Conspiracy of Big Pharma

As was brought up in another thread, is there really a "Big Pharma" conspiracy or is it more down to bad doctoring, commission based sales of drugs and misdiagnosis?

I know it's not a massive post, but it really does boil down to that, in my opinion anyway.

I'll post this here as well, as it applies to this topic more-so:

When I was younger, I had quite severe asthma. I had since grown out of it through a healthy diet and excessive exercise. However, when I met my wife, she owned a cat, and I was at that time allergic to it to some degree, causing mild asthma to surface again.

I went to my doctor who barely looked at the condition and circumstances and just handed me this inhaler and told me to take it 4 times a day like clockwork, and also whenever I felt short of breath. After two days of using it my asthma returned in full force, but was more severe than it ever was. It was so bad that I couldn't get up a flight of stairs without needing to use the inhaler.

I immediately looked up the inhaler online, and thousands of other people had experienced the same thing.

So I looked up the side effects. The inhaler, a device used to treat asthma, had a strong likelihood of causing severe asthma. After two days of use I threw it away, told the doctor, which he stated he has never heard of that occurring, and it took about 4 months for me to return back to where I was before using it.

The inhalers cost $120 each, which is $70 over what they used to when I was a child.

Obviously this is just a single case, but it does in fact show just how easy it would be for big pharma to simply keep people 'buying their products'.

The doctor didn't make the inhaler, and the thousands of other people who claimed to have experienced the same outcome couldn't all be simply misdiagnosed.

I certainly believe that in some cases specific drugs are pushed to be sold, regardless of the effects or diagnosis. That alone is a conspiracy on it's own.

I'll respond with more solid information later on today

a reply to: Ghost147

That's why I made this thread

But I still stand with the misdiagnosis being more likely.

(Copied from another thread I just replied to asking a similar question)

It happens so much it is unbelievable.

Now, why do I believe this is more likely?

Apart from baking soda being proven, more than once, it can't be absorbed into the blood stream and countless other problems with it, here is why...

My wife experienced extreme pain in her lower back September last year. We thought it was because of the cancer, as you do kind of think the worse. She went to her GP who said she had a spinal infection (after some tests were done). She got given meds and told she will likely have a crumbling disc due to the infection.

2 weeks later she goes back to the doctor as the pain is now worse. More tests are done. The GP now says it's not an infection, but a compacted disc and she might need surgery. We think "great! Just what we need."

3 days later the GP phones to say it's not a conpacted disc, it's a tear. So she goes for more tests (including X-Ray's and an MRI) and it turns out it IS a tear.

So my point is, the GP got it wrong, TWICE. That's why I believe it's as simple as a misdiagnosis.

(FYI she's still got back pain and it could take a couple more months before she's ok, but they now say her disc is slightly twisted due to the tear)

a reply to: TerryDon79No-body on here can provide you with any certifiable evidence. There is no paper trail. It's all anecdotal. Buuuut, for you it's all about how old you are and how much interaction you've had with the medical profession. I'm quite old and had many dealings and if you have then you know it sticks out like a sore thumb doctor are on a commission to push certain drugs(it's not always money, it is holidays etc.) any doctor says it isn't call him a liar, then look for another doctor as he will strike you off his books.
You know this because they go through phases of pushing certain drugs, say a year then they change the drug. In some cases the same drug but a different name. Same drug, different name, but a different drug company. Hostpitals are the same only they work on a wholely different league, millions more to "spend" than a surgery.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't doubt that many diagnosis' are false, but I doubt the insatiable need for more and more money far less.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't doubt that many diagnosis' are false, but I doubt the insatiable need for more and more money far less.

Health and welfare are businesses. They're profitable businesses. While I do disagree with a lot of things they charge extortionate prices for, it's still a business.

Yes, there's money making, possibly sales commissions, plugging for the new "it drug" etc.

I don't see how something like the Big Pharma conspiracy, that says it's ALL about making money on the sick and not making cures, could possibly be a real thing.

TrueBrit pointed out to me (on another thread) that Germany is developing a treatment for brain tumors. It's in the trial stage at the moment and (after a bit of digging) it seems promising. So how is that making money from the sick when this treatment would in fact cure what was earlier said to be inoperable?

It's not a conspiracy. It is just the way it is. It has been that way for a long time. Alchemists have abused their trade throughout history and this led to their being killed along with the real knowledge they had in the past. Not all of the Alchemists in history were like that but they were also killed or banished. This was a great loss for humanity. Same with the witches, there were good herbalists and also bad herbalists but when society got their panties in a bundle they killed everyone they could.

There are good Pharmaceutical companies out there and there are deceiving ones. I personally do not know how to tell them apart. It costs a lot of money to research how to identify and take the chemistry out of foods and herbs and microbes and concentrate them to fit them in a pill. Also many of the microbes need to be genetically engineered to make synthetic forms of the chemistry. They also need to pay some people to push their products or pay for training trips at fancy places. You could learn everything about those meds in a half an hour, but wining and dining people forms a bond and people like to be pampered so they will try things that are new. Over half the drugs introduced are taken off the market silently in a couple of years because of side effects.

We need companies to make medicines but we need to reevaluate a lot of the practices they are using and abusing.

Oh doctors are certainly in bed with big pharmacy. But it is less so recently.

Remember all the commercials that used to be on TV for medication for restless leg syndrome? I don't remember the name of the product, but it also happened to be the treatment for people with seizures. And one of its side effects was brain cancer. Which is kind of acceptable when considered next to dying from a seizure. But definitely not acceptable to treat restless legs.

But more doctors associations are standing up to big pharma the last few years.

a reply to: TerryDon79

The secound.

I work in big pharma on the R&D and production side in QC.

Honesty and high standards are drilled into us and the documentation and 3rd party inspections are extreme!

The dodgy practices are done on the sales, marking and clinical side as you said. That side of the company the scientists have little to no control or contact with.

a reply to: Ghost147

I know about what you are talking about. The doctors are always pushing inhalers and meds on my granddaughter. The corticosteroids make her so she can't get a breath after a couple of uses, then when she does hit a trigger, it is much worse. If she uses her regular inhaler every four hours as prescribed, her asthma gets worse.

For many people the inhalers make things worse and lead to all sorts of problems and added medicines. Identifying triggers is better. The trigger can be included in the word Spice on the label.

Her allergy is to Ragweed and it is a bad one. Some of the things that trigger it because they are in the same family is sunflower anything, especially the lecithen in almond milk. Another thing is chicory root, we just identified that when I had to pick her up at school because she ate a health bar containing it in school. The school nurse was looking at the chemicals on the bottom, I told her at the school it was probably the chicory root extract. When we got home it was so easy to find if you just type in chicory root allergy.

Also cammomile is really bad, that is touted as good for people yet the idiots that aren't effected don't research it before pushing it as good. It works to calm people, but it can kill some people or make them need an inhaler. Burdock root and thistle also are sometimes connected and it can actually be in the daisy family and sometimes dandelions can effect people badly but most times dandelion has chemistry that neutralizes some of the effects.

Another related allergy is celery and cilantro and parsley. But cooking those usually takes away a lot of the reactions. Celeriac is a potent medicine but we have incorporated it into our diet.

a reply to: Ghost147

That's likely less to do with the scientists and researchers and more to do with dodgy drug reps getting doctors to use it for things it wasn't meant for.

As you said the side effects were listed. US scientists would of made it and researched fully and it would have uses in some types of asthma sufferers.
But the marketing likely tried pushing it for uses it was not meant for.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: TerryDon79

The secound.

I work in big pharma on the R&D and production side in QC.

Honesty and high standards are drilled into us and the documentation and 3rd party insoections are extreme!

The dodgy practices are down on the sales, marking and clinical side as you said. That side of the company the scientists have little to know control or contact with.

I know someone who worked as a researcher in Pharma and he was a very good person and told me that the research usually did have a lot of particulars listed with it. The pamphlets you need a magnifying glass to read do show the side effects and most people have been conditioned by society to not think they could be defective and have an intolerance.

Most people also do not understand that these side effects can show up a month or two later. They think if it does not bother you in ten minutes you are fine.

It is in the sales and promotional areas that the misinformation is spread and the side effects are often played down to doctors so they will prescribe more of the drugs. The control group chosen for the testing can actually effect the outcome of the study completely as far as side effects. That is why many of the medicines are abandoned later because of side effects. How people react to chemistry varies widely by where their ancestors originated from.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yeah we put in long hours and hard to make sure all the products released work and are researched fully.

Problem is the lawyers, salesmen and corrupt doctors get there mitts on it and misuse it.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: rickymouse

Yeah we put in long hours and hard to make sure all the products released work and are researched fully.

Problem is the lawyers, salesmen and corrupt doctors get there mitts on it and misuse it.

Hey, I actually like to read research and believe most of the researchers are good people. Trouble is their research is being twisted a lot and purposely misapplied so that more profit can be made.

I have a problem with the deception, not the research. The companies even have confidentiality clauses so researchers can't say anything about their misinterpretation of the evidence.

Have you ever noticed that the research you are doing purposely omits things to test for? Or it is directed at a specific path and deviating from the path is not allowed? If they tested for everything, nobody would be working since most pills would never get a chance to be sold. I understand that. But who defines what is to be tested for is what I am concerned about.

The desire of the general population to believe in science and health care should be mentioned. So many people who want to believe there is a chance at a cure and don't look at the negative information about a certain drug. Only a minority is about greed and money. I can understand a doctor would want to give something to a desperate patient if only to provide some kind of hope, even if he knows the drug will probably not do much.

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
The desire of the general population to believe in science and health care should be mentioned. So many people who want to believe there is a chance at a cure and don't look at the negative information about a certain drug. Only a minority is about greed and money. I can understand a doctor would want to give something to a desperate patient if only to provide some kind of hope, even if he knows the drug will probably not do much.

Funny you should word it the way you do as on another thread (about alternative medicine) one of the main reasons for pushing it was about hope.

So is it possible that, when you have hope of a product from "big pharma" and that product doesn't work for you or someone you know or gives the worst side effects that the person then loses hope and just wants someone to blame?

a reply to: rickymouse
Difficult one to answer.

Current company no, never told to omit things ever. If something pops up that shouldn't be there it has to always be investigated as a deviation. Even if its a tiny thing.

But we also have standard set procedures of testing we cant deviate from and must always follow the SOP. But that is not just a internal thing, most regulatory body's demand such practices due to the fact it makes its easier to back trace things and so harder to impossible to cover illegal activity in the lab.

BUT


I have quit one job in the past due to the fact they asked me to omit things.
Infact a lot of the people I have worked with have quit jobs for similar reasons.
If you want to find the pharma company's with the worst lab practices then look for the companys with the highest turn over of scientists and technicians as they ha e trouble hanging on to staff as generally we are pretty integral people.

a reply to: crazyewok

So, in your own opinion and observations, would you say that the corruption in "big pharma" is no more or less than any other business?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: crazyewok

So, in your own opinion and observations, would you say that the corruption in "big pharma" is no more or less than any other business?

Pretty much.

The general staff do care and do act honestly.

Problem is when you take to the board room and sales reps.

Most the directors and CEO's have never stepped foot in a lab and cone from the same stock as other buisnessmen and know not much more than the layman of what they are selling.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: crazyewok

So, in your own opinion and observations, would you say that the corruption in "big pharma" is no more or less than any other business?

Pretty much.

The general staff do care and do act honestly.

Problem is when you take to the board room and sales reps.

Most the directors and CEO's have never stepped foot in a lab and cone from the same stock as other buisnessmen and know not much more than the layman of what they are selling.

So with the "big pharma" conspiracy....
Technically both sides of the argument are correct?
"Big Pharm only does it for the money" (kind of)
and
"no, that's not right"

There is an element of truth behind the conspiracy, just not as big as it has been blown out to be?