Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Yet money is spent on homeopathy? Perhaps the NHS is fucked.

The NHS cannot afford to get drugs licenced I haven't the figures at home but many $m's will be spent to get one drug licensed but they may have done trials on maybe 50 drugs for every drug that gets as far as a human trial. It's for this reason new drugs are so expensive. Most new drugs are still from natural products but altered and refined. I have exact figures at work but in a nutshell the NHS isn't designed for this and in no way could afford it.

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

So what would stop Universities/NHS or any medical college from carrying out a trial? It may have only been a sample size of 20, but those where impressive results, far better than placebo. The NHS funds homeopathy FFS.

A trial of 20 people with excellent results could just prove in a sample of mainly male subjects that the researcher had nice tits.
If you took 20 people to the WI for tea and sympathy they may feel some improvement.

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Yet money is spent on homeopathy? Perhaps the NHS is fucked.

BBC News - NHS money 'wasted' on homeopathy

According to that link from 2010, around £4 million is spent a year on homeopathy. That's the amount of money the hospital I have just been made redundant from had to cut from their budget in the current financial year. It's a drop in the ocean.

Originally Posted by anglian-sam

Jarrold me old mucker the link that i posted yes on it the trial was only done on 20 people but the research has been going for years first of all it was being developed in the usa for people that had witness horrible things, family members murdered infront of them , suicides , deep deep depression , anxiety and for suicidal people.

And in the reasearch they found that 91% of people responded to it after 100mg of the pill on one day and then a few days after takeing 100mg of the pill again then iraq kicked off after afew years of (yank) soldiers comeing back with PTSD and either going on to crime , drugs and drink they reverted to the trail above to which they found out it had great effect and was doing some good to battle the effects of PTSD and in my eyes if this can be refined down to help in any way then i think this is a winner but thats just my opinion.

Also lets not confuse MDMA with ecstasy MDMA is the main ingredient in ecstast and is perfectly harmless as it is a natrual chemical that grows in tree roots in the amazon and neighbouring countrys , its the shit dealers put with it to boost the effects and to get better yeilds of it for more profit that dose more harm than anythink around, if this is done in a proper enviroment with the proper people with the right intentsions i cant see anythink wrong with it also you cant become dependent on MDMA on its own.

As said about self medicating it dosent matter what the drug is illegal or legal , cod liver pills to crack people will always do this its just the way the world works , and just for them reasons alone i dont think that the study should be droped not that ur saying it should.

all those good men that have sacrificed there mental health and state of mind unwillingly should be able to have anything they need to try and restore them to previous health and well being if it is safe and been tested, if the public dont like it fuckem i dont think soldiers like seeing the things they have too but they still soldier on. sam.

No MDMA is not harmless there has been a number of deaths in the UK related only to MDMA. Main causes of death are related to cardiovascular toxicity just like cocaine and methamphetamine. Severe hepatitis is another large cause of death. A number of mental health problems, paranoid psychosis, toxic psychosis and serotonin syndrome.
If MDMA was licensed in its original state it would be withdrawn.

Originally Posted by jarrod248

A trial of 20 people with excellent results could just prove in a sample of mainly male subjects that the researcher had nice tits.
If you took 20 people to the WI for tea and sympathy they may feel some improvement.

TBH, I think it was less than 20, didn't the figure of 20 include a placebo given 8 and a drug tested 12? I am aware that a sample size of 20 is inadequte to draw a conclusion, it should be enough to incite interest though.

Originally Posted by jarrod248

The NHS cannot afford to get drugs licenced I haven't the figures at home but many $m's will be spent to get one drug licensed but they may have done trials on maybe 50 drugs for every drug that gets as far as a human trial. It's for this reason new drugs are so expensive. Most new drugs are still from natural products but altered and refined. I have exact figures at work but in a nutshell the NHS isn't designed for this and in no way could afford it.

I am sure you are right in what you say. However with the second biggest budget of our national spending, the reasons will be man-made.

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

TBH, I think it was less than 20, didn't the figure of 20 include a placebo given 8 and a drug tested 12? I am aware that a sample size of 20 is inadequte to draw a conclusion, it should be enough to incite interest though.

It was first made 100 years ago and if the drug companies had found a use it'd probably be on the market for something.
I'd imagine any research to be done by American pharmaceutical companies and getting approval for a drug causing so many problems in America is highly unlikely I imagine.

Originally Posted by Grey_Mafia65

BBC News - NHS money 'wasted' on homeopathy

According to that link from 2010, around £4 million is spent a year on homeopathy. That's the amount of money the hospital I have just been made redundant from had to cut from their budget in the current financial year. It's a drop in the ocean.

The only reason £4Million seems a drop in the ocean is because the NHS spend is absolutely huge. Have you ever seen perfectly good office furniture replaced because it is coming up to the end of buget year? How much is spent on elective treatments? How much on art for offices?

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

I am sure you are right in what you say. However with the second biggest budget of our national spending, the reasons will be man-made.

Pharmaceutical companies are huge with massive budgets but of course a lot have cut back or merged. They are squeezed like everyone else. Just a few years ago I could have dined out every night and had expenses paid trips to conferences. These days they have no budget for such things and aren't allowed to give us even a pen.

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

The only reason £4Million seems a drop in the ocean is because the NHS spend is absolutely huge. Have you ever seen perfectly good office furniture replaced because it is coming up to the end of buget year? How much is spent on elective treatments? How much on art for offices?

You need multi-million dollar budgets to be developing drugs. I can get the figures when I'm back at work. Large amounts can be spent on things like packaging and life-span of a product in a bottle or packet. Unlike dilute pop if you have a medicine in a bottle a trial has to be done to see if the amount of the drug is still in the bottle on its expiry date. If its in a plastic bottle it has to be tested to make sure non has left through the porous bottle. The label will be stuck on with glue, so it needs testing to make sure the glue or ink on the label hasn't got into the product. More than likely it'll have a cardboard ring in the lid do that also needs to be evaluated. If the drug comes in different strengths then all strengths will need testing. So when a drug is licensed its likely to be in the same packaging for all the time it's made.
Just a small example and I'll not start on NICE appraisals.
Drug companies take huge gambles.