Borillar
|
posted on January 5, 2003 01:20:22 AM new
Bid to create Viagra-like pill for women opposed
By Hasan Suroor
LONDON JAN. 4. Drug companies have been accused of inventing diseases in order to create new markets for expensive cures. The prestigious British Medical Journal has singled out attempts by pharmaceutical companies to produce and market a Viagra-like pill for women as "the freshest, clearest example that we have of the corporate-sponsored creation of a disease''.
The journal said that buoyed by the success of Viagra which had earned them huge profits, drug corporates had been trying to carve out a similar market for a Viagra for women by inventing the idea of "female sexual dysfunction'' (FSD).
The "disease'' is a myth, according to critics who have formed a pressure group "FSD Alert'' to resist the drug companies' attempt to label it as a medical problem.
``The potential risk, in a process so heavily sponsored by drug companies, is that the complex social, personal and physical causes of sexual difficulties — and the range of solutions to them — will be swept away in the rush to diagnose, label and prescribe,'' the journal said.
Drug manufacturers, including Pfizer which produces Viagra, have denied the allegation saying their research into FSD is simply a response to complaints from women about their sexual difficulties.
© Copyright 2000 - 2002 The Hindu
OK. Women. Is it true? And are the Drug companies really releasing a product that is necessary for the sexual well being of any owman that you have ever heard of or known?
|
gravid
|
posted on January 5, 2003 04:19:18 AM new
When they have a pill that goes straight to inducing orgasm then they'll have something to market. I can't wait for the TV ads.
|
trai
|
posted on January 5, 2003 08:12:26 AM new
When they have a pill that goes straight to inducing orgasm then they'll have something to market
Good lord, I hope not. What would the ladies need us for then?
|
bear1949
|
posted on January 5, 2003 11:17:59 AM new
Trai....
To buy the pills for them...
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 5, 2003 11:50:27 AM new
I guess I don't get it. If Viagra is supposed to help men that are physically unable to get an erection, get one, how does that translate into something for women?
The word 'disease' is used to explain every condition out there. In my opinion, chicken pox is a disease, but alcoholism isn't. Cancer is a disease but being crabby in the winter (SAD) isn't, etc.
|
clarksville
|
posted on January 5, 2003 02:19:10 PM new
Kim Cattrall has said in a recent tv interview that she uses the male viagra pill for stimulation.
"When they have a pill that goes straight to inducing orgasm then they'll have something to market. I can't wait for the TV ads."
The restaurant scene from "When Harry Meets Sally?"
"I'll have what she's having."
[ edited by clarksville on Jan 5, 2003 02:23 PM ]
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 5, 2003 02:29:51 PM new
"Kim Cattrall has said in a recent tv interview that she uses the male viagra pill for stimulation."
How base.
Hi clarksville!
|
clarksville
|
posted on January 5, 2003 05:41:07 PM new
Hello kraftdinner
The other day when I heard about the Canadian court case that dismissed (or whatever) a trial against a minor (?) that had under 30 grams of marijuana, I thought about you.
Apparently there is any law covering under 30 grams?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 5, 2003 06:46:53 PM new
The decriminalization law hasn't passed yet, so if he was a minor (under 18, I think), that's what would get him off clarksville. Bush is deadset against this and has issued several warnings to Canada. As a totally defensless country, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
|
clarksville
|
posted on January 5, 2003 09:27:23 PM new
kraftdinner
I guess the report was incorrect. Thanks.
I don't understand the arrogance on the US President telling Canada what to do. What's pathetic is that Canada lets him/us.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 5, 2003 09:43:43 PM new
Hi Krafty! If Canada passes that then they will become part of an Axis of evil. And to think you'd be right next door which would make you the most dangerous evil axis member.I think you know what that means!
If this "viagra" for women is like most drugs then one of the side effects is likely to be death so as far as I am concerned it wouldn't be worth it.There are those that would die for a big O I'm sure but not me.
yeah,yeah, I finally put my CC info back in and they'll let me post again!
|
bunnicula
|
posted on January 5, 2003 10:27:12 PM new
Isn't it funny. Viagra for men with low-functioning libidos was embraced with eager, open arms. Hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But as for women, I read in articles today that "lack of sex drive is in many cases a healthy and functional response for women faced with stress, tiredness, or threatening behaviour from their partners." And that the pharmeceutical companies are "creating an artificial market."
So...lack of sex drive is perfectly OK for women, but absolutely not for men. Heaven forbid!
Frankly, I doubt that that there were infinite hoards of men, either, who had "erectile dysfunction." Oh, yes, I have no doubt that many men do for one reason or another. But not in epidemic proportions. There'd be a *lot* of dissatisfied women mentioning it to one another. It would be common knowledge that a significant number of the male populace couldn't "get it up." Had any of you heard of such an epidemic when Viagra sprang on the scene?
So why should it be OK for men to want something like Viagra, but not women?
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 5, 2003 11:42:49 PM new
LoL! Nice to see you rawbunzel! 
OK, I looked it up and I think this is what you're talking about clarksville. Under the decriminalization act, 30 grams is acceptable. Thanks for pointing it out!
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n019/a10.html
|
clarksville
|
posted on January 6, 2003 08:53:22 AM new
Thanks kraftdinner for the link.
Is this for the whole country or just a region?
|
Borillar
|
posted on January 6, 2003 12:10:56 PM new
On Thursday, Greco said if the Windsor judge found the defence argument correct and simple possession of marijuana is not an offence in Ontario, the court would lack jurisdiction to deal with any accused charged with a non-existent offence.
"The most chilling effect of that would be that already hundreds or thousands of people in Ontario, including residents of this city as well, have been convicted of having committed non-existent criminal offences," he said.
"Even more chilling," is the fact that those people have acquired criminal records.
But, wasn't it a crime when they were convicted?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 6, 2003 12:26:18 PM new
I'm not quite sure clarksville. According to the RCMP, it's business as usual with arresting people with pot until a decision is made, so I assume that means for all of Canada. Because we don't have ANY law in place right now, I don't see how anyone could get charged. I guess this case is supposed to be a big deal as it will force Canada's hand to make a decision. The committee that was formed 18 months ago to study mj, by the Canadian government, recommended that it be legalized altogether, so some decision has to be made or people will continue to be arrested, charged and jailed.
And back to Viagra for women... I HATE drug companies.
|
gravid
|
posted on January 6, 2003 12:28:59 PM new
I'm reading it that they are not creating a new law. They are saying the law on the books never spoke to the question of simple possesion and the assumption that it did was an error.
So all the convictions would be invalid.
At one time it was illegal to sell anything carbonated (soda pop) in much of the US on Sunday because some fool assumed the only way you could get sparkling water was by fermentation like Champagne, so it was the same as an alcohalic drink.
That's where we get the term for ice cream Sundaes. On Sunday they left the Soda out because it was illegal.
So if people convicted of selling Fizzy water on Sunday were exhonerated because it was recognized the law was misapplied it would be a similar situation.
Some would say the Cannabis laws are at least as silly.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 6, 2003 01:25:47 PM new
gravid, there's much going on with pot here that's it's hard to keep up! Here's an article from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia...
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n022/a06.html?176
The mapinc.org site is very newsworthy and up to date, if you are interested in finding out about more.
|
clarksville
|
posted on January 7, 2003 09:55:51 AM new
To tie together the two subjects in this thread, remember when birth control pills were illegal til the 60s?
Also, gravid remember in the 40s when selling meat on Sundays was illegal?
|
Borillar
|
posted on January 7, 2003 12:25:39 PM new
I guess that if there are any women on here that are dysfunctional and could use a Viagra-like pill (somehow), they haven't spoken up.
Neither has anyone spoken up about knowing someone or hearing of someone who could actually benefit from that medication. So what sort of conclusions can be reached?
a) it's too embarrasing to talk about
b) no one needs this medication
c) women may have low sex drives, but couldn't care less about their own sexual gratification, therefore, the pill would not be necessary for them to live a full life (inconceivable for men, however.)
I guess so.
|
junquemama
|
posted on January 7, 2003 12:31:00 PM new
Or," D," Borillars need to know.
[ edited by junquemama on Jan 7, 2003 12:33 PM ]
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 7, 2003 01:14:09 PM new
Why don't they come out with pills that will make you NOT want sex? Those would be more valuable in our society. Or pills that make you smarter or read faster, etc. Sex isn't the apex of humanity, believe it or not.
|
Borillar
|
posted on January 7, 2003 01:25:47 PM new
Ahmen, Kraftdinner!
I get really tired of the media always pushing sex, sex, sex on us. Sexy clothes. Sexy cars. Sexy videos. Sexy music and movies. Sexy lifestyles. Sexy this and that. It makes you wonder if the television executives need to get some more in their lives. That there's a whole lot more to live than just sex (except when you are a young man ~ wow! Sex is everything!)
I also agree that a pill to STOP the sexual drive of a person would be much more beneficial. Think about how often the subject of sex offenders comes up in the RT. Many of them WANT to have their sex drives inhibited or removed altogether. A No-Sex pill would be great!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 7, 2003 02:07:16 PM new
D
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 7, 2003 05:54:44 PM new
Sexy lifestyle... ahahahaha!! Isn't it stupid Borillar? It's like we all should be at a heightened state of being mentally turned-on all the time, when the only thing it does do is desensitize, making us need more and more to to keep us in that state. No thanks!!
|
Reamond
|
posted on January 7, 2003 07:25:24 PM new
Viagra doesn't affect the sex drive, it addresses physical "plumbing" problems for the male erection. It facilitates blood circulation and was found by accident while being used to treat male heart disease patients.
The complimentary pleasure part of the female anatomy may also be affected by increased blood circulation, hence it is claimed Viagra has produced some results in heightening female sexual responce.
In any event, I haven't heard of any legal drug that heightened the sex drive.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 7, 2003 07:38:33 PM new
"The complimentary pleasure part..." You're such a gentleman Reamond!
|
clarksville
|
posted on January 8, 2003 08:40:01 AM new
Here's the link between the two "sex threads!"
I also agree that a pill to STOP the sexual drive of a person would be much more beneficial. Think about how often the subject of sex offenders comes up in the RT. Many of them WANT to have their sex drives inhibited or removed altogether. A No-Sex pill would be great!
Invent and develop the "sex stop pill" or "stop sex pill" and put it in one's date's drink. What a twist. Put a "Mickey" into the rapist's drink.
|
