Originally Posted by Deb C

The normal feelings of grief, sadness and anger are unfortunately viewed as a weakness by some in our society. All we have to do is look at the TV commercials by the pharmaceutical companys to understand they prefer that we think sedation is preferable than having human emotions. The drug industry plays into the need for too many medications.

It's a sign of wisdom that you see that therapy and other healthy lifestyles are part of an emotionally healthy life.

The dirty little secret: the pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research. That's to get people to ask their physicians for pills to treat a vague condition.

Logic suggests that all pharmaceuticals have undesirable side effects. Misuse of antibiotics has contributed to antibiotic resistance by bacteria. Narcotic painkillers are infamous for creating dependency. Psychoactive medicines that mask a depression might keep people from dealing with a non-medical cause of their depression (like doing work that they hate, being involved in exploitative relationships, getting stuck in a rut of an unimaginative life, or never questioning the core issues of existence).

I have gotten prescriptions, and I read the medical inserts. I am scared of any medication that suggests "if you have liver problems, don't use this". Maybe it might give one liver problems if one uses it! I have known people who died of cirrhosis, whether through diabetes or through alcoholism, and it isn't pretty.

Maybe people would be better advised to "listen to the third symphony of Sibelius and call me in the morning" than to pop a pill.

The drug companies spend more than twice as much on marketing as research and they use sex to market. They target cheerleaders at leading colleges to recruit as drug reps. That is not made up. Drug reps are also allowed into hospitals.

But that ain't all. I know a very bright guy, a little older than I am, who works in a computer firm that does simulations for drug companies to try to figure out what drugs to develop. He's also a pioneer in baseball research. I asked him once, "Do drug companies prefer to develop drugs that treat chronic ailments instead of things that would actually cure you?" He grinned. "Of course!" he said. "They have stockholders!"

As I posted some time ago, we desperately need new antibiotics right now because of so many drug-resistant strains. But no major drug company wants to work on them. What's the sense of spending your money on something that cures people of potentially fatal diseases in a week? You will never convince me that this has not had a profound effect on cancer treatment, either.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The dirty little secret: the pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research. That's to get people to ask their physicians for pills to treat a vague condition.

Logic suggests that all pharmaceuticals have undesirable side effects. Misuse of antibiotics has contributed to antibiotic resistance by bacteria. Narcotic painkillers are infamous for creating dependency. Psychoactive medicines that mask a depression might keep people from dealing with a non-medical cause of their depression (like doing work that they hate, being involved in exploitative relationships, getting stuck in a rut of an unimaginative life, or never questioning the core issues of existence).

I have gotten prescriptions, and I read the medical inserts. I am scared of any medication that suggests "if you have liver problems, don't use this". Maybe it might give one liver problems if one uses it! I have known people who died of cirrhosis, whether through diabetes or through alcoholism, and it isn't pretty.

Maybe people would be better advised to "listen to the third symphony of Sibelius and call me in the morning" than to pop a pill.

Many big Pharmaceuticals are wizards at marketing their drugs. Don't get me wrong, many drugs are useful and even life saving, but many, like you indicate, are not needed.

I subscribe to a once a month newsletter called WORST PILLS, BEST PILLS NEWS. Its the latest information of what most pharmaceutical companies won't tell you about prescribed and over-the-counter drugs. They even research some of the 'natural' remedies.

"This newsletter informs readers as to how they can protect themselves from drugs on the market without proper warning labels, discusses which drugs consumers should avoid, and warns consumers about potentially dangerous drug interactions. You can't always rely on your doctor or pharmacist to be up-to-date on the risks and benefits of every drug you take. Knowledge is power and Worst Pills, Best Pills News gives you the power to take better control over decisions that affect your health."

[QUOTE=KaiserD2;365579]The drug companies spend more than twice as much on marketing as research and they use sex to market. They target cheerleaders at leading colleges to recruit as drug reps. That is not made up. Drug reps are also allowed into hospitals.

QUOTE]

Exactly. This is why the hospital where my husband works doesn't allow drug reps to visit any of their units, or send food and other bribes to any of the floors.

Much of the drug education for doctors come from the drug industry. One indication that a doctor is under their influence, is to look around their waiting room and see how many of their kleenex boxes, ink pens, posters and a number of other things, have the pharmaceuticals name imprinted on them. This in and of itself is very telling.

I think drug ads should go back to being banned. And so should the sped-up "small print" voice that's too fast for people to understand.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Trouble with this ideas is that Rome is in a class by itself. There are no other civilizations in history that followed the same pattern. A sample set of one does not a trend describe.

What I do think is that we may be ripe for a Caesar. The people obviously are hungry for one. But perhaps that statement requires some explanation; Caesar has been vilified by his conservative opponents and their modern counterparts to the point where he has become, in the imagination of many, simply a tyrant and his assassins liberators. The truth is more complex.

The Roman Republic was designed to govern a city-state. Its original purpose was to preserve the dominance of an elite class (initially the Patrician class only) while preventing any one member of it from becoming so powerful as to be a threat to the rest. Pursuant to the first goal was the rigged voting in the Assemblies that denied poor people any effective voice, and the retention of the Senate as the senior governing body. To the second, the divided leadership under the two Consuls, who served only for a year, as did all other elected magistrates except the Pontifex Maximus. The revolt of the Plebeian order forced reforms including the creation of the Tribune of the Plebeians and the Plebeian Assembly, and allowing rich Plebeians into the Senate and the magistrates. (Interestingly, by the late Republic one of the two Consuls each year had to be a Plebeian because of a public ceremony a Consul had to preside over for Plebeians only.)

The acquisition of the empire was what made the Republic non-functional. It was too clumsy and corrupt a government form to administer the provinces well. Also, the enormous wealth that flowed into Rome from the provinces concentrated the power of the nobility (which was no longer just Patricians) to the point where the poorer people increasingly got the shaft. Many reformers tried to address this, including the Gracchi brothers, Marius, and Caesar. By Caesar's time the Republic was so corrupt that it had completely lost the allegiance and support of most of the people. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon into Italy with this army, he was greeted everywhere he went with cheers and flowers, no opposition except from the Senatorial class. True, he was a dictator, and the people had no say in government under him (although he continued to hold elections for the traditional offices and even ran for Consul himself on one occasion), but they had had no say in the Republic's governance either, and Caesar was on their side while the rich and powerful who ran the Republic had not been. He was extremely popular. The Roman people made him a god after he was assassinated. In fact, it was all he could do to keep them from deifying him before that! He gave Rome the first truly capable government it had had since Sulla, and unlike Sulla Caesar was a liberal, and hence the people were quite pleased with him.

Similar to the Romans in the late Republic, the people of the United States have lost control of the government, which is now run for the benefit only of a noble class of wealthy and powerful people. Someone who would move in, wipe the slate clean, and provide a government that would support the people's interests and put the elite in their place would have a lot of popular support. Unfortunately I don't see a Caesar on the horizon. We may need to seek a different path.

What followed after Caesar was of course the end of the Republic under Augustus, but to show that this is not inevitable I give you a very good parallel to Gaius Julius Caesar in a more recent time: Napoleon Bonaparte. Like Caesar, Napoleon was a military officer with political ambitions in a time of a corrupt republic. Like Caesar, Napoleon seized power and made himself a dictator. Like Caesar, Napoleon provided his country with good, efficient, and enlightened government; France enjoyed greater liberties and a closer enactment of the ideals of the Revolution under his dictatorship than under the republic which preceded him, and his reforms throughout Europe paved the way for the democratic revolutions which followed. When he was defeated militarily and the monarchy restored, it was a constitutional monarchy rather than the absolute monarchy of before the Revolution, and Napoleon's reforms were for the most part retained. A few decades later, after more political upheavals and a lost war against Germany, France finally achieved its first true, lasting republic, the Third Republic, in 1870. France has been governed by a republic ever since, except briefly during the Nazi occupation. Between 1815 when Napoleon fell and 1870 55 years passed. 55 years after Caesar's assassination in 44 BCE brings us to 14 CE, the year Augustus died and the beginning of the reign of Tiberius. In the one case, a lasting republic. In the other, a monarchy that endured until Rome fell. If that isn't enough to caution us against drawing hasty parallels, we are simply blind.

Very interesting review.

..."Unfortunately I don't see a Caesar on the horizon. We may need to seek a different path."...

It may also be fortunate that we don't see a Ceasar on the horizon. Takeovers by a new 'Ceasar' could be dangerous. I still like our Republic.
What do you have in mind for a " different path" ?
It

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have gotten prescriptions, and I read the medical inserts. I am scared of any medication that suggests "if you have liver problems, don't use this". Maybe it might give one liver problems if one uses it! I have known people who died of cirrhosis, whether through diabetes or through alcoholism, and it isn't pretty.

I have a client dying of this right now from alcoholism. I look at her and I think "you are a complete idiot." However, I'm stuck with it and I will get her benefits because she drunk herself to death.

Winning!

Originally Posted by radind

Very interesting review.

It may also be fortunate that we don't see a Ceasar on the horizon. Takeovers by a new 'Ceasar' could be dangerous. I still like our Republic.
What do you have in mind for a " different path" ?

The question is whether the West, or "Faustian Civilization", reaching for infinity, is exhausted. Supersize me! Exhausted in the sense that its rollout in time is complete and it's time to start a new high culture.

I'm all for another fractal thought model rather than infinite space. I'm tired of More! Bigger! Better!

Let's go with the open spiral this time.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

I have a client dying of this right now from alcoholism. I look at her and I think "you are a complete idiot." However, I'm stuck with it and I will get her benefits because she drunk herself to death.

Winning!

I realize that noone here is indicating that cirrhosis is only caused by abusing one's body, but just for a clarification purpose, there are many reasons for liver failure. While some with cirrhosis are caused by drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, there are many who have autoimmune diseases where the immune system is attacking the liver. These are mainly rare inherited illnesses. Then there is the autoimmune Hepatitis. I won't bore you with the various forms of liver illness but there are many. I just wanted to bring up the point that there is a common assumption that most livers that have gone into cirrhosis are caused from alcohol or other forms of abuse, but this is far from the reality.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

I have a client dying of this right now from alcoholism. I look at her and I think "you are a complete idiot." However, I'm stuck with it and I will get her benefits because she drunk herself to death.

Winning!

There are less visible ways to go -- obesity, sedentary lives, reckless sexuality... it's hard to convince people with the line "You are a total schmuck" even if such is the truth.

Corn sweeteners are terrible.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Unless it's a public clinic that relies on drug reps to get free samples for patients who have no insurance. I think all the pens I own right now have one drug or another on the side of them.

One of the major problems with reps handing out free samples, is that these are usually the more expensive new drugs. New drugs cost way more than generics that can be as affective in most cases. A doctor friend of mine expalined that the main reason doctors need to stay away from samples is that they are usually given to the patients who can least afford them. Starting a person on an expensive sample, can be counterprodutive. If drug reps had the patient in mind and not selling their latest most expensive medicine, they would be dropping off their samples of generics.

It's marketing by the drug rep whether it's at a doctors office or free clinic.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I realize that noone here is indicating that cirrhosis is only caused by abusing one's body, but just for a clarification purpose, there are many reasons for liver failure. While some with cirrhosis are caused by drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, there are many who have autoimmune diseases where the immune system is attacking the liver. These are mainly rare inherited illnesses. Then there is the autoimmune Hepatitis. I won't bore you with the various forms of liver illness but there are many. I just wanted to bring up the point that there is a common assumption that most livers that have gone into cirrhosis are caused from alcohol or other forms of abuse, but this is far from the reality.

Similarly, not every who dies of lung cancer is a 3-pack-a-day smoker. My brother was a former smoker who died of it 15-20 years after he quit. Sadly, his story is not unique.

The other problem is patients reading the drug inserts who know nothing about stats. They think they're going to have a side effect that affects only .00001% of people who take the drug. Or the, "my friend took that an x happened so I won't take it."

If I have questions about medication, I ask my brother-in-law. He's a PhD in biostatistics who spent years in the pharma industry. He's pretty darn conservative about drugs.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

There are less visible ways to go -- obesity, sedentary lives, reckless sexuality... it's hard to convince people with the line "You are a total schmuck" even if such is the truth.

I also deal with morbid obesity. 400-600 lbs., generaly. I had a guy in his 40s die a few years ago from it. It's very popular with the disabled set.

My father combined obesity, sedentaryness, and stress to get a major stroke at age 55.

Winning!

Originally Posted by annla899

If I have questions about medication, I ask my brother-in-law. He's a PhD in biostatistics who spent years in the pharma industry. He's pretty darn conservative about drugs.

Biostatistics is another one of those career avenues I only found out about after law school. that one would have been a good fit, too.

Originally Posted by Deb C

If drug reps had the patient in mind and not selling their latest most expensive medicine, they would be dropping off their samples of generics.

Drug reps only exist because of patents. Once a med is generic, the income from the med would never support a drug rep.

So, your drug rep utopia will never come to be...

Originally Posted by JonLaw

Drug reps only exist because of patents. Once a med is generic, the income from the med would never support a drug rep.

So, your drug rep utopia will never come to be...

It sure might. There are tens of thousands of Chinese, and just as many Indians, working to make it happen. Patents (at least, as currently expressed) are a big part of the restriction-of-supply problem. Fortunately for the world, not everyone really gives a shit about patents, and the ability to enforce them is limited.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It sure might. There are tens of thousands of Chinese, and just as many Indians, working to make it happen. Patents (at least, as currently expressed) are a big part of the restriction-of-supply problem. Fortunately for the world, not everyone really gives a shit about patents, and the ability to enforce them is limited.

I didn't say "drug utopia". I said "drug rep utopoa". Meaning that drug reps are not part of the natural genetic med ecology.

We will eventually run out of patentable small molecules, so the patent problem is self-solving because there will be nothing left to patent and the patents will expire.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

I didn't say "drug utopia". I said "drug rep utopia".

A good distinction, and a reminder to me to read more carefully.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

The question is whether the West, or "Faustian Civilization", reaching for infinity, is exhausted. Supersize me! Exhausted in the sense that its rollout in time is complete and it's time to start a new high culture.

I'm all for another fractal thought model rather than infinite space. I'm tired of More! Bigger! Better!

Let's go with the open spiral this time.

I can relate to spirals and fractals as mathematical concepts, but you lost me with " fractal thought model".

Originally Posted by radind

I can relate to spirals and fractals as mathematical concepts, but you lost me with " fractal thought model".

It means that we advance not by growing larger, but by further and further refining the things we do at our present and smaller scales. I've never heard it called "fractal", but that's a damn fine term for it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do you know why they can patent crops but not animal genes? I think that's what I've heard.
And do patents on genes (plant or animal) also expire?

Patents last for 28 years.

Basically your electronics are cheap because the good ones from before 1983 can be imitated at will. They were very impressive back then.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think I heard Yosemite Sam call Bugs Bunny that.

You're thinking of "Wracking fractal". That's totally different.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Drug patents are shorter than that.
I can't seem to find anything that says how long gene patents last.

The documentary "The Future of Food" will actually answer a lot of your questions. It's well worth the 90 minute viewing time. Pretty scary stuff actually. I'll link it below from hulu.

The Future of Food

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It means that we advance not by growing larger, but by further and further refining the things we do at our present and smaller scales. I've never heard it called "fractal", but that's a damn fine term for it.

Thanks for explanation.