Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public.
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public.
6 year old study spammed in a number of health and wellness threads, which is a misinterpretation even of the article...which misinterpreted the study (which is not linked in the article). I'll put my reply from the thread as well.
"Allen Roses talk was to build reasoning for individualized drugs based on genetic markers. It's a well known talk where he cherry picked the worst performers to show that one size fits all medicine can be refined to give more targeted drugs, which is further along in the article.
It makes sense that research in this area needs to be funded, but it's a bad bad thread title to say all their drugs only work 50% of the time. The article generalized the original study and talk (which I have seen presented a bit after he did the original) and what drugs they studied didn't make it in the article. Just more misunderstood hype and propaganda."
He has given one reason that he will not take the BP meds, he has been told that BP meds cause you to be impotent.
Several options have been presented to help with impotence, if it did happen. Not interested.
And yes he does like going to the ER, cause then he gets pain meds. No he does not like being taken care of, he is very nasty to the staff and doesn't want them bothering him.
But in his case, not taking the meds due to this fear of being impotent is stupid, cause he aint gettin any in the hospital either!
But he is just one case that I have with similar noncompliance issues. He is not willing to discuss any other possibilities, so it boils down to not wanting to take any meds.
Has anyone referred -- or tried to refer -- this guy to a therapist? (I Know ... another opportunity for noncompliance ... ) Sounds like he's got more problems than high blood pressure.
Lets just assume that your article is true and that 50% of people the drugs do not work for them. The patient in particular that I posted about the meds do work for him. When he is hospitalized they use the same exact drug he is prescribed at home. So it wouldn't apply in his case.
For everyone else, there is always supposed to be follow up to see if the drug is working. You know, you make a list of side effects that start due to using the med, and you make note of how much and when the drug works. Even the commercials say talk to your Dr and see if the drug is for you. So first you need to meet the criteria for needing the drug, and then you need to see if it works for you.
From the posts I have seen in response, not one post has come close to what I am talking about. Everyone seems to think I mean if the Dr says jump you better do it or no coverage for you. I'm talking about treatment that is proven to work for you, and you won't do it, but then you keep ending up in the hospital only to get the treatment you were supposed to do at home.
I'm not sure it's a simple case of "should we treat them or not." People who are non-compliant usually have reasons for that. People here are complaining about diabetics -- would YOU willingly take on the restrictions those unlucky slobs face? And it's not a secret that some people follow their doctors' orders to the letter and still get worse. I can see someone like that deciding not to bother any more. Also, some people -- especially the elderly -- cannot keep track of the insane amounts of prescription medicine they are supposed to be taking. I'm at my mental peak (how sad is that? ) and I couldn't follow some of their their regimes if you paid me. And of course many elderly are still having to choose between buying groceries and getting prescriptions refilled.
Also, a lot of healthcare professionals I've known and heard about will not work with their patients at all to find a self-care regime that patients can live with. I used to work with a guy who would actually argue with his patients, saying they are not either having the side-effects they are complaining about, and anyway it's only a side-effect and unimportant, and this is the latest and best drug for your situation and you are damned well taking it whether you want to or not. What kind of reasoning is that? Is he really expecting compliance?
I suspect the Hippocratic Oath stands in the way of refusing treatment for someone who shows up at the ER in fibrillation. Are you going to do a whole investigation on whether he's been compliant with his meds and thus truly worthy of treatment, or are you going to save his life the way he's asking and try to come up with a better plan for the future afterwards that he can or will follow up on?
And if I have a lethal condition that I choose not to treat, isn't that ultimately my choice? It's not my fault if some stupid *******s insists on calling me an ambulance.
"Also, a lot of healthcare professionals I've known and heard about will not work with their patients at all to find a self-care regime that patients can live with. "
The last doctor I fired actually told me I didn't need to know my hormone levels and refused to allow me the lab test. What a jerk!
Luckily, my present doctor is wonderful. He is a board certified physician AND an acupuncturist and a Chinese herbalist. He prescribes things like fresh produce, walking, Tai Chi, and actually leads classes on diet and tai chi at his offices. He never ever pushes pharmaceuticals onto us. First he wants to try non-harmful Chinese formulas and diet. So far, the Chinese herbs have cured the ailments I've had and I have NEVER had to resort to drugs.
And I completely understand the side effect thing about taking one drug to counteract the other. But this isn't a pill to stop your gas that gives you a headache that you then need excedrin for, it is to make your heart pump slower so that you don't have a stroke. It's a life or death drug.
.
There are highly effective Chinese herbs that have zero side-effects, and they prevent strokes and heart attacks. These herbs have been double-blind studied but western doctors simply ignore them.
For example:
Jiaogulan (Gynostemma pentaphyllum) dramatically decreases the chances of a stroke by inhibiting blood platelets from "sticking together," which prevents the formation of stroke-inducing blood clots. This same action prevents artery clogging, thereby reducing risk of a heart attack. Also, studies show that in as little as two weeks, a small dose of Jiaogulan taken daily, lowers high blood pressure to a normal range. By increasing production of nitric oxide - a chemical that relaxes blood vessel walls - the herb effectively reduces the blood pressure.
In addition, Jiaogulan reduces cholesterol by about 26%. 26%! That is as effective than any of those statins with deadly side-effects!
I see a major problem with a proposed system that punishes patients for not following the recommendations of useless, bloody-minded doctors but gives said doctors no consequences at all for being useless.
In the end, those who are non compliant will get the results of their decisions to disregard their health. I won't force something some one doesn't want on themselves, even if I know with 100% certainty if they continue they will die and what I can do will save them. Just educate them on the ends of each course of action. On the other hand, if they get hurt or worse I'll smack them upside the head if they complain or try and blame some one else for it. If you purposely make a choice and know the consequences, you can't complain about the consequences when they happen.
Should they be treated? Well, docs are legally required to and it's hard to differentiate in an emergency situation. Just make sure they get the bill, and their wallet will make sure they do less costly maintenance meds then costly ER visits.
I see a major problem with a proposed system that punishes patients for not following the recommendations of useless, bloody-minded doctors but gives said doctors no consequences at all for being useless.
Amen to that! All most doctors do is push pharmaceuticals.
And they KNOW one of the leading causes of injury and death in the U.S. is properly prescribed pharmaceuticals!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and I couldn't follow some of their their regimes if you paid me. And of course many elderly are still having to choose between buying groceries and getting prescriptions refilled.
