|
6592. Ms. No - 12/1/2005 7:33:00 PM New Lupus Drug
6593. PelleNilsson - 12/1/2005 8:20:00 PM I wish Tom Lehrer were alive and would come up with a devastating song about the pharma companies. 6594. Ms. No - 12/1/2005 10:42:57 PM He'd be just the man for the job.
My stepfather mentioned something to me over the Thanksgiving holiday: We haven't cured a serious disease in 30 years.
No cures in 30 years.
Wonder why? Because you make more money treating chronic illnesses than curing them. 6595. judithathome - 12/1/2005 11:41:47 PM Bingo! 6596. thoughtful - 12/1/2005 11:46:20 PM I'm not sure I'd agree with that. At least not entirely. A lot of it has to do with the nature of the diseases we are trying to cure.
I mean, we haven't cured cancer, but cancer is more than a single disease. But we have eliminated cancer in some and certainly extended life expectancy rates for a lot of cancer victims. Part of it has to do with detection rates and we've gotten better at them through screening tests. Part of it is through better education which can prevent some cancers, eg smoking. For example here are long term cancer survival rates.
We haven't cured heart attacks, but we've made huge improvements in terms of things like pacemakers and stents and even understanding the role of diet and exercise. I mean, there may not ever be a cure for heart disease as heart failure is bound to kill everyone eventually, but we've done a lot to extend life.
We haven't cured cataracts, but we have gotten to no or one stitch surgery that gets done in a flash vs. the surgery my grandmother rec'd where she couldn't bend over for 2 weeks had to be patched for weeks and spent the rest of her life in coke-bottle glasses.
And in terms of diseases, I suppose you could say we've cured lyme disease as it didn't exist 30 years ago. But it's largely because its a bacterial infection which is treated with antibiotics and they've been around for a long time. But there have been new ones that work better against certain diseases. And that's been essential since the diseases mutate and require different treatments, eg antibiotic resistant TB.
And even for viral infections, while we've not cured them, we have made strides in reducing the suffering and intensity many of them, for example early treatment of shingles greatly reduces the length and intensity of pain.
Better understanding of hormones has also allowed for improvements in menopause symptoms...though no cure as it's not a disease so it literally can't be cured, symptoms can be eliminated with HRT.
But you'd have a long way to go to prove to me that the medical profession and big pharma are conspiring to keep people ill so they make more money rather than curing them. 6597. Ms. No - 12/2/2005 12:38:36 AM I didn't mean to imply there hadn't been any medical progress and I don't think it's a conspiracy by any means. I do think that pharmaceutical companies make more developing new chemo drugs for cancer patients than they would make researching the Alkaline Diet.
We as a nation are conditioned to believe that a pill will save us or change us before we think about changing our behaviors. There's no money in eat less and exercise more.
I'm concerned about drug-resistant bacterias because they've evolved due to overuse of anti-bacterial agents in everyday products and over-prescription of antibiotics. Our kids are overmedicated and more and more people are taking anti-anxiety and anti-depressant drugs just to get by in the everyday world.
The problem is much bigger than pharmaceutical companies and the AMA, but they are a significant part of it. 6599. thoughtful - 12/2/2005 4:00:34 PM Well, let me ask you this....what disease would you think should have/could have been cured in the last 30 years but wasn't because of a desire to treat vs. cure?
And while 'eat less exercise more' doesn't make money for big pharma, there is no shortage of diet and exercise information including the fact that the diet industry alone is worth about $40 billion.
I agree there is a dearth of studies around vitamins and nutrition, but that is as much a problem with the nutrition industry and govt as of big pharma. Clearly big pharma has no economic incentive to investigate, say Vit E as they can't patent any findings. But the nutrition industry has fought regulation tooth and nail so they can sell as much product, regardless of quality or efficacy or toxicty, to the public at large. And it's govt's role to step in to fund research that isn't happening at a private level due to externalities, and they aren't doing that. So I see lots of fault here and wouldn't lay it all on big pharma. 6600. Ms. No - 12/2/2005 5:47:29 PM I'm wondering why we still have TB and MS and Lupus and Graves and ALS and Crohns. Improvements have been made for many people who suffer from these conditions but doctors still don't even know what causes most of them. Researchers have got plenty of time and money to put out a drug like Viagra but all we can do about TB is get ready for a pandemic.
And while 'eat less exercise more' doesn't make money for big pharma, there is no shortage of diet and exercise information including the fact that the diet industry alone is worth about $40 billion.
And the more money they make every year the fatter we get as a nation. Clearly the money they make is on snake oil.
So I see lots of fault here and wouldn't lay it all on big pharma.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I thought this was all solely or even primarily the fault of big pharmaceutical companies. There's plenty of blame to go around and a lot of it can be laid at the feet of the consumer. You can't make money off stuff that people don't buy. 6601. thoughtful - 12/2/2005 6:27:58 PM TB is because there has been a lot of undertreatment of the disease due to poverty, drug/alcohol addiction, etc. which has now allowed it to mutate into a more virulent strain. So I would view this as a system problem. Same thing with diseases like cholera and dysentery...we have cured them for the most part, at least in developed nations, but they will come back if sanitary conditions aren't met.
Graves and Lupus are autoimmune disorders which is the body attacking itself. We're only learning now -- odd as it seems to say with the help of AIDS -- at understanding how the immune system works and how to fix it. It's not like an outside invader like a bacteria that can simply be zapped with drugs. I recently read something though about a cure for graves which at this point looks promising in the next few years.
ALS and MS, yes no full understanding of the diseases yet, but neither of them is contagious and at least one seems to have a genetic component. Gene therapy is coming on stream and may offer the best hope for at least ALS among other genetic disorders.
So in addition to the systemic issues in health care, what we may be observing with the 'no cures in 30 years' may simply be the lumpy way in which major research break throughs occur in medicine and in other fields.
For example, for years I've enjoyed old movies and while clearly the styles have changed, for the large part of my life, the technology was pretty much the same...telephones in the 1930s operated pretty much as they did in the 1970s. But in the last 15 years or so, communications technology has made tremendous leaps forward....computer technology has made tremendous leaps forward. So while progress was being made throughout, they weren't of the breakthrough kind. Doesn't mean they aren't coming though. 6602. Ms. No - 12/2/2005 6:41:58 PM I hate waiting. 6603. robertjayb - 12/2/2005 10:13:50 PM Dangerous bacterial illness appears to spread...
ATLANTA -- (AP) - A deadly bacterial illness that is often seen in people on antibiotics appears to be growing more common, even in patients who are not taking such drugs, federal health officials said yesterday.
The bacteria are Clostridium difficile. The germ is becoming a menace in hospitals and nursing homes, and last year it was linked to 100 deaths over 18 months at a hospital in Quebec.
Recent cases in four states have found that infection is appearing more often in healthy people who have not been admitted to healthcare facilities nor even taken antibiotics, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
6604. jexster - 12/15/2005 2:08:35 PM Can you explain this:
If you join in 2006, for covered drugs you will pay
a monthly premium (varies depending on the plan you choose).
the first $250 per year for your prescriptions. This is called your "deductible."
After you pay the $250 deductible, here's how the costs work:
You pay 25% of your yearly drug costs from $250 to $2,250, and your plan pays the other 75% of these costs, then
You pay 100% of your $2,850 in drug costs, then
You pay 5% of your drug costs (or a small copayment) for the rest of the calendar year after you have spent $3,600 out-of-pocket. Your plan pays the rest.
Some plans may be called standard plans but may be designed so that the deductible is lower and the coinsurance is slightly higher. Other plans may charge copayments or set amounts instead of coinsurance.
In general, your out-of-pocket costs should work out to be about the same under these plan designs.
6605. alistairconnor - 12/15/2005 3:43:12 PM All you need to understand :
hire a lawyer before you sign for a health insurance plan? 6606. alistairconnor - 12/15/2005 3:43:49 PM or at least run it past your accountant.
Or build a spreadsheet and run some simulations. 6607. thoughtful - 12/15/2005 4:09:53 PM yes I can...it's a perfect example of what a crappy piece of legislation the rx benefit is. There is a notch...an unmitigatable notch...in the system which costs you big $$$. In their infinite wisdom...otherwise known as a gift to big pharma, not only will they not negotiate for lower rx prices, but you can't buy secondary insurance to cover the copays or the notch.
While I yearn for universal health coverage, not while these jamokes are in office. Can you imagine what a mess they'd make of that??? 6608. wonkers2 - 12/16/2005 5:27:52 PM Drugs, Devices and Doctors. 6609. Magoseph - 12/21/2005 1:11:43 PM Frist’s Backroom Coup Is a Shot in the Arm for Drug Industry, a Slap in the Face of Consumers--11th Hour Conference Report Rider Bars Compensation for the Injured and Absolves Reckless, Negligent Drug Companies of Responsibility
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A 45-page rider tacked on to the Defense spending bill conference report by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is far more generous to drug companies than an earlier version, because it absolves drug makers of responsibility even for gross negligence or recklessness when making tainted, defective or deceptively labeled products. Worse still, legal immunity under the bill would extend to already available commercial drugs if they are used to prevent, treat or cure a designated epidemic or pandemic disease. The measure will reduce the incentive for drug makers to make safe pandemic vaccines or drugs, and will deter people from being vaccinated, Public Citizen warned today.
(continued)
6610. thoughtful - 12/27/2005 4:23:19 PM Today's NYT had an interesting piece about a rare but significant side effect they believe associated with the 'cleansers' used for prep for a colonoscopy. Side effect can be renal failure. They suggest avoiding solutions containing phosphates. Apparently it's a lot easier to take which leads people to drink far less than the recommended fluids to go with the solution. Nonphosphate solutions require drinking a gallon of water with it which is far less pleasant but not as unpleasant as a lifetime of dialysis. 6611. judithathome - 12/27/2005 10:53:22 PM Well, that's just great. That solution is so much easier to take than the other stuff and it's bad enough having to undergo the procedure, let alone cram your body full of 2 gallons of laxative. The phosphosoda is much easier....and I guess eventually, what's easier may kill you. Or at least make you wish you were dead.
6612. Magoseph - 1/9/2006 5:00:22 PM From the Los AngelesTimes:
Brain Protein May Be Linked to Depression
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer
4:03 PM PST, January 6, 2006
WASHINGTON — Scientists have discovered a protein that seems to play a crucial role in developing depression, a finding that may lead to new treatments for the often debilitating illness -- and fundamental understanding of why it strikes.
Although problems with the mood-regulating brain chemical serotonin have long been linked to depression, scientists don't know what causes the disease that afflicts some 18 million Americans -- or exactly what serotonin's role is.
The newly found protein, named p11, appears to regulate how brain cells respond to serotonin, researchers from Rockefeller University and Sweden's Karolinska Institute report Friday in the journal Science.
"We're all very excited about this discovery," said Nobel laureate Paul Greengard, a Rockefeller neuroscientist who led the research. "People have been looking for modulators of serotonin for a long time."
Said Oxford University pharmacologist Trevor Sharp, who reviewed the work: "This finding represents compelling evidence that p11 has a pivotal role in both the cause of depression and perhaps its successful treatment."
Most depression medications used today are members of the Prozac family that work by making more serotonin available to brain cells. They stem from a theory that depression patients might not have enough serotonin, a neurotransmitter, or chemical that carries signals between nerve cells.
Then scientists discovered the serotonin connection was more complicated, dependent on how well the neurotransmitter binds to receptors, or docking ports, on cell surfaces. Fourteen different serotonin receptors have been discovered.
The new research focuses on one of those receptors, dubbed the "1B" receptor, that seems to play a particularly big role in major depression.
Greengard and colleagues discovered that the p11 protein increases the numbers of these receptors on the surfaces of cells, mobilizing them so they're available for serotonin to do its job.
That led to a series of remarkable experiments, using mice as well as brain tissue saved from the autopsies of depressed patients, that found:
* Depressed people have substantially lower levels of p11 in their brain tissue than the non-depressed. So did a breed of mice, called "helpless" mice, that exhibit depression symptoms.
* Then the mice were given two older antidepressants -- one known as a tricyclic, the other an MAO inhibitor -- and electric shock therapy. Each treatment increased the amount of p11 in mice brains, even though each therapy is known to work in different ways.
* So the researchers bred mice that had no p11-producing gene. They acted depressed, and had fewer 1B receptors and less serotonin activity than regular mice. They also were less likely to improve with depression medication. Mice genetically altered to produce extra p11 acted in just the opposite way -- no depression-like behavior, and their brain cells carried extra serotonin-signaling receptors.
"It's a very important finding," said Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, which funded the research. "This gives us a new set of targets for drug development," but also "suggests a whole new area of investigation for trying to ... ultimately discover does this have anything to do with why some people get depressed and others don't."
The researchers don't yet know whether a genetic defect or some other factor is responsible for altering p11 levels.
"The p11 is upstream of the receptor, and now the question is what is upstream of the p11," Greengard said.
But Sharp noted that bouts of depression often are associated with serious stress, and that p11 is part of a protein family known to be sensitive to certain stress-related hormones.
Greengard's lab now is researching the potential for p11-related therapies.
But the discovery likely will aid research into other diseases that also depend on cell-based receptors.
"We're finding that other molecules control other receptors, so I think this may open up quite a major new area of approach to developing therapeutic drugs," Greengard said.
On the Net: Government depression information: http://www.nimh.nih.gov
|
