it has been posted numerous times that pharmaceutical companies with their billions of dollars of research money will always be able to produce something more effective than a supplement company ever could.
i am specifically referring to one of mr.coopers posts here as i cannot post in the thread:
"I agree. People like to think pharma is holding back and not giving us the best drugs in each category, but the reality (I have friends and family who work in the industry) is that pharm companies go at each other's necks to create the next best product. They literally hire spies to sit in on conferences and infiltrate other companies to get a headstart on new drug developments. With such fierce competition and literally billions spent on creating and discovering effective drugs, you can bet that nothing in nature can even come close to drugs.
I consider our R&D department, with 2 MDs and a PhD, to be one of the best in the industry (your mind would be blown at other companies' "R&D"). I know for me at least, I'm actively scanning a host of scientific journals every monthly issue for new compounds, mapping out molecular interactions to see downstream effects, verifying safety, etc... Most of the novel candidates we source are tested right away, and I often like to be the first tester since I can monitor vitals and labwork and play with doses. Then it goes on to more in-house testing and even then it's usually not approved.
Our approach is meticulous, but I'd be in dreamland if I stood here and said that our R&D efforts outperformed pharm companies with billion dollar budgets, gigantic labs across the world, and thousands of employees. They will always win in terms of HOW WELL THE COMPOUND DOES ITS JOB (side effects are a different story). "
so, why is berberine as effective or more effective than metformin? why are there no psychopharmaceuticals that work well for most people, i.e. antidepressants which in reality (not in studies done by pharm companies) don't work for most people? the billions of dollars may count for new innovations but from then one most medicines are simply slight modifications of other medicines, which do not work any better than the original, for example escitalopram compared to citalopram.
also there is a good chance that medical companies do not even want to cure the patient, i have talked to some researchers who are working on selective chemotherapeutic agents which work only on cancer cells but not healthy cells, but there is no funding and almost no chance for these products to ever reach the market, as no big pharma seems to be interested in such a medication.
what is peoples general consensus on this subject? this is not to be mistaken as a conspiracy theory, i simply do not think a pharmaceutical company would not benefit from completely curing an illness, especially not if the compound for some reason is not patentable. wouldn't it lie in big pharmas interest to keep patients coming back for more medication on a life long basis? when we look at statins for example, are they really a necesssary medication when they are based on red yeast rice and deplete coq10 levels, which in turn is again bad for the heart, which could lead to the sale of more heart-medication etc.
so, any opinions on this?
i am specifically referring to one of mr.coopers posts here as i cannot post in the thread:
"I agree. People like to think pharma is holding back and not giving us the best drugs in each category, but the reality (I have friends and family who work in the industry) is that pharm companies go at each other's necks to create the next best product. They literally hire spies to sit in on conferences and infiltrate other companies to get a headstart on new drug developments. With such fierce competition and literally billions spent on creating and discovering effective drugs, you can bet that nothing in nature can even come close to drugs.
I consider our R&D department, with 2 MDs and a PhD, to be one of the best in the industry (your mind would be blown at other companies' "R&D"). I know for me at least, I'm actively scanning a host of scientific journals every monthly issue for new compounds, mapping out molecular interactions to see downstream effects, verifying safety, etc... Most of the novel candidates we source are tested right away, and I often like to be the first tester since I can monitor vitals and labwork and play with doses. Then it goes on to more in-house testing and even then it's usually not approved.
Our approach is meticulous, but I'd be in dreamland if I stood here and said that our R&D efforts outperformed pharm companies with billion dollar budgets, gigantic labs across the world, and thousands of employees. They will always win in terms of HOW WELL THE COMPOUND DOES ITS JOB (side effects are a different story). "
so, why is berberine as effective or more effective than metformin? why are there no psychopharmaceuticals that work well for most people, i.e. antidepressants which in reality (not in studies done by pharm companies) don't work for most people? the billions of dollars may count for new innovations but from then one most medicines are simply slight modifications of other medicines, which do not work any better than the original, for example escitalopram compared to citalopram.
also there is a good chance that medical companies do not even want to cure the patient, i have talked to some researchers who are working on selective chemotherapeutic agents which work only on cancer cells but not healthy cells, but there is no funding and almost no chance for these products to ever reach the market, as no big pharma seems to be interested in such a medication.
what is peoples general consensus on this subject? this is not to be mistaken as a conspiracy theory, i simply do not think a pharmaceutical company would not benefit from completely curing an illness, especially not if the compound for some reason is not patentable. wouldn't it lie in big pharmas interest to keep patients coming back for more medication on a life long basis? when we look at statins for example, are they really a necesssary medication when they are based on red yeast rice and deplete coq10 levels, which in turn is again bad for the heart, which could lead to the sale of more heart-medication etc.
so, any opinions on this?