Big Pharma's Secret History

gue_barium

My 30- year pharmaceutical history:
maybe 6-10 aspirins average over the course of a year.
antibiotics twice (1983 and 1996) for strep throat.
Lots of alcohol.

VrJxS

double post - see below

VrJxS

soulsinging wrote:

medically speaking, heroin is comparatively tame as long as you don't overdose... and if quality was controlled, that would be pretty easy to avoid. and people still od from drinking.

I think stating that heroin is "tame" is very very inaccurate.

Also, quality control, as you put it, would likely do little to prevent "overdosages." I agree that quality control would assure the purity of the heroin and prevent it from containing dangerous excipients or additional drugs/toxins that are often associated with adverse events. Quality control would also make all sources of heroin comparable on a mg to mg basis.

That said, unless the use of heroin was managed by a medical professional, overdoses would still be a major issue. "Patients" would continue to escalate their dose as tolerance developed. I can't think of too may physicians that would be willing to supervise maintained narcotic addiction (Don't even compare this to methadone maintenance programs either - whole other topic).

You say "people still od from drinking." Do you not consider alcohol to be quality controlled? How then would quality control of heroin prevent overdoses?

farfromglorified

scw156 wrote:

Laws protect our rights because humans are too big of shit heads to control themselves and not do things that harm others or infringe on their rights.

If dumb asses didn't drink and drive then there would be no law against that. If creeps weren't attracted to 10 year olds and try to nail them then there wouldn't be laws against that. If humans could control all urges and be responsible then the world would be grand... sadly, humans can't do that, they can be assholes, shit faces, dumb asses... thats why there are laws there...

If the dominant standard for the justification of law becomes "assholse", "shit face", and "dumb ass", a country of drug addicts is going to be the least of your problems.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

If the dominant standard for the justification of law becomes "assholse", "shit face", and "dumb ass", a country of drug addicts is going to be the least of your problems.

That was kind of funny.

How come you haven't answered to any of my replies to you, though?

El_Kabong

soulsinging wrote:

im not following your logic here. heroin was an evil thing invented by evil people. then they were SO evil they wouldnt sell it anymore becos it was being taxed. now they're so evil they outlaw it so there's less competition? in their spare time do they kick puppies or something? are they responsible for pedophilia too?

i thought you blamed pedophilia type behavior on alcohol?

anyway, if you read my 2nd post
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4317518&postcount=9

you would see why they made it illegal. who said anything about 'evil'?? you can be so naive from your hate and anger, have you ever considered dropping all the negativity?

when they started pushing it they didn't realize it was like 3 times stonger than morphine when the liver got a hold of it...there was an explosion of addicts from it and after it became illegal w/o a prescription, doctors compalining about its effects

where does 'big bad evil pharma companies kicking puppies' or any of that shit come in????

my2hands

i think the only drugs i have taken in the last 3 years are about 4-5 advil.

i also smoke marijuana but i do not consider that a drug, it is simply a plant that when ingested provides a "high"

gue_barium

El_Kabong wrote:

i thought you said it was the alcohol that made you post those pedophilic comment a while back? the one about 13 year olds giving you hard ons....

Comeback of the Year.

scw156

farfromglorified wrote:

If the dominant standard for the justification of law becomes "assholse", "shit face", and "dumb ass", a country of drug addicts is going to be the least of your problems.

I think you like to argue for the sake of it.

If you have sex with a 11 year old... yes, sir, you are a shit head.



Good day

VrJxS

Every time I re-read the initial article I find more inaccuracies. I'd like to know where Mr. Adams gets his info as no references were included. I especially like how when you click on a link in the article it redirects you to the exact same article, that is brilliant!

1. I'd like to see the statistics that show the "millions of military personal" from WWII addicted to methamphetamines. I bet the same people counted the protestors at the million man march.

2. Adams says "meth is made from ingredients found in over-the-counter cold medicines." I guess he couldn't research which ingredient. The author also criticizes "big pharma" and legislators for not listing these cold medicines as controlled substances. However, most states require any product with pseudoephedrine to be kept behind the pharmacy counter, the quatity sold is limited (it takes a lot to make a batch of meth), and a record of the sale and customer information is kept. As far as I am concerened, that seems like legislation to limit availability of the ingedient.


3. "Ritalin is speed for children" - gross generalization. Ritalin is a stimulant used to treat ADHD and I agree that it is over prescribed, but have also seen it be very effective in helping patients. I would also like to know exactly which drug company invented "brain chemistry condition" as the author terms it.

I am not a fan of the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. by any means, but Mr. Adams' propaganda is nothing but a joke.

VrJxS

my2hands wrote:

i think the only drugs i have taken in the last 3 years are about 4-5 advil.

i also smoke marijuana but i do not consider that a drug, it is simply a plant that when ingested provides a "high"

Marijuana may not be a drug, but THC is. Just because it is not synthetic doesn't mean it's not a drug. Many medical compounds are non-synthetic.

Smoke a bowl for me though.

gue_barium

VrJxS wrote:

Every time I re-read the initial article I find more inaccuracies. I'd like to know where Mr. Adams gets his info as no references were included. I especially like how when you click on a link in the article it redirects you to the exact same article, that is brilliant!

1. I'd like to see the statistics that show the "millions of military personal" from WWII addicted to methamphetamines. I bet the same people counted the protestors at the million man march.

2. Adams says "meth is made from ingredients found in over-the-counter cold medicines." I guess he couldn't research which ingredient. The author also criticizes "big pharma" and legislators for not listing these cold medicines as controlled substances. However, most states require any product with pseudoephedrine to be kept behind the pharmacy counter, the quatity sold is limited (it takes a lot to make a batch of meth), and a record of the sale and customer information is kept. As far as I am concerened, that seems like legislation to limit availability of the ingedient.


3. "Ritalin is speed for children" - gross generalization. Ritalin is a stimulant used to treat ADHD and I agree that it is over prescribed, but have also seen it be very effective in helping patients. I would also like to know exactly which drug company invented "brain chemistry condition" as the author terms it.

I am not a fan of the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. by any means, but Mr. Adams' propaganda is nothing but a joke.

So, then how do you go about it?

farfromglorified

scw156 wrote:

I think you like to argue for the sake of it.

I do, but that's not why I'm arguing with you.

If you have sex with a 11 year old... yes, sir, you are a shit head.

Yes, I would be a shit head. But that's not the standard of legality. The standard of legality is the violation of rights, not whether or not I'm a shit head.

A pedophile violates the rights of the 11 year old. Now whose rights does a drug user violate? And what rights?

Good day

It is a good day.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

There is a problem with corporations when the interest in the consumer sinks below the value of the product for the consumer.

A viable corporation can never be disinterested in their consumers. That makes no sense.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

I do, but that's not why I'm arguing with you.



Yes, I would be a shit head. But that's not the standard of legality. The standard of legality is the violation of rights, not whether or not I'm a shit head.

A pedophile violates the rights of the 11 year old. Now whose rights does a drug user violate? And what rights?



It is a good day.

You are a blamer of victims, ffg, you are. You see the advantage in people's ignorance, and I think you are scum for it.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

A viable corporation can never be disinterested in their consumers. That makes no sense.

You're full of shit.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

A viable corporation can never be disinterested in their consumers. That makes no sense.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=239737

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=239737

So your contention is that pharmaceutical companies aren't researching cancer treatments?

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

You are a blamer of victims, ffg, you are. You see the advantage in people's ignorance, and I think you are scum for it.

Hey man, ffg is a smart young man, who are you to discredit his wisdom?

Wisdom? He likes a rigged game. He's a cheater. All is fair, victims or no victims. He really doesn't deserve a place on this board.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

You are a blamer of victims, ffg, you are.

What "victims"? How were they victimized?

You see the advantage in people's ignorance

No. I see disadvantage for people in their own ignorace.

I think you are scum for it.

You're entitled to think whatever you'd like.