Bushwalk Australia

theres massive money to be made, something like 1000% markup on patented drugs. they want to make as much money as they possibly can before the patent runs out, the drug companies have massive incentive to do everything to push the sales as much as possible from the time the drugs come out till the patents run out , thats when they get their returns...
how can you rust an industry that works like that with so much money incentive it distorts peoples motivations, once the doctors and scientists buy into the expensive lifestyle they can have endorsing the drugs it must be a hard thing to give up...

wayno wrote:theres massive money to be made, something like 1000% markup on patented drugs. they want to make as much money as they possibly can before the patent runs out, the drug companies have massive incentive to do everything to push the sales as much as possible from the time the drugs come out till the patents run out , thats when they get their returns...
how can you rust an industry that works like that with so much money incentive it distorts peoples motivations, once the doctors and scientists buy into the expensive lifestyle they can have endorsing the drugs it must be a hard thing to give up...

Hence there's stronger and stronger regulations that disassociate medical companies and the prescribers, along with all the strict regulations on the conduct of clinical trials. One can be highly sceptical, but it's an extreme view and often lacking thorough knowledge of the industry and profession.

Whilst you can criticise the pharma companies and their need to make money. One must also recognise that in our free market system, it's also those profits that allows those companies to invest increasing billions in search of newer drugs. Generic drug company don't invest in real R&D, they just copy. University research organizations work hard but in face of ever reducing funding from the government, we are not going to find that next new drugs and technology through generics. It's a two way street.

I would say that by and large, medical companies are ethical. They know the rules and follow the rules, no different to any other industry and person in our society, although there'll always be bad eggs in every industry as well as individuals.

if the companies where that ethical they wouldnt rack up such massive profits at an often massive expense to vulnerable ill people who often struggle to afford the drugs they are told they need to be healthy or stop a decline in their health.....
the entire us private medical system is a massive drain on the pockets of americans, teh profits are massive on peoples suffering...
i've worked in a hospital and seen the pay scales of pharmacists and lab techs at teh hospitals. and they are pretty good a lot of jobs go into six digits and that was a ten year old pay scale. they have to pay that money because thats the going rate in western countries and they have to pay it to keep the staff.
then you get consultant medical specialists who really earn serious dollar, yes smart and talented people doing difficult , demanding work, but they certainly get well rewarded for it and don't have money worries. and the drug companies are in there taking their cut too, convincing the medical establishment to pedal the latest drugs as the best treatment for various conditions and so the patients get caught up in the cycle of being sucked dry of their money...

wayno wrote:if the companies where that ethical they wouldnt rack up such massive profits at an often massive expense to vulnerable ill people who often struggle to afford the drugs they are told they need to be healthy or stop a decline in their health.....
the entire us private medical system is a massive drain on the pockets of americans, teh profits are massive on peoples suffering...

Well, the inequalities of medical care provision in the US goes far deeper than medical companies. Think government, think society. Just look at the amount of resistance faced by the proposed Obamacare there. It's utterly ridiculous. It's not the medical companies that are resisting but a section of a ideologically fixated society. Then there's the issue of medical schools there. All post-graduate degrees of extended number of year and at very high tuition fees. This is a major contrast to our system where obtaining a medical education is not out of reach by those who are academically qualified. At least money won't be a significant barrier. Quite simply, the whole US society is different, their health care is but one example of their present state. Unfortunately, US is also the largest healthcare market, as such, it sets the tone and pricing on the whole medical market. Yes, I know their system pretty well too and have personal experience from the hospital to corporate. I am quite proud of our Australian health system when compared to what's out there in the rest of the world. Not perfect, but so many people don't know how lucky we are.

In the US, you just need money. More the safer... To ensure the best health care. All rest suffers.

GPSGuided wrote:Even with drug company sponsored trials, especially those conducted for registration through the FDA, you'd be amazed by the level of regulations on them.

To keep things relevant for Australia, we should be referring to the Australian authority: Therapeutic Goods Administration

An FDA registered medicine is unable to be sold in Australia unless it passes TGA requirements. Expensive business, even if you didn't have to run Clinical Trials (which you probably would). TGA Fees

photohiker wrote:To keep things relevant for Australia, we should be referring to the Australian authority: Therapeutic Goods Administration

An FDA registered medicine is unable to be sold in Australia unless it passes TGA requirements. Expensive business, even if you didn't have to run Clinical Trials (which you probably would). TGA Fees

Reason why, because FDA trial outcome is pretty much accepted by all countries, as they set the highest standard in trial regulation. True that our Australian TGA regulations are similarly tight but the bar to receive approval tend to be just a tad lower, although harmonization is in progress. At the same time, no medical company with a significant product would bother with solely Australian trials as our health market is puny. But it's also important to recognise, a FDA trial these days does not mean it's US centric. Most major trial are conducted as international trials, but all adhering to US FDA's GLP, GCP, GMP and other standards. We Australians, are typically included in such trials. So yes, talking about FDA trials is relevant to our local situation.

actually one square meals are looking better by the minute....

wayno wrote:actually one square meals are looking better by the minute....

Yes, much easier and readily available from Coles or Woolworth.

GPSGuided wrote:

wayno wrote:actually one square meals are looking better by the minute....

Yes, much easier and readily available from Coles or Woolworth.

and slightly cheaper

Nothing sweet about this debate
http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/n ... 2ws18.html

yeah they talk about eating a mediterraenean diet, they take their vegetable oils pretty fresh, down under you get cheap european oilive oil and its so old here it can often be rancid....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-busines ... d=10806881

I doubt Mediterraneans all use fresh olive oil. Big picture issue, think big.

no read this a lot that claim to be virgin arent

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-busines ... d=10806881

wayno wrote:yeah they talk about eating a mediterraenean diet, they take their vegetable oils pretty fresh, down under you get cheap european oilive oil and its so old here it can often be rancid....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-busines ... d=10806881

I only purchase Australian made Olive Oil with a harvest date on the container ,fresh and crisp
corvus

Well if you believe Landline the quality of our homegrown olive oil is excellent. They did a segment on Aussie olive oil.
They quote an Australian olive oil farmer:-

"Consumers who try Australian usually don't go back. I would naturally say this, but the quality is far superior and some of the awards that we've won internationally - you know, the last two years, we've won the most prestigious olive oil shows in the world, once in LA and the other time in New York against the world's best olive oils and we've been the most successful exhibitor."

And another:-

"And it's taken quite a while for people to understand that that quality is as good, if not better, than oil grown in Europe and South America. And the reason for that is that people are new and they've done their homework in terms of how to grow them and how to process the oil and the olives to get the best quality. Whereas in the older areas and in other parts of the world, quite often the olives are produced the way they've done it for centuries and they haven't necessarily moved on. That gives Australia a great advantage."

Australian red has beaten the French and now our olive oil has beaten the Spaniards and Italians. Amazing!

But, but, does it have the health properties of Mediterranean olive oil?

More so as it it is pollution free
corvus

about says it, i was watching a doco last night about a nz woman, first one to climb everest and without oxygen,,
graham made a comment about nz climbers about an international inferiority complex, they are looking for answers overseas in how to do things the best, but in reality we have the answers here already because we have people who are the best right here....

Hear, hear!

i'm wary of teh medical establishment,
modern medicine is incredibly complex, some people in teh system cant or won't see beyond what the establishment tells them is the status quo, even though there may be mounting contradictory evidence to what the status quo is

theres controvery over skin caner as well and the need for midday sun to stay healthy and the medical establishment advises stay covered up. its just another example of black and white arguments put out by them, x is bad, minimise it as much as possibly, y is good maxmise it as much as possible. when teh reality is that attitude is excessive and causes more problems...
we didnt evolve with synthtetic drugs but now the community is awash with them. in nz a large percentage of teh population are on anti depressants. all of a sudden these chemicals are deemed necessary to be given for long periods of time for healthy living...
in part the reality is the doctors cant resolve the cause of your health issue... they cant aleviate the cause of peoples stress and unbalanced lifestyles completely, its easier to give a pill to do it..
theres naturopaths but sometimes they have to work continually with patients to manage their health and not everyone can afford that.
everything in moderation, it usually worked for our ancestors.... and dont spend your life aorrying about what medical condition might get you if you're living a sensible common sense life.......
i was going to a natuopath, he was extremely helpful, but he wanted perfection in health, and i'im not going to spend the rest of my life trying to achieve that with him, i'm happy where i'm at and i'll get on with the rest of my life..

It's a give and take situation, all parties contribute.

If you go to a medical conference, you'll find all the academic discussions, debates are legitimately stated and well balanced. However, when consensus conclusions have been drawn and are being put out to the public, the media as well as whatever communication channel used will often take the message to the extreme i.e. Sensationalise it to get your attention. This is partly to do with the psyche of the population in general, that until a message is simple and strong enough, they just don't register. Take the sun exposure issue, until there's a "scare" campaign comes along, who'll listen? The other good example is the anti-smoking campaign. On these, the health groups putting out the campaign will have to weigh the potential overall benefit of such a campaign vs any potential mistrust that may result (as in your case). Sensible people would understand that moderation is called for. Yet again, similar to our self image, what's moderate for one is an extreme for others. Not an easy job to communicate all these effectively. The key question is whether a net benefit has been achieved at a population level.

The other major limitation with the traditional Western medical establishment is the bind applied by science. The advised practices are ideally based on clinical trial data. Without scientific data, they are unlikely to be supported by the establishment. As such, it has a hard time catering to untestable conceptual concepts put out by many of the alternative health care groups, ones that are typically based on vague verbal hypotheses and anecdotal hearsays in evidence. However, a balanced life and everything in moderation has never left the central thesis of traditional Western medicine.

yeah well sun exposure, people who work outdoors are less likely to get skin cancer than people who work indoors, but you'd expect it to be teh opposite with all teh negative news that gets put out about the suns rays... its not all to to with how much in total you're getting but its like alcohol, the problem is when you binge on a large amount... the sun is worse if you havent had much then get a lot...

Ha, I saw an article today about making sure your kids have had a healthy breakfast before you send them to school

Nothing 'healthy' about this breakfast that was pictured

Bowl of grain-type cereal with low fat milk
Flavoured low fat yoghurt with a small bunch of grapes
Glass of orange juice
Piece of toast with margerine

I just shook my head

wayno wrote:yeah well sun exposure, people who work outdoors are less likely to get skin cancer than people who work indoors, but you'd expect it to be teh opposite with all teh negative news that gets put out about the suns rays... its not all to to with how much in total you're getting but its like alcohol, the problem is when you binge on a large amount... the sun is worse if you havent had much then get a lot...

Alcohol and sun damage are not absolutely linear but it is cumulative and total quantum does matter. Of course, binges and acute doses will further exacerbate it in obvious ways. So the analogy above is not correct. As a matter of fact, skin cancers of various forms are very very common amongst outdoor workers. And here indeed is the difficulty for the message giving body. If the message starts to add in the various conditional parameters, then the message will just be ignored by the public. So a call has to be made on what's the most effective message to effect a net positive outcome for the target population. In real life, the well known "Slip Slop Slap" campaign on sun safety was a simple positive and effective message to the community. It was the mass media sensationalistic spins that polarized people's perception on sun exposure. Can't blame the health authorities here.

margarine is one of the biggest nutritional frauds there is. it is nothing short of a toxic form of fat... i mean just taste it on its own, it tastes disgusting, your tongue is a reasonable guide to whats particularly bad for you...
the food industry will jump on any bandwagon that maximises their income..
most breakfast cereals are shocking for their sugar content. and nutrient content unless you have ones with the b vitamins added in..
kellog who invented cornflakes was very anti sex, he wanted to create something that lowered peoples libido, something with very little nutritional value and cornflakes was it. denutrifying people for decades...

Just eat boiled corns for breakfast. Much tastier with a dollop of margarine melted in! Errr... I mean butter.

wayno wrote: your tongue is a reasonable guide to whats particularly bad for you...

My tongue tells me quarter pounders are excellent additions to your diet then!

wayno wrote:margarine is one of the biggest nutritional frauds there is. it is nothing short of a toxic form of fat...

Too broad a statement to be worthwhile.

What sort of margarine, what types of fat does it contain?

How much butter/margarine do you consume anyway? Is it a serious concern when compared to the fats already in the foods you eat?

pretty much all margarine is polyunsaturated and monounsaturated hydrogenated fat, hydrogenated fat is pretty nasty on your body,, damages your artery walls and gets incorporated into cell walls causing issues with how the cell wall permeability functions..
they have to hydrogenate it to change if from liquid to solid...
i eat about a tablespoon of butter a day, and quite a bit more coconut fat. maybe 40 or fifty grams. and no margarine, selling margarine as food is a crime against humanity.... if you want to damage your health severely in teh long term, id say eat margarine regularly...

Margarine originally started as a substitue lamp oil made from lard, instead of expensive whale oil and beeswax. Then, as lard (from animal fat) became to be more expensive too, and demand for shortenings for baking increased with rapid urbanisation in the late 1800's and the 20th century, they started to use what was previously a waste product of the cotton industry, cotton seed oil. Then after WWI soyabean oil was used, now it's mainly canola oil (the majority of which is Genetically Modifed (GM) - but that's another story!)
As wayno states above, they have to be hydrogenated to keep them solid, and to prevent oxidisation (going rancid). Hydrogenisation was discovered when they were trying to make machine part lubricants, and then adapted to make soap. Instead of soap, the product was sold as food - Crisco. Trans fats are found in large amounts in fats that have been hydrogenated. Polyunsaturated fats need to be hydrogenated.
Monounsaturated fats such as olive oil are thicker and don't need to be hydrogenated, but it's more expensive.
Seed oils have to be greatly modified to extract useable oils - ground, pressed, solvents are used to extract it, delcoloured, deodorised and degummed - does this sound like good food?

Good oils (majority of monounsaturated fat, and more omega 6 than omega 3 fatty acids)- those made by pressing tropical fruits and seeds - coconut oil, avocado oil, macadamia oil, oilive oil, palm oil (though production of this is not usually done ethically due to tropical land clearing practices) and those fats in the refrigerated section - lard, ghee, dripping and butter (copha is partially hydrogenated cconut oil to make its melting point around 40 degc - cocoa butter is a good substitiute)
Avoid margarine, any seed oil produced by crushing and extracting - soyabean, canola oil, corn oil, sunflower, and the dreaded generic 'vegetable oil'!