It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corporate stewardship of healthcare. A fatal conflict of interest.

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Pharmaceutical giants of the world have become the primary stewards of human health by virtue of the magnitude of capital/resource allocation alone.

The corporate formula is a simple one of "rational self interest". It is a proven model for profit and enrichment of a few people and a source of high paying jobs for many, but is it even possible for this model to work for the benefit of human health? Is it possible that we've all been duped by perverted science, advertising and PR? All perfectly legal of course.

I think any reasonable person can see the potential for conflict of interest but how do reasonable, inquisitive people form an opinion regarding the effectiveness of this "health for profit" model? Pharma is spending twice as much on self promotion than R&D. link to source. That is a clear example of the model inverting and doing the opposite of what it should do. It doesn't stop there.

What if disease cures are available today but they can't be patented? There is no profit motive, therefore, the opportunity will not be explored. Link to financial orphan therapies]Link to source material on Financial orphans.

What if eating the right food eliminates 95% of all modern disease? How would we even find out? Pharma and mainstream medical science has a strong tendency to treat symptoms due to the profit potential.

There are clear examples of how the health for profit model is inverted for all to judge on their own. Vaccines are another massive profit center for Pharma and it seems they are keenly interested in stopping scientific exploration and free distribution of scientific data. Could this be another clear case of model inversion? They said Thimersol was safe until declaring it unsafe. There are other examples.

Looking ahead. where is this trend heading? In America today 7/10 of citizens take at least one prescription medication.. Clearly we are heading towards everyone taking at least 1 prescription. That must be the sales target right? Can this be justified by science? If Pharma sponsors the study it can.

Finally, a cautionary note. There is nothing preventing a Pharma company from intentionally releasing drugs with side effects that can be treated with more drugs. Statins and viagra are one example. Is this part of the marketing plan? No one would be that sinister right? But it's not one person or 10 or even 100 people.

It's a corporate machine making the decision with some very simple rules to follow. Please educate yourself and make your own judgement.

Good health to you.




edit on 24-4-2014 by InverseLookingGlass because: shpelling




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Its not hard to figure out....
The Rockefellers have a lock on the AMA, the drug companies and the hospitals....havin brought Aleopathic medicine to America in the 1800s.....
Rockefellers own most of the drug companies in America....
The healthcare system is just a money maker for the elites and a tool of subjugation for the masses.....
The people themselves should own ALL of this stuff.....
Profits on medicine should be restricted and the drug companies should be nationalised.....Hospitals too should not be in private hands....



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
S&F. The healthcare in some countries isn't that bad. The US treats symptoms more than curing diseases. The problem here is that we have been conditioned to trust doctors and disreguard what the healthy old relatives we have say. It started long ago.

Some examples are that saturated fats are bad for you, including eggs and bacon. Rendered fat is good for you, it supplies the elastin binding protein. Eggs are good for you also. Everything in moderation. Now this sort of big business released misconceptions has created a problem in our society where we need medicine just to stay healthy. The biggest misconception is that salt is bad for us, it is based on misapplied evidence. Salt is necessary for most people and only a small percentage need to watch their intake. But the medical field tries to make us assume it is bad to eat too much. Salt lowers BP usually, overconsumption of free glutamates raises BP. Salt restriction can raise insulin levels and at the same time lower the ability of the cells to use the sugar, leading to insulin resistance and also the raised insulin levels can cause some organ failure. Also the brain can become swollen if salt consumption is too low in a person who excretes the salt in their urine normally. Salt is necessary, along with a chemical taurine to remove waste out of the cells. The taurine stimulates the kidneys also to excrete this stuff. Eating food containing this chemical, or the parent chemical NAC is necessary. If we have the proper microbes in our gut, which most people cannot tolerate, they can help us to make these things. Some foods contain NAC but it is not heat stable so special preparation methods are necessary to fix the problem. Many of the veggies containing natural NAC need to be cooked to cancel out other problems. Eggs, over easy, is a fairly good source of this nutrient as is correctly produced soups.

But listen to the drug companies instead, metaformin uses a similar chemistry effect as taurine. It is cheap but you need to monitor your sugar and go to the doctor more often for checkups and to get your prescription updated..

So how can people believe that natural medicines and dietary practices have no effect on health, most of these problems take years to show themselves. The same science making medicines controls our food chemistry...remember that.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: stirling

The people themselves should own ALL of this stuff.....
Profits on medicine should be restricted and the drug companies should be nationalised.....Hospitals too should not be in private hands....


That's commie talk!!! The citizens concerns have absolutely have no place in a corporate free enterprise society.

Consume, obey and pay your tribute to the Gods of commerce. That and that alone is all you need to know.

[sarcasm] sort of....



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

i think in ancient china you would pay your doctor as long as you are healthy (visiting him regularly to remain healthy) and when you would get sick, he would have to cure you for free, consultation and medicine

there you have a system that makes sense in which everybody has the same interest



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: anHairInTheSoup

I like that idea!



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Makes a helluva lot more sense than the blackmail practiced on the western nations peoples.....



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
It looks like the fight over the ACA will go on for many years.
Politicians will use it to their best advantage for elections, and any 'fixes' will be tiny little trickles.
The potUS got what he wanted, and the American people...... well, you know what we got.

For me, 'Freedom' isn't a feeling anymore; it's just a word in the dictionary.
edit on 4u44America/Chicago301 by nugget1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: nugget1

Forget about politicians for a moment. Here's are some questions for you.

Is it possible for a starving man to be free?
Is it possible for a sick person with no health care access to be free?
Is it possible for an uneducated man to be free?

Isn't freedom measured by a person's ability to exercise said freedom? Or is it just an idea inside the brain that has rarefied status on it's own?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Freedom is gaged by how much money an individual has.

Money plays the role of liberator.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: nugget1

Forget about politicians for a moment. Here's are some questions for you.

Is it possible for a starving man to be free?
Is it possible for a sick person with no health care access to be free?
Is it possible for an uneducated man to be free?

Isn't freedom measured by a person's ability to exercise said freedom? Or is it just an idea inside the brain that has rarefied status on it's own?



So slavery is cool as long as you have food, shelter, and basic medicine? As long as you are cared for, you don't care about freedom?

One could posit that if you are dependent on someone else, you are not free.
edit on 29-4-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join