Highway Biker
Aside from viagra on The Rock, no I haven't...
Pretty sure they won't prescribe me any though.
It sucks. Last pill I ate was about nine months ago and was a pair of panadol, although I have nothing against pills. Just don't really ask about them, nor have I been prescribed anything in a while.
Ooh, was prescribed minocyclinehydrochlorate by the Caci clinic for my Acne when I was a young teen so many years ago.
Weekend cruiser
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Darfield is neither east nor west,they've heard of fuck all there
Hardcore Biker
This post caught my attention, because it is about one of the many 'secrets' which 'they' do not want us to know so that 'they' can make more money. It is also much better researched and presented than most of the pseudo-logical bullshit conspiracy theories which are often thrown around on the internet. Furthremore, it's actually a pretty popular book with a decent following.
I did some research on pubmed to see what the research says about the claims made in the book. For those who don't know, PubMed is a collection of medical research and review articles collected and made available to the public, as an American Government initiative. Before the nutters start crying about bias, brainwashing and blatant selection of resources, it is limited to journals which allowed them to make information freely available - i.e., the publishers choose whether to make their normally expensive information freely available, rather than 'the gubbermint' selecting resources. It should be noted these results come from a range of schools and nations (and funding bodies...)
Below are some excerpts from the results about this 'miraculous' drug which can apparently cure cancer but which is supposedly ignored due to being alternative or so they can sell expensive drugs. If you're really interested, check out the full text (link in the top right where available).
BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients treated with conventional therapies also try 'alternative' cancer treatments. Laetrile is one such 'alternative' that is claimed to be effective by many alternative therapists. Laetrile is also sometimes referred to as amygdalin, although the two are not the same.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to summarize all types of clinical data related to the effectiveness or safety of laetrile interventions as a treatment of any type of cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All types of clinical studies containing original clinical data of laetrile interventions were included. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1951), EMBASE (from 1980), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Scirus, CancerLit, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL; all from 1982), CAMbase (from 1998), the MetaRegister, the National Research Register, and our own files. For reports on the safety of laetrile, we also searched the Uppsala database. No language restrictions were imposed.
RESULTS: Thirty six reports met our inclusion criteria. No controlled clinical trials were found. Three articles were nonconsecutive case series, 2 were consecutive case series, 6 were best case series, and 25 were case reports. None of these publications proved the effectiveness of laetrile.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data.
The evidence for the claims that laetrile (amygdalin) can prevent or control cancers has been reviewed. The beta-glucosidase content of cancer tissues is low compared to that of normal liver and small intestine. Cancer tissues contain the enzyme rhodanese in amounts comparable to that of liver and kidney and hence, cannot be attacked selectively by cyanide release through beta-glucosidase action on amygdalin. Amygdalin does not have the properties of a vitamin. Rats have been reared for several generations on diets devoid of cyanogenic glycosides, without developing neoplasms. Experiments with tumor-bearing rodents have demonstrated no curative properties by amygdalin administration. Amygdalin is not as non-toxic as claimed, particularly when ingested orally, and especially when taken with plant material high in beta-glucosidase. The claims for cure and control of cancers in humans have been refuted by distinguished physicians who specialize in the treatment of cancer patients. The writings of laetrile proponents are filled with erroneous and absurd statements. The propaganda for the doctrine of "freedom of choice in cancer treatment" deludes many individuals with treatable cancer to reject proven methods of treatment.
One hundred seventy-eight patients with cancer were treated with amygdalin (Laetrile) plus a "metabolic therapy" program consisting of diet, enzymes, and vitamins. The great majority of these patients were in good general condition before treatment. None was totally disabled or in preterminal condition. One third had not received any previous chemotherapy. The pharmaceutical preparations of amygdalin, the dosage, and the schedule were representative of past and present Laetrile practice. No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related to cancer, or extension of life span. The hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range. Patients exposed to this agent should be instructed about the danger of cyanide poisoning, and their blood cyanide levels should be carefully monitored. Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.
Laetrile: the cult of cyanide. Promoting poison for profit.
Seems that the 'well researched' "evidence" about a medical conspiracy is all rubbish.
Huh. Sound familiar?
Related:
Library Schooled
Bogeyman
Good. Very good.
Have some greens.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Rider in training
Seems a bit of an extremist article to me. Where their is an institution, there are always people sceptical of it. And this just reinforces that idea.
Aio ki te Aorangi
Where there's an institution, there's money to be made. Hardly surprising there are skeptics.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
I'ma get medieval on your ass!
Hate to burst the conspiracy bubble but the reality is pharmaceutical companies are financial dogs. They lose money - big big money. That's why they are desperate to sell what they still have. New drugs are few and far between.
Don't believe me? Take Pfizer for example. One of the largest drug companies in the world. The inventor of Viagra which is a massive money spinner. The share price for Pfizer in 2000 was $34. The price today - $17. A wonderful investment....
Pfizer recently announced a layoff of 5000 staff. That's not the first time and it looked like it might fall over in 2005.
If you don't believe me, google the fortunes of pharmaceutical companies and you'll find they struggle despite the common view of being rapacious monoliths.
Forum whore
I've never thought of them as "rapacious". Merely the "victims" of a morally rudderless, ethically bankrupt business model.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
I am therefore I do
There was a report on Bloomberg yesterday that said there is a movement amongst the "companies" to amalgamate due to falling revenues.....Also they said that a lot of important patents expire shortly & that was having quite the effect on share prices.
Now I dont normally watch that channel as I have a problem with the system in general, but I was channel surfing on the couch while self medicating......
I'ma get medieval on your ass!
Yeah?? Developing medication which cures, prevents or reduces the effects of a myriad of medical conditions is "morally bankrupt"? Immune suppression drugs which make organ transplant operations viable? Eradication of polio? Plague still exists - but when did you last hear of an outbreak?
All brought about by tedious, painstaking, scientific research to find the correct molecule. Ultimately a win for humanity.
Spot on. The major pharmaceutical companies are in a quandry because the big discoveries are running out of patent at which point generic copies can be made by rivals. Good for the consumer but not good for future discoveries.There was a report on Bloomberg yesterday that said there is a movement amongst the "companies" to amalgamate due to falling revenues.....Also they said that a lot of important patents expire shortly & that was having quite the effect on share prices.
......but I was channel surfing on the couch while self medicating......
A scientist mate of mine has been working on a cure for arthritis for 25 years. Thats 25 years of salary and running costs for a whole laboratory of scientists - tens of millions of dollars for the pharmacy company. Result? Nada. Nothing. Lots of promise and interesting results but no final molecule.
So they have given up. Other drug companies have been doing the same work for just as long and just as expensively. Eventually someone will break through.
Generally its a 10-15 year lead time to get a drug to market by the time all the FDA approvals are obtained. Then the company has 5 years to make hay and recover the costs of development plus all the dead-end research, before the patent lapses.
There are no more easy molecules to be found. Drugs will be more complex into the future and more expensive.
Forum whore
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the capitalist model produces timely and efficacious treatments unless they are enticed with large amounts of money, usually belonging to taxpayers. Their current round of pharmaceutical company financial crisis is symptomatic of Governments no longer having the money to pay for the research you've assumed the drug companies do.
They research markets. Universities and governments provide the research bods for the treatments.
The drug treatments you mention above have all required significant investment in time and money from people lobbying these companies to increase their research budgets and work on particular treatments.
Transplants are an area where the ethics of the treatment have not been examined. Transplants do not work. They give false hope in 100% of cases and the constant cocktail of medication required to stay alive is incredibly expensive. The only people profiting are the drug companies, but their business model has taken a big hit now that Governments everywhere have had to reduce their support. Transplants have been happening for 50 years now. The biomechanics are understood very well. The human immune system on the other hand not so well. Why not? You make more money selling a cocktail of drugs than you do developing a gene therapy to avoid rejection.
Why did it take so long to develop a decent retro-viral therapy for HIV? There was no money in treating a despised sub-culture. Now that African countries need bulk quantities suddenly in the last 5 years we have drug therapies of such quality that no one need die of HIV.
From an ethical perspective I have my doubts that eradicating disease is a good thing long term. Disease is generally an indicator that an ecology is under stress and out of balance. Mankind simply isn't that important that we can continue hold ourselves above everything else we know of and deal with our own issues at any cost.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
I'ma get medieval on your ass!
Yes Jim we agree more than you might imagine. I have three friends who are scientists in different countries. The one quality they have in common is integrity. They are fascinated by their work and uninterested in politics or money.
I can say its a mistake to think that all research goes on at universities - it doesn't. They contribute, but they don't have the concentration of expertise that a scientific research facility has.
One thing which struck me, in a kind of appalled way, is that there are patented drugs which have never been manufactured or used. Why?
Imagine you discovered an extraordinary fuel delivery system based on quantum mechanics. You find it will cost $15,000 per vehicle to manufacture even at 1 million units. What are you going to do?
During the search for a solution to a medical problem, sometimes an unexpected result occurs which provides a cure for an unrelated rare disease. But the cost of trials etc means $10,000 per dose if it is ever approved.
What do you do?
Patent it, put it on the shelf - and wait. One day it will be affordable.
It isn't a matter of ethics or morality but simple resources. As you point out, we can't heal everyone on the planet try as we do.
Just faidin away!
Is this true, or just another conspiracy spin? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tghUh4ubbg
Why is the hemp plant persecuted so, if it is truly as wondrous as it's supporters would have us believe?
It certainly has my attention!
If all that I have read about it is true, the good things outweigh the bad by miles and it would clearly suggest that we are being hood winked by people who should behave in a better way!
But then, I have no way of really knowing the truth of the matter!
One hell of a ride.
Like the 'Dickhead of the week' threads.
I'm also glad this one isn't about me.
Aio ki te Aorangi
heh, pretty much mirrors my feelings on the matter and pretty much mirrors my feelings on every other matter for that, erm, matter.If all that I have read about it is true, the good things outweigh the bad by miles and it would clearly suggest that we are being hood winked by people who should behave in a better way!
But then, I have no way of really knowing the truth of the matter!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks