Question for those who are anti-pharma: How do you explain this?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I have a question for those who are anti-pharma and claim that doctors are medicine peddlers. A common reason people go to the doctor is to treat infectious diseases. The doctor then prescribes antibiotics, which are very effective, and the treatment is completed. Simple as that. When it comes to infections, there is no New Age/holistic type of medicine, or energy healing, that get rid of them as well as antibiotics can. How do you explain that? Don't you give big pharma credit for this area?

Even if there were some holistic/alternative remedy for infections, they would be nowhere near as effective as antibiotics are. How does your anti-pharma paradigm explain that?

For example, if you contracted syphilis or gonorrhea and were in a lot of pain, would you take the necessary antibiotics to get rid of it? Or use some New Age healing that will probably not work?

A few additional questions:

- If chemo is so bad and makes cancer worse, then why do they continue using it? It seems too obvious. Are there any studies or evidence that cancer patients who do not use chemo have a higher recovery rate than those who use it?

- The AIDS denialists and revisionists do seem to have many good logical arguments that HIV does not cause AIDS. However, none of their books and documentaries addresses one simple question: What about the people with AIDS who do not use AZT yet die anyway?

They say that no one dies from AIDS, and that they die from malnutrition (as in Africa) or from using the toxic drug AZT that was prescribed to them, right? If that's so, then all those Americans who died from AIDS, could have survived by just not taking AZT right? If so, then what about those who died from AIDS yet took no AZT at all, such as Christine Maggiore? en.wikipedia.org...

How do they explain them? The AIDS revisionist documentaries seem to ignore this point and do not seem to address it.

Also, where are the studies that show that most people diagnosed with AIDS and do not take AZT end up living normal lives?

Furthermore, if the HIV test is unreliable, then why doesn't someone who is HIV positive just test again to get a negative result and then consider themselves not infected?




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


The abuse of antibiotics in this country is the reason that areport from the CDC in 1998 stated that 53% of the KNOWN bacteria is antibiotic resistant. Also the overuse of antibiotics are leading towards all of these autoimmune disorders we are seeing come to light. There are some natural oils that are shown to be 60% more effective than penicillin, ampicillin, or amoxicillin. With more than 53% of bacteria immune to our antibiotics why is there no new antibiotics being produced ? Big pharma says there is no money in it.
We are in effect creating super bugs that resist most if not all antibiotics.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
1.- Natural medicine is mostly preventive and/or need more time to take effect, but avoids side effects.

2.- It's not only about regular medicine itself, it's just a part of a system that keeps you going to the doctor and pharmacy in order to keep spending until you die sick anyway.

3.- Today you are not a patient anymore, you are a costumer. Pharmaceutical companies do this for money.

4.- Antibiotics are ok if no abuse.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


As for your cancer argument.....Why isn't cancer treatments free? I mean we spend billions of dollars a year with charities, gov't grant, lab and research personnel donate by colleges and universities, and endowments so why are people charged 120,000 dollars for a shot? Doctors say because of the cost from big pharma. Big pharma says the high cost is due to reseearch expenses..If they are spending so much in research, then why are we still using the same treatments that were used in the 1970's? They squash anything that shows promise for cuting like in the 80's with cessium chloride. If they found a cure they would not submit it due to MD Anderson and other facilities would be closed down. No money in a cure; the money is in the research just like MDA, MS, Diabetes.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
I have a question for those who are anti-pharma and claim that doctors are medicine peddlers. A common reason people go to the doctor is to treat infectious diseases. The doctor then prescribes antibiotics, which are very effective, and the treatment is completed. Simple as that. When it comes to infections, there is no New Age/holistic type of medicine, or energy healing, that get rid of them as well as antibiotics can. How do you explain that? Don't you give big pharma credit for this area?

Even if there were some holistic/alternative remedy for infections, they would be nowhere near as effective as antibiotics are. How does your anti-pharma paradigm explain that?

For example, if you contracted syphilis or gonorrhea and were in a lot of pain, would you take the necessary antibiotics to get rid of it? Or use some New Age healing that will probably not work?

A few additional questions:

- If chemo is so bad and makes cancer worse, then why do they continue using it? It seems too obvious. Are there any studies or evidence that cancer patients who do not use chemo have a higher recovery rate than those who use it?

- The AIDS denialists and revisionists do seem to have many good logical arguments that HIV does not cause AIDS. However, none of their books and documentaries addresses one simple question: What about the people with AIDS who do not use AZT yet die anyway?

They say that no one dies from AIDS, and that they die from malnutrition (as in Africa) or from using the toxic drug AZT that was prescribed to them, right? If that's so, then all those Americans who died from AIDS, could have survived by just not taking AZT right? If so, then what about those who died from AIDS yet took no AZT at all, such as Christine Maggiore? en.wikipedia.org...

How do they explain them? The AIDS revisionist documentaries seem to ignore this point and do not seem to address it.

Also, where are the studies that show that most people diagnosed with AIDS and do not take AZT end up living normal lives?

Furthermore, if the HIV test is unreliable, then why doesn't someone who is HIV positive just test again to get a negative result and then consider themselves not infected?


Playing devils advocate:

The first time you contract an infection your body goes into overtime trying to combat it. You have two chances, a slow recovery that is most likely painful or death.
Choosing chems you go straight on to winning.
But unfortunately what could have made your immune system stronger and stronger has now been ruined by the very treatment the docs gave you, maybe even making it easier for you to contract similar infections in the future.

So you get the appearance of winning but in the long run you enslave your body and will in fact... lose.

I don't know what the alternative should be, but I'm pretty sure that the reason we keep getting sick instead of adapting is because of the so-called treatments. Catch 22........

But in the defense of the doctors (or most of them) I don't think they have a clue themselves. The pharmaceutical business runs itself and regulates itself.... more appearance of democracy and choice.

I have NO doubt that big Pharma wants us to stay sick.... but I don't like dying just yet, so I'm taking the cowardice way out and buy their crap.
edit on 8/9/12 by flice because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Antibiotics are overused in our society and contribute to the problem of drug resistant disease and bacteria.

I can't remember where to find the story, but a doctor from the EU stopped using antibiotics at her hospital, locked them up and used them for emergencies only. Staph infections dissapeared almost overnight.


- If chemo is so bad and makes cancer worse, then why do they continue using it? It seems too obvious. Are there any studies or evidence that cancer patients who do not use chemo have a higher recovery rate than those who use it?


Chemotherapy kills cancer by killing ALL The cells in your body. It's a brute force treatment and hardly an effective way of treating cancer. If alternative methods were considered, there would be far more effective ways of treating cancer without the multitude of dangerous side effects.

HIV is a touchy subject. I won't go into it. I haven't done enough research to claim anything other than what modern science claims is true.

But holistic and natural medicines have been used for hundreds of thousands of years and you'll notice that as a society we keep getting sicker. Cancer, diabetes, alzheimers the list of ever increasing diseases goes on and on.

IF Pharmaceuticals were so usefull and were being made to cure us, we would not see such increased sickness in the population.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 



The abuse of antibiotics in this country is the reason that areport from the CDC in 1998 stated that 53% of the KNOWN bacteria is antibiotic resistant. Also the overuse of antibiotics are leading towards all of these autoimmune disorders we are seeing come to light. There are some natural oils that are shown to be 60% more effective than penicillin, ampicillin, or amoxicillin. With more than 53% of bacteria immune to our antibiotics why is there no new antibiotics being produced ? Big pharma says there is no money in it.
We are in effect creating super bugs that resist most if not all antibiotics.


Not to mention the anti biotics that are used for our food supply! Cows, chickens, etc etc......


Citing concerns over potentially deadly strains of drug-resistant bacteria, the Food and Drug Administration called on pharmaceutical companies Wednesday to help limit the use of antibiotics given to farm animals.It's a decades-old practice, in which antibiotics are mixed with animal feed to help livestock, pigs and chickens put on weight and stay healthy in crowded barns. Scientists have warned that this routine use leads to the growth of antibiotic-resistant germs that can be passed to humans.


Source

And, to stay on topic to the OP.......Sure, there are drugs that are needed for people to survive, and they work as intended.

But there are many instances of Big Pharm looking towards PROFIT ONLY!! Ever watch the commercials for new medications recently? Take this pill to solve one problem, but unfortunately the side effects cause 4 more?? Thus people need to take 8 pills a day to solve problems that they DIDN"T have before they took the first pill?

As advanced as our cilvilization is as far as technology goes, when was the last time we found a cure for anything????

See that is the problem with Big Pharm. It is a corporation driven by profits! No profits in finding a cure is there? But there sure is hell profits in making sure we all have to keep taking their medicine!!



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


If drugs were designed to heal then we would not need to take them the rest of our lives. Drugs are designed to keep the symptoms at bay as long as you take the drug. If you quit taking them then the symptoms return. Most drugs just covers the symptoms up not cure.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 



If drugs were designed to heal then we would not need to take them the rest of our lives. Drugs are designed to keep the symptoms at bay as long as you take the drug. If you quit taking them then the symptoms return. Most drugs just covers the symptoms up not cure.


Well said my friend!!!



You hit the nail on the head. People don't see it that way though! Keep taking the magic pill and I will be fine. They never ask themselves how we have all of this wonderful technology, but yet not a cure for anything!

There is no profit in creating a cure!



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


As far as natural cures go......Where do you think drugs come from? The big pharma looks at plants!
They go to a plant and pick out a certain ingredient that has a desired side-effect and they make a synthetic copy of that one substance and throw the rest of the plant away. Why? Cause they cannot patent a plant but they can patent a synthetic copy. Then they tell all of the people " don't use the plant it does not work" " but use our copy".
What they fail to realise (or just don't care) is the other substances in the plant negate most of the bad side-effects that was produce by the copy.
To put into perspective the propaganda around people going to Canada and Mexico to get their drugs refilled. The big pharma started advertising that the pills in Canada and mexico were inferior to the ones in the US and is the reason they are cheaper there. But people examined their labels and saw where they were made in the same manufacturing site and in some cases out of the same batch.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
When it comes to infections, there is no New Age/holistic type of medicine, or energy healing, that get rid of them as well as antibiotics can.


I stopped right there.

When you lead off stating your opinion as a fact, I have no reason to read further.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
here is a thread of mine about activated charcoal and it's benefit in treating infection

Diabetics...Save Your Feet...No More Amputations...One Simple Cure,

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777Even if there were some holistic/alternative remedy for infections, they would be nowhere near as effective as antibiotics are. How does your anti-pharma paradigm explain that?
Broad generalization. Aintibiotic-resistant staff is thoroughly killed by proper applications of at minimum "pharmaceutical grade" Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil). Can find it at wal-mart--$8. That being said, I always encourage people to take the antibiotics and antifungals for a widespread case. Just add the TTO to it.


For example, if you contracted syphilis or gonorrhea and were in a lot of pain, would you take the necessary antibiotics to get rid of it? Or use some New Age healing that will probably not work?
Not all of this stuff is new age. The question, again, is would I solely rely on one or the other?


If chemo is so bad and makes cancer worse, then why do they continue using it? It seems too obvious. Are there any studies or evidence that cancer patients who do not use chemo have a higher recovery rate than those who use it?
Chemo, directly, not his end cancer, killed my Uncle. Not that he wouldn't have died, anyway, but that Chemo is not the miracle answer for everything.


The AIDS denialists and revisionists do seem to have many good logical arguments that HIV does not cause AIDS. However, none of their books and documentaries addresses one simple question: What about the people with AIDS who do not use AZT yet die anyway?
For that to be a pertinent question, you'd have to prove that they died FROM the AIDs. That's a touch more complicated.


They say that no one dies from AIDS, and that they die from malnutrition (as in Africa) or from using the toxic drug AZT that was prescribed to them, right? If that's so, then all those Americans who died from AIDS, could have survived by just not taking AZT right? If so, then what about those who died from AIDS yet took no AZT at all, such as Christine Maggiore? en.wikipedia.org...
This does not excuse using a list, in Africa, of 5 items that would get you diagnosed with AIDS if you only have 2-3 of the items on the list, that could just as easily be Tuberculosis. That was happening in at least the 90s. They may have changed the rules around since then.


How do they explain them? The AIDS revisionist documentaries seem to ignore this point and do not seem to address it.
And the other side ignores the specific issues to make it all about AIDs when it isn't always a case of AIDs.


Also, where are the studies that show that most people diagnosed with AIDS and do not take AZT end up living normal lives?
Studies are unreliable in certain areas. The issue I mentioned with Africa, back 10 + years ago? Those would have people dying of tuberculosis, without actually having HIV. They'd still die, form a misdiagnosis, so how could they survive to make a sunshiny study?


Furthermore, if the HIV test is unreliable, then why doesn't someone who is HIV positive just test again to get a negative result and then consider themselves not infected?
Because once HIV is on your paperwork, how can you get it out of it? But the misdiagnosed do win lawsuits. Here.

My biggest amusement about this is not that Big Pharma or doctors cannot do good, or that holistic medicine is all hogwash, but that anyone would choose to only look at 1 path, and ignore any problems with it.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 





When it comes to infections, there is no New Age/holistic type of medicine, or energy healing, that get rid of them as well as antibiotics can.

Forbidden Cures

There are a number of alternative healing therapies that work so well and cost so little (compared to conventional treatment), that Organized Medicine, the Food & Drug Administration, and their overlords in the Pharmaceutical Industry (The Big Three) would rather the public not know about them. The reason is obvious: Alternative, non-toxic therapies represent a potential loss of billions of dollars to allopathic (drug) medicine and drug companies.

The Big Three have collectively engaged in a medical conspiracy for the better part of 70 years to influence legislative bodies on both the state and federal level to create regulations that promote the use of drug medicine while simultaneously creating restrictive, controlling mechanisms (licencing, government approval, etc) designed to limit and stifle the availability of non-drug, alternative modalities. The conspiracy to limit and eliminate competition from non-drug therapies began with the Flexner Report of 1910.

Abraham Flexner was engaged by John D. Rockefeller to run around the country and 'evaluate' the effectiveness of therapies taught in medical schools and other institutions of the healing arts. Rockefeller wanted to dominate control over petrolem, petrochemicals, and pharmaceuticals (which are derived from 'coal tars' or crude oil). He arranged for his company, Standard Oil of New Jersey to obtain a controlling interest in a huge German drug cartel called I. G. Farben. He pulled in his stronger competitors like Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan as partners, while making other, less powerful players, stockholders in Standard Oil. Those who would not come into the fold "were crushed" according to a Rockefeller biographer (W. Hoffman, David: Report on a Rockefeller {New York:Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1971}page 24.)

The report Flexner submitted to The Carnegie Foundation was titled "Medical Education in the United States and Canada". Page 22 of the report said: "the privileges of the medical school can no longer be open to casual strollers from the highway. It is necessary to install a doorkeeper who will, by critical scrutiny, ascertain the fitness of the applicant, a necessity suggested, in the first place, but consideration for the candidate, whose time and talents will serve him better in some other vocation, if he be unfit for this, and in the second, by consideration for a public entitled to protection from those whom the very boldness of modern medical strategy equips with instruments that, tremendously effective for good when rightly used, are all the more terrible for harm if ignorantly or incompetently employed".

***
The AMA came into existence in 1847. It is a private organization of allopathic physicians which serves the interests of its members, especially when it comes to influencing favorable legislation. It functions in every sense of the word as a union, although its members wear white collars instead of blue. Giving the AMA the power over the certification of medical schools is the equivalent of giving the Teamsters Union the exclusive right to decide on the laws of interstate commerce and transportation. Is it any wonder that the total number of medical schools in the United States went from 160 in 1906 (before the Flexner Report) to 85 in 1920 and further down to 69 schools in 1944? A little like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, no?

Not surprisingly, Flexner 'found' that any discipline that didn't use drugs to help cure the patient was tantamount to quackery and charlatanism. Medical schools that offered courses in bioelectric Medicine, Homeopathy or Eastern Medicine, for example, were told to either drop these courses from their curriculum or lose their accreditation and underwriting support. A few schools resisted for a time, but eventually most schools cooperated (or were closed down). A similar scenario was played out in Canada. It was attempted in England against Homeopathy, but it failed due to the personal intervention of the Royal Family who had received much relief and healing at the hands of Homeopathic healers in the 19th century. By the way, the AMA was found guilty of conspiracy against chiropractors in 1987 by a federal judge and fined a couple of million dollars. Here in America, a relentless campaign of misinformation, fraud, deception, and suppression of alternative therapies and healers has been in place for the better part of this century in order to keep highly effective alternative therapies from reaching any significant plateau of public awareness. Control is exerted through "news items" and propaganda from pro-establishment organizations like The American Medical Association, The American Cancer Society, The Diabetes Foundation, etc.; local medical boards; and government agencies like the FDA, The National Institute of Health (NIH), and The National Cancer Institute (NCI), The National Academy of Science, etc. with the full cooperation of main-stream media of course .

Over the past decades, hundreds of caring, concerned, and conscientious alternative healers have been jailed and abused like common criminals for the "crime" of curing people of life-threatening diseases in an "unapproved" manner by heavy-handed government agents who swoop down on clinics with drawn guns, flax jackets, and Gestapo manners. All the while, these same agents and agencies posture themselves before TV cameras and the public under the ludicrous pretense of being servants of the people and protectors of the common good.

The medico-drug cartel was summed up by J.W Hodge, M.D., of Niagara Falls, N.Y., in these words: 'The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the American Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization which ever managed a free people in this or any other age. Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of the AMA doctors' trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs Every practitioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the medical trust is denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the predatory trust doctors. Every sanitarian who attempts to restore the sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest extent.'

(see The Drug Story for more revelations about the AMA, the House of Rockefeller and the pharmaceutical industry)

At long last, however, the public's consciousness seems to have finally reached a critical mass and is now beginning to seriously question the efficacy and appropriateness of using orthodox therapies and allopathic medicine in general. Thank God. It's been too long overdue.


Chop-Shop-Hospitals: Cutting for Fun, Profits, and Giggles: Surgically Removing the Appendix, Tonsils, and Spleen


Creating The Polio Epidemic

Scientists, and some of the braver doctors, now wonder if the Polio Epidemic was caused by the high number of tonsillectomies done in the 1920's through the 1940's. They discovered that the only organ in the body which synthesizes the antibody for Polio (Poliomyelitis) is the tonsils. Persons with removed tonsils have extreme difficulty resisting infections by the Polio Virus. In the 1920's, 30's and 40's, children tonsils were removed regardless of their health. This was supposedly done for the sake of preventive medicine against tonsillitis, since allopathic doctors were falsely trained that the tonsils served no purpose. Traditional Chinese Medicine and Alternative Medicine had long recognized the tonsils as a crucial component of a strong immune system, but leaders of the orthodox medical establishment claimed that they needed scientific tests to prove that these internal organs were actually there for a reason, even as they continually ignored the consequences of removing them. This unique version of science is still practiced by the A.M.A., and the damage done by Polio resulted from it.

Don t Call It Manslaughter: Those Were Just Iatrogenic Deaths

Iatrogenic
(i' at ro gen ic)
adj.

1. Describes a disease, injury, or death that has been caused by surgery or medicine. 2. Having been a consequence of medical treatment.

In the late 1930's, further aggravating the situation was the newly created F.D.A.. It had quickly made it a priority to discourage the use of silver medical solutions, which were competing with its freshly created antibiotics industry. Prior to the industry-wide adoption of the new synthetic, sulfur based, antibiotic medicines, silver solutions were considered critical, all natural, and nontoxic medicines, which were fatal to viruses such as Polio.

Therefore, the Polio Epidemic was iatrogenic caused by the same medical establishment that pretends to be responsible for ending the epidemic. The epidemic began thusly: First, almost all children had their tonsils removed, and secondly, silver was removed from the medicines, eliminating the defenses which had kept Polio at bay for decades.


there, your ignorance is denied
all better now



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


edit on 8-9-2012 by Taupin Desciple because: Never mind



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
What gets me is the hit and run troll, he starts a thread and runs.
2nd



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Did you know that Frankincense is being researched for its anti-carcinogenic properties with blocking protiens from cancer cells, essentially starving the tumors.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by WWu777
 


Antibiotics are overused in our society and contribute to the problem of drug resistant disease and bacteria.

I can't remember where to find the story, but a doctor from the EU stopped using antibiotics at her hospital, locked them up and used them for emergencies only. Staph infections dissapeared almost overnight.


- If chemo is so bad and makes cancer worse, then why do they continue using it? It seems too obvious. Are there any studies or evidence that cancer patients who do not use chemo have a higher recovery rate than those who use it?


Chemotherapy kills cancer by killing ALL The cells in your body. It's a brute force treatment and hardly an effective way of treating cancer. If alternative methods were considered, there would be far more effective ways of treating cancer without the multitude of dangerous side effects.

HIV is a touchy subject. I won't go into it. I haven't done enough research to claim anything other than what modern science claims is true.

But holistic and natural medicines have been used for hundreds of thousands of years and you'll notice that as a society we keep getting sicker. Cancer, diabetes, alzheimers the list of ever increasing diseases goes on and on.

IF Pharmaceuticals were so usefull and were being made to cure us, we would not see such increased sickness in the population.

~Tenth


If we keep getting sicker, then why does our life expectancy keep increasing?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


When calculating the stats for long life, they include people who are suffering from diseases.

Life expectancy includes illness. The two are not related. I did not state we were dying in greater numbers, we are becoming sick in greater numbers, for longer periods of time.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I really don't want to get into complexity of one side of the pharma debate you bring. Antibiotics and treatments are one completely different thing from what many of have against the pharmaceutical industry, which is:

There is always some "new" condition that (IMO) is officially created so that a treatment can then be provided, which results in new medication and a new market for profit. While the symptoms of these new conditions certainly DO exist, to suggest that they are a "disorder" that must be treated with medication is the kicker.

There is always television marketing targeted toward the consumer. If your doctor is a doctor, and you come in with a condition, your doctor should recommend what is an appropriate treatment; HE/SHE should be the one to say, "oh, these are your symptoms/this is your condition, you need this." IMO, a consumer should not go to his or her doctor saying, "you think i can try THIS drug, that i saw a commercial for, because my legs twitch sometimes?" That's basically the consumer asking for medication, which is why the consumer is targeted, and why MILLIONS are spent to target said consumer.

In addition, simply by putting certain advertisements on the air, people, who had no adverse symptoms, might suddenly say, "hey, this happened to me the other day. I need a medication," when in fact it's the simple suggestion that gets them wanting the medication.

Pharma reps DO visit doctor's and get them to prescribe the newest and latest drugs. I have seen it first hand with people i know and anti-anxiety and depression medication.

The cost of the manufacture of ONE pill X compared to the cost of SALE of one pill is, for large number of types of medication, astronomical. If it takes $0.01 to make one pill X, and they sell it at 10.00 per pill, that is a HUGE profit.

If as much money was put into the industry of the R&D of new drugs as there was in the prevention--in stead of treatment--of conditions, we might actually get somewhere; however, that would mean a huge market loss from the pharma companies, said companies who also lobby the hell out of congress (see drug adverts as free speech, and targeting consumers).

Why are some medications (to help stop smoking, for example) NOT covered by insurance?

Why are the most needed medications for serious conditions often the most expensive?

Bottom line is Money.

These are only some of the things we have against the pharmaceutical industry.





top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join