pharmaceutical companies and doctors playing God

Nesti (Mark) · #1 22-04-2010, 09:32 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...-health-scare/

Bassnut (Fred) · #2 22-04-2010, 09:55 PM

There are lies, damb lies and statistics. 44 cases out of.......?.

Some fruitcakes out there dont belive in flouride in the water supply, and would rather their kids teeth fall out (at our expense) than take some miniscule known health risk.

Both articles are absolutely meaningless with out specifing the total doeses applied, woefull journalism.

PeterM · #3 22-04-2010, 10:21 PM

My grand daughter (9mths) had her combined flu/swine on Tuesday afternoon by 1am we were up with my grand daughter, she vomited the childs panadol (we now realise she hates it, so trying childrens Nurofen - but this raises the issue to maybe check how they tolerate pain killers before they are needed) so we gave her the good old tepid bath to bring her down from 38.4 deg to 36.2. As a precaution we rang the Qld health line to see if any issues to be concerned with, they were professional and said not to worry unless went over 40 and/or she had rashes then seek help. Her temp again went up to 38 after a short while, then fell as she went back to sleep. I think it is probably far more common for the temp to go up in probably lots of young kids and most parents might not even know it (sleeping through). Authorities are right to check for a bad batch and report it. But unfortunately these stories can have a knee jerk reaction and other routine vaccinations are then questioned by parents.

PeterM.

Morepower (Craig) · #4 23-04-2010, 10:49 AM

I heard on the news this morning that there had been a bad batch of flu vaccine reported in WA. Especially affecting kids.

kinetic (Steve) · #5 23-04-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bassnut

There are lies, damb lies and statistics. 44 cases out of.......?.

Some fruitcakes out there dont belive in flouride in the water supply, and would rather their kids teeth fall out (at our expense) than take some miniscule known health risk.

Both articles are absolutely meaningless with out specifing the total doeses applied, woefull journalism.

Fred,

would you rather the researchers/doctors/media disregard and ignore the reactions from otherwise
healthy, normal kids?
I agree it is a contentious issue, especially as a parent with young kids
myself.

Steve

avandonk · #6 23-04-2010, 12:20 PM

The premise that Medical researchers are playing God is a very pathetic attempt to decry knowledge against superstition.

You are an ignorant fool for even bringing this up in this stupid way.

When and if there is a problem it should be calmly solved.

Not by twits like you reacting to idiotic media!

Bert

renormalised (Carl) · #7 23-04-2010, 01:21 PM

Bert...back down before the mods decide to stomp on you for being overly belligerent. Regardless of what you may think, there's no need to be abrasive.

kinetic (Steve) · #8 23-04-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

Bert...back down before the mods decide to stomp on you for being overly belligerent. Regardless of what you may think, there's no need to be abrasive.

That's our Bert, as subtle as a brick through a plate glass window

Gallifreyboy · #9 23-04-2010, 02:09 PM

I thought the media articles were fairly benign and factual. The title of this thread however is a left field editorial by someone with their own agenda for whatever reason that may be (and it isn't astronomical). I share Bert's general thoughts in this regard.

renormalised (Carl) · #10 23-04-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinetic

That's our Bert, as subtle as a brick through a plate glass window

I thought it was more the F250 through the front of the house

Nesti (Mark) · #11 23-04-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

The premise that Medical researchers are playing God is a very pathetic attempt to decry knowledge against superstition.

You are an ignorant fool for even bringing this up in this stupid way.

When and if there is a problem it should be calmly solved.

Not by twits like you reacting to idiotic media!

Bert

Sorry to burst your scientific utopia Bert, but I'm afraid that in the real world there's a little thing called 'commercial gain' which creates moral hazard within Pharmaceutical product development, marketing, sales and this sales pressure to sell the next best thing then cascades through to General Practitioners, Specialists and Chemists alike.

I'm not a twit, and I don't actually react to idiotic media; I have had a position on the Pharmaceutical industry for sometime now.

A trend that I have seen within all of you posts is that you seem to blindly follow ANY scientific disciple and/or pursuit as though it's some sort of clicky group, or last bastion of human intelligence which needs to be upheld at all costs...at ANY cost...that's that type of old-world crusading which I personally find to be short-sighted and pathetic! If you can't see that the modern world is drugging-up our children and ultimately by-passing 400 million years of immune evolution, I couldn't care less. But I see it!

What's your stance on Thalidomide Bert, just a small oversight; no harm done?

DavidTrap (David) · #12 23-04-2010, 02:23 PM

I am a doctor, and I was going to get my 4 yo and 2 yo vaccinated. I'm going to wait a while and see what happens. This is the first time (that I can recall) that they have been advising to have kids vaccinated against seasonal flu. Febrile convulsions are usually harmless, but scare about 10yrs life off the parents!

I was discussing this with a colleague recently - he said that 30% of children tested in the UK actually had antibodies against Swine Flu. What does this mean - most of the people who have had it, didn't even know they had it.

On the other hand, I also work at a major teaching hospital in Brisbane and am involved in managing patients on ECMO (a long term artificial lung) - the first patient we put on ECMO last year was sick with Swine flu. He was a previously well 30yo fellow who someone had sneezed on!

I think the article was quite benign.

DT

Nesti (Mark) · #13 23-04-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

I am a doctor, and I was going to get my 4 yo and 2 yo vaccinated. I'm going to wait a while and see what happens. This is the first time (that I can recall) that they have been advising to have kids vaccinated against seasonal flu. Febrile convulsions are usually harmless, but scare about 10yrs life off the parents!

I was discussing this with a colleague recently - he said that 30% of children tested in the UK actually had antibodies against Swine Flu. What does this mean - most of the people who have had it, didn't even know they had it.

On the other hand, I also work at a major teaching hospital in Brisbane and am involved in managing patients on ECMO (a long term artificial lung) - the first patient we put on ECMO last year was sick with Swine flu. He was a previously well 30yo fellow who someone had sneezed on!

I think the article was quite benign.

DT

The title I chose for this thread was such to make people THINK. In that, how far do we go in trying to avoid what nature throws at us by creating a man-made solution?

If we cut society out of the disease/immune loop, by using drugs and vaccinating every thing that comes our way, just to combat yet another illnesses, how long as a species do we have before nature throws something at us that we cannot create a drug for and that our bodies cannot cope with?

Most drugs actually by-pass the bodies learning curve. I do have an ethical problem with that.

avandonk · #14 23-04-2010, 02:36 PM

Nesti you are quite entitled to follow any irrational path to health. I am not in the business of forever defending modern medicine. My belief system is evidence based systems.

I take your ignorant attack that I always support evidence based science as a plus.

The Thalidomide debacle is exactly why we now have new drug accreditation.

Bert

renormalised (Carl) · #15 23-04-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nesti

The title I chose for this thread was such to make people THINK. In that, how far do we go in trying to avoid what nature throws at us by creating a man-made solution?

If we cut society out of the disease/immune loop, by using drugs and vaccinating every thing that comes our way, just to combat yet another illnesses, how long as a species do we have before nature throws something at us that we cannot create a drug for and that our bodies cannot cope with?

Most drugs actually by-pass the bodies learning curve. I do have an ethical problem with that.

It's happening now, with antibiotic resistant TB and other bacterial infections...much of it caused by the doctors overprescribing antibiotics in the past (and their misuse by both doctors and patients). Plus, the use of antibiotics in animal feeds. There will come a time when something does turn up that they can't get rid of. Then we'll be back to square one.

kinetic (Steve) · #16 23-04-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's happening now, with antibiotic resistant TB and other bacterial infections...much of it caused by the doctors overprescribing antibiotics in the past (and their misuse by both doctors and patients). Plus, the use of antibiotics in animal feeds. There will come a time when something does turn up that they can't get rid of. Then we'll be back to square one.

We were discussing this at work the other day. As we were all 'tradies'
I guess we were unqualified to ponder such huge concepts as viral
research

, but in a nutshell our conversation and logic was this:

Humans have been on the earth for many millions of years.
Over this time frame virii (sp?) and bacteria have also had a chance
to evolve/ mutate.

In that time frame wouldn't a virus mutate a strain to wipe us out
as a species? 100 % mortality?

Why, in just a small comparative window of decades does another
strain of some virus appear that, if not for just that slight missing
factor, be that killer virus?

Steve

Nesti (Mark) · #17 23-04-2010, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

Nesti you are quite entitled to follow any irrational path to health. I am not in the business of forever defending modern medicine. My belief system is evidence based systems.

I take your ignorant attack that I always support evidence based science as a plus.

Bert

Bert, that is absolute tripe! If your "belief system is [an] evidence based systems" as you have pointed out, then you would have promptly provided me with a reference as to when and where the "Standing on the shoulders of Giants" quote was used other than that of Newton (as I pointed out to you). I am still waiting for it, but let the issue slide without you having to admit that you were wrong (no big deal).

However, it would seem that you conveniently forget that which you get wrong, yet conveniently do not forget that which others get wrong. You are a living breathing conundrum.

If you are going to be rude - and I'm okay with your words - better make sure that-that person is either A. too dumb or shy to respond or, B. does not have a come-back or, C. is not a student who is required to bite their tongue in order to pass a subject.

Since you're an "evidence based" kinda guy, I'll take back the quarters given weeks ago, and ask you for the reference to your statement...please????

Nesti (Mark) · #18 23-04-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinetic

We were discussing this at work the other day. As we were all 'tradies'
I guess we were unqualified to ponder such huge concepts as viral
research

, but in a nutshell our conversation and logic was this:

Humans have been on the earth for many millions of years.
Over this time frame virii (sp?) and bacteria have also had a chance
to evolve/ mutate.

In that time frame wouldn't a virus mutate a strain to wipe us out
as a species? 100 % mortality?

Why, in just a small comparative window of decades does another
strain of some virus appear that, if not for just that slight missing
factor, be that killer virus?

Steve

It's because our immune system is - perhaps was - very capable of looking after itself; by design. Yes, we would, can and in fact do have human losses, but it is the species which evolves, not the individual.

There is this rediculous notion in the modern medical world that the human body requires help. In accuality, the human body is very well balanced within the environment...both evolve in sympathy with the other, all plants and animals do this. Disease and viruses are not just the problem, they are also the 'Fitness Landscape' to which the immune system can combat, overcome and evolve from.

A species, any species, cannot evolve in harmony with the environment when there are other man-made factors influencing the cycle. You could argue that we are in fact making ourselves sicker not healthier.

multiweb (Marc) · #19 23-04-2010, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's happening now, with antibiotic resistant TB and other bacterial infections...much of it caused by the doctors overprescribing antibiotics in the past (and their misuse by both doctors and patients). Plus, the use of antibiotics in animal feeds. There will come a time when something does turn up that they can't get rid of. Then we'll be back to square one.

Don't you love evolution?

The microscopic buggers will get us in the end coz we're all full of it

Gallifreyboy · #20 23-04-2010, 03:20 PM

The 1918 flu pandemic is estimated to have killed 3% of the world's population, 25 million were dead within just a few weeks of its outbreak, far more than killed in the war. Viruses and other micro organisms become resistant to treatment principally through mutations in their genetic material that are fortuitous. These mutations are not frequent but with very high rates of replication of the organisms the "resistant strains" are conferred a survival advantage in a host. Micro organisms will continue to do that whether there are humans on this earth or not, those that can transmit to other species will have a survival advantage if humans are wiped out. Certainly inappropriate use of antimicrobial agents is of concern but the idea that allowing the human race to suffer potentially treatable diseases (to allow the lucky survivors) to build up immunity for the future in a constantly changing microbial environment is frankly ludicrous.