Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sheb]

It's worse than that. On at least one case, a drug company patented a drug, and when the patent ran out, it patented a optically pure version of the same drug.

Oh, and they spend twice as much on advertising as on R&D. The US should really ban TV ads for drugs.

[wierd]

For drugs with such a littany of side effects, that one wonders how they manage to even sell the shit.

Seriously-- I have seen commercials with fast speech saying "May cause .. ... ... and death.".  SUDDEN FUCKING DEATH.

Yeah, I cant WAIT to get on THAT product!

[Chaoswizkid]

The media is focused on making the GOP look bad for this, but the Democrats were equally unwilling to negotiate.

Dems: "We want to raise taxes, develop more social programs and cut military expenses."

Reps: "We won't let you raise taxes, we want you to cut social programs and we won't let you cut military expenses."

Dems: "We're going to anyway."

Reps: "We're not going to let you anyway."

Dems: "Well, let's be bipartisan about this."

Reps: "Are you willing at all to cut or limit your social programs?"

Dems: "Nope."

Reps: "Guess we can't be bipartisan about it, then."

*Later, near deadline*

Reps: "So are we going to be bipartisan about this and try to sort out a compromise on cutting social spending?"

Dems: "Nope. We won't allow anything that cuts our social spending."

Reps: "Guess we just deadlock it, then."

Dems: "Alright, but we're just going to say that you're the bad guys."


Not happy with the probably cause of the Reps wanting to remove the medical equipment tax and try and take out Obamacare. Reeks of American Medical Association lobbying.

[Max White]

It's worse than that. On at least one case, a drug company patented a drug, and when the patent ran out, it patented a optically pure version of the same drug.

Oh, and they spend twice as much on advertising as on R&D. The US should really ban TV ads for drugs.

The other option is to totally deprivatize pharmaceuticals, making it a public sector that is funded with tax payer dollars to produce what is most needed at a low cost without all this advertising or having doctors peddle their specific brands... Except that wouldn't really work on an international platform.

If we could get a lot of developed countries to all sign up to an independent, international drug research fund we could extend the average life expectancy dramatically, improve the standard of living globally, and increase commercial production by channeling supporting staff into other industries and reducing sick time... But that won't happen in our life time.


Anyway, I have never seen a commercial for any sort of drugs other than pretty minor stuff like paracetamol or acid reflux pills... Nothing that would ever cause serious side effects with the only exception being from untreated allergic reaction.

[10ebbor10]

For drugs with such a littany of side effects, that one wonders how they manage to even sell the shit.

Seriously-- I have seen commercials with fast speech saying "May cause .. ... ... and death.".  SUDDEN FUCKING DEATH.

Yeah, I cant WAIT to get on THAT product!

Another problem with the medical sector is that they're forced to provide at least 2 studies showing that their product works, but are not forced to disclose all their studies. So what happens if a company develops a debatably usefull drug. Example: They commission 20 studies, of which 14 show the product is useless, 4 show that the product is harmful, and 2 that it works perfectly. They show the 2 successful studies, and can start selling a dangerous product.

[wierd]

Clearly, you arent watching the same TV...

REAALLY not watching the same TV as me...

[Sheb]

I think it's more of a precaution in case something goes wrong. But yeah, TV ads for drugs sucks: they contain no relevant information and they've been proven to distort prescribing pratices.

Anyone interested in the pharma industry should absolutely read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. Buy it, borrow it, steal it I don't care, but it'll get you foaming at the mouth with pitchfork and torches in no time. And it's all evidence. The Pharma section of his other book "Bad Science" is a good summary too, and I know you can find that book on websites about Pirates and Bays if you can't afford to buy the other one.

P.S. A lot of things could be done without going this far Max White: forcing companies to publish all the trials they run on their drugs (Right now, they can just not publish any negative trial), forbidding advertising (so prescribing is based on evidence), forcing regulators to reveal what they know and establishing reimbursement guidlines so the state doesn't pay for the most expensive stuff if it ain't worth it would go a long way toward fixing stuff.

[10ebbor10]

Additionally, not paying doctors using royalties on the medicines they prescribe would help too.

[Max White]

Clearly, you arent watching the same TV...

Holy shit... I mean seriously, THAT made it past clinical trials? I mean really, totally, seriously, what am I even looking at?

Still, I can see how telling people who are thinking about suicide that death is a possible side effect might be commercially viable.

EDIT:

REAALLY not watching the same TV as me...

Feels like the 90s in here, your ads just keep going on forever! Who even makes commercials over a minute long?

[wierd]

Welcome to the US, where most of what's on TV is a commercial message to consume, and where lawsuits over devices to skip these are commonplace.

You might notice that many Astra Zenica commercials are over a minute long. Same with some pfizer commercials.

[Chaoswizkid]

The problem with anti-depressants is that seriously depressed people are often so depressed and feel so bad that they don't want to do anything, including killing themselves. With anti-depressants in their system, they start to feel just good enough to commit suicide.

That's just a property of anti-depressants. You can't make an anti-depressant that doesn't also carry a risk of suicide.

[Max White]

Eh, for me anti-depressants just made me terrified that I was going to develop a dependency on them and I ended up feeling a lot worse. I understand that drugs are developed by very smart men in white coats that in general care about peoples health, I just have an irrational phobia of them, so that didn't go down well. Doctor finally agreed they were a bad idea and my quality of life improved just slightly, so my personal experience with these things isn't a very good representation of how it normally goes.

[Mlamlah]

The media is focused on making the GOP look bad for this, but the Democrats were equally unwilling to negotiate.

Dems: "We want to raise taxes, develop more social programs and cut military expenses."

Reps: "We won't let you raise taxes, we want you to cut social programs and we won't let you cut military expenses."

Dems: "We're going to anyway."

Reps: "We're not going to let you anyway."

Dems: "Well, let's be bipartisan about this."

Reps: "Are you willing at all to cut or limit your social programs?"

Dems: "Nope."

Reps: "Guess we can't be bipartisan about it, then."

*Later, near deadline*

Reps: "So are we going to be bipartisan about this and try to sort out a compromise on cutting social spending?"

Dems: "Nope. We won't allow anything that cuts our social spending."

Reps: "Guess we just deadlock it, then."

Dems: "Alright, but we're just going to say that you're the bad guys."


Not happy with the probably cause of the Reps wanting to remove the medical equipment tax and try and take out Obamacare. Reeks of American Medical Association lobbying.

This is one instance where negotiation shouldn't have to be a thing. This is absolutely *not* what this is for. This is a group of politicians trying to bully an entire government that y'know, has shit to do, into either caving to their demands, or becoming completely innefectual.

[Chaoswizkid]

This is one instance where negotiation shouldn't have to be a thing. This is absolutely *not* what this is for. This is a group of politicians trying to bully an entire government that y'know, has shit to do, into either caving to their demands, or becoming completely innefectual.

Then the Republicans would have been seen as rolling over and letting the Dems have whatever they wanted. I could as easily say "This is a group of politicians trying to bully an entire government that y'know, has shit to do, into caving to their demands, or becoming completely innefectual." and be talking about the Democrats. The only reason why the Democrats seem to have the morale high ground is because they aren't actively doing anything, they already have the bills and whatnot in action. All they're doing is continuing to tell the Republicans to fall in line, and the Republicans are saying "No." I'd imagine the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing if there was something they also really believed needed to go.

Regardless, the GOP is going to be hurting from this. The media is putting all of the negative attention on them, and unless they actually deadlock the US into defaulting in a couple weeks, they'll probably lose support from their lobbies since they didn't stop Obamacare. They'll likely be replaced, although I'm not sure they'll be replaced with Dems. I think all of the Republicans saying that they don't like what's going on is just for damage control for the party.

[Sheb]

I'm sorry, but the Democrats have plenty of stuff they'd like to do (raises taxes, cap-and-trades...) that they aren't able to do because they don't control both houses. You don't see them threatening to default to get their way.

The rule is, if Congress can't agree to change a law, we go with the law of the land, in this case, Obamacare. You don't threaten to blow everything to have it your way.