-
Not ideaological from me, it appears you have more faith in the human race than I do, which is odd.
I have no faith in the human race !
:)
Buy drug A and get cool watch/shades/trainers etc.
Buy drug B live longer.
I think the majority of the public would go for A.
Agreed (did you happen to catch what size the trainers were ? I am a 9)
Could you (or anyone who might know about these things) name any drug on sale at the moment that would significantly extend your life and yet is being outstripped in the market place by a drug that is heavily marketed and would not significantly extend your life ? This is not a challenge, it's a genuine question, I am curious if there are any known examples.
-
can't believe thats true. hang on, don't you work in advertising?
:)
It's funny, the first person to point that out to me (that I work in advertising) was BMMF - a year or so ago.
It never occurred to me, I used to make my loot putting out substandard music on bad record labels, after a while I found myself knocking out a few substandard tunes for TV ads and films - I kind of drifted into it, still don't see myself as working in advertising as I just sit around at home fucking around on my computer making up some ditties and see if people want to use them - but I suppose ultimately that means I do work in advertising, in the same way you could say an actor, illustrator or photographer could be thought to be working in advertising.
But my misanthropy is not driven by my pivotal role in the evil cynical marketing of crap to the disgusting public.
-
has your misanthropy got anything to do with the ubiquity of the ukulele to signify twee cuddly unthreatening wholesomeness?
For god's sake man, don't give away the secret language of music ! Before you know it the public will realise that just because something has a bit of slow ballad piano on it doesn't necessarily mean it is a high quality, classy product.
-
a mate of mine has just started an ad based blog called "there lieing too us"[sic]. which he intends to use to vent advertising based spleen.
i wanted to specialise and start "soundalike.com" or something similar and have a whole music-in-advertising thing. I'm assuming as he totally ignored my excited texts about it and started the ad blog anyway, that he thinks it's a bad idea.
-
are we overmedicated? (see someone elses definition, im not discussing).
drugs and doctors may be the third leading cause of death in the u.s
-
are we overmedicated? (see someone elses definition, im not discussing).
drugs and doctors may be the third leading cause of death in the u.s
Did even read the link you supplied ? Or were you drawn in by the 'Doctors are the Third leading Cause of Death' tabloid headline and then failed to check out the sources, look in to the credibility of the author or even read the article itself ?
Actually I will take that last bit back, as there really isn't even an article, just the author going on about how he came up the headline - even the original author - hold on !? . . . the original author !? . . . . . ah I see now, this guy just stole the research from someone else . . .anyhow even the original author, who actually did the research disagreed with this fuckwit's conclusion that doctors are the third leading cause of death.
I could go on, but the whole thing is so laughing idiotic it's actually starting to depress me.
Perhaps I am being unfair here - as this is not even the most stupid 'article' on 'toolsforhealing.com'
Scattered around there is usual selection of conspiracy theories that infest these kinds of websites, an article on 'Chemtrails' (fucking clueless idiots), some nonsense about 'HAARP' (fucking clueless idiots), some hilarious stuff on homeopathy (fucking clueless idiots), another on the tired old ("CDC Knew of Potential Link Between Vaccines, Autism") theme (fucking clueless idiots) - but my favourite was the 'Cure for all Cancers' book - "in 1990 I discovered the true cause of cancer" etc etc (fucking clueless idiot).
The website's shop also has some great 'medical' products like The VariGamma* "The VariGamma is a frequency generator that allows you to use all of the frequencies on Dr. Clark’s frequency list or any other frequencies.*"
And I will also be ordering the Terminator (A special-priced bundle of our best-selling Terminator II Zapper with one (1) bottle of ChemBuster HomeoHerbal© remedy, specifically formulated to work with the Terminator II Zapper to break up blockages and restore the body's natural healing ability. Try a bottle of ChemBuster for only $12!)
Or to give it it's proper name 'water', a tiny bottle of water for only $12.
Anyhow, back to the article, here's the really odd thing, the article you linked to does not make claims about overmedication, it mainly deals with fatal ADRs and MAEs.
Like I say, did you even read the article (if you can call it that ?)
Embarrassing stuff.
"im not discussing"
You are right to not want to discuss it.
Again, did you read any of this, did you even bother to read the abstract ? Or were you drawn in by the '[I why most published research findings are false'[/I] tabloid headline and then failed to check out the essay itself ?
How do you think this essay is relevant to the idea that we are overmedicated ? I failed to find the word overmedicated or medicated or even medicine in the essay, or anything on the subject - it seemed to be about something entirely different, it seemed to be a claim (and only a claim) about the veracity of research findings based on the idea that the probability that a single hypothesis is correct is very small (which is something I think would be fairly easy to challenge).
I don't have the expertise to understand a lot of the information (In the presence of bias (Table 2), one gets PPV = ([1 - β]R + uβR)/(R + α − βR + u − uα + uβR), and PPV decreases with increasing u, unless 1 − β ≤ α, i.e., 1 − β ≤ 0.05 for most situations. . . . !!??) so I am open to the idea that you are using this essay to support the idea that we are over medicated, but you would need to explain how this supports the idea.
One small point worth making with the kind of claim made in the essay is that we are getting dangerously close to an epimenides paradox - my suggestion to the authour would be to rename the essay 'why most published research findings are false (except for this published research)'.
Firstly, the headline is quite funny, a little misleading, no one is inventing diseases (the suggestion is that new and novel disorders are being manufactured) - all that is happing is that pharmaceutical companies are attempting to redefine pre-existing conditions as medical conditions in an attempt to sell more product - no one is sitting around in a lab playing with test tubes and then suddenly jumping up and shouting "I've got a new one !!! it's brilliant, your eyes fall out !!!".
Not that you were saying that, but these articles (wilfully) tend towards this kind of equivocation, so I just thought I would establish what it is we are talking about here.
I've taken a very quick look at the background story to this, seems like a fairly plausible claim, that the pharmaceutical, in an attempt to increase profit, are focusing research on conditions that would previously not be considered worthy of medical intervention.
They use the menopause to illustrate this idea - the menopause, the claim is made, is often medicalised as a disorder when it is a normal part of life.
If the pharmaceutical company come up with products that alleviate some of the symptoms of the menopause - and therefore - by definition - are medicalising something that was previously not medicalised - I am not entirely sure of what they are guilty of ?
The important part I think is that this medicalising of 'normal' conditions is a result (not a goal) of finding new remedies. This is undoubtedly driven by profit, but it seems that stepping into new medical territories brings with it the accusation of medicalising these new territories ?
In their own example of menopause, should we back off from this area, and for what reason ? So as to not medicalise it by addressing it (by definition) ? Should we cease the production of medication for menopause related migraine, arrhythmia, incontinence, back pain, joint pain, muscle pain, osteopenia (my mum has osteoporosis brought on by menopause, where two vertebrae in her neck have dangerously crumbled), insomnia, poor memory, depression, anxiety attacks, manic / hypomanic episodes . . . etc
And because this is all 'normal' and would occur without intervention ?
I am sure there is a decent argument to be made for the idea that we are overmedicated, but these links look to have been dug up for their scandalous headlines:
Doctors are the Third leading Cause of Death !!!
Why most published research findings are false !!!
Pharmaceuticals are inventing disease to sell drugs !!!
All very dramatic, but bedside the last article, they don't particularly relate to the subject we were discussing, the second link (the essay on published research findings) is not what I suspect you think it is and the first article only lacks a picture of an alien smoking a joint to tip it over into the realm of internet conspiracy.
-
Doctors are the Third leading Cause of Death !!
I worked this out by taking someone else' research and using scientific tools such as confirmation bias and a pen came to this conclusion which I already had before I went looking for some research to support my idea - the fact that the originator of the study disagrees with my conclusion of her research is neither here nor there, after all what does she know about her own research.
If you found this 'article' interesting, you might want to read my piece about the secret Nazi moon base run by the illuminati lizards.
-
I hasn't seen the article but with it's title 'doctor are the third leading cause of death', it's probably true to some extend.
it doesn't mean that the patient was of good health before they met the doctor, it could easily be patient who are terminally ill, brain damage, too serve to be save (even if they try), and therefore die under the hand of doctors.
a title that can be easily misinterpreted.
-
Can *you* give me any sense of the scale of this unnecessary overprescription of children with this class of drugs.
What, from my own personal study? Of course not... this doesn't invalidate the assertion.
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.
This CNN article (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/parenting/08/29/ritalin.schools/) states:
"Government studies suggest approximately 4-million school-age children suffer from ADHD. Yet, about 20-million prescriptions were written last year for stimulant drugs, according to IMS Health, a health care information company. The number of prescriptions written for the drugs has steadily increased since 1996 when about 14-million were written."
I have not checked the sources. Im also making the assumption that the prescriptions of "stimulant drugs" were as treatment for ADHD based on the context, even though this is not explicit. There are dozens and dozens of articles on this.
The same figures are quoted here: http://www.childrentoday.com/articles/addadhd/the-great-ritalin-debate-719/
Along with reference to warnings made by the United Nations' International Narcotics Control Board regarding the dramatic increase in prescriptions.
...and another:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5308292.stmShit, some people even debate the existence of the condition at all.
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.
You're kidding, right? My position is ever evolving based on the collective information gleaned from numerous sources. Some sources are sound, some probably not. I make my own subjective assessment of the quality of the source and add it to the body of information contributing to that position. Im not "deferring to a higher authority". You have asked me for statistical evidence supporting my position. Do you expect me to dredge that data from my memory banks? Jesus... I left my bag on a bus today... you think Ive got that kind of brain capacity? I can cite any number of references supporting that position. Will you be able to find shortcomings with one or more elements of those sources? Probably. Your desire to challenge the convention is admirable... Its also a good way to stifle dialogue. Genuinely, I am interested in your position on this topic.
More importantly, I am a mouthpiece for no-ones opinions but my own...
Do I have information to the contrary with regard to the idea that we are grossly overmedicated ?
I have some...
Well?
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.
It was a reduction from a previously excessive position. This was the opinion of a trained medical professional, its not something I determined myself. Im aware there are a number of ways in which my illustrative "75%" comment can be interpreted. The potential for multiple interpretations don't change the fact.
Chuck me some examples of this gross overmedication and an idea (however rough) of the scale then we have something to talk about.
See above
My position is a bit convoluted (ok, tediously boring), I am not sure you would have the patience.
Try me...
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 ?
Andy and Tiswas posted stuff broadly in line with my thinking.
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.
The consumer is stupid. The consumer doesn't know pharmacology and pharmacy.
tynan, get off it. Balki himself is as much evidence of gross overmedication as you'll ever need. ;p
What do you mean by overmedication? yawn
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. (??)
Ideological concerns with practical repercussions.
I dont have a problem with private enterprise making profits.
The whole "overmedication" business isn't really core to what I was getting at. Here is what I wanted to talk about:
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.
I've mentioned the MMA... really interesting legislation relating to the pricing of pharmaceuticals. Have you read it? There is also some interesting reading on the "revolving door" between the legislature and private enterprise across a number of industries.
In relation to the point regarding doctors being influenced by pharmaceutical companies, a 5 second google exercise reveals one of dozens of articles on the topic.. you cant read the whole of this without subscribing, but the intro has the conclusions. Its from the British Medical Journal which I'd perceive to be a reputable source.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7472/937
"The pharmaceutical industry operates in a way that puts profits before public health, members of parliament (MPs) heard last week. And the regulatory authorities, which are meant to ensure the safety of drugs and protect the public, collude with the industry, they were told.
Testimonies from five doctors and two consumer champions, who were being questioned by the health select committee for its inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, built a picture of an industry that creates health anxieties among the public to boost its profits.
At the same time, withholding unfavourable trial results and controlling what research gets published ensures that doctors get the messages that companies want to promote, the committee heard at the second public sitting of its inquiry.
Public awareness campaigns are part of a "multipronged marketing approach" that are commonly employed by drug companies to "gain further control of what drugs are being (prescribed?)"
Right or wrong, mine is hardly a controversial position. What is yours?
Throw me a bone here !!
Throw me anything! Im pretty sure that the information in those articles isn't new to you.
-
What is yours
I probably don't know enough about the subject to hold a position with any real conviction, I am sure with something so vast as healthcare for the entire globe there will be endless problems, over prescription of Ritalin to children in some parts of the US, lack of access to antiretrovirals in Sub Saharan Africa, cancer drugs in the UK not made available through high cost, restriction of generics in India . . . etc etc.
I think, taking a very very broad view (literally societal health seen over centuries) I would lean towards to idea that we are not grossly overmedicated, even though we could dig out various examples where that might be the case.
-
You mean Nurofen?
I prefer tesco paracetamol myself. I find if I take loads of them and drink strong coffee I get a buzzy feeling.But it comes and goes like when I'm smoking or not and it's not very strong. Unfortunately it sometimes also makes me feel very agitated like a coke crash. You don't get that with codeine.I'm a fan of Boots own Paracetamol and Codiene £2 ish. 36 to a pack and they'll only sell you one pack at a time. I think one pack would kill 3 grown men, so why stop there?
tynan
n3il
dooks
whatfriends
edscoble
Balki
neu
Platini
Festerban
cliveo-
Post a reply
About
Homeopathy
Posted by
@DFP
Not ideaological from me, it appears you have more faith in the human race than I do, which is odd.
Buy drug A and get cool watch/shades/trainers etc.
Buy drub B live longer.
I think the majority of the public would go for A.
more guess work.