8 Invented Diseases Big Pharma Is Banking on

[babylonsister]

8 Invented Diseases Big Pharma Is Banking on
Sleep sweating? Here are some new ways the pharmaceutical plans to make money.
April 16, 2010 |
By Martha Rosenberg



Since direct-to-consumer drug advertising debuted in 1997, pharma's credo has been When The Medication Is Ready, The Disease (and Patients) Will Appear. Who knew so many people suffered from restless legs?

But pharma's recent plan to move from mass-market molecules into more lucrative vaccines and biologics did not see the anti-vaxer movement coming: millions of Americans saying You Want to Vaccinate Me -- and My Child -- with WHAT?? and condemning vials of H1N1, rotavirus and MMR vaccines to sit, well, way past their expiration dates. Nor were fears of an international vaccine conspiracy helped by former CDC Director Julie Gerberding resurfacing as President of Merck Vaccines in December. (Nice revolving door if you can catch it.)

Now pharma is back to creating new diseases, patients, risks and "awareness campaigns" faster than you can say thimerosal (the vaccine preservative that started the backlash.)

1. SERM deficiency

A pill to prevent postmenopausal osteoporosis packs the "magic three" of drug sales-- fear, forever and faith--since you never know if it's working or you need it but fear stopping. But 15 years after women began swallowing bisphosphonates like Boniva and Fosamax because pharma-planted bone density machines in medical offices revealed they had "osteopenia,"* bisphosphonates are linked to jaw bone death, esophageal cancer and causing the fractures they were supposed to prevent. Sorry about that. Now pharma is hawking Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) like Evista and Tamoxifen to prevent osteoporosis and even some cancers. Unfortunately they can cause others…

2. Statin Deficiency

If it seems like the whole world is on statins, it's not your imagination. Last year the FDA approved AstraZeneca's Crestor for children as young as 10 and in March it approved Crestor for 6.5 million people who have no cholesterol or heart problems at all! (See: fear, forever and faith.) Many say, since lead investigator of the Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention study Paul Ridker of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston is co-patent holder/inventor of the C-reactive protein (CRP) test which "proves" Crestor's effectiveness, there's a conflict of interest. Others say, since CRP isn't necessarily even a marker for heart disease and statins can cause Type 2 diabetes, it's bad science along with a conflict of interest.)

more...

http://www.alternet.org/story/146471/8_invented_diseases_big_pharma_is_banking_on

[ananda]

1. FYI

This is something everyone should be aware of.

[Th1onein]

2. Thank you for posting this.

People really do need to be more aware of how big pharma is manipulating them. And their doctors. It's a shame that the FDA is complicit in this.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. This is a must read. Although we can all agree that drugs have saved many lives

and afforded a better quality of life to many, the main focus of big pharma is to make money, not improve health. From my personal observation, nearly every person I know who has health insurance also takes two or three prescription drugs, some of them for the "diseases" mentioned in this article. Is there a correlation here?

[JoeyT]

4. At least two of those are real.

#3 and #6. Haven't done a lot of reading on the rest of it, but their flippant attitude about things that cause actual harm to real people that have those issues makes me less inclined to think this is anything but another "OMFG!! Big Pharma wants to kill you!" woo story.

Why are diseases "treatment resistant" instead of the drugs "ineffective" or diagnoses "wrong"?

Well if they had something like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia they'd know the answer to that question, wouldn't they?

[hedgehog]

6. Depression is a very complicated disease. From what I've seen,

two people may exhibit the same symptoms and express the same feelings but respond entirely differently to any particular drug. I believe that any given anti-depressant is 100% effective and a life saver for some people but totally useless for 30%-50% of patients with depression. Saying anti-depressants are worthless is like saying penicillin is no good because it doesn't treat gram negative infections.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

19. +1

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. Preach it! This article smacks of ignorance

It took YEARS for me to find the proper combination of drugs for my depression. But now that I've finally found it, the quality of my life has improved greatly.

[hedgehog]

5. Yes and no.

For example - while restless legs syndrome isn't in the same category as cancer, it can be disruptive. Is this a case of Pharma inventing a disease, or of people tolerating a major irritant until a treatment came along?

One question I have about Advair - are the drugs involved the problem, or is it patient education and compliance? Untreated asthma kills. Advair must be used on a regular basis to prevent symptoms. It will do nothing for a patient in the middle of a crisis since it is too slow acting. So, did Advair kill patients, or did patients die because they needed a quick acting bronchiodilator?

I have heard information elsewhere suggesting that we are overtreating osteoporosis. This is one area where preliminary research has been distorted to justify treatment.

[pnwmom]

7. Restless legs is most definitely real.

It wasn't a figment of my imagination that kept jerking the electrodes off my legs while I dozed in the sleep center.

[hedgehog]

8. It's my observation that people without such problems often

have no idea how debilitating they can be. Chronic pain, even if it's minor, can be debilitating.

[laconicsax]

9. What a crock!

So apparently pharmaceutical companies don't have anything better to do than invent a disease, spend time and money working on a drug for it, and even more time and money convincing doctors that the new disease is real and that their drug treats it.

Smells like a half-bakes conspiracy theory.

[Duer 157099]

11. Holy cow, do some research for yourself

If you don't think that pharmas spend the MAJORITY of their time trying to discover new applications for THEIR EXISTING drugs that are still under patent protection, then you simply are grossly uninformed about the industry. Period.

[laconicsax]

12. And that has what to do with my point?

This article claims that a large number of diseases and conditions don't really exist; that the pharmaceutical industry has nothing better to do than invent these conditions and invest a lot of time in convincing the medical community of the lie.

If you have proof of this, please present your case. Your comment is nothing but tangential information. There's no question that what you say is true, but it just doesn't respond to the matter at hand.

[Duer 157099]

13. It's a fact that the pharmas spend significant effort

if not the majority of their effort, finding new applications for their existing drugs.

Your post seemed to imply that pharmas actually "invent" conditions and then search for a drug to treat them. That is exactly assbackwards.

Aside from my personal experience, I've read plenty that convinces me.



http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271544275&sr=8-1

[laconicsax]

14. The implication of my post is what's proudly asserted in the OP

That assertion that the conditions in the article are nothing but fabrications by the pharmaceutical industry. I'm arguing against that because, as you put it, "that is exactly assbackwards," and as I put it, it's a crock of shit. I concede that the line "spend time and money working on a drug for it" was out of place, but this doesn't change the surrounding idea that

pharmaceutical companies don't have anything better to do than invent a disease ... and even more time and money convincing doctors that the new disease is real and that their drug treats it.

is nothing but a half-baked conspiracy theory.

Viagra was originally intended as a medication to treat hypertension. If you accept the half-baked conspiracy of the OP, then erectile dysfunction is necessarily an invention of Pfizer's making. If you're a sensible person, which you seem to be, then you understand that drugs can have alternate applications and that capitalizing on those alternate applications is profitable enough to make the search worthwhile.

It's the difference between spending time trying to find new applications for existing drugs and spending time inventing fake diseases for their drugs to treat.

[Duer 157099]

15. I'm having difficulty understanding your position

However, I think that we both agree that the pharmas do not actually "invent fake diseases."

And I think we both agree that pharmas spend significant resources to identify targets for compounds they have IP rights to.

What they *don't* do is to actively search for novel compounds that treat diseases that afflict relatively small populations, ASIDE from testing their already-discovered compounds, if that.

So, when a "new" drug comes to market that targets a relatively small population... it's easy for some to assume that the condition is "invented" -- and in some respects, it was actually "reinvented" by the pharmas simply because they happened to have something that treats it. Try getting a pharma to spend R&D money to find a treatment, de novo, for a rare disorder.

What I also know is that the side-effects of a drug are scrutinized carefully to see if perhaps that can lead to new applications -- e.g., if drowsiness is a side effect, that drug just might have application as a sedative. The compound/molecules are then slightly tweaked, add a hydrogen here, remove an oxygen there, etc.

It makes one wonder about Viagra, now that you mention it. I can imagine the original warning label, when prescribed for hypertension (if it had gone to market for that), "Warning: side effects may include a long-lasting erection..."

[laconicsax]

16. We're in agreement.

The article posted in the OP essentially states, "Big Pharma, not satisfied with its profits, has invented these 8+ diseases to sell you their drugs"

-I called that false in an awkward comment.
-You then accused me of ignorance because drug companies repackage their products for any and all possible applications.
-I stated that the truth of your post has no bearing on the conspiracy theory trumpeted in the OP.
-You repeated your accusation and indicated that you misread my initial post.
-I elaborated on what I perceived to be your misapprehension.
-You made the above post.

My initial comment included the line, "spend time and money working on a drug for it" in error. That was an oversight on my part. It should have read,

So apparently pharmaceutical companies don't have anything better to do than spend more time and money inventing a new disease, and even more time and money convincing doctors that the new disease is real and that their drug treats it.

Smells like a half-baked conspiracy theory.

I think that my comment, in its original form, was unclear, and this led you to misread it.

[HuckleB]

17. +1

This is one of the more bizarre pieces I've seen a while, but maybe I've been hiding out.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. Sorely mistaken.... but acceptable enough.

http://www.invitehealth.com/Drug-Induced-Nutrient-Depletion.html

http://www.amazon.com/Drug-Induced-Nutrient-Depletion-Handbook-Pelton/dp/1930598459

By Ben Paleo (Beverly Hills, New South Wales Australia) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Drug-Induced Nutrient Depletion Handbook (Paperback)
This book has truly vastly surpassed my expectations. It has several indexes- one comprehensive index, one for drugs, one for nutrients and the drugs that affect them, monographs on all the nutrients, and then the piece de resistance, the abstracts of the medical literature to back it all up.
Written by a team of pharmacists, it is very even handed and lists the negative literature as well as the positive. Thus one can ascertain which nutrients are affected by which drugs, and vice versa and quickly review some of the medical literature to make up one's own mind. I've found it helpful.

Some good examples are that omeprazole reduces B12 absorption around 70%, that simvastatin reduces Q10 production significantly, HRT reduces B vitamins, anticonvulsants reduce vit D folate and calcium.

Unfortunately it doesn't deal with anesthetic gases- N2O depletes B12 and halothane causes oxidative stress on the liver.

I still have more to learn about this book, but it is one of my best purchases.

[laconicsax]

25. Did you reply to the wrong post?

Thanks for the incomplete book review though.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. Book reviews are just that, reviews, nothing more nothing less. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

10. Wow

I know two people with fibromyalgia and I wouldn't want their misery for anything. I call BS on most of the diseases he calls not real. I come from a family of ADD and ADHD who almost all married people with the same and all the children have it.
I have a friend with narcolepsy who has had quite an improvement in her life from provigil and I am taking the daughter drug to that nuvigil to help combat the extreme fatigue I have with MS. I can't tell you what a difference it has made in my day to day life.
I do think they are over prescribing statins.
I call Bah humbug on the article.
Disclaimer I am a retired nurse

[HuckleB]

18. +1

[Warpy]

21. I can see some merit to most of those invented diseases

because some depression is resistant and some asthmatics do require two drugs, especially when they've progressed to COPD. The "statin deficiency" one is valid and I think they crossed the risk:benefit line when they stared to prescribe them to people with normal cholesterol and no family history of cardiovascular disease. Time and data will be needed to prove me right or wrong.

They might have been on sounder ground had they taken on that eyelash growing medicine with the appalling side effects.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuddhaGirl]

27. thank you for this - good info

on the evil side of Big Pharma...profit profit profit is their mantra :mad:

[Odin2005]

28. LOL, what bullshit.