Aa
UCSF study questions drug trial results
Although not specifically about HCV I thought the ideas in this article in today
I understand your viewpoints, but why do we have to have to see an issue only one way - or only the other way...we can think several ways about an issue...I think there are a lot of things wrong with this government, and because of this, there are citizens here who would tell me if I critisize it too severely - I should go elsewhere to live...why can't I vote or fight for change, and still like living here and be grateful for this country, try to make it better (in my view)...that's what's great about this country, that we can at least try to fight for change...
Same with the drug companies, I can see a lot of corruption in them, and the venal things that they do, same with the oil companies and a few other institutions....but I am very glad for them as well, and am glad that they are working on substances that save lives and do much good in the world...because I critisize some of their practices, doesn't mean I want them wiped out or I want to boycott all of their products...there are usually many sides to these types of issues...
Same with the drug companies, I can see a lot of corruption in them, and the venal things that they do, same with the oil companies and a few other institutions....but I am very glad for them as well, and am glad that they are working on substances that save lives and do much good in the world...because I critisize some of their practices, doesn't mean I want them wiped out or I want to boycott all of their products...there are usually many sides to these types of issues...
"And the experts who devise quality standards often benefit financially from the drug companies who naturally want us to prescribe more drugs in service of ever-more demanding targets for blood sugar, cholesterol or anything else.."
My comment was in response to the report Forseegood was referring to:
"But all that pales in comparison to the possibility that some patients may have been hurt or killed by medicines offered with every intention of helping them."
I don't follow your line of reasoning comparing stealing to smoking a medicinal plant, but we are all entitled to our opinions
OH
"But all that pales in comparison to the possibility that some patients may have been hurt or killed by medicines offered with every intention of helping them."
I don't follow your line of reasoning comparing stealing to smoking a medicinal plant, but we are all entitled to our opinions
OH
For diabetes I prefer insulin and/or metformin. All the other pills seem to have unwanted side effects and were developed primarily to satisfy people who are afraid to give themselves injections. No problem with that among us interferon users, I believe. Even though I'm in the earliest stages of diabetes (and by some definitions don't have it at all), I take a nightly shot of lantus insulin which keeps my baseline on an even keel (though it's not for hypoglycemics).
As far as one size fits all therapy, I think physicians sometimes are unwilling or haven't enough time to develop individualized treatment plans for their patients. It's easier to do the same thing with everybody. Also, many docs seem to assume that patients won't be compliant and therefore offer what they deem to be the easiest route. The worst one is 70/30 insulin, which is all too frequently prescribed. It's a half-assed drug at best, created for those who won't take more than one shot a day. IMHO, once you're taking one shot it's not very hard to take three or four. In any case, Avandia is mostly an unnecessary drug.
As far as one size fits all therapy, I think physicians sometimes are unwilling or haven't enough time to develop individualized treatment plans for their patients. It's easier to do the same thing with everybody. Also, many docs seem to assume that patients won't be compliant and therefore offer what they deem to be the easiest route. The worst one is 70/30 insulin, which is all too frequently prescribed. It's a half-assed drug at best, created for those who won't take more than one shot a day. IMHO, once you're taking one shot it's not very hard to take three or four. In any case, Avandia is mostly an unnecessary drug.
You claim the "FDA okays medicines that kills us." So I'm wondering who is forcing you to take these killer drugs? Are you treating? If so: stop. A drug company could release a drug that cured everything and caused people to poop gold and you would find something to complain about. I'm not saying the Pharm companies are perfect but one of them is likely saving my life. I can be thankful or I can scour the web top to bottom looking for things to complain about.
Concerning your comment about the "green leaf," to claim people don't die over it is ludicrous. Also, my neighbors have some stuff I'd like to have, I can't believe they'd put me in jail if I went and took it, it's likely nobody would die.
Concerning your comment about the "green leaf," to claim people don't die over it is ludicrous. Also, my neighbors have some stuff I'd like to have, I can't believe they'd put me in jail if I went and took it, it's likely nobody would die.
though there talking about cancer...thought this article was in interesting as well as far as tailoring treatments...
- Doctors are closer to predicting which cancer patients can skip chemotherapy and avoid the brutal side effects of that staple of cancer care, doctors at a major medical meeting said on Tuesday.
The move toward helping patients avoid chemotherapy -- and perhaps the nausea, hair loss and weakened immune system that are its hallmarks -- is a positive side effect of the individualization of cancer treatment, doctors at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting said.
"Chemotherapy is clearly effective for patients -- on average. But can it be spared?" Dr. Aron , of the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, said at a panel at the meeting, which wrapped up here.
Women patients with high levels of estrogen receptors -- cancer cells containing special proteins that bind to the hormone estrogen -- are among the patient subsets that may not benefit from chemotherapy for breast cancer, experts said.
More research is needed to determine the best regimes and to define the particular subgroups, said Dr. Kathy , director of the breast clinical research program at University Medical Center in Illinois.
But it is coming, probably in a few years, she said.
"We have entered the tailored therapy era," Albain said.
Breast cancer is in the forefront in this area, but experts said others are following, including lung cancer which is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the world.
"Now, predictive factors for lung cancer are coming down the pike, rather than just blindly assigning patients to treatments A, B or C," said Dr. Gregory , who specializes in lung cancer at Ohio State University Medical Center.
So-called targeted cancer treatments -- drugs that attack or bind to a specific molecule or part of a molecule such as one that triggers tumor growth or controls blood flow -- have been around for several years.
What emerged as a theme at this year's meeting is these drugs' effectiveness in more types of the disease, experts said.
"Ten years ago it was all about chemo," said Dr. Kim , director of the Duke University Comprehensive Cancer Center. "This time you walk down the convention center and it's all about new targets. And we can get more mileage out these drugs if we can predict who will respond."
- Doctors are closer to predicting which cancer patients can skip chemotherapy and avoid the brutal side effects of that staple of cancer care, doctors at a major medical meeting said on Tuesday.
The move toward helping patients avoid chemotherapy -- and perhaps the nausea, hair loss and weakened immune system that are its hallmarks -- is a positive side effect of the individualization of cancer treatment, doctors at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting said.
"Chemotherapy is clearly effective for patients -- on average. But can it be spared?" Dr. Aron , of the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, said at a panel at the meeting, which wrapped up here.
Women patients with high levels of estrogen receptors -- cancer cells containing special proteins that bind to the hormone estrogen -- are among the patient subsets that may not benefit from chemotherapy for breast cancer, experts said.
More research is needed to determine the best regimes and to define the particular subgroups, said Dr. Kathy , director of the breast clinical research program at University Medical Center in Illinois.
But it is coming, probably in a few years, she said.
"We have entered the tailored therapy era," Albain said.
Breast cancer is in the forefront in this area, but experts said others are following, including lung cancer which is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the world.
"Now, predictive factors for lung cancer are coming down the pike, rather than just blindly assigning patients to treatments A, B or C," said Dr. Gregory , who specializes in lung cancer at Ohio State University Medical Center.
So-called targeted cancer treatments -- drugs that attack or bind to a specific molecule or part of a molecule such as one that triggers tumor growth or controls blood flow -- have been around for several years.
What emerged as a theme at this year's meeting is these drugs' effectiveness in more types of the disease, experts said.
"Ten years ago it was all about chemo," said Dr. Kim , director of the Duke University Comprehensive Cancer Center. "This time you walk down the convention center and it's all about new targets. And we can get more mileage out these drugs if we can predict who will respond."
here's the gist of the interview, it was on Marketplace, NPR..
The diabetes drug Avandia has been linked by a study to heart attacks and deaths. Commentator Dr. Stefan says, in addition to the drug itself, the system that led to it being so heavily prescribed should be examined.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
: A full-page ad in the Wall on your average Tuesday runs more than $250,000. Multiply that by three or four national papers, and another handful of regional editions, and it's a big pile of money. But doubtless considered well-spent by the drugmaker Glax
The company took out the ads today to reassure patients about the safety of its diabetes drug, Avandia. A couple of weeks ago, the New England Journal of Medicine reported Avandia's been linked to heart attacks and deaths. As a result, two things have happened. Glaxo's stock price has taken a hit. Also, commentator Doctor Stefan has seen a change in his rounds at the hospital.
DOCTOR STEFAN : During visits to patient's rooms, we hear the TV blaring: "If you think you've been harmed by Avandia, call our attorneys." The other day, one of us was called away from the bedside of a man with chest pains to handle a call from a patient worried about Avandia.
But all that pales in comparison to the possibility that some patients may have been hurt or killed by medicines offered with every intention of helping them.
But let me ask this: why were we prescribing so much Avandia in the first place?
In recent years, we've been putting patients on two or even three different medications just to meet the elusively low blood sugar standards that diabetic experts promote. Avandia was typically the second or third drug in that cocktail.
The real problem is a rise in absolutist quality standards for the treatment of each chronic medical condition. That includes the notion that we should drive diabetic blood sugar, cholesterol, even blood pressure as low as it can go.
Those standards, soon to be given sharp teeth by Medicare in a program called Pay for Performance, reflect advice from experts whose perceptions are skewed.
The research guiding our experts is based on single diseases. So the experts rarely take into account just how complicated and dangerous it can be to treat a patient with four diseases and 12 different medications that can mix in unforeseen ways.
And the experts who devise quality standards often benefit financially from the drug companies who naturally want us to prescribe more drugs in service of ever-more demanding targets for blood sugar, cholesterol or anything else.
Medicine is supposed to help people, not harm them.
So first, we need to demand that health care standards organizations, like the National Committee for Quality Assurance, publicly and fully disclose the financial interests of their experts. And next, our government must slow down before rushing head-long into a torrid affair with quality standards that may yet betray us all.
The diabetes drug Avandia has been linked by a study to heart attacks and deaths. Commentator Dr. Stefan says, in addition to the drug itself, the system that led to it being so heavily prescribed should be examined.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
: A full-page ad in the Wall on your average Tuesday runs more than $250,000. Multiply that by three or four national papers, and another handful of regional editions, and it's a big pile of money. But doubtless considered well-spent by the drugmaker Glax
The company took out the ads today to reassure patients about the safety of its diabetes drug, Avandia. A couple of weeks ago, the New England Journal of Medicine reported Avandia's been linked to heart attacks and deaths. As a result, two things have happened. Glaxo's stock price has taken a hit. Also, commentator Doctor Stefan has seen a change in his rounds at the hospital.
DOCTOR STEFAN : During visits to patient's rooms, we hear the TV blaring: "If you think you've been harmed by Avandia, call our attorneys." The other day, one of us was called away from the bedside of a man with chest pains to handle a call from a patient worried about Avandia.
But all that pales in comparison to the possibility that some patients may have been hurt or killed by medicines offered with every intention of helping them.
But let me ask this: why were we prescribing so much Avandia in the first place?
In recent years, we've been putting patients on two or even three different medications just to meet the elusively low blood sugar standards that diabetic experts promote. Avandia was typically the second or third drug in that cocktail.
The real problem is a rise in absolutist quality standards for the treatment of each chronic medical condition. That includes the notion that we should drive diabetic blood sugar, cholesterol, even blood pressure as low as it can go.
Those standards, soon to be given sharp teeth by Medicare in a program called Pay for Performance, reflect advice from experts whose perceptions are skewed.
The research guiding our experts is based on single diseases. So the experts rarely take into account just how complicated and dangerous it can be to treat a patient with four diseases and 12 different medications that can mix in unforeseen ways.
And the experts who devise quality standards often benefit financially from the drug companies who naturally want us to prescribe more drugs in service of ever-more demanding targets for blood sugar, cholesterol or anything else.
Medicine is supposed to help people, not harm them.
So first, we need to demand that health care standards organizations, like the National Committee for Quality Assurance, publicly and fully disclose the financial interests of their experts. And next, our government must slow down before rushing head-long into a torrid affair with quality standards that may yet betray us all.
I'm going to find that transcript, cause I know my parphrasing wasn't the best...if it played today, prob won't be able to get it till tomorrow...P. thanks for that info, glad that we have someone so schooled in these blood surgar issues...
I agree with the view that our health care should be tailored for the indivisual. We've seen how those with HCV can tolerate much lower platelets than was originally thought. As a petite person I question something as simple as the dosage of vitamins. Why would you give the same amount to a 300lb man as to 102lb, me?
The bias of multicoporate pharmaceutical companies sponsering clinical trials for thier products seems obvious but nevertheless, it was good to see it in print.
The bias of multicoporate pharmaceutical companies sponsering clinical trials for thier products seems obvious but nevertheless, it was good to see it in print.
Thanks for digging up that report. The FDA okays medicines that kill us and yet people are still locked up in prison for possessing a green plant that doesn't kill anyone. If you hear a rattling sound, its my head shaking.
On the other hand, to continue with the above, my sister-in-law, who has had type 1 diabetes for 56 years, has never suffered any problems or damage except for minor retinopathy after giving birth, and a few zaps of the laser fixed that. She's a very compliant patient, but hasn't always been, so obviously running high for several years (she was rather negligent in her 20's) has not hurt her. The problem with this is that nobody knows why she's so healthy, and nobody knows (as I understand it, but I could be wrong) who can allow their blood sugar to stay at a higher level than is usually recommended. They just can't predict. So yes, tailor-made therapy is always the goal, but it's not easy to know what therapy will fit what person.
Also, BTW, referring to an earlier post of yours, the glucose tolerance test you got in Germany a number of years ago is probably out-of-date. Impaired glucose metabolism, whether it's hypoglycemia or diabetes, can change over time. It's a lot like hcv in that you need to monitor it frequently and stay on top of it. Sometimes you can live a healthy life and avoid meds, but then sometimes there comes the time when you do have to do something, unfortunately.
Also, BTW, referring to an earlier post of yours, the glucose tolerance test you got in Germany a number of years ago is probably out-of-date. Impaired glucose metabolism, whether it's hypoglycemia or diabetes, can change over time. It's a lot like hcv in that you need to monitor it frequently and stay on top of it. Sometimes you can live a healthy life and avoid meds, but then sometimes there comes the time when you do have to do something, unfortunately.
I'd really like to see that transcript. All my life I've heard that high blood sugar will cause irremediable damage to your body, especially circulation and heart. And over the years the standards have been raised substantially. It used to be you needed a fasting of 140 before being diagnosed as a diabetic, and now it's 126. It used to be that a fasting of 110 or above meant impaired glucose tolerance or pre-diabetes; now it's anything over 100. I also know that, as with hep c, people have diabetes for years before being diagnosed and that, when they finally are diagnosed, frequently they've already sustained some damage - up to and including the need for amputations. I'd be very afraid to mess with running high in the blood sugar department.
i always wondered about schering ploughs numbers for pegintron rebetol.
i think one of their deals says 40% chance in 48 weeks for 1a to SVR.
didnt they hand pick that 1a crowd for low viral load and no liver damage?
i cant imagine in my wildest dreams that they would have a more realistic
cross section, but maybe they did. anyone know?
i think one of their deals says 40% chance in 48 weeks for 1a to SVR.
didnt they hand pick that 1a crowd for low viral load and no liver damage?
i cant imagine in my wildest dreams that they would have a more realistic
cross section, but maybe they did. anyone know?
thanks for posting this, very interesting, though there have been a lot of hep c drugs that bit the dust over the past few years...I think it's got a lot of valid points...
One thing I heard on the radio today, NPR, I'll try to look for a transcript that was very interesting, and went along with some philosophies of members I've seen here...A very renown doctor was positing that one of the reasons that they are having so many troubles with some of these new drugs, Avandia was in question lately, is that there are these "standard" protocols used for every patient, when they should do a little more tailoring to the particular patient...like they have this "standardized" level that everyone has to get to, in terms of say, blood sugar, so they give patients too much of these drugs, which can lead to other problems for the patient, instead of titering up to a level that is acceptable to the patient...
or realizing that some people can do okay with their blood sugar a little bit higher then others...and realizing that some patients can do a little better at, say, a higher cholesterol level then others, so no need to overdose them with a cholesterol drug...etc etc...that was the gist of it anyway...I'll try to find the transcript...
One thing I heard on the radio today, NPR, I'll try to look for a transcript that was very interesting, and went along with some philosophies of members I've seen here...A very renown doctor was positing that one of the reasons that they are having so many troubles with some of these new drugs, Avandia was in question lately, is that there are these "standard" protocols used for every patient, when they should do a little more tailoring to the particular patient...like they have this "standardized" level that everyone has to get to, in terms of say, blood sugar, so they give patients too much of these drugs, which can lead to other problems for the patient, instead of titering up to a level that is acceptable to the patient...
or realizing that some people can do okay with their blood sugar a little bit higher then others...and realizing that some patients can do a little better at, say, a higher cholesterol level then others, so no need to overdose them with a cholesterol drug...etc etc...that was the gist of it anyway...I'll try to find the transcript...
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis Social Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
