Homeopathy

Balki, do you think there is a problem with the overdiagnosis of conditions as 'dieases' rather than just personality, i.e. ADHD? Or are you simply concerned with the use of Ritalin as a course of treatment?

Well... Im not sure really. The ADHD thing was just an example. I was thinking more along the lines of the influence pharmaceutical companies have over doctors, who ultimately prescribe the medication. In Australia, it was widely percieved that sales reps from Pharmaceutical companies routinely took doctors on jollies and gave them gifts.

Im interested in the political influence exerted by pharmaceutical companies, and the possibility that profit making comes ahead of developing and distributing medication that could really change things. Im interested in how the so called "Pharma lobby" can influence prices of drugs.

I want to know how anyone can think its right to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer.

All seems pretty fucken bent to me.

Well... Im not sure really. The ADHD thing was just an example. I was thinking more along the lines of he influence pharmaceutical companies have over doctors, who ultimately prescribe the medication. In Australia, it was widely percieved that sales reps from Pharmaceutical companies routinely took doctors on jollies and gave them gifts.

Im interested in the political influence exerted by pharmaceutical companies, and the possibility that profit making comes ahead of developing and distributing medication that could really change things. Im interested in how the so called "Pharma lobby" can influence prices of drugs.

I want to know how anyone can think its right to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer. Seems pretty fucken bent to me.

yeah so you can demand a brand from the GP - sounds messed up.

...and yeah, Im aware how cliched the "Big Pharma" rant on the internet is.

"I expect the suspicion is that overmedication has detrimental effects - so you could look for those detrimental effects."

what if those detrimental affects were an effect of the comorbidities of age?

This is why I am asking for a definition of 'overmedication'.

Are you after a catch-all definition?

No, I want to know what you mean by 'overmedication'.

For example something like this: . . . (made up crap - illustrative only) - "I am using overmedication' in the context of issues like the use of analgesics have risen 40 fold in less than 25 years - children are now routinely vaccinated against XXXXX even though the last incidence of XXXX was in 1894 - the addition of YYYY to the water supply was shown to have no medical benefits in extensive and definitive government funded trials as far back as 1972 yet we are still adding YYYY to the water supply and are even looking to increase the amount added". . . . etc

Rather than just reshaping the word: "I am using overmedication to mean excessive ('over') prescription of drugs ('medication')"

An example of this could be Ritalin for the treatment of ADHD and similar disorders primarily in children being readily prescribed in the US, often unneccesarily.

I'd be interested in discussing why that might be the case.

The first thing you should be wary of is 'begging the question' (placing the conclusion in the premise/question).

Can you give me any sense of the scale of this unnecessary overprescription of children with this class of drugs.

I want to know how anyone can think its right to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer.

Can you expand on this, why you think this is wrong ?

"I expect the suspicion is that overmedication has detrimental effects - so you could look for those detrimental effects."

This is why I am asking for a definition of 'overmedication'.

i am being a pain in the arse.

Drugs should not be chosen by brand, but on the benefit they have medically, this information is all that is needed.

Annadin does not need Nike sponsership.

Such as the treatment of ADHD (where previously i don't think drugs were ever prescribed).

i have no idea of the history of treatment or recognisation of ADHD or other mental illnesses but drugs probably weren't prescribed because they didn't exist.

don't forget how far psychiatry has come in the last 100 years, from locking people up, torture, electric shock treatment, lobotomys, to actual understanding and effective drugs and other psychological treatments (e.g. cognitive-behavioural therapy).

and don't forget how far drug development has come, from just trying things willy-nilly to identifying a specific problem with the brain, and designing drugs to combat that problem (e.g. SSRI's, SNRI's)

and doctors do probably prescribe drugs where other treatments would be more effective (e.g. SSRI's instead of CBT in the case of depression) but why is this a bad thing? these people willingly decide to take them to help alleviate their symptoms, and in most cases it is a useful stop-gap until they can talk to a therapist.

if you're suggesting that patients should not have the option of drugs, or are too stupid to say no, i don't see what your mandate is to decide what drugs other people take, especially when a few pills costs a lot less than training enough psychiatrists and psychologists so that there are no waiting lists.

In Australia, it was widely percieved that sales reps from Pharmaceutical companies routinely took doctors on jollies and gave them gifts.

speaking as the son of a consultant, yes, pharma reps job's is to make doctors use their drugs and so they hand out all kinds of free crap.

Im interested in the political influence exerted by pharmaceutical companies, and the possibility that profit making comes ahead of developing and distributing medication that could really change things.

considering the economic landscape we live in (i.e. a private company has to make a profit [unless subsidised] to be viable) this seems a moot point. of course profit>people. welcome to capitalism.

Im interested in how the so called "Pharma lobby" can influence prices of drugs.

i believe (as has been said up in the thread) that when a company develops a drug, for a certain time they are the only company allowed to make it (or license others to...) so that they can make back the money they spent developing it. i don't see how it would happen any other way unless govt's paid for drug development.

I want to know how anyone can think its right to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer.

does this happen in the UK?

Drugs should not be chosen by brand, but on the benefit they have medically, this information is all that is needed.

I guess drugs really need only meet a standard - to meet the claimed efficacy and a certain safety profile.

The argument for the promotion of drug as a commercial product is the same argument for the promotion of anything as a commercial product - if a profit cannot by turned there will not be the drive to research, develop and produce new and novel drugs.

No, I want to know what you mean by 'overmedication'.

For example something like this: . . . (made up crap - illustrative only) - "I am using overmedication' in the context of issues like the use of analgesics have risen 40 fold in less than 25 years - children are now routinely vaccinated against XXXXX even though the last incidence of XXXX was in 1894 - the addition of YYYY to the water supply was shown to have no medical benefits in extensive and definitive government funded trials as far back as 1972 yet we are still adding YYYY to the water supply and are even looking to increase the amount added". . . . etc

Rather than just reshaping the word: "I am using overmedication to mean excessive ('over') prescription of drugs ('medication')"

The first thing you should be wary of is 'begging the question' (placing the conclusion in the premise/question).

Can you give me any sense of the scale of this unnecessary overprescription of children with this class of drugs.

Is this where Im supposed to google links and stuff? Do you have information to the contrary? Do you have a position on this topic?

Can you expand on this, why you think this is wrong ?

How do you feel about this? I am still forming my own opinions.

considering the economic landscape we live in (i.e. a private company has to make a profit [unless subsidised] to be viable) this seems a moot point. of course profit>people. welcome to capitalism.

I dont think that makes it moot at all.

i believe (as has been said up in the thread) that when a company develops a drug, for a certain time they are the only company allowed to make it (or license others to...) so that they can make back the money they spent developing it. i don't see how it would happen any other way unless govt's paid for drug development.

The US example is about an agreement made on the price of the drugs. I totally understand that they are making an investment, though a large proportion of their budgets is spent on lobbying/marketing.

EDIT: Found it... the MMA (Medicare Modernization Act) prohibiting the US government from negotiating on price of Medicare approved drugs with pharmaceutical companies. Blows my mind.

does this happen in the UK?

Not directly like in TV ads, though the influence of "public awareness campaigns" in this country obviously has an affect. A fair bit of Tamiflu has been sold in the last few years. It can happen in the states though.

http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

not just the US.

everywhere has to do trials.

what you're describing is the patent process. whereby once a drug, or more specifically an active ingredient and its method of manufacture is described and patented, that method cannot then be used by other parties. this allows the inventor time to reap the benefits. however, getting from active ingredient to drug in human ~ 15ish years. giving the drug company ~10 to go from first stage clinical trial to final drug. but in reality that's only probably 5. which. is 5 years to reap back all their costs, and pay dividends to shareholders

Thanks for that you described it a hell of a lot better than I.

I'd bet my balls doctors prescribe drugs which people don't need.

you have doctors for your balls? whats up?

Suspected elephantitis.

Thanks for that you described it a hell of a lot better than I.

Technology transfer/science background.

"Can you give me any sense of the scale of this unnecessary overprescription of children with this class of drugs."

Is this where Im supposed to google links and stuff?

Can *you* give me any sense of the scale of this unnecessary overprescription of children with this class of drugs.

You have used this example to support the general idea of gross overmedication so I would hope you already know this information - and would have no need to google it - it's doesn't need to be precise (that's why I say 'any sense of the scale . . ') - just a ballpark idea of the problem as you see it.

I am always wary of any argument that makes a claim and when that claim is questioned there is a need to defer to a higher authority (in this case Google). You become a mouth piece for other people's ideas unless you can carry with you the information that forms your opinions. I also think that any idea you claim to subscribe to - you should be able to expand on, it's no good claiming the be a Conservative or a Calvinist or an environmentalist and then when asked (let's take the environmentalist as an example) "can you roughly outline the theory of anthropogenic global warming" - the best you can do is to reply "what, do you want some google links ?".

You would hope anyone claiming to be an environmentalist would have a rough idea of what it is they are supporting.

Do you have information to the contrary?

Do I have information to the contrary with regard to the idea that we are grossly overmedicated ?

I have some, but it might not be relevant as I still don't know exactly how you are using 'grossly overmedicated'.

So far we only have the bald assertion itself, an anecdote about your gran (which oddly shows a reduction in medication) and the Ritalin example, which you not only are unable to give a rough ballpark figure about the scale of the problem but even question having to google for further information.

Throw me a bone here !!

:P

Chuck me some examples of this gross overmedication and an idea (however rough) of the scale then we have something to talk about.

Do you have a position on this topic?

My position is a bit convoluted (ok, tediously boring), I am not sure you would have the patience.

How do you feel about this? I am still forming my own opinions.

To me it's sounds like you already have a position (?)

Balki : "I want to know how anyone can think its right to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer."

Personally I can't see any issue, but am open to any persuasive argument as to why it's 'wrong' to advertise prescription drugs to customers - and to be honest I have not given it much thought so I could be way wrong.

What do you think is the problem with advertising prescription drugs directly to the consumer ?

Chuck me some examples of this gross overmedication and an idea (however rough) of the scale then we have something to talk about.

tynan, get off it. Balki himself is as much evidence of gross overmedication as you'll ever need. ;p

Bigger companies with bigger PR/advertising budgets, but with a poorer product would gain more public exposure. More exposure = more sales (generalisation).

Perceived value (product A better than product B), when it comes to health and well being is a bad thing (ignoring placebo/homeopathy). The better product should be administerred due to its health benefits and not because joe public thinks its better as it is advertised by there favourite pop star.

Suspected elephantitis.

Suspected nut job...

balki earlier.

Bigger companies with bigger PR/advertising budgets, but with a poorer product would gain more public exposure. More exposure = more sales (generalisation).

The difference in efficacy between two competing products (one getting much more in the way of public exposure) would have to be relatively small in order for the more promoted product to maintain it's market lead.

Don't get me wrong, what you say makes perfect sense, but I suspect that if product A (the heavily promoted product) has 62% efficacy and product B (the much lesser promoted product from it's competitor) has 94% efficacy - then over time the better product would win over, even though the lesser product might still - through marketing - hold on to a undeservedly high position in the market.

(A lot of guess work there on my part - - - - ? ? ? ?)

But I agree that promotion in general will increase sales regardless of other factors, but unless the drug failed to meet MHRA standards (in which case it would not be able to be marketed) I still can't see any real concern ?

What we keep coming back to (I could be wrong here, and am picking up something that people are not intending to highlight) is an underlying sentiment that the problem (with advertising to the public / the pharmaceutical industry in general) is not poor clinical efficacy or a poor safety profile but the profits the big pharmaceutical companies make.

I am getting hints (like I say, I might be misreading this) that the problem some people have is less practical concerns and more ideological concerns. (??)

The consumer is stupid. The consumer doesn't know pharmacology and pharmacy.

That's why be place the MHRA between the producer and the customer, so only drugs within a range of efficacy/safety are allowed into the health care system.