would a pharmaceutical company ever hold back a vaccine/cure for financial reasons?

[dvictr]

if a cure for diseases like cancer, diabetes, artheritis, ms, or hiv was ever discovered... it would destroy the industry because so many companies count on the revenue of pepertual treatments... it would make economic sense for companies to pay others to not release it.

its possible a breakthrough vaccine has been throw under the bus because it would be unprofitable in the long run

[TheRedWorm]

Why don't you try asking one?

[autumn1971]

Totally. There would be absolutely no profit incentive for a pharmacutical company to release to the market a drug which would be in incredibly high demand for at least as long as people continue to make babies.

ETA: Unless it's a vaccine which prevents babies.
But we've got those. And they're profitable too.

So. . .
No

[therival58]

It's possible, afterall they do use ghostwriters to pen medical studies

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/...mics-documents

[Hans]

Nope if makes more sense to charge a high price for it to recover the research costs. Plus if they did at some point in the future someone else would just discover it.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by dvictr

its possible a breakthrough vaccine has been throw under the bus because it would be unprofitable in the long run

If they don't have any intention of releasing such cures, wouldn't it be even MORE cost-effective to not research cures for cancer, diabetes, MS and HIV in the first place?

I mean, why spend all that time and money researching, developing and testing a (say) diabetes cure and then not sell it to recoup your monies?

[dtugg]

Yeah, that's why there are no vaccinations/cures for any diseases. Oh, wait.....

[kageki]

Originally Posted by Mr.D

If they don't have any intention of releasing such cures, wouldn't it be even MORE cost-effective to not research cures for cancer, diabetes, MS and HIV in the first place?

I mean, why spend all that time and money researching, developing and testing a (say) diabetes cure and then not sell it to recoup your monies?

They do sell them, but they aren't real cures like the current variety of drugs they push.

I mean they still have to do some research on these diseases don't they? They just mess with the research by not funding ones that are actually promising. Some of that funding is tax money and donations anyways.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by dvictr

if a cure for diseases like cancer, diabetes, artheritis, ms, or hiv was ever discovered... it would destroy the industry it would make whoever discovered it mind-bogglingly rich

The motivation behind your conspiracy is also the prime reason it wouldn't happen.

[Pope130]

Old people buy more medicine than young people. Anything that will result in more old people will lead to more profits for the drug companies.

[joobz]

Moving a drug to market requires extensive clinical trials. These are expensive and time consuming. If a drug hasn't been pushed through these trials, its benefit is purely speculative.
Once pushed through clinical trials, the company has already took a huge investment risk and not going to market would make no financial success.

As such, I can't think of a setting where the OP scenario would actually occur.

[kageki]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

The motivation behind your conspiracy is also the prime reason it wouldn't happen.

A real cure would most likely be far cheaper then current treatment for say cancer and you have to consider whether it can be patented or not. It would still definitely affect the industry.

[geni]

Originally Posted by dvictr

if a cure for diseases like cancer, diabetes, artheritis, ms, or hiv was ever discovered... it would destroy the industry because so many companies count on the revenue of pepertual treatments... it would make economic sense for companies to pay others to not release it.

its possible a breakthrough vaccine has been throw under the bus because it would be unprofitable in the long run

Not really. Remeber after the patent expires the profits of drugs become pretty minimal. If your new drug drives a bunch of generic manufactors out of bussiness that isn't much of a downside.

[Travis]

If a company did somehow do the research and discover this cure but decided to bury it do you really think all the researchers that worked on it would keep quiet? Heck there's a good chance some of them would have family members affected by the condition in question.

And if one company can discover it once another company can come across it in the future.

[Ysidro]

Not to mention the massive good will to be gained.

"What does your company do?"

"Oh, we make pain medication. What does yours do?"

"We cured mother****ing cancer."

[Alan]

A company curing cancer would be the best PR thing to ever happen to anybody in the history of public relations.

A company having a cancer cure but not selling it for financial reasons (somehow) would be the worst PR thing to ever happen to anybody in the history of public relations.

[BobHaulk]

Originally Posted by dvictr

if a cure for diseases like cancer, diabetes, artheritis, ms, or hiv was ever discovered... it would destroy the industry because so many companies count on the revenue of pepertual treatments... it would make economic sense for companies to pay others to not release it.

its possible a breakthrough vaccine has been throw under the bus because it would be unprofitable in the long run

Well according to the Icke site there is a cure for cancer. All you need to do is drink a cup of bicarbonate of soda and water a few times and you're cured. They don't like to tell people with cancer that because they won't make any money

[triforcharity]

They people who make bicarbonate soda would make a killing.

[Travis]

I seriously doubt there could ever be any singular cure for cancer. Cancer has so many variations. But finding a cure for a common and deadly type of cancer would be huge.

[kageki]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

They people who make bicarbonate soda would make a killing.

And the drug companies would lose a lot.

I think what's more accurate is that the drug companies are essentially suppressing other forms of cures. Bicarbonate soda is not a drug so this cure for cancer is not even coming from a drug company hence there is nothing to hold back.

[Grassy Knowlington]

Originally Posted by BobHaulk

Well according to the Icke site there is a cure for cancer. All you need to do is drink a cup of bicarbonate of soda and water a few times and you're cured. They don't like to tell people with cancer that because they won't make any money

Don't forget the hemp oil, that cures everything as well.

[Grassy Knowlington]

Originally Posted by therival58

It's possible, afterall they do use ghostwriters to pen medical studies

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/...mics-documents

Is this the industry norm?

Have you been involved in specifying, getting approval for, running & reporting on the outcome of clinical studies?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

A drug company discovering a cure for cancer/hiv/alzheimer ed is in the position to make a massive amount of profit.
They'll also gain a major PR coup in brand marketing, ensuring that their brands will more than likely start outcompeting their competitor's brands (Those people cured X, their headache tablets must be equally good)
We've managed to eradicate exactly 1 disease so far (smallpox), everything else still exists. Of the current major diseases giving profit to companies only HIV could conceivably be eradicated, all the others are either too wide spread and prone to mutation (flu, common cold, malaria), or malfunctions of the human body that will always occur (alzheimers, cancer ed.) and thus will always need medication.

Even looking at pharmaceutical companies as pure greedy coorporations out to make money from human misery there is no reason to not produce such a medication. And I know that is is hard to believe, but a lot of people work in the pharmaceutical industry because they want to help people. Because they actually would like to cure diseases and make life better. This costs money and they accept that profit is part of the things needed to also keep the research going, but do you honestly think that such people would allow a much needed medicine to be repressed?

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by kageki

Bicarbonate soda is not a drug so this cure for cancer is not even coming from a drug company hence there is nothing to hold back.

Other than efficacy you mean?

[Halcyon Dayz]

Originally Posted by kageki

Bicarbonate soda is not a drug so this cure for cancer is not even coming from a drug company hence there is nothing to hold back.

Why do you immediately take it for granted that what Icke says is factual?

Bicarb ("baking soda") is an anti-acid, lots and lots of people use it regularly.
If it miraculously cured cancer it would be blatantly obvious.

[Grassy Knowlington]

Originally Posted by Mr.D

Other than efficacy you mean?

But surely there are plenty of objective, blinded trials by way of evidence for the efficacy of Bicarb. to be found reported on YouTube?

[kageki]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

Why do you immediately take it for granted that what Icke says is factual?

Bicarb ("baking soda") is an anti-acid, lots and lots of people use it regularly.
If it miraculously cured cancer it would be blatantly obvious.

I didn't. I figure I should of added a hypothetical or alleged.

My point was that I don't think the cure might be coming from a drug company and perhaps from something more ordinary like baking soda for example which is not made by the pharmaceutical industry. So there is nothing to hold back as they didn't find a cure.

For instance I don't believe cures for viruses will come from drugs, but the industry has enough influence to suppress something else like what Rife was working on.

[Travis]

We already have effective ways of dealing with viruses. They're called vaccines and the same people who think the pharmaceutical companies suppress cures also think their vaccines don't work and are harmful.

[Darat]

The pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones that do research, there are many charities and governments that spend a lot on research. Also there are many joint research projects and traditionally the basic research is more than likely to have been carried out by universities and the likes of charities, with the pharmaceutical company only being involved in the later stages of drug treatment.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by dvictr

if a cure for diseases like cancer, diabetes, artheritis, ms, or hiv was ever discovered... it would destroy the industry because so many companies count on the revenue of pepertual treatments... it would make economic sense for companies to pay others to not release it.

There is more than one pharmaceutical company. Any company with a product like this would have a huge advantage over its competitors for the duration of the patent.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Ok, I can't say too much about who is doing what, because that is of course covered by the discretional clause in my contract, so you can take my word for it or not. But I do know, for a fact, that more than one pharmaceutical company is spending a LOT of their efforts and finances trying to do come up with cures for most of that bunch of ailments. It's just that they are incredibly hard to cure and so far we have to be content with palliative treatments and slowing down the processes these diseases bring along.

I'm not a medical professional - I'm just a lowly code monkey - but I do see the studies swishing by my table. I know where the effort is spent and I also have enough education to understand such a simple thing as "cancer" not being one disease that can be fixed with a bezoar. Things happen in cancer all the time - some cancer risks can be dramatically decreased with a vaccine.

What happens? Moral majority-tards picket those vaccines because gawd forbid we prevent people from getting sick because of having teh secks. That papilloma virus is gawd's way of telling you to keep your knees together!

There isn't THE Cancer. There are cancerS. Some are more susceptible and certain things - some of which are beyond the individual's control - can switch on the uncontrolled growth. The dream of finding ONE cure for that is highly unlikely or at least beyond the technology we have access to at the time of writing this. Maybe in the future we can find a way to switch off whateve gene makes us susceptible to uncontrolled growth, but we haven't even found that gene yet. Just a bunch of genes that make us susceptible to certain types. And even then, people get that crap without those genes being present and without engaging in aggravating behaviour. We're just not there yet.

Loads of companies spend plenty of time, money and effort on hiv. It is something everyone is interested in fixing. The problem is, that darn virus keeps mutating.

Diabetes care is actually pottering along well - and for most sufferers lifestyle changes do make a difference. There ARE people out there, trying to find a way to decrease dependence on insulin. They just aren't there yet, so meanwhile, they tell you to be moderate with the carbs and exercise. We can't always fix things, but we can make them more sufferable.

Arthritis and MS are both high priorities, but they are also enigmas. Much effort is spent improving the life of sufferers while looking for better ways to manage the diseases.

Here's a question for all those worried about Big Pharma:

Don't you think these HUGE companies employ humans? They are huge employers wherever they set up shop and they also feed a huge industry of hang-around companies offering them services. Don't you think any of all these employees have friends or family suffering from any of these diseases? Do you think they would shut up if they knew a cure was being kept down? A cure that would be made available to their loved ones if they piped up and took the consequences? Because there have NEVER through the course of history been whistleblowers willing to take the consequences of opening their mouths? No one in the course of history has ever been penalized, jailed, tortured or killed because they felt what they had to say was more important than their life and their own comfort? Don't you think Pharma CEOs have sick family members? Don't you think ANY people seek their way into this business BECAUSE they have sick family members?

In a world where a cheating footballer can't supercalifragialistexpialidotious-injunct his way out of having his name all over Twitter, somehow hundreds of thousands of people - some of them with loved ones dying of aids, others infected themselves* - shut up about a vaccine for hiv?

Because their boss says so?

* Statistically, there have to be hiv positive people in such a large population.

[jargon buster]

Hay fever,
Im sure in this day and age they could come up with a permenant cure for hay fever.
Millions upon millions spent on treatment and tablets every year, thats a massive market lost.
It not a life threatening condition so it wouldnt be too morally wrong to supress a cure.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Hay fever,
Im sure in this day and age they could come up with a permenant cure for hay fever.
Millions upon millions spent on treatment and tablets every year, thats a massive market lost.
It not a life threatening condition so it wouldnt be too morally wrong to supress a cure.

We have a cure for that. It's called desenzitation. It worked wonders on my sister
It has a downside - it doesn't work very well on all allergic conditions, but only on people who have a severe response to a narrow array of allergenes.

McHrozni

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

Don't you think Pharma CEOs have sick family members? Don't you think ANY people seek their way into this business BECAUSE they have sick family members?

In a world where a cheating footballer can't supercalifragialistexpialidotious-injunct his way out of having his name all over Twitter, somehow hundreds of thousands of people - some of them with loved ones dying of aids, others infected themselves* - shut up about a vaccine for hiv?

Because their boss says so?

* Statistically, there have to be hiv positive people in such a large population.

Clearly, they keep the cures for themselves. [/conspiracynut]

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Hay fever,
Im sure in this day and age they could come up with a permenant cure for hay fever.
Millions upon millions spent on treatment and tablets every year, thats a massive market lost.
It not a life threatening condition so it wouldnt be too morally wrong to supress a cure.

There are some cures for some forms of allergy as has been pointed out. Just because these varied and many different forms of allergy have all been lumped under the term 'hay fever' doesn't mean that its just one disease.

And who is this 'they' who won't come up with the cure? The companies that make money off of the current medication? All it takes is one independent researcher setting up his/her own company and become massively wealthy.
The government? In europe with its horrible socialist healthcare the government has to pay massive amounts of money to deal with the medication and lost productivity, so the governments there have every reason to want it cured.
The insurance companies? In the US, with its horrible capitalist driven healthcare the insurance companies have to pay massive amounts of money to deal with the medication and lost productivity, so the insurance companies have every reason to want it cured.

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't a 'cure for hayfever' because dispite the large amount of research into curing the problems, no single cure has been found yet.

[jargon buster]

I would agree desensitization helps but it isnt a cure.
My hay fever was particularly bad as a child up until around thirty.
We then bought a house with a large garden and I build a pond at the bottom beside a birch tree.
I sat out every year by the pond not realising it was the birch pollen that I was allergic to, after a number of years my hay fever is now restricted to around three weeks in summer when I occasinally have to take an antihistamine.
As I said it took a number of years and isnt a cure but it certainly alleviated the symptoms.

Quote:

And who is this 'they' who won't come up with the cure? The companies that make money off of the current medication? All it takes is one independent researcher setting up his/her own company and become massively wealthy.

"They" as in an individual, a bit like the one you mentioned.

Quote:

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't a 'cure for hayfever' because dispite the large amount of research into curing the problems, no single cure has been found yet

Yup.."maybe"

[Dave Rogers]

This is a classic example of conspiracy theorists trying to equate refutation of specific cases with denial of general possibilities. Yes, dvictr, it is in principle possible that, in a specific set of circumstances, a specific pharmaceutical company might choose not to market a specific drug. In such circumstances, it would seem highly unlikely that they would choose to give up all IP rights on that drug by publishing its formulation through means other than a patent, so it's possible that they might, effectively, choose to keep a drug secret because they felt it was not in their financial interests to either market it themselves, or patent it in order to benefit from licensing agreements. I can't, offhand, think of why a company that's spent money on developing a drug would then choose to waste the results of that development, but yes, it's possible.

Now, given that you haven't been granted the gotcha! moment you were looking for where you tell us all we're closed-minded idealogues who believe that pharmaceutical companies are a modern-day Father Christmas who idealistically work for the common good, did you have any specific examples to discuss?

Dave

[CptColumbo]

It would be a mistake on the part of the pharmaceutical company. AFAIK One of the first things they would do is apply for a patent, which would mean it's on record and then they would want it going through FDA trials as soon as possible, because it takes a long time before the FDA clears a drug.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

It would be a mistake on the part of the pharmaceutical company. AFAIK One of the first things they would do is apply for a patent, which would mean it's on record and then they would want it going through FDA trials as soon as possible, because it takes a long time before the FDA clears a drug.

Yes. To keep anyone else from retailing "their" cure, they have to patent it. Patents are subject of public disclosure. And they also run out. Typically, a medicinal patent has a shelf life of ca 15 years (depending on where you are) - after that the compound is open to generic versions. Usually a patent is sought immediately work on proving safety and efficacy on the compound is started. Which means that the entire life cycle of that compound happens while the clock is ticking down the patent.

From hypothesis to marketable drug it can easily be between 5-10 years. Just proving a drug is safe and tolerable for humans to ingest can take a couple of years - proving efficacy (and that the drug is more efficacious than existing gold standard) takes several more years. Now you have about five years to make your investment back. You have something people will WANT to pay for, but you spent all those resources just to flush it all down the drain? Really? People believe that?

I have seen the plug pulled on certain compounds. Every time it has been because it turns out it isn't AS efficacious as existing treatment. (Hint: I see the raw data from the trials so I know if the reason given is not the actual reason. So far, hasn't happened that reason and data have clashed.)

Pulling the plug on a compound is costly and painful. Believe it or not, but the people working on these projects are usually extremely dedicated. Some clinicians and project leads make your life hell by wanting five minute updates on the stats because they can't wait to see if they match the hypothesis. The goal is always to bring a drug to the market - otherwise we wouldn't spend a cent on developing it - and when that doesn't happen people get really, really depressed.

I get the feeling the conspiracy nuts have this vision of chained up Leonardo Da Quirms who keep shouting "'Eureka!" and getting the shock collar when they spontaneously cure the common cold.

Any treatment is the result of years - sometimes decades - of dedicated work. And as someone pointed out: what the Pharmaceuticals won't research, the unis (and the little upstart biomedichals) will.

If Pharma isn't selling it to you - it's because they ain't got it. If they have it - they will sell it. The competition is FIERCE. There will always be someone willing to sell it to you.

[dvictr]

someone mentioned the eradication of smallpox as an example of a "cure".. it just seems to me that a disease like diabetes, hiv, ms.. is very profitable to drug companies because they are able to keep the patients alive for many years on a wide range of treatments and drug combinations.

how much research is really aimed a finding a cure.. it would make more sense that the research is based on treatments and its effects and breakthrough compounds/formulas are discovered as a derivative.

IF a one time vaccine/shot was stumbled upon that "cured" a debilatating condition.. All
the other medications would be rendered obselete.. right?

Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca... need sick patients.. not immune heLthy people