Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Antibiotics are not profitable enough

Posted 2 years ago on March 16, 2012, 11:13 p.m. EST by alterorabolish1 (569)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Therefore, there will be shortages. Nor enough research for new antibiotics.

I guess we can't expect them to be like Jonas Salk but it's unacceptable to NOT do something that creates life or death situations as this does.

75 Comments

75 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

well they have to start killing people off some how.. you actually think the 1% cares about that as long as there are enough for them? you can see by the comments that many people believe that if your are not just 'so' you should do the world a favor and die already

[-] 1 points by Ludog5678 (28) 2 years ago

So what your saying companies should spend a good 2-3 years making a new drug that will go out of common use in 1 due to lack of proper use. The problem is people don't know how to use antibiotics.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

My thoughts were that our reality is that Money is too dominant. What kind of world do we live in? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjzHZDPrYKg

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

If this happens, the research will be paid by the government, like for vaccines. I don't see any reason for there to be shortages. Tylenol isn't very profitable but there's plenty of it, because people need it all the time. Where did you read this?

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

This has been an issue of concern for many years and it is very true that unless big pharma has some financial incentive to produce these drugs, then they simply won't.
Research is paid for ( mostly) by profits made on the sale of newer drugs. Given their annual profits, it seems almost absurd that they lack the money to fund research. I would bet if they eliminated all their TV advertising, expensive gifts to doctors, expensive bonuses to their employees, they could significantly reduce the cost of medicines so that everyone could afford them and insurance premiums would be reduced as well.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

What gets me is when a pharma makes a medication and then tells us what symptoms the new pill will cure. Restless leg syndrome! Wow! "Didn't know it had a name. I thought I was drinking too much caffine. Who knew!"

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yeah and what's even worse is that YOU and every other consumer wouldn't even visit the doctor for such a thing without the drug companies advertising that it's problem to begin with. I have RLS sometimes...have had it on and off all my life due to the normal fluctuation of hormones. I say, NORMAL. Disease mongering is a very effective marketing tactic. I try to avoid all info re: anything labeled a ' syndrome'. Syndrome is not even scientific although it's used in the scientific community to say, ' We have no clue what it is or what's causing it" but we can give you a broad spectrum drug that will alleviate the symptoms. This is why placebos are as effective as most drugs. Heck, a shot of whiskey will alleviate most symptoms too. Medicines, including antibiotics do not cure anything. In most cases they just relieve symptoms while the body heals itself or they prevent the onset of a more serious infection or disease...like when an antibiotic is prescribed for bronchitis in order to prevent pneumonia.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Since some syndromes will kill you, like AIDS, I don't you're being very scientific. Medicine is an art and a science.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

AIDS doesn't kill anyone. It's just a term to describe a condition that will result from acquiring a pathogen like HIV and includes a lot of diseases, infections and cancers that result from a compromised immune system. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome....can result from many things even though we tend to assign it to HIV since HIV is contagious and results in so many other fatal diseases. MS is another disease of the immune system but it's not contagious so one does not ' acquire' it from any specific source. People with MS will die not from the disease itself but from the long term side effects of the disease that result in organ failure and infections.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I like your perspective. You are a thinker. Do you know what I find horribly messed up? The way we count death rates. If you die from an infection because you had MS; did you die from an infection or MS? I say MS, but we don't count deaths that way. I think it confuses the whole system.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

That is true. Most do not die from cancer, You die from a complication along the way. An infection, a heart attack. The cancer just damaged things and make you weak so something can kill you.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I understand why people think that. I used to think that way too until my father got MS and died from a host of infections that consumed his body. I told a friend of mine that he died from MS and she said, ' NO, he didn't', he died from such and such. When a person dies from AIDS, their death certificate will state the specific cause of death...lymphoma/cancer, pneumonia or whatever and may include ' as a result of HIV infection'. But, you're right that if you were to only read that they had pneumonia that you might not ever know they had HIV. Death certificates are pretty specific unless the death is undetermined. The scary part though is that a lot of coroners are completely incompetent and will write anything down and some of them are crooks who will accept bribes in criminal cases and state the death was due to homicide when it really wasn't. This is a HUGE problem in the USA. Do some research on it. I was unaware of this until a few months ago when I watched the Frontline investigation: http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/arts/television/01postmortem.html

These guys get paid a lot of money too. Another example of how one can be a wealthy professional and very incompetent and negligent. SCARY

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

My mom suffers from "Restless leg Syndrome" It is a brain issue. When early night starts she can feel it coming on so she take the med. In about 30 minutes she will be a sleep from the drug. That is the side affect she gets from it. But if she does not take it she will not get any sleep that night at all. Involuntary lag movement. Also it is not a cure at all, It just controls the issue. Oh i forgot is also had other issue, the I want to go gamble. It messes with the brain man........ Now that she understand that it is the pill and not her she can now control it. She never even wanted to gamble until she got the meds.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Try yoga & forget meds, unless its meditation (s). Point is exercise like walking is not the full story for RLS. Without leg stretching breathing exercise like yoga walking is useless. Yoga is the gift from the gods for those who want a happy old age without meds. The earlier you start the happier your body will be. Good luck with your mom. My dad has RLS and diabetes and I can't get him to stop eating sugar or to start exercising/yoga.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

So true Quark. Stretching is one of the most important exercises we can do for our bodies. Pilates does wonders for me as well. I am a fiddler/violinist and I suffer horrible neck and shoulder pain from time to time if I don't stretch and strengthen my core on a daily basis. Sorry to hear about your dad. We are creatures of habit which makes change a challenge for many. We eat our way into bad health and we must eat our way back to good health. So many older folks think that it's ' too late' to do anything. But, it's never too late. He could probably reverse his diabetes with some coaching and someone to partner with on his activities and meal preparation.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

It is very nice to meet a sensible, caring, & articulated person. I agree with everything you wrote.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Yogo will not put cartilage back in the joints.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

There is more to it than cartilage. It is that type of compartmentalizing that causes damage to the dimensional soul. It is a way of life and a question of your honesty. Years of not doing yoga can not be fixed by suddenly doing yoga. Years of abusing your body can not suddenly be reversed. Yoga can turn the tide to years of abuse if it is taken seriously. The body is a healing machine and yoga helps the machine heal. Most people like to be sick subconsciously because of the attention involved, so it is not a question of cartilage because there is so much more to life then fragmented thinking.

However, yoga nourishes cartilage, so it keeps the remaining cartilage healthier. If you have limited cartilage then you need yoga even more to keep the remaining cartilage functional & healthy. Stop making excuses & looking for magic bullets like meds. Free yourself from main stream thought.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Let me correct what i said. If you do not have any cartilage due to a genetic issue. Can Yoga give back that which is not there. Understand i have nothing against Yogo

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

I think if you have a human body you should do yoga & meditate. Start off with 5 to 10 minutes of yoga at night. That is how I started. If you start off with too much you will give up. Sorry if I came across mean, but I believe in your body to heal itself with yoga that much. Do the yoga that is right for your level. It will change your life. Namaste.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Quark, I completely understand everything you say. Yoga helps to restore natural balance in our physiology. I know first hand how living a more spiritual and holistic life ( that includes yoga) can restore a person's health. Many years ago, a doctor gave me an antidepressant for the most ridiculous issue and it just about ruined my life for a year even though I only took it for a month. When I realized how I was being harmed, I searched with a mission to find a board certified Integrative doctor ( like Dr. Weil or Dr. Hyman) and finally found my current doctor who changed my life forever. He took the time to teach me how the antidepressant altered my physiology and why I was having so many problems from it and then he taught me how to eat, how to exercise and meditate in order to restore balance and I felt like a new person within a month. Because of his wonderful care, I realized how truly corrupt and damaging the healthcare is in this country and I dropped my insurance and took my health into my own hands. Sure, I have circumstantial aggravations in life, just like anyone else does but I have the energy and the health to tackle those issues. Good health provides a good attitude! I also became a much more spiritual woman and I realized that I wasn't really living the life that was true to my nature and so I simplified my life by getting rid of all the meaningless clutter. Clutter makes a person ill for many reasons. I'm not a person who needs stuff in order to feel successful or worthy and all that junk in my life was just distracting me from experiencing real joy. Anyway, you're right that Normalperson's issue isn't just about cartilage. When our thoughts and body are healthy, our immune system is also healthy and will repair itself. Any type of inflammation ( like the degradation of cartilage) in the body is a result of imbalance that has been influenced by our minds and our lifestyle and diet and even the genetic tendency for these issues can be reversed. Science has proven that we can actually alter our genes by living a healthy lifetyle. I've also used acupuncture therapy to assist in restoring balance through detoxification and wowee is that ever powerful. The first time I had it, I felt so flu like for a few hours but after that, I felt fine.
Nice to meet you too...Namaste :D

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

I had a similar experience as you with doctors except they didn't believe I had pain in my shoulder, neck, hip, & foot from a major accidents. I was prepared for a life of drugs. I met a physical therapist who started me on exercise and then yoga teacher. The exercise was good but the yoga was fantastic. The meditation has cleared my mind & focused my life. I can analyze myself much more honestly. I feel younger & happier now and it is all because of yoga & meditation. The pain I felt is completely gone. If I skip yoga/meditation the old me starts to come back. I'm glad you are happy & aware. Namaste

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I'm surprised that they didn't give you an antidepressant. They gave it to me because I was having serious pain in my wrist...turned out that I had actually fractured a bone in my wrist and wasn't depressed at all..DUH!!
I can't say enough good things about Yoga and Pilates...it strengthens my core and my mind and spirit.
If you ever want to give acupuncture a try just for restorative health, don't fear it. It's truly so amazing and I get an hour and a half to just lie face down and listen to relaxing music. I remember one time a few months after my beloved dog died ( after 17 years) and lying there sobbing as if all my pent up sadness was just channeling out of me. There was even a puddle of tears on the floor! After that, I felt completely renewed and energized.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I was prescribed that shit for RLS. Never went back to that doc. I don't drink caffiene after 11 AM. So I have no idea why my legs tickle to beat helll every night. I usually just walk it off, go outside and look at the stars or something.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

If you can WORK it out and get some sleep then good you... The meds and the side effects can suck.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (34909) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Believe me it is real, though I have never taken a drug to relieve it.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I will watch later but the negligence is a big problem. Maybe this is in your video but homicide victims are much more likely to be identified as black. When the family is asked the victims race there is a large margin of error. This leads to stereotypes. Better and more exact death certificates would help us a lot.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34909) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

"?"

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I prefer to say black because African American makes it so obvious what the problem is. Is a creole African American? Obama African American? A recent immigrant from Russia theh dark skin? The medical examiners try their best I guess but they are greatly inflenced by the stereotype that black males are violent and die.violently. the more the stats are skewed by bad data the worse it gets

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34909) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Are you commenting on the Proper Thread ? I have no idea what you are talking about. This Post is about pharma. Your comments are about (?)

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Lol. IDK. I was taking to Gillian and I don't think my phone was updating fast enough.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I'm not disputing that people experience ' restless leg syndrome". I too have it from time to time. But I do take issue with giving people medications that only alleviate the symptoms without knowing the cause and I really take issue with the drug companies capitalizing on our every day circumstantial misery, aches and pains with a true disregard for our safety and good health. I rarely ever take medications but I would never take a medication for a syndrome diagnosis without knowing first, the specific cause and how the medication will work to correct it. For example, SSRI antidepressants are being used for everything from fibroymyalgia, restless leg syndrome, migraines, alzheimers to kidney stones. Why? Because mostly they alter our perception of the pain, making us more tolerant and unaware of it. They create a false sense of euphoria and well being. But, the cause of the problem still exists. If you have a hormone imbalance ( including many stress hormones, melatonin, thyroid, vitamin D3) or poor circulation then an antidepressant isn't going to help correct that imbalance at all and will probably add to the problem and or create other imbalances and perhaps a more serious condition. The danger in prescribing medications for syndromes results in too many adverse side effects and a much higher potential for creating other diseases such as diabetes,cancer or other immune system related diseases- which ultimately drives up the cost of healthcare for everyone. SSRI's for example cause GERD ( gastric reflux) because they alter the normal levels of serotonin in our stomach and they disrupt our circadian rhythm leading to sleep disorders. GERD can actually lead to cancer of the esophagus. I've never taken anything for restless leg syndrome and instead choose to do other things like eat more raw leafy greens, increase my krill oil, exercise more regularly and increase my magnesium ( citrate). Most likely your doctor won't tell you to do those things because they can be fined and lose their license for suggesting that food can treat, cure or reverse your condition even though it's mostly lifestyle and diet that influences our wellness or sickness. People seem more concerned about what type of gasoline or oil they put into their cars and yet, will consume the most unhealthy and toxic foods without a care in the world as to how their food affects their health. Would you put Koolaid into your car and expect it to run properly? Of course not and yet we overlook the affects that even one candy bar can have on our immune system and then take medicine when we end up with a cold or flu or worse. My general rule of thumb is to eat and drink only things that have some nutritional value and benefit to my health. If it doesn't, I really really try to avoid it ( except for a slice of flourless chocolate cake twice a year :D ) I might also add that all these vaccines like whooping cough, flu and Shingles are really just another means for the drug companies to make big profits while compromising our immune system, leaving us wide open to other more serious diseases in the meantime. Allergy medicines shut down part of our immune system too and some shut down too much our immune system which is why they often say that a side effect from taking the drug could be the more serious flu, pneumonia or cancer. It always amazes me that anyone would take a drug that advertises that it could cause cancer! There are other just as effective natural remedies that often have further benefits...Freeze Dried Stinging Nettle is a very effective histamine blocker for seasonal allergies and has other benefits as well.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I'm immunocompromised. The treatment is vaccines. This worked too. It makes my immune system stronger and please don't give me whooping cough. I promise we- I do not have a conspiracy to make u ill. A whooping cough outbreak would make bank for the hospitals but like I said before the government has to make the vaccines its so unprofitable.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

No conspiracy needed to spread pathogens around the world. People do this all the time by taking too many antibiotics, creating new strains of resistant bacteria and then as a carrier, passively infecting others with the new strain. Vaccines and antibiotics do not make for a stronger immune system- just one that is somewhat resistant to that particular strain of a virus. Getting healthy and exercising will make your immune system strong.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I can't really get healthy, lol, but I tried to take care of my self. It's really important. Probiotics, B vitamins and magnesium work well for me as well as a lot of herbal tea. Honey is supposed to be really good. I've tried it on wounds and instead of antibiotics and that works. I've even started to slowly convince my dr. brother that there's a place for adjuct herbal therapies in treating the chronically ill and he's starting to come around. My friend is using quine water for muscle spasms-a popular treatment in the early 1900s, which is a drug of course bu nearly as addictive.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Tetracycline has been in short supply here in New England since last fall.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Really? People kept trying to prescribe me tetracycline and doxycycline for a sinus infection and UTI (I got both-fun!), like its the new, cool thing. I have a rare allergy to these tricycline antibiotics and had to insist on Clindamyacin, since Cipro, Levaquin and Ammoxicilin didn't work. It was like pulling teeth. I knew I needed this antibiotic because I caught the infections from my husband and that's what helped him. I ran a fever for three weeks and have been hospitilized three times for infections, but they didn't want to give it to me. I wonder if there is a shortage of the more standard antibiotics here. Man, that's bad news for me.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Yeah tetracycline messes me up too. I get a weird rash when I take it, almost looks like psoriasis.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Yeah that's pretty much the reaction but only my face and start acting really irrational. I figure that's bad.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I'm sure they will find another tetracycline with a new name, patent it and then insist that it's better than the original and charge triple what the generic/original costs. I would bet that many of the shortages are due to their inability to produce an effective antibiotic ( and vaccines) given that by the time they develop one, it may not even be effective due to the resistant strains that keep showing up. Can you imagine spending years on research only to have it become worthless by the time you complete it? That is very costly too. I remember MANY years ago, my Micro professor telling me, ' Antibiotics will lead to the demise of the human race". I never forgot her words and I really try to avoid them and people who take them on a regular basis as I worry about being infected with a resistant bacteria.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Yeah, it is doxycycline. It is plentiful here but the difference in price is not all that much really. Lots of people get upset stomachs though, even more so that tetracycline.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yep, even Tetra kills my stomach. I had to take it for Lyme's many years ago and it made me so sick...maybe it was the Doxy. I know I had to give one of my rescue dogs doxy for Lymes and it made her sick too. I would think in your line of work you could use clindamycin? I took it pre- apico and it didn't bother me.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I actually use tetracycline topically, not systemically, after extractions where there is a lot of bone manipulation. I break open the capsule and pour it right in the socket before I suture it up. There is some evidence that it prevents dry sockets.

As far as systemic antibiotics I usually Rx amoxicillin. I try to only use clinda when someone has a penicillin allergy because GI problems are more common with it and it covers a much more broad spectrum than amoxicillin and that is rarely needed for dental infections.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

You mean if you permanently extract the tooth ( no other crown, etc..) then you fill the socket? how long would the antibiotic be effective for? A week? What do you mean by dry socket?

Dentistry has really advanced in recent years. I don't have hardly any fear in going anymore. It's actually relaxing and gives me a place to lie down and listen to music without feeling guilty. hahahaha That's an expensive break!

When I was a young girl, the doctors always cultured bacteria from our throats, noses, wherever and THEN prescribed the appropriate antibiotic. With the introduction of those high powered broad spectrums, we end up where we are today with so many resistant bacterial strains...not to mention a compromised immune system and depleted gut flora. Did you hear about that guy on the Eastern Shore that took Biaxin and started hallucinating, flipped out and stabbed the paramedics? I think it's best to stick with those safer, time tested antibiotics...like you mentioned.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Yes, and if it is a difficult extraction due to having to remove bone to get the tooth out I will place tetracycline powder in the socket before I suture the gums together. It isn't there long, but it is enough time to allow a nice blood clot to form.

A dry socket (alveolar osteitis is the real term) is basically a disruption in the formation of a good blood clot and results in the socket not healing. The bone remains exposed at the base of the socket, which is why it was probably termed a dry socket. It is pretty painful and usually sets in about 3-4 days after the extraction. Wikipedia has a pretty short and accurate page about it.

And I definitely agree about limiting the use of antibiotics. In the case of dentistry it is often possible to treat infections with none at all. Extracting a tooth or doing a root canal removes the source of the infection and is often all you really need.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I have found that raw garlic or even aged garlic ( Kyolic products) is a very effective systemic antibiotic and anti-viral. I also use Oregano oil ( very pungent though) too.

What if the patient has an infection in their gums or root? Couldn't that affect other organs via blood? Wouldn't it be best to treat systemically as a preventive when in doubt?

The reason I had to get that apico is because twenty something years earlier, a lazy dentist exposed my nerve when preparing a tooth for filling and then filled the tooth anyway despite my screams of sheer pain. When a different dentist realized what happened ( a couple of weeks later) and performed the root canal, he didn't get all of the bacteria/infection and hence, I ended up with a an even worse situation that resulted in the apico.

Last night I watched the movie ' Horrible Bosses" and thought of you. Have you seen it? Not that you're a horrible boss...but the dentist ( J. Aniston) is hilarious in that movie as a truly a horrible boss. I must tell you though that I had a dentist years ago that was a bit like her and made me very nervous as he would flirt and do things that were totally out of line. He eventually had to leave town.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Na I have not seen it yet. I'll have to check it out, I didn't realize she was a dentist.

Well when you extract the tooth you remove the source of the infection whether it is the roots or the gums. A root canal will not help a gum infection though. The only time I really ever prescribe them is if they have cellulitis, are swollen and can't get treatment at this moment, or if they are too swollen to open wide enough for me to work. If they show signs of systemic infection like fever or breathing problems they need to get to an ER, not to me. It is rare though, I have not seen it since my residency which was in an urban clinic.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yeah, she's one hot dentist in this movie..hahahha Actually, my dentist is hot too but thankfully, he doesn't behave like Aniston in that movie.

Apparently, there was some infection at the very tip of the root when the first root canal was performed. It sat there for years eating away at the bone and the only symptoms that I had came about 12 years later when I suffered horrible , I mean HORRIBLE pain on and off over the course of a few months. Then it stopped. I almost destroyed my liver with Tylenol and thankfully, my dentist gave me Fiorinol to use instead during that time. I was taking way too much Tylenol and Ibuprofen. My dentist and my girl friend dentist both told me that I needed an apico but they didn't tell me how important it was to get it sooner rather than later. So, ten years later, when I began having some sensitivity/aching, I got the apico but it failed. There was also a little bump above the tooth on the gum and I was told that was where the infection was. So, my dentist suggested that he try again OR just extract it and get a bridge ( no charge) but I was afraid the apico would fail again so I chose the bridge. I wish I tried the apico because I've had nothing but problems since..TMJ issues, constant bite adjustments...one big miserable headache. I've informed my family that they should invest in my mouth since it will be the most valuable thing I own when I die.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Haha very true. I have a whole jar full of old gold teeth that I am going to cash in one of these days.

Did you ever consider an implant in the area? With the bridge you have to prep the adjacent teeth and you would prefer not to cut an otherwise healthy tooth if you don't have to. Implants are not really much more expensive than a 3-unit bridge these days, especially if the dentist is using good precious metals in the bridge. You are also only changing the bite of 1 tooth, rather than 3, which lessons the chance of bite problems.

In situations of people missing 1 or 2 teeth I would say I am doing implants at a 4:1 ratio compared to bridges nowadays. Obviously you are invested in that bridge right now but I would give it some serious thought if you come across the situation again.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I have a Maryland bridge so really only two teeth were directly involved but it's caused all sorts of issues and I hate it. An implant was not an option for me and I can't remember why....the actual fake tooth is my eye tooth so maybe it was not strong enough? The other issue that my girlfriend told me was that implants are not good choices for those with any sinus issues and she said that my sinuses were too deep/near my teeth. So, I'm not sure what the deal is. Could be that the infection compromised the bone in that tooth as well. At the time that I was in the actual process of having this work done, my dentist's office burned down and he was working out of others' offices. I felt that the dentist who actually made my bridge did a crappy job. The tooth was so big and had to be downsized to such a large degree ( It sure seemed that way to me anyway) and then my other eye tooth had to be ' enlarged' and frankly, the whole experience seemed rather ' make-shift'. My dentist is a really good dentist though but I think there were definitely some issues that affected the quality of his work in this incidence even though he didn't completely reveal them to me.
Ok, so now I have a plaque to pick with you....you do not return your patient's gold tooth/teeth? Shame on you! You greedy dentist! You should cash them in now and then put that money into an account for someone who cannot afford care ( like me for instance :( ).....give the fund a name and perhaps others will make donations. Cheers!

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Maryland bridges are kind of a make shift thing. They are tough to clean too. Some people need bone grafting or a sinus lift before they can get an implant in certain ares but people who absolutely cannot get one are pretty rare. It is more often due to systemic problems than a problem with site.

As for my gold collection, I do offer them to people when I take them off/out and probably about 2/3 take it. A decent amount of people though are just repulsed by the thought of it, especially once they see the bloody roots sticking out the other end, and say no way.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

There hasnt been a truly new antibiotic since 1958.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17782) 2 years ago

Here's the first broad spectrum anti viral.

How long will they keep from the market?

How badly will they overprice it, to make up for all the lost sales on other drugs?

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Sounds promising but I wouldn't be the first in line to try it. I know it's a selective anti-viral but since it can affect all our cells, it sounds too invasive...like chemo in a way. I do believe it has great potential though and I like the approach the researchers are using.
Last year I lost my 2 year old dog to liver shunt disease and he could have been helped by a specific antibiotic that has been approved for humans. But, I couldn't get any vet to prescribe it since it had not been approved for dogs EVEN THOUGH the research studies were all conducted on dogs!!!! NOT HUMANS! I was so frustrated I can't even tell you. Where the hell is our commonsense?

[-] 2 points by shooz (17782) 2 years ago

Our common sense is more often than not, lost somewhere in a boardroom.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yes, the boardroom where the brain atrophies and becomes as inflexible as a 2x4

[-] 3 points by shooz (17782) 2 years ago

The boardroom, where increasing profit is the ONLY order of business.

The utility and potential of the product, be damned.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

You mean a new class of antibiotics.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Yes

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34909) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Pharma does this due to lack of profits on an already easy to make ( for them ) drug the cost of manufacture is practically zero too because everything has been worked out in the process. They are not hurting for money to make ends meet - there just is not enough gravy for them. The F'n Ass holes.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Yeah eventually the government will have to just fund non-profits to make some of these drugs that have been around forever.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Hmm. why doe we have to wait on the Government to Fund anything. WE can setup a non-Profit. Mind you when i say we i mean others with some money for an have none.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Well may be not profitable enough for American firms but surely Indian firms won't mind.

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34909) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

To have the ability to save lives and to withhold it because it does not make enough money seems so GD wrong. Did you see about the shortage of the childhood leukemia drug? Profits are one thing life is another. Life over money. Should be a law.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The shortage of the drug Methotrexate - used to treat Leukemia, among other things - was a temporary one due to a discovery of contamination in a few batches, not to any profit motive. The Government ordered the purchase of the drug from Europe and there was no real crisis. The crisis was mostly manufactured by the MSM.

Methotrexate is easy to produce and relatively cheap. It is very profitable, as is aspirin. (I take it myself every week, though in a lower dose pill form rather than the high dose injectable liquid.)

Regarding R&D of new antibiotics, there is ongoing research, not least by the government. Current antibiotics are still extremely effective in most cases, but the emergence of new drug resistant strains of bacteria, including tuberculosis strains, is a real concern and is being taken seriously by the medical community, particularly on the government level. That's why the right wing's attempts to defund the NIH, which does the bulk of the research, is particularly alarming.

As to profit motive by drug companies, there is nothing new here. They are scum and always have been. As businesses, they have no legal obligation to be moral, but only profitable.

That's another reason why we have to oppose the right wingers in government who are trying to destroy the most important major medical research facility in the country.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

That's a legitimate concern, but it doesn't have to be tied to a profit motive.

It's also getting away from the purpose of medicene, to prolong life & combat disease. Health care for profits' sake is disgusting, and ethically corrupt.

I can't believe anyone would seriously believe it's okay for half a second to profit off of the health of another human being. That is just sick.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I agree. Initially, medicine was not a for profit business. But, no one would want to be a doctor or could afford to be a doctor if there wasn't some profit to be made- especially today when the drug companies and insurance companies and health management corporations are all cobbled together. That's why some doctors today are more in favor of uni healthcare where they can practice and still earn a livable wage without the pressures of a competitive market. The entire system is broken. Medicine is an industry today and it shouldn't be. But to fix this broken system, both the individual and the industry have to shift their mindset from treatment to prevention ( lifestyle, diet) and then the healthcare costs will be substantially lowered. Additionally, those who do not use the system often should pay lower fees. I for example only see my doctor once a year for preventive annual exam but I also pay out of pocket since insurance would not pay for him to talk to me for two hours about my diet, aging, physiology, exercise etc... They will not cover the tests that he performs. I pay him about 200 dollars a year..that's all and he keeps me healthy :D I also don't have insurance by choice. It only paid for things that made me sick.....heck, even the premiums made me sick!

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

That's some good stuff. Good ideas, especially that a lot of what you're proposing is implementable immediately too!

Preventative medicene & practices is a great idea. Especially so if we ever move towards any form of free or subsidized health care in the near future. That's a great starting point.

Charging based on frequency seems like a good idea. My only concern would be those with a terminal illness or a true need for frequent treatment. But I get where you're coming from, and on the whole like your direction of thought.

The profit motive for doctors is a huge problem. It's a hypothetical, but it would be great if everyone could start out with no debt coming out of college. I'd much rather have a doctor treating me because he has a legitimate concern for my well being rather than trying to pay back student loans.

Malpractice insurance too doesn't help with costs either, and that goes hand in hand with lawsuits by extension.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

The thing is, we need to really understand the issues at a much deeper level. For example..why is malpractice insurance so high? Well, because medicine screws up and harms us instead of helping us which results in lawsuits. The only medicine that I personally believe is truly helpful is emergency medicine. Anyway...another thing to think about is that we need to ban direct to consumer TV advertising. This has been a nightmare for doctors as well as patients. Patients should not be advertised to if they are not licensed to treat themselves and prescribe their own medicines. Advertising drugs creates more problems, unnecessary prescriptions and feeds the hypochondriac mindset in this country that industry wants us to have!
A terminally ill patient should have a different type of care..like Hospice care which would also fall under the uni-care plan.
Insurance is bad for everyone's health. When , for example, a plan says that a person can only received 12 visits with a psychologist per year, ...HELLO? How can they possibly believe that anyone could receive enough care in 12 hours per year? Oh but again, this is why drugs are overprescribed...it's easier and cheaper and more lucrative to sell drugs than to provide a more thoughtful and thorough service to a patient. Americans need to get off of the glutton-minded merry go round. I'm not just talking about food..I'm talking about thinking in terms of over spending, over eating, over consuming everything without a concern as to the long term cost and consequences because they are so brainwashed by the illusion of a safety net being there for them whether it's bankruptcy, medicines or Jesus Christ.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Happens all the time and has for years. Women who had breast cancer that could have been cured with a bone marrow transplant were not covered by insurance. It's not just biotech that is to blame. Even when the ' cures' are available, many times, insurance won't cover it or the patient isn't even told about it OR the FDA, paid for by big pharma, won't approve it. If we are cured of anything, we are no longer a patient that needs their products. Are you familiar with Dr. Burzynski and how he developed a treatment to turn off cancer genes? Yet, the FDA would not approve this. There are cures for cancer that have been around for many many years. We are not women and men, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters to bean counters in research and development and Insurance. We are simply the means by which they become the most powerful industries in the world. If anyone believes that the American Cancer Society is really seeking a cure, think again and find out who they are really working for. Do the same for every other organization in this country. I never give money to those groups. However, I do support Doctors without Borders and the RAM ( remote area medical) group that consists of volunteer doctors who travel far to help those who cannot afford care for themselves and their pets/animals. Isn't it ironic that people will give money to support organizations but refuse to support a universal healthcare system?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

The FDA isn't able to handle novel products. It's a consistent problem in biotech research. If a product works in a completely new way, the FDA is often too inflexible to know what to do and the idea gets tossed. Big Pharma doesn't really do "research." They buy other people's ideas and then put up the money for the last, most expensive phases involving thousands of people. There is some collusion, but often in cutting corners at the end. Since they put up the money, they don't want to lose it if the drug isn't working.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yeah, the FDA really isn't the same watchdog that it was prior to the late 90's and especially after 2001. They function more to address problems that arise after a product is brought to market and it takes hundreds, if not thousands of adverse reports before any red flag is raised.
Big pharma outsources a lot of their R&D today..even to India and China and they sometimes merge with or acquire those companies as well as influence university studies. Either way it's still unethical science since it's not independent of big pharma's interests. Unfortunately, like you said, they cut corners because their focus is on speed of development and not really any breakthrough discovery. No one wants to lose money but the drug companies will hide adverse data, destroy data, and select which studies to submit in order to get FDA approval. Look what happened with Vioxx and how many people died as a result of their lies. It took 3 years and thousands of deaths before FDA pulled it off the market and during that time, we were all kept in the dark, unaware of the risks. Merck, like most drug companies employ ' Selective Evidence-Based Science". Oh and let's not ignore too that they often hire ghost writers to publish fraudulent manuscripts in medical journals that undermine public health and safety.