D&D and the rising pandemic

[Thomas Shey]

EDIT - And, somewhat ironically, one of the cancer meds that's regularly advertised on CNN hit my mother with literally every side effect including, very nearly, a much earlier death.

The great sad truth is, even with careful regulation, almost any drug that does anything useful is going to have some sometimes pretty severe side effects for some percentage of users, and as the user numbers get larger, that part of the users becomes intrinsically more visible. The question always turns on risk to benefit with drugs. Always.

 

[JEB]

Despite taking great care to avoid it, and being in the minority of folks who got the bivalent booster, came down with Covid Christmas week. (Very likely infected by a co-worker; all the other options are improbable.) Narrowly avoided giving it to my family, as I was hanging out with them when my symptoms started flaring up. Didn't stop shedding virus in time for New Year's, either, so missed both holidays.

Worth noting: having the bivalent booster almost certainly made me less infectious (it's hard to believe I didn't give it to my family, but I didn't) and almost certainly made my symptoms relatively mild (my brother had a worse time of it last summer, after his original vaccine had lost effectiveness and before the new booster was available). So if you haven't gotten the bivalent booster, I strongly recommend it.

 

[Umbran]

I'll let the people who have to take care of those crippled by Long COVID for the rest of their lives, instead. I bet they could make a more compelling case than I could.

I think folks caring for the disabled are apt to have more empathy than to try to one-up an orphan to their face.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Science says: "You have an opinion? Go get some data, and then we can talk." Science is not interested in unsupported opinions.

And the data says the big pharma companies have got some cases of negligence.

You can search in internet about lawsuits against the big pharma companies. Let's remember the damage caused by the thalidomide in pregnant women.

Any time have you could guess the end watching a movie or teleserie thanks the clues in the script? I dare to say there are reasons to suspect they aren't telling the truth. If here there is a lot of money being moved then you can't hope everybody is not going to be honest.

Ongoing EPPO investigation into the acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines in the EU | European Public Prosecutor’s Office

www.eppo.europa.eu

 

[NotAYakk]

My problem with this justification is pharmaceutical companies use it all the time to justify exorbitant price tags on life saving medication (and I think is very questionable how much of that is actually justified). And this isn't conspiratorial nonsense. This is a kind of criticism you hear on mainstream platforms like NPR. Just as an example there is a cure for Hepatitis C, which is amazing. I'm not anti-medication or anti-science. If we can cure an illness like that, that is a good thing. It is something we want to cure. But it like 80,000 dollars for the 12 week treatment (which was 95% effective). I think they have managed to find ways to bring that costs down, but I believe a lot of that is just shifting costs (pretty sure the manufacturer ultimately gets its 80,000). I get there is research cost, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we should not push back against companies charging these kinds of rates for curing serious diseases, and that we shouldn't be skeptical of a powerful industry that historically has profited off things like getting people to take unnecessary painkillers (and even lied about how safe and addictive those painkillers are). I've personally seen medications I've been on get suddenly jacked up in price by these kinds of companies and I don't think that is right. There was a congressional report issued a few years ago that addressed a lot of these issues with things like price hikes and a practice called price hopping (where they make minor tweaks to an old formula to get new patents so they can keep prices high). Again, not saying people shouldn't take medications, vaccines, etc. But think there are a ton of reasons to not trust these companies or take what they say at face value.

So, US patent law means that after 12 years, the first treatment must be able to be made by a generic company without IP blocks.

The companies will try to improve their treatment and get extended patent protection, but it only covers the improvements.

As an example, the old-school insulin has no patent protections; the fancier new insulins (which are much better) do.

...

Now, the monopolization of production is a different problem. Lots of the bad press comes from that -- only one producer of X, so they jack the price of X up to increase profits.

There isn't a legal protection around the production of X, but if only one company currently makes it, it is really easy to pull this off.

What more, it is insanely more efficient to have one factory to make many of these medicines - the economies of scale are in favour of monopoly. There are natural monopolies all over the place here.

 

[Umbran]

And the data says the big pharma companies have got some cases of negligence.

So, with respect, I think you are arguing against a thing that none of us are doing - none of us are putting blind faith in pharma companies. So, you can stop trying to convince us we shouldn't.

We are merely noting that vaccines are not generally a place where they make their big bucks.

And, if you want to instill anxiety about vaccines, this is an important point - your negligence argument doesn't really hold for covid vaccines. They are too widespread, too visible, and here, the customer so far is the US Government itself.

Successful Business 101: Do not be negligent with the US Government when the best way to politically handle it would be to sic the Justice Department on you.

I dare to say there are reasons to suspect they aren't telling the truth.

ABOUT WHAT??? If you have a specific accusation to make, make it.

Otherwise, please stop with the fearmongering. It does not help people make sound decisions about their health.

 

[Umbran]

IMHO, there should NEVER be advertising of prescription only medications in general mass media. Especially not in the amounts described in that report. It makes Dr/patient discussions much more difficult.

So, if the rest of the health care system were up to snuff, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, our system makes patients, especially women and minorities, have to be driven self-advocates for their own care, because the system fails them if they don't.

You cannot successfully self-advocate if you don't know what treatments are available.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, if the rest of the health care system were up to snuff, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, our system makes patients, especially women and minorities, have to be driven self-advocates for their own care, because the system fails them if they don't.

You cannot successfully self-advocate if you don't know what treatments are available.

The ads DON’T improve overall self-advocacy; they provide the illusion of it. (IMHO, of course.)

Even without knowing the names of this drug, treatment or pharmaceutical, you are always free to ask “What other options are there?” Or to seek a second opinion. Telling your MD your concerns about side-effects or lack of efficacy are also key in the doctor/patient relationship, and doesn’t require naming brands.

(A HCP might not LISTEN to a patient’s reports & complaints. But if that’s true, they probably won’t listen to suggestions for alternative treatments, either.)

The ads, OTOH, get people seeking advice already armed with this or that name brand drug or particular therapy that at not even be relevant. Even before the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin debacles during COVID, MD’s complained about people demanding antibiotics for things like colds & flu, sometimes to the point of threatening to leave the practice if they didn’t get the prescription asked for. A lot of MDs handed out the prescriptions on the theory that it wouldn’t hurt the patients (probably) and would let them continue to engage & properly treat the patients after the antibiotics proved ineffective.

Unfortunately, this led to the unfortunate societal side-effect of overprescribing antibiotics, which reduced their overall effectiveness and contributed to the rise of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. So under current guidelines for antibiotics, that practice has been greatly reduced so that sometimes patients get refused certain antibiotics even if they’re effective for a patient’s affliction, if the affliction is minor but chronic.

(I’m one taking it for Team Humanity.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think folks caring for the disabled are apt to have more empathy than to try to one-up an orphan to their face.

On the other hand they're also the people liable to think stopping at "Well, its not killing as many people" is a fundamental error, which was my original point. Death tolls aren't the whole story, and its still remaining to be seen if its even the biggest story.

 

[Umbran]

On the other hand they're also the people liable to think stopping at "Well, its not killing as many people" is a fundamental error...

And to that I say AGAIN that it was intended to be demonstrative, not an actual basis of policy.

I mean, that is if what I say actually matters at this point - I'm not sure it does.