|
6587. thoughtful - 11/30/2005 8:24:58 PM As with any drug, the issue is what are the side effects once it gets out in the gen population? The drug is clearly blocking some natural body function that is leading to that result. The question is what damage is being done by blocking that function...are there eg nutritional impacts? impacts on muscle strength? hormonal changes?
And of course there's no known long-term effect at this point as it hasn't been around that long. 6588. thoughtful - 11/30/2005 8:43:23 PM As with any drug, the issue is what are the side effects once it gets out in the gen population? The drug is clearly blocking some natural body function that is leading to that result. The question is what damage is being done by blocking that function...are there eg nutritional impacts? impacts on muscle strength? hormonal changes?
And of course there's no known long-term effect at this point as it hasn't been around that long. 6589. robertjayb - 11/30/2005 9:21:46 PM impacts on muscle strength?
My heart doc took me off Lipitor for 6 weeks due to strength concerns. Whoop! Cholesterol shot up to 249. Now, of course, I'm back on the drug. 6590. wonkers2 - 11/30/2005 9:26:06 PM I convinced my doctor that taking one 10?mg Lipitor pill every other day instead of every day would be worth a try. My first blood analysis indicated that it was doing the trick--lower cholesterol and higher HDL. 6591. thoughtful - 11/30/2005 9:30:15 PM my doc has had hubby fooling around with red yeast rice and he was running into muscle pain problems. We've since taken him off of it.
I worry about the side effects of all these drugs of which we are not aware. They always come out after the gen population has been on the drug for awhile and people are injured before they pull the drug.
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???
|
