2 of 3
2
Poll
How would you compare the ethics of alt med purveyors to conventional pharma companies, generally?
Alt med are much worse 10
Alt med are slightly worse 2
Alt med and conventional pharma are about equal 2
Conventional pharma are slightly worse 1
Conventional pharma are much worse 2
Total Votes: 17
You must be a logged-in member to vote
Ethics: Pharma vs. Alt Med
Posted: 09 August 2009 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
George - 08 August 2009 06:19 PM
VYAZMA - 08 August 2009 03:57 PM

I see GSK sells Nicotene patches, and over the counter sleeping pills, and Caffeine Tablets. Also if your amongst the fringe group who considers Multi-vitamins Alt-meds, GSK makes Geritol too. Clinical studies have shown that Nicotine patches are as effective as a placebo in helping smoking cessation.

If true, I may be wrong. I should probably stay away from this topic as I know very little about it.

You aren’t wrong, and I’m not wrong. GSK makes a lot of good medicines. I can provide you info on clinical studies of Nicotine patches, if you want. It goes to show that the line between “real” medicines and “fake” medicines is blurry.
I guess it would be difficult to tell GSK, one of the worlds largest and benevolent suppliers of Swine Flu Vax to stop making Vivarin, and Geritol, and Sominex.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 06:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Well, Doug asked our opinion on ethics. If GSK makes nicotine patches that don’t work, than GSK is nasty, since they should know better, as GdB already pointed out. Those who produce alternative medicine, however, appear to me more stupid than nasty. Since I personally prefer nastiness over stupidity I won’t change my initial response when voting on alternative medicine being much worse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 06:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

What do you mean they should know better? They know that there are millions(billions?) of dollars to be made on “the old quit smoking” racket, which has been around for at least 50 years.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 07:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
VYAZMA - 09 August 2009 06:41 AM

What do you mean they should know better? They know that there are millions(billions?) of dollars to be made on “the old quit smoking” racket, which has been around for at least 50 years.

Right. That’s what would make GSK nasty, not stupid.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 07:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6195
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 09 August 2009 06:33 AM

Well, Doug asked our opinion on ethics. If GSK makes nicotine patches that don’t work, than GSK is nasty, since they should know better, as GdB already pointed out. Those who produce alternative medicine, however, appear to me more stupid than nasty. Since I personally prefer nastiness over stupidity I won’t change my initial response when voting on alternative medicine being much worse.

One problem is that pharmaceutical companies need to be in a position in which they can make money totally ethically.

Are they in that position? I doubt it. They need to make enormous investments in research that often will not lead to a profit making drug. If they do come up with one it will be copied. They are under pressure to make enormous profits not only through greed but the money is needed for the research.

Perhaps pharmaceuticals are not things best made by companies who’s goal is to make a profit?

Or perhaps the goal posts need to be moved a great deal, to make it so that honesty is the best policy in terms of making a profit.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 07:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

New York Times
F.D.A.’s Secret Files
Published: June 3, 2009

The Food and Drug Administration has created a task force to recommend ways to reveal more information about how the agency makes decisions about the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical devices. Any move in the direction of greater transparency is bound to help both patients and their doctors better understand the risks and benefits they face.
At the insistence of industry, and its claims of proprietary information, the F.D.A. often sits on data that raise questions about a drug’s safety or therapeutic value. The consequences for some patients can be severe.
As Gardiner Harris reported in The Times on Tuesday, in recent years, the F.D.A. failed to inform the public that a widely prescribed heartburn drug was especially toxic to babies, that a diabetes drug and a painkiller increased heart attack risks and that antidepressants increased suicidal thoughts and behavior in youngsters.
The agency is hemmed in by laws restricting its ability to release trade secrets and internal agency records. But there seems little doubt that it has been overly cautious and that public safety has suffered as a result.

More evidence that the FDA and Pharma are more than a little “cozy”!

[ Edited: 09 August 2009 07:28 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
StephenLawrence - 09 August 2009 07:14 AM

They are under pressure to make enormous profits not only through greed but the money is needed for the research.

Maybe…

StephenLawrence - 09 August 2009 07:14 AM

Perhaps pharmaceuticals are not things best made by companies who’s goal is to make a profit?

As far as I can tell things only work when you can make a profit. I grew up in a country which used to make eighteen cars before the communists took over. By the time communism collapsed they made only two.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
StephenLawrence - 09 August 2009 07:14 AM

Perhaps pharmaceuticals are not things best made by companies who’s goal is to make a profit?

As far as I can tell things only work when you can make a profit. I grew up in a country which used to make eighteen cars before the communists took over. By the time communism collapsed they made only two.

George if you have a minute or two, could you elaborate on the nastiness vs. stupidity thing please. grin
Where does the stupid part come in? I think I understand the nastiness issue, I was just wondering where we apply your “stupid” part of the scenario. The makers of alt-meds are stupid? Is that it in a nutshell? I’m just trying to figure this out. Thanks. grin

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Yes, VYAZMA, I believe that religious people, UFOers, alt-med enthusiasts, and the rest are ignorant—or at least most of them. Sure, some of them happen to make a lot of money along the way, but I do believe that most of them actually believe in whatever nonsense they are after.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
George - 09 August 2009 09:32 AM

Yes, VYAZMA, I believe that religious people, UFOers, alt-med enthusiasts, and the rest are ignorant—or at least most of them. Sure, some of them happen to make a lot of money along the way, but I do believe that most of them actually believe in whatever nonsense they are after.

Yeah there is an inconsistency here. We are comparing the ethics of manufactures. We aren’t comparing the ethics of Pharma Manufactures and the intelligence of Alt-med “enthusiasts”.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

George sadly, most people come to the conclusion that religious people are not “ignorant”. We have discussed these dynamics here before, and in short the root causes of mysticism, or religion go deep beyond what a person may actually “decide” for oneself.
I’m kind of surprised that you would discriminate against something so “naturally” occurring. Especially when the vast majority of people on this planet subscribe to some form of mysticism.
I don’t mean to lecture, sorry to sound patronizing, but when a rational discussion(argument) gets sidelined into a Roll-Call Vote, I would hope everyone would cast their vote with an open mind.
Interestingly though there are some precursor dynamics to the results so-far which show a rational analysis on one side of the argument, and a rather knee-jerk analysis on the other.

[ Edited: 09 August 2009 10:01 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
VYAZMA - 09 August 2009 09:52 AM

I’m kind of surprised that you would discriminate against something so “naturally” occurring. Especially when the vast majority of people on this planet subscribe to some form of mysticism.

Well, yes, the majority of people are ignorant.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
VYAZMA - 09 August 2009 09:42 AM

We are comparing the ethics of manufactures. We aren’t comparing the ethics of Pharma Manufactures and the intelligence of Alt-med “enthusiasts”.

Sure, and I still believe that most (not all) alt-med manufacturers believe that their snake-oil works; I can’t obviously prove it…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
George - 09 August 2009 10:10 AM
VYAZMA - 09 August 2009 09:42 AM

We are comparing the ethics of manufactures. We aren’t comparing the ethics of Pharma Manufactures and the intelligence of Alt-med “enthusiasts”.

Sure, and I still believe that most (not all) alt-med manufacturers believe that their snake-oil works; I can’t obviously prove it…

Then this would make the majority of alt-meds purveyors ethical…..
If someone knew there product to be “fake” or harmful, or covered up evidence from research, then this would be unethical.
Not that I agree that “most” of alt-meds believe their products to work. I disagree with you. I do think that the majority of these purveyors both Pharma and Alt, are providing a “product” that there is a demand for.
Now it could be said that Pharma has a serious band of products that transcends “Demand”- No doubt! Heart Medicines, or IV drips, insulin, tons more. However there is also a whole host of Pharma “products” that could be placed in the demand role. Botox, Viagra, RLS meds, Valium, Xanax, Steroids, Hair growth products, Flu vaccines(maybe) Chantix, Wellbutrin, etc..
I must confess that I am merely trying to discredit your vote….and for that I am truly sorry. Now if you’ll excuse me I must get my UFO searching goggles on…I made them with tin-foil and an old pair of X-Ray vision glasses I bought from a comic book.

[ Edited: 09 August 2009 10:34 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
VYAZMA - 09 August 2009 10:16 AM

If someone knew there product to be “fake” or harmful, or covered up evidence from research, then this would be unethical.

True. But then, I have never been a big fan of ideals (e.i. ethics). As I said earlier, I’ll take bad over stupid any day. GSK may be acting unethically when producing nicotine patches that don’t work, and alt-med manufacturers behave “ethically” since they are (or if we assume they are) ignorant. Nastiness is dangerous but can be dealt with (e.g. FDA regulations in case of GSK), stupidity is also dangerous but very difficult to get rid of.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2