[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.

[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.

[TodeImmabbedo]

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.

Drug companies have a proven record of protecting and prolonging patents by manupulating international law and preventing nationally owned pharmaceutical companies from creating the same medication at a fraction of their cost for their own populace.

Just look up HIV/AIDS medications that African nations have wanted to manufacture at a fraction of the cost and were not allowed or severely penalized for creating the medicine by Big Pharma.

They have lobbied strongly for provisions in trade agreements made on behalf of the US.

For instance the most recent CAFTA negotiations;the US on behalf of pharmaceuticals demanded that the trade countries allow US pharmas to patent a medicinal cure found in Central America that natives have been using for centuries. Thus making it illegal for those native tribes to continue to use the local medicine unless the paid the US pharmas for the right to use the medicine.

Most recently there has been an ongoing investigation on the addition of mercury to vaccines that was not neccessary and has caused autism in children. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

I never labeled Pharma evil.

Drug companies chief objective is profit. They can manufacture several cures, at a tremendous loss, that would prevent people from dieing. They don't. Pharmaceutical companies are not selfless entities that only want to help people.

[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.

[GlictStiply]

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 totally agree with you that not all drug companies are bad... I just think "commercial" drugs or I like to call them Just-take-it-for-fun drugs are mostly... I dunno... cause more problem than it cures. I'm not good at naming them, but drugs like lowering cholestrols, diet pills, viagra: these are take-it-just-for-fun-drugs, or some drugs that goes something like "This can burn your fat. BUT side effects included headaches, abdominal pain, and bunch of other side effects we might not know." I know they're trying to help, but damn, I fix one problem but I might get 5 other different illnesses to fix one. Everytime I see one of these commercials, so I'm screwed either way, why bother to even take the drugs that I might have to take 20 other types of drugs just to cure my side effects. I'd rather not take it, but some drugs doctors recommend them... I mean, we're stuck with medical bills all over again. I'm not saying that all drugs are like that, I'm just afraid to take the harmless drugs can cause problems later (Advil)... and the chance is they probably knew it and covered it up until someone "researches" it.

Some companies even got caught knowing it is harmful, but still released the drugs to the public. Those are the evil companies I'm talking about. I don't know which is worse, afraid to see the doctor or taking medicine... they're both just as scary... though, I have more respect to doctors...

Now for a different case when drugs have side effects but worth the risks such as for AIDS, Cancers, etc... I mean, when it comes to life threatening disease, if there's a side effect but this drug will save one's life. By all mean, I'm all for it. I admire and respect the drug companies those are trying to cure cancers, AIDS, Heart Disease, and bunch of other diseases... they're trying their best to save human lives. I would defend them any time if someone talk trash about them. It's just my thought and I know the companies that produce drugs to help cancers and AID also did some stupid commercial drugs, but what can I say. The world ain't perfect, the good bankrupt fast... the bad are rich... they need money to survive after all... just a thought, no need to get mad or anything...

[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

[Iphone]

I totally agree with you that not all drug companies are bad... I just think "commercial" drugs or I like to call them Just-take-it-for-fun drugs are mostly... I dunno... cause more problem than it cures. I'm not good at naming them, but drugs like lowering cholestrols, diet pills, viagra: these are take-it-just-for-fun-drugs, or some drugs that goes something like "This can burn your fat. BUT side effects included headaches, abdominal pain, and bunch of other side effects we might not know." I know they're trying to help, but damn, I fix one problem but I might get 5 other different illnesses to fix one. Everytime I see one of these commercials, so I'm screwed either way, why bother to even take the drugs that I might have to take 20 other types of drugs just to cure my side effects. I'd rather not take it, but some drugs doctors recommend them... I mean, we're stuck with medical bills all over again. I'm not saying that all drugs are like that, I'm just afraid to take the harmless drugs can cause problems later (Advil)... and the chance is they probably knew it and covered it up until someone "researches" it.

Some companies even got caught knowing it is harmful, but still released the drugs to the public. Those are the evil companies I'm talking about. I don't know which is worse, afraid to see the doctor or taking medicine... they're both just as scary... though, I have more respect to doctors...

Now for a different case when drugs have side effects but worth the risks such as for AIDS, Cancers, etc... I mean, when it comes to life threatening disease, if there's a side effect but this drug will save one's life. By all mean, I'm all for it. I admire and respect the drug companies those are trying to cure cancers, AIDS, Heart Disease, and bunch of other diseases... they're trying their best to save human lives. I would defend them any time if someone talk trash about them. It's just my thought and I know the companies that produce drugs to help cancers and AID also did some stupid commercial drugs, but what can I say. The world ain't perfect, the good bankrupt fast... the bad are rich... they need money to survive after all... just a thought, no need to get mad or anything...

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.

[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.

[Agedprepdoock]

Ughhh...Christopher...what have you done?!

[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.

[expabsPapsgag]

Ok, a couple of things. First of all, not everyone who takes those cholesterol lowering drugs did it to themselves. Some are genetically predisposed to high cholesterol levels and no matter what they do they can't control it. In those cases the medication saves them from their own bodies. And about the vaccine thing. Vaccines are only for those diseases you mentioned and that is what I was referring to. I completely agree with the idea that you need to be exposed to minor bacteria when you're young, catch a few minor fevers and colds. I just have a problem with people who reject all vaccines. When I said vulnerable to viruses, I meant things like tetanus, polio, etc, not the common cold or a little fever here and there.

I don't deny the fact that a good percentage of pofits go to execs. Statistically, Pfizer's motto is correct. I personally don't like Pfizer that much but that's another topic. The reason I'm no posting any counter arguments was because I wanted to see if anyone would post a well thought out argument against pharmaceutical companies. It's refreshing to see someone who's done their homework. I totally agree that it would be wonderful if pharma companies went non profit but the sad thing is people are greedy and are very much money driven. I don't deny that there are some immoral things going on in the industry but the way I see it, it's better that we actually have all these companies researching drugs than none. I just don't see any realistic way of changing things from the way they are right now. And seriously, if anyone does have a realistic solution, by all means let me know because I'd love to hear it! (nothing sarcastic about this statement)

[Enalsebeerkawl]

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.

mmmm... I feel this thread is getting quite heated... I think we should move this thread to the Flames section. Some people are quite upset about this kinda stuff. I personally just giving opinion. And about the cholesterol drug thingy, this is what they say now. But you never know, 10 years from now and they're like, "Oh, we meant the other one that increase the chance of heart attacks. Not cholesterol! God forbids!!" I really don't know what to believe that's all. Here's a saying from the Chinese again, "He is God; he is also the Devil".

[c-cialis]

if these massive hordes of people suffering from such chronic, intentionally self-inflicted conditions and diseases A person does not smoke to give themselves cancer. Although the individual has choice, often outside pressures can contribute an amazing amount of restriction on that choice.

I guess the most a person can do is educate themselves as best they can before making a decision on this kind of stuff. Lifestyle choices are individual, but there are many things a person can not control. For example take bread. Just simple bread. I visited a friend in New York a year or two ago and had some of course. It tasted different from the breads I'm used to so I checked the ingredients. There was so much more sugar. I went to the supermarket and a lot of the products have so much more sugar than in places like Europe. But how would someone raised on these foods know that they were higher in sugar if they've never eaten anything else?

The choice just isn't as simple as going to McDonald's or not.

[sitescools]

A person does not smoke to give themselves cancer. Although the individual has choice, often outside pressures can contribute an amazing amount of restriction on that choice.

I guess the most a person can do is educate themselves as best they can before making a decision on this kind of stuff. Lifestyle choices are individual, but there are many things a person can not control. For example take bread. Just simple bread. I visited a friend in New York a year or two ago and had some of course. It tasted different from the breads I'm used to so I checked the ingredients. There was so much more sugar. I went to the supermarket and a lot of the products have so much more sugar than in places like Europe. But how would someone raised on these foods know that they were higher in sugar if they've never eaten anything else?

The choice just isn't as simple as going to McDonald's or not.

As I said earlier, I blame the government's edumuhcation system far more than I could ever blame an individual person. When it comes down to it, though -- it's simply the individual's choice in countries like these. Most of the people I know understand fully enough the implications of what they eat and the effects that those foods are known to have on humans, and many of them simply shrug off that knowledge and indulge themselves in whatever they feel like. However, I still must place most of the blame on the government and their convenient reluctance to address issues such as obesity -- something which plagues more than half of the North American human population. As for these "outside pressures" -- it's still your choice, and I really don't see anyone forcing anyone else to do anything rash (in this particular country at least, for the most part). Peer pressure is something that you have to learn to deal with, and I find it saddening that anyone would allow it to consume them to a point when it makes the choices for them -- but then again I've never had any peers, so I don't know what it feels like either.

ShinKenshi: How does one determine if someone is "genetically predisposed" to anything whatsoever? I've never heard of anyone being completely at the mercy of some fancifully fabricated fate humans now call "genes", but I would be delighted if you would care to enlighten me on the subject.

[Nicihntm]

I've never heard of anyone being completely at the mercy of some fancifully fabricated fate humans now call "genes", but I would be delighted if you would care to enlighten me on the subject.

maybe you should get out more if you've never heard of the effects genes can have on people. they can change metabolism or make them prone to certian diseases. some people can't just choose to not become obese. and not everyone can go back into the past and change thier life so thats why they make drugs now. to help people in need.

what you're saying is really pushing me. people in my family need perscription drugs to survive. my grandfather needs heart pills because he had a heart attack a few years ago. was that his fault? no. nothing could've been done to prevent it. would you like to tell him that he cant have drugs to survive because you think he could've changed it in his past?

[BoboStin]

Drug companies put poisons into their drugs on purpose. This is so that they can come out with new drugs that work on the side effects caused by their previous ones. This way profit is greatly increased. Also, they pressure the medical community as well to accept this situation by threatening to remove sponsorship. The whole thing is just sad.

The human body doesnt get sick just randomly nor genetically. Genes may have a part in your succeptibility to some conditions, but a healthy body can fight off mostly anyhting. Most of the human populations' immune system works at around 40% efficiency. If you get it to near 100, you can beat "incurable" diseases like aids too, which is where the rare cases come from where someone is immune to aids.