-4 wk shit) and cheaper. That they take a long time to act is precisely why they are NOT addictive. they do not provide the immediate reinforcement of drugs of abuse. However, it may well be that there are drugs that would have suited you better that he could not have given you - opioids for example. > Also, have you ever seen such a long > list of side-effects and warnings on those things? There dangerous > and I don't think they work worth a shit. Side-effects occurring in as little as in 0.1% of patients may be listed; it doesnt mean everyone gets them. Sometimes these may be beneficial - such as weight gain in an anorexic or weight loss in an obese person. They may not have worked for you, but the evidence is that for many ppl they do. > How can so many people in the US have a 'chemical imbalance'? > Something in the air? The water? The crops? Stress? >Something strange seems to be going on. 98% of Westerners have tooth decay too. Shit happens. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Charlie s wrote: > > How can so many people in the US have a 'chemical imbalance'? > Something in the air? The water? The crops? Stress? Something > strange seems to be going > on. > > caenemy Caenemy, It is easy. The pharmaceutical companies now can advertise, they have their detail people giving doctors " free gifts, " multi-million dollar ad budgets, federal oversight of the pharmco's interests and life's problems have been reduced to either fitting into a predefined ahuman mold (learned in part from TV) or needing to be drugged. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Ken, Do you view the proft making companies that make contact lenses, hearing aids, wheelchairs and the like with the same anti-capitalist zeal? Do you view the use oif antibiotics or insulin with the same skepticism? Why is it that its only when concrened with the supply of psychotropic medicine everyone suddenly derides capitalism? P. > It is easy. The pharmaceutical companies now can advertise, they have their > detail people giving doctors " free gifts, " multi-million dollar ad budgets, > federal oversight of the pharmco's interests and life's problems have been > reduced to either fitting into a predefined ahuman mold (learned in part from > TV) or needing to be drugged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Yeah. And why are people down on the tobacco industry? They are just making people happy. Psychotropics, like cigarettes, are good for you, or else people would not use them. That is called capitalist market democracy. Re: Anti-depressants: > Ken, > > Do you view the proft making companies that make contact lenses, > hearing aids, wheelchairs and the like with the same anti-capitalist > zeal? Do you view the use oif antibiotics or insulin with the same > skepticism? Why is it that its only when concrened with the supply of > psychotropic medicine everyone suddenly derides capitalism? > > P. > > > > > It is easy. The pharmaceutical companies now can advertise, they > have their > > detail people giving doctors " free gifts, " multi-million dollar ad > budgets, > > federal oversight of the pharmco's interests and life's problems > have been > > reduced to either fitting into a predefined ahuman mold (learned in > part from > > TV) or needing to be drugged. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 So, We establish therefore that the issue of capitalism is irrelevant to the issue of whether a drug treatment is of value, since capitalism is used to produce everything, from the noblest to the vilest? > > Yeah. And why are people down on the tobacco industry? They are just > making people happy. Psychotropics, like cigarettes, are good for you, or > else people would not use them. That is called capitalist market democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Pete was asking Ken, but I'm answering. Pete asked, " Why is it that its only when concrened with the supply of psychotropic medicine everyone suddenly derides capitalism? " I'm one of the people who is part of " everyone " . I don't know that I suddenly derided capitalism only upon being concerned with the supply of psychotropic medicine. Rather, I remember when I was a young woman I could afford to buy medicine, and I'm not just talking about anti-depressants. I'd get the prescription and go to the drug store and pay for the medicine and think nothing of it. I could afford it. The prices were not out of line. But now I'm horrified! I take Altace for my blood pressure, Evista for my osteoporosis, Adderall for my ADD. I will need a Proventil inhaler for my asthma, and eventually more Azmacort. Oh, and Vancenase, too. I do have insurance now, which I didn't have when I was young, and it helps eventually with the medication, after I meet a deductable. Good, because it can now cost $75-$100 or more for a month's supply of even only *one* medicine. Never mind three or four different medications. Older people often need medication. I didn't think I would, but now I'm getting up there in years, and I need things. And I'm not talking about psychotropic drugs. As for my partner, would you believe his pain medication costs close to $3,000 a month??? That's Three, yup, Three, and the next word is " Thousand " , and that's dollars we're talking about, and that's every month, not every year. Marinol is the most expensive drug. Marinol! Marinol! Any hippie worth his salt could grow pot for a fraction of the cost, a mere fraction. The Marinol is $1,800 a month. Someone is making money. The drug companies claim it's Research and Development that costs. But there was an article in Modern Maturity magazine that said " Baloney! " Yeah, there is research and development, but there are big profits, and all this fancy advertising we see cost a lot of money. You see that attractive commercial on TV, you see the pretty ad in the magazine? You buy the drug, you pay for that advertising. You need to buy medicine, and you pay for a TV commercial and a slick ad in a glossy magazine as well. I don't know about Ken, and I don't know about the other people who fall under the umbrella of " everyone " , but I'm dismayed at the price people pay for medicine nowadays. For older people on a limited income, this is really scary. And it isn't about anti-depressants or psychotropics. I had a friend who died because she didn't have enough money to pay for her blood pressure medicine. She couldn't afford it, so she bought only a little and used it off and on to stretch it out and make it last. But it wasn't enough. She died. And I cried. Regards, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 > Pete was asking Ken, but I'm answering. > > Pete asked, " Why is it that its only when concrened with the supply of > psychotropic medicine everyone suddenly derides capitalism? " > > I'm one of the people who is part of " everyone " . I don't know that I suddenly derided > capitalism only upon being concerned with the supply of psychotropic medicine. > > Rather, I remember when I was a young woman I could afford to buy medicine, and I'm not > just talking about anti-depressants. I'd get the prescription and go to the drug store > and pay for the medicine and think nothing of it. I could afford it. The prices were not > out of line. > > But now I'm horrified! I take Altace for my blood pressure, Evista for my osteoporosis, > Adderall for my ADD. I will need a Proventil inhaler for my asthma, and eventually more > Azmacort. Oh, and Vancenase, too. I do have insurance now, which I didn't have when I > was young, and it helps eventually with the medication, after I meet a deductable. Good, > because it can now cost $75-$100 or more for a month's supply of even only *one* medicine. > Never mind three or four different medications. Older people often need medication. I > didn't think I would, but now I'm getting up there in years, and I need things. > > And I'm not talking about psychotropic drugs. > > As for my partner, would you believe his pain medication costs close to $3,000 a month??? > That's Three, yup, Three, and the next word is " Thousand " , and that's dollars we're > talking about, and that's every month, not every year. Marinol is the most expensive > drug. Marinol! Marinol! Any hippie worth his salt could grow pot for a fraction of the > cost, a mere fraction. The Marinol is $1,800 a month. > > Someone is making money. The drug companies claim it's Research and Development that > costs. But there was an article in Modern Maturity magazine that said " Baloney! " Yeah, > there is research and development, but there are big profits, and all this fancy > advertising we see cost a lot of money. You see that attractive commercial on TV, you see > the pretty ad in the magazine? You buy the drug, you pay for that advertising. You need > to buy medicine, and you pay for a TV commercial and a slick ad in a glossy magazine as > well. > > I don't know about Ken, and I don't know about the other people who fall under the > umbrella of " everyone " , but I'm dismayed at the price people pay for medicine nowadays. > For older people on a limited income, this is really scary. And it isn't about > anti-depressants or psychotropics. > > I had a friend who died because she didn't have enough money to pay for her blood pressure > medicine. She couldn't afford it, so she bought only a little and used it off and on to > stretch it out and make it last. But it wasn't enough. She died. And I cried. > > Regards, > > nz Yeah, these company's are real concerned about people. Right! It's a fricken crime. Damn them all. And they wonder why we're pissed. So sorry to hear about your friend. caenemy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Hi I am so sorry to hear not only that you and your partner need these meds but that they are so expensive, Britain is going this way too (and I am going the way of needing more meds - I have high blood pressure now). Hippie grown pot could be smoked and be used more effectively too. The Marinol thing is an outrageous farce even without the excessive profit. However, my point is that ppl may complain about drug companies making profits from non-psychotropic drugs but nobody uses this as a basis for claiming that you dont really need the drugs at all and they are just foisting them on you. Rather, ppl may be desperate to get the drugs and excessive profits make it difficult or impossible. Why then, is the fact that drug companies make proftis used as an argument for saying psychotropic medicines are unnecessary? One of the most widely prescribed and most effective drugs is lithium for bipolar disorder, but it had no patent and the companies make zilch from it. They could discontinue it no problem, plus save themselves from lithium horror stories. They still produce it though. A neurologist on addict-l reported that a drug company that manufactures anantidepressant offered seminars on cognitive therapy, which supposedly they are trying to subvert. In the UK the government negotiates with the drug company how much it is prepared to pay for a drug - being a massive block buyer, and being able to undercut direct marketing by providing subsidies on prescriptions - it can usually negotiate a pretty good deal which it can pass on to the people. This is an example where laissez-faire capitalism does *not* benefit everybody, whereas a little market intervention can work wonders. Socialised medicine is something I firmly believe in. P. > Pete was asking Ken, but I'm answering. > > Pete asked, " Why is it that its only when concrened with the supply of > psychotropic medicine everyone suddenly derides capitalism? " > > I'm one of the people who is part of " everyone " . I don't know that I suddenly derided > capitalism only upon being concerned with the supply of psychotropic medicine. > > Rather, I remember when I was a young woman I could afford to buy medicine, and I'm not > just talking about anti-depressants. I'd get the prescription and go to the drug store > and pay for the medicine and think nothing of it. I could afford it. The prices were not > out of line. > > But now I'm horrified! I take Altace for my blood pressure, Evista for my osteoporosis, > Adderall for my ADD. I will need a Proventil inhaler for my asthma, and eventually more > Azmacort. Oh, and Vancenase, too. I do have insurance now, which I didn't have when I > was young, and it helps eventually with the medication, after I meet a deductable. Good, > because it can now cost $75-$100 or more for a month's supply of even only *one* medicine. > Never mind three or four different medications. Older people often need medication. I > didn't think I would, but now I'm getting up there in years, and I need things. > > And I'm not talking about psychotropic drugs. > > As for my partner, would you believe his pain medication costs close to $3,000 a month??? > That's Three, yup, Three, and the next word is " Thousand " , and that's dollars we're > talking about, and that's every month, not every year. Marinol is the most expensive > drug. Marinol! Marinol! Any hippie worth his salt could grow pot for a fraction of the > cost, a mere fraction. The Marinol is $1,800 a month. > > Someone is making money. The drug companies claim it's Research and Development that > costs. But there was an article in Modern Maturity magazine that said " Baloney! " Yeah, > there is research and development, but there are big profits, and all this fancy > advertising we see cost a lot of money. You see that attractive commercial on TV, you see > the pretty ad in the magazine? You buy the drug, you pay for that advertising. You need > to buy medicine, and you pay for a TV commercial and a slick ad in a glossy magazine as > well. > > I don't know about Ken, and I don't know about the other people who fall under the > umbrella of " everyone " , but I'm dismayed at the price people pay for medicine nowadays. > For older people on a limited income, this is really scary. And it isn't about > anti-depressants or psychotropics. > > I had a friend who died because she didn't have enough money to pay for her blood pressure > medicine. She couldn't afford it, so she bought only a little and used it off and on to > stretch it out and make it last. But it wasn't enough. She died. And I cried. > > Regards, > > nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Hello Pete, The way i see it the problem lies not in companies making profit from psychotropic drugs but the manipulation and suppression of evidence and negative research findings that makes people think they will be effective for them. That is the crux of the argument. As was pointed out before companies confuse withdrawals, consciously or unconsciously, with a return of the symptoms which made them wish to take the drugs in the first place. This is very handy because it means increaed profits and sales on drugs which habve either outlives their usefullness to hte individual or qwere of no benefit in the first place, other than on a very short term basis. What i am in favour of is full information being available on any drug, and the methodolgies used in its research phase, to allow individuals a realistic informed choice as whether to take them or not. As some drugs are known to effect the clients cognitive facilities then it would pose little danger to the sales should a the clients take up the offer of cognitive therapy and amy, indeed, boost them. In the UK intesive lobbying goes on the Government and Medical circles by the Pharmaceutical companies, often using faulty or incomplete research, to increase sales regardless of the price. >From: watts_pete@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Anti-depressants: >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 03:06:40 -0000 > >Hi > >I am so sorry to hear not only that you and your partner need these >meds but that they are so expensive, Britain is going this way too >(and I am going the way of needing more meds - I have high blood >pressure now). Hippie grown pot could be smoked and be used more >effectively too. The Marinol thing is an outrageous farce even >without the excessive profit. > >However, my point is that ppl may complain about drug companies making >profits from non-psychotropic drugs but nobody uses this as a basis >for claiming that you dont really need the drugs at all and they are >just foisting them on you. Rather, ppl may be desperate to get the >drugs and excessive profits make it difficult or impossible. Why >then, is the fact that drug companies make proftis used as an argument >for saying psychotropic medicines are unnecessary? > >One of the most widely prescribed and most effective drugs is lithium >for bipolar disorder, but it had no patent and the companies make >zilch from it. They could discontinue it no problem, plus save >themselves from lithium horror stories. They still produce it though. >A neurologist on addict-l reported that a drug company that >manufactures anantidepressant offered seminars on cognitive therapy, >which supposedly they are trying to subvert. > >In the UK the government negotiates with the drug company how much it >is prepared to pay for a drug - being a massive block buyer, and >being able to undercut direct marketing by providing subsidies on >prescriptions - it can usually negotiate a pretty good deal which it >can pass on to the people. This is an example where laissez-faire >capitalism does *not* benefit everybody, whereas a little market >intervention can work wonders. > >Socialised medicine is something I firmly believe in. > >P. > > > > > > > > > > > Pete was asking Ken, but I'm answering. > > > > Pete asked, " Why is it that its only when concrened with the supply >of > > psychotropic medicine everyone suddenly derides capitalism? " > > > > I'm one of the people who is part of " everyone " . I don't know that >I suddenly derided > > capitalism only upon being concerned with the supply of psychotropic >medicine. > > > > Rather, I remember when I was a young woman I could afford to buy >medicine, and I'm not > > just talking about anti-depressants. I'd get the prescription and >go to the drug store > > and pay for the medicine and think nothing of it. I could afford >it. The prices were not > > out of line. > > > > But now I'm horrified! I take Altace for my blood pressure, Evista >for my osteoporosis, > > Adderall for my ADD. I will need a Proventil inhaler for my asthma, >and eventually more > > Azmacort. Oh, and Vancenase, too. I do have insurance now, which I >didn't have when I > > was young, and it helps eventually with the medication, after I meet >a deductable. Good, > > because it can now cost $75-$100 or more for a month's supply of >even only *one* medicine. > > Never mind three or four different medications. Older people often >need medication. I > > didn't think I would, but now I'm getting up there in years, and I >need things. > > > > And I'm not talking about psychotropic drugs. > > > > As for my partner, would you believe his pain medication costs close >to $3,000 a month??? > > That's Three, yup, Three, and the next word is " Thousand " , and >that's dollars we're > > talking about, and that's every month, not every year. Marinol is >the most expensive > > drug. Marinol! Marinol! Any hippie worth his salt could grow pot >for a fraction of the > > cost, a mere fraction. The Marinol is $1,800 a month. > > > > Someone is making money. The drug companies claim it's Research and >Development that > > costs. But there was an article in Modern Maturity magazine that >said " Baloney! " Yeah, > > there is research and development, but there are big profits, and >all this fancy > > advertising we see cost a lot of money. You see that attractive >commercial on TV, you see > > the pretty ad in the magazine? You buy the drug, you pay for that >advertising. You need > > to buy medicine, and you pay for a TV commercial and a slick ad in a >glossy magazine as > > well. > > > > I don't know about Ken, and I don't know about the other people who >fall under the > > umbrella of " everyone " , but I'm dismayed at the price people pay for >medicine nowadays. > > For older people on a limited income, this is really scary. And it >isn't about > > anti-depressants or psychotropics. > > > > I had a friend who died because she didn't have enough money to pay >for her blood pressure > > medicine. She couldn't afford it, so she bought only a little and >used it off and on to > > stretch it out and make it last. But it wasn't enough. She died. >And I cried. > > > > Regards, > > > > nz > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 > Hello Pete, > The way i see it the problem lies not in companies making >profit from psychotropic drugs but the manipulation and suppression >of evidence and negative research findings that makes people think >they will be effective for them. That is the crux of the argument. Well that is the crux of your argument , but many ppl dont seem to feel the need to use it. In addition, those that do use it, such as yourself, do not practice impartiality themselves in the evidence that they provide. So, they may refer to apparent irregularities in a particular case concerning a particular drug, as in this instance, and generalize it to all psychotropic drugs. In addition, the use of shady practices in other business areas, such as used car sales for example, is never used to suggest that that business area is unversally corrrupt, its products never of value, or that the business should be suppressed. Nor when corrupt practices are discovered in an industry, is it usually felt necessary to spell out why they are doing it in profit-making terms. It doesnt take a genius to know that ppl use corrupt business practices to make money, yet when a deficiency is highlighted regarding drug companies this point is always emphasised (as you do yourself in the post to which I reply), as if profit making itself were some kind of intrinsic evil. It is the responsibility of the FDA to ensure that evidence of the efficacy and safety of drugs is appropriate. Ppl such as yourself will often point to apparent deficiencies in the way the FDA operates, but what I really dont understand is why none of you ever respond to this issue simpy by demanding that the FDA be reformed and do what it is supposed to do. No-one ever demands that standards should be improved so that the drug companies are encouraged to develop safe, effective drugs that help ppl, ppl just stop at the notion that they dont do this at present. Also, again this usually only arises in regard to psychotropic medicine; deficiencies in the FDA system arent usually used to reject other medicines wholesale. Nor do these same ppl agitate for reform of the FDA to ensure that other medicines are indeed safe. Concern over the FDA is used solely as a stick to beat the provision of psychotropic medicine. > What i am in favour of is full information being available on any >drug, and the methodolgies used in its research phase, to allow >individuals a realistic informed choice as whether to take them or >not. Now here I would agree with you. However I think scarcely 1 in a 1000 individuals have even the slightest notion of how to evaluate research protocols or other scientific data (which is why a jury verdict on the role of a drug in a murder/suicide case has no scientific relevance whatsoever). Ironically by far the greatest error that ppl make is to be too easily convinced that a treatment is of value, rather than be too skeptical. however, ppl are also easily frightened and hence likely to be swayed by even the most anecdotal, exceptional, and limited evidence, such as high profile court judgements, rather than sit down and pore their way through statistical analyses of double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials. Even then this evidence is not assessed in context - a case ruled against a company may be thought decisive, despite numerous previous ones that were rejected. > As some drugs are known to effect the clients cognitive >facilities then it would pose little danger to the sales should a the >clients take up the offer of cognitive therapy and amy, indeed, boost >them. So damned if they do , damned if they dont. I'd love to see what you would have written if I said they actively discouraged cognitive therapy. Antidepressants might make you play chess a little less effectively, they dont turn you into a moron. Cognitive therapy involves learning very simple skills to challenge unhelpful thinking, not rocket science. That you should make his suggestion merely indicates that you will implacably judge any action by drug companies as sinister on whatver basis you can think of. > In the UK intesive lobbying goes on the Government and Medical >circles by the Pharmaceutical companies, often using faulty or >incomplete research, to increase sales regardless of the price. What constitutes " intensive lobbying " and waht constitutes merely doing your job is a mtter of opinion of courdse, again what I dont hear is simpy a demand that the Governemnet get its act together and endure that the companies produce quality, verfiable evidence for effective mediciens, rather than simply rubbishing the product altogether. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > Ken, > > Do you view the proft making companies that make contact lenses, > hearing aids, wheelchairs and the like with the same anti-capitalist > zeal? Do you view the use oif antibiotics or insulin with the same > skepticism? Why is it that its only when concrened with the supply of > psychotropic medicine everyone suddenly derides capitalism? > > P. Pete, The ones you listed? No. I've never seen a TV ad for any of them. Do you think good medicine flows from a Madison Ave ad campaign? Do you think good medicine flows from pharaceutical reps giving doctors gifts? The reason for _my_ derision is that to me, opening up these drugs for advertising, has virtually wiped out all semblance of trained medical people having anything to do with prescribing. Antibiotics and insulin, for the most part, are not under patent protection or there are generic alternatives. It isn't economically feasable to recoup, no less profit, from multi-million dollar campaign to get people to take them. We don't have ads from the pharmcos suggesting if one is feeling tired, anxious, achy, whatever to run to their doctor and get insulin to become a loved and well respected member of the community. Recently, there was a charge raised by the FDA that the manufacturers of anti-virals for HIV were contributing to a recent increase in AIDS transmission because of the way they were advertising. The ads, which are plastered everywhere, portray people who take their particular brand of anti-viral as the perfect picture of atheletic health. The truth of the matter, of course, is that these drugs might well come close to raising Lazarus from the grave, but have extremely severe side effects and someone who is on them is unlikely to be a mountain climber and might well be happy just to have a little more time until the drugs become intollerable. From the pharmco point of view and from the Wall Street investors point of view, drug manufacture and marketing is simply a business and as such the bottom line is of overwhelming importance. Ken Ragge > > > > > > It is easy. The pharmaceutical companies now can advertise, they > have their > > detail people giving doctors " free gifts, " multi-million dollar ad > budgets, > > federal oversight of the pharmco's interests and life's problems > have been > > reduced to either fitting into a predefined ahuman mold (learned in > part from > > TV) or needing to be drugged. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: <---snip---> In addition, the use of shady practices in other business areas, such as used car sales for > example, is never used to suggest that that business area is > unversally corrrupt . . . Pete, Perhaps I'm being Americacentric, but what planet are you from to state the above? <G> > > > It is the responsibility of the FDA to ensure that evidence of the > efficacy and safety of drugs is appropriate. No, it is the responsibility of the FDA, as any government regulatory body, to assure that no members of the industry do anything that can hurt them all while helping all of them. > Ppl such as yourself will > often point to apparent deficiencies in the way the FDA operates, but > what I really dont understand is why none of you ever respond to this > issue simpy by demanding that the FDA be reformed and do what it is > supposed to do. No-one ever demands that standards should be improved > so that the drug companies are encouraged to develop safe, effective > drugs that help ppl, ppl just stop at the notion that they dont do > this at present. Also, again this usually only arises in regard to > psychotropic medicine; deficiencies in the FDA system arent usually > used to reject other medicines wholesale. Nor do these same ppl > agitate for reform of the FDA to ensure that other medicines are > indeed safe. Concern over the FDA is used solely as a stick to beat > the provision of psychotropic medicine. <---snip---> Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Ken writes, " We don't have ads from the pharmcos suggesting if one is feeling tired, anxious, achy, whatever to run to their doctor and get insulin to become a loved and well respected member of the community. " OTOH I have indeed seen ads for allergy medicine, and for arthritis medicine, which will allow the sufferer to become an active participant in the goings-on of the community... The expensive allergy medicine, BTW, didn't do me a damn bit of good. All it did was cost me a hell of a lot of money. And I didn't ask the doctor to prescribe it. I said that the cheap generic sudafed knock-off available at WalMart for $1.99 worked the best. And the expen$ive arthritis medicine didn't do diddly-squat either. Cheers, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Hi Pete, Coming from the Uk I assume you to be fairly well politically informed and, as such, you must know of case after case of various corruptions coming to light. Most accept that is only the tip of the iceberg and most goes by unhindered by the lught of publicity. Lobbying has always been seen as a very doubtful occupation and minister after minister has taken up directorships in private companies on their retiral from goverment. Not a year, or barely a month, goes bye without some sort of lobbying scandal, not just in this country but in evwery country. It is a side effect of power in a competitive environment, and not just in pharmaceutical industry but that is the one in question at the moment. There are also a growing number of people, including thoser in the medical profession, who view mental illness/turmoil/discomfort/unease etc., etc., as having its roots in poor social skills, emotional illiteracy and sparse communication abilities, which accumlate to make life very hard for those involved. For those people drugs/medication is but a very short term solution to ease the pain of the moment and does little to cure the cause of the symptoms. It is more of a crisis intervention than a treatment. Continued treatment with these drugs turns the focus away from the causative agents but provides pharmaceutical and related industries with long term clients. Simpler, cheaper and maintains the staus quo and does not upset the social applecart by exposing the various ills that are causing such problems. No one has to be an expert in the field of pharmaceuticals to make a judgement on them. Most who have used them can relate to theor own experiences and read commentaries by people who are experts on them, from both sides of the divide. One does not have to be an expert on politics to vote or an exceptioanlly gifted soccer player to play the game. As a person who has taken psychiatric medications for many years in hte past I feel entitled to at least my opinion based in my experiences and the researches I have made into the social side of this field. At the end of the day it is I whi have lived the consequences of my decisions as regards these drugs. It is not a case of " damned if they do and damned if they don't " Pete,( in regard to cognive therapy in conjunction with anti-depressants) just an obswervation worth thinking about. Marketing is quite a skill in todays world and those involved in the business take things like that into consideration, as I myself do. Once more i would point to the book, " Toxic Psychiatry " by the psychiatrist Breggin as being invaluable to those who wish a look at the psychiatric medication industry from an alternative medical point view. The book discusses so much more than just the bio-chemical medical model and goes into social detail quite comprehensively for the layman. >From: watts_pete@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Anti-depressants: >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:51:21 -0000 > > > > Hello Pete, > > The way i see it the problem lies not in companies making > >profit from psychotropic drugs but the manipulation and suppression > >of evidence and negative research findings that makes people think > >they will be effective for them. That is the crux of the argument. > >Well that is the crux of your argument , but many ppl dont seem >to feel the need to use it. In addition, those that do use it, such >as yourself, do not practice impartiality themselves in the evidence >that they provide. So, they may refer to apparent irregularities in a >particular case concerning a particular drug, as in this instance, and >generalize it to all psychotropic drugs. In addition, the use of >shady practices in other business areas, such as used car sales for >example, is never used to suggest that that business area is >unversally corrrupt, its products never of value, or that the business >should be suppressed. Nor when corrupt practices are discovered in an >industry, is it usually felt necessary to spell out why they are doing >it in profit-making terms. It doesnt take a genius to know that ppl >use corrupt business practices to make money, yet when a deficiency is >highlighted regarding drug companies this point is always emphasised >(as you do yourself in the post to which I reply), as if profit >making itself were some kind of intrinsic evil. > >It is the responsibility of the FDA to ensure that evidence of the >efficacy and safety of drugs is appropriate. Ppl such as yourself will >often point to apparent deficiencies in the way the FDA operates, but >what I really dont understand is why none of you ever respond to this >issue simpy by demanding that the FDA be reformed and do what it is >supposed to do. No-one ever demands that standards should be improved >so that the drug companies are encouraged to develop safe, effective >drugs that help ppl, ppl just stop at the notion that they dont do >this at present. Also, again this usually only arises in regard to >psychotropic medicine; deficiencies in the FDA system arent usually >used to reject other medicines wholesale. Nor do these same ppl >agitate for reform of the FDA to ensure that other medicines are >indeed safe. Concern over the FDA is used solely as a stick to beat >the provision of psychotropic medicine. > > > What i am in favour of is full information being available on any > >drug, and the methodolgies used in its research phase, to allow > >individuals a realistic informed choice as whether to take them or > >not. > >Now here I would agree with you. However I think scarcely 1 in a 1000 >individuals have even the slightest notion of how to evaluate research >protocols or other scientific data (which is why a jury verdict on the >role of a drug in a murder/suicide case has no scientific relevance >whatsoever). Ironically by far the greatest error that ppl make is to >be too easily convinced that a treatment is of value, rather than be >too skeptical. however, ppl are also easily frightened and hence >likely to be swayed by even the most anecdotal, exceptional, and >limited evidence, such as high profile court judgements, rather than >sit down and pore their way through statistical analyses of >double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials. Even then this >evidence is not assessed in context - a case ruled against a company >may be thought decisive, despite numerous previous ones that were >rejected. > > > As some drugs are known to effect the clients cognitive > >facilities then it would pose little danger to the sales should a the > >clients take up the offer of cognitive therapy and amy, indeed, boost > >them. > >So damned if they do , damned if they dont. I'd love to see what >you would have written if I said they actively discouraged cognitive >therapy. Antidepressants might make you play chess a little less >effectively, they dont turn you into a moron. Cognitive therapy >involves learning very simple skills to challenge unhelpful thinking, >not rocket science. That you should make his suggestion merely >indicates that you will implacably judge any action by drug companies >as sinister on whatver basis you can think of. > > > In the UK intesive lobbying goes on the Government and Medical > >circles by the Pharmaceutical companies, often using faulty or > >incomplete research, to increase sales regardless of the price. > >What constitutes " intensive lobbying " and waht constitutes merely >doing your job is a mtter of opinion of courdse, again what I dont >hear is simpy a demand that the Governemnet get its act together and >endure that the companies produce quality, verfiable evidence for >effective mediciens, rather than simply rubbishing the product >altogether. > >P. > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Absolutely. Breggin is a real hero. The only point I would add is, do we want to offer training and education to people only to adjust into a crummy world? Should we not BOTH ask what skills people need, but also investigate what is wrong with the world they are living in. Consider an extreme example. You go to Auschwitz, and find a severely depressed person. Do you teach the person how to fit in better? That is an extreme example. But take a good look at the South Bronx. Not as extreme, admittedly, but still, not good. Re: Anti-depressants: > >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:51:21 -0000 > > > > > > > Hello Pete, > > > The way i see it the problem lies not in companies making > > >profit from psychotropic drugs but the manipulation and suppression > > >of evidence and negative research findings that makes people think > > >they will be effective for them. That is the crux of the argument. > > > >Well that is the crux of your argument , but many ppl dont seem > >to feel the need to use it. In addition, those that do use it, such > >as yourself, do not practice impartiality themselves in the evidence > >that they provide. So, they may refer to apparent irregularities in a > >particular case concerning a particular drug, as in this instance, and > >generalize it to all psychotropic drugs. In addition, the use of > >shady practices in other business areas, such as used car sales for > >example, is never used to suggest that that business area is > >unversally corrrupt, its products never of value, or that the business > >should be suppressed. Nor when corrupt practices are discovered in an > >industry, is it usually felt necessary to spell out why they are doing > >it in profit-making terms. It doesnt take a genius to know that ppl > >use corrupt business practices to make money, yet when a deficiency is > >highlighted regarding drug companies this point is always emphasised > >(as you do yourself in the post to which I reply), as if profit > >making itself were some kind of intrinsic evil. > > > >It is the responsibility of the FDA to ensure that evidence of the > >efficacy and safety of drugs is appropriate. Ppl such as yourself will > >often point to apparent deficiencies in the way the FDA operates, but > >what I really dont understand is why none of you ever respond to this > >issue simpy by demanding that the FDA be reformed and do what it is > >supposed to do. No-one ever demands that standards should be improved > >so that the drug companies are encouraged to develop safe, effective > >drugs that help ppl, ppl just stop at the notion that they dont do > >this at present. Also, again this usually only arises in regard to > >psychotropic medicine; deficiencies in the FDA system arent usually > >used to reject other medicines wholesale. Nor do these same ppl > >agitate for reform of the FDA to ensure that other medicines are > >indeed safe. Concern over the FDA is used solely as a stick to beat > >the provision of psychotropic medicine. > > > > > What i am in favour of is full information being available on any > > >drug, and the methodolgies used in its research phase, to allow > > >individuals a realistic informed choice as whether to take them or > > >not. > > > >Now here I would agree with you. However I think scarcely 1 in a 1000 > >individuals have even the slightest notion of how to evaluate research > >protocols or other scientific data (which is why a jury verdict on the > >role of a drug in a murder/suicide case has no scientific relevance > >whatsoever). Ironically by far the greatest error that ppl make is to > >be too easily convinced that a treatment is of value, rather than be > >too skeptical. however, ppl are also easily frightened and hence > >likely to be swayed by even the most anecdotal, exceptional, and > >limited evidence, such as high profile court judgements, rather than > >sit down and pore their way through statistical analyses of > >double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials. Even then this > >evidence is not assessed in context - a case ruled against a company > >may be thought decisive, despite numerous previous ones that were > >rejected. > > > > > As some drugs are known to effect the clients cognitive > > >facilities then it would pose little danger to the sales should a the > > >clients take up the offer of cognitive therapy and amy, indeed, boost > > >them. > > > >So damned if they do , damned if they dont. I'd love to see what > >you would have written if I said they actively discouraged cognitive > >therapy. Antidepressants might make you play chess a little less > >effectively, they dont turn you into a moron. Cognitive therapy > >involves learning very simple skills to challenge unhelpful thinking, > >not rocket science. That you should make his suggestion merely > >indicates that you will implacably judge any action by drug companies > >as sinister on whatver basis you can think of. > > > > > In the UK intesive lobbying goes on the Government and Medical > > >circles by the Pharmaceutical companies, often using faulty or > > >incomplete research, to increase sales regardless of the price. > > > >What constitutes " intensive lobbying " and waht constitutes merely > >doing your job is a mtter of opinion of courdse, again what I dont > >hear is simpy a demand that the Governemnet get its act together and > >endure that the companies produce quality, verfiable evidence for > >effective mediciens, rather than simply rubbishing the product > >altogether. > > > >P. > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 > > Not a year, or barely a month, goes bye without some sort of >lobbying > scandal, not just in this country but in evwery country. It is a >side effect > of power in a competitive environment, and not just in >pharmaceutical > industry but that is the one in question at the moment. Precisely. So as that is a " given " what particular relevance of it to the one in question? I dont recall a single scandal involving UK politicans and drug companies, or drug companies and a UK regulatory body either. Basically you are just saying that because it is *possible* that Government has been corrupted by drug companies then it must have been, but that doesnt follow. YOu have set up a philosophical position where it becomes impossible to have a situation where you could ever be convinced that a psychotropic drug has value, which makes discussion of it superfluous. > There are also a growing number of people, including thoser in the >medical profession, who view mental illness/turmoil/discomfort/unease >etc., etc., as having its roots in poor social skills, emotional >illiteracy and sparse communication abilities, which accumlate to >make life very hard for those involved. For those people >drugs/medication is but a very short term solution to ease the pain >of the moment and does little to cure the cause of the symptoms. It >is more of a crisis intervention than a treatment. Many physical illnesses are the result of poor diet, lack of exercise, overwork and such, and can be corrected by lifestyle change, but neverthelss some physical disease does not respond to this and does need a biological intervention. In addition, disease from bad lifestyle can accumulate to where reform alone is not sufficient ro repair the damage. Finally, much psych med use *is* in the form of crisis intervention, but is still very much a treatment, just like any form of emergency medicine is a treatment for that emergency. > Continued treatment with these drugs turns the focus away from the > causative agents but provides pharmaceutical and related industries >with long term clients. Simpler, cheaper and maintains the staus quo >and does not upset the social applecart by exposing the various ills >that are causing such problems. Given the massive cost of the NHS drugs bill to suggest that this is a cheap option for the UK government is ridiculous. The kind of problems you mention are very much the kind of thing that many folks say government has no role in involving themselves with in any case - theyre for ppl to sort out for themselves. Also, how come the revolution never happened *before* we had Prozac and all these other new drugs? We seemed manageable enough up until now. In fact a problem in the UK is that the SSRI's are more expensive than the old tricyclics and some folks have difficulty getting them on the NHS. I have meant to say the following for some time in response to Bjorn's social objection to SSRI's - about the role of serotinin and status in primates. Bjorn reckons that ppl will just shut down their own serotonin production to go back to their original level. Imo this is merely a variant on the notion of drug tolerance, and hence it isnt necessary to invoke a social theory to justify it. I remember seeing exactly the opposite objection to Prozac from an evolutionary biologist. He said that ppl on Prozac would start getting uppity with their bosses and get sacked for it. While I think he is closer to the truth in that he correctly stated that ppl may become more assertive with authority figures, he doesnt see this as a benefit, that workers might start demanding better pay and conditions, go out and find better jobs, or get promoted in their own. In fact what it is the *objectors* to the drugs who are arguing to preserve the status quo. > No one has to be an expert in the field of pharmaceuticals to make a > judgement on them. Most who have used them can relate to theor own > experiences and read commentaries by people who are experts on them, from > both sides of the divide. This is true, but I notice that you only advise someone to look at Breggin materials, not to look at several with a range of viewpoints. I probably know more about psychotropic medicine than most lay ppl, antidepressants in particular - I know more about the latter than my GP who I have to go to for an rx - yet it's quite clear from the disparaging comments you have made about me you dont respect *my* informed choice about antidepressants. Like the way in AA an " open mind " means only one open to AA, to you, an informed choice is one that reaches the same conclusions you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 > Pete, > > The ones you listed? No. I've never seen a TV ad for any of them. You give the explanation for this yourself, but dodge the point of the question which is obvious enough. You say yourself that they have ads for antivirals. Antivirals are the nmodern equivalent of the antibiotics of the forties - and they DO advertise these withexactly the same zeal, and the FDA pulled themn up for it. Do ppl conclude from this that antivirals are unnecessary for ppl and they should avoid taking them? The hell they do. Rather, ppl are just saying the drug companies should sell them cheaper so that ppl in Africa can have them. > > Do you think good medicine flows from a Madison Ave ad campaign? Do >you think good medicine flows from pharaceutical reps giving doctors >gifts? Of course not. However, this is irrelevant since the important point is the role of the FDA to which you made a cynical rhetorical response. > > The reason for _my_ derision is that to me, opening up these drugs >for advertising, has virtually wiped out all semblance of trained >medical people having anything to do with prescribing. Prozac aint OTC Ken. No matter how persuded a person might be, they still need the docs sig on the line. Before you aor anyone jumps ina bout online ordering and such, rmember that the fact that some ppl can self medicate without expert advise is not aran argumantr about taking medication after *recieving* expert advice. Besides, how a drug is marketed, however cynically, is not itself necessarily related to how good a drug actually is fromn both ways - it could still be good despite the cynicism with which it is promoted. Also you say the FDA protested about the antiviral advertising. In other words the FDA was not just cynically protecting the drug companies. This one really gets me - med skeptics deride the FDA one minute as uselss oor in the drug campnies' pockets and then use rulings by the FDA to attack the drug companies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Now I'm mystified. How on earth do people order drugs online? I can see getting non-prescription drugs via mail, but do I get it that there are people bypassing doctors and prescriptions and actually buying prescription drugs? If so, how do they keep from getting busted? Are they taking a risk of jail? Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Cheers, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Scientific advice is sometimes wrong Pete, in fact it is often wrong if you consider the history of many drugs psychiatric used and licenced which have been found, in the fullness of time, to have more long term adverse effects than short term positive ones. My approach to mental discomfort is based in the Social Model and I have grave doubts as to both the efficacy and long term benefits of most, if not all, psychiatric medications. As I have stated before, frequently, I do not understand the problems I have in my life in either genetic or bio-chemical terms but rather in personal inadequacies and social oppression/naivety. It is from that understanding that I have become who i am today. I do not see the disease " analogy " with mental discomfort particularly helpful to anyone but the medical and pharmaceutical professions. Much med use is justified by the use of the term " crisis intervention " but is rarely short term in both my knowledge and experience. Using drug therapy to help people stay at work is by far cheaper than mass abseenteism and various other abscences from work for reasons deemed to be medical in ethos by a government who has yet to acknowledge the Social Model as far more fitting to the facts. This would involve ideological summersaults that no government at this time could afford to countenance. Any economic study would show that compared to all other options available the drug option is by far the cheapest, all things considered. And " many people " say many things, it is for the individual to decide. The " revolution " never happened because the medical profession came out with new wonder drugs (SSRI's for one) which only now are being shown up in their true colours. Science has taken the role of the priesthood in many ways and people wish to beleive that all is rosy in their garden when recent research has shown that to be fallacious. No doubt that when SSRI's are shown to be little good in the long term due to the many side effects currently being unearthed then new wonder drugs will appear in much the same way SSRI's replaced benzodiapines. It is my belief that none will work in the long term because the problems do not lie in bio-chemistry nor genetics. Only by tackling the cognitive and social aspects in peoples lives will some form of long term stability or progress be realised. Suppressed emotions have a habit of emerging over time. Unless the core problem is addressed they cannot be drugged away. I advise people to look at Breggin and not the others because the conventional way of looking at anti-depressants is widely available. The works of Dorothy Rowe are also wirth a look in my opinion. These companies spend millions and millions of pounds/dollars to peddle their propoganda which time ultimately exposes as such. No such funding nor support is available for those who challenge them. Alternative views are frowned upon and not easily sourced in terms which laymen can understand. Breggin achieves this admirably and provides a thorough bibliography for those who are so inclined to follow through on his assertions. You may know quite a bit about the chemistry of psychotropics Pete but I have yet to hear you wax lyrical about what they actually do in emotional terms, the insights into your behaviours which you might manage to change for example. There are " experts " on both sides of the debate Pete and i am surprised you expect me to agtree with you soley because you are you. I have little doubt that you sincerely believe what you believe but that does not necessarily make it true. What I have consistently said is that debate without insults is good and I believe people to be adult enough to make their own minds up as to what view fits them and their situation at that given point in time. I hesitate to say it but possibly your last sentence is more true of yourself than it is of me. I have always said it is up to the individual to decide for themselves which route to take. I am also aware of the time in my life when I would have backed you to the hilt on your views but experience and more information has eroded those beliefs and replaced them with others more in line with my experiences. >From: watts_pete@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Anti-depressants: >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:26:00 -0000 > > > > > > Not a year, or barely a month, goes bye without some sort of > >lobbying > > scandal, not just in this country but in evwery country. It is a > >side effect > > of power in a competitive environment, and not just in > >pharmaceutical > > industry but that is the one in question at the moment. > >Precisely. So as that is a " given " what particular relevance of it to >the one in question? I dont recall a single scandal involving UK >politicans and drug companies, or drug companies and a UK regulatory >body either. Basically you are just saying that because it is >*possible* that Government has been corrupted by drug companies then >it must have been, but that doesnt follow. YOu have set up a >philosophical position where it becomes impossible to have a situation >where you could ever be convinced that a psychotropic drug has value, >which makes discussion of it superfluous. > > > There are also a growing number of people, including thoser in the > >medical profession, who view mental illness/turmoil/discomfort/unease > >etc., etc., as having its roots in poor social skills, emotional > >illiteracy and sparse communication abilities, which accumlate to > >make life very hard for those involved. For those people > >drugs/medication is but a very short term solution to ease the pain > >of the moment and does little to cure the cause of the symptoms. It > >is more of a crisis intervention than a treatment. > >Many physical illnesses are the result of poor diet, lack of exercise, >overwork and such, and can be corrected by lifestyle change, but >neverthelss some physical disease does not respond to this and does >need a biological intervention. In addition, disease from bad >lifestyle can accumulate to where reform alone is not sufficient ro >repair the damage. Finally, much psych med use *is* in the form of >crisis intervention, but is still very much a treatment, just like any >form of emergency medicine is a treatment for that emergency. > > > Continued treatment with these drugs turns the focus away from the > > causative agents but provides pharmaceutical and related industries > >with long term clients. Simpler, cheaper and maintains the staus quo > >and does not upset the social applecart by exposing the various ills > >that are causing such problems. > >Given the massive cost of the NHS drugs bill to suggest that this is a >cheap option for the UK government is ridiculous. The kind of >problems you mention are very much the kind of thing that many folks >say government has no role in involving themselves with in any case - >theyre for ppl to sort out for themselves. Also, how come the >revolution never happened *before* we had Prozac and all these other >new drugs? We seemed manageable enough up until now. In fact a >problem in the UK is that the SSRI's are more expensive than the old >tricyclics and some folks have difficulty getting them on the NHS. > >I have meant to say the following for some time in response to Bjorn's >social objection to SSRI's - about the role of serotinin and status in >primates. Bjorn reckons that ppl will just shut down their own >serotonin production to go back to their original level. Imo this is >merely a variant on the notion of drug tolerance, and hence it isnt >necessary to invoke a social theory to justify it. I remember seeing >exactly the opposite objection to Prozac from an evolutionary >biologist. He said that ppl on Prozac would start getting uppity with >their bosses and get sacked for it. While I think he is closer to >the truth in that he correctly stated that ppl may become more >assertive with authority figures, he doesnt see this as a benefit, >that workers might start demanding better pay and conditions, go out >and find better jobs, or get promoted in their own. In fact what it >is the *objectors* to the drugs who are arguing to preserve the status >quo. > > > No one has to be an expert in the field of pharmaceuticals to make >a > > judgement on them. Most who have used them can relate to theor own > > experiences and read commentaries by people who are experts on them, >from > > both sides of the divide. > >This is true, but I notice that you only advise someone to look at >Breggin materials, not to look at several with a range of viewpoints. >I probably know more about psychotropic medicine than most lay ppl, >antidepressants in particular - I know more about the latter than my >GP who I have to go to for an rx - yet it's quite clear from the >disparaging comments you have made about me you dont respect *my* >informed choice about antidepressants. Like the way in AA an " open >mind " means only one open to AA, to you, an informed choice is one >that reaches the same conclusions you do. > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 But if you go to a search engine and type in, say, benzodiazapines, all sorts of links will come up for sites offering drugs with no prescription needed. I've wondered about this, too. If it sounds too good to be true.... Joan > depending on what level the drug is on the controlled substances federal > schedule list. Viagra is not a tightly controlled substance- although it is a > prescription drug. They won't likely sell you percocet or vicodin over the > 'net- the DEA would not let them get away with it. They would get indicted. > Mike. > Re: Re: Anti-depressants: > > > > Now I'm mystified. How on earth do people order drugs online? I can see > getting > > non-prescription drugs via mail, but do I get it that there are people > bypassing doctors > > and prescriptions and actually buying prescription drugs? > > > > If so, how do they keep from getting busted? Are they taking a risk of > jail? Isn't there > > a law against this sort of thing? > > > > Cheers, > > > > nz > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 > > <---snip---> > > In addition, the use of shady practices in other business areas, such as used > car sales for > > > example, is never used to suggest that that business area is > > unversally corrrupt . . . > > Pete, > > Perhaps I'm being Americacentric, but what planet are you from to state the > above? <G> > > > > > > > It is the responsibility of the FDA to ensure that evidence of the > > efficacy and safety of drugs is appropriate. > > No, it is the responsibility of the FDA, as any government regulatory body, > to assure that no members of the industry do anything that can hurt them all > while helping all of them. > > > Ppl such as yourself will > > often point to apparent deficiencies in the way the FDA operates, but > > what I really dont understand is why none of you ever respond to this > > issue simpy by demanding that the FDA be reformed and do what it is > > supposed to do. No-one ever demands that standards should be improved > > so that the drug companies are encouraged to develop safe, effective > > drugs that help ppl, ppl just stop at the notion that they dont do > > this at present. Also, again this usually only arises in regard to > > psychotropic medicine; deficiencies in the FDA system arent usually > > used to reject other medicines wholesale. Nor do these same ppl > > agitate for reform of the FDA to ensure that other medicines are > > indeed safe. Concern over the FDA is used solely as a stick to beat > > the provision of psychotropic medicine. > > <---snip---> > > Ken Ragge The FDA also wants the market on certain vitamins! Cheack out 'VRP' (Vitamin Research Products). They-the FDA-lie and don't give a shit about people. Their in it for only the money and power. Fricken control freaks. caenemy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 You mean you dont get spam offering you viagra like I do? It's no doubt illegal but it happens. P. > Now I'm mystified. How on earth do people order drugs online? I can see getting > non-prescription drugs via mail, but do I get it that there are people bypassing doctors > and prescriptions and actually buying prescription drugs? > > If so, how do they keep from getting busted? Are they taking a risk of jail? Isn't there > a law against this sort of thing? > > Cheers, > > nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 The reason for _my_ derision is that to me, opening up these drugs for advertising, has virtually wiped out all semblance of trained medical people having anything to do with prescribing. But what is wrong with that? A sensible human being understands that the contents of an ad are meant to make a product look as alluring as possible, and that most advertisers feel constrained only by fear of criminal fraud charges. Advertising, however, still constitutes information, and I like having information about the various drugs presented in any medium. Doesn't mean I'll necessarily want to use the drug, or that it would benefit me, but it gives me an opportunity to consider whether I want to use the drug for whatever ails me (either truly, or only in my mind). --Mona--(who takes Paxil and regularly gets ribbed for it, since she is a total extrovert and TV hawks it for "social anxiety disorder") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 You mean you dont get spam offering you viagra like I do? Why are you offering Viagra? --Mona--(ducking and running) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 There are doctors of questionable moral fiber connected with these sites, who ask a few perfunctory online questions about your health and presenting complaint, and if you " pass " this eligibility exam (which is almost always) then the credit card " secure page " thingie pops up -- and when and if you get the meds, they often come from Mexico or other places which are not very tightly regulated, so the pills might well be past their expiration date, etc. It seems real risky to utilize such services. ~Rita > > depending on what level the drug is on the controlled substances > federal > > schedule list. Viagra is not a tightly controlled substance- > although it is a > > prescription drug. They won't likely sell you percocet or vicodin > over the > > 'net- the DEA would not let them get away with it. They would get > indicted. > > Mike. > > Re: Re: Anti-depressants: > > > > > > > Now I'm mystified. How on earth do people order drugs online? I > can see > > getting > > > non-prescription drugs via mail, but do I get it that there are > people > > bypassing doctors > > > and prescriptions and actually buying prescription drugs? > > > > > > If so, how do they keep from getting busted? Are they taking a > risk of > > jail? Isn't there > > > a law against this sort of thing? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > nz > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.