Would the pharmaceutical industry conceal a cure?

[Darthrazz]

My mother used to say, "When's the last time you've heard of a doctor dying of cancer?"

Interesting question....I wonder if any US President has had or died of cancer?

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

I talked to a friend that leads biomedical research projects and he told me that whenever someone comes up with a breakthrough that pharm companies with economic interests to delay cures to certain diseases buy the research and shelve it completely (not cures to diseases, but big steps in that direction that could possibly lead to cures). Probably the most depressing conversation I've ever had. I ended up having the same exact conversation with another researcher a week or two later.

That is depressing

Of course. Not just because of money, but also because of population. It's unfortunate to think of it this way but death is how the earth keeps from over populating. It needs to happen, and disease/illness helps keep the numbers down.

Interesting. Btw who's that in your sig?

 

[UltraMarknus]

I'm sure someone touchedon this already, but, think of how many millions (or billions) of dollars go into finding a cure for cancer. Not even directly to pharm companies...all the telethons, marathons, etc. All the people that are employed because of it and how many are getting rich off of it.

It is extremely sad to think people let others die horrible deaths, tear apart families and destroy the quality of living of thousands of people every day so that they can make a living.

In all honesty...in all these years and all the money spent...you don't think they have already found a cure years ago? I just hope one day, there will be one person that will stand up and be a true hero.

 

[devilof76]

If they have a cure and don't want to use it because they won't make money, why don't they charge the same for the cure as they do for treatment?

 

[UltraMarknus]

If they have a cure and don't want to use it because they won't make money, why don't they charge the same for the cure as they do for treatment?

I may have a different thought process being Canadian and have a fantastic health care system. This would be an essential need and free to us. Therefore...Canada would get overpopulated QUICK! I'm sure the USA does not want to deal with that, either.

 

[devilof76]

Overpopulation is horse____. That kind of thinking belongs in Auschwitz.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

I'm sure someone touchedon this already, but, think of how many millions (or billions) of dollars go into finding a cure for cancer. Not even directly to pharm companies...all the telethons, marathons, etc. All the people that are employed because of it and how many are getting rich off of it.

It is extremely sad to think people let others die horrible deaths, tear apart families and destroy the quality of living of thousands of people every day so that they can make a living.

In all honesty...in all these years and all the money spent...you don't think they have already found a cure years ago? I just hope one day, there will be one person that will stand up and be a true hero.

I've once or twice thought the same about foreign aid and charities. From the amount of money raised each year there doesn't seem to be the equivilent improvement in third world countries. Some bastards are getting rich from these somewhere.

 

[UltraMarknus]

Overpopulation is horse____. That kind of thinking belongs in Auschwitz.

I said it tongue in cheek. But, really, it would cause some HUGE issues if people wouldn't get cured for free in some countries but would in others.

Canada has more than enough room. Buy your parkas and brush up on your igloo building skills.

 

[bangooface]

Possibly could. I think there is book called "selling sickness" they will create disease and make drugs for it. Like if u r sleepy at work u may have work sleeping disorder etc. So hiding cure doesn't surprise me.

 

[devilof76]

I said it tongue in cheek. But, really, it would cause some HUGE issues if people wouldn't get cured for free in some countries but would in others.

You really wouldn't be getting cured for free. Someone is paying for it (just not necessarily the person making the demands for it).

 

[UltraMarknus]

I've once or twice thought the same about foreign aid and charities. From the amount of money raised each year there doesn't seem to be the equivilent improvement in third world countries. Some bastards are getting rich from these somewhere.

Exactly. You donate and feel good about yourself...as well you should. You give money in good faith but in the back of your mind, you wonder how much of it actually gets to the people who need it. I know it's a pessimistic way of thinking but humanity has not shown me reason to think otherwise

 

[UltraMarknus]

You really wouldn't be getting cured for free. Someone is paying for it (just not necessarily the person making the demands for it).

Very true. Our taxes are borderline insane. So, no, it's not free. It's just like a loan...you pay into it all the time instead of walking out of the hospital with a $4000 bill.

 

[intothevoid]

No way,a company could never pull it off.yes they make a ton of money from people taking medicines every day but the people who usually work there are not evil.do you really think a scientist would discover a cure for cancer and then not tell anybody?it would be a dream come true for them to cure a major disease.some dedicate there lives searching for one.someone would eventually blow the whistle and then s%$& would hit the fan.if they do find a cure for a disease it doesn't mean the company will go under.people who get a disease would still need to buy the cure.

This could be about any disease/illness though. Cancer and AIDs are the big ones - I don't believe anyone who may have come up with a cure for either of these would conceal is purely because the kudos and recognition from revealing a cure would I think outweigh the cashflows from continuing to hide it.

May be wrong though.

That being said there are tons of other illnesses for which I am sure better, cost effective treatments are out there (whether they are cures or not), but which have been covered up for financial benefit.

 

[intothevoid]

Very true. Our taxes are borderline insane. So, no, it's not free. It's just like a loan...you pay into it all the time instead of walking out of the hospital with a $4000 bill.

 

[BuffyGirl]

Interesting. Btw who's that in your sig?

It's Myka and HG Wells (Joanne Kelly and Jaime Murray) from Warehouse 13.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I am still seeing no real arguments to support any kind of sense based in reality for a pharmaceutical company to withhold a cure.

 

[Blackthornone]

Drug companies have been campaigning to make vitamins and other nutritional supplements like herbs classified as drugs for decades. They also want the dosages so low that they would have no significant therapeutic effect. There is very little profit in vitamins and nutritional supplements which are often more effective while being completely safe, unlike drugs, for many ailments. The drug companies find this to be a threat, the more people are into natural healing. Based on this, which is absolute fact, I can say with absolute certainty that the pharmaceutical industry would not only conceal a cure, but they would want to regulate it out of existence.
Pharmaceutical companies are in it to make money, and these companies, like Monsanto, not only make cancer medications, but they make pesticides which are fat soluble substances which cause cancer in the first place.
They make what causes cancer for profit, and they make what manages cancer for profit. They make money hand over fist.
Some drugs have 150,000% profit. I would bet that is the highest profit margin of any product in the world. It probably is more profitable than crack.

In the book, the Breast Cancer Prevention Program, by Samuel Epstein, M.D., it is noted that women with breast cancer have over 50% greater pesticide residues in their breast tissue than do women without breast cancer. Pesticides are supposed to be safe, but that illusion is only maintained by the fact that the exposure of pesticides compared to the body mass of insects is tens of thousands of times greater than the exposure of pesticides compared to the body mass of humans, thus, over the short term, it is tens of thousands of times safer for humans. However, these pesticides are fat soluble, which means that they accumulate in the body over time, and eventually can reach the point at which they cause cancer.

South of the U.S. border, children have been working, spraying pesticides on crops barefoot without any safety equipment and they often get very sick or die very quickly, because they have greater exposure.

 

[Darth Cruel]

Drug companies have been campaigning to make vitamins and other nutritional supplements like herbs classified as drugs for decades. They also want the dosages so low that they would have no significant therapeutic effect. There is very little profit in vitamins and nutritional supplements which are often more effective while being completely safe, unlike drugs, for many ailments. The drug companies find this to be a threat, the more people are into natural healing. Based on this, which is absolute fact, I can say with absolute certainty that the pharmaceutical industry would not only conceal a cure, but they would want to regulate it out of existence.
Pharmaceutical companies are in it to make money, and these companies, like Monsanto, not only make cancer medications, but they make pesticides which are fat soluble substances which cause cancer in the first place.
They make what causes cancer for profit, and they make what manages cancer for profit. They make money hand over fist.
Some drugs have 150,000% profit. I would bet that is the highest profit margin of any product in the world. It probably is more profitable than crack.

This doesn't make any sense to me because a pharmaceuticle company could make more money and faster off of a cure than the prolonged medicating of a desease. The whole idea that "it makes more money to medicate long term" has no basis in fact because a pharmaceutical that found a cure could charge what they want to for it as has been mentioned. And their other products would reap the benefits of brand recognition.

It seems to me that the company that cures any of these deseases is going to be the stock market darling for a hell of a long time.

I am not going to say they wouldn't do it...but it would be beyond stupid to do so from a financial standpoint.

 

[Devil_666]

I am still seeing no real arguments to support any kind of sense based in reality for a pharmaceutical company to withhold a cure.

Because there isn't one. Like with most conspiracies.

 

[Blackthornone]

This doesn't make any sense to me because a pharmaceuticle company could make more money and faster off of a cure than the prolonged medicating of a desease. The whole idea that "it makes more money to medicate long term" has no basis in fact because a pharmaceutical that found a cure could charge what they want to for it as has been mentioned. And their other products would reap the benefits of brand recognition.

It seems to me that the company that cures any of these deseases is going to be the stock market darling for a hell of a long time.

I am not going to say they wouldn't do it...but it would be beyond stupid to do so from a financial standpoint.

I disagree. Regular medications are like a payment plan. Few could afford an extremely expensive cancer treatment. With a payment plan, most people can afford to pay. With constant management, people continue to pay for it until they die or cant pay anymore.

Let me give you an analogy: Which company makes more money overall, a company that sells a few really expensive cars like Ferrari or Aston Martin, or a company that makes cars almost everyone can afford, like Honda, or Toyota, Nissan or Fiat, or Ford? Ferrari and Aston Martin were bought by Fiat and Ford, respectively, because they weren't making enough money. I would bet the more affordable car companies make more money ultimately. Less per sale for sure, but more total profit.
I'm thinking there is more money in consumables like toilet paper, toothpaste, paper, and scotch tape than there is in televisions.

Frankly, it isn't possible to make a permanent cure, because as long as there are things that people are exposed to that cause cancer, like pesticides in food, and other toxic chemicals in the environment, there is no way to make a cure last. You can't fix a problem without stopping the cause first. Unless you address the fundamental cause, all you can do is treat symptoms, and that is exactly what the drug companies do.

Frankly, I think the medical profession likes people to be constantly sick enough to need treatment and well enough to work to pay for it. That is where the money is, for doctors and drug companies alike. There is no money in prevention.