GREED Drives Drug Firms
View Full Version : GREED Drives Drug Firms
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.
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)
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>
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
Wasn't it Jan Drew herself that reported that only 1 out of 10
prospective pharmaceutical drugs in Phase III trials ever gets approved
for the market by the FDA? I'm sure it was. Must be true.
>Subject: Re: GREED Drives Drug Firms
>From: kathy37@webtv.net
>Date: 6/18/2004 11:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <21580-40D330A5-390@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net>
>
>
>Wasn't it Jan Drew herself that reported that only 1 out of 10
>prospective pharmaceutical drugs in Phase III trials ever gets approved
>for the market by the FDA? I'm sure it was. Must be true.
>
No wonder the figure of 5 million dollars to even "test" a drug is not out of
the realm of possibility....
Research and development costs have to be recouped ..or NO new meds will be
developed..
Funny that so many THINK all R & D costs are "government funded"/.......HAH
go to the corporate websites and read their annual reports...the numbers for
development costs are astounding
and of course if the drug does NOT get to market...well you know the rest..
hawki.....
>Subject: Re: GREED Drives Drug Firms
>From: kathy37@webtv.net
>Date: 6/18/2004 10:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <21580-40D330A5-390@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net>
>
>Wasn't it Jan Drew herself that reported that only 1 out of 10
>prospective pharmaceutical drugs in Phase III trials ever gets approved
>for the market by the FDA? I'm sure it was. Must be true.
Actually Kathy, the subject was Available Clinical Trials.
Peter Morgan was speaking of unethical.
Strange how you pick out certain parts of a post and don't really get to the
subject. It appears you have fallen prey to the *gang* behavior, and just wish
to pick on widdle ole Jan.
To refresh your memory and of course save you the time to look it
up,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: Available Clinical Trials
>From: "Peter Moran" moringa@gil.com.au
>Date: 5/26/2004 1:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
><40b51286$0$30199$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>
>
>
>"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 26, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
>05-26-04@limbercartel.com> wrote in message
>news:S78tc.55393$cz5.21266889@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>
>> <kathy37@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:25287-40B4F075-26@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
>> > Is that the norm? For participants to pay for a clinical trial, as all
>> > the Burzynski trials require?
>>
>> Participants in clinical trials are often compensated for their invovlement.
>>
>> I did not find one trial on this site, other than the Burzynski ones, that
>> requires the participant to pay for medical care.
>
>It is normally regarded as quite unethical. Participants in clinical trials
>may run unknown risks with no certainty of benefit.
>
>Peter Moran
Peter Moran is speaking of unethical.
Let's take a look.
http://tinyurl.com/2l7ps
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/05/12/story6.html
The company has a partnership with GlaxoSmithKline on the drug now in clinical
trials and has a collaboration with Exelixis Inc. to design more small-molecule
compounds that Cytokinetics and Exelixis can each use in its drug discovery
efforts.
(No comment on that kathy?????)
http://www.poz.com/index.cfm?p=article&art_id=533
Today's Competitor Is Tomorrow's Collaborator"
Drug development is a famously high-stakes enterprise. Only one in 10 compounds
in phase III human efficacy trials gets Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval; only one in three of these ever turns a profit; and pharmaceuticals
depend on 20 percent of these winners to create 70 percent of their profits.
These odds encourage drug companies to avoid research long shots and any data
that might be damaging to their meds already on the market.
(my, my, you overlooked anything that might be unethical and just latched on to
the part that suited you)
http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/bitterpill.html
U.S. drug companies tested Milltown, a tranquilizer, at an insane asylum in
Haiti, 1954. (© Eve Arnold / Magnum)
Amnesty Now > A Bitter Pill
A Bitter Pill:
Exporting Drug Trials to the Developing World
WARNING: Side effects of globalizing human experimentation may include
questionable ethics, preventable deaths, and violations of international
agreements.
BY DAVID CONCAR
David Concar is a London-based journalist and deputy editor of New Scientist
magazine.
When a deadly epidemic of bacterial meningitis swept through northern *****ia
in 1996, Samaila Musa’s parents did the obvious thing. They took their
stricken 7-year-old to the infectious disease hospital in the nearby city of
Kano. Amidst an anguished dispute over what happened next, one thing is clear:
The world’s richest pharmaceutical company enrolled Samaila, and hundreds of
infected children like him, as test subjects in a now-notorious drug trial. A
team from Pfizer Inc. had learned of the outbreak on the internet and flown to
Kano armed with a promising new antibiotic called Trovan (trovafloxacin). With
meningitis rare in the West, it was a golden opportunity to put the drug
through its paces, compare it to a rival company’s approved treatment, and
gather the data needed for a license to market the potentially lucrative drug.
Trovan, alas, was no miracle cure. Several (the exact number is disputed) of
the sick children given the experimental drug died. Many more suffered lasting
injuries from their infections. Samaila, now a teenager, was struck deaf and
dumb. Pfizer says that Trovan worked better than any other treatment
administered in Kano. But lawyers representing outraged *****ian families
dispute that view and claim that the trial violated international agreements,
including the Nuremberg Code. These international guidelines were drawn up in
1949 to protect human subjects from the kind of appalling experiments Nazi
doctors performed on concentration camp inmates.
“The Kano patients didn’t know they were being enrolled into a for-profit
study. It is absolutely abhorrent that you can use sick children as guinea pigs
without informed consent,” says Elaine Kusel, the legal partner handling the
case at Milberg Weiss in New York.
(see anything unethical there, kathy????)
http://www.hei.org/research/depts/clinstud/questdy.htm
Now, what were you saying????
Jan
M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 18, 2004
"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040618173404.29796.00000137@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: GREED Drives Drug Firms
> >From: kathy37@webtv.net
> >Date: 6/18/2004 10:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <21580-40D330A5-390@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net>
> >
> >Wasn't it Jan Drew herself that reported that only 1 out of 10
> >prospective pharmaceutical drugs in Phase III trials ever gets approved
> >for the market by the FDA? I'm sure it was. Must be true.
>
> Actually Kathy, the subject was Available Clinical Trials.
>
> Peter Morgan was speaking of unethical.
>
> Strange how you pick out certain parts of a post and don't really get to
the
> subject. It appears you have fallen prey to the *gang* behavior, and just
wish
> to pick on widdle ole Jan.
>
> To refresh your memory and of course save you the time to look it
> up,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
> Subject: Re: Available Clinical Trials
> >From: "Peter Moran" moringa@gil.com.au
> >Date: 5/26/2004 1:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
><40b51286$0$30199$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.
au>
> >
> >
> >"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 26, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
> >05-26-04@limbercartel.com> wrote in message
> >news:S78tc.55393$cz5.21266889@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >>
> >> <kathy37@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >> news:25287-40B4F075-26@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
> >> > Is that the norm? For participants to pay for a clinical trial, as
all
> >> > the Burzynski trials require?
> >>
> >> Participants in clinical trials are often compensated for their
invovlement.
> >>
> >> I did not find one trial on this site, other than the Burzynski ones,
that
> >> requires the participant to pay for medical care.
> >
> >It is normally regarded as quite unethical. Participants in clinical
trials
> >may run unknown risks with no certainty of benefit.
> >
> >Peter Moran
>
> Peter Moran is speaking of unethical.
Yes, and with his experience, he is absolutely qualified. OTOH, you are not
familiar with ethics, except maybehow to spell it.
Well Gee Jan, I'm still reading that only 1 in 10 proespective
pharmaceutical drugs in Phase III trials ever gets FDA approval. But
thank you for reminding me only one out those three ever turns a profit.
If I was putting out money for something/anyhing,
I wouldn't like those odds.
Your really dumb if you think there isn't a huge amount of dollars spent
in research & development by pharmaceutcal & biotech companies all over
the world every year that will never be recouped. Have you ever learned
how to read a financial report? Suggest you get ahold of some annual
reports from pharmaceutical companies & sit down & digest their R&D
costs. Rather than sit at your computer & push buttons. Call their
shareholder departments; they'll send them to you for free.
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:20:50 -0700, kathy37@webtv.net wrote:
>Well Gee Jan, I'm still reading that only 1 in 10 proespective
>pharmaceutical drugs in Phase III trials ever gets FDA approval. But
>thank you for reminding me only one out those three ever turns a profit.
>If I was putting out money for something/anyhing,
> I wouldn't like those odds.
>
>Your really dumb if you think there isn't a huge amount of dollars spent
>in research & development by pharmaceutcal & biotech companies all over
>the world every year that will never be recouped. Have you ever learned
>how to read a financial report? Suggest you get ahold of some annual
>reports from pharmaceutical companies & sit down & digest their R&D
>costs. Rather than sit at your computer & push buttons. Call their
>shareholder departments; they'll send them to you for free.
If they did not do R&D Jan would not have the Elavil and Neurontin for
which she thanks God. She thanks God because without these
medications, her pain is unbearable. The Elavil and Neurontin are what
are helping Jan and NOT removing the amalgams. Her pain got worse
because she read a Hulda Clark book and worried herself almost to
death. As soon as she stopped worrying (removed the amalgams) she
immediately felt better.
But Anth thinks there is NO evidence that her deterioration and
improvement were due to psychologic factors. He is still waiting for
studies to prove it. LOL!!
Aloha,
Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
The best defense to logic is ignorance
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
