The Pharmaceutical/Health Industry and Women

[VirgoGrr]

I'm just exploring a few thoughts about how medical/health issues that affect women are making money for the pharmaceutical industry.

I've just commented on another thread about my experiences with treatment for abnormal cervical cells. At the time and afterwards, I obviously read up on HPV and what may have led to my problem and I was horrified to learn that by taking the pill, as I'd been recommended, and by choosing a new partner who had had a recent std test, I thought I was practicing safe sex. Obviously not, it's likely that I was exposed to HPV after a serious illness and this led to severely abnormal, precancerous cells. If someone had told me that I was putting my health at risk at that time, there's no way I would have been taking the pill, I would have been insisting on condoms. I had not even heard of HPV before I had an abnormal smear. This is a number of years ago, btw.

Would it be too cynical to suggest that it's beneficial for the industry to not make this simple knowledge more widely available to women because they sell contraceptive pills, the equipment for smear tests, the equipment for treatment and the HPV vaccine?

I'm sure there are lots of examples. What do you think?

I thought it was widely known that for STI protection you need condoms?

OP - given that most people will have unprotected sex at some point, I think it is just as well we have companies manufacturing the items needed for smear tests and treatments for those found to have abnormal results.

I'm wondering how old OP is. The link between HPV and cervical cancer was established in the early 1980s (which also predated the AIDS condom campaign). So there probably is a pool of women - now probably 50+ - who would not have had the health protection message of barrier methods at the right time.

I am not sure this is related to the big pharmas for these health conditions; it is more a state of the actual scientific knowledge at the time. There could not have been a public health campaign before the scientific linkage was established, but there certainly was one in the mid-80s in UK.

The pharmas have been involved and have developed a vaccine. The economics of health policy (personally, I loathe the term "industry" applied to medicine) have so far limited this to young, female recipients. I think this is regrettable, and would prefer to see it given to all young people (for both the good of the herd and the reductions in make cancers that would also be expected).

civilion - well, I'm a twentysomething and I have to admit we don't use condoms, I use the pill.

I do feel angry about the way the pill is doled out, though. I think, like a lot of women I know, I got ticked off for using condoms and was told the pill was much more reliable for long-term monogamous relationships.

As it happens, because I get migraines with aura, I'm not meant to take the combined oestrogen/progesterone pills. I've been prescribed them several times, a couple before I knew there was any reason not to (and yes, the doctor was treating the migraines so he knew). After the link was made, another GP took me off the progesterone-only pill saying 'I don't know why you'd be on that' and prescribed me the combined pill under a brand name I didn't recognize, so when I got to the pharmacy and read the ingredients I had to go back. This does rather rely on me being on the ball, literate, confident about arguing with doctors ... it's fairly intimidating since they usually assume you are trying it on to get the more expensive pill (no idea why, it's a horrible one IMO).

Oh, and what are the side-effects of taking the wrong pill, such that these doctors were so blase about it? Ah yes, risk of stroke and death. Nice.

I really think there is an attitude in the medical profession that doesn't really want to think about whether pills are a good option for most women, and doesn't much care about side effects.

It is not just the pharmaceutical industry, at least there is evidence that their products do what they are supposed to. The alternative medicine industry also targets women to make profit, it is the way of capitalism.

LRD, the impression I have from teens/twenties is that if they use the Pill, they don't use condoms, as you say.

Would you say people your age make that decision because they don't think the risk of getting STIs and HIV is all that high?

Or do they just decide to take pot luck, and if they get an STI, they'll live with it?

And I do think it's counter-intuitive to both take a pill every day which has side-effects and then use a condom every time you have sex. You've gotta ask: is it really necessary to do both? What percentage of the female population actually do do both?

I went to my uni GP when I was 18 or 19 to discuss heavy and painful periods. This was about 17 years ago.

Anyway, I was apprehensive about taking the pill due to the long term risks. The GP talked me into it by saying that historically women would have been largely pregnant from age 13 onwards and so it wasn't 'natural' to have so many years of periods without a break. Can't believe I just believed her. I suppose at such a young age I did blindly trust in GPs.

I never stayed long on the pill. I too had the heavy STI message of the early 1990s to encourage me to use condoms.

I didn't start this thread to be be sneered at or patronised.

If you re-read my OP, its purely written about my personal experience and I raised a question because I thought it was an interesting topic and I thought that there would be some informative posters. I am not a health professional and clearly not so well informed as some of you.

Yes, I am an adult woman who thought that by taking the pill, as 'sold' to me by a family planning clinic that I would be protected from pregnancy in my long term relationship. I was probably a bit quick in dropping the condoms and I was aware that you take chances with stds if you don't use a condom, but I felt careful questioning of your partners history seemed sufficient to assess the risks. No doubt you will jump down my throat about that now.

My point was, why isn't there an awareness campaign about HPV as there is for Chlamydia? If I'd seen information telling me that this innocuous infection was widespread and could lead to cancer, I would have been a lot more careful.

I was told I needed treatment in 2003. The practice nurse read to me from a leaflet about HPV. I recall thinking, why haven't I seen that leaflet before now?

But OP, I do not get your point, condoms do not prevent HPV.

Just to pick some points raised about doctors prescribing habits - it is a fact that some medications rise and fall in popularity of prescribing and I can only attribute that to industry marketing.

Why is it suddenly common for GPs to prescribe cerazette automatically once you've hit 35 and you admit to an occasional cigarette? Why not talk about other options? I don't know what else there is to consider unless someone tells me about it. I'm not psychic.

The widespread reports of mental instability and other unpleasant physical side affects would make you think this product should be recalled, not promoted?

As an aside, my childhood doctor was recently struck off for, among other things, accepting inappropriate 'hospitality' and gifts from pharmaceutical reps.

HPV around the genitals would cause genital warts, surely? How likely is it that the virus can travel from the exterior of your body to your cervix?

I do not know the %, but it is possible. Wiping, scratching and all other 'actions' around the area make it not difficult at all.

Look here. Throat cancers linked to oral sex...

I'm not a pedant, as some appear to be, but of course condoms do not prevent HPV, but they will significantly reduce the chances of being infected. Statistically speaking.

Am I being completely unreasonable in saying that I don't think there has been or is a very good awareness message about HPV and cervical cancer and I think there would be many more young women who, remember are not protected by the vaccine, would be using condoms and not being pressured into just being on the pill because that's the expectation.

Jasper- in theory condoms are free but this isn't what happens in practice.
I went to a family planning clinic (taking a day off to travel there) to ask for both the pill and condoms. I specifically went there rather than a GP so I could discuss different brands of the pill and get condoms. The doc didn't know anything about different levels of different hormones in different brands and just dished out the one from the top of her list. I was given a 6 month supply of pills and 12!!! Condoms. As if that supply would last 6 months!

We still use condoms now (no pill) and pay £9 for 12 in tesco. It's not worth the parking costs to go to the fpc every month. GPs surgeries should have baskets of condoms at reception for anyone to get whenever they need them.

yes pharma is profitable
yes there are side effects from EVERY drug

BUT every drug is tested for safety and efficacy BEFORE getting anywhere near the market - it takes 12 - 15 years to get a product onto the market

They then have to pass rigourous tests on whether they add value to the lives of patients over and above whether they just work....

People with diabetes, cancer, mental health issues and many more diseases have benefited from pharma

be informed as patients - ask questions - read the patient information leaflets........ and then decide.

I think there was always a message out there that it is essential to use condoms to prevent/minimize STI. There was always a message out there that the best way to protect yourself is to limit the number of sexual partners.

I have moved to the UK at 21 in 1993 and I was shocked at how much it was in the media and literally everywhere in my uni. In my home country there was literally NO discussion/awareness campaign and I studied in the medical school for 2 years before moving over here.

BTW is it me you are referring to as a "pedant"?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/postnatal_clubs/397249-minipill-cerazette-specifically-and-depression-anxiety-sideeffects-a-warning-please/AllOnOnePage here's an old thread about cerazette which I thought would be relevant here. You do wonder why so many more women are on hormones rather than barrier methods when they have so many side effects.

Notthe- the pre-market testing is obviously not vigorous enough though. Thalidomide? There are countless drugs brought to market which are later found to be downright dangerous.

I think anyone interested in this should acquaint themselves with Illich's work on iatrogenesis.

Win/win situation that. Give you depression with Cerazette, then give you anti-ds to combat the depression. Lose/lose for you, of course. I have a number of female relatives who are addicted to antidepressants. That's a whole 'not her can of worms.

A lot of women use hormonal contraception rather than barrier methods because they want to - they prefer the reliability of it and being the one in charge of their contraception.

The HVP vaccine only covers against between four and six strains of HPV, but they are all cancer causing strains. There are also other strains which cause cancer but they are a lot less common. Even after being vaccinatted against HPV you can still contract genital warts, you are just a lot less likely to catch a strain that leads to cancer.
There is also the fact that the dosing sizes of most common drugs (pain killers and anti-biotics etc) are dosed for adult males with no variance given for the fact that most women are smaller and lighter and as a consequence should really be given lower doses.

VictoriaLucas

Condoms are free in my area. My husband gets them regularly from the family planning clinic, we have never paid for them.