Posted by Hello321 on April 22, 2016, at 9:33:22
In reply to Re: the lost sheep » Hello321, posted by baseball55 on April 21, 2016, at 20:12:43
> > But in the end, a chemical developed by an extremely wealthy drug company is developed for the same reason any "get well quick" treatment is developed. To bring in more money to the seller. The sellers interests are highest on the list is of priorities. And one jhas to wonder where mental health treatment would be at today if this weren't the case. If getting help to the ones who are suffering were the highest priority. And this goes for any such medical treatments. Maybe then there'd even be no need for psychobabble to exist.
> >
> Just because drug companies are trying to make fortunes on drugs, doesn't mean the drugs themselves are shams. I'm no fan of drug companies. But I recognize that drug companies have made fortunes developing new antibiotics to treat infections for which standard treatments don't work. They've made fortunes on drugs like tamoxafin, which has greatly increased the life expectancy of women with breast cancer. They've made huge fortunes with statins, which successfully lower cholesterol and on any number of meds that lower blood pressure. They are trying to develop drugs to treat Alzheimers, which would be a huge and lucrative market.
>
> Drugs that don't work don's sell. So they try to develop drugs that work. I'm sure if they could figure out a sure-fire AD, they would market it like crazy and make a fortune. They just haven't figured it out yet because nobody really understands the neuro-physiology of depression. I also have no doubt they are looking for drugs that treat psychosis without the metabolic side effects.
>
> The real problem is that the US has no national health care system to negotiate prices and perform basic cost-benefit analysis. Drugs stay on patent too long. Drug reps try to corrupt doctors (and often succeed) by paying them to speak about drugs at fancy dinners at expensive restaurants. All this sucks, but that doesn't mean they don't develop or try to develop breakthrough drugs.Do you think if a drug company stumbled upon a treatment didn't require an chemical thst amazingly indefinite amount of use to modify brain function in a way to relieve depression, and therefore was only needed for short term treatment, that it mightnot make business sense for a drug company to develop and sell? Today's treatments have to be taken continuously. And if someone benefits from a med like cymbalta, they might just have they persons business for the rest of his life.
Can't deny that it's profits above patient benefits when you see the light links I posted. The one showing Bayer had sold HIV tainted blood is especially scary. But they saw a possibility that they could get away with it in the country they sold it in, and went for it.
I wish I could see drug companies in the light many users of psychobabble still do. I used to. But if I still viewed them the same way I did in my teens, then my thoughts would be working against my own interests.
But I'll let you guys be. All of you complementing each other when one comes up with a way to show the psychiatric industry in a better light... I get internested in the Congo sometimes, but sometimes it just gets old. One can see both sides of the tale, that theres a possibility these chemicals can help, and still recognize that they're seeking help from an industry that doesn't have their interests at heart, and would infect them with AIDS if it made business sense.
poster:Hello321
thread:1088191
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20160331/msgs/1088377.html