Author Topic: Anti-Addiction Drug (Read 12493 times)

Tinman57 · « **on:** December 04, 2012, 07:03 PM »

A new prescription to treat prescription drug abuse
Prescription drugs have arguably become more dangerous to addicts than street drugs. The pharmaceutical industry may have uncovered a treatment that reduces dependence by restoring the functions that opioids disrupt.

http://www.smartplan...tion-drug-abuse/7251

Renegade · « **Reply #1 on:** December 04, 2012, 08:38 PM »

Hmmm... So what you're saying is that first they create the problem, then they create the cure? Interesting...

Hegelian Dialectic: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and lots more here or here if you prefer the "problem, reaction, solution" moniker for it.

cmpm · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2012, 05:30 AM »

a therapy subjects would take for a considerable period of time to successfully manage initial withdrawal and the high-risk period for relapse

MediciNova cannot comment on a price point yet, but cited Dr. Phil Skolnick, director of pharmacotherapies & medical consequences of drug abuse at NIDA stating that a $1,000/month price point for a six-month course of treatment was reasonable.

Who will this therapy benefit?

I really think this drug would make it easier for the rich to get addicted and then be able to do this 'therapy' as an easy way out and easily back in to addiction. Knowing that the withdrawals can be handled better.

Where is the help for the addicts that don't have $1,000 a month, which is the majority of those who need help.
It's not in this 'plan'.

Renegade · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2012, 05:54 AM »

Who will this therapy benefit?
-cmpm (December 05, 2012, 05:30 AM)

I belive the answer is here:

MediciNova...
...a $1,000/month price point for a six-month course of treatment was reasonable.

$1,000 a month? Yeah. This exactly benefits MediciNova.

The Hegelian Dialectic in action. You get somebody hooked on drugs... then you offer to help them get off drugs for a fee (with other drugs)...

Where is the help for the addicts that don't have $1,000 a month, which is the majority of those who need help.
It's not in this 'plan'.
-cmpm (December 05, 2012, 05:30 AM)

*** Deleted super-cynical post ***

Help will come after they lobby for it to be covered by socialist medical care. That way, they can get a much bigger pay day courtesy of tax payers that are probably smart enough not to get hooked on drugs.

cmpm · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2012, 06:27 AM »

Yeah, it only costs $10 a month to get hooked on prescription drugs.
Which are basically the same as street drugs, just cheaper.

And what about those who need those scripted drugs?
And then need to get off of them?
You are weaned off of them a little at a time under a doctor's care.
A lot less money involved, and it works.

This drug is for the rich, and lazy.

cthorpe · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2012, 04:02 PM »

The conspiracy nut/pessimist in me says that there will be "pressure" or "incentives" for DRs to go back to the old days of over-prescribing addictive drugs....

A sore back? Have 6 months worth of Vicodin.

A little trouble sleeping? Valium for you and your whole family.

Tinman57 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:15 PM »

The conspiracy nut/pessimist in me says that there will be "pressure" or "incentives" for DRs to go back to the old days of over-prescribing addictive drugs....

A sore back? Have 6 months worth of Vicodin.

A little trouble sleeping? Valium for you and your whole family.
-cthorpe (December 05, 2012, 04:02 PM)

Seems that most doctors now days are under-prescribing opiate drugs for fear of lawsuits. Whatever happened to the idea of relieving pain and suffering? There was a tv special that I saw that was about that very subject.
Where I see the good about this new drug is for the people that are recovering from problems with severe pain. But the $1000 a month cost is just ridiculous, and I don't know if the insurance companies are going to pay and tell them to use the old fashioned way of weening.

app103 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:26 PM »

The nice thing about pharmaceutical patents is that they DO expire in 12 years, and then the market can be flooded with cheaper generics, at about a 30% to 80% reduction in cost to the patient.

Renegade · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:39 PM »

The nice thing about pharmaceutical patents is that they DO expire in 12 years, and then the market can be flooded with cheaper generics, at about a 30% to 80% reduction in cost to the patient.
-app103 (December 05, 2012, 07:26 PM)

That's *kind of * true... but not really.

In reality, when a patent is up for expiry, the pharmaceutical companies run out, do some quack study, add some kind of condition that the medication can be used for, then get their patents extended. It's no different than how the MAFIAA continually demand that copyright expiry be lengthened continually.

So, while in "theory" pharma patents may only last 12 years, the reality is that they get extended and the prices stay high.

i.e. You're only going to get low prices on these drugs if you are a very, very, very patient patient.

barney · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:43 PM »

i.e. You're only going to get low prices on these drugs if you are a very, very, very patient patient.
-Renegade (December 05, 2012, 07:39 PM)

Well-l-l-l ... a little - lot of? - longevity would help

.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:44 PM »

It's no different than how the MAFIAA continually demand that copyright expiry be lengthened continually.
-Renegade (December 05, 2012, 07:39 PM)

It is sorta different, but in weird and complicated ways I have trouble putting a finger on. No less evil, more like "Differently Evil".

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #11 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:45 PM »

Well-l-l-l ... a little - lot of? - longevity would help .
-barney (December 05, 2012, 07:43 PM)

Right, we're talking medicine here, the one thing you tend not to have when you need medicine is longevity!

Renegade · « **Reply #12 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:48 PM »

Well-l-l-l ... a little - lot of? - longevity would help .
-barney (December 05, 2012, 07:43 PM)

Reminds me of that little aphorism about administering medicine to the dead.

It's no different than how the MAFIAA continually demand that copyright expiry be lengthened continually.
-Renegade (December 05, 2012, 07:39 PM)

It is sorta different, but in weird and complicated ways I have trouble putting a finger on. No less evil, more like "Differently Evil".
-TaoPhoenix (December 05, 2012, 07:44 PM)

Well, true enough. I should have weakened that statement to "similar" instead. But like you said, it's just "Differently Evil!" (I like that one - differently evil~!

)

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #13 on:** December 05, 2012, 08:19 PM »

Damn, I just nuked my post. (This is why I tend to post and edit twice!) Shorter version below: But I'll just say that sometimes with a little digging you can learn a few things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibudilast
Which is :
Ibudilast ... is an antiinflammatory drug used mainly in Japan, which acts as a phosphodiesterase inhibitor, inhibiting the PDE-4 subtype to the greatest extent, but also showing significant inhibition of other PDE subtypes.

Ibudilast has ... neuroprotective effects.

Ibudilast crosses the blood–brain barrier and suppresses glial cell activation. This activity has been shown to make ibudilast useful in the treatment of neuropathic pain and it not only enhances analgesia produced by opioid drugs, but also reduces the development of tolerance.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glial_cell
http://en.wikipedia....diesterase_inhibitor

So somewhere in there is the next step.

Renegade · « **Reply #14 on:** December 06, 2012, 09:33 AM »

Here's a very timely article and event:

http://www.activistp...arijuana-smoker.html

Steve Marlowe, peaceful person and long-time marijuana advocate, was driving his peace signed car in Florida in October, 2012 when he was arrested for 19 grams of cannabis (marijuana) - a misdemeanor. Instead of pleading guilty and paying a fine, Steve says he has done nothing wrong and wants a jury to hear his case, believing at least one juror will have common sense, see the unfairness and vote not-guilty. 64 years old, Steve uses cannabis for his arthritis, preferring it over debilitating prescription medications. He faces up to a year in jail if found guilty.

Steve's first court appearance is Dec 12, 2012 at the Sumter County Courthouse, Courtroom B, in Bushnell, FL. Calling on all supporters of legal marijuana and jury nullification to be there to support him.

Learn more about the power of a jury at The Fully Informed Jury Association: http://fija.org

Screenshot - 2012-12-07 , 2_30_59 AM.png

I really wish this fellow all the best.

The video is well worth a watch.

Acid test quote: "I'm just a 64 year old man who wants to be left in peace."

And... Keep in mind... You can't patent pot.

Any bells ringing yet?

kyrathaba · « **Reply #15 on:** December 09, 2012, 12:23 PM »

Regarding the OP quoting the smartplanet article: I ran this by our agency psychiatrist, who is quite the expert in addiction treatment. He says this new drug's mechanism of action isn't really understood, and that it isn't ready for public consumption.

Tinman57 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2012, 07:30 PM »

Regarding the OP quoting the smartplanet article: I ran this by our agency psychiatrist, who is quite the expert in addiction treatment. He says this new drug's mechanism of action isn't really understood, and that it isn't ready for public consumption.
-kyrathaba (December 09, 2012, 12:23 PM)

And this has stopped big pharma in the past how? lol Hell, two of the prescriptions I used to take have been pulled because one caused bladder cancer and the other one did something else bad. Probably memory loss. lol

Renegade · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2012, 09:11 PM »

Regarding the OP quoting the smartplanet article: I ran this by our agency psychiatrist, who is quite the expert in addiction treatment. He says this new drug's mechanism of action isn't really understood, and that it isn't ready for public consumption.
-kyrathaba (December 09, 2012, 12:23 PM)

And this has stopped big pharma in the past how? lol Hell, two of the prescriptions I used to take have been pulled because one caused bladder cancer and the other one did something else bad. Probably memory loss. lol
-Tinman57 (December 09, 2012, 07:30 PM)

Both good points.

Have a search to find out just how many billions in fines they have paid.

Oh, and did I mention that it just came out that Big Pharma was paying the East German government for unknowing/unwilling/uninformed human experimentation before the wall came down? There is NOTHING they won't do for profit.

Tinman57 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 10, 2012, 06:09 PM »

Regarding the OP quoting the smartplanet article: I ran this by our agency psychiatrist, who is quite the expert in addiction treatment. He says this new drug's mechanism of action isn't really understood, and that it isn't ready for public consumption.
-kyrathaba (December 09, 2012, 12:23 PM)

And this has stopped big pharma in the past how? lol Hell, two of the prescriptions I used to take have been pulled because one caused bladder cancer and the other one did something else bad. Probably memory loss. lol
-Tinman57 (December 09, 2012, 07:30 PM)

Both good points.

Have a search to find out just how many billions in fines they have paid.

Oh, and did I mention that it just came out that Big Pharma was paying the East German government for unknowing/unwilling/uninformed human experimentation before the wall came down? There is NOTHING they won't do for profit.
-Renegade (December 09, 2012, 09:11 PM)

I'll bet the fines they paid is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to what they made off the drug to begin with, which really don't give them any incentive to stop this practice. If Uncle Sam would figure out how much they made off the drug and fine them that much plus 10%, I'll bet they would stop pulling that little stunt real fast. But as we already know, big pharma "donates" quite heavily to their political cronies, and the politicians don't want to cut off the hands that is lining their pockets with gold....

Renegade · « **Reply #19 on:** December 10, 2012, 06:14 PM »

I'll bet the fines they paid is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to what they made off the drug to begin with, which really don't give them any incentive to stop this practice. If Uncle Sam would figure out how much they made off the drug and fine them that much plus 10%, I'll bet they would stop pulling that little stunt real fast. But as we already know, big pharma "donates" quite heavily to their political cronies, and the politicians don't want to cut off the hands that is lining their pockets with gold....
-Tinman57 (December 10, 2012, 06:09 PM)

You are quite correct!

For example, the total fines for Vioxx were under a billion dollars, but they made around $12 billion on it.

The truth is that they have such an incredible conflict of interest that it is impossible to have any real trust in them and at least 1 brain cell at the same time.