GREED Drives Drug Firms

[Mbumbotatum]

The reason for the gross failure and irresponsibilility of
drug manufacturers is GREED. Pharmaceutical companies loathe
and despise simple compounds, even if they are the most
effective for treating disease and illness. The reason is:
because they can not patent it and hold the franchise for
MAKING MONEY on it.

Instead, when a simple herbal treatment is found (or
"rediscovered") that has been used for many centuries to
treat illness, the big drug firms seek to chemically and
synthetically produce the harsh chemical equivalent of the
essence of that herb. Worse, they often knowingly seek to
slightly alter (thus denaturing and actually poisoning) the
original chemical component of the herb. The reason for
doing this is that they now have a "singular" or slightly
different drug that they can now patent. And, this gives
them a virtual license to print money.

So, with the big drug companies as they are, and with their
incestuous tie-in to doctors who virtually push their pills
for them, we will never have a medical community that
actually works for the good of the patient and the consumer.
Instead, we will constantly be saddled with super-greedy
drug manufacturers who knowingly produce defective and even
toxic products --and charging more than 100 times what the
cost of them should actually be. This means that "modern
science" is an utter and total failure as far as delivering
medical care is concerned.

[David Wright]

In article <20040616033305.05570.00000073@mb-m14.wmconnect.com>,
MbumboTatum <mbumbotatum@wmconnect.com> wrote:

>The reason for the gross failure and irresponsibilility of
>drug manufacturers is GREED. Pharmaceutical companies
>loathe and despise simple compounds, even if they are the
>most effective for treating disease and illness. The reason
>is: because they can not patent it and hold the franchise
>for MAKING MONEY on it.

Wow, DumboTatum, you are really outdoing yourself here. Why,
you must be the very first person in history to express such
sentiments.

And you're just as wrong as all the other igoramuses
who do it.

Ever heard of vitamins, DumboTatum? How about aspirin? Those
are both unpatentable, cheap substances. And you know who
makes most of them? Big pharmaceutical companies, that's
who. Unless you're going to argue that they do this at a
loss, I think you'll have to concede that there must be
profit in it.

>Instead, when a simple herbal treatment is found (or
>"rediscovered") that has been used for many centuries to
>treat illness, the big drug firms seek to chemically and
>synthetically produce the harsh chemical equivalent of the
>essence of that herb. Worse, they often knowingly seek to
>slightly alter (thus denaturing and actually poisoning) the
>original chemical component of the herb. The reason for
>doing this is that they now have a "singular" or slightly
>different drug that they can now patent. And, this gives
>them a virtual license to print money.

Except that isolating the active ingredient may well make
it more effective, and certainly makes it more
consistent. Natural products in their original form can
be extremely inconsistent in the amount of various
ingredients they contain.

>So, with the big drug companies as they are, and with their
>incestuous tie-in to doctors who virtually push their pills
>for them,

"virtually push their pills for them?"

>we will never have a medical community that actually works
>for the good of the patient and the consumer. Instead, we
>will constantly be saddled with super-greedy drug
>manufacturers who knowingly produce defective and even
>toxic products --and charging more than 100 times what the
>cost of them should actually be. This means that "modern
>science" is an utter and total failure as far as delivering
>medical care is concerned.

Do you know what it costs to bring a drug to market these
days, Dumbo? You should look it up.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[Michele]

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message news:<oktAc.77$8L3.2@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>...
> In article <20040616033305.05570.00000073@mb-
> m14.wmconnect.com>, MbumboTatum
> <mbumbotatum@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >The reason for the gross failure and irresponsibilility
> >of drug manufacturers is GREED. Pharmaceutical companies
> >loathe and despise simple compounds, even if they are the
> >most effective for treating disease and illness. The
> >reason is: because they can not patent it and hold the
> >franchise for MAKING MONEY on it.
>
> Wow, DumboTatum, you are really outdoing yourself here.
> Why, you must be the very first person in history to
> express such sentiments.
>
> And you're just as wrong as all the other igoramuses
> who do it.
>
> Ever heard of vitamins, DumboTatum? How about aspirin?
> Those are both unpatentable, cheap substances. And you
> know who makes most of them? Big pharmaceutical companies,
> that's who. Unless you're going to argue that they do this
> at a loss, I think you'll have to concede that there must
> be profit in it.
>
> >Instead, when a simple herbal treatment is found (or
> >"rediscovered") that has been used for many centuries
> >to treat illness, the big drug firms seek to chemically
> >and synthetically produce the harsh chemical equivalent
> >of the essence of that herb. Worse, they often
> >knowingly seek to slightly alter (thus denaturing and
> >actually poisoning) the original chemical component of
> >the herb. The reason for doing this is that they now
> >have a "singular" or slightly different drug that they
> >can now patent. And, this gives them a virtual license
> >to print money.
>
> Except that isolating the active ingredient may well make
> it more effective, and certainly makes it more consistent.
> Natural products in their original form can be extremely
> inconsistent in the amount of various ingredients they
> contain.
>
> >So, with the big drug companies as they are, and with
> >their incestuous tie-in to doctors who virtually push
> >their pills for them,
>
> "virtually push their pills for them?"
>
> >we will never have a medical community that actually
> >works for the good of the patient and the consumer.
> >Instead, we will constantly be saddled with super-greedy
> >drug manufacturers who knowingly produce defective and
> >even toxic products --and charging more than 100 times
> >what the cost of them should actually be. This means that
> >"modern science" is an utter and total failure as far as
> >delivering medical care is concerned.
>
> Do you know what it costs to bring a drug to market these
> days, Dumbo? You should look it up.

You must realize that looking things up is no doubt a bit
out of Dumbo's experience & would simply introduce actual
facts into the subject.......<G

[Kimmer]

David wrote:

> Except that isolating the active ingredient may well make
> it more effective, and certainly makes it more consistent.
> Natural products in their original form can be extremely
> inconsistent in the amount of various ingredients they
> contain.

Isolating the active ingredient can also lead to side
effects that aren't present when using the plant itself.
Dandelions contain substances that are used in blood
pressure medications, and in their pure form they deplete
potassium in the body. The dandelion plant itself is high in
potassium, counteracting that effect.

Some of the cases of adverse reactions to kava are due to
using the wrong part of the plant. People have been using
kava root without problems for a very long time. The
problems arose after it was discovered that the so-called
'active ingredient' is in higher concentrations in the
leaves, and with the mindset of 'a little is good, so more
must be better' kava leaf started to be marketed. Bad idea.

What it really comes down to is educating oneself about
anything that one is going to ingest. Finding a doctor who
is 'alternative friendly' would be a way to go for those who
have chronic problems.

Just my opinion, not 'the way it should be'.

Kimmer kimagreenfieldatyahoodotcom