A
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Lol.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?