I Smell a Scam

As to all cholesterol lipids not being equal, Miller, you're right.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

As to all cholesterol lipids not being equal, Miller, you're right.

I wonder why the "normal range" for total cholesterol peaks at a value of 90. Do you have any ideas about this, ossco? Cool

0 Replies

It doesn't bother you guys that it seems the doctors setting the 'acceptable ranges' for cholesterol are making substantial money from the companies selling the drugs?

0 Replies

Lab tests online

This site explains quite clearly my understanding of what was until, I gather, just recently, considered desireable, borderline, or results to be concerned about, re the various lipids.

The page opens on cholesterol, and has some highlighted words for HDL, LDL, Lipid Profile, etc. If you click on the item of interest and then click on test results, it will describe these numbers.

I have no idea at all what the recent reports mean by ninety for total, I haven't looked up the articles.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It doesn't bother you guys that it seems the doctors setting the 'acceptable ranges' for cholesterol are making substantial money from the companies selling the drugs?

and the doctors who try to point out that some medications aren't performing as expected are in danger or losing their work. There's an old (1998/99) case here involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri ...

Quote:

Dr. Olivieri's research into an experimental drug for patients with a rare blood disorder was sponsored by the drug firm Apotex Inc. When she attempted to publicize results showing that deferiprone was not as effective as predicted, the drug firm threatened her with legal action.

In a battle waged over the past two years, Dr. Olivieri charged that neither the Hospital for Sick Children nor the University of Toronto properly supported her, either legally or morally, in her dispute with Apotex.

Yesterday, the hospital said its decision to relieve Dr. Olivieri of her administrative duties for the hemoglobinopathy program was based on personnel issues that predated the Apotex controversy but were then exacerbated by it -- especially when Dr. Olivieri started showing up at every operational meeting with her lawyer in tow.

link

in the end ...

Quote:

In the early morning of Jan. 26, CAUT brokered a settlement between Dr. Nancy Olivieri and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) in Toronto. The settlement vindicates Olivieri and reinstates her as head of the haemoglobinopathy program at the HSC and Toronto Hospital.

link

The whole situation in the U.S. seems odd to me. The ads in the magazines listing symptoms and suggesting patients see their docs and ask for specific medications. It's as odd as still seeing cigarette ads in magazines.

0 Replies

I was listening to a newscast today and it was mentioned that somebody is looking at the feasibility of banning pharmaceutical companies from advertising drugs to the public purely because it is causing people to put pressure on their doctors to prescribe them.

As far as the cigarette ads go, it is difficult to forbid advertising something that is legal to buy. Not impossible, but difficult.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It doesn't bother you guys that it seems the doctors setting the 'acceptable ranges' for cholesterol are making substantial money from the companies selling the drugs?

Yes, it does. It bothered me years ago when a lot of the funding by drug companies started. I am one of the folks that think there should be quite heavy government funding for science research, and research not only re drugs but re diseases that don't directly connect to drug based solutions, diseases that don't always affect the largest numbers of people, thus having organizations backing interest in them.

0 Replies

Advertising drugs?

Just sit back and consider all the magazine, newspaper and tv/radio space spent on advertising impotence drugs.

Is this a good thing, or is it a bad think?

I rmember when Viagra first came out and was on the market and many, many MDs didn't know what the serious side effects were. They basically had to rely on PR posts and what the pharmacists were coming up with through library searches.

While advertising companies may be exploiting the patient, when it comes to impotence medication, consider how wide spread male impotence is and how many men really don't like to even discuss the subject, especially with women MDs.

0 Replies

Osso, what I was saying, was that the highest normal value for HDL is today 90 . Anything higher than 90, for HDL is abnormal. Is too much HDL a bad thing?

0 Replies

Well personally I don't want the government to get into the business of pharmaceutical research because there is no way I want that to be politicized. I do think the government should continue to test and track use of pharmaceuticals and issue regular reports on effectiveness and unwanted side effects as this information becomes available.

I would like to see serious tort reform to make it less risky for pharmaceuticals to develop and test new and better drugs at a price people can actually afford to pay.

I would prefer that pharmaceuticals not be advertised directly as this comes perilously close to giving medical advice that may be inappropriate for many who are ill and/or desperate. I would have no problem with pharmaceuticals advertising their companies and listing 'break throughs' they had accomplished without naming the drugs.

They could complete their ad with a simple line: "Ask you doctor about thus and so. There may be help for you" or something to that effect.

0 Replies

The US government funds pharmaceutical research, but in an indirect way. They fund the basic science that unlies drug design/metabolism, etc.

Major drug research is conducted by the major pharmaceutical companies, themselves. They're in the financial position to salary the pharmacologists, organic chemists, and medicinal chemists necessary for contemporary drug product development.

Read issues of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Journal of the American Medical society. Read the various trials reported therein and then check to find out the source of research support. Most are funded by the drug companies, themselves.

0 Replies

The next drug to be pushed looks like it could be Aricept for the delay of Alzheimer's disease symptoms.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Osso, what I was saying, was that the highest normal value for HDL is today 90 . Anything higher than 90, for HDL is abnormal. Is too much HDL a bad thing?

I thought you meant total of both LDL and HDL, sorry.

Well, if HDL over 90 is, it's news to me, but I am not up on these things.

I remember an endocrinologist I knew saying that the total mattered, in her opinion, even if the proportions were good, and I guess it does, it you have people with totals that are way up there.. even if the percent of HDL is good, it could still be a highish number, and somehow not healthy, but then, to me, it would still be the LDL causing the problemo. Clearly I am not versed in this.

I was interested in your comment that it had been found that HDL could actually reduce plaque.

0 Replies

Miller writes

Quote:

Read issues of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Journal of the American Medical society. Read the various trials reported therein and then check to find out the source of research support. Most are funded by the drug companies, themselves.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with this so long as the FDA separately determines that the claims of benefits for a new drug are not overstated and potential side effects are not downplayed. Here I see a valid role for government.

If the government itself funds the studies, there will be even less incentive for the labs to keep the costs down or to get a drug to market as quickly as it can safely be done. And as we all know, the government polices itself very poorly.

0 Replies

We used to get NIH grants for our research and had other incentives for getting the work out in a timely fashion besides pleasing drug companies. I know it is an old concept, closer to pure science for the good of it.

0 Replies

I much more trust science that is done to find answers and that does not NEED for the results to be a certain way.

0 Replies

Certainly, foxfyre.

Miller, I found it... or at least I found one reason that a high hdl can be a problem - apparently a very elevated hdl can be an indicator of liver failure or of chronic intoxication.
http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C239030.html Of course I don't know if that site is correct, but it may be.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Certainly, foxfyre.

Miller, I found it... or at least I found one reason that a high hdl can be a problem - apparently a very elevated hdl can be an indicator of liver failure or of chronic intoxication.
http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C239030.html Of course I don't know if that site is correct, but it may be.

Interesting piece of info about high HDL. I didn't realize that really high HDL could mean liver disease. Thank you, for your link. Razz

0 Replies

I Smell a Scam

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know