TonyG

Clippo, I'm not your average lefty or any other label you care to apply. In fact I'm nowhere near the left, so forget the standard denials and charges.

I could get stuck into everything you've said with great effect but I've done all that on other forums and don't want a war with you.

I will though respond to a couple of things:

Agreed that GPs are about as much use as a chocolate teapot, but who made that the case? The drug company cartel.
They effectively control the whole medical training process and ensure that doctors turn out as specialists in drugs, not health.
Half a day training in 6 years on nutrition? What a joke! Something that causes probably 90% of all illnesses and they know nothing about it because their heads are crammed to the brim with drugs and disease.
They are also TAUGHT that nutrition plays no part in health - how pathetic is that?
The question though, is why? The answer is simple:
Drugs cost money, good nutrition doesn't and Big Pharma needs plenty of it.

Let's take colorectal problems as an example - they aren't caused by lack of drugs, they are caused by inappropriate food intake in every single instance.
In every case of IBS or bowel disorders my wife has treated she has done it without drugs, without supplements, just dietary modifications that are appropriate to the individual.
Now trot along to the GP and he will probably prescribe from his list of drugs and the moron will not even bother to ask about the patient's diet - the prime cause of the problem!

Quickly on to vaccinations:
The biggest scam of all time. Especially flu vaccines. And let's not bother getting involved with Tamiflu or any other such ******** or we will be here for a week.
Vaccines are the Holy Grail for drug companies. They get paid whether they work or not, whether they are needed or not.
They are sold to any government that can be persuaded that a threat exists.
Personally I would never take ANY vaccine, but in the US where they are mandated, driven by the drug company control over the FDA, it is actuially illegal to refuse ANY vaccine. On top of which, the Homeland Security Bill last year gave Big Pharma the protection they have always dreamed of - they can no longer be sued if any state mandated kills or maims anyone. I just hope to God that it never happens here.

Just consider that when the various doctors' strikes around the world have taken place, fewer people died when they were gainfully employed.
Now we both agree that it wasn't because doctors have any particular skill, it was because the drugs weren't being doled out!

You talk about drug development costs - now there's a joke. It is an absolute fallacy.
Glaxo spend less on R&D than they give to their shareholders in dividends.
They spend twice as much on advertising than they do on R&D.
They spend more money on greasing up the medical profession than they do on R&D.
Their gross profits are around 75% of their turnover!

Sorry, can't support you in any of your defences. It is an industry that kills more people than the arms industry, but they don't get prosecuted very often because they tend to do it slowly.

They could shut them all down tomorrow, my life would not be shorter as a result and a lot of people would be better off, rather than worse off living under a drug regime. For a start everyone would have to learn how to look after themselves properly rather than relying on drugs as a really bad backup plan.

Rant over!

TonyG

Sorry, couldn't resist this one:

This is the most often quoted 'fact' or statistic in defence of the drug company massive profits.
It is also the biggest lie of all time.

For example, my favourite, Glaxo, Europe's biggest dope dealer:
In 2006 they spent a total of £3.457 billion on R&D. Now that SOUNDS like a lot of money, but take Clippo's CLAIM that they spend $1 billion on getting a drug through its paces and then look at the REAL facts.

In February 2007, GSK had 158 pharmaceutical and vaccine projects in clinical development, compared with 149 in February 2006.

Let's, for the sake of argument say, that on average, GSK had 150 drugs in clinical trials.
Let's also accept that not all drugs make it to the market. Let's see how many of those could have been funded out of their R&D budget:

£3.457 billion spent x 10 = £34.57 billion in 10 years.
That means with a ROLLING programme of 150 drugs in trials that they could only get a woeful total of 50 drugs in 10 years to market!
Now, it doesn't take an Oxford maths grad to calculate that at $1 billion a pop (I can't allow them the comfort of $2/£1 over a 10 year period!) that would only allow them to release 5 new drugs a year, including NCEs, PLEs and vaccines; the figures don't make any sense.
In total they are currently working on 210 products. Which would mean that they would not expect to get more than 2.5% of their drugs to market? 1 in 40? Clearly it is nonsense.
In no way can this ever amount to $1 billion a drug. They have 5 MAJOR products coming to the market this year (that's not ALL of the products, just the major ones), so does that mean that the other 205 products will end up in the bin? Of course not.
Granted that there will be odd ones that may well run that high, but it is a very small percentage and those drugs are the ones that get the most latitude and make the most money.
The figure trips off the tongue, but, like all pieces of propaganda, it doesn't take a lot of work to see that it is a blatant lie designed to deflect criticism of the lavish way they waste money.

It should also be pointed out that many clinical trials are carried out after licensing and are being paid for out of the revenue generated from sales, so it is not exactly risk capital.

Phil Sheldon

I have something of a vested interest in this topic.
10 years ago my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer,and after radio- and chemotherapy she had the operation,lymph nodes and all.

She then had to take Tamoxifen every day for 5 years(@£6.70 per prescription!) she had no option,it was compulsory medicine.

Luckily, it seems to have worked.Her annual checks show no sign that it is returning so I guess we're lucky.

I take Tony's point about drug companies and the relentless pressure applied to NHS buyers but without Tamoxifen the option does'nt bear thinking about.

TonyG

Phil, my mother and cousin weren't so lucky.
Again, the problem is with statistics used to back up lies.
Tamoxifen is supposedly the 'gold standard' of after care for cancer sufferers because it reduces the chances of the cancer returning by 50%.
The reality though is that it is 50% off the chance of it returning, which is only 1.3% in the first place, but it is sold to the public as giving a 1 in 2 chance of survival. It is a blatant con, but because cancer is such an emotive subject it doesn't get questioned or people start flying off the handle!
The fact is that chemo, radiation and 'after care' do so much damage but how many people dare go against the establishment and say "no, I don't want it!"
Doctor's have been struck off for not following 'approved medical procedures'. The patients are, naturally, scared to stand up for themselves. Anyone who even suggests that they might have an alternative way is virtually hounded out of existence, or worse.
I could go on and I could refer you to some books to read on the subject, but, instead I will wish you and your wife well and that you will do your own 'due diligence' to ensure that you are doing far more than the doctors (or drug companies) ever will to ensure that her cancer doesn't come back.

TonyG

It might be a good idea for some of you to take a look at this:

http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

__________________
If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you?

----

http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

Keyser Soze

That's very good,I'm glad she's ok.

TonyG

The cost of Genox or similar is around £50 for 100 20mg tabs which, depending on the number taken, 1 is normal, 2 is sometimes recommended, would last either 7 or 14 weeks, so £6.70 is about £0.50 or £1 a week, but the state is picking up the remaining £43 of the bill.
Now if it is being given in 98% of cases where it isn't needed that is one hell of a lot of money being spent when:
please note that they don't have proof, they just THINK it might be STIMULATED by oestrogen. In any other field this type of assumption and THINKING would be regarded as woolly and wasteful, but because it is "medicine" (a.k.a. poison) then it is okay.

__________________
If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you?

----

http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

TonyG

The biggest reason for not prescribing Tamoxifen across the board is the one found in the "black box warning" that goes with the drug:
Doesn't that seem a big risk to take when, for most people, it isn't necessary to take it at all?
That's pharmaceuticals for you, they aren't the ones ingesting the stuff, they just make the money out of it!

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/d...r/a682414.html

__________________
If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you?

----

http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

Clippo

TonyG,
You wrote:-
Breathaking Boll*x of a statement
Judging by this invective and the number of posts by you on this topic, I suspect you have too much of a chip on your shoulder about the whole of modern medicine to accept any rational counter-arguments but I’ll try to put some:-

A development budget isn’t the whole cost of developing a New Clinical Entity (NCE). I am not an accountant & I suspect you aren’t. As in any business, basic running costs, like the salaries of everybody in the company, fuel/electrical costs, rates etc etc. have to be apportioned to specific products in a costing sense. Furthermore, one needs to actually determine how many products actually make the final market – the drop out rate is very considerable. One also needs to define exactly the difference between an new Clinical entity and a new ‘Chemical’ entity. It may appear that a pharma company releases, say 5, NCE’s in a given year but 3, or even all of them may be different formulations of the same basic active chemical. Furthermore, the overall cost of development will vary with the type of active ingredient. For example, an easily synthesised synthetic chemical will almost certainly be cheaper to develop than a difficulty manufactured Biochemical. I know that I could present volumes of cost data from, for example the ABPI, to support my case but I frankly can’t be bothered. However, I quickly looked in wikipedia & found:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development
You will see this quote does provide 4 references, 3 to openly published articles in reputable professional journals support of my position and one, ( I couldn’t find it readily) which seems to be an opinion of a Consumer group. I know which ones I prefer to believe.

I agree with the broad principle that ’we are what we eat’. However, many if not most diseases couldn’t care a toss what you eat. Since the dawn of life, organisms have been ‘attacked’ by others and basic biochemistry isn’t always perfect. Humans are no different, except we have the intelligence to understand the causes of most disease and now have the means to ameliorate its’ effects. You wrote:-

This didn’t happen with a close relative recently. In fact, they were questioned in detail about their food consumption and were eventually sent for detailed scans. At no stage were they offered any drug, even when the medical experts suggested that it could have been caused by stress.
Two close relatives of mine died of cancer fairly recently. In one case it was primarily stomach cancer with multiple secondary metastasis and in the other it was lung cancer, spread to the bones. But both individuals were smokers, although only light. You should target your invective at the tobacco companies or, in the case of nutrition & diet, to the food manufacturers.
&
Independent factual back-up please!

Your comments on vaccinations are absolutely bizarre to the point of stupidity.
Vaccinations for poxes, measles, mumps, flu, Polio, tetanus, etc et-bloody-cetera have saved billions of lives since they were introduced. Probably yours too if the truth were really known. Not only have they saved the lives of the infected, but have effectively stopped the transmission of these diseases to other people.

If you don’t want to take them, good, it’ll leave more for the rest of us.

I read just a few days ago, that medical specialists are rushing towards a vaccine for most cancers. Here are 2 very recently in the news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ncancer210.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...10/ncanc10.xml
& this is even better
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sear...all&go=toolbar

Who is going to manufacture these and all other vaccines – why, those big ‘ol bad pharma companies?

You have conveniently forgotten or deliberately not mentioned those drugs made by genetic recombinant technology. These are difficult drugs to obtain by other means – Insulin, Factor 8 & I know not what. Who pioneered and developed those – why, those big ‘ol bad pharma companies. (And even more specifically Genentech & I didn’t work for them).

And what about the future - gene therapy? – determining an individuals susceptibility to various cancers and developing remedies to match.

No, TonyG – I think you are seriously misguided.

I have no more to add to this thread.

TonyG

Of course you do, the ones bought and paid for by Big Pharma - just like Roche bought the Swedish support and proven hands down!

__________________
If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you?

----

http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm