Pharm Companies - I don't see the incentive

[MuSuLPhReAk]

By what I understand, pharm companies research drugs and create drugs to help people. What I am having problems with is what incentive do they have to develop a CURE for something? I mean when you are a young and niave researcher, you have something to prove. But when you are a pharm company, it's all about $$. So let's say they discover a cure for aids and all it it takes is 1 pill. What then? Even if the pill is $1000, they make no more money after that off that patient. Wouldn't it be more logical for them to develop a "bandaid" for aids that allows you to live longer and more comfortable but never curing you. A hell of a lot more money when you are taking 12 pills a day for 20 years.

So my question is, why should a pharm company develop a cure rather than a bandaid? What measures has the gov't put on them to make sure this isn't happening?

[faller]

What measures has the gov't put on them to make sure this isn't happening?

I've never thought about it this way , interesting. But to answer your question I'd have to say non. And how would they be able to legislate something like this?

[piller01]

this is going to bother me now i have thought about it but never in that sense.

[MuSuLPhReAk]

Ok, so another question. Why isn't the gov't offering a reward of let's say, 10 billion dollars for a cure for cancer or aids or whatever. For the last 50-60 years, I'm positive it has cost medicare much more than that in total. But 10 billion dollars would surely tempt the big pharms to go after the big money in one shot instead of milking for years. Maybe, maybe not. I would think this approach would be rather logical no? Lot's of suffering and deaths would be thwarted. Unless of course, there are rules in place that I don't know of. Like gov't regulating things or something like that. I would really like to know more on this subject as all I see pharm companies pump out is bandaids and not cures.

[St]

I have to take 8 tabs a day for my life for my Colitis,and the doctor i did see said there's no monay in a cure,more money to sell the meds.

[beserker]

After seeing one of my bros being delt ENDLESS fu****g pills for everything im not completely surprised but it sure is f*****g scary ..... money rules the world

[AlbertaBeef]

I beleive big pharma companies do there best to keep everyone sick, revenues are too incredible. I know doctors around here have incentives or even kick backs from pharm reps to push their dope. Look up Vit B17 Amygdalin or Laetrile and find out how effective they are against curing cancer and how the FDA & AMA have pressured to keep them out of hospitals. Find out how many HIV positive people in Africa are absolutely fine until they are given medication for it. All these trails preformed on new drugs before FDA approved, who performs these trials? Got to keep open minded about everything. Probably one of the big proponents against AAS use, can't make money off it and every user is a little too fricken healthy.

[dainbramaged]

Pharmaceutical companies make billions a year from their meds that simply "control" diseases. Cures wouldn't make anywhere near that kind of money, and after all, when a disease is cured then there's no need for any more meds, is there? Think about how utterly moronic it is now concerning those things which are now classified as 'diseases'. Even heartburn is no longer just something you get from the food you eat, etc.. it's now a 'disease' - acid reflux disease - which can only be treated with a pharmaceutical medication. That's why there's such contention with the supplement/herbal industry and why the pharmaceutical companies are so hostile towards them.

The other thing is, when pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars, they don't just spend that money on trivialities. There's more than enough money for government coffers [you know? the people who pass laws concerning health care? those people..:rolleyes:]. There's also more than enough money to line the pockets of those who make the decisions..what's that word? uh..kickback..yeah, kickback. Even the choices some doctors make for the meds they prescribe for you when you visit them can be influenced by that nice golf trip to Florida the pharmaceutical company paid for on their behalf...think about it.

[bottleneckblooz]

Think about it, look at how far medical science has advanced in the last 50 years. Now think about how many diseases have they actually found a cure for in that time. I can't think of any. Something just doesn't add up.

[Musclehead]

Dr's make money on prescriptions as well.....as far as I know. Makes you think.

[Preacher]

ok first Doc don't make money from prescriptions....

Second you guys ever here of DCA? Its a cheap and safe drug used to cure most but not all cancer....

Problem is it costs millions of dollars to develope and research a new drug. Now they have a very short period of time to make there money back on it before there patten runs out and a generic companies picks it up and sells it for much less....

So after spending millions of dollars only to make back thousands, do you think there going to release this cure............

this "cure" was made at the university of alberta.

DCA also has no patten on it at all so if released it could be made genericaly from day one.

No eclusivity equals no value.

[MuSuLPhReAk]

ok first Doc don't make money from prescriptions....

Second you guys ever here of DCA? Its a cheap and safe drug used to cure most but not all cancer....

Problem is it costs millions of dollars to develope and research a new drug. Now they have a very short period of time to make there money back on it before there patten runs out and a generic companies picks it up and sells it for much less....

So after spending millions of dollars only to make back thousands, do you think there going to release this cure............

this "cure" was made at the university of alberta.

DCA also has no patten on it at all so if released it could be made genericaly from day one.

No eclusivity equals no value.

I believe you mean patent and not pattern. But I never heard of this DCA. Any links to it so I could read more? Also that would be the whole point to my 10 billion dollar prize for discovering a cure. Doesn't matter when the patent runs out or if generics picks it up etc. The 10 billion should be more than enough to make the pharm companies happy. Then the drug can be sold cheap by generic makers and lives get saved.

But any info on what you mentioned would be great.

[Mr Ontario]

Bro...they been taking peoples $$ and researching lets say aids for what how many years now....How dummm can we be. They have a cure for allot of disease out there.....This is God's way of keeping the pollution down. Only the rich would say get a cure for such a disease. You didn't about the conspiracy?

[BAM]

No money in cures.

[champcar99]

If you really looked into this topic and how pharm companies and the american government got planned, have passed(bills)

"I support the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines on the childhood national vaccine schedule. During a second term as President, I will continue to support increased funding to support a wide variety of research initiatives aimed at seeking definitive causes and/or triggers of autism. It is important to note that while there are many possible theories about causes or triggers of autism, no one material has been definitely included or excluded

The pharm compnay makes HUGE donations to Bush's reelection campain then you get this from cocksucker bush


"President Bush is to veto a bill that would ban mercury in flu vaccines for children despite its known links to autism and other neurological disorders and despite the fact that he pledged in 2004 to support such a move when campaigning for re-election.

Remember the huge bird flu scare in the states

You can't make any real money without a boogeyman, and the new "Bird Flu" hoax is the latest scam used to generate profits for pharmaceutical company insiders.

"Finally, the pieces of the puzzle start to add up," writes Dr. Joseph Mercola, author of the "Total Health Program." "President Bush sought to instill panic in this country by telling us a minimum of 200,000 people will die from the avian flu pandemic but it could be as bad as 2 million deaths in this country alone."
http://mercola.com/blog/2005/oct/19/rumsfeld_to_profit_from_avian_flu_hoax

"This hoax is then used to justify the immediate purchase of 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a worthless drug that in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but only decreases the amount of days one is sick and can actually contribute to the virus having more lethal mutations," Mercola continues.

"So the U.S. placed an order for 20 million doses of this worthless drug at a price of $100 per dose. That comes to a staggering $2 billion.


US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former chairman of Gilead, the manufacturer of Tamiflu, will also make big profits, since he is a major shareholder.

Better yet, Bilderberger spokesman Etienne F. Davignon (Vice-Chairman, Suez-Tractebel)and Reagan-Bush Cabal insider former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, PhD (Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University) are also on the board of directors of Gilead. (http://www.gilead.com/wt/sec/bod)

Another Bilderberger regular is Lodewijk J.R. de Vink, who sits on the board of Hoffman-La Roche, Gilead's partner.
http://www.roche.com/home/company/com_gov/com_
gov_dir/com_gov_dir_vink.htm

In other words, the "Bird Flu" scam will generate outrageous profits for globalist-insiders like Shultz, Rumsfeld, Davignon, and de Vink.


Drugs companies 'inventing diseases to boost their profits'

London Times | April 11, 2006
By Mark Henderson

PHARMACEUTICAL companies are systematically creating diseases in order to sell more of their products, turning healthy people into patients and placing many at risk of harm, a special edition of a leading medical journal claims today.

The practice of “diseasemongering” by the drug industry is promoting non-existent illnesses or exaggerating minor ones for the sake of profits, according to a set of essays published by the open-access journal Public Library of Science Medicine.

The special issue, edited by David Henry, of Newcastle University in Australia, and Ray Moynihan, an Australian journalist, reports that conditions such as female sexual dysfunction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and “restless legs syndrome” have been promoted by companies hoping to sell more of their drugs.

Other minor problems that are a normal part of life, such as symptoms of the menopause, are also becoming increasingly “medicalised”, while risk factors such as high cholesterol levels or osteoporosis are being presented as diseases in their own right, according to the editors.

“Disease-mongering turns healthy people into patients, wastes precious resources and causes iatrogenic (medically induced) harm,” they say. “Like the marketing strategies that drive it, disease-mongering poses a global challenge to those interested in public health, demanding in turn a global response

We are just puppets bring money by the bags full to these scumbags

[Dr.Dose]

You have to understand, a pharm company is a business first. And the first thing for a business to do is make as much profit as it can. They will not find a cure, or a solution. Just will not happen! What the main objective of these companies is, is to prolong your life as much as possible with these drugs that they make in order to take as much money as they can off you before you die. As for the government having any control over these companies, it kind of works the other way around really ;-).

[MuSuLPhReAk]

So for all of you, what do you think would be the logical solution to this problem? 1 in 4 of us will get cancer. Chance for hiv is always there whether you are homosexual or not. Herpes, parkinson, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, diabetese, arthritis, etc etc. How can we change 50 more years of the same thing.

[Mr.Freeze]

vote for me as Prime Minister :D

[champcar99]

You got my Vote Freeze....and can you decriminalize Marijuana for me bro..I wanna go online....lmao...lmao ;)

[dainbramaged]

You have to understand, a pharm company is a business first. And the first thing for a business to do is make as much profit as it can. They will not find a cure, or a solution. Just will not happen! What the main objective of these companies is, is to prolong your life as much as possible with these drugs that they make in order to take as much money as they can off you before you die. As for the government having any control over these companies, it kind of works the other way around really ;-).

I believe I read in a recent MD article that one pharmaceutical company stopped selling an insulin inhalant because doctors were concerned about long term effects. The company, of course, could have started research into long term effects but instead simply pulled the product from market. Because it didn't work? No. Because it didn't sell? Yes. So here they have a viable product but because of sales, they pull it. Sure there could be more to the story and doctor's concerns but it didn't 'sound' like they were considering releasing it back onto the market anytime soon. Though for diabetics, it would stop them feeling like a pincushion.

[Preacher]

I also enjoy the fact that someone with HIV/Aids can now live 30+ years. The government doesn't understand why there are more cases of HIV then ever before...

The longer people have HIV/Aids the better chance of spreading it....

[faller]

So for all of you, what do you think would be the logical solution to this problem? How can we change 50 more years of the same thing.


Become a major shareholder and than change the policies...

Oh wait, once I'm a major shareholder I'll want bigger profits..

What a conundrum

[physique]

guaranteed they already have cures for cancer, aids, diabetes and a few others if not all. but like alot of u have said, there is no money in it, so why present it to the masses? What will that gain a pharm company? reconition? whoopie do, its all about $$$$$$$$$$

only way to change this is maybe get into politics, but if that happens, you will just be a single vote against the rest and some of the rest could have shares in companies or are gettinmg payoffs. Its a loosing battle, much like drugs in sports.

[bigben]

I agree with the cynicism, but I'm not convinced there isn't big dollars in a cure. If your competitor has a band aid solution, and you discover a cure, don't you win all the business and no longer have to share any? There's endless problems for the companies to medicate us for, mental problems, disease, quality of life, cosmetics, hair loss, impotence, aging etc. There's no end of a buck to be made because you cure someone of one disease. If you found a cure for liver cancer, you could take half his fortune in return for it. Then bilk him out of more money when he gets heart disease or high blood pressure in the following years. The longer we live, the longer we are slaves and consumers. Young people are not as profitable, as they are healthy.

I also believe a cure is extremely difficult. Once your genetics predispose you to something, like lets say cystic fibrosis, or parkinon's or coronary disease, its damn difficult to overide the faulty genetics. Its much easier to treat symptoms.

A lot of research comes out of hospitals and universities. I doubt they'd shut down a cure they discovered.

As well, they never really know how well anything is going to work prior to human trials. And by then, its too late, the results are known. Where are all the people who say they entered into a double blind study, were cured of cancer, and the drug was dropped from development? Seems hard to stiffle to me. Its like viagra. The guys who were suffering from coronary disease and being treated didn't want to give up the drug after they started waking up with hard ons again. They told their doctors and the researchers, and a whole usefull side effect was discovered. Same with minoxodil. Much of medical discovery is by luck.

[shithead]

This is an old topic to me and all my points have been covered.

Pharm companies are the shadiest ppl on the planet. Some university funding is from drug companies that recruit the same university to do a study on their new drug. If the results are not favourable then funding is discontinued.

[MuSuLPhReAk]

I agree with the cynicism, but I'm not convinced there isn't big dollars in a cure. If your competitor has a band aid solution, and you discover a cure, don't you win all the business and no longer have to share any? There's endless problems for the companies to medicate us for, mental problems, disease, quality of life, cosmetics, hair loss, impotence, aging etc. There's no end of a buck to be made because you cure someone of one disease. If you found a cure for liver cancer, you could take half his fortune in return for it. Then bilk him out of more money when he gets heart disease or high blood pressure in the following years. The longer we live, the longer we are slaves and consumers. Young people are not as profitable, as they are healthy.

I also believe a cure is extremely difficult. Once your genetics predispose you to something, like lets say cystic fibrosis, or parkinon's or coronary disease, its damn difficult to overide the faulty genetics. Its much easier to treat symptoms.

A lot of research comes out of hospitals and universities. I doubt they'd shut down a cure they discovered.

As well, they never really know how well anything is going to work prior to human trials. And by then, its too late, the results are known. Where are all the people who say they entered into a double blind study, were cured of cancer, and the drug was dropped from development? Seems hard to stiffle to me. Its like viagra. The guys who were suffering from coronary disease and being treated didn't want to give up the drug after they started waking up with hard ons again. They told their doctors and the researchers, and a whole usefull side effect was discovered. Same with minoxodil. Much of medical discovery is by luck.

If genetics is a problem, then they should be pouring tons of money into gene manipulation instead of less important meds. I would love to see how the breakdown of spending is on research. In other words, how much they are spending to research cures and not bandaids for diseases. How much they are spending on isolating genes responsible for health problems and how to manipulate those genes to erradicate the problems. Those numbers would prove or disprove what they are really up to. I wish there would be much more regulations on this stuff. Maybe even that we have gov't run pharms that must not patent meds and sell them for cost prce. Wouldn't the general populations tax money be what would be funding the research? I think it's all backward as is.

[bottleneckblooz]

I'll never give another dollar to help fund research to "find a cure" for anything.

[Preacher]

The only thing I donate to is the Childrens Hospital...

[bigben]

If genetics is a problem, then they should be pouring tons of money into gene manipulation instead of less important meds. I would love to see how the breakdown of spending is on research. In other words, how much they are spending to research cures and not bandaids for diseases. How much they are spending on isolating genes responsible for health problems and how to manipulate those genes to erradicate the problems. Those numbers would prove or disprove what they are really up to. I wish there would be much more regulations on this stuff. Maybe even that we have gov't run pharms that must not patent meds and sell them for cost prce. Wouldn't the general populations tax money be what would be funding the research? I think it's all backward as is.

I think that's ultimately going to be the only solution to the vast majority of congenital and age related diseases and possibly even environmentally caused disease like lung cancer (after all, not everyone who smokes dies of lung cancer, in fact some seem damn near immune to it. Different genetics.).

[faller]

The only thing I donate to is the Childrens Hospital...

The only thing i donate to is faller's bank account.

[Xplode]

I agree with the cynicism, but I'm not convinced there isn't big dollars in a cure.

That is true...think about it, if a pharm company cured something like HIV/AIDS or Cancer EVERYONE would follow that pharm blindly and they could monopolize the pharmaceutical industry and solely cash in on those "uncured" illnesses

[waderow]

By what I understand, pharm companies research drugs and create drugs to help people. What I am having problems with is what incentive do they have to develop a CURE for something? I mean when you are a young and niave researcher, you have something to prove. But when you are a pharm company, it's all about $$. So let's say they discover a cure for aids and all it it takes is 1 pill. What then? Even if the pill is $1000, they make no more money after that off that patient. Wouldn't it be more logical for them to develop a "bandaid" for aids that allows you to live longer and more comfortable but never curing you. A hell of a lot more money when you are taking 12 pills a day for 20 years.

So my question is, why should a pharm company develop a cure rather than a bandaid? What measures has the gov't put on them to make sure this isn't happening?

why do cancer paitients tend to live for so long these days. no cure, but they can keep going and going to get treatment, and keep on surviving.

Aids might not kill you anymore...as long as you keep on their drugs.... no cure

there is never a cure. its not in their vocab.

[Canadian Bodybuilding]

We'll all be on lifetime drugs soon. Prozac anyone??

[MuSuLPhReAk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re12KzdZ4Wk&feature=player_embedded#!

[JacktheThriller]

cures can make money if you are the researcher or company to discover a cure you will have numerous other medication companies lining up to have that and other products. The prestige and rewards would be very large. The company to make a cure also owns that cure and therefore would get a complete share of the market cutting advertising costs and numerous dollars spent in cross company competition. There is much incentive for companies to cure disease.

[natenator]

The job isn't of pharma to develop cures. The job of cures is for researchers.

Now, whether gov't has a vested interest in funding researchers to try and develop cures is another matter as people generally want accountability for where the money is going but the problem is people generally have little understanding of what it actually means to research as often there is no practical use for initial research but later on, the findings become useful. Look at the amount of research done in the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's that's responsible for a significant portion of the world practical use today - research, at the time, that was done for no real intended purpose.