New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Is disease a business?

Wulk

Wulk

Mayor
I'm not talking about curing disease as a business, but making sure that disease continues as a profit factor.

How many actual cures does big Pharma produce? Or, does it just, mainly produce drugs that mask the symptoms of disease/illness? How about the side effects of patented drugs? One of the drugs, that my GP tried to prescribe for me had "toxic shock and death" listed as a potential side effect - needless to say, I gave that one a body swerve.

Over 100k Americans die each year from the side effects of prescribed patented drugs - and, I'm not talking about people who overdose on pain killers. Imagine if a terrorist organisation was killing over 100k Americans every year - there would be a popular outcry to nuke them - but, big Pharma; it's profit, it's the American way.

Here's a list of the laws of the Pharmaceutic Industry: Profit over life

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
 
All drugs have side effects. Different people respond differently to identical substances. Peanut butter is deadly for some folks, but I don't really want to see it taken off of the market.

The problem that I have with the pharmaceutical industry is not that they are developing new drugs, but that they purchase political support to enhance their profit margins, rather than fairly competing in an open marketplace.
 
Wulk said:
I'm not talking about curing disease as a business, but making sure that disease continues as a profit factor.

How many actual cures does big Pharma produce? Or, does it just, mainly produce drugs that mask the symptoms of disease/illness? How about the side effects of patented drugs? One of the drugs, that my GP tried to prescribe for me had "toxic shock and death" listed as a potential side effect - needless to say, I gave that one a body swerve.

Over 100k Americans die each year from the side effects of prescribed patented drugs - and, I'm not talking about people who overdose on pain killers. Imagine if a terrorist organisation was killing over 100k Americans every year - there would be a popular outcry to nuke them - but, big Pharma; it's profit, it's the American way.

Here's a list of the laws of the Pharmaceutic Industry: Profit over life

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
Click to expand...


Pharmaceuticals and the science behind it it imperfect.

Drugs have side effects...most every drug.

How does the Pharmaceutical industry 'ensure disease continues'? and what do you believe exists, in science or pharma, that can eliminate disease?
 
NightSwimmer said:
All drugs have side effects. Different people respond differently to identical substances. Peanut butter is deadly for some folks, but I don't really want to see it taken off of the market.

The problem that I have with the pharmaceutical industry is not that they are developing new drugs, but that they purchase political support to enhance their profit margins, rather than fairly competing in an open marketplace.
Click to expand...

Do patented drugs actually cure anything? How about the latest medical fad: pre-emptive medicine? That's taking drugs for an illness that you don't have in the hope that they will prevent you from getting that illness, and, I'm not talking about vaccinations.

How about: "WASHINGTON — Top federal health officials engaged in “serious misconduct” by ignoring concerns of scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and approving for sale unsafe or ineffective medical devices, the scientists have written in a letter to Congress."?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/policy/18fda.html?_r=0
 
PhilFish said:
Pharmaceuticals and the science behind it it imperfect.

Drugs have side effects...most every drug.

How does the Pharmaceutical industry 'ensure disease continues'? and what do you believe exists, in science or pharma, that can eliminate disease?
Click to expand...

Sure drugs have side effects, but beneficial ones? The side effects are killing people, over 100,000 Americans every year - how many worldwide?

As for continuing the spread of disease/illness - what profit is there in a cure? And, this is a profit driven industry.

I don't think that there is anything that can completely eliminate disease. However, there are preventive measures that just about anyone can take to minimise their chances of illness/disease.
 
Wulk said:
Do patented drugs actually cure anything? How about the latest medical fad: pre-emptive medicine? That's taking drugs for an illness that you don't have in the hope that they will prevent you from getting that illness, and, I'm not talking about vaccinations.

How about: "WASHINGTON — Top federal health officials engaged in “serious misconduct” by ignoring concerns of scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and approving for sale unsafe or ineffective medical devices, the scientists have written in a letter to Congress."?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/policy/18fda.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


Aside from antibiotics and perhaps chemotherapy drugs for treating cancer, there are very few drugs that actually "cure" a disease. I wouldn't consider assessing the value of therapeutic drugs based upon such a stringent standard reasonable. Insulin doesn't cure diabetes, but it is still a useful drug.

Likewise, Prilosec doesn't cure an acidic stomach condition, and yet it does routinely cure stomach and esophageal ulcers. I am concerned about fast-tracking drugs and medical devices for regulatory approval. I believe that we should be always vigilant about assuring that our drug regulatory agencies take the necessary precautions to keep dangerous and ineffective drugs and medical devices off of the market. That said, if we banned every drug that might cause an adverse reaction in some people, we would be doing ourselves more overall harm than good.
 
Wulk said:
Sure drugs have side effects, but beneficial ones? The side effects are killing people, over 100,000 Americans every year - how many worldwide?

As for continuing the spread of disease/illness - what profit is there in a cure? And, this is a profit driven industry.

I don't think that there is anything that can completely eliminate disease. However, there are preventive measures that just about anyone can take to minimise their chances of illness/disease.
Click to expand...


sure they do. Ever heard of Proscar? it is a drug for prostatic hypertrophy... a 'side effect' is that it causes hair to grow in men.

Ever heard of Propecia? it is a drug for the treatment of hair loss.. it is simply a fraction of a portion of the Proscar dose.

Benefit.

As to the industry....if you state on the one hand that you dont think there is anything to prevent disease.. why do you open in your TP..with the suggestion that it is allowed to continue?

Pharma is a business. Should their work be conducted for free?
 
Wulk said:
Proscar: "In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration placed a black-box warning on Proscar for a slight but statistically significant risk that its use could cause aggressive prostate cancer. The drug has several side effects including impotence and loss of interest in sex."

http://www.drugs.com/news/proscar-won-t-boost-prostate-cancer-survival-study-finds-43162.html

Propecia: http://www.examiner.com/article/pro...-as-sales-of-merck-s-risky-baldness-drug-dive
Click to expand...


Yep. Most drugs have unwanted side effects. These adverse side effects will typically only affect about 1% or 2% of the population in a drug that is approved for public use.

What is your proposed solution? Throw out the baby with the bath? Use homeopathic water drops in the place of actual medications and pray for a miracle?
 
I don't know where you get your percentage figures from, most, if not all, patented drugs have adverse side effects that affect the majority of those who take them.

You entirely miss the point of the TP. Disease is a business that rakes in huge profits. Curing a disease reduces profits. Creating a disease, such as avian, or swine flu, increases profits enormously; as a hypothetical argument.

Imagine that someone brings out a cure for the common cold - look at the profit loss potential from such a cure.

How about high dose intravenous vitamin C as a cure for cancer? It appears to work, yet, as a non-patented treatment, it is banned in the US - I wonder why - perhaps the non-patented part may give you a clue.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/treat-symptoms-12/cold-comfort
 
Wulk said:
I don't know where you get your percentage figures from, most, if not all, patented drugs have adverse side effects that affect the majority of those who take them.

You entirely miss the point of the TP. Disease is a business that rakes in huge profits. Curing a disease reduces profits. Creating a disease, such as avian, or swine flu, increases profits enormously; as a hypothetical argument.

Imagine that someone brings out a cure for the common cold - look at the profit loss potential from such a cure.

How about high dose intravenous vitamin C as a cure for cancer? It appears to work, yet, as a non-patented treatment, it is banned in the US - I wonder why - perhaps the non-patented part may give you a clue.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/treat-symptoms-12/cold-comfort
Click to expand...


Yeah... It's a business. So is growing tulips. So what?

Look, you're free to practice all of the quack medicine that you like on yourself. Some of it may be helpful. Who knows?

What is it that you want? Should pharmaceutical companies be forced by law to operate as non-profits? What difference would it make if they did? There would still be some valuable drugs that have serious side effects. The shark fin cancer cure is probably banned here too. I hope so.
 
Ah getting faeceious now are we? Can't answer so switch to nonsense. I wonder what you mean by "quack" medicines - non-patented perhaps?

Do you know why there is a shortage of vaccines? It's because there isn't enough profit involved for the pharmaceutical companies to manufacture them. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/622.full

Quack medicines: "In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, federal prosecutors announced Monday. The agreement also includes civil penalties for improper marketing of a half-dozen other drugs."

"In May, Abbott Laboratories settled for $1.6 billion over its marketing of the antiseizure drug Depakote. And an agreement with Johnson & Johnson that could result in a fine of as much as $2 billion is said to be imminent over its off-label promotion of an antipsychotic drug, Risperdal."

"A warning was later added to the drug that Paxil, like other antidepressants, might increase the risk of suicidal thoughts in teenagers. Prosecutors said the company had marketed Wellbutrin for conditions like weight loss and sexual dysfunction when it was approved only to treat major depressive disorder.
They said that in the case of Avandia, whose use was severely restricted in 2010 after it was linked to heart risks, the company had failed to report data from studies detailing the safety risks to the F.D.A."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/b...-in-fraud-settlement.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Wulk said:
Ah getting faeceious now are we? Can't answer so switch to nonsense. I wonder what you mean by "quack" medicines - non-patented perhaps?
Click to expand...


What I mean is that if someone actually discovered an effective cancer cure, there would be no need to publicize it. It couldn't possibly be kept secret. And yet, rumors abound of secret cures that the evil drug manufacturers don't want you to know about. I put these stories on par with those of 100 MPG carburetors that the auto industry keeps secret.

Paranoia takes different forms. An entire industry has formed to serve the medically paranoid market. I have no more serious interest in it than I do for any other wild-eyed conspiracy theories.
 
NightSwimmer said:
What I mean is that if someone actually discovered an effective cancer cure, there would be no need to publicize it. It couldn't possibly be kept secret. And yet, rumors abound of secret cures that the evil drug manufacturers don't want you to know about. I put these stories on par with those of 100 MPG carburetors that the auto industry keeps secret.

Paranoia takes different forms. An entire industry has formed to serve the medically paranoid market. I have no more serious interest in it than I do for any other wild-eyed conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Someone discover a a cancer cure; Why do you think that Mexico is the worlds' No2 for medical tourism? The US is No 3.
 
Wulk said:
Someone discover a a cancer cure; Why do you think that Mexico is the worlds' No2 for medical tourism? The US is No 3.
Click to expand...


As I said previously, an entire industry has formed to serve the medically paranoid market. I don't view this as a particularly recent human endeavor, since there have been snake oil purveyors and for-profit miracle workers recorded throughout human history.

What is different, since somewhere around the turn of the early 20th Century, is a competing paradigm of medical care provision based upon the principles of the scientific method.

To be honest, I've experienced successful outcomes from both faith-based and science-based medical treatments. When I was a child, I had some warts removed from my hand via a magical spell, and it worked beautifully. Still, when one of my daughters experienced gallstones, I opted for the scientific approach to her treatment, rather than offering her a cocktail of olive oil and lemon juice as a cure.
 
Wulk said:
I'm not talking about curing disease as a business, but making sure that disease continues as a profit factor.

How many actual cures does big Pharma produce? Or, does it just, mainly produce drugs that mask the symptoms of disease/illness? How about the side effects of patented drugs? One of the drugs, that my GP tried to prescribe for me had "toxic shock and death" listed as a potential side effect - needless to say, I gave that one a body swerve.

Over 100k Americans die each year from the side effects of prescribed patented drugs - and, I'm not talking about people who overdose on pain killers. Imagine if a terrorist organisation was killing over 100k Americans every year - there would be a popular outcry to nuke them - but, big Pharma; it's profit, it's the American way.

Here's a list of the laws of the Pharmaceutic Industry: Profit over life

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
Click to expand...

Of course, because most pharmaceuticals only mask symptoms, rather than cure anything. And that is worth the side effects? No thank you, no matter how much they show people laughing and living the life of Reilly, even as they describe the possibilities of kidney failure, liver malfunction, or heart disease. They can perform a medical procedure on me by kissing my ass.
 
NightSwimmer said:
As I said previously, an entire industry has formed to serve the medically paranoid market. I don't view this as a particularly recent human endeavor, since there have been snake oil purveyors and for-profit miracle workers recorded throughout human history.

What is different, since somewhere around the turn of the early 20th Century, is a competing paradigm of medical care provision based upon the principles of the scientific method.

To be honest, I've experienced successful outcomes from both faith-based and science-based medical treatments. When I was a child, I had some warts removed from my hand via a magical spell, and it worked beautifully. Still, when one of my daughters experienced gallstones, I opted for the scientific approach to her treatment, rather than offering her a cocktail of olive oil and lemon juice as a cure.
Click to expand...

Why not try the olive oil and lemon juice first, see if it works, and, if it doesn't then go for surgery?
 
The first stock position I ever took, was in a blue-chip pharma concern. That one was sort of sentimental in that my late father had worked for that outfit. But because of that and I suppose because several of my family members are either pharmacists or work for pharma, I've always kept an eye out for good pharma stock values.

Whenever word gets out that a pharma or a pharma related concern might be on the verge of a breakthrough in terms of a CURE, its stock value starts inching up. But of course, it takes time for that possible cure to make its way all the way through the requisite trials. And all that time, the outfit's employees and shareholders are on pins 'n needles. IF it turns out that the cure isn't all that (which happens way more often than not!), the share price tumbles and everyone takes a bath. BUT...in the odd case that the cure does pan out, it's off to the races and everyone makes their fortune!

My point being....that it's in pharma's interest to develop real and viable cures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top