[SannyGlow]

that guy's on all the time early morning. and the real estate (that's where the money's at) and the 6 star plus knives.

[Toninvell]

Any parent that doesn't want to vaccinate their babies is out of their mind. Babies are only protected by their parents antibodies for the first 6 months, and after that they're very vulnerable to viruses.


Okay, I have a serious problem with this. Firstly, have you ever wondered why it's only 6 months? A kid needs to build up his/her own immune system. Children that grow up on farms have incredible immune systems because they've been exposed to so many bacteria and viruses at a young age when they have the fastest recovery rate. A person who caught a few colds and had a few fevers as a child will be a much healthier adult because their bodies have the experience (immunity) to deal with such things. (btw, this arguement is not including things like polio, TB, hep B, Rubella, or Tetnus which are in a league of their own)

Vaccines should be used by people at serious risk. ( i.e. the elderly for Influenza or people aged 16-25 - that love to party/go to clubs - for Meningitus C) They should not be overly used by people who are at low to no risk, or who would recover fully from illness.

I'm not saying "Don't vaccinate your kids," but the way you put it just sounds like dangerous thinking. It's so much worse when the opposite attitude is taken with anti-biotics though.... You might want to thank a doctor next time he doesn't push a pill on you for a cold. Pill pushers are dangerous. (and anti-biotics don't affect viruses)

The most important thing is to take what is needed, when it is needed. Vaccines are there to save lives, not so you can avoid that stuffy nose.

[MadMark]

Just from an economic standpoint this is correct in a variety of ways.

While this may sound crass - drug companies have no incentive to spend XMillion or Billion of dollars researching a cure for a disease only 5 people have - economies of scale, diminishing returns etc...

[Tapupah]

There is this infomercial that I keep seeing about this guy that says that the drug companies are only out there to make money, thus aren't finding any cures. They just want to make more drugs since we will keep paying for them.

Have any of you seen this one? The way that this one is marketed is just strange to me. As far as how true it is, I don't know about that one either. I would think that the one that finds the cure will get more money than they know what to deal with.

What do you guys think of this one?

[JackieC]

Do any of you know how much it costs to research and develop a drug? I work in the pharmaceutical industry and the reason drugs cost as much as they do is to pay for the fees the FDA charges for final safety tests, to cover clinical research costs, and to pay for the resources poured into researching the drug. People keep screaming about how the "evil drug companies" spend millions of dollars on advertising, well, NEWS FLASH! Compared to other comapnies that advertise their products, the amount pharmaceutical companies spend on ads PALES in comparisson to how much comanies like Coke, Pepsi, Reebok, Addidas, General Mills, etc spend. There's no such thing as a "wonder drug" that will treat all illnesses. The ideal drug would cure the target illness without any side effects but the reality is that it will never happen. Why? Because any drug that's introduced to our bodies is spread through out via our bloodstream, so every single cell in our bodies is exposed to it. Which would you rather have: a drug that treats you but leaves you with a headache and a little bit of dry-mouth that costs a bit more than you want, or a cheap drug that didn't go through the rigorous testing and safety checks that could possibly kill you or destroy your liver?

Sorry about that rant. I'm just sick and tired of people screaming bloody murder and claiming drug companies are despicable organizations. I'm not intending to flame anybody here, I guess this just sort of came out. In the end, here's what you can do. You can either pay the money to buy a drug that will treat you and prolong your life, or not pay for it and not "give in" to the "evil drug companies" and hope that you'll be fine without it.

As for that guy, he's just out to make a quick buck and full of it.

[Talicoabilk]

So are you saying that the pharmaceutical companies should just pack up and disappear? That drug companies shouldn't make a profit in order to fund more research? Be thankful that they at least produce drugs to combat sickness and that there are cures for some diseases.

[Ruiptuptubre]

Drug companies are not in the business of curing diseases, there purpose is to, as preveously stated, prolong and increase quality of life. If you take a botany class you'll learn there are numerouse plants that can act as treatments for certain ailments. A lot of drugs are synthetic versions of naturally occuring chemical compounds. I dont know if this guy is real or not, by his demeanor during his show, the way he sometimes stutters, and gets worked up while not using lots of professional jargon, makes me think he might be genuine about what he is offering. he is definately not a paid spokesman, if memory serves me right he owns the company. I agrea with some of the preveouse posts. His products may be real but there are free ways of finding them. Go to your local library and check out some natural healing books. You may find what you need there.

[Azzi_Kahlila]

You cannot deny that Drug Companies have at times unscrupulous business practices, like all corporations.

This is so disturbing for most people because they feel that drug companies should be selfless and serve the greater good. A noble sentiment but not a realistic one.

I have no problem with a company making a profit but when it equates to thousands of lives endangered/ended just to squeeze a little bit more out of the market - It is disgusting.

[dogdesign]

You'd be surprised the number of things in those herbs. True that they have medicinal qualities but certain ones do contain toxins that, in low doses don't do anything but the moment you take too many you could end up with a trip to the hospital. Dont' get me wrong, I'm all for herbal remedies and such but, just like all things in life, don't over do it in one shot. The only reason we see so many cholestrol reducing drugs is because the demand and need for them is so ridiculously high. With so many obese people, it's a no brainer that cholestrol levels are going through the roof at a dangerous rate. The thing that a lot of people don't know, is that a lot of peole are on these medications take a very small dose. My dad is on Lipitor and he only takes a quarter of a pill every other day (less than 150 mg for two days). And another thing about the whole "nothing but natural" mentality. I'm all for doing things naturally, but the moment anyone applies it to vaccines and such, then I'm going to slap them across the head. Any parent that doesn't want to vaccinate their babies is out of their mind. Babies are only protected by their parents antibodies for the first 6 months, and after that they're very vulnerable to viruses. So yeah, there's my plug for early vaccinations and be-wary-of-nothing-but-herbal schpiel. Like all things in life, moderation in everything.

Yeah, Mugu, I guess I just subconciously needed to go nuts again. Just maintaining a healthy level of craziness .

[Grennios]

You cannot deny that Drug Companies have at times unscrupulous business practices, like all corporations.

This is so disturbing for most people because they feel that drug companies should be selfless and serve the greater good. A noble sentiment but not a realistic one.

I have no problem with a company making a profit but when it equates to thousands of lives endangered/ended just to squeeze a little bit more out of the market - It is disgusting.

So do you feel that all drug companies are only out to make a profit and NOT try to create drugs that will improve people's lives? Bottom line is that drugs aren't cheap to produce. They take dozens of possible compounds they could use, run countless tests, whittle it down to a few, run more vigorous tests, narrow it to two or three, run even more tests, and then submit just one or two compounds to the FDA for approval. This costs millions of dollars, all to make sure the drug is safe. To me, that is serving the greater good. Searching for new, better, and safer drugs so that we can stay healthy. I the past 50 years, when have there been proven incidents of unscrupulous business practices done by the pharmaceutical industry? I'm sure there have been some, but I'm just asking for you to name them specifically. If you're going to gripe about the use of animals for drug testing, then that's a moot point. Why? Because the drugs need to be tested to see how they affect a living organism. It's not like they get their heads smashed in with a hammer and then have their organs harvested. If not on animals then what? Are you going to suggest we test these drugs immediately on humans? Of course not! The tests conducted on animals allows for drug companies to make sure they're only working with a compound that is suitable to be considered for approval. Saying that all of the pharmaceutical industry is "evil" and "unscrupulous" is to make a sweeping generalization and focusing on small pieces of information to suit your own ends.

[beloveds]

So are you saying that the pharmaceutical companies should just pack up and disappear? That drug companies shouldn't make a profit in order to fund more research? Be thankful that they at least produce drugs to combat sickness and that there are cures for some diseases.

I made none of these claims. You haven't refuted or offered a counter point on any of the substantive issues I have mentioned.

Profit for funding research sure - but a significant % of profits do not go towards actual R&D.

Pfizer, "the world's largest research based pharmaceutical company," only spent (in millions) 1,875 on R&D for Q2 '05. This is only about half of its NET INCOME of 3,463. If you were to factor in outrageous executive salaries, goverment pork barreling the income of Pfizer would prolly be around 5,000. Interestingly enough, the Q2 '05 Net Income saw a 21% INCREASE from Q2 '04. Do you know what the % change was for R&D for Q2 '04 to Q2 '05? It was +3%(Barely counts for inflation). This is "The World's largets research based pharmacuetical company." That is their slogan not mine.

It would be a wonderous thing if all pharmas went non-profit. Then this enormous flow of money would be directed towards cures and most importantly the easy access of medicine to people around the world. For that I would be thankful.

I don't mean to deride the hard work put in by researchers, doctors, or adminstration/executives. I question merely the motives of the corporation that are painted in an altruistic light but when put under scrutiny a dusky shadow falls.

Quote was pulled from headline of pfizer.com
Quarterly Figures: pfizer.comhttp://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/download/news/2005q2_earnfin1.pdf

[Maymayfor]

Here's a natural product which is injected.

Yikes! Oh yeah, I should have said all things natural, though, it's cruel to use animals as meditions also... especially those poor tigers almost got exinst in Asia...

[avappyboalt]

um those "take-it-for-fun" drugs that lowere cholesterol are helping keep my grandmother from having another heartattack. They save people who are at risk(dont care if they put themselves at rick or not...... many with HIV(not all) and many with cancer(again not all) did just as bad) for heartattacks and stroke every day. BAD grouping for those drugs. ALOT of theart attack victims have trouble bringing there cholesterol down, or are unable to due to the buildup in there arteries. Sorry but that particualr description touched a nerve.

Maybe, then, if these massive hordes of people suffering from such chronic, intentionally self-inflicted conditions and diseases were properly educated about how to live a lifestyle that would not put them at risk and did so, this debate would not even exist. The thing is, most modern sicknesses in first-world nations (such as high cholesterol) are caused by the person in question, not some unavoidable fate or "genetic defect" -- but no, the governments and the corporations have to keep on being idiots. Instead of getting to the root of the problem, they just create pills often consisting of concentrated synthetic toxins that harm one problem and create a plethora more of them, expecting it to solve it and obviously thinking of themselves as sane while doing this.

The problem is in the system of nations like the U.S.A. and Canada, at the government level -- the social norms that have been set for much of the society is the equivalent of a deathwish. Instead of taking cholesterol-lowering pills in a feeble attempt to narrowly escape the clutches of death, why not stop going to McDonald's and get some excersise? Wouldn't it be better not to smoke or consume carcinogens daily than to do so and, after miserably failed chemotherapy die a slow, debilitating and often painful death? I'm not flaming anyone here and in no way am saying that some of the modern treatments and medications aren't useful to those put to risk by factors other than themselves, but the stupidity of this all fascinates me.

[KongoSan]

Just from an economic standpoint this is correct in a variety of ways.

While this may sound crass - drug companies have no incentive to spend XMillion or Billion of dollars researching a cure for a disease only 5 people have - economies of scale, diminishing returns etc...

Yeah. And they're not going to give out a cure that'll potentially take away some of the customers...I don't know. I've seen that infomercial before...he talks about cures for cancer. It would be revoultionary if it was true, but I don't know, man...

[BurdenRobert]

Most pharmaceutical companies are simply large corporations that wish to make lots of money, and in general are not very interested in creating and marketing anything that will make them lose profits. That's what I collectively know, anyways. I've always valued prevention over actually allowing yourself to be afflicted with something first and then attempting to cure it.

[thargeagsaf]

they dont do it for profit, they do it because there is a little number of doctors for a lot of patients and so it leaves them with an overwhelming number of people to attend to. because theres so many people, it gives them little time to solve thier problems in depth so they just give them pills. the pills have gotten so rediculous though. they have pills that cure side effects of other pills which in turn create thier own side effects and it needs more pills to cure that. its a never ending cycle.

but to sum things up, doctors dont give out pills solely for the money, they do it because they have so many patients to treat and they dont have time to go indepth and treat each one fully.