digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at betterbodyjournal.com

Big Pharma Companies Legally KIlling Middle Class Americans

betterbodyjournal.com — Every decade since 1980, deaths related to drug overdose have doubled. This huge increase in people dying is not because of a heroin or crack epidemic. It ’s not young, black people who are dying either. This increase in deaths is happening in the middle-aged, white demographic. Why? Read on to find out how big pharma companies are causing this.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bookmac, on 05/17/2008, -18/+8great info... thanks!
    • blademanx, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Look, just in case people don't seem to get this (and they don't considering how many of these comments pop up), I'm digging you down because this comment is useless. It adds nothing to the discussion and just comes across as someone wanting to mindlessly contribute.
    • Szandor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1A++++++++++ Will read again!
  • LewP, on 05/17/2008, -13/+6Dugg and submitted to the DDD.
  • Deliguy, on 05/17/2008, -7/+33you also got to take into account intentional abuse, nothing the pharm companies or doctors can do about that.
    • hairydotus, on 05/17/2008, -5/+6ya i don't know about you but I am currently in college and I know from experience that prescription drugs are one of the most popular forms of getting "***** up" (pardon the slang), for example taking xanex or klonopin and drinking 3 beers to get black out which could kill you, or using narcotics such as oxycotin, vicodin, oxycodone etc,. I know kids who fake depression or anxiety to get prescriptions to things like xanex and just sell the whole bottle. It's why this generation is being dubbed teh pharmy generation. Now i do take a prescription drug every day. I take prevacid because I have acid reflux and I have tried changing lifestyles by eating different foods but nothing worked accept this. i agree that some drugs are essentally a money making placebo but there are some truly effective drugs out there. Now that being said I have no problem with the amount of deaths coming from prescription drugs because with the amount of drugs and medecine keeping people alive, we need as much population control as we can get and that is why i am against any cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS and hope there will never be one
      • elShaggy, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3until you get cancer or AIDS right?

        And do you think Big Pharma and the Docs care? OK I am sure most doctors care if their patients wind up dead. But the pharmaceutical industry is like any other Big Business, the bottom line is the dollar no matter the damage caused.

        Herbal Remedies, Legalize it.
      • hairydotus, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3I totally agree that money is the driving factor behind these companies. But if their consumers keep dying who will buy the drugs thats why I don't think they are putting drugs on the market they know wiill kill people. and as far as teh first statement I truly believe that there should never be a cure for either of those diseases. Think of how overpopulated the planet is today, now imagine how many millions of other people would be on this planet if they did not die of these diseases. disease is natures way of controlling population. It can be seen all throughout nature for example parasites targeting specific species of insects in forests so that no one population gets out of hand. Modern medecine has prevented nature from controlling our population and therefore if i were ever stricken with one of these diseases I would accept it as natural. I'm not saying I would try to fight the disease but I would never ask for a cure.

        In the end at least there is one thing we agree on-herbal remedies
        • bjornski, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4I actually agree with some of that. Overppulation is a problem. Curing all of todays ills, WOULD have a huge impact on, well, everything. Cure all the disease? We can live up to 80? 90? 100? Heck, with machines now, we could be kept alive past the 100 year mark.

          Would it benefit anyone? Not really. Pulling Death off of his job at keeping the herd thinned, would actually be a bad thing.

          But then I also believe that suicide and euthanasia should be legalized. If someone WANTS to kill themselves, really, who are you to stop them? Terminally ill? Hell, LET them get an assited "nap"! It's a hell of a lot more humane than forcing them to stay alive, on machines of necessary, in great pain, until their body shuts down. This "save life at all costs" mentality is cruel if taken to these extremes.

          And even the mentally ill. Why fight like hell to keep them from taking a "nap" too? It's not your damned business. And from listening to the way everyone talks about them, there's the general feeling that many people would like to see them removed from society anyway. The crazy, the homeless, the destitute..... Know what? If someone wants to kill themselves, LET THEM. Why make them try slicing up their arms, hanging themselves from trees, or shooting oneself? Why not sign the forms, go into your doctors office, hook up and watch your movie. Press the button, and go to sleep. (yes, "Soylent Green" had it right).

          While it sounds cruel, hairydotus does have a point. People dying actually DOES benefit the "herd".

          So go ahead and cure AIDS/Cancer. But legalize doctor-assited suicide too. If you're helping one end of the spectrum, you almost have to help the other, or the scales get thrown out of whack.
      • BOFH2, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Umm yeah guess that is the point he was trying to make. Abuse of any drug is still abuse. I don't get the F'ed up feeling from most prescription drugs. I have had morphine(20mg), oxy, vic, tramadol, percocet, codeine and the only ones I have felt messed up on are things that get injected before surgery. I don't drink when I am on them, I don't mix different prescription I shouldn't and I have never gotten close to OD'ing. Guess the point I am trying to make is, water made you feel messed up people would OD on that too. yes I know you can drink too much water.
      • Szandor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I was with you till the last sentence. What the ***** is that all about?
    • hairydotus, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1Oh and to remark on the idea of accidental drug overdose. Nobody who uses drugs is trying to overdose unless they are suicidal, therefore accidental drug overdoses comes from people trying to get f-ed up and they take way to many. The only drug I know of that just taking one of would kill you is oxycotin and that's because it is pretty much heroin in the form of a pill
    • peachesrowdy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Seriously!?!? "against any cure for cancer........." ~ and what are you going to be when you grow up? ~
      • hairydotus, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3me I am studying wildlife biology and environmental science at the moment. And one day I hope to work in the field protecting endangered species. And yes I am against any cure for cancer. There are ways to prevent cancer. For example living a healthy lifestyle and eating foods known to fight cancer such as tomatoes, exercising and staying away from known carcinogens such as tobacco.
        • Lilitou, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4No, there is no way to prevent cancer. There are ways to reduce the likelihood that you'll get it, but that's not the same thing at all. Eating healthy foods will only take you so far, especially if you have a genetic predisposition.
        • jonnyeh, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Eating the right foods may only delay/avoid cancer, and even then it's a statistical chance. Supposedly tomatoes help prevent cancer. If you have a diet high in tomatoes, you'll on average be less likely to get cancer at a specific point in your life than someone else. You can't fully avoid it, no matter what. To argue otherwise is to blame the victim.
        • Di0genes, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3If you are trying to be edgy or provocative, it isn't working. You just come across as a belligerent, overly opinionated doofus.

          "Against any cure for cancer". That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read, even on the internet.
    • willdiggforfood, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Just in: Planned Parenthood legally killing lower class Americas
      • bjornski, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1That's intentional. Totally different.
  • UltramegaOK, on 05/17/2008, -8/+27"It’s not young, black people who are dying either. This increase in deaths is happening in the middle-aged, white demographic. Why?"


    Because a large majority of young people (especially minorities) don't have health insurance to get the prescription drugs that would kill them. Also, the fact that 1 in 9 black adult males are in jail doesn't help the situation in terms of class attainment.

    It's easy to blame the pharmaceutical companies, but look at the way we eat in America. Maybe if we changed our diets and exercised instead of spending our days trapped behind a desk our population would be far healthier.

    This "middle-class" lifestyle has afforded people the ability to believe that a pill can take care of every health ailment they have. We have a pill for almost everything now. The downfall with this is that people become exclusively reliant upon these pills for their health. The two major components to good health are Nutrition and Exercise. If you can manage to do those two things properly, you dramatically lower your risk for cancer and almost every disease you can think of.


    [Sources] - http://familiesusa.org/issues/minority-health/fact ...
    - http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/31/insu ...
    - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2223709.stm
    • CrazedLeper, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2So it wouldn't be a problem if the deaths were young, black people?
      • UltramegaOK, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Is that your conclusion? Please explain your reasoning.
        • MWeather, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5I've always found people less sympathetic of a young black male oding on heroin than they are of an old white woman oding on oxycontin.

          The black male is generally characterized as being the one at fault, whereas the white woman is the victim of pharmaceutical companies, as the lawsuits against Purdue Pharma can attest.

          You could also draw the conclusion from the demographics of each drug's abuse, and their relative sentencing.
        • CrazedLeper, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Thank you, MWeather. I don't suppose any further clarification is necessary.
  • chenyu768, on 05/17/2008, -2/+8Boycott!!!!
    oh wait they're not made in China
  • jasoninoakland, on 05/17/2008, -17/+8True, but, um, obvious to anyone who can put two and two together. This is just one example of how the "free market" screws our collective health.
    • MrWhite7, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2which would actually improve our gene pool and not cost me a dime if we had a free-market health.insurance system. But noooo people want to chop a wing off the dragon and then bitch when it doesn't fly.
      • bjornski, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1It would improve our gene pool even more if we didn't have ANY medical care.

        Can't adapt? You're gimpy? Get out of the pool!
    • peachesrowdy, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2My brother uses this quote often "the problem with the gene pool is there is no lifeguard"
    • twomeyw23334, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2FTA,
      “Mortality statistics suggest that these deaths are largely due to the misuse and abuse of prescription drugs.”
      I don't think the "free market" is to blame for 'misuse and abuse.' Maybe for creating more powerful drugs. It's also led to 3D MRI machines, robotic surgery and things like boob implants so it can't be that bad. Plus, I understand you're a leftist and hate 'free markets' and like to apply it to anything you think is bad, but the health industry is one of the most if not the most regulated industries in this country, so it's not really a good example for you to choose. Stay away from health, energy, and telecommunications, and tell me about how crappy the price and selection of something like hamburgers in America is.
  • v1c1ous, on 05/17/2008, -5/+31uhhh...wouldn't the rise in prescription drug use due to population growth have a direct effect on that demographic?

    i mean, i am completely sure more people use prescription drugs today than in the 1980s. also "“Mortality statistics suggest that these deaths are largely due to the misuse and abuse of prescription drugs". how are drug companies responsible for people not reading directions?

    this would be like saying "the sales of shaving blade sales risen since the 1970s; when people had hairier genitals. this has led to the gillette companies being responsible for sliced nuts while doing circus tricks"
    • Abomonog, on 05/17/2008, -5/+4Misuse and abuse does not necessarily mean overdoses due to getting high or not reading the label. There are drugs out there that can cause large amounts of damage to your body if you don't have the condition they were intended for. Some heart and liver medicines are good examples and they are prescribed quite often.
      • futzy99, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6How is the pharmaceutical company responsible for who their drugs are prescribed to? Doctors are the ones who are prescribing medication without the patient being in the condition the drug was intended for. The drugs work at what they were made to do. The headline of this article is just a ***** attention grabber. In the article, the author even says that most of the problem is with the people, not the pharmaceutical companies.
      • elipabst, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5Many of those new drugs that can cause damage if used improperly are saving the lives of thousands of people who use them correctly. Are we going to ban powerful drugs that are saving peoples lives in order to spare the lives of morons who abuse them illegally?
    • hairydotus, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Plain and simple the reason prescription drug related deaths are rising so dramatically is because of abuse. In the 60's it was all about psychedelics (which are still very popular) the 70's and 80's were cocaine and crack and now the most popular drugs are pharmies. with the exception of psychedelics pharmaceutical companies are creating the best forms of a "high" or a "low" that money can buy
    • wubblie, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0"how are drug companies responsible for people not reading directions?"

      They aren't. That is not what this is about. Perdue pharma lobbied the FDA (paid them off?) to let them sell oxycodone, even though it is simply heroin. Of course, no one could market heroin (though it would be worth $$$ because everyone would want it), because it is illegal. So Perdue made synthetic heroin, and put some binders in it, which they told the FDA would make abuse impossible. Of course, it took junkies about 30 seconds to realize all you have to do is crush the pill and snort it to get around the binders. Somehow, the FDA was not smart enough to forsee this? So, the question is, where they incompetent, or were they paid off? I used to work for a pharmacy company. The number of people abusing this drug is *staggering.* Of course, the pharmaceutical company is making millions off it, and they don't have to deal with the junkies, so it works for them.
  • ApathyDrive, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3This could also have to do with the massive pharmacist shortage that is predicted to last 10 years and the fact they being used to whore out their license to bag and sell medications (which can be done by pharmacist technicians and automated machinery) instead of being used to reconcile drug interactions and spending time educating the patients, physicians, and nurses while being compensated for it.
    • RxDaniel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1 Its true there is a huge shortage of pharmacists, but that is about the only part of what you said that I agree with. In the pharmacy I work in, one of the big national chains, the pharmacists almost never count out prescriptions unless there is another pharmacist working to check for drug interactions, or if it is just so slow there is nothing else for them to do(which is very rare). The only exception to that would be narcotics which the pharmacist is legally required to count themselves in my state.
      As for selling medications I assume you mean actually running the cash register. Our lead pharmacist is the only one of the three who has actually bothered to get a password to log into the cash registers and she almost never actually does it. In a pharmacy that is well run the technicians ARE the ones who count the prescriptions and run the cash register. Also any major pharmacy will always make sure that there is a pharmacist available to answer patient questions if for no other reason than to avoid a lawsuit.
      On a side note,as consumers people need to make sure they get all their prescriptions at the same pharmacy because that is the best way to avoid drug interactions, or at the very least ask the pharmacist if you do have to go to a different pharmacy.
    • Rxbrent, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1"spending time educating the patients, physicians, and nurses"

      I gladly educate those who wish it. Unfortunately the ones killing themselves (yes, killing themselves) know exactly what they are getting into or are so amazingly ignorant that no words could ever help them. There is one way to drastically cut back on the ignorant killing themselves. Outlaw drug reps and kickbacks. One simple law would end this massive BS perpetrated by Big Pharma and thousands of MD's out for only the peoples insurance payments. In the end Big Pharma isn't killing the people, they are only raping them of every last dollar. But not killing, the people would do that all on their own with or without the drugs.
  • bicyclethief, on 05/17/2008, -2/+41If erection lasts for more than four hours, please consult your physician.
    • SuperWinner, on 05/17/2008, -2/+15I have restless erection syndrome
    • mechagazoo15, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Ya know why they tell you that? Because if you don't do something about it, the pressure becomes too much, blood stops flowing correctly, and then your penis dies as if you had put a tourniquet on it. Fun stuff.
      • SuperWinner, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5Thanks Downy Downington... we were almost having some fun there for a minute.
      • jjohnstn, on 05/17/2008, -0/+8True, the actually have to slice into the penis to relieve the pressure, else it will burst.

        Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard-on.
        • bjornski, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6If you're too shy to talk to your doctor, you could try leeches to try bleeding off some of the pressure.

          Heck, some people might even get off on it.

          /ewwww
        • Nidy1, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Gross....where can I get leeches?
        • mechagazoo15, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1That's real classy, Nidy1.
    • expatcatalyst, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1As I was reading this I was thinking how RLS and ED have to be somehow related...lol
    • disappointment, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0If erection lasts for more than four hours, call more women.
  • MrSir, on 05/17/2008, -3/+10compared to other healthcare spending, pharmaceuticals are somehing like 10%, yet they usually the most economic of treatments, discounting just plain being healthy. But even so, not everyone can be healthy even though we are living that way. It's in our genes. Yes, I agree that a good number of meds are prescribed uselessly. lard ass mcgee can's just take a pill to make him healthy, and in "true depression" depression meds help, not in "oops i lost my job and my dog died" depression.

    Why do people on Digg always pick on pharm companies. No profit= no medicines, and we go back to the dark ages.
    • Murdats, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4because big <whatever> is evil and out to get us, EVIL I SAY.
      as soon as someone refers to something as big they are about to go on about how the are evil and conspiring to kill us all.
      big government, big pharma, big oil, etc.
    • Jekkonidae, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Saying it sarcastically doesn't make it any less true unfortunately.
    • jmoo1, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Another beat-up by Big internet
    • Dracon02271988, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1We pick on them because of their EVIL practices. Just recently Zyrtec went over the counter and also became available in a generic. So what do they do about it. They make a extremely small alteration to the drug that does absolutely nothing to change the drug but allows them to get a new patent and release a drug called Xyzal that they can charge name brand prices for. Every time a customer comes in with a script for it we wonder what kind of kick back the doctor prescribing it is getting. That and we tell the customer that they are buying overpriced medication and point them to the OTC stuff.

      Also, we have some generics that are made by the same company that makes the name brand, just so they can make more money. They don't even try to hide it. One such drug is Omnicef, a antibiotic. If you get the generic, called Cefdinir, and look at the capsule, it still says Omnicef right on it.

      I'm thankful to work in a privately owned pharmacy where we can tell the customers how evil drug companies are. We'll also tell the drug reps right to their face that they don't know what they're talking about.
      • GlassAgate, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3"I'm thankful to work in a privately owned pharmacy where we can tell the customers how evil drug companies are. We'll also tell the drug reps right to their face that they don't know what they're talking about."

        That sounds pretty ***** up to me.
  • nathanaver, on 05/17/2008, -4/+36This is the second incoherent rant I have read on this topic in the last week. First off, even though it is fun to demonize drug companies, they are responsible for most of the increase in life expectancy in the US since WWII. Secondly, these data are meaningless without pointing to specific drugs that people are overdosing on and for what reasons. People commit suicide using drug overdoses, people accidentally overdose on opiates, there are errors in hospitals, and there are people that are just careless or stupid and use alcohol with drugs that it interacts with. None of these reasons are the fault of the drug company, but all of them are included in these statistics.
    • bikepundit, on 05/17/2008, -0/+7Thank you, couldn't agree more. I also agree with the sentiment that the industry needs to be controlled, but not sued into oblivion. Do we really want to be dependent on foreign nations for our drug supply? Alot of people seem to be angry at us these days...
  • evodevo1, on 05/17/2008, -3/+24What a load of crap. I mean if you don't want to take the drug, don't take it, no one is forcing you to. You need to take charge of your own health care by becoming informed. All these accusations based on nothing more than speculation. "Misuse and abuse of prescription drugs"...come on, anything can be abused.

    Most people have no idea how complex your biology is. Although scientists try to target drugs to very specific pathways, almost all drug have some side effects because at this point in time, it is simply impossible to predict what other interactions a small molecule might have with some other component in your system. Taking a drug always involves weights its benefits vs its side effects.

    If you want to complain about a rip off, talk about the entire health supplement industry, which has absolutely no scientific research backing the products. Most don't have very good quality control either, and not regulated by the FDA.
    • hairydotus, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Ya i agree these companies don't want you to die because then they would have no one to buy their drugs. Their goal is to keep you alive as long as possible with the use of drugs to make as much money as possible. These deaths come mostly from misuse or unknown allergic reaction if you ask me. I mean I am in no way saying all these drugs are good for a person but it's pointless to worry about people that die from these drugs because you are not being forced to take them, people take them by their own free will and some people die from them. I happen to know a person who was on the team that created celebrex, he was my biology teacher in highschool (retired from the research field shortly after creating celebrex), He is one of the nicest people I have ever met and I could not imagine him willingly putting his name at stake for a drug that could cause heart attacks so most of these side effects that kill people I think come after long use in human subjects becasue we are after all much different than lab rats
  • DaDrake, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8Does this surprise anyone? The fact is, you won't be able to prevent people from overdosing unless you give them 1 pill prescriptions. Secondly, with a growing unhealthy population, the need for medicine has increased. Finally, a lot of these problems are caused by patients being less than honest with doctors and not showing up for an annual exam (yes you are fat... the doctor will not laugh at you... get over and SEE a doctor before it gets worst).

    But lets blame "big corporations" instead of expecting people to have some level of self-control.
  • cli006, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8So people ODing on drugs is the pharmaceutical company's fault? Oh ok, let's tell all the pill poppers out there in the US that it's not their fault.

    Compare the mortality rate 30 years ago with today's. People died a lot more and a lot sooner back then. Part of the reason we're living better, stronger, and longer today is because of the trillions pharmaceutical companies pour into research.

    No one forces you to buy OTC medicine.
    • hairydotus, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1agreed, 40 years ago people were blaming deaths on Marijuana, know we know its not really bad for you. 30 years ago it was cocaine, now it just happens to be manufactured drugs
  • Abomonog, on 05/17/2008, -5/+2Let this be a lesson to you all. Never buy drugs from a weird guy in a white coat that stands behind a counter. They're pushers I tell you. PUSHERS!
    • RxDaniel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Actually doctors are the pushers, we are just the suppliers. I always tell people I'm a drug dealer when they ask what I do for a living.
    • Abomonog, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1[Voice of Howard Cosell]: And yet another bout of sarcasm is totally missed by the audience at Digg.
  • SuperWinner, on 05/17/2008, -6/+3Restless leg syndrome, I knew big pharma was full of ***** ***** the first time I heard this made up *****..
    • guyincognitoo, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Actually that does exist and it's not fun. The pills they push for it are serious drugs though, there are other generic drugs you can take for it that have alot less side effects. Of course in my case, it is just another side effect of my multiple sclerosis.
    • newms32, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Brilliant, you're judging a medical syndrome while knowing nothing more about it than it's three-word name. Do you think hiccups are ***** too? They work by a similar mechanism.
  • Kranklin, on 05/17/2008, -4/+1Wouldn't that be the middle class killing themselves??
  • sthulbourn, on 05/17/2008, -7/+2Frankly, if they're stupid enough to take an overdose, they deserve it.
  • Typhoon2009, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3I used to be on a mood stabilizer pill. Not quite a full on anti-depressant but it was supposed to have the same effect. I was on it for 3 years before dropping it (with approval of the doctor; going cold turkey on meds like these can be risky sometimes). It's been 2 years since, and I've been fine. Maybe the pills 'cured' me, I don't know, but all I know is that I've gone along fine without the medicine. The only prescription medication I take now is for acne (I have it really bad).
    • RxDaniel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1If its Accutane they have you on for the acne I'm surprised they let someone with any history of depression or even just mood swings use it. Some politicians kid committed suicide after taking it for a very short amount of time, so they decided it causes depression and thoughts of suicide. If thats not what your taking and your acne doesn't clear up you should ask about it, it's the only thing that ever helped with my acne. Plus unlike a lot of medications it is actually a cure not a treatment. As for the depression it supposedly causes I've never had anybody say they experienced anything like that. If anything it made me happier because it got rid of my acne. I'm not trying to push you into using it, I just know what its like to have bad acne.
      • Typhoon2009, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1minocycline... way way WAY less intense than accutane. I'm kinda inclined to use it (also, I was diagnosed with 'mild adjustment disorder' or some *****, whatever it was the doctor said it was the least of the least severe diagnoses) but I'd rather pursue options like laser or blue light therapy.
  • Memnochxx, on 05/17/2008, -8/+15Everything in this article is *****. Buried.
    • yingjai, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Where's your argument for that opinion? Calling ***** with no proof doesn't make you right.
      • Memnochxx, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I'm not gonna go through point by point. Read some of the other comments if you want to know specifics.
  • SuperWinner, on 05/17/2008, -3/+7Isn't it interesting that they will spend a billion dollars to make and promote a drug that simply maintains the symptoms of a disease at a more acceptable level, instead of investing in a drug that might sure the disease altogether? There is no money to be made off curing people, is there...?
    • HalfBrian, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2There's much much more money to be made by curing people, but it is not that easy. If it would be possible to cure some of these terrible things (like AIDs, depression, etc), some person looking for a quick buck would make the cure and sell it (taking down the big pharma companies).

      Unfortunately, cures usually don't exist via pill form.
    • RxDaniel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2There are plenty of medications that cure diseases. You can't easily cure things like high blood pressure because either the person continues to eat unhealthy food or it is caused by some genetic factor. You either have to make a pill that controls a persons eating habits, or one that mutates their DNA. People don't understand how hard it is to actually cure something. Treating diseases is easier because you can just make something that does the opposite of what the disease does and they balance out.
    • Topheh, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0As someone working on disease research (from an academic perspective, not a industry one), I agree entirely with HB and RxD. We're trying really hard to solve the underlying problems, but its a LOT easier to point to the symptoms and say 'we dont want this getting any worse' and figure out how to do that then it is to actually cure the underlying disease.

      I mean, think about how silly that statement is. Are you telling me that in a highly competitive market, a company is going to sit on a CURE for a disease (which would have to be in pill form, theres no way to cure an adult permanatly (yet), becuase they want to duke it out with the other companies? Of course not. They're going to bring their product to market and watch as they get ALL the customers... since being cured is much better than being maintained.
  • Angaino, on 05/17/2008, -0/+8Is anybody else bothered by the broad, sweeping generalizations used in this article? There has got to be at least half a dozen of the things mentioned in the previous story (http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spo ... submitted less than 3 hours prior. I'm not arguing FOR drug companies, but hey, should statements like "A good portion of the drugs that make up the multi-billion dollar industry of pharmaceuticals are simply doing nothing, if not making us worse." really be front page worthy? This statement doesn't say anything and doesn't even have the 'rigorous' citations of forbes.com like another statement. I agree with some of the opinions, but this is so far from a real argument (sorry, logically sound, defensible argument) that it hardly deserves the name. Get a real source and not some random blog entry.
    • SuperWinner, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Generally, I'm not bothered by generalizations...
  • jmpeagle, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1most Pharma marketing is through "detailing" (marketing to doctors) not straight to consumer advertising. As the average age of a population increases, the chance of a chronic disorder developing increases meaning we will need more and more drugs. Advertisers are more concerned with capturing market share from rivals than increasing the size of the market. There's a pretty good working paper right now called "Predatory Advertising: Theory and Evidence in the Pharmaceutical Industry" that discusses all this. I think it is available to people not on university grounds. My only problem with it is part of their modeling with the assumption that advertising of firm 1 monotonic in firm 2's market share. That seems to be a very very big assumption.
  • BestJaxx, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5People are too gullible. You shouldn't take prescription drugs unless you truly need them, and if you aren't sure if you do or not, than you don't.
    • RxDaniel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2If that was true we wouldn't need doctors. I understand what you are trying to say but the way you are saying it could be very dangerous. The real problem is finding a doctor you can trust, which is getting harder and harder these days. I'm not saying doctors don't care about their patients health, just that a lot of them will either prescribe something because they feel like it is expected. For some reason people feel like they aren't getting their money's worth if a doctor doesn't prescribe something.
    • newms32, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0Um, so nobody is undiagnosed?
  • Elderon, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2What is with some of these comments. People are like, well no one forced them to take it, or it's not the companies fault that people don't read the labels. Yes, that's a valid point, but isn't it a bit hypocritical that you say that to defend the big drug companies, but OH MY GOD smoked some cannabis or ectasy or whatever and people think you're the devil and you should die or be locked up.
    • olddirtycr, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Maybe the people who are defending the companies are the ones who also use drugs??? Way to assume.
    • RxDaniel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1How is that hypocritical in any way? In both cases you put the blame on the person putting the substance into their body. If anything it would be hypocritical to blame drug abusers in one case and NOT in the other. Were you high when you wrote that argument? I even read that like 5 times because it didn't make any sense.
  • Wholekernalcorn, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1 Who's forcing these people to buy these drugs anyway? If you want to fukc yourself up , it's your choice. People make stuff, other people buy it. You can die on a bicycle either from something running into you or a heart attack....does that mean we blame the bicycle manufacturer?
  • Natnie, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6 Overdose is the operative word... so these dolts are taking more than what their doctor told them, and dying. Whose fault is that? It's not the fact that 46% of Americans take at least 1 pill a day. Sometimes, those pills are actually needed! You've got HRT for post-menopausal females which helps prevent osteoporosis, anti-anxiety meds for those people that have trouble leaving the house each day, birth control pills for a variety of reasons not limited to contraception, meds for cholesterol or the heart, etc (you know, so they don't die and stuff)... the list goes on. These things are fully justified.
  • MadEnvoy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4Mmmm, percodan.
  • tehmacuser, on 05/17/2008, -5/+6This is something I've never really discussed, but I thought it was relevant simply because of the seemingly overwhelming pill-pushing that modern Pharma is doing.

    I was diagnosed with ADD as a small child because of my inability to perform well in school. Some friends thought it might've been caused by emotional trauma when my parents divorced, but I'll never really be sure. Either way, I was given ADD medication between the ages of 10-16, and took Adderall, Ritalin, and Strattera. My parents noticed that stimulants (Adderall and Ritalin) caused me to be out of place and zoned-out, while I barely even felt like anything had changed. The worst part was the side effects; I would have terrible problems eating, and it felt like I was forcing myself to eat. During this time, I lost about 30 pounds over 2 years, which my parents chocked up to a teenage growth spurt. It wasn't. At 13 I looked borderline emaciated. My parents decided to try a new, non-stimulant medication, Strattera.

    The idea was that Strattera was a new medication that would help prevent any painful side effects that I had before, but I wound up having more than I did before. I had strange side effects all over my body, and I didn't even realize it was Straterra that was doing it.

    Eventually, at 16 I got fed up with it, and secretly stopped taking my medication (at the time, my parents made sure I did). My grades got BETTER, and I felt better.

    I told my doctor about the side effects I had, which encompassed many psychological and physical changes that are difficult to explain, along with my improved physical and mental health and I stopped taking Straterra altogether.

    I haven't taken ADD medication for over 2 years now, and I have never done better in school. I went from a 2.4 GPA to a 3.5 in less than one year, and I know it's because ADD medications don't work. Very few people I've spoken with fix more issues than they create through side effects. Because of it, I very vehemently speak out against drugging kids whenever I talk to parents about ADD/ADHD.

    If you have kids, please consider their health, and understand that your doctor isn't a psychiatrist, and even then, psychiatrists are paid to give force pills on you. You're more than capable of dealing with ADD without medication, I'm proof of it.
    • olddirtycr, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Not being hungry is a side affect, a lower dose may help. Considering many kids currently buy their buddy's adderall and ritalin to help them do homework and study, shows that it does what it was intended to do. Just because something doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it doesnt work for other people. There are many people with a legitiment ADD problem and it helps them greatly.
      • roflbrothel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I definitely have a legitimate ADD problem and I had all the side effects this guy is talking about.

        Just because it works for some people, doesn't mean it's ***** others up, or worse yet, ***** most of them up.
    • hypermog, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2I was diagnosed with ADHD in the fourth grade. I'm 25 now, and my personal experience is that the medication helps me a lot.
    • roflbrothel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3I had a pretty similar experience to this guy, I was on Ritalin from a very early age to about 16. During that time I was socially stunted, zoned out, barely ate, underweight, and pretty weak. If I ran my heart would skip beats.

      I stopped taking the medication, maintained my grades, became healthier, and became friendly again. Parents don't seem to notice what this ***** does to their kids. If you're feeding this ***** to your children, pay closer attention, they may be going through what we went through.

      Maybe they aren't, but if they are you owe it to them to reevaluate the situation or you're a ***** parent and if they aren't, it can't hurt to pay closer attention to what's going on with your children.
    • guyincognitoo, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1ADD is mis-diagnosed alot. If you don't actually have it, the drugs will do things like that.
    • newms32, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1"You're more than capable of dealing with ADD without medication, I'm proof of it."
      You don't have ADHD; it's massively misdiagnosed and you're proof of that.

      As someone who actually has ADHD, I get infuriated when someone makes broad statements condemning medication based on public hype instead of medical knowledge. Undiagnosed until 21, I was put on Dexedrine a few months ago and it's turned my life around for the better. Pulling up the bootstraps doesn't work for some people even when they try. Maybe if my parents had medicated me I wouldn't have had to wait this long to have a solution to a big problem in my life.
    • piltdownman, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all.
  • stanfy86, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Havnt the deaths increased as a result of population growth? i mean surly the amount of people in the US has doubled since 1980, so that would account for at least some if not all of the deaths.....that and the state of the medical system in the US
  • pyronik, on 05/17/2008, -2/+12"Big Pharma" gets a bad rap but do you realize how many drugs they give away? It's utterly staggering. Any time there is a major catastrophe or humanitarian crisis they are donating money. Also for people who bitch about their profits, do you realize how much money it cost to create a new prescription drug. Any drug that is deemed to have potential whether it becomes a success or not cost over $800 million dollars to produce. If you are going to risk $800 million dollars don't you think if you succeed you should get the fruits of your labor. But you digg morons have no idea what that means to a company, you just see large numbers and scream greedy pharma. You think that people... not you of course(you should be able to lead your life smoking pot and working at mcdonalds) should just spend all their money to do make the drugs for you. I am sorry but if these companies risk large sums of money and make large profit margins then thats fantastic for them. Hell thats good for me cause guess what they use the money for....plowing back into R&D. Not only that but they treat their employees like gold.
    • HalfBrian, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Thanks you so much... I was waiting for someone to say that.

      "Big Pharma" spends so much on R&D that it isn't even funny (but it is useful). And they offer many programs for those that can't afford meds.

      Now Generic companies don't do any research and "steal" research done by actual drug companies. {sarcasm} Talk about giving back to your community {/sarcasm}
      • rudeboy70, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Steal? Generic drug companies have to wait for products to come off patent before they can copy them; just like in any other industry. And no R&D? So when did the FDA stop accepting ANDA's without any research?
    • isaactwito, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1I agree that drug companies should be given credit for what they do contribute, but there are serious issues with them. The ridiculous price of medicine, in addition to the health insurance you invariably need, could easily be brought to a reasonable level. My father is a psychiatrist and can I tell you that while growing up I saw how the drug companies really push doctors to sell their products. They offer conferences all over the world, free tickets to all kinds of events, and other promotions. Most doctors refuse these and consider it unethical to accept them. This is why socializing medicine would be excellent for our country, but let's not argue about that now.
      • bastiphan, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Welcome to the business world.
      • pyronik, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1"The ridiculous price of medicine, in addition to the health insurance you invariably need"

        The price they charge is appropriately proportionate to the level of risk they incur to produce those drugs. If that didn't charge those amounts, well, they wouldn't be able to survive long term

        "My father is a psychiatrist and can I tell you that while growing up I saw how the drug companies really push doctors to sell their products."

        I have actually seen this process done in real life, they do in fact "push" their product as sales men, but these are government approved drugs, and the "facts" about them are already public record... the idea of pushing the drug forward is alright because its basically different pharma companies pushing the positive aspects of their drugs compared to other drugs... for example I saw some rozerem or however you spell it... reps pushing that drug over lunesta for sleep aid because rozerum pushed people into a more normal sleep cycle. With the amount of training the sales reps get with their products they usually know them much better than the doctors. The doctors don't create the drugs they just have a general inclination of the efficacy and side effects due to the number of patients they see. Its not unethical unless they know first hand that the drug doesn't work like it says its suppose to.

        "This is why socializing medicine would be excellent for our country, but let's not argue about that now."

        If you could explain to me how socializing medicine would improve the situation I'd love to hear it. I don't know the end all financial and economic impacts of socialized medicine, and I study the subject, but I do know its more complicated than a one unsubstantiated sentence can explain. I ask'ed the CFO of UPMC (university of pittsburgh medical center) the same question and he didn't know the impact of socialized medecine on UPMC, thus if your making claims that socialized medecine is the end all cure for the United States I hope your analysis includes the fact that if you clip the companies ability to make profits you reduce the money the plow back into to their company to produce more products... this is a fundamental part of the industry. I'm trashed and am going to bed... if my spelling or grammer is off please forgive. Night folks
        • isaactwito, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Three points of yours I'd like to clear up. It seems like you completely miss the what I was trying to say about the ethics of doctors being, in essence, bribed by the drug companies. It's not that the doctors are being told to prescribe something that doesn't work, what drug companies try to do is get doctors thinking more about their product than anyone else's. The problems arise if a doctor chooses to prescribe some drug just because they're more inclined to think about it because they went on a trip to Hawaii that was sponsored by whoever made that drug. This could incline a doctor to prescribe something that may not be as effective for a certain patient than a competitor's drug.
          Secondly, the doctors know much better than the drug companies what drug works well for what situation. Drug company representatives may know more about their products, but not when practically compared to other drugs when actually used. If you are a practicing doctor for 20-30 some year, you would have a really good grasp on what you prescribe. Doctor's are bright, you have to remember.
          To address your statements about socialized medicine, I'm not saying it would be the "end all cure for the United States", and I never said anything even remotely close to that. I believe socialized medicine would be good for the nation because it's completely unethical to say that one person should live over another because some people can't afford the ridiculous prices of medical treatment in this country. There would be no economic fall through in the drug industry. Government funding (a big part of socialized medicine you might have forgotten about) would aid in developing new drugs, researching drugs, and producing drugs, so there would be little damage to the drug industries. Talk to any medical professional and they'll tell you that they don't like having to turn away people who need medical help just because of money. I'm by no means an expert on medicine, but if there's a choice between upping the profits of medical companies or saving the lives of many needy people, I'd say save the people. Hell, I'll even take the heat from the pharmaceutical companies if you want, send them to me and I'll deal with their complaints. Also it's complete ***** that they charge reasonable prices, everyone knows it, and it's not like their profits will tank if they charge less, they would appeal to a much wider demographic of users. I have nothing against big companies making loads of money unless it's at the expense of a whole bunch of people, which this is.
    • Topheh, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0to expand on pyronik's point:

      Drugs are amazingly expensive to research and produce, especially once you get into the trials. An example, from my bioethics class:



      For every good drug idea, 90% will never get to clinical trials. Costs are low (animal studies are easy), but... pharma probably spends a good 1-10 million on each (depending on whether its in-house or they're buying up another company, etc).
      So... 50 mil in, maybe 5 mil are useful... waste of 45 mil.


      80-90% of the ones left fail sometime during clinical trials, resulting in somewhere between 10-800 million dollars in losses for the company (25% are low, between 10-100mil, 50% are in the 100-600 range and another 25% are in the 600-800 range. Generaly, all these are skewed towards the higher end of the range, too).
      So... 4 billion in, and maybe 1.6 billion (assuming working drugs cost the full 800 million) proves fruitful. 3.4 billion completely wasted.

      So, by the time a drug has come to market, roughly 2-4 billion dollars are riding on it (assuming an 80-90% failure rate, so 1-2 successful drugs in 10 trials) Note that at this point, only 1 or 2% of the initial drug canidates are left.

      Now, the good part
      Of those drugs that finally get to market, only about 10% will become popular enough to make a profit compared to thier own cost of production (800 million). So its very, very important for the drug companies to get money from these drugs, since that one drug basically has to support the rest of the drug production.

      So, 0.1-0.2% of the drugs that start the whole process eventually make a profit for the company. And you wonder why they want to get as much money as they can from those drugs :)

      This is why the 'me-too' drugs are so popular (different formulations, etc)... minimal production costs (definitely safe, underlying idea works, etc) and the ability to a) keep a copyright b) increase the price a little c) improve their product and d) steal from their competitors and get a share of the market without much risk.

      Is it ideal? No. Free drugs would be wonderful. Unfortunately, thats just not reasonable.



  • hypermog, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1This increase in deaths is happening in the middle-aged, white demographic????

    NOW I am interested.
  • scotticus, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1"In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported(1) that drug overdoses killed 33,000 people ...."
    "In 2005, drug deaths were second only car accidents (44,000 people killed) in the category of accidental deaths."

    That's not that much, and those statistics are meaningless unless they're put into context.

    Like... what kinds of drugs? Are they drugs of abuse? (Oxycontin, opiods, etc.) How many people have -benefited- from these or other drugs? If everyone drives cars, and if everyone takes drugs, then the take home message is that drugs are safer than traveling in a car. Why doesn't the article read "transportation industry legally killing Americans"????
  • wattersm, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5I love how the article makes it sound OK if it was black people instead. Buried for being a poorly researched, undocumented piece of crap.
  • noctu, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2getting fat and becoming indifferent has its price.
  • snagglefoof, on 05/17/2008, -2/+0The subject is good and has a great point, but the article is written awfully.
  • visiblepulse, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2want the whole story on big pharma? take a look at this playlist.
    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=24CDEAF8C3 ...
  • nusuni, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4I'm all for telling people to get off their asses and exercise, but why blame companies because people make bad PERSONAL decisions? It is your own choice to take the pills.

    Oh wait, I forgot this is Digg. Everyone here thinks companies are to blame for all of the world's problems. I guess personal responsibility is a foreign idea to most Diggers.

    Go ahead and Digg me down, you know you want to.
  • Tipperzack, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5During the 80s there some law "couldn't find it" that open the flood gates for prescription drugs to be adverted like normal ads.
    This could be one of the things that added up to the problem we read about now.
  • gryphon50, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Let's face it, you can't cheat your way to good health by taking a pill. If people just ate well, exercised, stopped working so much overtime, got eight hours of sleep, etc. you would be doing so much better than with the meds. Oh, and raise your own kids instead of dumping them on everyone else and then giving them Ritalin. I think ADD is so over-diagnosed it's ridiculous.
  • HanSolo69, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Well, someone has to take out the trash.
  • FLMarijuana, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5And people think marijuana is dangerous, Pffffft.
    • roflbrothel, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1MARIJUANA WILL MAKE YOU RUN OVER CHILDREN WHILE PRANK-ORDERING AT DRIVE THROUGH WINDOWS! IT'S TRUE! I'VE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES!!!
  • SolipsismX, on 05/17/2008, -0/+10As somebody that has RLS, I can confirm that the disease is NOT made up as the article has suggested.
    • aMammoth, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1Get out and exercise.
      • krazikamikaze, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I hope if you get cancer your doctor refuses to give you chemo and just tells you to exercise more.
    • slightlygifted, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4he doesnt have it though so it cant exist!
  • monsterette, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2....maybe this article should be taped on prescription drugs when they are issued...
    • RxDaniel, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1People obviously don't read the directions and warnings that could save their life when they get prescriptions, why would they read this?
  • aMammoth, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3The thing about the kids with ADD is so true. You feed them pure sugar, then you expect a 6 year old to sit through 7 hours of class a day. Since they're not compliant since they're little kids with a huge sugar rush, they put them on ADD meds, which then turns them into drones.
    • Di0genes, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/children/9911/22/diet.su ...
      Sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity. However, as mentioned in the link:
      "Some factors associated with hyperactivity include:
      # Temperament
      # Emotional disturbances
      # Learning disorders (such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder)
      # Sleep problems"
    • linuxpenguin, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1As Di0genes said, sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity. Stimulants do, but ADHD drugs are stimulants - stimulants have the reverse effect on people with ADHD (to a certain degree). ADHD drugs don't turn you into drones, either.
      Also. . . that's why they have recess - to let the kids burn off their energy. I hear they're taking recess out of many schools, but IMO that's more likely to cause the kids to be even more wild.
  • peachesrowdy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Babies don't come from their mother's womb eating tomatoes, smoking cigarettes and doing 30 minutes of cardio. There is a population of which you speak that has cancer and couldn't prevent it.
  • robberry, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4We have to do something. Our white children are dying.
  • debuffplx, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Well someone has to curb exponential population growth. Why not make money while doing it?
  • BoomShake007, on 05/17/2008, -0/+13Buried as inaccurate, fatally flawed logic.
  • Mattwdj, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3the benefits out way the risks by soo much. I would also argue that the majority of these are people whom abuse oxycotin and other opiates.
    The reason they earn huge profits, is becuase they are needed and improve people lifes. Furthermore, almost all of their profits go back into R&D to develop new drugs. What many people don't realize is the huge cost associated with creating a new drug. That is also why the advertise so much because after the FDA approves a drug there is about 10 years left on the patent, so basically the Drug companies have to earn all that money plus profits back with in 10 years.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.