Author
|
Topic: Magnet Therapy and Drug Companies
|
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764
|
posted 06 January 2006 11:31 PM
quote: By Matthew Jones Thu Jan 5, 7:28 PM ETLONDON - The use of magnetic devices to cure a variety of ills has soared in recent years but there is no evidence they work, according to an editorial in the British Medical Journal. The market for magnetic bracelets, knee pads and the like may now be worth about one billion dollars a year, but two American scientists argue in the journal on Friday that many people are being fooled as to their therapeutic benefits. "Money spent on expensive and unproved magnet therapy might be better spent on evidence-based medicine," professors Leonard Finegold and Bruce Flamm wrote.
Read it here. (Thread title edited by me since it hasn't been put back on topic) [ 09 January 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 07 January 2006 01:39 AM
But none have saved as many lives as insulin and polio vaccines. They were discovered a long time ago. What we have now are huge monopolies that have effectively insulated themselves from market forces after the Mulroney and Reagan governments handed them extended patent protections on old discoveries. For example, between the years 1955 and 1992, more than 90 percent of all cancer drug discoveries were a result of taxpayer-funded research in the United States - the largest tax base in North America as well as publicly funded research that has been skimmed by private corporations which puts the onus for R&D of new drug discoveries on US taxpayers. Taxol, the best selling cancer drug in history, was a direct result of NIH research handed-off to Bristol-Meyer. AZT is another publicly-funded discovery handed over to "the market" or private enterprise. Big pharmas have very little incentive to find new cures and tend to focus their spending on clinical trials to prove secondary benefits for old discoveries. Tylenol is an example of where the white powder recipe is changed by one or two micro-ingredients to satisfy new drug applications for FDA approval and continued patent protection and guaranteeing additional years of protection from generic competition. quote: In 1983, at the prompting of Ralph Nader, and with David Noble (now at York University but then at MIT), he organized the National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest and became its Executive Director - to date. The Coalition was formed to opposed "corporatization" of the university curriculum and its research agenda that, in the United States, became public policy with the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act. This legislation was designed to guarantee that large corporations would capture the profits from inventions created by taxpayer funded scientific research through a licensing procedure that effectively gave corporations exclusive control of the invention. These policies were then emulated in Canada, especially well at Simon Fraser University.
Ralph Nader
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749
|
posted 07 January 2006 08:57 AM
quote: Originally posted by Blink:
Come on, don't be silly. I'm not suggesting these two are the only ones in the world. Insulin wasn't just discovered and the problem of diabetes was solved. Insulin has been been developed and refined in numerous ways. And there are lots of drugs on the market now that have improved lives immeasurably.
Indeed. As a lifelong epileptic, I can attest to the significance of anticonvulsant research over the last few decades and in the present as well, and the vast improvement of available treatments. For someone dependent on anticonvulsants, the difference between epilepsy treatment 50 years ago and epilepsy treatment today is not substantially different in practice, in my opinion, from the difference between epilepsy treatment 2000 years ago and epilepsy treatment today. That is to say, in that whether what was available then is a happier option than nothing at all is debatable but doubtful in either case. Three of the last four anticonvulsants I have used were introduced in the last ten years.
From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 07 January 2006 09:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by Blink: Is this a new rule? A drug is only worthwhile if it saves as many lives as insulin or polio vaccine?
But when politicians were explaining why big pharma needed extended patent protections on old discoveries, the rationale was that they needed to recover money spent on R&D in order to invest in new research. Word is that they've simply been pocketing the extra money and shadowing publicly-funded research. I will admit that diseases and repairing the human body is not as easy as they once thought it could be, the human body is a universe of virtually unexplored territory all by itself, but consumer advocates like Ralph Nader believe that big pharma's have been acting like big, slow moving protectionist entities with just one incentive as their driving force - the bottom line. R&D is the most expensive and highest risk aspect of the pharmaceutical industry. quote: Orthodox Western economists would tend to dismiss this socialist[Cuban] model of medical innovation and production as a quaint aberration in today's world, clearly out of synch in the globalised economy. But the Cuban record boasts 26 inventions with more than 100 international patents already granted. ...Cuba has also set its sights on breaking into the Western market and has been actively seeking joint venture partners. Last month, a Cuban anti-cancer therapy known as TheraCIM hr3 was contracted to a joint venture with the German pharmaceutical Oncoscience AG of Wedel. The German partner will be responsible for taking the Cuban product through further clinical trials and regulatory processes so that it can enter the European market.
Yale Viva la revolucion!
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Blink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11402
|
posted 07 January 2006 11:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Aristotleded24: Aside from some anti-depressants having been (ironically) linked to suicidal behaviour among other things,
This is a tiny percentage and may or may not be attributable to the drugs. quote: I suspect that many cases of "depression" are simply diagnosed to provide a market for the drugs when maybe trying to identify reasons that this person may be depressed in the first place.
So the Big Pharma conspiracy strikes again! Hey, there is such a thing as clinical depression. I really think patients deserve better than being made out to be unsuspecting morons.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11402
|
posted 08 January 2006 03:21 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: So you're saying that antidepressants aren't a cure for depression
Huh? I was saying the exact opposite. I used them as an example of a useful drug developed by Big Pharma (in answer to your assertion that there weren't any). quote: but big pharma wants people suffering from the illness to buy them regardless of the side effects and lack of efficacy ?. Gee, maybe it's you who doesn't think very highly of depressed people ?.
WTF are you talking about? I said no such thing. [ 08 January 2006: Message edited by: Blink ]
From: British Columbia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 08 January 2006 01:52 PM
May 17, 2000, Joint Economic Committee. The Benefits of Medical Research and the Role of NIH. quote:
A study of the 21 drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 that were considered by experts to have had the highest therapeutic impact on society found that public funding of research was instrumental in the development of 15 of the 21 drugs (71 percent). Three-captopril (Capoten), fluoxetine (Prozac), and acyclovir (Zovirax)-had more than $1 billion in sales in 1994 and 1995. In addition to these drugs, other members of the group of 21 drugs, including AZT, acyclovir, fluconazole (Diflucan), foscarnet (Foscavir), and ketoconazole (Nizoral), had NIH funding and research to help in clinical trials.
Source
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 09 January 2006 12:46 AM
I would normally have closed the thread because you all did not take my admonition to heart about thread drift, but I decided I didn't want to promote thread proliferation, so I edited the thread title.However, in future, if I say thread drift has become unacceptable and that a new thread should be created... TAKE THE HINT! *Removes moderator hat*
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389
|
posted 09 January 2006 05:50 PM
DrConway,No, I think it's gone in interesting directions. I'm not a medical person and wonder whether magnets may help where excess iron is present - as long as it didn't lead to too much bleeding as it pulled the iron or other ferrous metals from the body. I do know that permanent magnets work wonders in the field of electric motors. Brian White asks: "Why not debate something interesting like maggot therapy? It gets rave reviews!" I had heard as much. As long as the little critters stop chomping when they got past the rotten stuff. In a related use of insects, a drinking acquaintance admitted to experimenting by putting his member into an olive jar holding mosquitoes. It wasn't gangrenous or diseased. The resulting bites led to a great swelling and itching for several days but he admitted to he and his wife enjoying the best sex ever.
From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Blink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11402
|
posted 09 January 2006 09:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: May 17, 2000, Joint Economic Committee. The Benefits of Medical Research and the Role of NIH. Source
I wanted to check this out, Fidel, but at the cptech site the link to that is dead. Just curious, though. Do you believe that every capitalist endeavour must be evil and corrupt?
From: British Columbia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
vorlon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6789
|
posted 10 January 2006 04:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Blink:
Oh, I can't agree with that. Two of my close friends' lives were saved by recent drugs both produced by big pharamceutical companies.
Now here's an interesting little tale, found at--of all places--linuxtoday.com The poster Greygeek, tells of his research experiences: GreyGeek - Subject: Eight years! ( Aug 25, 2005, 20:55:54 ) [snip] I worked three years on my disseration for an MS in Biochemistry. My thesis initally was over 300 pages in length and my consulting professor tore it to shreds, almost literally. It ended up being 52 pages long, with most of the three years being spent on developing chemical sequences necessary to produce a single compound. The pathway could be described graphically on one page. For those with an interest in biochemistry the compound was: 3-Amino, 3,4-dihydro,1-hydroxy carbostyril. It was supposed to be an anti-cancer compound, but it was not effective in that role. We also checked its antibiotic activity. When I bioassayed it to determine its toxicity I discovered that it was a broad spectrum antibiotic at 1 mg/Kg and non-toxic to people. I was in a race to beat the pharmaceutical companies because if they published before I did I'd have to start over on a new topic for a new thesis. I beat them to the publishers with my results. My work was funded by the $7K/Yr Welch Foundation, which required that it be "GPL". Because of that an excellent antibiotic never made it to the market. Why? Because of prior art. They couldn't patent it and claim "millions" in "development costs" to justify a $3 per pill price tag. So, after I published they tried some analogs that they could patent, but the analogs were nowhere near as active and/or as safe as my compound, so they gave up.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|