Teh Big Pharma Conspiracy... How Big?

Bronze Dog · 3rd August 2006, 10:41 AM

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 · 3rd August 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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

kookbreaker · 3rd August 2006, 11:25 AM

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 · 3rd August 2006, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

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

great point

kevin · 3rd August 2006, 12:56 PM

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 · 3rd August 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 3rd August 2006, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by 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?)

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 · 3rd August 2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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 · 3rd August 2006, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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 · 3rd August 2006, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dave1001

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 · 3rd August 2006, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

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. · 3rd August 2006, 05:57 PM

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 · 3rd August 2006, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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 · 3rd August 2006, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Dave1001

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 · 3rd August 2006, 09:39 PM

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 · 4th August 2006, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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 · 4th August 2006, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by American

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 · 4th August 2006, 05:25 AM

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

bobdroege7 · 4th August 2006, 06:31 AM

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 · 4th August 2006, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 4th August 2006, 07:16 AM

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/...-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 · 4th August 2006, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 4th August 2006, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by 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)

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 · 4th August 2006, 07:45 AM

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 · 4th August 2006, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by 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)

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 · 4th August 2006, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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 · 4th August 2006, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by kevin

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 · 4th August 2006, 08:24 AM

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. · 4th August 2006, 08:48 AM

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 · 4th August 2006, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

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 · 4th August 2006, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by kevin

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 · 4th August 2006, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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 · 4th August 2006, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

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 · 4th August 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

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. 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 · 5th August 2006, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Consternatio

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. · 5th August 2006, 07:07 AM

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 · 5th August 2006, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine

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. 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 · 5th August 2006, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

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 · 5th August 2006, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

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. · 5th August 2006, 04:41 PM

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.

3rd August 2006, 10:41 AM	#1
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Teh Big Pharma Conspiracy... How Big? 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?
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

3rd August 2006, 10:45 AM	#2
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Originally Posted by 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? Who needs a conspiracy when you have a good marketing department?
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

3rd August 2006, 11:25 AM	#3
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 6,576	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.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 6,576	__________________ My Webstore of Telescopes, Science Fun, and More: Spectrum Scientifics! Spectrum Scientifics Store Blog!

3rd August 2006, 12:51 PM	#4
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade Who needs a conspiracy when you have a good marketing department? great point
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717

3rd August 2006, 12:56 PM	#5
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	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?
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

3rd August 2006, 01:00 PM	#6
TobiasTheViking Resident Asperger Autist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: U.S.S.A Posts: 5,437	Originally Posted by 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? I have many opinions and thoughts on that.. but i'm not sure what you are looking for specificly. Could you verbose your request?
	__________________ <Cleon> Tobias: We've been through this. I'm not gay, I'm just pathetic. There's a difference. <kate> I, Kate Holden, being of weird mind and awkward body, do take TobiasTheCommie to be my unlawfully wedded chathusband. <Nobby> He pricked me with his prick. That prick!

3rd August 2006, 01:05 PM	#7
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 17,588	Originally Posted by 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?) 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

3rd August 2006, 02:07 PM	#8
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717

3rd August 2006, 02:10 PM	#9
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle 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.
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717

3rd August 2006, 03:24 PM	#10
pgwenthold Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 8,464	Originally Posted by Dave1001 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?
pgwenthold Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 8,464	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

3rd August 2006, 04:58 PM	#11
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Originally Posted by pgwenthold 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).
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717

3rd August 2006, 05:57 PM	#12
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 17,434	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.

3rd August 2006, 07:04 PM	#13
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle 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.
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

3rd August 2006, 09:16 PM	#14
ktesibios Worthless Aging Hippie Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,189	Originally Posted by Dave1001 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.
	__________________ Vespasian's banquets were very old-fashioned-the waitresses kept their clothes on and he never poisoned the food. -Marcus Didius Falco

3rd August 2006, 09:39 PM	#15
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	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.

4th August 2006, 01:08 AM	#16
asmodean Turing Complete Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northern arctic tundra, second igloo on the left Posts: 512	Originally Posted by T.A.M. 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
	__________________ Lister: Rimmer... Love is... Love is what makes us different from animals. Rimmer: No, Lister, what makes us different from animals is we don't use our tongues to clean our own genitals. "C code. C code run. Run code, run ... Please?"

4th August 2006, 01:10 AM	#17
asmodean Turing Complete Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northern arctic tundra, second igloo on the left Posts: 512	Originally Posted by American 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.
	__________________ Lister: Rimmer... Love is... Love is what makes us different from animals. Rimmer: No, Lister, what makes us different from animals is we don't use our tongues to clean our own genitals. "C code. C code run. Run code, run ... Please?"

4th August 2006, 05:25 AM	#18
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 9,624	How big? I caught one once that was <--------------> this big. But it got away before I could take a photo.
	__________________ ++Rationality Error++ :Unexpected BREAD in C:\Bible\New\Matthew\14.mat line:15-21 Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a ****. - Professor Brian Cox

4th August 2006, 06:31 AM	#19
bobdroege7 Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 672	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?
bobdroege7 Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 672

4th August 2006, 07:04 AM	#20
Consternatio Student Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Kent, UK Posts: 26	Originally Posted by 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? 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.

4th August 2006, 07:16 AM	#21
StewartP Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Angouleme, France Posts: 449	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/...-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
	__________________ A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. Groucho Marx

4th August 2006, 07:22 AM	#22
asmodean Turing Complete Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northern arctic tundra, second igloo on the left Posts: 512	Originally Posted by 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? 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".
	__________________ Lister: Rimmer... Love is... Love is what makes us different from animals. Rimmer: No, Lister, what makes us different from animals is we don't use our tongues to clean our own genitals. "C code. C code run. Run code, run ... Please?"

4th August 2006, 07:38 AM	#23
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 17,588	Originally Posted by 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) 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

4th August 2006, 07:45 AM	#24
gfunkusarelius Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 436	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
	__________________ --------------------- "you can't argue with crazy" -not sure http://annoyed-skeptic.blogspot.com/ (my blog)

4th August 2006, 07:52 AM	#25
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,636	Originally Posted by 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) 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".
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

4th August 2006, 07:55 AM	#26
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle 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.
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

4th August 2006, 08:22 AM	#27
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,636	Originally Posted by kevin 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!
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

4th August 2006, 08:24 AM	#28
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 9,624	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.
	__________________ ++Rationality Error++ :Unexpected BREAD in C:\Bible\New\Matthew\14.mat line:15-21 Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a ****. - Professor Brian Cox

4th August 2006, 08:48 AM	#29
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 17,434	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.

4th August 2006, 09:22 AM	#30
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 17,588	Originally Posted by brodski 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.

4th August 2006, 09:23 AM	#31
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 17,588	Originally Posted by kevin 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.

4th August 2006, 09:46 AM	#32
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 9,624	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle 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.
	__________________ ++Rationality Error++ :Unexpected BREAD in C:\Bible\New\Matthew\14.mat line:15-21 Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a ****. - Professor Brian Cox

4th August 2006, 09:56 AM	#33
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 17,588	Originally Posted by Cuddles 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.

4th August 2006, 10:24 AM	#34
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 863	Originally Posted by Cuddles 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. 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.
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."

5th August 2006, 04:41 AM	#35
bobdroege7 Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 672	Originally Posted by Consternatio 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.
bobdroege7 Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 672