Government Funding Of Scientific/Medical Research

[TigerWoods]

Now I've done some research and noticed that there are many grumblings in the scientific community on FUNDING. In truth without funding, there is no research. This also means, the one giving the funds CHOOSES the research.

So this means the government is going to fund research for the betterment of humanity, right??

Example:
Pharmaceutical companies are out there to make money, just like any other business. Currently, the top selling drug on the market is an anti-cholesterol drug. A friend of mine works in the business, and is sick of watching these drugs fly off the shelves.

EDIT: My videos are trash.. don't look here


Now my point is, I believe that these companies are trying to make money off of the public by giving false information. After all, most people don't think twice about what they are told(generalization, I know, but it IS true).


If any of you have anymore examples, please do share and I'll add it to the OP.

*I'll add more later, I've been dying to post this though.

 

[SuperBowser]

Some of the stuff the guy from second-opinions says is just plain ridiculous. Particularly the monounsaturated fats section. And I bet he's fully aware that some of his assertions were mistruths.

Either way, he never talks about statins like you have. He focuses on diet. It's very well established that statins reduce your cardiovascular risk and that this correlates with a lowered cholesterol. The guy you linked didn't even talk about statins, because he knows fully well they work.

 

[TigerWoods]

Some of the stuff the guy from second-opinions says is just plain ridiculous. Particularly the monounsaturated fats section. And I bet he's fully aware that some of his assertions were mistruths.

Either way, he never talks about statins like you have. He focuses on diet. It's very well established that statins reduce your cardiovascular risk and that this correlates with a lowered cholesterol. The guy you linked didn't even talk about statins, because he knows fully well they work.

I'm have files on more conclusive evidence than these links on my laptop, which is at my work. My work is on lock-down for a water main break. I do admit the videos are a bit rushed and irrelevant(in some areas).

Anyway, Indian(mostly vegetarians) and Native Australian Groups are afflicted with the highest percentage of cardiovascular disease. YET they have some of the lowest cholesterol blood levels out of all nationalities.


*Add more soon

 

[SuperBowser]

I'm have files on more conclusive evidence than these links on my laptop, which is at my work. My work is on lock-down for a water main break. I do admit the videos are a bit rushed and irrelevant(in some areas).

Anyway, Indian(mostly vegetarians) and Native Australian Groups are afflicted with the highest percentage of cardiovascular disease. YET they have some of the lowest cholesterol blood levels out of all nationalities.


*Add more soon

Like I said before, this does not prove statins don't work. There's masses and masses and masses of evidence that point to statins reducing cardiovascular disease.

edit: Look up the Lancet study. I know which group I'd like to be in after an MI...

 

[Lore]

This whole cholesterol thing is quite stupid in my opinion. Funding for research shouldn't be wasted on stuff that is not even really working.

Funding should be given only to things that would become useful on both sides and can turn at least enough of a profit for the funding to be returned. Things like fake cholesterol drugs only help the maker of the product, and don't help the consumer. If funding was given to more useful things, like cancer research for example (although there is enough research already on that, I am simply using it as an example), then there might be not only better products and medicines, but if the medicines work, then more people would buy it more, therefore making a much larger profit.

False products only hurt both sides, to be honest.

 

[SuperBowser]

...do you even know what you're talking about?

It hurts my head that people actually believe doctors happily prescribe drugs like statins to the general population as part of some ''conspiracy theory''. Why don't you spend 3 minutes of research on wikipedia.

 

[Lore]

No, I only used cholesterol as an excuse to talk about fake products/information and funding, as the original post said.

This topic was meant to discuss funding, right? I used cholesterol to lead into.

Sorry to misguide you, if I did.

 

[aeghrur]

Oh, this thread reminds me of the stem-cell->new trachea thing in GB I think? Some woman had a scarred trachea and could've lost a lung, but they made her a new trachea from stem cells. Now how come America hasn't put more funding into such researches when you can see the effects it could have? Also, the largest Collider is now in the EU and America could've built one much like it if the scientists had been giving the funding. I think the former would've and still will be a good place to put funding.

So why isn't it done? I think it's because of the current economical recession, which you can clearly see happening with the deflation and the unemployment rate. You need a good Economy to have value to give to fund stuff, but right now, the economy isn't strong. =/ Anyways, these are my thoughts, what are yours?

 

[SuperBowser]

This whole cholesterol thing is quite stupid in my opinion. Funding for research shouldn't be wasted on stuff that is not even really working.

Things like fake cholesterol drugs only help the maker of the product, and don't help the consumer.

False products only hurt both sides, to be honest.

These quotes kinda imply you didn't think statins work. Drugs in medicine aren't going to be used on the mass population if there is no evidence that they work, especially with risks of serious side effects. You have a seriously ****ed up view of your doctors if you think that they would do this for any drug.

But ok.

 

[TigerWoods]

My sister is a doctor and she(along with her friends) refuses to prescribe statins because she believes them to be useless towards minimizing the chance of cardiovascular health issues. Statins DO help reduce cholesterol....but...

My sister gave me this article(she knows more than me on this subject). It is a bit more relevant than the above: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/28/cholesterol-heart.aspx

Honestly I am one who does not trust what I am told, without conclusive evidence. If there is a strong counter-example toward my argument I shall convert, however I do believe that statins do not work.

*I am not bashing doctors. I think they try and do what is best for us. I want to become one too. =D

 

[SuperBowser]

That article didn't cite a single reference for its ''studies'' . In fact, it barely even touches on the subject of statins, considering that's the main focus of the article.

I can tell you right now that its assertions about mortality rates in patients with heart attacks is an outright lie. When there's no references, I'd question whether any of it is truthful, or at best, it is a bunch of half truths from twisted statistics.

There is very good evidence that statins reduce mortality in people who have an MI and if your sister happens to be a cardiologist, she's not doing a very good service to her patients...

http://www.medscape.com/pi/editorial/cmecircle/2001/174/slide13.gif

edit: upon further reading, most of the article is bull****. Outright lies all over the place.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

TigerWoods, I agree with the scientific view of the Choesterol myth.. by what I'm seeing from your OP, your point is that the phamaceutical companies make 'choesterol burning' medicines (interests the public eye) where as, it doesen't even get rid of choesterol? but attempting to bring down the 'good fats'? kind if like a scam? but really, stuff the article about it.

 

[RDK]

Sadly, medicine is first and foremost a business, much like all branches of science today. Sometimes quality and truthfulness take a backseat to profit motive. However, for the most part, this actually ensures quality and truthfulness, as consumers are more likely to buy products they know to be superior and effective.

 

[manhunter098]

Sadly, medicine is first and foremost a business, much like all branches of science today. Sometimes quality and truthfulness take a backseat to profit motive. However, for the most part, this actually ensures quality and truthfulness, as consumers are more likely to buy products they know to be superior and effective.

Thats assuming that consumers are smart enough to know what the superior medicine is for themselves, rather than having to ask somebody who might be getting a paycheck from a pharmaceutical company. But eventually things will keep moving in the direction of superior medicine so its all good in the long run, though they could be doing a better job in the short run. Then again, they do need the money to develop new medicines, so maybe without fooling the public with medicines that dont really help much they are making the money needed to make a better one, or its all going to line the pockets of the owners and the rate they will crank out better medicine is going to be about the same regardless of the circumstances.

I am for making them release all the information on their drugs to the public, we have the right to know what taking a specific drug will do to us on every level that can be understood by the pharmaceutical company.