Trusting legit drugs

[jake]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44942302

 

Going back through medical science on the whole it's been beneficial.

This article along with concerns about mercury in vaccines can give doubts.

Just wonder if any of you are not vaccinating your children.

Or if any have real concerns about all the evidence .

 

[Boris]

1 hour ago, jake said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44942302

 

Going back through medical science on the whole it's been beneficial.

This article along with concerns about mercury in vaccines can give doubts.

Just wonder if any of you are not vaccinating your children.

Or if any have real concerns about all the evidence .

 

I think you are conflating the issues here Jake.

 

Are you wanting to discuss a medical trial, or vaccinations like mmr?

[Cade]

Vaccination does not cause autism.

 

end of thread.

[jake]

26 minutes ago, Boris said:

I think you are conflating the issues here Jake.

 

Are you wanting to discuss a medical trial, or vaccinations like mmr?

Just questioning the trust we put in medicine Boris.

 

[gjcc]

Just now, Lord BJ said:

 

Indeed. 

 

The medical trial described looks to have had some unfortunate outcomes. However, the same issue appears to have occurred in the placebo group albeit to a lesser extent. Now with a trial that size it could be nothing to do with the drug. To get to medical trials on humans takes masses of research, evidence, time and money and go through exceptionally strict controls.

 

Human trial imo are necessary for the greater good.

 

I had my children vaccination at the time there was a lot of discussion around MMR. At no point did I consider going through with vaccination. On the basis scientific bods new more than me and all the trial went through. I felt the benefits far outweighed the risk.

 

How many autism’s dae ye huv noo tho?

[jake]

9 minutes ago, Cade said:

Vaccination does not cause autism.

 

end of thread.

I didn't say that.

 

Restart thread.

 

Thanks for not ending your post with an insult.

[jake]

The make up of many vaccines have high levels of mercury.

I have vaccinated all my children.

 

My OP was asking for views of people.

Not to link autism .

 

There have been many products over decades that are pushed.

Now and then they present obvious and horrendous side effects.

 

 

[jake]

Also the drug (legit ) industry is it scrutinised properly.

 

 

[gjcc]

11 minutes ago, jake said:

Just questioning the trust we put in medicine Boris.

 

 

Probably right to tbh. “Wonder drugs” from decades past are being phased out as the longer term side effects are becoming apparent. The new breed of drugs while seen to be safe, will potentially present similar in a patient on them long term. 

 

That said, the quality of life of someone on chlorpromazine/respiridone etc (and those around them) for decades is still better than it would have been without.

 

They’d have been in an institution with padded walls and the threat of being restrained. 

 

Now you could pass them out on the streets and be none the wiser. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by gjcc
Typo

[jake]

22 minutes ago, gjcc said:

 

Probably right to tbh. “Wonder drugs” from decades past are being phased out as the longer term side effects are becoming apparent. The new breed of drugs while seen to be safe, will potentially present similar in a patient on them long term. 

 

That said, the quality of life of someone on chlorpromazine/respiridone etc (and those around them) for decades is still better than it would have been without.

 

They’d have been in an institution with padded walls and the threat of being restrained. 

 

Now you could pass them out on the streets and be none the wiser. 

Anti psychotic drugs are no doubt a thing in process.

It's a subject especially I'm interested in because imo it's in it's infancy.

The former drug you mention has really horrific side effects.

But the latter does control the worst but has physical effects.

I concede the benefits.

 

The former I worry about .

 

 

[jake]

22 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/publications/tomorrows-pharmacist/drug-development-the-journey-of-a-medicine-from-lab-to-shelf/20068196.article?firstPass=false

That's all well and good .

But it's apparent that mood altering drugs are being prescribed at an alarming rate .

To young people especially.

Surely you don't doubt the powerful motive to see a drug prescribed once it has went through costly research.

It's frightening the past prescriptions of drugs such as haloperidol which was a short acting sedative .

It was used to reduce agitation in mental health  patients.

Believe me the side effects are horrific.

[jake]

The legitimate drugs industry spends half a billion dollars lobbying US politics.

 

Why do they have to do that if all products are needed?

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, jake said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44942302

 

 

This article along with concerns about mercury in vaccines can give doubts.

 

 

 

 

What is your concern about mercury in vaccines?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

19 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

We put our trust in medicine. As they go through sucg extensive testing, analysis etc etc over long periods of time to make sure they are safe.

 

It’s a process that works pretty successfully when you look at the amount of drugs we have and how few issues there are. Yes there are some notable exceptions but these are tiny in the scheme of things it’s just the consequence are unfortunately quite big.

 

I put my trust in things that have evidence to support there claims. Medicines most certainly have that.

 

For over 4 years I was on a trial for a drug called Anacetrapib, from late summer 2012 to early 2017 I was taking this drug, or was I, as I could have been on a placebo, even to this day I don't know, nor do I want to find out.  

 

Anacetrapib never came to market as it's positive effects were deemed to be negligible, but there is only one way you find out these things and that is by clinical trials, clinical trials which often cost vast sums of money, mine was for 30,000 patients in the UK, China, Scandinavia, Italy & the USA, who had had a previous cardiovascular event (heart attack mostly) and were in the high risk group of a secondary attack.

Every 6 months (after the initial every 3 months testing) I went to the Clinical Research Faculty at the Royal in Edinburgh for check-ups, I hasten to add I never got paid, I got my travel expenses reimbursed but that was all.  Even now after the trail has ended I get follow-up checks from the Royal and will do so for another 3 years, in total that will be 8 years of monitoring of examinations, blood tests or follow-up phone calls etc etc. 

So yes there are often extensive and lenghtly tests carried out for the testing of new drugs, the one I was on had already been through around 6 years of testing before it reached it's phrase 3 trial, which is usually the big clinical trial.

 

Do I trust the drugs I'm on, hell yes I do, because I know what checks & trials they have had to go through to reach the stage that a doctor prescribes them to people.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

31 minutes ago, jake said:

The legitimate drugs industry spends half a billion dollars lobbying US politics.

 

Why do they have to do that if all products are needed?

 

And what about the billions of dollars spent every year by the pharmaceutical industry in the development of new drugs, many, in fact, most which never ever make it to market.

 

Merck spent millions and millions of dollars over many years, about 10 years on the drug I was on, only for it to be scraped.

 

For every one new drug which makes it to market, I'd reckon there are 4 or 5 which don't and Jake that costs a lot of money.

 

I used to question the money spent by the pharmaceutical companies lobbying politicians, but I've now seen things from a different angle and whilst there are huge profits to be made, equally there can huge losses as well.

 

[Ulysses]

15 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

 

So yes there are often extensive and lenghtly tests carried out for the testing of new drugs, the one I was on had already been through around 6 years of testing before it reached it's phrase 3 trial, which is usually the big clinical trial.

 

 

 

 

This is what the BBC story is about.  There were early stage trials which suggested that sildenafil might successfully treat foetal growth restriction caused by undeveloped placenta, and the Dutch trial was a development of that.  The article has a quote from someone involved in an earlier (unpromising) trial who pointed out that the type of lung complications seen in the Dutch trial had not been seen before in earlier trials.  That may mean there's a serious issue with sildenafil and lung complications in developing foetuses, or it may mean that there was some procedural issue that happened not related to the drug itself.  Having said that, the complications involved the blood vessels of the lungs.  Given what sildenafil does you would think that this is the kind of side effect that would be seen as a real risk by researchers.

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

 

On the basis the issue happened in both the placebo and sildanfil groups. Could that just be a statistical anomaly so to speak?

 

 

 

 

Or a recurring procedural error of some description?  Wrong product in the test?  Contaminants introduced by human error, either in the products being given or when tests were being carried out on the patients?

 

One thing is for sure: sildenafil didn't cause lung problems for the people in the placebo group, or vice versa.  I'd be looking for any potential pathological link common to both groups but biased towards the sildenafil group.  Something like a member of staff who was involved in doing blood tests on patients in both groups, but who tested more of the sildenafil patients than those receiving the placebo. 

 

But who knows? 

[Ulysses]

^^^^

Unless of course sildenafil was accidentally given to some of the placebo group?

[jake]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

What is your concern about mercury in vaccines?

Isn't mercury toxic?

And the amount in vaccines I'd imagine isn't great.

But coupled with the amount of vaccination together with the relative body mass of a baby do you not think there is justification in people's concern.

 

I say again all of my children were vaccinated.

 

[jake]

9 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

Who prescribes drugs to people? Doctors or drug companies?

 

I have no idea about the drug you are talking about? Did it have a leaflet that warned you about side effects? Did you discuss these with the doctors to get a medication that was more suited to you. 

 

Do you believe the the doctor who prescribed it to you did so in the belief it would help you or cause he got some free merchandise? 

 

 

 

 

 

No I didn't use this drug.

It was given to patients in mental health wards.

Who had little or no say.

 

On your last point.

I've been to the doctors about 4 or 5 times in my life.

 

The over prescribing of anti biotics.

The recent boom in anti depressant prescription to children.

I'm not outright accusing Doctors of anything.

But I'm sure there is evidence to suggest that certain drugs have been and continue to be pushed.

[Bindy Badgy]

11 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

As another poster points out the link between mmr and autism is a bit of myth and based on a flawed study is it not.

1

 

It was a study conducted by Andrew Wakefield, who had financial interests in the matter. He was struck off for his behaviour.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield#General_Medical_Council_hearings

 

Quote

 

Between July 2007 and May 2010, a 217-day "fitness to practise" hearing of the UK General Medical Council examined charges of professional misconduct against Wakefield and two colleagues involved in the paper in The Lancet.[89][90] The charges included that he:

"Was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR".
Ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications" including colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without the approval of his department's ethics board and contrary to the children's clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.
"Act[ed] 'dishonestly and irresponsibly' in failing to disclose ... how patients were recruited for the study".
"Conduct[ed] the study on a basis not approved by the hospital's ethics committee."
Purchased blood samples—for £5 each—from children present at his son's birthday party, which Wakefield joked about in a later presentation.

2

2

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Stokesy

[Bindy Badgy]

9 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

On the basis the issue happened in both the placebo and sildanfil groups. Could that just be a statistical anomaly so to speak?

2

 

It's certainly plausible. You'd need to look at the sample size and so on to see what the probability of this happening by chance.

 

14 minutes ago, jake said:

Isn't mercury toxic?

And the amount in vaccines I'd imagine isn't great.

But coupled with the amount of vaccination together with the relative body mass of a baby do you not think there is justification in people's concern.

 

I say again all of my children were vaccinated.

 

2

 

The amount of mercury in vaccines is less than the amount contained in a tuna sandwich.

 

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/160/mercury-in-vaccines-is-at-safe-levels-study-suggests.aspx

 

Quote

Mercury is found especially in seafood like swordfish and tuna; a tuna sandwich contains much more mercury than a typical vaccine dose.

 

Additionally, there are two types of mercury, ethyl and methyl mercury. The type contained in vaccines is more easily broken down by the body than the type contained in tuna. Substances that are harmful in sufficiently large doses are perfectly safe in small doses. In a similar vein, chia seeds contain cyanide. If you were to eat huge quantities every day it may be bad for you but the trace amount contained in the 10 g that I put on my porridge every morning is well within my body's tolerance level.

[southcap]

1 hour ago, jake said:

Isn't mercury toxic?

And the amount in vaccines I'd imagine isn't great.

But coupled with the amount of vaccination together with the relative body mass of a baby do you not think there is justification in people's concern.

 

I say again all of my children were vaccinated.

 

Everything is toxic to humans, toxicity is more about the concentration of something in your system.

 

Water and oxygen are toxic to humans, for example.

 

Although healthy scepticism of the medical world is alright, they are driven by shareholders for the most part. The great thing though is that the vast majority of research on drugs is done by non profit research institutions(universities) so the science behind the medical world is usually pretty pure.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Legit drugs do work however impact on the liver and can have serious side effects but its better than not taking them...IMO

[milky_26]

7 hours ago, Stokesy said:

 

It's certainly plausible. You'd need to look at the sample size and so on to see what the probability of this happening by chance.

 

 

The amount of mercury in vaccines is less than the amount contained in a tuna sandwich.

 

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/160/mercury-in-vaccines-is-at-safe-levels-study-suggests.aspx

 

 

Additionally, there are two types of mercury, ethyl and methyl mercury. The type contained in vaccines is more easily broken down by the body than the type contained in tuna. Substances that are harmful in sufficiently large doses are perfectly safe in small doses. In a similar vein, chia seeds contain cyanide. If you were to eat huge quantities every day it may be bad for you but the trace amount contained in the 10 g that I put on my porridge every morning is well within my body's tolerance level.

re your last point about chia seeds, it reminded me of this story about a man who got cyanide poisoning from eating the stones in cherries.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-40738573

 

back to the point about drugs making it to the market, my sister used to work in that industry and she said it was less than 1/100 drugs they made got to the market. this is the big reason new drugs cost so much as they need to cover the cost of developing drugs that dont make it to market.

[Ulysses]

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, jake said:

Isn't mercury toxic?

And the amount in vaccines I'd imagine isn't great.

But coupled with the amount of vaccination together with the relative body mass of a baby do you not think there is justification in people's concern.

 

I say again all of my children were vaccinated.

 

 

 

What are your concerns?  If there is mercury in vaccines (have you checked?) and if vaccines contain something toxic (have you checked?), and you got your kids vaccinated, what are your concerns?

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

10 hours ago, Stokesy said:

 

It was a study conducted by Andrew Wakefield, who had financial interests in the matter. He was struck off for his behaviour.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield#General_Medical_Council_hearings

 

 

 

That charlatan was struck off and is not allowed practise medicine in the United Kingdom, and he has caused suffering and possibly deaths across the world by his lying self-interested so-called "research" into autism.  Yet he is taken seriously by a range of complete headbanging anti-vaccination loons in the United States.

 

The criminal law should be changed so that if a child is not vaccinated against a disease and then gets it, the legal guardians of the child have committed a criminal offence, and the penalties should be proportionate to the medical damage caused to the child.  Full stop, no messing about.

 

****ing muck-savages.

[Bindy Badgy]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

That charlatan was struck off and is not allowed practise medicine in the United Kingdom, and he has caused suffering and possibly deaths across the world by his lying self-interested so-called "research" into autism.  Yet he is taken seriously by a range of complete headbanging anti-vaccination loons in the United States.

 

The criminal law should be changed so that if a child is not vaccinated against a disease and then gets it, the legal guardians of the child have committed a criminal offence, and the penalties should be proportionate to the medical damage caused to the child.  Full stop, no messing about.

 

****ing muck-savages.

3

 

There's no "possibly" about it. He has definitely caused deaths. He should be strung up.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Stokesy

[Bigsmak]

Get yourself listening to a podcast called - The skeptics guide to the universe - They talk about this kind of subject all of the time.  I think one of the main hosts (a Doctor) was sued by someone who sold 'alternative' medicine as he said his stuff was a lot of rubbish - Luckily the case went in the hosts favour 

 

https://www.theskepticsguide.org/

 

I've learned a lot from this - 

 

[Ulysses]

If you want to read a real story of scandal about how a huge and secretive industry is ripping people off, selling fake health benefits, and damaging our environment, read this. 

 

The Guardian: Fool’s gold: what fish oil is doing to our health and the planet

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

That charlatan was struck off and is not allowed practise medicine in the United Kingdom, and he has caused suffering and possibly deaths across the world by his lying self-interested so-called "research" into autism.  Yet he is taken seriously by a range of complete headbanging anti-vaccination loons in the United States.

 

The criminal law should be changed so that if a child is not vaccinated against a disease and then gets it, the legal guardians of the child have committed a criminal offence, and the penalties should be proportionate to the medical damage caused to the child.  Full stop, no messing about.

 

****ing muck-savages.

 

I'm old enough to remember kids dying from measles and others being left severly disabled from things like polio, so I agree with you 100% that parents should face the consequences of not getting their kids vaccinated because of either their religious beliefs or because of the say so of some wacko doctor.

Sadly we have seen an increase of measles cases/deaths over the last decade or so, most probably due to nut cases like Wakefield, he and his kind have set back medical science years with their crap.

[jake]

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are your concerns?  If there is mercury in vaccines (have you checked?) and if vaccines contain something toxic (have you checked?), and you got your kids vaccinated, what are your concerns?

 

 

 

Its actually the stuff ive read online (i know)

The intensity of vaccination at an early age especially considering body mass.

Also where is the natural resistance being acquired.

Look Uly I'm not getting all 9/11.

Just experience close at hand has made me wary of drug prescription.

Not vaccination but other mental health stuff.

En masse drugs like valium to give an example and anti depressants.

I wonder at your previous answers if you have a professional input.

 

Do you worry about so many pills for answers that seem to be the way we address some problems?

[Bindy Badgy]

7 hours ago, jake said:

Its actually the stuff ive read online (i know)

The intensity of vaccination at an early age especially considering body mass.

Also where is the natural resistance being acquired.

5

 

Vaccine schedules are created by health professionals that have spent their entire adult lives studying this. If you're going to read material online please get it from Government or university websites or from reputable publications like New Scientist. Anyone can create a professional looking website so a site looking professional is no guarantee that the content is legitimate. Children receive a lot of vaccines at an early age precisely because they are at increased risk:

 

https://www.vaccines.gov/who_and_when/infants_to_teens/index.html

 

Quote

 

Why do vaccinations start so early?

Young children are at increased risk for infectious diseases because their immune systems have not yet built up the necessary defenses to fight serious infections and diseases. As a result, diseases like whooping cough or pneumococcal disease can be very serious — and even deadly — for infants and young children. Vaccinations start early in life to protect children before they are exposed to these diseases.

 

Can vaccines overload my child’s immune system?

No, vaccines do not overload the immune system. Your child’s immune system successfully fights off thousands of germs every day. Even if your child gets several vaccines in a day, the vaccines make up only a tiny fraction of the germs their body fights off.

 

 

By and large, the anti-vaxxer stuff online is written people with little to no medical training or people that are trying to sell stuff. The standard anti-vaxxer response to this is to go on about the amount of money 'Big Pharma' make off vaccines. This ignores the fact that vaccines are a cheap product that is sold 1-3 times per person whereas catching polio turns someone into a lifelong customer. Building up natural resistance to mild infections isn't a bad idea. That's why you should encourage your kids to eat healthily and exercise regularly. Trying to build up a natural resistance to polio could result in your kids spending the rest of their lives in an iron lung.

 

I do agree with your general point about certain drugs being over-prescribed. You just need to look at the opiate epidemic in North America for evidence of this. However, vaccines aren't like that.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Stokesy

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 hours ago, Stokesy said:

 

Vaccine schedules are created by health professionals that have spent their entire adult lives studying this. If you're going to read material online please get it from Government or university websites or from reputable publications like New Scientist. Anyone can create a professional looking website so a site looking professional is no guarantee that the content is legitimate. Children receive a lot of vaccines at an early age precisely because they are at increased risk:

 

https://www.vaccines.gov/who_and_when/infants_to_teens/index.html

 

 

By and large, the anti-vaxxer stuff online is written people with little to no medical training or people that are trying to sell stuff. The standard anti-vaxxer response to this is to go on about the amount of money 'Big Pharma' make off vaccines. This ignores the fact that vaccines are a cheap product that is sold 1-3 times per person whereas catching polio turns someone into a lifelong customer. Building up natural resistance to mild infections isn't a bad idea. That's why you should encourage your kids to eat healthily and exercise regularly. Trying to build up a natural resistance to polio could result in your kids spending the rest of their lives in an iron lung.

 

I do agree with your general point about certain drugs being over-prescribed. You just need to look at the opiate epidemic in North America for evidence of this. However, vaccines aren't like that.

 

Not forgetting and as equally important is for children to get out and get dirty, let kids come into contact with bugs and germs , none of this wraping up in cotton wool pish, which ultimately often has a negitive effect on the child because when they do catch something they don't have any natural resistance.