Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Busting Big Pharma & Monsanto

Recommended Posts

A drug or medicine needs not only enter the system, and subsequently circulation, but also the cells of the body, which is quite a difficult task, as there are so many cells in the human body and quite a high number of issues that will inhibit the drug/medicine to reach and/or penetrate the required cells.

 

msparks, how much have you come across this notion? how much importance/research is placed upon this? what other insights can you give us regarding this?

 

I'm not clear which notion you are referring too, and since there are two, very broad and important notions here I'll deal with both.

If you mean the "not just entering the body".

 

It's worth pointing out, because many people in the healthcare field are not aware of this, let alone the general public.

Right now there are two, very different classes of treatments.

The "simple molecule" and the "biologic"

Simple molecules are what we will all be familiar with. A molecule of a few different elements in some fashion.

All the old treatments are of this nature (your paracetamols, ibuprofens etc)

Relatively easy to synthesis/make, fairly good for what they are, cheap generics mostly widely available.

Biologics on the other hand, are incredibly complex, synthesised from living cells, and highly dependant on the manufacturing process. These are "highly targeted" treatments, do something very specific, and do it very very well (Harvoni is an example of these). This has only come up recently as even a topic, since it was only a few years ago the first biologic came off patent and others tried to copy them, and only now the first "biosimilars" are coming to market.

 

Both of these need to go into the body in fairly large quantities (biological less so than simple molecules, because they are more targeted), and must be disposed of by the kidneys/liver, which is where most of the nasty side effects come from.

 

Then there is what nature can do.

It takes just 5 molecules of black widow spider venom for this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/what-it-feels-like-to-get-bitten-by-a-black-widow-spider/279739/

 

Because, somehow, those molecules entice the body to replicate more venom...

 

If you mean the mind body relationship.

The de facto example is the placebo effect:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31481

 

Which, while it has been known about for a long time, is becoming more obvious from current research that that effect is more than just people saying they feel better, and includes real, disease modifying outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably with the advent of quantum computing we'll be able to create and develop some very effective treatments much more quickly; If the cabal allow them to be used for the masses. After all they appear to be implanting nano bots via chemtrailing which can be activated by EM signals, apparently. Whether they are able to tinker with our immune response who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple molecules are what we will all be familiar with. A molecule of a few different elements in some fashion.

All the old treatments are of this nature (your paracetamols, ibuprofens etc)

Relatively easy to synthesis/make, fairly good for what they are, cheap generics mostly widely available.

Biologics on the other hand, are incredibly complex, synthesised from living cells, and highly dependant on the manufacturing process. These are "highly targeted" treatments, do something very specific, and do it very very well (Harvoni is an example of these). This has only come up recently as even a topic, since it was only a few years ago the first biologic came off patent and others tried to copy them, and only now the first "biosimilars" are coming to market.

 

I am talking about the simple molecules getting into the cells. It is not bioavability because that is something else.

"Molecules entering cells" are the difference between why for one individual 1 ibuprofen capsule will have a dramatic effect, while in another it takes 5 capsules to have the same effect.

My understanding and knowledge on this subject and for the reason as to why this occurs is low, perhaps you would like to shed more light onto why this phenomenon takes place from a professional/medical/literary perspective, it would be much appreciated.

 

Both of these need to go into the body in fairly large quantities (biological less so than simple molecules, because they are more targeted), and must be disposed of by the kidneys/liver, which is where most of the nasty side effects come from.

 

I know about TNF-blockers, Humira, Enbrel, etc. because they have been aggressively pushed onto me, even though I have refused to take any.

 

These are biologics and, like you said: specific process targeting and efficacy.

In this case, they inhibit an aspect of the immune system, which leads to an increase in risk of infections and cancers, which is not just "kidney/organ elimination damage" as you stated, however each case is individual and we are both citing different cases/situations.

Then there is what nature can do.

It takes just 5 molecules of black widow spider venom for this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/what-it-feels-like-to-get-bitten-by-a-black-widow-spider/279739/

 

Because, somehow, those molecules entice the body to replicate more venom...

 

This is a very fascinating example of what the body can exponential amplify, given only a minute amount of a "trigger", which could provide the cutting/leading-edge discovers soon-to-come.

 

If you mean the mind body relationship.

The de facto example is the placebo effect:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31481

 

Which, while it has been known about for a long time, is becoming more obvious from current research that that effect is more than just people saying they feel better, and includes real, disease modifying outcomes.

 

The placebo effect is something that extends to the other "bodies", which is something science will take a while to come into realization of. Everyone knows about 1. the physical body, now we are coming into the understand of 2. the mental body, the highly-misunderstood and some belief to be non-exitant and that is the animating-component of life, which some term 3. the "spiritual/soul/spirit body".

 

Presumably with the advent of quantum computing we'll be able to create and develop some very effective treatments much more quickly; If the cabal allow them to be used for the masses. After all they appear to be implanting nano bots via chemtrailing which can be activated by EM signals, apparently. Whether they are able to tinker with our immune response who knows.

 

"effective treatments" are already here and are available for little money. However, they are not for the weak-minded, weak-willed, ignorant, superficial, etc.

 

"The cabal" is not keeping anything from the masses, per se. There are corporations and vested interests by the hundreds, if not thousands, that are trying their best to keep these from the public, for their own monetary gain.

 

This whole implanting nanobots, chemtrails, mind-maniplation with all sorts of wild weapons and ideas, etc., gets taken way out of context and proportion due to lack of education/information (ignorance).

 

As for "tinkering with our immune system", they don't even need to do that when people are obsessed with "the cabal", "nanoparticles", crazy consipracy theories, all day and all night (during their dreams) that keeps them in the autonomic flight/fight nervous system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a biochemist, so that's stretching my knowledge, but my understanding of the simple molecules is they don't get "into" the cells as much as bind to certain receptors to block certain effects:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_(biochemistry)

 

or provide an excess of some substance that is otherwise not produced in sufficent quanities.

 

yeah, those biologics work because the conditions are caused by the immune system, so limiting it's ability to cause harm helps the disease.

-> all the so called autoimmune diseases.

 

Go to far, or get exposed to something nasty and it doesn't end well though.

 

Not just them though, one of the best biologics I've come across/worked on over the years, which has a biosimilar being launched by Lilly this year is Lantus (insulin for diabetes).

But you know my thoughts on that - it's all coca colas fault.

 

Oh, and when you say "little money"... They have almost acceptable co pays.

Enbrel for example is about £200 a week to the NHS. Every week, for ever - lots more expensive than a few tens of thousands for a one off dose of Harvoni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just them though, one of the best biologics I've come across/worked on over the years, which has a biosimilar being launched by Lilly this year is Lantus (insulin for diabetes).

But you know my thoughts on that - it's all coca colas fault.

 

I am a t1 so I have been on Lantus and other slow-acting's. Interesting to bump into the same experiences but from completely different vantage points when talking with you. Although, I would probably assume that you would have worked on/come across a wide-variety and it is mere coincidence.

 

Do you have any insights into the causes of the destruction of the beta-cells causing t1 diabetes? More than just what is available out there?

Do you have any insights into new inventions, that are not yet released to the public, that would be able to lower blood sugar, resulting in providing insight into how insulin lowers blood sugar and/or how one can find alternative methods to lower blood sugar?

 

I've been able to have periods of time where I have done no insulin and my blood sugar has remained stable, while eating carbohydrates/normally, but have been unable to sustain this, more due to discipline and other intervening factors.

 

Lantus has been around for a decade or so now, are we talking about the same thing; as you are saying that it is being released just this year.

 

Oh, and when you say "little money"... They have almost acceptable co pays.

Embrel for example is about £200 a week to the NHS.

 

Enbrel would be provided at 3000$ CAD/month where I am currently residing. Although I would have no interest to take it even if it were given for free.

 

And as soon as you stop taking it, the effects of the drug stop, and the problems with the disease come back, usually worse than when you started taking the drug, and multiple other "problems" have popped up in the mean time that the drug either has or hasn't masked/covered.

 

I know someone that has been taking it for 20 years, and for the first part of those 2 decades, everything was fantastic, now she is starting to have pain and issues even on the drug. She wants to stop the drug, but does she have a choice at this point? IMO, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top two insulin's are levemir and lantus.

Lantus is better because it has a lower risk of a hypo.

At least that was the case 4 or 5 years ago, since then I've been mostly on the virus's microbes and rare diseases.

 

On the destruction/cause. Really not sure, . Only the last week or so I came across this for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC149418/

 

Type I seems to be "something broken".

Most promising ive seen in Type ii is

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2534306/A-diet-cure-diabetes-Patients-able-come-tablets-two-months-low-calorie-regime.html

 

Latest seems to confirm it:

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research/Research-round-up/Research-spotlight/Research-spotlight-low-calorie-liquid-diet/

 

 

Only potential new blockbusters I know of at the moment are the immuno oncology drugs (using the bodies immune system to fight cancer), and some dementia treatments that actually work.

 

If enbrel has stopped working they should probably switch to rituximab (Roche)

Here's one of the videos we use when lecturing patient registries.

http://healthstories.se/?p=13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just updating myself on the levemir lantus thing.

 

Seems levemir now trying to claim the hypo throne.

 

I have suspected however, that both are actually the same drug/biosimilar.

 

One of the things I ran into in the last couple of years is that, unlike simple molecules there is no simple test to show equivalence or difference of two biologics. (Only way is human trials to show the outcomes are the same)

 

Which in my opinion means there is a big problem patenting a biologic.

Because it is impossible to prove in court that one biologic drug is a copy of another - short of a memo saying "let's copy this drug".

 

Possible harvoni is guilty of this. But probably best if I don't go into detail on that. I think they settled out of court with no media coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type 1 Diabetes is destruction of the beta cells within the pancreas that produce insulin, resulting in a lack of production and a necessity for exogenous insulin. It is an auto-immune response, where the body targets it's own insulin-producing cells and destroys them, reasons for this are "unknown" to the medical community.

Type 2 Diabetics still have full production of insulin but their bodies are unable to use it efficiently/effectively, resulting in an increase in glucose in the bloodstream.

 

The whole "lower chance of hypo" is pretty diabolical and is pretty much a scam. About 10 years ago or so, don't quote me, they came out with a 24 hour duration insulin called Lantus, which trumped the previous 12 hour duration insulin. So theoretically because it has a longer duration of effect the "chance of hypoglycaemia" is lower, which is more just fancy talk. There are fast-acting insulins like Humalog, and many others, which if you mess up the dosage or forget to eat after injecting can you put you into quite a pickle, which will not occur with long-acting insulins. Levemir has a 12-24 hour duration, more like 16 hours, just like lantus, more like 16, which is why they are neck in neck, "low chance of hypo" has more to do with duration than "ingenious invention" or "lower risk of hypo", confuse the patient, confuse the marketer, confuse the researcher, confuse them all.

Just like the horrible diet with "shit-shakes" article you linked that kept type 2 diabetics blood sugar stable. It is not very hard to stabilize a type 2 diabetic with an adequate-calorie proper diet and exercise.

 

Using insulin is a nightmare, very complicated, and highly dangerous.

 

I do not have any hope for the pharmaceutical community, they are an entity that seeks only monetary gain, not to help patients, which is fine by me, they can do as they please.

Some pour much too much hope in them, hoping that one day they will solve their problems, they are only into problem-maintenance, not solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite, while there is nothing really wrong with that, its missing a few things.

The clinical, easy to understand definitions are:

Type I is insulin insufficiency

Type II is insulin resistance

 

With Type I - for several possible reasons, a body does not produce and distribute enough insulin to regulate blood sugar

With Type II - insulin levels are "normal", but blood sugar levels are not properly regulated.

 

The reduced risk of hypos come from simple maths, "long acting" actually means "slow release".

So with a short acting its MUCH easier to end up in a situation with an extreme lack or excess of insulin in the body, because it is constantly "spiking" up and down and you are dependant entirely on the dose. With a slow release insulin insulin levels can be topped up and maintained at a level the insulin the body can produce and absorb can be left to regulate blood sugar. Evidence for that is as good as medical evidence comes as far a I know. A good theory, backed up by 10s if not 100s of thousands of patient experiences.

 

On the statement that Pharma is only into " problem-maintenance, not solutions".

Seen that a lot,

 

Doesn't Harvoni entirely disprove it?

 

The problem has been more that science has not been able to, by and large, get any where near the "root cause" of the problems, and so not been able to construct any kind of solution.

 

Many of the worlds other problems: like food and drink incorporated poisening everything they produce with gargantuan volumes of cheese and sugar - are political problems not medical ones. No medication can ever hope to prevent the large scale consumption of poisonous unhealthy shit, nor should they be expected to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/05/14/how-big-pharma-chooses-which-drugs-to-develop/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem has been more that science has not been able to, by and large, get any where near the "root cause" of the problems, and so not been able to construct any kind of solution.

 

Lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/05/14/how-big-pharma-chooses-which-drugs-to-develop/

But Pharma is not in the disease prevention business. They are in the disease treatment business.

This is only a shock to Americans that don't have public healthcare and the only means they have of "disease prevention" is more expensive insurance premiums for people who do not live a healthy lifestyle.

 

For everybody else. That is the job of public health.

 

Its like the Americans need it explicitly stating that Harley Davidson is not in the motorcycle gang prevention business, they are in the motorcycle manufacturing business. Before they then go on and on about how the Hell's Angel's are all Harley Davidson's fault.

 

Which is what I meant by "No medication can ever hope to prevent the large scale consumption of poisonous unhealthy shit, nor should they be expected to."

 

And OK, perhaps a better example would be young inexperienced rider deaths on large superbikes. But that doesn't have the same level of insanity that surrounds much of the American conversation around healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk of the devil...

 

 

Top scientists hold closed meeting to discuss building a human genome from scratch

https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/13/harvard-meeting-synthetic-genome/

 

Over 130 scientists, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and government officials from five continents gathered at Harvard this week for an “exploratory” meeting to discuss the topic of creating genomes from scratch — including, but not limited to, those of humans, said George Church, Harvard geneticist and co-organizer of the meeting.

The meeting was closed to the press, which drew the ire of prominent academics.

Synthesizing genomes involves building them from the ground up — chemically combining molecules to create DNA. Similar work by Craig Venter in 2010 created what was hailed as the first synthetic cell, a bacterium with a comparatively small genome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MON bid

 

Monsanto led all S&P 500 components higher with a gain of nearly 4.5% after the maker of agricultural chemicals and seeds received a buyout offer from German conglomerate Bayer worth $62 billion.

 

The bid, which works out to $122 per share, would be the largest ever made by a German company. Bayer believes that Monsanto would make a strong fit for Bayer's overall business, even though it would take away from the conglomerate's focus on healthcare. Yet skeptical investors believe that the initial bid won't be enough to persuade Monsanto shareholders to sell, and a sweetened subsequent bid could push the price so high that the economics won't work well for Bayer. Even with the gains, Monsanto shares still rest more than 13% below the buyout offer, suggesting that shareholders are far from certain that the ag giant will accept the deal.

==

> http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/23/why-monsanto-xenoport-and-lendingclub-jumped-today.aspx?source=eptcnnlnk0000002&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=cnnmoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, but we don't have a "big pharma do some cool shit" thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee9bzvJRl6c

 

There's clearly lots of good inventions going on all over the world so would be worth keeping up to speed with them. We should not forget the fact that they don't share the good stuff very often.

We've probably developed our own biological life forms some time ago that play with the alien grays, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Doctors" Star Rachael Ross MD says she feels like an ASS misunderstanding vaccines

 

One of my favourite anecdotes was a guy who showed either for his PhD or during.

That you can accurately predict the year a doctor graduated....

Based on the drugs they prescribe.

 

But dont ask me for it, because it was a slightly drunk conversation over some expensive dinner, and I've no idea who it was.

 

In more reassuring news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3624371/Overwhelmingly-good-results-new-pancreatic-cancer-study.html

 

For those not wanting to read the otherwise grim statistics.

Latest drug combo doubles the chance of living 5 years after diagnosis with some of the more severe pancreatic cancers. And is comparatively cheap.

 

Given I'm used to analysing expensive and measured in no more than months. was a real nice start to the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" His tummy started to get bigger and bigger..rock hard and bloated..He started to walk on tiptoe, his hair fell out, then a dreadful high pitched scream...

 

..and then came the head banging..the constant banging against his crib..constant banging against the floor..the wall or anything that he could find to bang his head against...

 

He would thrash it and thrash it....

 

John and I would lie in bed at night just listening to this...THUD..THUD...THUD "...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIMEV6ButQw

 

How do you vaccinate your kids after hearing that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monsanto may soon face “FLOOD” of lawsuits from cancer victims of Roundup herbicide

Monsanto, the maker of the world’s most popular weed killer Roundup, could soon be facing an unrelenting flood of lawsuits from people who got cancer from their product.

On Tuesday, a federal judge decided to allow three expert witnesses to give their testimony pertaining to Roundup’s carcinogenicity. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the three experts could testify, and he even went so far as to say that their opinions were not “junk science.” The judge will be presiding over more than 400 of the lawsuits against Monsanto.

In his opinion, Chhabria wrote: “So long as an opinion is premised on reliable scientific principles, it should not be excluded by the trial judge; instead the weaknesses in an unpersuasive expert opinion can be exposed at trial, through cross-examination or testimony by opposing experts.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×