Suicide by medicine: the cures that kill

[Dominick]

The most recent scare about a potential pandemia illustrates once again several factors of what has become of the so-called health industry.

I've used the word 'cure' in the title only in order to be able to use the phrase 'the cures that kill'. The problem with the 'cure' today is actually the fact that it isn't a cure. Tamiflu e.g. doesn't cure influenza, it suppresses it. And from the viewpoint of a virus -arguably the oldest and simplest lifeform on the planet- suppression is merely an environmental stress factor.

What happens to lifeforms that experience incremented environmental stress ? Their mutation rate increases and their evolutionary(*) capabilities surface. Since the viri are not all killed, those will survive the attack by the 'medecine' that have genes that are slightly more resistant to the molecule of the medecine. The next generation of the virus, a matter of hours or even less, will have increased resistance to the medecine. And this process will repeat many times over.

So, it's hardly surprising that after a while a strain of the virus will emerge that is completely resistant to all known drugs, especially to drugs that don't break down and remain in the environment indefinitely and thus form an eternal environmental and therefore evolutionary stress factor. This is hardly news. Just one example from Oct, 2007 : http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5johTPaZnrC32MSU6WyDgsQL4KcGA. Besides, we've already seen it happen with antibiotics too.

In other -and very simple- words, our 'health' industry is the cause of the proliferation of hitherto unknown diseases and the increase in outbreaks of resistant viri. It's certainly not the cure for it. I'm not claiming this is intentional. The new influenza-A virus with characteristics from no less than four previously unrelated strains of viri wasn't designed in a laboratory. That is, unless one takes the viewpoint that the whole environment has basically become a laboratory because of the immense pollution with all kinds of molecules off which it is impossible to predict how they will interact or of how all lifeforms will react to.

The cause is not some sinister plot -even if the board of Directors of Gilead, the owner of Tamiflu, begs the question ;)- but simple, plain, old greed.

(*) Yes, yes, we're talking Darwinian evolution happening right there under our noses. So much for fundamentalism of all kinds.

[partofme]

I think a big part of it has to do with doctors. There are many cases in which a patient isn't to the point in which they need antibiotics or antivirals but they are right there in front of the doctor which makes it easier to just say yes and not argue rather than think of the broader harm it can do which is less immediate to the particular situation.

[The Drunk Guy]

Too often, in medicine, there is a drive to extinguish the symptoms. Doctors know that cures are non-existent, so they treat the symptoms to make the patients happy and complacent like the good little sheep they are.

[Americano]

I think a big part of it has to do with doctors. There are many cases in which a patient isn't to the point in which they need antibiotics or antivirals but they are right there in front of the doctor which makes it easier to just say yes and not argue rather than think of the broader harm it can do which is less immediate to the particular situation.

I have an MD friend, a general practitioner, who says most patients actually demand medication of every imaginable description. She states the worst are parents who want the kid's runny nose fixed with antibiotics because they can't afford to stay home and schools won't allow the children in class with obvious ailments. Second in line are patients demanding pain pills due to addictions followed by patients who demand the latest TV ad medication for 'symptoms' they've experienced.

The 'legal' pain pill addiction has reached epidemic proportions. The street price is now $1 per milligram and people commonly visit several doctors for prescriptions based on verifiable ailments, having them filled at smaller pharmacies as the major chains now share database information to eliminate duplication.

[Michael]

The 'legal' pain pill addiction has reached epidemic proportions. The street price is now $1 per milligram and people commonly visit several doctors for prescriptions based on verifiable ailments, having them filled at smaller pharmacies as the major chains now share database information to eliminate duplication.
I've heard that prescription-addiction drug abuse exceeds the more 'infamous' illegal drug abuse measured by number of users.

In other words, bigger than pot, coke, crack, crystal meth and heroin all added together!

(I also took the liberty of correcting the spelling/typo in the thread title)

[Americano]

I've heard that prescription-addiction drug abuse exceeds the more 'infamous' illegal drug abuse measured by number of users.

In other words, bigger than pot, coke, crack, crystal meth and heroin all added together!

(I also took the liberty of correcting the spelling/typo in the thread title)

I've heard those same statistics.

Big pharma loves it. If all those synthetic pain killers were converted to opium Afghanistan would be the world's leading economy.

[Dominick]

Yes, both the doctors and patients must share some of the responsability. But that responsability can be traced back to Big Pharma too. Doctors get impressive bonuses for prescribing as many drugs as possible while the patients are pimped by Big Pharma commercials.

And the media is amost exclusively commercial these days so they won't embarass their advertisers by challenging the claims made in these commercials.


(I also took the liberty of correcting the spelling/typo in the thread title)
Let me guess. I wrote 'medecine' instead of 'medicine' ? That's French :angel:

[Americano]

Yes, both the doctors and patients must share some of the responsability. But that responsability can be traced back to Big Pharma too. Doctors get impressive bonuses for prescribing as many drugs as possible while the patients are pimped by Big Pharma commercials.

And the media is amost exclusively commercial these days so they won't embarass their advertisers by challenging the claims made in these commercials.

TV Commercials for prescription meds in the US are overwhelming. I don't know current statistics but it used to take 11 times of a viewer seeing the same product commercial for it to imprint on the average boob tube mind. Combine that with the commercial message 'this could help relieve your symptoms' and that's the first thing the patient says to the physician. Since the MD gets a spiff from big pharma for writing the prescription and nothing but the office visit fee for a placebo, it's a foregone conclusion he/she won't get the Bahamas vacation home through integrity.

Let me guess. I wrote 'medecine' instead of 'medicine' ? That's French :angel:

[Michael]

Let me guess. I wrote 'medecine' instead of 'medicine' ? That's French :angel:
You guessed correctly.

If all you foreigners didn't speak funny languages or spell words funny, we'd never have this problem. :D

[Greendruid]

Two points here.

I would hate to be a doctor of any type these days, especially GPs, that have to directly interface with patients bearing acute symptoms of these sorts of ailments. It is probably a very hard thing to tell a patient that there's nothing that can be done for their kid's viral infection. It erodes the assumed power of the MD, it erodes the trust relationship between the doctor and the patient and it probably does no good because someone else will give the patient what they want to the detriment of the first doctor. And remember, "Do no harm". This is a topic I spend no less than two lectures on throughout a full course here and am in the process of developing a course dedicated to addressing all kinds of issues in what has become known as Medical Anthropology. The specific course was inspired by my mentor at McMaster and bears the same name "Plagues and People" - an exploration of the socio-cultural factors that make epidemics happen. This was my doctoral specialty BTW.

The second point I have is more of a rant/complaint. I have been to the GPs a total of about ten times since my wife and I planned to have a baby - just routine stuff to make sure we were "okay", the pregnancy was going well (which it is), etc. In those ten times, I would have to say, with all honesty of recollection, that a drug representative has skipped the queue no less than nine times. It makes me insane to see this happening, especially given my previous rants about the lack of doctors and the increasing wait times here. They are easy to spot too - always have a briefcase of, more commonly, a duffel bag full of free samples. It's disgusting and I'd really like it to end. Any one else have these experiences?

[Dominick]

Two points here.

I would hate to be a doctor of any type these days, especially GPs, that have to directly interface with patients bearing acute symptoms of these sorts of ailments. It is probably a very hard thing to tell a patient that there's nothing that can be done for their kid's viral infection. It erodes the assumed power of the MD, it erodes the trust relationship between the doctor and the patient and it probably does no good because someone else will give the patient what they want to the detriment of the first doctor. And remember, "Do no harm". This is a topic I spend no less than two lectures on throughout a full course here and am in the process of developing a course dedicated to addressing all kinds of issues in what has become known as Medical Anthropology. The specific course was inspired by my mentor at McMaster and bears the same name "Plagues and People" - an exploration of the socio-cultural factors that make epidemics happen. This was my doctoral specialty BTW.
Those points are true and understandable and in my opinion show that this is a clear case where the individual interest of all concerned are diametrically opposed to the general good. It's competition between doctors that necessitates them to act in this way. Health shouldn't be an industry.


The second point I have is more of a rant/complaint. I have been to the GPs a total of about ten times since my wife and I planned to have a baby - just routine stuff to make sure we were "okay", the pregnancy was going well (which it is), etc. In those ten times, I would have to say, with all honesty of recollection, that a drug representative has skipped the queue no less than nine times. It makes me insane to see this happening, especially given my previous rants about the lack of doctors and the increasing wait times here. They are easy to spot too - always have a briefcase of, more commonly, a duffel bag full of free samples. It's disgusting and I'd really like it to end. Any one else have these experiences?
Yes, exactly the same here. It doesn't matter whether there's crying children and half dead people in the waiting room, the commerce still comes first.

Good luck with that pregnancy by the way :)

[Americano]

Those points are true and understandable and in my opinion show that this is a clear case where the individual interest of all concerned are diametrically opposed to the general good. It's competition between doctors that necessitates them to act in this way. Health shouldn't be an industry.

But, in the US, it is. My physician friend says people will change MDs in a heartbeat if they don't get what they feel is their due - whatever happens to be heavily pitched on TV or what they think they need.

The salespeople actually present the advertising schedule of drugs on an importance level with the purpose of those drugs because they know, and the MDs know, that patients prone to advertising messages will be requesting them.


Yes, exactly the same here. It doesn't matter whether there's crying children and half dead people in the waiting room, the commerce still comes first.

Good luck with that pregnancy by the way :)

[Michael]

But, in the US, it is. My physician friend says people will change MDs in a heartbeat if they don't get what they feel is their due - whatever happens to be heavily pitched on TV or what they think they need.

This perhaps is a function of "consumer-culture" applied to medicine?

Medicine seems to be treated in USA like any other commodity - one shops around to get the product you want.

Just another feature of the dysfunctional US healthcare system it would seem.

The salespeople actually present the advertising schedule of drugs on an importance level with the purpose of those drugs because they know, and the MDs know, that patients prone to advertising messages will be requesting them.
Permitting consumer advertising of pharmaceutical products is just asking for trouble.

I see these US commercials on tv and they are really weird - they don't say what the drug is, or what the drug does, just "ask your doctor if ***** is right for you!"

I could write a list of a dozen pharma products that I "should ask my doctor if they are right for me".

Personally, I'd rather let my doctor tell me what he thinks is right for me. He's probably a better judge of these products than I am (moot point actually, my doctor knows I won't take any prescribed pills for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is a complete distrust of pharmaceutical products).

[partofme]

This perhaps is a function of "consumer-culture" applied to medicine?

Medicine seems to be treated in USA like any other commodity - one shops around to get the product you want.

Just another feature of the dysfunctional US healthcare system it would seem.


Permitting consumer advertising of pharmaceutical products is just asking for trouble.

I see these US commercials on tv and they are really weird - they don't say what the drug is, or what the drug does, just "ask your doctor if ***** is right for you!"

I could write a list of a dozen pharma products that I "should ask my doctor if they are right for me".

Personally, I'd rather let my doctor tell me what he thinks is right for me. He's probably a better judge of these products than I am (moot point actually, my doctor knows I won't take any prescribed pills for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is a complete distrust of pharmaceutical products).

All the ads say ask your doctor. In other words doctors are being made into middle men for people to just take whatever medication they think fits their self diagnosis using Web M.D.

[Greendruid]

All the ads say ask your doctor. In other words doctors are being made into middle men for people to just take whatever medication they think fits their self diagnosis using Web M.D.

... and how frustrating must that be for someone who has just spent 8 - 15 of university to establish a knowledge base to heal people and then have that eroded by a handful of commercials that are offering a disembodied cure to your unspecified, vague ailments, which kind of read like a horoscope in a café newspaper, knowing full well that if you don't help them, your jeopardising your authority, your relationship with your patient and, thus, your job. What monsters we've made in the name of consumption. Drug companies should not be allowed to advertise on TV, period. They banned smoking and alcohol ads on TV - pharmaceuticas should be no different.

[Michael]

They banned smoking and alcohol ads on TV - pharmaceuticas should be no different.
Very good point.

Banning alcohol and cigarette ads demonstrates that the government believes that consumers can't be trusted to make rational decisions and may be adversely swayed by commercial advertising.

By this same argument, pharmaceutical ads ought to be banned as well.

(and yes, Doctors are becoming little more than pharmaceutical sales representatives)

[Dominick]

A nice article from CNN no less that puts the swine flu into perspective:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/28/regular.flu/index.html
The score between the swine flu and regular flu is : 26 vs. 250,000 à 500,000 yearly.
How many of these "pandemics" have we had in the last decade or so ? Five maybe ? And what would the total death toll be ? A thousand perhaps.

[The Drunk Guy]

A nice article from CNN no less that puts the swine flu into perspective:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/28/regular.flu/index.html
The score between the swine flu and regular flu is : 26 vs. 250,000 à 500,000 yearly.
How many of these "pandemics" have we had in the last decade or so ? Five maybe ? And what would the total death toll be ? A thousand perhaps.
TODAY'S COP-FLU ALERT: FUCHSIA Watch for any suspicious acting people that are of a different race than you! Report them to the local swine! That is all.

[Michael]

A nice article from CNN no less that puts the swine flu into perspective:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/28/regular.flu/index.html
The score between the swine flu and regular flu is : 26 vs. 250,000 à 500,000 yearly.
How many of these "pandemics" have we had in the last decade or so ? Five maybe ? And what would the total death toll be ? A thousand perhaps.
Normal flu doesn't cause death. That's a significant distinction here.

And the Swine Flu death toll is well past 100 in Mexico. New cases popping up all over the planet in this morning's news.

As for these recent 'mini-pandemics' Toronto was caught in the SARS outbreak and that cost the Toronto economy many billions of dollars. The impact was HUGE - wiped out an entire year's worth of tourism (and tourism is one of the top 5 employers in the city).

[SMadsen]

As a side note to the actual topic, what is the difference between free access to drugs from a liberal perspective (all are free to use whatever drug they please) and free access to drugs for medical use?

Can the position be defended that marihuana, cocaine, heroine etc. should be given free to unrestricted access while drugs such as Tamiflu should be restricted because of a potential opposition to a general good? Why is there someone who is "probably a better judge of these products" when it comes to medical drugs while, in a liberal sense, a free person is the ultimate judge when it comes to drugs that, well, messes with endorphins.

[Greendruid]

[quote=Michael;7650]Normal flu doesn't cause death. That's a significant distinction here.

Au contraire! Normal flu does cause death - in the hundreds of thousands around the world every year. The distinction is in the demographic profile of the mortality pattern. Normal flu usually only kills the old, weak, sick and infants. This flu is killing young adults and adults in their prime - that is the distinction and is the exact same characteristic of the pandemic flu of 1918-1919.

This one has potential but it's too early to tell unfortunately. I'm not terribly surprised at the pattern differences between Mexico and developed countries. I guarantee that if this makes it to Africa, especially in a destablised region like Somalia, there will be a sufficient reservoir to propogate a pandemic for sure. Increase the number of destabilised regions getting infected, those who have little to no health infrastructure, and you will increase the odds of this going pandemic. My island seems like no so bad an idea after all!