Do doctors hide medical cures?

His medical career is dead. Close enough, right?

IndyPirate said:

His medical career is dead. Close enough, right?

Click to expand...

One can only hope. Tell Jenny Macarthy the news.

Yup, there is a whopping cough epidemic in southern Alberta because of people not vaccinating their kids. Stupid! I have a cousin and his wife that are part of that quiverful movement, they have 8 kids so far, homeschool, and not one of their kids is vaccinated.

Originally Posted by parsa

We're light years away from such technology but I'm hopeful...not for humans really but to bring an end to animal testing.

Click to expand...

The model, technology, & various tools to - as parsa well said "treat each person as a totally different organism" - have already been discovered, and used helpfully successfully by a few practitioners. -

'Pharma-associates' will have a problem with this, because you can not "patent" this kind of healing. It's an opportunity for moral, ethical practitioners to help each other, and the world-at-large.

Oneofthediaspora said:

Well God Bless America eh?

Click to expand...

American companies do come up with many good drugs which the world has benefited from. The avarice of Capitalism has its benefits.

sk8Joyful said:

Originally Posted by parsa

where one big deficiency of the current model for healing is; that we don't yet know how, or
don't have the tools, to treat each person as a totally different organism.

​

The model, technology, & various tools to - as parsa well said "treat each person as a totally different organism" - have already been discovered, and used helpfully successfully by a few practitioners. -

'Pharma-associates' will have a problem with this, because you can not "patent" this kind of healing. It's an opportunity for moral, ethical practitioners to help each other, and the world-at-large.

Click to expand...

Once again... is there any double blind scientifically valid reason to consider reinventing the wheel for every patient is a good thing?

Autumnleaf said:

American companies do come up with many good drugs which the world has benefited from. The avarice of Capitalism has its benefits.

Click to expand...

Can you think of a better way?

I will say this. Without drug company mistakes we wouldn't have had the development of the most beautiful area of American law....the mass tort.

Joachim said:

I will say this. Without drug company mistakes we wouldn't have had the development of the most beautiful area of American law....the mass tort.

Click to expand...

Hi Joachim... did you ever provide an example of homeopathic medicine demonstrated to be more effective than a placebo through double blind testing?

So what is it? Are drug companies withholding cures, or overselling meds? Or doing both, just to really mess with people?

If there is a real problem with drug companies it seems that it's that they are underfunded when it comes to finding new treatments for illnesses that mostly affect third-world countries, like drug-resistant TB. But that isn't some conspiracy; it's a failing of the capitalist systems that many drug companies work in.

Do some drug companies over-hype medications? Yes, because they need the money to help fund research. And are some meds over-prescibed? Yup, but often they're also underprescribed to the people who really really need them. That probably includes drugs like anti-depressants, ADHD meds, and so on. There's so much stigma attached to actually have these problems that some people don't get the meds they need, while others use them because it makes their lives easier even though they don't need them.

I'm just saying this from my own observations as a layperson, and I'm certainly not claiming any expertise or trying to hype conspiracy theories. I think drug researchers are by-and-large good people, not evil scientists trying to control the world. And it really doesn't make sense that they're trying to be billionaires by selling worthless treatments while keeping the cures hidden. There are lot easier ways of making billions than working away in labs and doing drug trails for decades.

CCGirl said:

Yup, there is a whopping cough epidemic in southern Alberta because of people not vaccinating their kids. Stupid! I have a cousin and his wife that are part of that quiverful movement, they have 8 kids so far, homeschool, and not one of their kids is vaccinated.

Click to expand...

The problem with the "people who don't vaccinate their kids are stupid" argument is that it ignores the fact that some people really do have allergies or severe sensitivies to the compounds in vaccines that make it dangerous for them to have them. For some vaccines can make them sick, or even kill them. But because some people can't get vaccines for health reasons, it means that those who can really, really do need to get them.

Of course there are people who are against vaccines because they think they're mind-control substances or something, and those people need a serious reality check.

The problem with the "people who don't vaccinate their kids are stupid" argument is that it ignores the fact that some people really do have allergies or severe sensitivies to the compounds in vaccines that make it dangerous for them to have them. For some vaccines can make them sick, or even kill them. But because some people can't get vaccines for health reasons, it means that those who can really, really do need to get them.

Of course there are people who are against vaccines because they think they're mind-control substances or something, and those people need a serious reality check.

Click to expand...

In all my time nursing, I encountered many parents who declined to have their children vaccinated, but only ever for the mind control/ZOMG vaccinations cause autism! reasons. I'm sure there are people with legitimate reasons for declining vacinations, I've just never encountered one IRL

LightHorseman said:

In all my time nursing, I encountered many parents who declined to have their children vaccinated, but only ever for the mind control/ZOMG vaccinations cause autism! reasons. I'm sure there are people with legitimate reasons for declining vacinations, I've just never encountered one IRL

Click to expand...

Really? I know several, and I'm not a nurse. I also know that the parents of those people had to endure a lot of undeserved "you're a nutcase" speeches from nurses and doctors who didn't know their child's history or allergies. Often they just gave up discussing the issue with anyone but medical professionals who knew their children's history in detail.

The same goes for autism. Some kids with autism have legitimate problems with digesting gluten. But then there are people who claim that gluten-free diets "cure" autism. So the parents who have kids with autism who have legitimate reasons to avoid gluten are sometimes lumped together with the parents who needlessly feed their kids gluten-free diets in some attempt to "cure" autism.

BTW, I have a lot of respect for nurses, and I know that especially in hospitals they often know a patient's history better than the doctor does! But I also know that medical professionals who don't know a person's history sometimes jump to conclusions because there are so many nutcases out there, ruining it for those with legitimate allergies and intolerances.

sk8Joyful said:

Originally Posted by parsa

where one big deficiency of the current model for healing is; that we don't yet know how, or
don't have the tools, to treat each person as a totally different organism.

​

The model, technology, & various tools to - as parsa well said "treat each person as a totally different organism" - have already been discovered, and used helpfully successfully by a few practitioners. -

Click to expand...

What is the model, technology, and various tools? I have yet to come across any technology that can mimic individual physiology.

'Pharma-associates' will have a problem with this, because you can not "patent" this kind of healing. It's an opportunity for moral, ethical practitioners to help each other, and the world-at-large.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty big assumption on your part given that this technology you think exists probabaly amounts to unclear and ill-defined mumbo jumbo.

Joachim said:

I will say this. Without drug company mistakes we wouldn't have had the development of the most beautiful area of American law....the mass tort.

Click to expand...

The further I go along and become educated, the more I realize that it's impossible, at this point in time, to avoid side effects. Again, the issue is about having a therapy hit its target and only that target. But, if you take an oral, it has to go through your digestive sytem, into the blood stream and deal with metabolism. The drug goes through the entire body and having to contend with all the obstacles in the body along the way is difficult.

SallyNow said:

So what is it? Are drug companies withholding cures, or overselling meds? Or doing both, just to really mess with people?

Click to expand...

Yea, all of the above lol. Some of these same people will complain in the same breath that they don't want their taxes used for research either. All the answers should magically appear.

If there is a real problem with drug companies it seems that it's that they are underfunded when it comes to finding new treatments for illnesses that mostly affect third-world countries, like drug-resistant TB. But that isn't some conspiracy; it's a failing of the capitalist systems that many drug companies work in.

Click to expand...

We do some research that targets disease mostly found in third-world nations but you're correct, doing so under the capitalist umbrella is wanting. Ideally, it would be gov initiated but again, who wants to pay for it?

I think drug researchers are by-and-large good people, not evil scientists trying to control the world. And it really doesn't make sense that they're trying to be billionaires by selling worthless treatments while keeping the cures hidden. There are lot easier ways of making billions than working away in labs and doing drug trails for decades.

Click to expand...

It certainly isn't the scientists making billions. It's the CO's, lawyers, and stock holders, none of which have a hand in the actual research. When I was working in development, our attorney also had a ph d. I finally got to meet someone that ownes one of the mansions in Cambridge lol.

SallyNow said:

The same goes for autism. Some kids with autism have legitimate problems with digesting gluten. But then there are people who claim that gluten-free diets "cure" autism. So the parents who have kids with autism who have legitimate reasons to avoid gluten are sometimes lumped together with the parents who needlessly feed their kids gluten-free diets in some attempt to "cure" autism.

Click to expand...

Due to quacks, folk with gluten problems take a lot of flack. My girl friend has celiac disease. If she eats even the smallest amount of gluten she gets sick. She has a baby and has to watch her diet like a hawk. The only way to test for the condition is buy giving gluten and she doesn't want to do that to her kid until she's older.

Braunwyn said:

The further I go along and become educated, the more I realize that it's impossible, at this point in time, to avoid side effects. Again, the issue is about having a therapy hit its target and only that target. But, if you take an oral, it has to go through your digestive sytem, into the blood stream and deal with metabolism. The drug goes through the entire body and having to contend with all the obstacles in the body along the way is difficult.


Yea, all of the above lol. Some of these same people will complain in the same breath that they don't want their taxes used for research either. All the answers should magically appear.


We do some research that targets disease mostly found in third-world nations but you're correct, doing so under the capitalist umbrella is wanting. Ideally, it would be gov initiated but again, who wants to pay for it?


It certainly isn't the scientists making billions. It's the CO's, lawyers, and stock holders, none of which have a hand in the actual research. When I was working in development, our attorney also had a ph d. I finally got to meet someone that ownes one of the mansions in Cambridge lol.

Click to expand...

I can respect most of that. However, the drug companies are unreasonable in asking for limits on lawsuit compensation when they knowingly put out products that just by their own admission of how they work, could have adverse side effects. It is simply one of the bullets they bite for being in the business.

Joachim said:

I can respect most of that. However, the drug companies are unreasonable in asking for limits on lawsuit compensation when they knowingly put out products that just by their own admission of how they work, could have adverse side effects. It is simply one of the bullets they bite for being in the business.

Click to expand...

Nothing in life is risk-free--and certainly not medical treatment. True, it's incumbent upon physicians to prescribe medication only when the benefits outweigh the risks. And the patient must be informed of why he needs a certain medication; what the serious risks of the medication are; and he must be assured that he'll be closely monitored for any adverse reactions. But if the patient then consents to treatment and suffers such a reaction, it's inappropriate to hold the manufacturer responsible. Example: certain antibiotics (amikacin, gentamycin, tobramycin, vancomycin, and others) have a known risk of causing kidney failure. (Usually at higher doses, in patients with pre-existing renal problems.) But rarely, it could happen with anyone. These antibiotics though are still the standard treatment for many life-threatening bacterial infections. The risk of dying from infection is much greater than the risk of kidney failure, and there just isn't anything out there yet that's significantly better. Assuming the standard of care for dosing and monitoring is followed, the manufacturer can't be found liable if a patient needing these medications winds up on dialysis. It's tragic, but it's a known risk that must be accepted. Sometimes bad things happen even with every possible precaution. It's nobody's fault. It will cripple our economy--not to mention overwhelming our legal system--if we expect to be compensated for every risk in life.

Joachim said:

I can respect most of that. However, the drug companies are unreasonable in asking for limits on lawsuit compensation when they knowingly put out products that just by their own admission of how they work, could have adverse side effects. It is simply one of the bullets they bite for being in the business.

Click to expand...

jayem answered well enough. There is a side effect for every drug. That's just how it goes. The severity will vary though depending on alot of different variables (age, health, drug-drug interaction, etc). I think putting a cap on claims isn't a good thing either. If a person gets really hurt and needs life time care, they should have it. period. With that said, people should expect to pay top dollar for meds...if they want them.

So... still no sign of that double blind study showing that homeopathic medicines have any efficacy at all.

I guess its part of the "big pharma" plot huh?