Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 paul diener wrote: > 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. , I used virtually the same argument on addict-l with Maia, and even described myself imagining herself at Auschwitz handing out pills to make everything okay. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > 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. Pete, Actually, in some ways, antivirals are quite different from the antibiotics of the forties. Antibiotics would either cure something or not. Most anti-virals, and all anti-virals for HIV infection simply do not cure. Moreover, they have severe side-effects, so severe that it isn't known if someone who is " raised from the dead " with the antivirals won't eventually die from the drugs. Many who try the drugs have such severe side effects that they'd rather die sooner than live with the anti-virals. This is _not_ to say the drugs don't have merit. Some of the problem is, is that the pharmaceuticals push them so hard. Years ago, they were pushing them at doses that caused people who followed advice to die sooner than if they didn't take them. Over the years, it has been steadily shown that starting them later and later increased life expectancy. Here in the U.S. recommended starting of therapy has gone from no immune problems to currently a T-cell count of 250 or so. On the news today, it was said that in Europe, the recommendation will be coming out to start even later. These are drugs, at least some of which, cost next to nothing to manufacture, are probably still going to be highly profitable at the reduced prices to third-world countries and whose discovery was financed by the government. That the FDA cracked down on the ads (I doubt the " cracking down " is more than " don't do it any more " ) does not mean they aren't buying gifts for doctors across the country of financing misleading promotion in other ways. Bying a long term advertising contract that includes full-page ads _does_ have a big effect on editorial policy. It doesn't matter what business you are in. > > > > > 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. No, the FDA acted just as it was supposed to toward a member of a trade association damaging the perceived integrity of the industry. The same thing exists in Nevada. The state gaming control board, whose official public job is to keep the casinos honest, actually has the job of protecting casino interests. Any outrageously visible scam which puts the industry in a bad light will be responded to. Any quiet, not visible stealing from the clientel that goes directly to the business is ignored. That is the job of a trade association _or_ regulatory body. At least here in the U.S. > > > > > 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. > Minoxidyl (which is now over the counter) is safe and effective too. That doesn't mean that many people weren't encouraged by ad campaigns (and one in particular that suggested that men who had bald fathers needed it) to go to their doctors and insist on a prescription. How well a drug works in not necessarily in direct relationship with how well it sells, nor with how well it will work for someone who is swayed by a disinformation campaign. > > 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! Their obligation is to the industry at large, to protect the industry at large. Please don't take this as arguing anything like " everyone who works for the FDA . . . , " or " the FDA only . . . " Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 6/14/01 5:03:40 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@... writes: > > > >> 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 " ) Mona, The reason is that people generally believe that laws against false advertising means something, otherwise it probably wouldn't matter, at least not much. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 > I used virtually the same argument on addict-l with Maia, and even >described > myself imagining herself at Auschwitz handing out pills to make >everything okay. It is a pity that Ive exhausted myself reading and writing about the Holocaust recently (and antidepressants for that matter), to the point where I have deleted my response to this because I'm just fed up with it, becuase I had quite an important and significant answer to this that ought really to be made. I'll try to make it sometime later. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > I used virtually the same argument on addict-l with Maia, and even > >described > > myself imagining herself at Auschwitz handing out pills to make > >everything okay. > > It is a pity that Ive exhausted myself reading and writing about the > Holocaust recently (and antidepressants for that matter), to the point > where I have deleted my response to this because I'm just fed up with > it, becuase I had quite an important and significant answer to this > that ought really to be made. I'll try to make it sometime later. > > P. Pete, I think I know how you feel. If you ever feel up to it, I'd be interested in your response. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 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 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 I don't know if I mentioned it before, but haven't you read about the explosion of acid reflux and allergy diagnoses since drugs for them have been advertised for consumers? Doesn't this make you a little suspicious? Suspicious? No. Bemused? Soitanly. And a lot of idjits are buying that cream that is supposed to make your boobies explode a full cup size. The free transmission of information is going to result in a lot of suckers being parted with their money. Indeed, the Internet has shown that bizarre and even very disturbing political ideas can experience a level of adherence that they could not have enjoyed when information was spread largely only by three television networks and a local newspaper. Freely available, diverse information has its problems, but none so bad as any proposed cure. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 I don't know if I mentioned it before, but haven't you read about the explosion of acid reflux and allergy diagnoses since drugs for them have been advertised for consumers? Doesn't this make you a little suspicious? > In a message dated 6/14/01 5:03:40 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@c... writes: > > > > 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 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 It probably is to good to be true. I have seen a drug Usenet group where they discussed this, apparently some foreign mail order outfits are willing to mail into USA some kinds of benzos, I am not sure of the details, those kinds of drugs never did anything for me, just made me black out . 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 16, 2001 Report Share Posted June 16, 2001 What does Diener know about the South Bronx? Has he ever had to spend any time there? Mike. Re: Re: Anti-depressants: > > > paul diener wrote: > > > 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. > > , > > I used virtually the same argument on addict-l with Maia, and even described > myself imagining herself at Auschwitz handing out pills to make everything okay. > > Ken > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Never said you got EVERYTHING wrong. You said some good stuff about Buchman, too. Re: Re: Anti-depressants: > > > paul diener wrote: > > > 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. > > , > > I used virtually the same argument on addict-l with Maia, and even described > myself imagining herself at Auschwitz handing out pills to make everything okay. > > Ken > > > > > 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.