This is a very simplified version of the logic behind high cost of drugs. First of all what we are doing is instead of preventing the disease. We are stressing more on the development of new drug. The magical drug. There is no magical drug, all the drugs has its own side effects. We are so overexposed to chemicals. Our food is completely adulterated. Now the new generation even don't know what is the organic food. All agriculture is so much under pesticides and genetically modified seeds that we dont know how the natural agriculture is. Then comes the drug development. God knows how much they spend on research but every drug is approved by FDA. Later on we start seeing its side effects. At the end I would say it is such a big vicious cycle only solution is stay away from drugs.
That is just silly. You actually expect facts instead of opinions. That takes all the fun out of healthcare expert babble.
Spare us comrade. Who is it that gave us almost every one of the wonderful medicines that keep modern man healthy and alive? Big pharma. Who pays billions to research and pay the people that discover most all of them? Big pharma. Who deserves every penny in profit from these discoveries? Big pharma. What great discoveries have come from any generic drug company that does nothing but ape the medicines already discovered? None.
If there is no chance of developing new, "magical drugs", as you call them then why do liberals want the Federal Government to invest more of our tax dollars for research and development of new drugs? And why do so many make contribution to various organizations for the development of Cancer, Aids and the like to develop new drugs to treat these diseases. You have an answer for this. You can't possibly believe it doesn't cost Millions of dollars to do the research to develop new drugs and the subsequent testing of these drugs under FDA supervision. Can you?
Big pharma is over charging their products. Drugs are marketed without knowing the real side effects. Some how the other, big pharma is successful in hiding the truth from people. Every drug is marketed as a magical drug.
There are two stages of releasing a new drug, first the company that researched and developed it releases the drug at a cost that allows them a profit and the ability to re-coop research and development costs. Then secondly, after a set period of time, other companies are allowed to manufacture the drug as a generic, at a lower cost because they didn't have research and development costs. Get it. Drugs are manufactured without knowing the side effects. Really? They do so many clinical studies before the FDA even approves it. And, perhaps you don't know it costs millions of dollars to get a drug approved for use by the FDA. My husband participates in FDA funded clinical studies. It takes tons of paperwork. Tons of patient participants that must meet specific criteria. It costs much more than you can imagine. Once a drug is finally approved by the FDA, the manufacture markets it. They always list all possible side effects, even though these side effects seldom occur. The do this to protect their "backside". So as a patient, I suggest you google the side effects of any drug you are prescribed. Many will decide not to take the drug, those more educated will decide to take the drug because they know most of these side effects are worth risking as compared to the benefits the drug may provide. I can't agree with anything you said. No drug is actually marketed as a magical drug. Other than perhaps vitamins and homeopathic beverages. The very things not regulated by the FDA.
The new drug you see advertised today will be on some ambulance-chasing lawyer's ad in a year or two. They factor all that in when they release the drug/bribe who they need to to get it going.
So, we know all the side effects? Really? What are the side effects of taking, say a Statin over 20 years? See manufacturers only study the drug for a limited time - the rest as they say, is up to us,
You are so ill informed that I don't know where to start. The FDA, federal government, approves new drugs. So if you have any beef you should start with the Federal government and the FDA, not the drug manufacturers. And, IMO after all clinical studies we probably know 80% of the possible side effects for the normal patient. But you that have a beef with drug companies may also be the ones that protest the FDA not allowing people new cancer drugs, aids drugs and the like. Which is it? And, aren't you happy that drug manufactures do clinical studies and comply with the extensive FDA regulations before a new drug can come to market. Many patients are forced to get prescriptions overseas as these Countries don't have the multiple of regulations we do before a drug can be put on the market and prescribed. Exactly what is your beef? You want fewer regulations, more regulations, longer testing, more money spent on clinical trials. Exactly what is it that would satisfy you and the other posters against pharm companies?
So, it is obvious you are unaware of what class of drugs is represented by the term 'Statin' and why it is now being prescribed over a long time period - a time period which was NOT initially researched. Do you understand the term 'Systematic Review'? Because it was a Cochrane Database Systematic Review that stopped the wholesale prescribing of Estrogen to menopausal women. It is still being prescribed but the women choosing it are better informed of the risks As for your 'Other Countries' Since you will not say which drugs and where then that is simply the magic fairy selling snake oil
In all honesty big pharma is not killing us, treatment happy doctors are. (Few forms of cancer are actually effected by chemo therapy yet it's one of the most used forms of treatments, it also doubles the likelihood of the cancer returning) I would like to see more research done on electricity and tumors. If you know anything about cancer rates, you'll know why.
I am not saying Big Pharma IS killing us - and where did you get that idea? They are though unethical in many dealings and should be held to a higher standard That being said they are infinitely more desirable than the alternative snake oil salesmen - which is what you appear to have been reading given the claims about chemotherapy - claims which in these days of EBP are not supported Bottom line - do not use 'cancertreatmentsarelies.com' as your resource - use Cochrane http://www.cochrane.org/
Well, I am fully aware a the risks associated with taking a statin as I have been taking simvastatin for several years along with a low dose, over the counter Niacin because I have hereditary high cholesterol and lipids. I have $3000.00's of blood tests every six months by the Pre-diabetes center, since visiting this nation wide clinic I have managed to lose 25 lbs., lower my cholesterol/lipids and all vitamins are now within normal limits along with my A1C. BUT, I THANK YOU for bringing this subject up because it got me thinking about statin use along with Niacin. After doing much research, I plan to ask my Cardiologist and Family doctor if I can increase my 40mg. dose of Niacin and discontinue my simvastatin as several research sites I visited said this may be an option for patients unable to take statin drugs due to side effects. I haven't had any of the side effects they mentioned, but if I can decrease the number of pills I take, I am all far it, and better safe then sorry. In defense of the Doctors prescribing statins and the companies selling statins, and the pharmacies filling the prescriptions; the patient is fully advised in writing of the possible side effects and drug interactions. The problem is most patients don't read this information. Including me many times, why?; because every drug we are prescribed comes with a long list of possible side effects, drug interactions, warnings and the like and most of us simple have decided to leave it up to our provider to determine if we should take the drug. And, for far too many, they simply don't understand the information to begin with, it is over whelming. Any way as you can read in the below article, it already takes years for new drugs to come to market, often drugs that could be helping many patients. IMO the system is working well as it exists. And, don't forget doctors will quickly stop prescribing a drug if their patients begin to experience side effects. And, Pharmacies will often contact patients if they believe they are taking medications that shouldn't be taken together. Also, patients need to know that their Pharmacist is a valuable source of information regarding drugs. I have talked with my pharmacist many times regarding if she knows of a better drug than the one I am taking or the most popular drug prescribed for my condition and whether any of my drugs shouldn't be taken together. Again, I appreciate your bringing the Statin issue up. One thing I did learn from researching Statins is that they are "normally" prescribed for long periods of time, often for the rest of one's life, unless the patient lowers their cholesterol through, exercise, diet and vitamins. Regarding my previous post, the drug companies do extensive research that includes FDA-Regulated Clinical Trials. We participate in many of these trials and the requirements must be exactly followed and the procedure is exact. The paperwork and reporting is beyond excessive, which is good. I still believe that the Company that researched and developed the drug should have protected status, meaning no other company can market a generic drug until the Patent expires, because it often costs millions of dollars to develop and test new drugs, get the patent and final approval by the FDA to market the drug. Exclusivity is the only means of assuring the developing Company that they can re-coop the development costs and hope to make a profit. Because once other Companies start marketing generic forms of the drug the developing companies revenue will quickly decrease, most patients request their physician prescribe them a generic drug. (I prefer they write that a generic can be substituted as I have found that insurance companies, believe it or not will not cover the Generic form, makes no sense). Here is a copy of good explanation of the process: Drug Patents and Generic Pharmaceutical Drugs By Dr Ananya Mandal, MD When a pharmaceutical company first develops a new drug to be used for a disease condition, it is initially sold under a brand name by which the clinicians can prescribe the drug for use by patients. The drug is covered under patent protection, which means that only the pharmaceutical company that holds the patent is allowed to manufacture, market the drug and eventually make profit from it. In most cases, the drug patent is awarded for around twenty years in the United States. The lifetime of the patent varies between countries and also between drugs. Since the company applies for a patent long before the clinical trial to assess a drug’s safety and efficacy has commenced, the effective patent period after the drug has finally received approval is often around seven to twelve years. Once the patent has expired, the drug can be manufactured and sold by other companies. At this point, the drug is referred to as a generic drug. According to guidelines in most countries, including those from the US FDA, generic drugs have to be identical to the branded drug in terms of efficacy, safety, usage, route of drug administration, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Related Stories •Diabetes treatment with low-cost generic drug can have positive implications for patient's quality of life •Doctors, hospitals went digital, but still can't share records •ANI acquires approved ANDA for Flecainide Acetate tablets USP Therefore, a drug can be manufactured as a generic drug when the following apply: •Its patent has expired •The company that would manufacture the generic drug certifies that the patents held on the drug are either unenforceable, are invalid or would not be infringed upon •There has never been any patents on the drug before •In countries where the drug has no patent protection Once the generic drug is on the market, the monopoly of the patent holder is removed. This encourages competition and results in a significant drop in drug costs, which ensures that life-saving and important drugs reach the general population at comparative prices. The company holding the initial patent may, however, renew the patent by forming a new version of the drug that is significantly changed compared to the original compound. However, this may require new clinical trials and re-application of the patent. Furthermore, the new compound may have to compete with the original generic molecule on the market, unless the drug regulators find faults and remove the original from the market altogether.
The delay depends....................... As always it is a cost/benefit risk. The ISIS 2 Trial of aspirin and Streptokinase was halted before it was completed because the results were so overwhelmingly positive it was considered unethical to continue whereas the CAST trial was ended because there was a higher mortality in the treated patients - and this latter one was a real kicker. We had thought up until that time that suppression of life threatening arrhythmias post infarct was a GOOD thing - CAST proved us wrong and highlighted the theory/reality gap http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/content/91/1/245.full
Several years ago my wife's dad was diagnosed with prostate. He was still living in Quito, Ecuador at that time. The family house keeper advised him to begin to take a teaspoon of baking soda in water as a nutritional back up to his treatment. They have moved to Miami and the doctors there are amazed that he now has zero cancer cells in his blood. He has kept on taking the baking soda and water. This seems to fit with the theory that getting more oxygen to cells can kill cancer. The household maid, her family, friend and neighbours can't afford the conventional treatments when they get cancer so they had better know the low cost possible alternatives.
I am curious to see if you have any actual data on how much regulation contributes to actual drug costs. And just so you understand I don't consider the testing requirements that ensure that the drug is safe and effective to be a regulation. Now if what you are really advocating is eliminating standards of effectiveness and safety yes that probably would make drugs cheaper but it would also make them more dangerous and less effective. There is a balance between cost and benefit for all regulation.
Most men get diagnosed as having a prostate. For the record personal stories have no scientific or other validity although they do occasionally offer false hope. And I would be curious about whatever science you have that taking baking soda and water will increase blood oxygen levels.
