• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pharmaceutical conspiracies

Was watching episode 2 of House last night - "You know what else is really good business? Teeny-tiny baby coffins."

Said to a mother who refuses to vaccinate her child because, "The multinational corporations want us to think that vaccinations work."
 
T.A.M. said:
Please, anyone, bring an allege medical CT and present your evidence...This is a game I can play well...

I have already been tackling the Mercury-Vaccine-Autism crap on blogs elsewhere.


TAM:)
Click to expand...

Hey TAM,

OK, how about ibogaine. Poly drug dependence interrupter. Effective for heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, and alcohol. Scientific studies demonstrate efficacy for blockading symptoms of drug withdrawal. In addition ibogaine metabolites sit in the body fat and continue to promote drug abstinence for on average a month after initial dose. Re-dosing possible to maintain abstinence. Drug has no abuse potential itself.

Commenced Phase 1 FDA trials 1994. Legal disputes broke out between parties carrying out and paying for the trials. 1995 US National Institute for Drug Abuse NIDA pulled the plug for no good reason.

Mechanism of action not fully comprehended despite large numbers of animal studies. Substance is an opiate partial agonist and likely active in NMDA and GABA pathways amongst others.

Few commentators dispute that this drug would utterly revolutionise the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction worldwide but Big Pharma is utterly uninterested and governments have not offered "orphan drug" status.

For scientific verification see work of Dr Deborah Mash, professor of neurology and molecular and cellular pharmacology at the University of Miami School of Medicine, internationally renowned expert in field of neuropharmacology of drugs of abuse, and holder of the Jeanne C. Levey Chair in the Department of Neurology.

Nick
 
Last edited:
Nick227 said:
OK, how about ibogaine. Poly drug dependence interrupter. Effective for heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, and alcohol. Scientific studies demonstrate efficacy for blockading symptoms of drug withdrawal. In addition ibogaine metabolites sit in the body fat and continue to promote drug abstinence for on average a month after initial dose. Re-dosing possible to maintain abstinence. Drug has no abuse potential itself.
Click to expand...

Redded by me. Could you kindly cite the relevant scientific studies?

kthnxbi
 
I work in a very large medical practice (25 docs) and we get pharma reps in the office ALL the time. We (the editorial we, not me personally) listen to their pitches, eat their food, take their pens, sticky pads and other swag, and take a few samples for the med room.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's marketing. If one of our docs happens to see a patient with the condition one of these drugs is intended for, he/she might try it; or he/she might not. Most of the docs I know (and I'd venture to expand that to most docs in general) will stay with the things they KNOW to be effective until they're sure that there's something better out there.
 
In case it isn't obvious, 18-Methoxycoronaridine (18-MC) is similar to ibogaine. In animal studies it has proved to be effective at reducing self-administration of morphine, cocaine, methamphetamine and nicotine.

S.D. Glick (1996). "18-Methoxycoronaridine, a non-toxic iboga alkaloid congener: effects on morphine and cocaine self-administration and on mesolimbic dopamine release in rats". Brain Res. 719 (1-2): 29-35.
Ibogaine, a naturally occurring iboga alkaloid, has been claimed to be effective in treating addiction to opioids and stimulants, and has been reported to inhibit morphine and cocaine self-administration in rats. However, ibogaine also has acute nonspecific side effects (e.g. tremors, decreased motivated behavior in general) as well as neurotoxic effects (Purkinje cell loss) manifested in the vermis of the cerebellum. 18-Methoxycoronaridine (MC) is a novel, synthetic iboga alkaloid congener that mimics ibogaine's effects on drug self-administration without appearing to have ibogaine's other adverse effects. Acutely, in rats, MC decreased morphine and cocaine self-administration but did not affect bar-press responding for water. In some rats, treatment with MC (40 mg/kg) induced prolonged decreases in morphine or cocaine intake lasting several days or weeks.
Click to expand...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8782860

Glick is still working with 18-MC.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
I work in a very large medical practice (25 docs) and we get pharma reps in the office ALL the time. We (the editorial we, not me personally) listen to their pitches, eat their food, take their pens, sticky pads and other swag, and take a few samples for the med room.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's marketing. If one of our docs happens to see a patient with the condition one of these drugs is intended for, he/she might try it; or he/she might not. Most of the docs I know (and I'd venture to expand that to most docs in general) will stay with the things they KNOW to be effective until they're sure that there's something better out there.
Click to expand...

Well I've had my doc or the receptionist give me stuff before when I ask about it. "Oh that's a cool pen" or something.. I often get the response. "Oh you like it? Here, you can have it. The pharma rep left eight hundred of them in the office."

(Okay well it's usually not eight hundred)
 
Nick227 said:
Commenced Phase 1 FDA trials 1994. Legal disputes broke out between parties carrying out and paying for the trials. 1995 US National Institute for Drug Abuse NIDA pulled the plug for no good reason.

Mechanism of action not fully comprehended despite large numbers of animal studies. Substance is an opiate partial agonist and likely active in NMDA and GABA pathways amongst others.
Click to expand...
Funny, you just mentioned two very good reasons for NIDA to pull the plug.

Few commentators dispute that this drug would utterly revolutionise the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction worldwide but Big Pharma is utterly uninterested and governments have not offered "orphan drug" status.
Click to expand...
"Orphan drug" status is a US thing. What about the rest of the planet?
 
T.A.M. said:
No I have not, but please provide a link, as it has my ***** DETECTOR going off...

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I haven't been able to find an article about pro-athletes + pesticides on grass practice fields and autism in their kids, but there are a lot of "Pesticides cause autism" links on the web.

http://www.drgreene.com/21_1894.html

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/06_13_05.htm

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=151

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2003/February/09/local/stories/01local.htm
 
SpaceMonkeyZero said:
I haven't been able to find an article about pro-athletes + pesticides on grass practice fields and autism in their kids, but there are a lot of "Pesticides cause autism" links on the web.

http://www.drgreene.com/21_1894.html

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/06_13_05.htm

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=151

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2003/February/09/local/stories/01local.htm
Click to expand...
wouldnt the mother have to exposed to the pesticides for it to have prenatal effects on the child?

are the pesticides staying in the bloodstream and being transfered to the mother through exchanges of bodily fluid (which seems that it wouldnt result in a whole lot of chemicals getting through to the fetus) or are the pesticides effecting the athletes at a genetic level, which is then transferred to the child?

im sure there are links between pesticides and autism, it just seems the "pesticides on the practice field are effecting pro athletes kids" seems a bit of a stretch
 
defaultdotxbe said:
wouldnt the mother have to exposed to the pesticides for it to have prenatal effects on the child?

are the pesticides staying in the bloodstream and being transfered to the mother through exchanges of bodily fluid (which seems that it wouldnt result in a whole lot of chemicals getting through to the fetus) or are the pesticides effecting the athletes at a genetic level, which is then transferred to the child?

im sure there are links between pesticides and autism, it just seems the "pesticides on the practice field are effecting pro athletes kids" seems a bit of a stretch
Click to expand...

Which is why I was asking if he had ever heard of the CT. :) I don't believe it for a minute that professional athletes have a higher proportion of autistic kids more than the general population. I couldn't find any link about it other than just pesticides + mom = goofy kid
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
I work in a very large medical practice (25 docs) and we get pharma reps in the office ALL the time. We (the editorial we, not me personally) listen to their pitches, eat their food, take their pens, sticky pads and other swag, and take a few samples for the med room.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's marketing. If one of our docs happens to see a patient with the condition one of these drugs is intended for, he/she might try it; or he/she might not. Most of the docs I know (and I'd venture to expand that to most docs in general) will stay with the things they KNOW to be effective until they're sure that there's something better out there.
Click to expand...

My doctor always looks to see if he has free samples to give out instead of writing a prescription, saving time of having to go get it filled, saving money not having to spend the money on the co-pay, etc.
 
robinson said:
In case it isn't obvious, 18-Methoxycoronaridine (18-MC) is similar to ibogaine. In animal studies it has proved to be effective at reducing self-administration of morphine, cocaine, methamphetamine and nicotine.

S.D. Glick (1996). "18-Methoxycoronaridine, a non-toxic iboga alkaloid congener: effects on morphine and cocaine self-administration and on mesolimbic dopamine release in rats". Brain Res. 719 (1-2): 29-35.
Click to expand...

18-MC has only been studied on rats, as far as I'm aware. What's interesting about it is that, despite being a derivative of ibogaine (a psychoactive tryptamine), it is believed to not be psychoactive itself. One of the barely spoken mainstays of the pharmcological business, sorry science, is that it's just not done to develop tryptamines, no matter what potential benefits to mankind they might possess.

The Pharm business demonstrates a near pathological lack of interest in a substance which would revolutionise the treatment of addiction worldwide. They are terrified of it basically. This particular strand of tryptamine has been studied extensively and found to be active in virtually every known neurochemical pathway associated with drug and alcohol dependency. The possibilities it opens up are mindblowing, but big business is terrified of the possibilities. It wants control and sustainable profits, not paradigm-busting broad spectrum treatments. No one knows why ibogaine is so amazingly effective, and if the situation continues as it does, no one ever will. In fact, imo it is a supreme testament to human endurance and desire for truth that ibogaine actually has been scientifically studied at all, given the abysmal lack of commercial interest.

Yes, where is TAM? He seems active on other threads but quiet here, despite his challenge.

Nick
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom