The Cellar
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   The Pharmaceutical Industry (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20457)

kerosene 06-21-2009 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 575943)
Oh word up on the cranberry for UTIs. I had chronic recurring infections that got me referred all the way up to a urologist, and the only thing that stopped them was when I began taking daily cranberry concentrate pills (recommended by the urologist.)
Ditto. I swear by these. And drinking ocean spray doesn't come close to helping, BTW.

Clodfobble 06-21-2009 07:45 PM
Plus it tastes nasty.

kerosene 06-22-2009 09:16 AM
that too

Flint 06-22-2009 09:35 AM
Ocean Spray is just sugar water. The purest, 100% juice they make is a juice "blend" i.e. not 100% cranberry juice. Whole foods has some actual, real cranberry juice. It works by not letting the bacteria or whatever bind to the lining of your tinkle tank.

skysidhe 06-22-2009 10:05 AM
I've been treating my body likes it's 30. Not so much what I am doing to it than what I am depriving it of so I chose a good multivitamin/mineral. I can already tell the difference in my hair of all places. I hope the rest of my body is just as happy.

In the past I've used goldenseal and red clover and I think they need to be administered by a natropathic doctor. My experience is the goldenseal can mask but not cure a serious problem. I am not sure if overuse of the redclover burn't out my thyroid or it was going anyway.I try not to dwell on it but it did work for menopause symptom of hot flashes.

That said I still think natural cures are wonderful. I have used and still use licorice tea for respirtory health. Don't use it if you have high blood pressure though. I use a bunch of other teas too when I need them but I was so impressed with the way the licorice healed me even more so than the inhailers which gave be the worst side effects ever. I don't use but one of two and then very very rarely only in a have to situation. Oh and Ecuapyptus oil is yummy good too.( for putting on your chest or burner )

kerosene 06-22-2009 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint (Post 576475)
Ocean Spray is just sugar water. The purest, 100% juice they make is a juice "blend" i.e. not 100% cranberry juice. Whole foods has some actual, real cranberry juice. It works by not letting the bacteria or whatever bind to the lining of your tinkle tank.
Oh, I know. Cranberry juice tastes bad, no matter if it is fake kind or real kind. The real kind is even worse than the fake, to me, so I take the concentrated pills.

Flint 06-22-2009 04:43 PM
I used to get the real stuff and put shots of it in sparkling mineral water.

Trilby 06-22-2009 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint (Post 576584)
I used to get the real stuff and put shots of it in sparkling mineral water.
Me, too. With lime. Yummers.

Undertoad 06-22-2009 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UT
I used to get the real stuff and put shots of it in vodka.
FTFMe

morethanpretty 06-22-2009 10:00 PM
Hmm...anyone know if oatmeal bath will help with chigger bites? I know it does for poison ivy and other rashes.

Shawnee123 06-22-2009 10:45 PM
Try a Cocoa Puff bath. If it doesn't stop the itchies, you can still enjoy it.

jinx 06-24-2009 11:02 AM
Quote:
“to allow such an article (vit B6) to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.”

According to the FDA, when cherry companies disseminate this peer-reviewed scientific information, the cherries become “unapproved new drugs” and are subject to seizure. The FDA warned that if those involved in “cherry trafficking” continue to inform consumers about these scientific studies, criminal prosecutions would ensue.

FDA stated that based on the claims made, Cheerios is now an unapproved drug, and must go through FDA new drug approval process.

For years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of fish oil for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process. This type of enforcement effectively censors scientific information and greatly restricts consumer access to scientific studies that provide valuable information.

In the case of pyridoxamine (B6), the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about money, and about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of what is supposed to be a public health organization in order to save their skins.

(link)

Flint 06-24-2009 11:24 AM
from above link
 
Quote:
Please note that nowhere in the FDA’s response letter is anything said about safety concerns. In fact, the FDA’s letter specifically says that “to allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.” Fair to the pharmaceutical companies? What about fairness to consumers, some of whom rely on affordable pyridozxamine supplements to provide the levels of vitamin B-6 required for their survival? Is it fair to force those consumers to pay for expensive prescription drugs and doctors’ visits to supply their B-6 needs when they could get the exact same thing for a fraction of the cost in the form of a supplement? Isn’t this why our health care system is so ineffective?
Good question.

busterb 06-24-2009 06:50 PM
Thread drift. I started eating dried cherry's each day for gout. Works for me, so far

sugarpop 06-30-2009 05:51 PM
HA! A lot of the costs of bringing a new drug to market are paid for by tax dollars, NOT pharmaceutical cos. The NIH sponsors most of the research in this country. So how it unfair to a pharmaceutical company? Assholes.

TheMercenary 06-30-2009 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 578816)
HA! A lot of the costs of bringing a new drug to market are paid for by tax dollars, NOT pharmaceutical cos. The NIH sponsors most of the research in this country. So how it unfair to a pharmaceutical company? Assholes.
[cough]Bullshit[/cough]

sugarpop 07-02-2009 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 578839)
[cough]Bullshit[/cough]
I posted information about this a while ago Merc. Search the site. The NIH does fund most of the research done by pharma cos in this country. AND pharma cos DO include advertising costs in the R&D category, which is fraud.

jinx 07-21-2009 09:51 PM
Publisher consulted drug firm on journal content.

Quote:
Documents tendered to a Federal Court class action reveal staff at publishing company Elsevier, which produces The Lancet, emailed pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co about its "preferred content selection" for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.

The publisher also admits the journal is a "single sponsored publication" where most of the content is chosen by Merck with some "input from Elsevier".


The plaintiff in the class action has alleged the journal was fake and it was simply a marketing exercise designed to promote Vioxx. The court has also heard Merck put the names of high-profile arthritis experts on the editorial board of the phoney journal without telling them they had done so. (Holy shit!)



Since these revelations, Elsevier has expressed embarrassment over its role and admitted it failed to meet its own "high standards for disclosure".

TheMercenary 07-22-2009 08:09 AM
Yea, that whole Vioxx story was the coupe de grace for exposing the BS that goes on.

sugarpop 07-23-2009 02:52 PM
OK, so here it is, yet again...

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2001/july/n..._debunks_d.php

New Report Debunks Drug Industry Claims About the Cost of New Drug Research and Development

Second Report Documents Industry's Intense Lobby and Political Contribution Campaign to Keep Prices and Profits High

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The pharmaceutical industry spends about one-fifth of what it says it spends on the research and development (R&D) of new drugs, destroying the chief argument it uses against making prescription drugs affordable to middle and low-income seniors, a Public Citizen investigation has found.

The findings are contained in a Public Citizen report, Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry's R&D Scare Card.

The report reveals how major U.S. drug companies and their Washington lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), have carried out a misleading campaign to scare policymakers and the public. PhRMA's central claim is that the industry needs extraordinary profits to fund "risky" and innovative research and development to discover new drugs. In fact, taxpayers are footing a significant portion of the R&D bill, which is much lower than the companies claim.

"This R&D scare card is built on myths and falsehoods that are maintained by the drug industry to block Medicare drug coverage and measures that would rein in skyrocketing drug costs," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

Public Citizen based the study on an extensive review of government and industry data and a report obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Among the report's key findings:

¤ The actual after-tax cash outlay - what drug companies really spend on R&D for each new drug (including failures) - is approximately $110 million (in year 2000 dollars.) This is in marked contrast with the $500 million figure PhRMA frequently touts.

¤ The NIH document shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to the development of top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, U.S. taxpayer-funded scientists conducted at least 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the five top-selling drugs in 1995.

¤ Public Citizen found that, at most, about 22 percent of the new drugs brought to market in the past two decades were innovative drugs that represented important therapeutic advances. Most new drugs were "me-too" or copycat drugs that have little or no therapeutic gain over existing drugs, undercutting the industry's claim that R&D expenses are used to discover new treatments for serious and life-threatening illnesses...


There's more, click on the link...

jinx 09-26-2009 02:14 PM
Pfizer fined $2.3 billion for illegal marketing in off-label drug case

Quote:
In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.
Besides Bextra, the drugs were Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug.

jinx 09-26-2009 02:21 PM
Prescribing the prescribed drugs?

Quote:
But there is concern in the US that drug companies have been influencing psychiatrists over what anti-psychotic drugs to prescribe.

Whitaker pointed to academic studies in Vermont and Illinois as evidence that too many schizophrenia patients are kept on medication for too long.
In the Vermont case, patients discharged in the 1950s and 1960s were studied 30 years on.
Dr Courtenay Harding determined that one-third had completely recovered and all of those ex-patients had stopped taking anti-psychotic drugs.
"You need a paradigm of care which recognises that some percentage of patients would do better off medication and that should be built into the system," Whitaker concluded.
Suggesting the journalist was "cherry-picking" academic studies, Meltzer warned against making generalisations based on the Harding study "because there was no evidence that these people needed medication to begin with".





• In July of last year, Senator Charles Grassley demanded clarity over the finances of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
• The US Department of Health and Human Services is investigating payments to the former head of Emory University's psychiatry department, Charles Nemeroff
• Harvard University is conducting an internal investigation into psychiatry professor Joseph Biederman, who is accused of failing to disclose payments from drug companies in full
Robert Whitaker suggests the American public is "losing faith in psychiatry as an honest profession".

TheMercenary 09-28-2009 04:11 AM
The problems in the Psych profession and industry are probably the best examples of where problems exist with big Pharm and medicine. Good post.

Clodfobble 01-23-2010 05:11 PM
What happens when Harvard Medical School issues new conflict-of-interest guidelines restricting its doctors from taking pharmaceutical company payoffs? Doctors start quitting.

Pico and ME 01-23-2010 05:22 PM
Yeah, but according to that article, not all of them are quitting over this and the ones who do may end up losing the cachet that got them the speaking jobs.

Quote:
Mary Anne Rhyne, US director of media relations for Glaxo, said DuBuske is a national speaker for the company, earning about $2,500 per talk. The company picks the topic and content of the talks in the speakers bureau program, she said.

Rhyne said she is not sure whether DuBuske will be as much in demand as a speaker without the prestigious Brigham and Harvard titles.

“A lot of things would go into a decision about that,’’ she said. “Most of all, we’re looking for people who are well respected.’’

Clodfobble 01-23-2010 07:40 PM
One can hope, but I don't buy it--by definition they can no longer get a speaker with the Harvard title, so they will have to settle for someone without it, regardless.

Pico and ME 01-23-2010 08:12 PM
Yes, but then, without a prestigious title, the speaker might not be much of a draw. Hopefully.

xoxoxoBruce 01-23-2010 11:32 PM
They can still say, Dr DuBuske, Brigham doctor and Harvard professor for more than two decades. :eyebrow:

jinx 02-20-2010 03:53 PM
Senate report links diabetes drug Avandia to heart attacks

Quote:
The diabetes drug Avandia is linked with tens of thousands of heart attacks, and drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline knew of the risks for years but worked to keep them from the public, according to a Senate committee report released Saturday.

The 334-page report by the Senate Finance Committee also criticized the Food and Drug Administration, saying that the federal agency that regulates food, tobacco and medications overlooked or overrode safety concerns found by its staff.

The Senate report was developed over the past two years by committee investigators who reviewed more than 250,000 pages of documents provided by GlaxoSmithKline, the FDA and several research institutes. Committee investigators also conducted numerous interviews and phone calls with GlaxoSmithKline, the FDA and anonymous whistleblowers.


According to the Senate report:
• FDA scientists estimated in July 2007 that Avandia was associated with approximately 83,000 heart attacks since the drug came to market.
"Had GSK considered Avandia's potential increased cardiovascular risk more seriously when the issue was first raised in 1999 ... some of these heart attacks may have been avoided," the report states.
• GlaxoSmithKline undertook attempts to undermine information critical of Avandia.

jinx 02-20-2010 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 629555)
They can still say, Dr DuBuske, Brigham doctor and Harvard professor for more than two decades. :eyebrow:
Or something like: Director of the CDC from 2002-2009.

Dr. Julie Gerberding Named President of Merck Vaccines

tw 02-20-2010 07:34 PM
FDA does not have something equivalent to the NTSB or NTHSA to perform technical analysis. As has been proven repeatedly, FDA discovered threats to human life even get diminishes, quashed, or downplayed due to FDA politics and their association with big Pharma.

Not that a separate investigation unit by itself would fix the problem. The NTSB has a 30 year criticism of the FAA for its 'dead body' attitude. FAA will not fix things until someone dies. Even Fox News is now reporting how corrupt the FAA oversight has been.

We also have a separate agency to analyze vehicles failures and deaths. Not that it stopped 37 Toyota deaths. But it has eliminated many such failures by reporting the public - not to some auto industry oversight board.

FDA desperately needs its entire investigation board be spun off and separate from the FDA management. Big pharma has massive profits, gets much if not most of it basic research paid for by government, and has a history of keeping prices high by consolidating and by getting government protection. The most recent and perfect exact is George Jr's Medicaid prescription law that protected a 40% higher profit for drugs in America.

FDA needs to have all investigations separate and reported publicly. The FDA has a long history of protecting big Pharma – especially the cash cow drugs - at the expense of the public. FDA tends to backtrack only when reports are leaked. Too many news investigations have exposed this cozy relationship to be deniable. The reason for separate investigation agencies in other industries has long been understood.

TheMercenary 02-23-2010 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx (Post 636286)
Sounds like another cox-2 (Vioxx) cover-up.

jinx 04-20-2010 09:45 AM
Feds found Pfizer too big to nail

Quote:
Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, was caught illegally marketing Bextra, a painkiller that was taken off the market in 2005 because of safety concerns. When the criminal case was announced last fall, federal officials touted their prosecution as a model for tough, effective enforcement. "It sends a clear message" to the pharmaceutical industry, said Kevin Perkins, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division.
But beyond the fanfare, a CNN Special Investigation found another story, one that officials downplayed when they declared victory. It's a story about the power major pharmaceutical companies have even when they break the laws intended to protect patients.


Internal company documents show that Pfizer and Pharmacia (which Pfizer later bought) used a multimillion-dollar medical education budget to pay hundreds of doctors as speakers and consultants to tout Bextra.
Pfizer said in court that "the company's intent was pure": to foster a legal exchange of scientific information among doctors.
But an internal marketing plan called for training physicians "to serve as public relations spokespeople."
According to Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the inspector general at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "They pushed the envelope so far past any reasonable interpretation of the law that it's simply outrageous."


But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to nail.
Why? Because any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.
Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.


So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc.

Public records show that the subsidiary was incorporated in Delaware on March 27, 2007, the same day Pfizer lawyers and federal prosecutors agreed that the company would plead guilty in a kickback case against a company Pfizer had acquired a few years earlier.


As a result, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., the subsidiary, was excluded from Medicare without ever having sold so much as a single pill. And Pfizer was free to sell its products to federally funded health programs.


In all, Pfizer lost the equivalent of three months' profit.
It maintained its ability to do business with the federal government.

Clodfobble 04-20-2010 01:01 PM
We're living in the 30s all over again. Too big to fail = too big.

jinx 05-20-2010 05:52 PM
Pharmaceutical Giant AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million for Off-label Drug Marketing

Quote:
AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP will pay $520 million to resolve allegations that AstraZeneca illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
...

Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to the FDA. Before approving a drug, the FDA must determine that the drug is safe and effective for the use proposed by the company. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for off-label uses.
...

The United States alleges that AstraZeneca illegally marketed Seroquel for uses never approved by the FDA. Specifically, between January 2001 through December 2006, AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel to psychiatrists and other physicians for certain uses that were not approved by the FDA as safe and effective (including aggression, Alzheimer’s disease, anger management, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar maintenance, dementia, depression, mood disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and sleeplessness). These unapproved uses were not medically accepted indications for which the United States and the state Medicaid programs provided coverage for Seroquel.

jinx 05-20-2010 05:56 PM
US prescription drug sales hit $300 bln in 2009


Quote:
Antipsychotics top drug category by sales

lumberjim 05-20-2010 06:44 PM
guess who bought the most antipsychotics

jinx 07-06-2010 10:02 AM
Pfizer pulls leukemia drug from U.S. market


Quote:
Drugmaker Pfizer Inc is pulling a decade-old leukemia medicine off the U.S. market after a study found a higher death rate and no benefit for patients.
Mylotarg won approval under an abbreviated process to help bring treatments for serious diseases to patients more quickly. Medicines cleared in that way must pass follow-up tests to confirm they work.
The Food and Drug Administration said on Monday it asked Pfizer to withdraw the drug after a recent clinical trial raised new concerns about the product's safety and the drug "failed to demonstrate clinical benefit to patients enrolled in trials."
Mylotarg's first-quarter sales were $8.8 million, making it a small product for the world's largest drugmaker. The company reported first quarter revenue of $16.8 billion. Pfizer acquired Mylotarg when it bought Wyeth in October 2009.


The trial also showed more deaths in the first couple months of treatment. The fatality rate was 5.7 percent for Mylotarg patients, compared with 1.4 percent without the drug, Pfizer said.


The FDA cleared Mylotarg for sale in 2000

squirell nutkin 07-06-2010 12:28 PM
Once again, the evidence shows that when it comes to protecting OUR health and well being, the US government agencies tasked with that responsibility should not be your first choice. Nor second, third, or fourth.

classicman 07-06-2010 12:30 PM
no need to limit their ability to do anything to health, but I totally agree with you.

Happy Monkey 07-06-2010 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squirell nutkin (Post 668942)
Once again, the evidence shows that when it comes to protecting OUR health and well being, the US government agencies tasked with that responsibility should not be your first choice. Nor second, third, or fourth.
Who should be first through fourth?

jinx 07-06-2010 12:49 PM
Ignorant cartoonists of course.

Happy Monkey 07-06-2010 12:51 PM
I support a fasttracked process for drugs for terminal diseases, as long as the patients are well informed that the drug is more experimental than one that went through the full process. It's a tough call; on one hand you're allowing companies to exploit desperate people for drug tests, but on the other hand you're allowing desperate people to have the choice of trying something experimental.

On the third hand, a drug with a 1.4% fatality rate does not seem to be a good candidate for the fasttrack process.

jinx 07-06-2010 12:56 PM
5.7 percent. 1.4 was those NOT on the drug.

Happy Monkey 07-06-2010 01:02 PM
Sorry, typo; I meant a DISEASE whose fatality rate is 1.4% under normal treatment doesn't seem to merit a fasttrack drug approval process.

squirell nutkin 07-06-2010 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 668947)
Who should be first through fourth?
I'll nominate you, jinx, clodfobble, footfootfoot (where ever he is) and someone else. I think that makes four.

jinx 09-09-2010 11:03 AM
Faint Progress on Drug Payoffs


Quote:
Legislation that would end a devious tactic used by some pharmaceutical companies to delay the introduction of cheaper generic drugs squeaked by a Senate panel recently. Its prospects for ultimate passage remain cloudy unless Senate Democratic leaders aggressively seize the opportunity to save billions of dollars for the federal budget and hard-pressed consumers.
Affordable medicine is an important aspect of health care reform. Lets see what the Dems do with it.

glatt 09-09-2010 11:44 AM
Dems won't do jack with it. They are all afraid of their own shadow. And after the elections, the Republicans will have the House, and we'll have gridlock.

classicman 09-09-2010 01:16 PM
Neither of them will do jack - politicians are bought and paid for by these companies. That this got by at all is a miracle. OH and a good one at that.
The reform that was needed was right here - manufacturers, equipment suppliers and pharmaceutical companies.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 PM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.