SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the prepare-for-sharply-worded-letters dept.
More drugmakers hike U.S. prices as new year begins:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Drugmakers including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co (BMY.N), Gilead Sciences Inc (GILD.O), and Biogen Inc (BIIB.O) hiked U.S. list prices on more than 50 drugs on Wednesday, bringing total New Year’s Day drug price increases to more than 250, according to data analyzed by healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors.
Reuters reported on Tuesday that drugmakers including Pfizer Inc (PFE.N), GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK.L) and Sanofi SA (SASY.PA) were planning to increase prices on more than 200 drugs in the United States on Jan. 1.
Nearly all of the price increases are below 10% and the median price increase is around 5%, according to 3 Axis.
More early year price increases could still be announced.
Soaring U.S. prescription drug prices are expected to again be a central issue in the presidential election. President Donald Trump, who made bringing them down a core pledge of his 2016 campaign, is running for re-election in 2020.
[...] The United States, which leaves drug pricing to market competition, has higher prices than in other countries where governments directly or indirectly control the costs, making it the world’s most lucrative market for manufacturers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday January 02 2020, @03:28PM (6 children)
Some links would be nice, since every argument you make here relies on someone else's authority. Specifically:
1. Where the study claiming antidepressants finally worked?
2. Where's the Norwegian review tore that study apart?
3. Where/when did "the UN" make a statement about depression, and which countries were part of making that statement?
4. Where's the review of antidepressant effectiveness among depressed VA patients? What's the likelihood that the patients not receiving antidepressants were already less likely to relapse?
5. Where's the review of anti-psychotic effectiveness among schizophrenic VA patients? What's the likelihood that the patients not receiving anti-psychotics were already less likely to relapse?
Not saying you don't have a point. I'd love for you to be correct, because the idea of antidepressants has always rubbed me the wrong way. But I can't expect anybody else to take your ideas seriously without seeing the source of your claims.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 02 2020, @03:35PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:18PM (2 children)
You're severely depressed because you can no longer do your job because your health went in the shitter, so you're experiencing economic hardship as well as trying to cope with life-destroying health problems.
It's entirely normal to be depressed in such a situation. And pills that alter the brain, not just functioning but also physically, won't fix the underlying cause. Which is why they're no more effective than a placebo . You hope it works, you're desperate for it to work, the doctor says it will work ... but after a while reality manages to intrude on your drugged brain. So, increased doses, same thing. Try another one same same. Try several in combination - your reality hasn't changed, and you are even less able to cope because the side effects include one people rarely talk about in studies - your increasing alienation from yourself. It's not a recognized side effect, so it's ignored or discounted as part of the depression itself.
So you end up in a situation of trying to cope with the real world problems using drugs. Better to drink - at least you can share with friends and get a bit of social support. But neither is a solution to the underlying problems that caused the depression. You're still out of a job, your health problems haven't gone away, and you've bought into the lie that it's all because of a chemical imbalance in the brain - which none of the drugs fix or you wouldn't relapse.
Another problem is that the most effective tool, cognitive behavioural therapy, doesn't work that well in such circumstances because it too doesn't fix the underlying problems. If you're poor and otherwise challenged, changing the way you see the problem still leaves you poor and challenged.
The worst part is that people are afraid to come off the drugs even when the doctor suggests it, out of a fear it might get worse.
Another form of learned helplessness, encouraged by doctors saying it's a chemical imbalance in the brain and that you will have to be on drugs all your life.
Interesting fact - when people living in countries with half-decent old age pensions retire, depression often clears up on its own. There's not the same sense of failure at work if you're retired, and the extra money helps. Amazing how money "fixes" what is supposed to be a permanent chemical imbalance in the brain, which tells me that the whole idea of chemical imbalance is full of shit, same as previous theories that being lgbt was a mental illness, or that peptic ulcers were caused by stress and you need to quit your job/get a divorce and pay for lots of therapy,, or that when a man acts assertive he's being manly, but a woman is mentally ill with hysteria. What can we expect from a field that got its start with Mesmer and went on with crazy theories from crazy guy Freud?
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @12:54PM (1 child)
No, depression is a normal effect of being alive. It clears on its own in most instances. But the pharmaceutical industry has trained doctors that if you are sad for a month because your cat died, then you need pills to make you happy again. Like is not like that. It's normal to be fucking sad and depressed for months and even a year while to deal with shit in your life.
This has nothing to do with anti-depressants working or not. It has to do with wrong treatments of mild depression.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 03 2020, @03:56PM
I'm NOT talking about mild depression. I'm talking months of intrusive suicidal thoughts, and everything that goes with it. 5 years of that was enough.
Nobody is supposed to be prescribed antidepressants for mild depression.
But yes, the problem is pills don't deal with the underlying problems of your life going totally into the shitter. Any appearance that they work is temporary, and results in embarking on the roller-coaster of increased doses and different types of antidepressants - and since antidepressants have been shown to double the rate of relapse in "controlled" patients, it's a mook's [merriam-webster.com] game.
Fortunately, within the last decade there's enough evidence against antidepressants that there's been significant pushback. These drugs need to be banned based on the harm they cause, and their not working.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:51PM
Antidepressants work, just not for everyone:
Depression: How effective are antidepressants? [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:32PM
I tend to believe it in a general way, even if some of the specific details in the gp might be suspect. Yes, we all know it's bad. Patients absolutely are not first. Money is. Yet I think most don't understand the severity of the corruption and ubiquity of the warping. For instance, we still mostly believe in magic pills, and there are plenty that do work, so that it's all the easier for a fraudulent drug to slip past. There is not one medical decision that isn't twisted by inappropriate financial considerations.
How about hospitals keeping patients alive, not just for the obvious reason of racking up expenses, but to manipulate the numbers? One place specializing in heart transplants stalled on Do Not Resuscitate directives, in order to get their patients past the arbitrary milestones used to judge their effectiveness. Heart patients can't be allowed to die until they've lasted a month or a year. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-family-wanted-a-do-not-resuscitate-order-the-doctors-didnt [propublica.org]
How about cures for AIDS being delayed? Senior citizens being overmedicated? (That one I heard, and saw, over 30 years ago.) At the other end of the age spectrum is the overdiagnosis of whatever the latest fads are in childhood illnesses. ADHD is still pretty big.
Another thing that makes matters worse is how many are in cahoots. Ambulance chasing lawyers love sky high medical prices. Health insurers were supposed to be helpful in fighting excessive medical care, instead they've embraced it, to boost their own profits. All too often, schools will hoke up medical reasons to ditch students to whom they've taken a dislike, and the medics are entirely too willing to take the teachers at face value. Police lean on drug testing to return positive results.
Most of all, the basic system of "fee for service" has been disastrous. The incentives are all wrong, and even the most well-meaning doctors are swayed inappropriately, perhaps only at subconscious levels.