Needing an honest answer - page 6
As nurses why do you guys think that medications only treat the symptoms of a disease instead of curing the disease? Is it because no one has come up any cures yet? (:rolleyes:) Or do you guys think... Read More
Sep 2, '10 by SnowStar4Quote from BlackheartednurseThe only difference between a drug and poison is the dose.I heard someone saying that a lot of diseases could be cured but the pharmaceutical companies wants to make money.Is this true? I dont know for sure.I know though that medications are in one of the top 10 causes of human death.So medications can heal,treat as well as kill people.
Drugs, like poisons are chemicals. Chemicals have efffects on the body. Some are desired, some are not. You take a drug for the good effects and deal with the bad. You take a poison for the bad effects. If you take too much of a drug that can cause good effects, it will kill you at some dose. People need to understand that drugs are simply chemicals. They are not miracles. If you do not use it properly, then yes, bad things will happen.
Sep 2, '10 by elkparkQuote from SnowStar4I fully agree that pharmaceutical R&D is expensive and that drug companies need to make money in order to stay in business. However, I'd be more inclined to think positively about Big Pharma if it weren't the case that the pharmaceutical industry is consistently one of the most profitable industries in the world (the pharmceutical industry was the most profitable industry on the planet for many years, but has recently dropped to only #3), and they spend quite a bit more on advertising than they do on R&D. Not to mention all the maneuvering and hijinks to try to maintain patent protection for extended lengths of time (all the reformulations and "me, too" drugs) and lobbying to protect and increase their profits (Medicare Part D was nothing but a big Republican giveaway to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, and the recent healthcare "reform" bill was not much better).As a person who spent years making and developing drugs, I have to disagree. Yes, drugs are insanely expensive. But making and researching drugs is insanely expensive. People need to remember that drug companies are in fact drug COMPANIES and need to make money to stay afloat. People who make comments like that have no idea the complicated and expensive research that goes into making the simplest of drugs. That is in no way meant to be an insult. It is just so much more complicated than most people can ever understand.
No one forces you to take drugs. People are lucky as hell that the ones available are there for them to take. If I didn't pay for and take my pill every day, I'd be dead. That's a choice I make. I don't get ****** at the company for charging me for the pill, I am grateful that someone took the initiative to research my disease and make a pill available to me.
Fortune 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues
FORTUNE 500 2006: Top Performers
Drug-Companies.net - Pharmaceuticals Rank As Most Profitable Industry, Again
Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds
What Drug Companies Arent Telling YOU
PLoS Medicine: The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States
Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals, ProQuest Discovery Guides
Sep 2, '10 by SnowStar4Elkpark,
I do agree that the advertising money spent is crazy. People shouldn't be learning about drugs from TV, they should be learning about what is most appropriate for them from their doctor. And I am so happy that they stopped dolling out tons of free lunches, pens, clocks, you name it with a drug logo on it. That's innapropriate influence of prescription writing.
But, I still contend that they have a right to make a profit. Afterall, that IS why they started companies. They don't HAVE to make like saving drugs. But they do. Good for them. They could be pumping out Justin Beiber merchandise instead....
Sep 2, '10 by regularRNSo, now I have read all the posts and OP, to avoid being accused of wearing a tin foil hat, I would think twice about writing this paper - unless it's too late, in which case please post!
Sep 2, '10 by LouisVRNI do agree that the profit from managing a diseases symptoms keeps some from looking for a cure, however I'm sure all the big companies are fully aware that another may discover a cure and therefore put them out of business without any profit at all. As far as HIV as an example, that is a very difficult case to argue. We don't have a CURE for many viruses, most of them are symptom management with the reduction of viral load, well we can do that with the antiretrovirals. However the fact that HIV is constantly mutating and attaches to your DNA complicates the ability to eradicate it. If you have an endless supply of money and can afford to have the antiretrovirals tailored to your specific HIV strands, you will die of something else long before you develop AIDS.
Cancer again is a problem within your cells, which complicates its treatment and is why there are so many negative side effects with our current treatment modalities. Heart disease, HTN, type II DM are all effected by lifestyle, I do not see that we will ever have a CURE unless we mandate and enforce people to live healthy lifestyles which would definitely take away the whole autonomous aspect. I do think that naturopathic and complementary medicine has a lot to offer, but I've never heard of someone being definitively cured of AIDS by any method.
While you do have some interesting hypotheses, I think you are going to have a hard time writing an informative paper with reliable resources.
Sep 2, '10 by nursel56 GuideQuote from EbonyBorn2Succeed,As nurses why do you guys think that medications only treat the symptoms of a disease instead of curing the disease? Is it because no one has come up any cures yet? () Or do you guys think it's a conspiracy?!
I don't think it's a conspiracy to deliberately withhold news of a cure from the public, but not because I think that the US Government, and/or large multi-national companies always operate in an ethical, honest manner including promptly owning up to the big scr-w ups that occur. You don't have to look very far to find evidence of collusion or cover-up by specific groups within government or corporations, including governments and corporations joining up to keep damning information out of the public arena. (see Tuskegee experiment, tobacco company whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand and countless others like them).
To prove a conspiracy as you present it, you would have to find evidence that a great many people joined together and agreed in advance to lie, cheat and deceive, and that as of now no one that I know of has broken out of the agreement and blown the whistle on the whole sorry lot. That means that out of hundreds of corporate executives, elected officials and scientists, NONE blew the whistle or left a paper trail of their misdeeds. Human nature being what it is, I don't think it's possible.
Not saying there's nothing in your idea for your paper that is workable, though! There are quite a few ideas in there you could pursue, and by narrowing your focus you have a better shot at writing a paper that supports the original premise. You included an assumption there "that medications only treat the symptoms of a disease and don't cure the disease". You could write a paper on how you came to that conclusion. You present the idea that citizens are suffering and dying from diseases that could be cured if the drug companies would stop preventing that knowledge from going public. If you could write your paper about one such cure being deliberately withheld and by who, you would probably get an A.
You didn't mention what class assigned you the paper. If it's not a science class, and it's more of an essay about cultural characteristics, then the broad impressions you have would probably be fine.
Sep 2, '10 by DespareuxI wanted to chime in and say that I used to have this attitude that there was a cure for cancer/HIV/diabetes/etc... lurking behind the scenes, but the person who discovered it would end up dead should he or she make it public.
I also used to believe that drugs have more harmful effects than the disease itself. Oh, and the belief that if it weren't for diseases, there would be much less jobs and what would that do to our economy and population growth; yeah, I used to have these conspiratorial beliefs--and with all my heart did I believe.
Since taking Patho, A&P, and Micro, I have a much clearer understanding of the drug processes, from the research level down to the usage level. I still feel that certain drugs are overused, and feel that many diseases are preventable for life, regardless of genetic disposition. But conspiracy? No way! Drugs have saved far too many lives.
Modern medicine, when used in conjunction with alternative medicines, are a boon to our lifestyles. Without the knowledge, dedication, and compassion of scientists, doctors, [and nurses] to help heal the sick and injured, our lifespan would be cut short and our quality of life would be horrendous--I'm thinking third world.
Sure, mistakes are made and no system is perfect and never, ever will be.
Perhaps instead of writing a paper on pharmaceutical conspiracy, maybe you could direct your investigative nature towards the food industry, who, I feel are far more devious than any other industry. And remember, food plays a very significant role in our health.
Sep 2, '10 by TakeOneQuote from EbonyBorn2SucceedThat was probaly one of the most sincere comments in this thread. Kudos to you!
I disagree. I think every response you got to your first post was dead sincere but not anything that you wanted to hear/read.
Sep 2, '10 by TakeOneQuote from EbonyBorn2SucceedExactly. The people with the money control the world. Tell me why we had a pt. w/ a stage 4 decubitis ulcer, paraplegic late 20's male and he is'nt getting the help he needs bc he has a limited health plan. Like seriously? No, seriously . He even went to the hospital and they did'nt even admit him. This is off topic but it just goes to show that insurance companies, pharm. companies all are big businesses! They don't care if you live or die. It's all a profit to them.
I'm confused. You're not a nurse, but you claim to understand how the medical and reimbursement system works. Where does your insight come from?
If the twenty-something year old paraplegic has developed a Stage 4 decubitus ulcer, where (in what facility) did he develop it? Is he at home or in a skilled care setting? How big was the ulcer, and on what part of the body? Are you aware that if the ulcer is non-surgical and otherwise uncomplicated there is no reason to hospitalize--or to not hospitalize yet? Is your information based in facts, or in the utterances of the nurses you work with? This alone does not prove that insurance and pharma companies are big business. Everybody already knows that they are big, BIG businesses who don't care if you live or die because to them there is no "you." They don't deal personally with people. That's how big businesses are, all of them.
You must be a sophomore. The tone of your posts is that no one else knows what you know, and that no one else has had the insights that you have had. You have advised that there are things "you nurses" should educate ourselves about, things that you hold dear personally and culturally. May I suggest that you keep quiet for a minute and have a good look around, then, while still examining and questioning life and other important things, learn the value of what other people know even if their knowledge and beliefs conflict with your beliefs.
Sep 3, '10 by elkparkQuote from SnowStar4And, as I originally stated, I agree with you -- I just object to their making OBSCENE profits ...But, I still contend that they have a right to make a profit. Afterall, that IS why they started companies. They don't HAVE to make like saving drugs. But they do. Good for them. They could be pumping out Justin Beiber merchandise instead....
And v. few of the drugs they're producing these days are "lifesaving." Most of them seem to be retreads of older drugs, or the risks are equal to or greater than the benefits, or they are, at least, no more effective (but MUCH more expensive) than older drugs that treat the same problem.
Frankly, I'd much rather they were hawking the Justin Beiber schlock. At this point in history, I have a hard time thinking of them as anything other than a necessary evil.Last edit by elkpark on Sep 3, '10
Sep 3, '10 by blondy2061h, MSN, RNQuote from EbonyBorn2SucceedYou're kidding, right? I have type 1 diabetes. It's an extremely complicated disease that I can think of multiple trials working on curing it. I have to take insulin. I get hypoglycemic from it occasionally when things are mis-balanced. I get welts at injection sites sometimes.And you know what? Most of these drugs have worse side effects than the disease.
I'd be dead without it.
Sep 3, '10 by Getreal2011Ebony, some people here have given you some very sound advice, without the sarcasm and insults. I suggest you think about it seriously.
Those that haven't are actually proving that whole, "nurses eat their young" thing to be true, and should really think about responding without all the personal insults and sarcasm. She is a student and at one time you were in the same position and you were learninggggggg.Last edit by rn/writer on Sep 5, '10 : Reason: Removed unhelpful comment.