Teh Big Pharma Conspiracy... How Big?

[Bronze Dog]

I've exchanged a lot of comments with altie nuts about how big a Big Pharma conspiracy would have to be.

According to Fore Sam, a cookie-cutter mercury-autism woo who tends to get personal with me, it only takes the CEOs' intimidation, since ALL the doctors and scientists there are too cowardly to risk their job to help people. (Which is especially silly, since many joined up specifically to help people.)

So, any thoughts?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've exchanged a lot of comments with altie nuts about how big a Big Pharma conspiracy would have to be.

According to Fore Sam, a cookie-cutter mercury-autism woo who tends to get personal with me, it only takes the CEOs' intimidation, since ALL the doctors and scientists there are too cowardly to risk their job to help people. (Which is especially silly, since many joined up specifically to help people.)

So, any thoughts?
Who needs a conspiracy when you have a good marketing department?

[kookbreaker]

My dare to the 'Big Pharma conspiracy' nutters is to make their claims that doctors and pharmaceutical companies are hiding cures for Cancer directly to the faces of doctors and nurses who work in Cancer wards.

When their face gets reattached, they might reconsider their position.

[Dave1001]

Who needs a conspiracy when you have a good marketing department?
great point

[kevin]

what is the nature of the big pharma conspiracy? I see mention of hiding cancer cures for some unknown reason (so they spent all the money developing a cure but now won't sell it?)

i've also heard of them not researching for cures but just symptom treatments that have to be applied over and over and over (which at least makes sense capitalistically)

And of course all the money going into baldness and erectile disfunction instead of cancer treatments.

Is that about the extent of it?

[TobiasTheViking]

I've exchanged a lot of comments with altie nuts about how big a Big Pharma conspiracy would have to be.

According to Fore Sam, a cookie-cutter mercury-autism woo who tends to get personal with me, it only takes the CEOs' intimidation, since ALL the doctors and scientists there are too cowardly to risk their job to help people. (Which is especially silly, since many joined up specifically to help people.)

So, any thoughts?
I have many opinions and thoughts on that.. but i'm not sure what you are looking for specificly. Could you verbose your request?

[ponderingturtle]

what is the nature of the big pharma conspiracy? I see mention of hiding cancer cures for some unknown reason (so they spent all the money developing a cure but now won't sell it?)


The general logic is this.

X is a simple all natural product that will cure disease Y. Pharma sells Drugs A,B,C to treat disease Y and make lots of money on those drugs. They can not patent or control X as anyone can take it, so they cover it up and spread lies about it.

That seems to be the basic logic behind this

[Dave1001]

The general logic is this.

X is a simple all natural product that will cure disease Y. Pharma sells Drugs A,B,C to treat disease Y and make lots of money on those drugs. They can not patent or control X as anyone can take it, so they cover it up and spread lies about it.

That seems to be the basic logic behind this

It's interesting how even though there are no laws I am aware of against it, there seems to be an aversion of pharmaceutical companies that sell cancer medication from merging with tobacco companies, and companies that sell high fat, high salt junk food for merging with pharmaceutical companies that sell heart disease medication. The closest large companies come to profitting off both ends that I'm aware of are: (1) big drug store chains that sell medication as well as cigarettes and junk food, and (2) GE, which sells weapons to injure people and medical equipment to make them better. Anyone aware of (any other) companies that profit from both ends in this way?

[Dave1001]

The general logic is this.

X is a simple all natural product that will cure disease Y. Pharma sells Drugs A,B,C to treat disease Y and make lots of money on those drugs. They can not patent or control X as anyone can take it, so they cover it up and spread lies about it.

That seems to be the basic logic behind this

It's true to a degree in obvious ways. There's arguably little financial incentive to tell people to do some simple excercises at home and eat a moderate varied diet of inexpensive, healthy foods. There seems to be a greater financial incentive to sell people hypertension and diabetes drugs a couple decades later.

[pgwenthold]

It's true to a degree in obvious ways. There's arguably little financial incentive to tell people to do some simple excercises at home and eat a moderate varied diet of inexpensive, healthy foods. .

Yet, doctors do this all the time (tell people to get a proper diet and excercise). I thought they were part of the conspiracy?

[Dave1001]

Yet, doctors do this all the time (tell people to get a proper diet and excercise). I thought they were part of the conspiracy?

I meant there's not a great incentive for large, profit-seeking institutions to spread the message of inexpensive health maintenance through moderate diet and excercise, in the same way that there's a strong incentive for pharmaceutical companies to agressively spread messages of drug prescription and consumption for health maintainence (for example with people with obesity related hypertension or diabetes).

[T.A.M.]

Cancer - There are cures, it is called surgical excision of the malignancy. Once it has spread to the lymphatic system and beyond, there is no cure, end of story. There may be remission, but it is not cured.

Diabetes - The only cure is diet and exercise, and once the pancreas is beaten to death (by your bodies own insulin resistance or by drugs like glyburide), that cure will not even work.

Hypertension - Cure is same as for Diabetes, for most, diet and exercise, but for those with a strong family history, even that might not be enough.

I'll be honest, there is no doubt that the Pharma companies are out to make profit, and yes this is the overwhelming push behind the research they do. What do you expect, it is the AMERICAN way.

The research, however, does get done, and these companies are in competition with each other, which lowers the med prices. And their patents are only so long, then they make no money off the drug. And yes, then they manipulate the molecule to make it better, and patent it under another name...also good sound business. The medicines they put out work, and for the most part are safe.

They also apply the principles of scientific method and theory to their studies, and have them peer reviewed. Doctors are trained in critical thinking and critical analysis of scientific studies and drug trials in med school. There are regulatory bodies, and numerous stop gaps, and lets not forget that good old american faithful....the law suit, to keep them in check.

I am far from a Pharma lobbyist, but I understand and appreciate their role.

[kevin]

The general logic is this.

X is a simple all natural product that will cure disease Y. Pharma sells Drugs A,B,C to treat disease Y and make lots of money on those drugs. They can not patent or control X as anyone can take it, so they cover it up and spread lies about it.

That seems to be the basic logic behind this

bah, crap. Big pharma are masters at taking existing about to go off patent medicines and getting them re-patented by slight changes to the molecule. Would be easy to do for some natural drug too.

[ktesibios]

It's interesting how even though there are no laws I am aware of against it, there seems to be an aversion of pharmaceutical companies that sell cancer medication from merging with tobacco companies, and companies that sell high fat, high salt junk food for merging with pharmaceutical companies that sell heart disease medication. The closest large companies come to profitting off both ends that I'm aware of are: (1) big drug store chains that sell medication as well as cigarettes and junk food, and (2) GE, which sells weapons to injure people and medical equipment to make them better. Anyone aware of (any other) companies that profit from both ends in this way?

Well, if you want a literal example of profiting from both ends, Purina manufactures both cat food and cat litter. ;)

[American]

The most obvious argument against any conspiracy is that everyone either gets cancer, may get it, or knows somebody close who has.

However I would not bother presenting this argument to conspirists, as the best way to deal with such people is to ignore them where ever they are found.

[asmodean]

Diabetes - The only cure is diet and exercise, and once the pancreas is beaten to death (by your bodies own insulin resistance or by drugs like glyburide), that cure will not even work.


Quick nitpick. There's several types of diabetes. Type 1 (the type I've had for 25+ yrs) is an auto-immune disease killing of insuline producing cells. Pretty much calls for insulin injections from the start. Diet and excercise wont "cure" (treat) type 1 though it will help a lot.

Type 2 though can sometimes be treated with nothing but excercise and proper diet with the roto cause of hightened insulin resistance.

Gestational diabetes? .. *shrug* Dunno about that one. :P

[asmodean]

The most obvious argument against any conspiracy is that everyone either gets cancer, may get it, or knows somebody close who has.

Exactly. It's not like Big Pharma(tm) will run out of cancer patients with a cure-for-cancer in their patent portfolio.

[Cuddles]

How big? I caught one once that was <--------------> this big. But it got away before I could take a photo.

[bobdroege7]

why cure cancer when we can sell a drug at 150$ a dose that neither treats or diagnoses cancer, only monitors the progress of the disease?

[Consternatio]

why cure cancer when we can sell a drug at 150$ a dose that neither treats or diagnoses cancer, only monitors the progress of the disease?

So, how do you explain the drugs trials like the one my mother was involved in after being diagnosed with cancer?

OK, this was in the UK, but I'm fairly sure we'd be willing to share the results of a drug trial that (for my mother, anyway) resulted in a reduction in the size of the tumour in her breast and lymph glands from the first treatment, and had erradicated it by the end of her sessions (6 in total), thus saving her from having to undergo extensive and invasive surgery? My mother is a walking, talking, breathing example of the search for new cures and treatments.

No, the big companies never develop cures for cancer. All those scientists and doctors like seeing people dying, just so they can carry on working for a big company and provide the shareholders with huge profits.

Give me a break. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[StewartP]

There is some Big Pharma control in that once their drugs become generic and anyone can knock them out cheap, they are no longer profitable for Big Pharma (BP)
So, BP has to create a new generation of drugs to treat the same condition that the old cheap medication is currently doing. Once created, it then has to use a big marketing drive to get doctors to prescribe the new meds (which it will trumpet as being safer, and more effective - which it may well be)

The example I cite for this is from NHSBlogDoctor
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2006/07/treating-blood-pressure.html
It's a very interesting article. Read Dr Crippen's other posts and you'll see he is a very level headed artional guy. One of us in fact

[asmodean]

why cure cancer when we can sell a drug at 150$ a dose that neither treats or diagnoses cancer, only monitors the progress of the disease?

Because people will line up, never mind the price, to get the cure if they're diagnosed with cancer? And a cancer patient that gets cured is still a potential new client a few years down the road.

If you own patents for the worlds only cure for cancer drug you'd be sure to rake in the dough, a lot more than for a drug that "only monitors the progress".

[ponderingturtle]

There is some Big Pharma control in that once their drugs become generic and anyone can knock them out cheap, they are no longer profitable for Big Pharma (BP)
So, BP has to create a new generation of drugs to treat the same condition that the old cheap medication is currently doing. Once created, it then has to use a big marketing drive to get doctors to prescribe the new meds (which it will trumpet as being safer, and more effective - which it may well be)


I feel like noteing that this is not the normal big pharma arguements proposed by Woo's, and that this is a legitimate issue. But I feel there are always issues when policy is to treat public health as a for profit industry. For example there is no drive to have surplus capacity in hospitals to have ability to deal with outbreaks

[gfunkusarelius]

i think if there is any argument for a pharma conspiracy, it is whether they would want to release a cure vs a treatment. the idea there is a natural cure that they are hiding is totally ridiculous. no secret that great could ever be kept. it would leak out and the gig would be up.
also, my sister is an organic chemist and has worked for some of the largest pharma co's and i have asked her about certain things relating to the whole pharma ct's and of course her opinion is this field is incredibly challenging and these people are insulting the amt of sweat and tears they put into the research to try to find a cure (yes, my sis is one of the people who got in the field with dreams of curing some disease, if not cancer, something). and as you can probably guess, those who believe the Pharmas are evil just say "i am sure your sister has the best intentions" but then go on to imply or directly say she is a patsy and that she doesnt have access to what they know

[brodski]

There is some Big Pharma control in that once their drugs become generic and anyone can knock them out cheap, they are no longer profitable for Big Pharma (BP)
So, BP has to create a new generation of drugs to treat the same condition that the old cheap medication is currently doing. Once created, it then has to use a big marketing drive to get doctors to prescribe the new meds (which it will trumpet as being safer, and more effective - which it may well be)

That's hardly a conspiracy, it's just marketing! There does tend to be a problem with people lumping the failings of the pharmaceutical industry (such focusing on, as Tom Lehrer put it, "disease of the rich" over more deadly diseases which devastate less developed countries, or marketing which "medicalises" and offers treatments for things which where previously not considered illnesses) with CTs about "big pharama" developing cures for cancer and AIDS but not selling them, or even anti-vax nuts who believe that "big pharma" are actually making us ill by injecting us with "toxins".

[kevin]

I feel like noteing that this is not the normal big pharma arguements proposed by Woo's, and that this is a legitimate issue.

Yeah, this issue doesn't require a huge conspiracy of all the companies acting together. Each company acting in it's own short term interests could produce this result, no conspiracy needed.

[brodski]

Yeah, this issue doesn't require a huge conspiracy of all the companies acting together. Each company acting in it's own short term interests could produce this result, no conspiracy needed.
Exactly, And that's usually the way to tell the difference between a woo Big Pharma CT claim and a possibly legitimate criticism of the way the pharmaceutical industry operates. If your claim requires that every company, and government involved in providing socialised healthcare, works together many of them against their own short term or personal interests for some perceived long term goal, then you're kidding yourself. Just looking at say the "cure for cancer", well, GlaxoSmithKline (for instance) can suppress all the research they like, but if Cancer Research UK discovers a cure and makes this available on the NHS then Glaxo are in a worse position than if they had just marketed the cure in the first place. In order for the CT to stand you would have to argue that charities like Cancer Research UK, which work closely with a socialised healthcare system is actually just looking at maximising it's donations and is really one big scam and not conducting any research at all!

[Cuddles]

It should be pointed out that any company that developed a reliable, safe cure for cancer would immediately be able to crush all it's rivals, so it seems fairly unlikely anyone would want to surpress this. Even if there were a conspiracy between drug companies, the prospect of destroying all other drug companies would seem far too tempting, especailly to someone of the type that would enter a conspiracy in the first place.

[T.A.M.]

Asmodean;

You are correct, my generalization.

Insulin dependent Daibetes (T1DM) requires insulin from the start, and is a disease that starts in childhood to early adulthood. It is auto-immune, and there is no cure for it (although there is promising stem cell research going on for the Pancreatic islet cells).

Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes (T2DM), Doesn't necessarily need insulin at the start, but may require it later. It until the last 20 years or so, was a disease confined to people in their 40's or older. A disturbing trend since then, is T2DM in children, even pre-teens. This is mainly due to Sedentary lifestyle, and highly processed (high sugar and fat) foods.

[ponderingturtle]

That's hardly a conspiracy, it's just marketing! There does tend to be a problem with people lumping the failings of the pharmaceutical industry (such focusing on, as Tom Lehrer put it, "disease of the rich" over more deadly diseases which devastate less developed countries, or marketing which "medicalises" and offers treatments for things which where previously not considered illnesses) with CTs about "big pharama" developing cures for cancer and AIDS but not selling them, or even anti-vax nuts who believe that "big pharma" are actually making us ill by injecting us with "toxins".

I remember hearing about several diseases in africa that had cures known for them but the products would only be useful to very poor africans. So as a for profit company, why should they run a productian line solely for charity?

When they found alteranate uses for these products(treating heart worm in dogs and as a skin cream for people) they provided the product free to people who need it.

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, this issue doesn't require a huge conspiracy of all the companies acting together. Each company acting in it's own short term interests could produce this result, no conspiracy needed.

And it is also not even a conspiracy, it is publicly available to show that they are doing these things.

[Cuddles]

I remember hearing about several diseases in africa that had cures known for them but the products would only be useful to very poor africans. So as a for profit company, why should they run a productian line solely for charity?

When they found alteranate uses for these products(treating heart worm in dogs and as a skin cream for people) they provided the product free to people who need it.

I think this is the important point. Companies are in it for the money. This is the very basis of capitalism. Some people just don't seem to grasp the fact that if something won't make money, big pharma won't do it. This is a shame for all the people in the 3rd world who can't afford drugs, but at the moment this is how the world works.

[ponderingturtle]

I think this is the important point. Companies are in it for the money. This is the very basis of capitalism. Some people just don't seem to grasp the fact that if something won't make money, big pharma won't do it. This is a shame for all the people in the 3rd world who can't afford drugs, but at the moment this is how the world works.

Exactly. If you want to provide a way to get them drugs, get the money to set up the production line and such.

And most pharma companies have programs to help people who can't afford their products but need them get them. So in that regard they are basicly well intended for the most part. More so than some companies, I have not heard of say Ford having a program to help people who can not afford their cars after all.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

I think this is the important point. Companies are in it for the money. This is the very basis of capitalism. Some people just don't seem to grasp the fact that if something won't make money, big pharma won't do it. This is a shame for all the people in the 3rd world who can't afford drugs, but at the moment this is how the world works.
Let's look at it from a different angle: Big Pharma has large profits because they are in one of the highest risk industries in the world.

My SIL works as an Alzheimer's researcher. She's done clinical trials where the results appeared like the movie 'Awakenings'. She's had to take away these drugs from patients when the trials were over.

At the time, when I believed in the 'Big Pharma Conspiracy', I assumed the drug would be suppressed because it wasn't profitable enough for the manufacturer. Now I can look at it with a skeptical attitude. What if they found during further clinical trials that it killed patients within 6 months of starting on the medication? The manufacturer would be buried in lawsuits.

Yes, Big Pharma IS out for profits, but they also carry an enormous risk. They put billions and billions into drug research to ensure the drugs are safe. No manufacturer wants to release the next Thalidomide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosedyn). It is profitable to release a miracle cure. It is not profitable to release a miracle cure that kills it's patients from a side effect.

[bobdroege7]

Give me a break. You have no idea what you're talking about.


Sorry Dude, that you could not tell that I was kidding, even though every word I said is true.

And 150 is the cheapest you can get the drug I make.

[T.A.M.]

It is not as easy as "Drug A puts Cancer in remission, therefore lets start giving it to all Cancer patients".

A drug goes through an average of 6 years of clinical trials, ranging from non human studies, to full blown double blind control trials versus placebo.

Anyone who thinks there is any, I mean ANY drug that CURES a CANCER that has gone to the lymphatic system, is FOOLING themselves. Remission, yes. Remission means that there is no DETECTABLE Cancer to be found. Let me tell you from clinical experience, that DOES NOT MEAN CURE.

[bobdroege7]

Let's look at it from a different angle: Big Pharma has large profits because they are in one of the highest risk industries in the world.



Yes, Big Pharma IS out for profits, but they also carry an enormous risk. They put billions and billions into drug research to ensure the drugs are safe. No manufacturer wants to release the next Thalidomide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosedyn). It is profitable to release a miracle cure. It is not profitable to release a miracle cure that kills it's patients from a side effect.

Some of us in big pharma are not exactly making a killing like Exxon,

The company I work for made 2 billions in profits on 50 billion in sales.

We are not exactly screwing our patients by overcharging them.

[Polaris]

I think this is the important point. Companies are in it for the money. This is the very basis of capitalism. Some people just don't seem to grasp the fact that if something won't make money, big pharma won't do it. This is a shame for all the people in the 3rd world who can't afford drugs, but at the moment this is how the world works.

I've noticed this too. It seems like to a lot of people that some companies (oil, pharmaceutical, defense, etc) are not allowed to make a profit and should just generously give their products away. Why are Pfizer, ExxonMobile and Lockheed-Martin any different from Sysco, Johnson & Johnson and AOLTimeWarner?

[kevin]

Some of us in big pharma are not exactly making a killing like Exxon,

The company I work for made 2 billions in profits on 50 billion in sales.

We are not exactly screwing our patients by overcharging them.

Are those world wide sales? Many countries have fixed prices for drugs while the US does not. So it would be possible to overcharge the US and still not appear to be overcharging based on the world wide numbers....

[T.A.M.]

It is competition between various companies in the same business that keeps prices fair.

I doubt the same people who compalin of it here, are complaining when they see the profit they made on their 401K, courtesy of these same companies. :)

[Bronze Dog]

Someone asked for a bit of elaboration on the specific conspiracy theory I was talking about earlier, so here it is:

Fore Sam thinks that Big Pharma didn't know thimerosal causes autism. Now they do, so they're suppressing all the evidence. They're also discrediting chelation because some anecdotes of improvement (including one of his own) PROVE that thimerosal was responsible in the first place. He says it only takes the CEOs to cow everyone, apparently including people who don't work for Big Pharma.

[brodski]

Someone asked for a bit of elaboration on the specific conspiracy theory I was talking about earlier, so here it is:

Fore Sam thinks that Big Pharma didn't know thimerosal causes autism. Now they do, so they're suppressing all the evidence. They're also discrediting chelation because some anecdotes of improvement (including one of his own) PROVE that thimerosal was responsible in the first place. He says it only takes the CEOs to cow everyone, apparently including people who don't work for Big Pharma.
Two words which disprove his theory "state healthcare", In the UK the vast majority of Hlethcare, and a substantial amount of research, is state funded, and is not aimed at maximising profits, If the UK government could find a way of reducing the cost of treating autistic children (many of whom will require expensive special needs education, also payable from taxation, as well and long term healthcare) then they would be all over it. Governments around the world (especially in India/ Pakistan and South America) have stood up to large pharmaceutical companies and won ( which may or may not actually be a good thing), non of these nations has produced research showing that mercury compounds cause autism, or that chelation therapy is effective against autism (rather than extremely dangerous). For this CT to work some of the most anti-capitalist governments in the world must be in on it.