The blonde aches & pains thread

[Jon MW]

I've been taking Vitamin D for a while, it is supposed to combat Alzheimer's but you have to take at least a certain mg per day and you need to take it together with Vitamin C too as they work together. My Dr didn't know that  

Although there definitely is a general problem with doctors not generally keeping up to date with new research - there is no study (as of yet) to confirm this link

This sums it up

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers-and-dementia/what-do-we-know-about-diet-and-prevention-alzheimers-disease

In particular the paragraph

But despite early findings of possible benefits for brain health, no vitamin or supplement has been proven to prevent Alzheimer’s in people. Overall, evidence remains weak because many studies were too small or too brief to be conclusive.

Which is to say various vitamins and supplements might help - but statistically there isn't enough evidence to back that up yet - that would be why the average GP wouldn't necessarily know anything about it

[Enut]

I've been taking Vitamin D for a while, it is supposed to combat Alzheimer's but you have to take at least a certain mg per day and you need to take it together with Vitamin C too as they work together. My Dr didn't know that  

Although there definitely is a general problem with doctors not generally keeping up to date with new research - there is no study (as of yet) to confirm this link

This sums it up

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers-and-dementia/what-do-we-know-about-diet-and-prevention-alzheimers-disease

In particular the paragraph

But despite early findings of possible benefits for brain health, no vitamin or supplement has been proven to prevent Alzheimer’s in people. Overall, evidence remains weak because many studies were too small or too brief to be conclusive.

Which is to say various vitamins and supplements might help - but statistically there isn't enough evidence to back that up yet - that would be why the average GP wouldn't necessarily know anything about it

25 years ago my other half had cancer, we went to Mexico for 'alternative' treatment. The clinic was run by Dr Contreras, one of the world leading experts in cancer treatment and 'alternative' therapies, he still runs it. One of the things that we learnt from him is that there are many, many studies carried out into cancer treatments, almost all paid for by the drug companies, however if they seem to be producing evidence that natural remedies ARE effective against cancer then the funding almost always gets pulled and the results are not published. On his advice my other half had chemo back in the UK, she had 4 drugs, 3 were artificial copies of natural remedies. If the drugs companies can't make money out of something they are unlikely to pay for research to prove that it works. I wonder if the same is true for vitamin D, C or any other natural supplement and it's possible prevention of dementia and alzheimers? 

[doubleup]

The whole pharma industry is full of conflicts of interest, the biggest being,imo, if they can sell a treatment for the symptoms of some ailment rather than the cause (a cure), they have many years of product sales rather than a single course of drugs.

I do take the multivits, but not sure if they do any good. Last year I got the vit D sell from someone whose brother is a prof of oncology at Royal Marsden, so it does seemingly have some support among relevant professionals.

[Jon MW]

.... On his advice my other half had chemo back in the UK, she had 4 drugs, 3 were artificial copies of natural remedies. If the drugs companies can't make money out of something they are unlikely to pay for research to prove that it works.

There is always not enough money to research everything, but the usual criteria for ranking isn't how much money it might make but how likely it is to work

If it works - pharma companies can make money out of it

We know this because - you've already stated that they do it

Anything that is naturally curative in nature is more convenient and often more effective once a company has worked out a way to mass produce it and put it in a shop

On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically

Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
 
The only time when not making money stops research is when the entire market for a disease - are poor

This is why there's a whole branch called "neglected tropical disease" - these are all the diseases that it is not profitable for private companies to research because it wouldn't be guaranteed to get their research money back - so they rely on charitable foundations and government grants. it's worth noting the majority of all scientific research done worldwide is government grants and not private companies - for example even if zero pharma companies spent money on cancer research it would still be one of the most researched areas because of all the government grants that go towards it.

Unless anyone is planning on moving to deepest African then they're not really going to be affected by that

Anything that can be sold to comfortable middle class westerners will always be researched because it will always make money

And we definitely know this - because the Wellness alternative health industry makes more money than Big Pharma does

[doubleup]

On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically

Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
 

I take your point here, but there is a huge difference between "hiding a cure" and being happy having a "decades long patent" on something that alleviates symptoms (which may have arisen from an attempt to find a cure).

 

[Jon MW]

On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically

Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
 

I take your point here, but there is a huge difference between "hiding a cure" and being happy having a "decades long patent" on something that alleviates symptoms (which may have arisen from an attempt to find a cure).

 

I'm not sure you do entirely get the point

If a company such as AstraZeneca researches a cure for something and ends up with a good treatment for it - that might have taken about $1bn to get to market.

If they have a 20 year patent that means they must make at least $50 million a year to get their R&D money back

If a different company, such as Pfizer were researching the same cure and get beaten to the treatment by AZ - they'll keep on researching the cure.

If they get a cure 5 years after AZ got their treatment it means Pfizer will patent their cure for 20 years.

And AstraZeneca has 15 years left on a patent which is basically worthless - because who is going to pay for the treatment when they can just pay for the cure

In this model the profit maximisation is for AZ to patent the treatment - and still carry on researching the cure.

That's obviously hugely simplified - but it's basically the reason why research will never get stifled.

If it works (for a middle class western customer) - it will make a profit

And if your pharma company doesn't make that profit - one of your competitors will.

[Mohican]

On a recommendation, I've started drinking ginger and green tea. It apparently helps with painful joints etc. I've been able to resume weight training and running again but that might be due to me laying off it a while. Will keep drinking it cos I'm happy being back training.