Orogogus wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 13:08:

jdreyer wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 03:23:

Orogogus wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 02:21:
I believe they don't have to do any encouraging, and if they did it would backfire almost immediately. How many times do they have to suggest to (real) doctors to encourage patients to eat more bacon before one of them outs it on the Internet?

You may have heard of this doctor before that encouraged people to eat as much bacon as they liked: Doctor Robert Atkins.

He wasn't the voice of the medical establishment, at all. Your family practitioner isn't going to tell you to go on the Atkins diet; that's by and large something people bring up on their own. And I don't think you're going to find any evidence that he was motivated by payouts from the drug industry.

It's true I've never heard that he was getting payouts from the meat industry, but he still convinced millions of people they could eat as much bacon as they like and still be healthy. That's pure evil on multiple levels.

These diets work not because bacon is healthy, but because of restriction: you can't have ANY refined carbs, which is in 80% of all the food sold in the market these days.

So you end up eating bacon and lettuce. At least you're not eating Oreos and Ritz and 600 cal lattes any longer. But the whole thing went to shit when the food industry started developing "Atkins-friendly" snacks, and snackers (most of us) were back in business. Then the Atkins people stopped dropping weight all of a sudden.

This comment was edited on Dec 30, 2016, 04:50.

bigspender wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 17:33:
This isn't the course which my friend went on, but it's was similar: http://www.auspen.org.au/events/auspen-advanced-clinical-nutrition-course-2016/
Look at the sponsors: Nestle...... and a Pharma company specializing in chronically ill patients (why are the patients chronically ill, if the diet is so healthy?).

That's a clinical nutrition course, for feeding hospitalized patients. Note the focus points regarding acute phase response, albumin kinetics, and enteral/parenteral nutrition. That's not a course for telling people what to eat at home. And when I go to the US home page of that pharma company, Fresenius Kabi, they have several clinical nutrition products -- that is to say, IVs.

Can you find another one that's more representative of what you're talking about?

jdreyer wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 03:11:

bigspender wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 18:42:

That's why you'll see me in this section often responding to health related news articles, and promoting books by Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. John McDougall, T. Colin Campbell, Dr. Dean Ornish and so on. I believe these are truly non-biased portals to honest health research.

Is there a big difference among the various programs by these doctors? Dr. Esselstyn's seems stricter than Ornish's for example.

That's true Dr. Esselstyn does seem a bit stricter. It could be because he was trying to reverse the cardiovascular disease in older people, rather than preventing it in younger people, so it might take more effort to reverse the years of damage. Or maybe because he's old and that's just how things were done back then lol, I'm not really sure

But they all in all, they are all essentially advocating a whole foods plant based way of eating.

A good one to start with is The Negative Calorie Effect by Neal Barnard, it's a very short book, so it spends more time explaining the overall principles instead of getting into the details of the research. And on the opposite there is How Not To Die by Dr. Greger, which almost entirely explains research one by one if you like the details.

Orogogus wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 13:08:

jdreyer wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 03:23:

Orogogus wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 02:21:
I believe they don't have to do any encouraging, and if they did it would backfire almost immediately. How many times do they have to suggest to (real) doctors to encourage patients to eat more bacon before one of them outs it on the Internet?

You may have heard of this doctor before that encouraged people to eat as much bacon as they liked: Doctor Robert Atkins.

He wasn't the voice of the medical establishment, at all. Your family practitioner isn't going to tell you to go on the Atkins diet; that's by and large something people bring up on their own. And I don't think you're going to find any evidence that he was motivated by payouts from the drug industry.

This isn't the course which my friend went on, but it's was similar: http://www.auspen.org.au/events/auspen-advanced-clinical-nutrition-course-2016/
Look at the sponsors: Nestle...... and a Pharma company specializing in chronically ill patients (why are the patients chronically ill, if the diet is so healthy?).



The whole thing is very insidious.

If you go to the doctor, they will usually tell you to lose weight. Why? Because losing weight improves the numbers that predict disease rates. Lower cholesterol (or at least better LDL to HDL ratios), lower blood pressure, better resting heart rate, better insulin response and so on.

How will they get you to lose weight? Most will tell you to go on a low carb diet, whether it's called Paleo, Ketogenic, Isogenic, etc, but they are all more or less the Atkins diet.

Why do doctors choose these diets for their patients? Because they've been on a nutrition course/seminar sponsored by animal agriculture industries and pharma companies. The doctors are shown the results of various studies, and they pass on this information to the patients believing they are genuinely helping the patient.

And if the patient successfully applies these diets, they indeed do see better health markers.....at least in the short term. These diets are almost impossible to stick to, and the drug companies know this, which is why they sponsor the seminars. The drug companies know that it's very likely the person will yo-yo diet for a while, give up and start taking statins for the last 20 years of their life.
The other side of it is that even if people can stick to the diet and keep the weight off, they are still eating high saturated fats and cholesterol, which will end up needing statins(albeit a little later), regardless of how skinny they are.

If theses diets really worked, then nobody would need statins - so why would a statin company sponsor an event which would reduce demand for their product? They wouldn't.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 03:23:

Orogogus wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 02:21:
I believe they don't have to do any encouraging, and if they did it would backfire almost immediately. How many times do they have to suggest to (real) doctors to encourage patients to eat more bacon before one of them outs it on the Internet?

You may have heard of this doctor before that encouraged people to eat as much bacon as they liked: Doctor Robert Atkins.

He wasn't the voice of the medical establishment, at all. Your family practitioner isn't going to tell you to go on the Atkins diet; that's by and large something people bring up on their own. And I don't think you're going to find any evidence that he was motivated by payouts from the drug industry.

Orogogus wrote on Dec 29, 2016, 02:21:
I believe they don't have to do any encouraging, and if they did it would backfire almost immediately. How many times do they have to suggest to (real) doctors to encourage patients to eat more bacon before one of them outs it on the Internet?

You may have heard of this doctor before that encouraged people to eat as much bacon as they liked: Doctor Robert Atkins.

On the other hand I do believe the food industry is doing a ton of consumer-unfriendly lobbying and advertising.

You don't see adverts for broccoli and asparagus, do you?

bigspender wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 18:42:

That's why you'll see me in this section often responding to health related news articles, and promoting books by Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. John McDougall, T. Colin Campbell, Dr. Dean Ornish and so on. I believe these are truly non-biased portals to honest health research.

Is there a big difference among the various programs by these doctors? Dr. Esselstyn's seems stricter than Ornish's for example.

bigspender wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 18:42:
I'm not sure if you have ever seen that show called Doctors? But they are constantly telling people to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, they push ketogenic diets, paleo diets and other cholesterol heavy foods.(and shunning healthy staples like potatoes).
Other celebrity doctors like Dr. Axe doing a similar thing.

I haven't seen it, but I don't think celebrity doctors count. People giving advice primarily through TV are probably entertainers first and medical practitioners second. They're shysters promising people what they want, \a way to lose weight without eating less and exercising more.

Like I mentioned, the conferences and training programs that doctors are sent to are funded by drug companies - why else would a drug company sponsor it if they weren't getting something back? EDIT: my local doctors office is full of pamphlets that look very similar to official dietary guidelines, except in the fine print they are industry created, and of course they tell you to eat more eggs, red meat etc These pamphlets wouldn't fool you or me, but the general public will take read them in waiting room and assume the information is correct, since it's at the doctors office.

Drug companies do have a history of getting cozy with doctors, I just don't believe that they're behind the dietary aspect. There are problems that would exist even without nefarious intent -- we can have firemen without them also being arsonists, we can have SAT prep classes without them secretly encouraging kids to text in shorthand so they'll be bad at formal writing.

Yes exactly, obesity itself causes problems, which is why there is a big incentive to encourage more people to be obese, and keep them that way. Obesity related diseases do not kill people quickly, so they will be able to keep taking the drugs for a long time. Drugs that treat (not cure) chronic diseases are where they make all of their money.

I believe they don't have to do any encouraging, and if they did it would backfire almost immediately. How many times do they have to suggest to (real) doctors to encourage patients to eat more bacon before one of them outs it on the Internet?

On the other hand I do believe the food industry is doing a ton of consumer-unfriendly lobbying and advertising. The sugar lobby was in the news recently for making a bogeyman out of cholesterol fat for decades so they could sell more soft drinks and sweets, shouting down research that disagreed with their goal of selling more product. The corn industry's lobbying for subsidies and use of HFC in everything is well documented. This kind of thing does make people fat, and they totally are in bed with government. Industry is just not subtle enough to go for a long game of getting people sick to sell more pharmaceuticals.

I work for a company that makes glucose meters and cholesterol tests, and while we would sell more products if there were more people at risk, I'm 99% certain that we don't belong to any organization that actually encourages people to get fat and we definitely aren't doing anything like that on our own. It's unnecessary and counterproductive.

I believe the drug establishment is in the same position. They don't have to do anything to get more fat customers, that will happen on its own. That's how society goes, and to a large extent it's how we, as animals, are wired; we're designed for scarcity and not for plenty.

Orogogus wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 18:00:

bigspender wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 16:48:
The big money are these chronic diseases, they never go away as long as the patients keep following the doctors dietary advice. (And it's easy advice to follow, when the doctor tells you to eat more bacon)

I don't expect big pharma to be telling people that heart disease is completely optional, avoidable and reversible. That's the doctors job - but when the doctors (who are viewed as trusted sources) have been primed to pass on false information, then that is pretty awful.

So while Big Pharma isn't causing the diseases directly, it's certainly enabling other industries and companies to create the market for them.

It's not just the doctors either, it's the USDA and so on. They're all in bed together, and if it wasn't for organisations like PCRM.org putting in lawsuits against the USDA then we'd probably be eating pork with pre-injected statins and thinking that our genes are the cause of our chronic diseases.

I don't see a ton of evidence that the medical establishment has been primed to dispense bad dietary advice. I've never heard of doctors telling people to eat more bacon.

I'm not sure if you have ever seen that show called Doctors? But they are constantly telling people to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, they push ketogenic diets, paleo diets and other cholesterol heavy foods.(and shunning healthy staples like potatoes).
Other celebrity doctors like Dr. Axe doing a similar thing.

Like I mentioned, the conferences and training programs that doctors are sent to are funded by drug companies - why else would a drug company sponsor it if they weren't getting something back? EDIT: my local doctors office is full of pamphlets that look very similar to official dietary guidelines, except in the fine print they are industry created, and of course they tell you to eat more eggs, red meat etc These pamphlets wouldn't fool you or me, but the general public will take read them in waiting room and assume the information is correct, since it's at the doctors office.

It's really the whole system though that is the problem, to become a doctor you'll be in some serious debt. So you have the make your money back somehow. And letting the industries put these pamphlets in your office is one way.

Orogogus wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 18:00:
The health problems that come out of obesity happen pretty much by themselves, there's very little need or incentive for Big Pharma to try to make it any worse.

Yes exactly, obesity itself causes problems, which is why there is a big incentive to encourage more people to be obese, and keep them that way. Obesity related diseases do not kill people quickly, so they will be able to keep taking the drugs for a long time. Drugs that treat (not cure) chronic diseases are where they make all of their money.

There is very little money in preventing diseases - this is where insurance companies will come in, I think. They are the only ones that make money when people don't get sick.

I would like to think that governments should be informing the public about healthful habits, but as mentioned the USDA has a lot of ties to private industries. They do regulate things, but they also allow their regulations to be amended for something like $20k a page. So the recommendations are quite watered down.
E.G. take a look at the USDA recommended diet power plate - it's very similar to the one recommended by the PCRM but you can see the industries have put their little spin on it. http://www.pcrm.org/sites/default/files/images/media/releases/usda-my-plate.jpg

Orogogus wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 18:00:
Americans, and developed nations in general, lean towards self-destructive gluttony. It's a very, very hard thing to reverse, stop or slow down. Whenever and wherever there's widespread economic growth obesity and diabetes follow.

Definitely agree that the ultimate responsibility falls on the individual. I'm just making a fuss because it's very hard to make informed decisions with all of they're sneaky tactics and noise they create on purpose. (The various industries constantly publish and fund research which is specifically manufactured to show positive results for them. And for the general public the research looks legitimate, but if you look closer then you can see how they've fudged the results E.g. they'll publish research saying eggs don't raise cholesterol, but when you look at the numbers, you'll see that the cholesterol of the participants was already at maximum levels, so no matter how they ate, it couldn't go any higher)

That's why you'll see me in this section often responding to health related news articles, and promoting books by Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. John McDougall, T. Colin Campbell, Dr. Dean Ornish and so on. I believe these are truly non-biased portals to honest health research.

This comment was edited on Dec 28, 2016, 19:00.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 13:17:
Big Pharma is not altruistic in the least. There are generics because the government sets the patent expiration for drugs at 20 years. Don't fool yourself: the drug companies salivate at Disney's 90 and 120 copyright expirations. And they develop slight modifications of existing drugs, market them and get approval as new drugs, and then sell them at the protected price even though they're not any better than existing drugs. And don't even get me started on Skreli or Epipen.

Fortunately they are one of the more heavily regulated industries, so the damaging aspects of capitalism are mitigated and they're able to provide an overall good. Could see that change under Trump, who wants to deregulate a lot of stuff. Wait until "market forces" come into play because of 100s of people dying from a bad drug.

Authorized generics are authorized by the pharmaceutical typically after their 180-day (3-year) exclusivity period. This is to allow them to recoup their costs for R&D and approval. This is precisely why in 2012 that aforementioned $180 30/day supply was now available to me in 30/day generic form for $10. In other words, I didn't have to wait 20 years for a generic to become available.

Regardless of regulation and Wall Street, the process of bringing a drug to market is strict. For example, pharmaceuticals need to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA that seeks to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence to a previously approved "reference-listed drug." They must prove they can manufacture the drug safely and consistently. For an ANDA application to be approved, the FDA requires the bioequivalence of a generic drug to be between 80% and 125% of the innovator product. Additionally, the FDA adds the generic drug to its Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations list (ADPTEE) and annotates the list to show equivalence between the reference-listed drug and the generic. There are also laws and regulations that generic pharmaceutical companies must follow but the overall scope of these regulations is to protect the public. (Information gleaned from Wikipedia with references.)

That being said are their issues with gross misconduct? Absolutely. But this is the exception instead of the rule. For the most part, the FDA helps make medicine less expensive for all.

bigspender wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 16:48:
The big money are these chronic diseases, they never go away as long as the patients keep following the doctors dietary advice. (And it's easy advice to follow, when the doctor tells you to eat more bacon)

I don't expect big pharma to be telling people that heart disease is completely optional, avoidable and reversible. That's the doctors job - but when the doctors (who are viewed as trusted sources) have been primed to pass on false information, then that is pretty awful.

So while Big Pharma isn't causing the diseases directly, it's certainly enabling other industries and companies to create the market for them.

It's not just the doctors either, it's the USDA and so on. They're all in bed together, and if it wasn't for organisations like PCRM.org putting in lawsuits against the USDA then we'd probably be eating pork with pre-injected statins and thinking that our genes are the cause of our chronic diseases.

I don't see a ton of evidence that the medical establishment has been primed to dispense bad dietary advice. I've never heard of doctors telling people to eat more bacon. Americans, and developed nations in general, lean towards self-destructive gluttony. It's a very, very hard thing to reverse, stop or slow down. Whenever and wherever there's widespread economic growth obesity and diabetes follow.

The health problems that come out of obesity happen pretty much by themselves, there's very little need or incentive for Big Pharma to try to make it any worse.

And if there were any kind of miracle pill or diet that cures these things that kill everyone, I'm sure we'd have seen it on our pets. There are people who would feed their cats or dogs anything, some of whom who can kill their own game or grow their own vegetables, if it would let them live 10 or 20 years longer. Instead, pets who eat good food and bad food all last about just as long (not counting the same problems with obesity and diabetes that people have). No one's cat or dog gets to be 50 or 60 years old no matter what they do or don't eat, and there's no magic treatment that cures their maladies.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 13:22:

El Pit wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 05:22:
How does Big Pharma work? Hint: every customer who is actually HEALED from his sickness by medical treatment is a LOST customer. So... Keep 'em paying. Keep 'em addicted. Keep 'em sick, but make them feel better.

We have the FDA and regulations to prevent that.

It's not quite that simple though. Big pharma have their fingers in a lot of pies, and they know how to create their customers.

For example one of my friends is a doctor, and he goes onto these training courses - which are sponsored by meat/dairy/poultry industries, but they're also sponsored by the companies which create statins. You wonder why a "healthy" eating course has seemingly opposing sponsors:

The statin companies know that these foods create cholesterol problems (leading to heart disease, the #1 killer), and they know that the doctors that go on these training courses will be recommending these problem foods to their patients.

The patients then develop the cholesterol related chronic diseases, and then the doctors then recommend they take statins to lower their cholesterol.

The same person that is creating the problem, is selling the solution. Very clever, and very immoral. Not only that, statins do not actually fix the problem, they simply mask it, create a whole bunch of other problems at the same time, and then you have take about 10 different other drugs to combat the laundry list of side effects from each drug. The big money are these chronic diseases, they never go away as long as the patients keep following the doctors dietary advice. (And it's easy advice to follow, when the doctor tells you to eat more bacon)

I don't expect big pharma to be telling people that heart disease is completely optional, avoidable and reversible. That's the doctors job - but when the doctors (who are viewed as trusted sources) have been primed to pass on false information, then that is pretty awful.

So while Big Pharma isn't causing the diseases directly, it's certainly enabling other industries and companies to create the market for them.

It's not just the doctors either, it's the USDA and so on. They're all in bed together, and if it wasn't for organisations like PCRM.org putting in lawsuits against the USDA then we'd probably be eating pork with pre-injected statins and thinking that our genes are the cause of our chronic diseases.

El Pit wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 05:22:
How does Big Pharma work? Hint: every customer who is actually HEALED from his sickness by medical treatment is a LOST customer. So... Keep 'em paying. Keep 'em addicted. Keep 'em sick, but make them feel better.

We have the FDA and regulations to prevent that.

Kxmode wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 01:57:
I think believing Big Pharma is evil is blown out of proportion. Do I think the ethics of being a publically traded company gives pause? Sure, but does this make them bad? No. Do they do good? Of course. How? One way is they provide several million in aid to third-world countries comparable to that country's GDP. They also offer low-cost alternatives in the form of authorized generics. All my prescriptions are generics costing $5-$10 for a 30-90 day supply. Before a generic was available with my insurance one was $180 for a 30-day supply. Keep in mind Big Pharma spends billions to R&D new drugs and go through the FDA approval process. In 2014, is cost 2.6 billion to bring a new chemical entity to market (this includes FDA approval). If I were a shareholder, I would require they recoup their costs. Consider: if they were truly greedy, there wouldn't be generics. Thankfully, there are for most.

Big Pharma is not altruistic in the least. There are generics because the government sets the patent expiration for drugs at 20 years. Don't fool yourself: the drug companies salivate at Disney's 90 and 120 copyright expirations. And they develop slight modifications of existing drugs, market them and get approval as new drugs, and then sell them at the protected price even though they're not any better than existing drugs. And don't even get me started on Skreli or Epipen.

Fortunately they are one of the more heavily regulated industries, so the damaging aspects of capitalism are mitigated and they're able to provide an overall good. Could see that change under Trump, who wants to deregulate a lot of stuff. Wait until "market forces" come into play because of 100s of people dying from a bad drug.

El Pit wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 05:22:
How does Big Pharma work? Hint: every customer who is actually HEALED from his sickness by medical treatment is a LOST customer. So... Keep 'em paying. Keep 'em addicted. Keep 'em sick, but make them feel better.

No disrespect but this is an absolute fallacy. This is dangerous thinking because if you have family members in need of medical care it could lead to poor judgments that might endanger their life.

Beamer wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 07:11:

El Pit wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 05:22:
How does Big Pharma work? Hint: every customer who is actually HEALED from his sickness by medical treatment is a LOST customer. So... Keep 'em paying. Keep 'em addicted. Keep 'em sick, but make them feel better.

So is every customer that's dead, as they'll never get any form of sickness again. But one that has been healed can get other illnesses down the road.

It's like you guys don't think too hard about this.

Why think when a conspiracy can do all the thinking for you. Did you ever notice that a conspiracy theory never holds up with the slightest bit of critical thinking.

El Pit wrote on Dec 28, 2016, 05:22:
How does Big Pharma work? Hint: every customer who is actually HEALED from his sickness by medical treatment is a LOST customer. So... Keep 'em paying. Keep 'em addicted. Keep 'em sick, but make them feel better.

So is every customer that's dead, as they'll never get any form of sickness again. But one that has been healed can get other illnesses down the road.

It's like you guys don't think too hard about this.

How does Big Pharma work? Hint: every customer who is actually HEALED from his sickness by medical treatment is a LOST customer. So... Keep 'em paying. Keep 'em addicted. Keep 'em sick, but make them feel better.

I think believing Big Pharma is evil is blown out of proportion. Do I think the ethics of being a publically traded company gives pause? Sure, but does this make them bad? No. Do they do good? Of course. How? One way is they provide several million in aid to third-world countries comparable to that country's GDP. They also offer low-cost alternatives in the form of authorized generics. All my prescriptions are generics costing $5-$10 for a 30-90 day supply. Before a generic was available with my insurance one was $180 for a 30-day supply. Keep in mind Big Pharma spends billions to R&D new drugs and go through the FDA approval process. In 2014, is cost 2.6 billion to bring a new chemical entity to market (this includes FDA approval). If I were a shareholder, I would require they recoup their costs. Consider: if they were truly greedy, there wouldn't be generics. Thankfully, there are for most.

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 27, 2016, 15:45:

jdreyer wrote on Dec 27, 2016, 13:50:
I wish big pharma could come up with a non-addictive recreational drug that didn't kill people. Obviously people want to do this, so we should find some way of making it safe.

Study after study has found that legalization is the only way to stop this insanity. Until then morticians, politicians, religions, profiteers, private or government run prisons and drug kingpins will be the only ones that profit. While the rest of society suffers.

So....these sectors will be the best places to find jobs under a Trump administration. Happy hunting!