Do you believe that some pharmaceuticals are more dangerous than they acknowledge?
I believe that birth control pills, for example, completely mess up a woman's body. I *know* that Depo-Provera does horrendous things. How often do you think they conceal information to make money from the product?
Pharmaceutical Ethics
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Pharmaceutical Ethics
Koan, it's a given here that they don't tell you everything up front. Half the stuff we take is as dangerous as what we're taking it for but if the pharms let on, money would not be made. Money still talks.
(*They* being doctors, big pharma and small pharma. For them to make $$ they have to keep you "just a little bit sick")
(*They* being doctors, big pharma and small pharma. For them to make $$ they have to keep you "just a little bit sick")
Pharmaceutical Ethics
It's a story from June 2006 but the kind of story that amazes me when it falls from public scrutiny. We follow murder trials breathlessly but when it is the entire consumer world at risk it comes across as less important.
The Guardian story
Drug companies are accused today of endangering public health through widescale marketing malpractices, ranging from covertly attempting to persuade consumers that they are ill to bribing doctors and misrepresenting the results of safety and efficacy tests on their products.
In a report that charts the scale of illicit practices by drug companies in the UK and across Europe, Consumers International - the world federation of consumer organisations - says people are not being given facts about the medicines they take because the companies hide the marketing tactics on which they spend billions.
...
The British company AstraZeneca, for instance, has been criticised by regulatory bodies: it allegedly organised an event to promote its drug Crestor which included tickets for a musical, and provided flights and hotels for doctors to attend a conference on bipolar disorder on the French Riviera. AstraZeneca says all employees must now pass an exam on its code of conduct.
GlaxoSmithKline, Britain's largest drug manufacturer, is under investigation by German and Italian authorities for alleged corruption of doctors - at least 1,600 in Germany and more than 4,000 in Italy, where the illegal gifts were said to amount to €228m (£156m) from 1999 to 2002. GSK says it has since established marketing codes. New staff have to pass a test on the code of practice. The report points out that in 2004, 87 employees were dismissed or agreed to leave the company voluntarily as a result of breaches of the codes, and that sanctions such as written warnings were imposed in 109 cases.
The Guardian story
Drug companies are accused today of endangering public health through widescale marketing malpractices, ranging from covertly attempting to persuade consumers that they are ill to bribing doctors and misrepresenting the results of safety and efficacy tests on their products.
In a report that charts the scale of illicit practices by drug companies in the UK and across Europe, Consumers International - the world federation of consumer organisations - says people are not being given facts about the medicines they take because the companies hide the marketing tactics on which they spend billions.
...
The British company AstraZeneca, for instance, has been criticised by regulatory bodies: it allegedly organised an event to promote its drug Crestor which included tickets for a musical, and provided flights and hotels for doctors to attend a conference on bipolar disorder on the French Riviera. AstraZeneca says all employees must now pass an exam on its code of conduct.
GlaxoSmithKline, Britain's largest drug manufacturer, is under investigation by German and Italian authorities for alleged corruption of doctors - at least 1,600 in Germany and more than 4,000 in Italy, where the illegal gifts were said to amount to €228m (£156m) from 1999 to 2002. GSK says it has since established marketing codes. New staff have to pass a test on the code of practice. The report points out that in 2004, 87 employees were dismissed or agreed to leave the company voluntarily as a result of breaches of the codes, and that sanctions such as written warnings were imposed in 109 cases.
Pharmaceutical Ethics
koan;580834 wrote: Do you believe that some pharmaceuticals are more dangerous than they acknowledge?
I believe that birth control pills, for example, completely mess up a woman's body. I *know* that Depo-Provera does horrendous things. How often do you think they conceal information to make money from the product?
Actually one of the reactions to some of the makes of birth control pill is full blown depression. I reckon it must be the cause for a lot of marriage breakdown as it effectively;y is a change in personality and yet it is not common knowledge.
Blame the doctors they are supposed to know all the side effects before they prescribe. I knew a research pharmacologist who was regularly called in as a consultant-he was seeing patients prescribed one drug that had side effects that the same doctor prescribed another drug to treat that also had side effects that he prescribed a drug to treat-patients on cocktails of drugs all interacting with each other he was often called in to try and work out the mess.
The pharmaceutical industry may be at fault but it is the doctors who decide what to give their patients.
I believe that birth control pills, for example, completely mess up a woman's body. I *know* that Depo-Provera does horrendous things. How often do you think they conceal information to make money from the product?
Actually one of the reactions to some of the makes of birth control pill is full blown depression. I reckon it must be the cause for a lot of marriage breakdown as it effectively;y is a change in personality and yet it is not common knowledge.
Blame the doctors they are supposed to know all the side effects before they prescribe. I knew a research pharmacologist who was regularly called in as a consultant-he was seeing patients prescribed one drug that had side effects that the same doctor prescribed another drug to treat that also had side effects that he prescribed a drug to treat-patients on cocktails of drugs all interacting with each other he was often called in to try and work out the mess.
The pharmaceutical industry may be at fault but it is the doctors who decide what to give their patients.
Pharmaceutical Ethics
It's only logical that a number of them just barely passed their exams.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Pharmaceutical Ethics
It's not so common knowledge that pharmacists know more about the drugs they fill than the doctors do the ones that they prescribe. Their job is to beef up on all the latest stuff, doctors have no time for that.
I have been stopped several times by pharamicists who have seen problems with drugs I was combining. I have also gone to the doctor with side effects from their drugs that they were unaware existed.
I partly blame the public as well, for sucking down any Rx they're given without questoning or looking into it themselves. But mostly I blame the drug manufacturers for putting shoddy product on the market. That's how I got diabetes, from taking a drug known by all (except me) to cause it.
I have been stopped several times by pharamicists who have seen problems with drugs I was combining. I have also gone to the doctor with side effects from their drugs that they were unaware existed.
I partly blame the public as well, for sucking down any Rx they're given without questoning or looking into it themselves. But mostly I blame the drug manufacturers for putting shoddy product on the market. That's how I got diabetes, from taking a drug known by all (except me) to cause it.
Pharmaceutical Ethics
I am of the belief "the industry" creats an ailment so they can rape you of your money so you can be releived of said ailment (or so you are lead to believe) ... ie PMS!
Relief = $
Cure = 0
Relief = $
Cure = 0
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
― Mae West
― Mae West
Pharmaceutical Ethics
[QUOTE=magenta flame;581197]why have a cure when you can make sooo much money out of managing an illness..
isn't that the sad truth.
isn't that the sad truth.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
― Mae West
― Mae West
Pharmaceutical Ethics
I think there's lots of blame to go around. The drug companies, the doctors who'd accept bribes, or the pill pushers who just don't give a rats arse about patients.
I think doctors should know more about the drugs they'd be prescribing.
I was prescribed two drugs by my rheumatologist at one point, and within one day of taking them had had hallucinations. I thought maybe they'd go away with time, so kept taking the pills. The hallucinations got worse and worse. Called the pharmacy..they told me to stop taking them immediately. That those two pills when taken at the same time, cause hallucinations, than grand mal seizures, followed by a coma, and than death. Within 1-2 weeks of taking them. Good thing I stopped when I did, or it would have been lights out.
It's for these bad intereactions (and those that redglitter mentioned) that doctors should familiarize themselves with medications they prescribe. So that some deaths and diseases can be prevented. Yes there is patient responsibility, but most people would blindly trust what their doctors say or put them on, because of the mindset that they're doctors, so they're supposed to know what they're giving you won't cause you death or other disease complications.
When I called that doctor to tell her about the drug interaction, she says.."Oh okay, don't take it than."..:wah: Well no, really? I thought I would. Y'know, just for the fun of tossing my shoe out of a car window.
I think doctors should know more about the drugs they'd be prescribing.
I was prescribed two drugs by my rheumatologist at one point, and within one day of taking them had had hallucinations. I thought maybe they'd go away with time, so kept taking the pills. The hallucinations got worse and worse. Called the pharmacy..they told me to stop taking them immediately. That those two pills when taken at the same time, cause hallucinations, than grand mal seizures, followed by a coma, and than death. Within 1-2 weeks of taking them. Good thing I stopped when I did, or it would have been lights out.
It's for these bad intereactions (and those that redglitter mentioned) that doctors should familiarize themselves with medications they prescribe. So that some deaths and diseases can be prevented. Yes there is patient responsibility, but most people would blindly trust what their doctors say or put them on, because of the mindset that they're doctors, so they're supposed to know what they're giving you won't cause you death or other disease complications.
When I called that doctor to tell her about the drug interaction, she says.."Oh okay, don't take it than."..:wah: Well no, really? I thought I would. Y'know, just for the fun of tossing my shoe out of a car window.
Pharmaceutical Ethics
koan;580834 wrote: Do you believe that some pharmaceuticals are more dangerous than they acknowledge?
I believe that birth control pills, for example, completely mess up a woman's body. I *know* that Depo-Provera does horrendous things. How often do you think they conceal information to make money from the product?
There is a concept known as "Ducking the Doubleblind". Most clinical trials are six months. Many side effects don't show up for seven.
In an industry where Donald Rumsfeld was a CEO, how much honesty can you expect???
I believe that birth control pills, for example, completely mess up a woman's body. I *know* that Depo-Provera does horrendous things. How often do you think they conceal information to make money from the product?
There is a concept known as "Ducking the Doubleblind". Most clinical trials are six months. Many side effects don't show up for seven.
In an industry where Donald Rumsfeld was a CEO, how much honesty can you expect???
Pharmaceutical Ethics
My husband had a mild heart attack at 42 years old. This was followed by an angioplasty, which led to a stint and numerous drug prescriptions. After 4 years of taking off work for lab work, dr. appts., and general illnesses, his "numbers" were worse than the day of the heart attack. He took himself off all meds. Though we don't know where his #'s are at this point, his health seems to have improved 200%. This could be the result of state of mind, but I feel that a very large factor was the prescriptions he was taking. I have since found evidence that 3 out of 4 of the meds have very dangerous interactions. Now for the scary part, he drives a semi down the road with the school buses every day. Two of those drugs combined routinely cause loss of consciousness!! Would his employer, himself, his physician, the pharmacist, or the drug company be the ones named in the wrongful death suit in the case of a fatal accident??? I would bet my soul that it would not be the responsible parties, but the blind followers!
-
gpthomlinson
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:36 am
Pharmaceutical Ethics
Hi All
With the number of times that doctors change their minds - try this, if that doesn't work, then try this - I sometimes thnk that the real drug trial only starts once the patients are actually using it.
Gail
With the number of times that doctors change their minds - try this, if that doesn't work, then try this - I sometimes thnk that the real drug trial only starts once the patients are actually using it.
Gail
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Pharmaceutical Ethics
gpthomlinson;758644 wrote: Hi All
With the number of times that doctors change their minds - try this, if that doesn't work, then try this - I sometimes thnk that the real drug trial only starts once the patients are actually using it.
Gail
Good point and I tend to agree.
With the number of times that doctors change their minds - try this, if that doesn't work, then try this - I sometimes thnk that the real drug trial only starts once the patients are actually using it.
Gail
Good point and I tend to agree.
Pharmaceutical Ethics
koan;581140 wrote: It's only logical that a number of them just barely passed their exams.
I think the fluctuations of pharmacologists barely passing their exams can invariably be a direct indication of the intent to corrupt the pharmaceutical industry. All one need do is compare those fluctuations with the number of lawsuits, cross multiply, and BAM! you got your killer drug man!
"Pharmaceutical Ethics" has to come down to the laws that inhibit potential sellers, which are pharmacists themselves. I think those laws are far too lenient and detached to inevitably ensure the unavoidable acceptance of society associated with "side effects".
I can't however accept the idea that just because more "drugs" are available to society means that the dispensing of those "drugs" are far more unethical than past instances.
Are we to generally accept that "trial and error" from "Pharmakon" to "Pharmacopoeias" is somehow different? From an ethical standpoint I'd say yes. From a moral standpoint I cannot say the same at all. "Trial and error" is far worse than "neglect" otherwise we couldn't at all define "medicine".
I think the fluctuations of pharmacologists barely passing their exams can invariably be a direct indication of the intent to corrupt the pharmaceutical industry. All one need do is compare those fluctuations with the number of lawsuits, cross multiply, and BAM! you got your killer drug man!
"Pharmaceutical Ethics" has to come down to the laws that inhibit potential sellers, which are pharmacists themselves. I think those laws are far too lenient and detached to inevitably ensure the unavoidable acceptance of society associated with "side effects".
I can't however accept the idea that just because more "drugs" are available to society means that the dispensing of those "drugs" are far more unethical than past instances.
Are we to generally accept that "trial and error" from "Pharmakon" to "Pharmacopoeias" is somehow different? From an ethical standpoint I'd say yes. From a moral standpoint I cannot say the same at all. "Trial and error" is far worse than "neglect" otherwise we couldn't at all define "medicine".
Pharmaceutical Ethics
K.Snyder;1298023 wrote: "Pharmaceutical Ethics" has to come down to the laws that inhibit potential sellers, which are pharmacists themselves. I think those laws are far too lenient and detached to inevitably ensure the unavoidable acceptance of society associated with "side effects".
Adverse reactions/drug idiosyncrasy
Adverse reactions/drug idiosyncrasy
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Pharmaceutical Ethics
koan;580834 wrote: Do you believe that some pharmaceuticals are more dangerous than they acknowledge?
I believe that birth control pills, for example, completely mess up a woman's body. I *know* that Depo-Provera does horrendous things. How often do you think they conceal information to make money from the product?
I think your right. I know women who have suffered horrendous side effects from HRT.
I believe that birth control pills, for example, completely mess up a woman's body. I *know* that Depo-Provera does horrendous things. How often do you think they conceal information to make money from the product?
I think your right. I know women who have suffered horrendous side effects from HRT.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon