Four Corners investigate Australia’s vitamins and supplement’s industry

[abys]

That episode got pulled from repeat as well as ABC online streaming. The doctor also got let go.

The people interviewed in that episode were all bias toward the sale or alternative sales to statins. Glad to see the ABC clamping down on junk science.

The preponderance of HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed, published studies in PubMed show no life extension benefit at all from statins. There are a very small number of groups that show any disease benefit, and that benefit is extremely small.

On the other hand, statins are known - again through peer-reviewed research on PubMed - to destroy the activity of CoQ10 and cause significant health side effects.

The doctor got let go because drug companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars made legal threats.

We are quickly approaching a day when there will be no free speech, even when the speech is founded in very good science. Soon the government and the regulatory authorities will start policing your thoughts, everything you type into a computer, and every protest you have against big corporations who have bought off the entire political system and are stronger than the government. Welcome to 1984. It's coming to a country near you, soon.

 

[abys]

There's no evidence that statins taken for primary prevention have improved mortality outcomes for patients.

Yes you're less likely to die of a heart attack but more likely to die of dementia, liver failure or a host of other nasty statin side effects and are statistically PROVEN to not live any longer.

Yet millions of people are prescribed statins for primary prevention.

Every word of the above is true. But it is even worse than that. In the US, for example, the doctors are PAID MONEY by the insurance company every time they prescribe a statin. The insurance company then receives a kickback from the drug company. That is why every time you show any level of high cholesterol nearly every doctor is trained like a chihuahua on a leash to tell you "well, we better think about putting you on a statin."

Everything in health care has become about these monstrously-large corporations spending hundreds of millions to get drug approvals, then cramming them down peoples' throats using unbelievably large marketing budgets and morally bankrupt compensation practices to insurance companies and doctors.

 

[Bazza20]

GPs aren't even allowed to accept a free pen from drug companies anymore but keep pushing this bullshit that GPs are all payed off.

People love talking about the billions drug companies make but they are too stupid to realize these alternative supp companies are making the same billions. Lol. These natural supp companies also have multi million dollar marketing budgets. They just get to sell shit without the research on safety or efficacy. Nice gig if you can get it.

 

[abys]

GPs aren't even allowed to accept a free pen from drug companies anymore but keep pushing this bullshit that GPs are all payed off.

People love talking about the billions drug companies make but they are too stupid to realize these alternative supp companies are making the same billions. Lol. These natural supp companies also have multi million dollar marketing budgets. They just get to sell shit without the research on safety or efficacy. Nice gig if you can get it.

I said in the US, where this practice is rampant:
www DOT cbsnews DOT com/news/does-your-doc-have-ties-to-big-pharma-how-youll-be-able-to-find-out/

From that article:

"It's illegal to give kickbacks to a doctor to prescribe drugs, but it is legal to give money to doctors to help promote your drug. Some doctors make tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year beyond their normal practice just for working with the industry."

 

[Bazza20]

I said in the US, where this practice is rampant:
www DOT cbsnews DOT com/news/does-your-doc-have-ties-to-big-pharma-how-youll-be-able-to-find-out/

From that article:

"It's illegal to give kickbacks to a doctor to prescribe drugs, but it is legal to give money to doctors to help promote your drug. Some doctors make tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year beyond their normal practice just for working with the industry."

Lol.

 

[abys]

People love talking about the billions drug companies make but they are too stupid to realize these alternative supp companies are making the same billions. Lol. These natural supp companies also have multi million dollar marketing budgets. They just get to sell shit without the research on safety or efficacy. Nice gig if you can get it.

First, supplement companies work under tighter margins and have competition. So at least you don't have economic monopolies where the drugs cost you $150K AUD per year.

Second, it's true that supplement companies have no strict regulatory requirements for safety or efficacy. That means people have to do their own research and they stop buying your product if they do not feel it was efficacious. The alternative is to make these companies spend 10 years and $200M AUD to get safety and efficacy studies done.

Most drugs and supplements do not do much to extend your life. This is basically a choice between free market and extremely expensive regulation that results in economic monopoly. This is a complex problem and either the regulated or unregulated solution has risks and benefits.

 

[Bazza20]

First, supplement companies work under tighter margins and have competition. So at least you don't have economic monopolies where the drugs cost you $150K AUD per year.

Second, it's true that supplement companies have no strict regulatory requirements for safety or efficacy. That means people have to do their own research and they stop buying your product if they do not feel it was efficacious. The alternative is to make these companies spend 10 years and $200M AUD to get safety and efficacy studies done.

Most drugs and supplements do not do much to extend your life. This is basically a choice between free market and extremely expensive regulation that results in economic monopoly. This is a complex problem and either the regulated or unregulated solution has risks and benefits.

The regulations are out there to protect people too stupid to understand they don't know what they don't know.

Alt supp companies will sell anything that makes a dollar. It has nothing to do with safety or efficacy. They happily sell billions of dollars worth of stuff proven to do zero. If you are looking for the bullshit. Look there first.

You are trying to have it both ways. Claiming medical drug companies are only out to make a dollar but alternative supp companies are fine to sell stuff and it's up to people to do the research. Can't have it both ways buddy.

 

[abys]

The regulations are out there to protect people too stupid to understand they don't know what they don't know.

Alt supp companies will sell anything that makes a dollar. It has nothing to do with safety or efficacy. They happily sell billions of dollars worth of stuff proven to do zero. If you are looking for the bullshit. Look there first.

You are trying to have it both ways. Claiming medical drug companies are only out to make a dollar but alternative supp companies are fine to sell stuff and it's up to people to do the research. Can't have it both ways buddy.

I'm not claiming it both ways. I think both types of companies sell lots of unproven and unnecessary chemicals.

What I believe is that people must have freedom of choice in such issues. Part of freedom is that it allows you to make bad decisions.

If you restrict all freedom to "protect" the stupid person, you end up both with no freedom and also with no protection. Because in a regulated environment the system becomes about how to force feed stupid people lots of expensive chemicals they don't actually need, in order to make money for drug companies and all parts of the food chain they pay off.

 

[showdownhero]

Lol.

What's so funny?

 

[Bazza20]

I'm not claiming it both ways. I think both types of companies sell lots of unproven and unnecessary chemicals.

What I believe is that people must have freedom of choice in such issues. Part of freedom is that it allows you to make bad decisions.

If you restrict all freedom to "protect" the stupid person, you end up both with no freedom and also with no protection. Because in a regulated environment the system becomes about how to force feed stupid people lots of expensive chemicals they don't actually need, in order to make money for drug companies and all parts of the food chain they pay off.

Yes you are saying you want freedom for the alt supp companies but more restriction on evil big drug companies. That's wanting it both ways.

You are complaining about statins but don't seem to have an issue with the millions of health claims by the supp industry.

I haven't looked into it but im sure there are companies who have money invested in both standard medical drugs and alt supps. People try and claim "big pharma" is this evil money making thing and that the supp companies are fine because people should do the research.

Not many people have the time or brains to go through dozens or hundreds or research papers on one supp and then come to the correct conclusion about using wether they should use it. That why there should be regulations.

 

[abys]

Yes you are saying you want freedom for the alt supp companies but more restriction on evil big drug companies. That's wanting it both ways.

You are complaining about statins but don't seem to have an issue with the millions of health claims by the supp industry.

No, actually, what I want is a system with less regulation and more competition and more freedom of choice. Specific to drug companies, I would like a system where the regulatory authorities can mandate safety testing (which typically costs a drug company around $20M AUD) but leave the efficacy testing to the marketplace to figure out. It's these efficacy tests - and particularly the hideous "Phase III" testing of the US FDA - that cost drug companies 10 years and more than $100M to wiggle through.

I don't want more regulation stopping drug companies from bribing doctors. Rather, I want a system in which so many new good drugs constantly come out of drug companies that there are significant price pressures on drugs like statins, and further there are so many good technical options that doctors will not feel trapped into giving those prescriptions.

Not many people have the time or brains to go through dozens or hundreds or research papers on one supp and then come to the correct conclusion about using wether they should use it. That why there should be regulations.

You are right this is difficult. You are also right that most people don't have time or knowledge to navigate this. But unfortunately when you leave your fate in the hands of regulators, you get an even worse result. You end up being fed to commercial forces, economic monopolies, etc. And you end up with drugs that do not actually improve lifespan and that barely affect health outcomes. In the bigger picture, you slow down innovation dramatically and you kill far more people from denying them new technology than you save from having a neurotic perfectionist knowledge of efficacy.

 

[Bazza20]

No, actually, what I want is a system with less regulation and more competition and more freedom of choice. Specific to drug companies, I would like a system where the regulatory authorities can mandate safety testing (which typically costs a drug company around $20M AUD) but leave the efficacy testing to the marketplace to figure out. It's these efficacy tests - and particularly the hideous "Phase III" testing of the US FDA - that cost drug companies 10 years and more than $100M to wiggle through.

I don't want more regulation stopping drug companies from bribing doctors. Rather, I want a system in which so many new good drugs constantly come out of drug companies that there are significant price pressures on drugs like statins, and further there are so many good technical options that doctors will not feel trapped into giving those prescriptions.



You are right this is difficult. You are also right that most people don't have time or knowledge to navigate this. But unfortunately when you leave your fate in the hands of regulators, you get an even worse result. You end up being fed to commercial forces, economic monopolies, etc. And you end up with drugs that do not actually improve lifespan and that barely affect health outcomes. In the bigger picture, you slow down innovation dramatically and you kill far more people from denying them new technology than you save from having a neurotic perfectionist knowledge of efficacy.

Ridiculous. The regulations are there for a reason.

Leaving it up to the market place does not determine efficacy. Just look at the thousands of ineffective supps being sold every day.

Much of the testing is done for safety. You want to leave it up to the market and people dying to determine if a drug should be sold or taken from the market.

Innovation won't occur if you can just sell any old piece of shit and let the market work out if its effective. You just keep finding the next product make some claims then sell it. That's just selling shit, not innovation. Just look at the supp industry.

 

[abys]

Ridiculous. The regulations are there for a reason.

Leaving it up to the market place does not determine efficacy. Just look at the thousands of ineffective supps being sold every day.

Much of the testing is done for safety. You want to leave it up to the market and people dying to determine if a drug should be sold or taken from the market.

Innovation won't occur if you can just sell any old piece of shit and let the market work out if its effective. You just keep finding the next product make some claims then sell it. That's just selling shit, not innovation. Just look at the supp industry.

I already said I would preserve safety testing for drugs, and immediately you talk about the need for safety testing. Come on, read. I would preserve safety testing.

The marketplace innovates and determines efficacy of supplements very well. That's why there are 10 forms of magnesium being sold by 30 different sellers, and there are very good product reviews that examine those and verify contents. If you made magnesium a regulated substance, you would end up with two sellers and the price would be 200 times higher. Ultimately it would not become safer, or more efficacious, but it would become much more expensive. I'm aware of nutritional supplements that sell for 50 cents per gram in unregulated markets and the same exact chemical in regulated markets sells for $300 per gram.

We will never agree on the underlying philosophical difference here. You believe in government and you believe in big brother watching out for you. I don't. I believe the system is owned by corrupt corporations and the laws designed to protect us get misused to engorge large corporations, while delivering no net benefit to the customers for drugs.

 

[steveP]

Like Bazza said, you can't have it both ways. If you leave it up to the market to determine what works/doesn't or even what should be sold, people will exploit others to make a buck. 100%, no buts.

I think I'm getting a whiff of an anti-vaxxor.

 

[spartacus]

yes free markets, but with appropriate regulation, as always.

 

[Stiffy]

I remember buying a tub of protein off a guy at the gym called Metamorphosis back at the start of the 90's. He said he would pick me some up from a shop in London cause it was near where he worked. I asked him next time I saw him in the gym if he wanted the cash and he got all paranoid and told me to put the money back in my pocket and he would bring the powder to my house not to the gym. He acted like it was like it was some sort of drug deal, pretty sure he was selling other stuff too and didn't want the gym owner to kick him out. Safe to say the protein tasted like glue and din't help me morph into anything!!

Wasn't that because the Protein Powders back then were Egg Protein?

I remember the Weider Muscle Builder Protein Powder I used to buy in the late 80's, stuck to the Blender like shit on a Blanket. Then there was the Weider Big mass gainer. Tasted great, didn't work

But the Weider Anabolic Mega Pacs were the bomb. Came in little white medicine bottles. My Father thought they were Roids



Isn't the problem with the U.S. due to it being almost self regulation.

 

[simo74]

I think the one i bought back then was an early whey but it also had a tonne of carbs in it which seemed to make it real thick. But you are deff right about the early weider muscle builder and protein 90 shakes then were mostly egg based. I dont know how it works in the US, it seems companies can bring out whatever they like and if the FDA ban it they just change one active ingredients. I remember the weider protein system that came with those little strips that you pissed on to test how much nitrogen was in your piss and how anabolic you where. All it gave me was pissy hands !!

 

[abys]

Like Bazza said, you can't have it both ways. If you leave it up to the market to determine what works/doesn't or even what should be sold, people will exploit others to make a buck. 100%, no buts.

Give us ONE example where regulation of drugs that has ever lead to a product being cheaper. I can give you examples of where regulation has made a substance 200 to 600 times more expensive. I cannot think of one example where the price of a regulated drug has been priced to cost, while the monopoly is maintained. That only changes when the patent expires and more than about five companies start to sell the generic. Look at minoxidil for example, which crashed in price once the patent was lost.

It's easy to spout off this nonsense that supplements and drugs are the same thing and involve economic exploitation, when anyone can clearly see that supplements are being priced in a competitive fashion, to the budgets of average people who buy them. Drugs on the other hand, are exploiting the economic monopolies of regulation and charging governments and insurance companies thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because there is no competitive alternative and developing a competitive drug costs more than $100M AUD.

A typical expensive supplement costs about $40 for a month's supply. A typical drug costs $500 to $30K for a single month's supply, and it rarely has huge efficacy.

 

[steveP]

Give us ONE example where regulation of drugs that has ever lead to a product being cheaper. I can give you examples of where regulation has made a substance 200 to 600 times more expensive. I cannot think of one example where the price of a regulated drug has been priced to cost, while the monopoly is maintained. That only changes when the patent expires and more than about five companies start to sell the generic. Look at minoxidil for example, which crashed in price once the patent was lost.

It's easy to spout off this nonsense that supplements and drugs are the same thing and involve economic exploitation, when anyone can clearly see that supplements are being priced in a competitive fashion, to the budgets of average people who buy them. Drugs on the other hand, are exploiting the economic monopolies of regulation and charging governments and insurance companies thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because there is no competitive alternative and developing a competitive drug costs more than $100M AUD.

A typical expensive supplement costs about $40 for a month's supply. A typical drug costs $500 to $30K for a single month's supply, and it rarely has huge efficacy.

Are you even from Australia? You're brining the shitty US health system into this discussion that is muddying the waters. Either way, regardless of what medicines cost/subsidies, the regulations are there to make sure what you're taking actually works. Who cares if you can get some shitty herbal spices from a smelly hippy for the price of "a good intention". It's still a rip off if it doesn't work or actually contain the ingredients it's meant to.

Typical drugs costs $500 to 30k? Sorry, I'm calling troll now. Either make a point or stop spewing nonsense based on the corrupt American health system that doesn't apply here.

 

[abys]

Are you even from Australia? You're brining the shitty US health system into this discussion that is muddying the waters. Either way, regardless of what medicines cost/subsidies, the regulations are there to make sure what you're taking actually works. Who cares if you can get some shitty herbal spices from a smelly hippy for the price of "a good intention". It's still a rip off if it doesn't work or actually contain the ingredients it's meant to.

Typical drugs costs $500 to 30k? Sorry, I'm calling troll now. Either make a point or stop spewing nonsense based on the corrupt American health system that doesn't apply here.

Let's talk about costs of drugs in Australia:
http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/statistics/asm/asm-2014

Table A discloses specialized brand name drugs at total cost to the system of $943,686,855 in 2014. Total packs delivered was 1,620,735. Average cost per pack was $582. And that was in 2014, in an environment where cost is still rising rapidly.

Australia is worlds better than the US, but let's not forget that Australians pay sometimes up to 21 times as much for prescription drugs as in the UK:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...n/news-story/a370dcca5d62799722a9fb9ce9f7af67

The reason I keep bringing up the unbelievably-messed-up US system is because that is an example of what over-regulation does.

The fact that I can buy herbs from a smelly hippy has nothing to do with drug delivery. Drugs are prescribed by doctors, who have medical licenses they can lose if they prescribe herbs purchased in back alleys from smelly hippies. In a system where drugs are safety-tested but efficacy is left to the market, the doctor is still on the line and will not prescribe a drug that has serious side effects because that subjects him to legal actions as well as potential loss of license.