Our Love/Hate relationship with pharmaceuticals

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Modern discourse about the medical industry rarely takes place without at least one or two references to 'big pharma'. Thinly veiled hints and outright accusations about the underhanded methods employed by these companies abound. Suppression. Collusion. Diversion. The issue of the ethics with which they research, market, and maintain the market for some of their drugs is a hot button topic in many circles.

Of key interest to me are the many discussions I've seen which accuse 'big pharma' (never anyone in particular, just 'them') of suppressing natural remedies and alternative, holistic style medicine. While my online research has shown that many of these campaigns against pharmaceuticals are spearheaded by questionable supplement companies who have been sued numerous times for selling a false product, not all are traceable, and perhaps some have some ring of truth to them.

Regardless of the fear mongering and the possible cabals which exist, today I sat down to catalogue in my mind some of the most scary moments in my family's life, and what my alternatives for treatment were. And I have to say, big pharma came out on top with my full and ringing endorsement.

When my son starts to struggle with his breathing, a rare and scary event, we try assorted things to nip it in the bud. We use cedar oil on a cloth (it's a natural bronchio dilator). We give him strong coffee which is again meant to open his airways. We do chest physio to attempt to get some of the mucus out so he can breathe more freely. We fight and struggle, and still always end up in the same place... ventolin and inhaled steroids. And when that doesn't cut it, oral steroids and mucus inhibitor need to be added, usually by the ER. When you're jumping in your vehicle and driving to the nearest ER with a child whose lips are starting to turn blue, you really, really, really, LOVE big pharma. Yesterday we were able to avoid such a trip, but not avoid the meds, and today, listening to my son breathe and cough freely, I am more than a bit grateful for that beautiful inhaler.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Karrie, my brother in law is visiting with his 2 year old son. He went to emergency a couple of nights ago and discovered he had asthma. The stuff they gave him was a miracle. Not sure what would've happened without it.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Karrie, my brother in law is visiting with his 2 year old son. He went to emergency a couple of nights ago and discovered he had asthma. The stuff they gave him was a miracle. Not sure what would've happened without it.

Tell him to be careful of labels. They labeled my son asthmatic, despite the fact that he isn't. It took me quite a bit to prove they were wrong, and to get that label out of his damn medical records. Mind you, your nephew may really be, but, I see a lot of kids in the toddler years who simply have reactive lungs. An infection, exposure to an allergen, and bang, they're in the hospital. With my son it has to be the trifecta... exposure to mold, a chest infection, and a tooth coming in all within the same week. Then we're in crisis. But so long as he's just got one thing or another, we're all good.
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
Tell him to be careful of labels. They labeled my son asthmatic, despite the fact that he isn't. It took me quite a bit to prove they were wrong, and to get that label out of his damn medical records. Mind you, your nephew may really be, but, I see a lot of kids in the toddler years who simply have reactive lungs. An infection, exposure to an allergen, and bang, they're in the hospital. With my son it has to be the trifecta... exposure to mold, a chest infection, and a tooth coming in all within the same week. Then we're in crisis. But so long as he's just got one thing or another, we're all good.

Karries, while I agree my son ( 5 years old ) is asthmatic. We minimize his use of the Ventalin ( salbutamol ) and Flovent. The Family Doctors, who are often told my Pharma, to push different brands want you to give this stuff regularly to your child who in our case doies not require it. The Specialist suggested the lower use but the Family Doctor was pushing different..

This has been an issue I have had a few times with several Family Doctors over the last 26 year in BC.. Reports come in from Specialist and they Do Not Read them properly and try to push what Big Pharma says for the Average "Patient" requiring that medication.. We are not all the same.

That said Pharma is not always to blame but does not help., As I have had these problems all my life I have learned that its a combo of Pharma and Doctors that often cause the problem.. A good Pharmacists will tell you what is best for your child, yourself and all other members of your family. But don't expect to walk off the street and find any Pharmacist to know you inside out. I have dealth with the same one for 26 years now and that is key.. They all know me and my kids..

As to big Pharma, yes they do have an interest to push certain drugs. It is afterall a business. But is it near equivelant or better then Pharma B that might have big side effects. Only time can really tell.

Do they hide the trust.. Well many examples of bad drugs are out there with dosages that are now evident could have been 1/2 the amount and done much better.

I refer back to my Zinc story as an example to Pharma trying to disprove its value. At the time I was working at Health Canada ( Health Protection Branch ) when I was first told about it.. I did some reasearch on it and read articles I could find.. Today you find cough drops with Zinc included in it on all the shelves from those same companies that had dire warnings..

Is all big Pharma bad.. NO.. But we need not believe all they say either.. They want to protect a business that reaps in billions a months..
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
People who think all the pharmaceutical companies are in some sort of conspiracy to ruin our health and diminish the value of natural remedies are being unrealistic IMO.

I have a lot of problems with how pharmaceutical companies market their drugs, but as for their claims of efficacy I have no problems. The government monitors their claims. They have to be proven, researched for years before they hit the market. Without pharmaceutical companies a lot of us would be dead. We forget how people without access to drugs can die from simple infections, childbirth, diabetes, etc.

"Natural" supplement peddlers don't have the same requirements. They make vague claims of benefits with few hard numbers and then try to ferment fear of pharmaceuticals to boost their bottom line.
 

Albertabound

Electoral Member
Sep 2, 2006
555
2
18
"Natural" supplement peddlers don't have the same requirements. They make vague claims of benefits with few hard numbers and then try to ferment fear of pharmaceuticals to boost their bottom line.

The reason they have few hard numbers is because governments are lobbied by the pharms to reject such natural claims. Face it the pharms have all the money in the world to make sure natural remedies never become the norm.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
The reason they have few hard numbers is because governments are lobbied by the pharms to reject such natural claims. Face it the pharms have all the money in the world to make sure natural remedies never become the norm.

The reason they have few hard numbers is because they are unwilling to spend the money it would cost to do studies and unwilling to take the risk the study results wouldn't come out in their favor. The government isn't harming the natural supplement industry, they tacitly help them by not requiring them to do studies.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Every company, organization, group of people, union, scientific lab, etc. all do some level of good in one way or another, or else they wouldn't exist in the first place.

But that doesn't mean they're completely perfect and have nothing but pure intentions.

To me, that goes for both sides of the argument.... but when you have one side of a market fighting another to be restricted (be that the Pharms or the Natural guys) there's something wrong..... and it's usually to do with money.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
The reason they have few hard numbers is because they are unwilling to spend the money it would cost to do studies and unwilling to take the risk the study results wouldn't come out in their favor. The government isn't harming the natural supplement industry, they tacitly help them by not requiring them to do studies.

And who setup those studies? (or had a part in them)

Are those studies actually fair based on what they focus on between each product?

And what's the difference between buying a product that may or may not work from the natural side of things (but makes you mentally feel better for taking it) compared to getting Px's written off by your doctor that are nothing but placebos?

Seems a bit of a pot and kettle if you ask me.

And yes, in Karries situation, some things actually do work and work well.... so much the better. But you can't say differently when it comes to some of the natural remedies available out there..... because there are studies on some products, and accepted knowns of the benifits of some natural remedies out there in the same respects.

Like Science and Religion each don't know it all..... neither does the Pharm. Companies or the Natural Remedy groups.

I just don't see how one should be able to restrict the other based on their own rules.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
People who say it's the same thing don't know what drug studies look like. One side has little to no studies. The other side is required to do numerous studies and admit their limitations before their product ever gets to the market. It's fine if you choose one over the other, or like me use both, but to say they are the same is simply untrue.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
People who say it's the same thing don't know what drug studies look like. One side has little to no studies. The other side is required to do numerous studies and admit their limitations before their product ever gets to the market. It's fine if you choose one over the other, or like me use both, but to say they are the same is simply untrue.

Once again, that depends on the products in question. I never said all of them were the exact same, but there are alwasy exceptions to most cases and depending on what a product is intended to do, cure, work, help with, would depend on the marketing laws and guidelines/regulations already in place.

All I claim to believe is that both pharm.companies and the natural companies all have their pros and cons, both have their spots in the world where they can do a lot of good, and perhaps cause a lot of harm.

In that sense, they are the same..... I just don't see how the Pharmaceutical companies should be the one's to dictate the rules, tests/studies that they all should have to go through.

Added:

Another factor in their differences is that the Pharm/Companies make many of their medications/Px's from various mixtures of man made chemicals and products, which does require a lot of testing, since humans are imperfect and can screw those things up a lot...... while the "Natural" stuff is supposed to be made from "Natural" ingredients which have already gone through the whole testing processes years ago.

I see a need for one being tested in great detail compared to another which uses natural products which have already been studied for so long already and their effects known. (Once again, in most cases)
 
Last edited:

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
And I resent the fact that some of those companies have the power to engineer which foods we eat by genetically altering seed and stuff like that. Who says that accidents can't happen in those alterations that stands a chance of doing a large nuumber of people a large degree of harm after 3 or 4 decades?
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
What I find interesting is the belief that 'natural' drugs are somehow harmless.

'Natural' supplements should have to go through the same testing as normal pharmaceuticals. No matter the source, they do the same thing.

Trying to pretend they're somehow different is insane.