phamarceutical companies vs. supplement companies (referring to one of coops posts)

redman24

redman24

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
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?
 
JDybya

JDybya

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Non-patentable substances = no where near the profits seen by big pharma.

I think that pharma does all it can...to make money. If they happen to help people along the way...bonus.
 

Daycrawler

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You're handpicking ingredients. As a whole, supplement companies will not produce novel products like a pharm company would.

Do you have any literature on the anti-depressants comment? I took several pharmacology courses in college, and all the research I've seen on SSRIs and SNRIs show positive effects for individuals suffering from depression.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
I just looked up "Zoloft no better than placebo" and got a lot of hits - no idea on reliability. I don't think BigPharma wants to cure anything it can treat long term - the guy on Central Bodybuilding is a Type I Diabetic and went through the math on this very issue. Then there's the 50,000 deaths caused by Vioxx - without anyone doing jail time, PhenFen, Statins, etc... They're scumbags, but some of their sh&t does work well and is useful. I also think their industry has changed course since the 50's - different mindset. They used to be curing things left and right - when was the last cure?
 

Daycrawler

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I just looked up "Zoloft no better than placebo" and got a lot of hits - no idea on reliability. I don't think BigPharma wants to cure anything it can treat long term - the guy on Central Bodybuilding is a Type I Diabetic and went through the math on this very issue. Then there's the 50,000 deaths caused by Vioxx - without anyone doing jail time, PhenFen, Statins, etc... They're scumbags, but some of their sh&t does work well and is useful. I also think their industry has changed course since the 50's - different mindset. They used to be curing things left and right - when was the last cure?
While searching for a cure, what do you do? Just leave people hopeless?

While I agree these companies can be ruthless and are motivated at least in part by profit, it doesn't diminish the fact that they've put out products that help treat and improve the quality of life for many, many people.

The process for these drugs is very intense, and the clinical trials they have to run are to help identify any negative side effects of the product. It's not magic, many pharmaceuticals will have their own myriad of side effects.

Also, what cure are you looking for? A cure for cancer? Depression? PTSD? These are all things that are being worked on but it's not simple to find a cure. It takes a ton of time, some luck and many, many clinical trials.
 
Quads_of_Stee

Quads_of_Stee

Well-known member
Awards
0
While searching for a cure, what do you do? Just leave people hopeless?

While I agree these companies can be ruthless and are motivated at least in part by profit, it doesn't diminish the fact that they've put out products that help treat and improve the quality of life for many, many people.

The process for these drugs is very intense, and the clinical trials they have to run are to help identify any negative side effects of the product. It's not magic, many pharmaceuticals will have their own myriad of side effects.

Also, what cure are you looking for? A cure for cancer? Depression? PTSD? These are all things that are being worked on but it's not simple to find a cure. It takes a ton of time, some luck and many, many clinical trials.
I think some people also forgot the crazy costs involved in making a new drug, especially making it pass through clinicals. While I personally wish pharamaceuticals wouldn't charge out the ass for things I can somewhat understand it. Except for this one scumbag:
 
paul56778

paul56778

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
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?
In relation to what you stated about not wanting to cure the issue with a range of illnesses, have you thought about the commercial side of it being more profitable to treat an illness rather than all out cure it due to the requirement of repeat treatment, e.g. Chemotherapy is still used due to being expensive and a massive money maker.
 

josun

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think some people also forgot the crazy costs involved in making a new drug, especially making it pass through clinicals. While I personally wish pharamaceuticals wouldn't charge out the ass for things I can somewhat understand it. Except for this one scumbag:
that guy is completely misunderstood, hes actually trying to help people
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
As others have said, pharm companies are out to make profits. Do they research and come out with the best products? Maybe. For instance, if I want an ACE inhibitor, there are some pharma products that will work better than beat juice for sure, and may actually be more narrowly targeted toward the pathway than beat juice. Keep in mind, two things have to be balanced - a powerful effect on the chemistry you want to change, without changing other chemical processes that you don't want to change. So, from that perspective, do they have the best products? Sometimes, yes.

You also have to keep in mind that doctors are told how to prescribe these drugs, and what to prescribe them for in a somewhat broad diagnostic setting. If you see these symptoms, here's what's going on chemically in an over view and you should use this drug to fix it. These doctors don't have the time to REALLY dig into the chemistry and actually KNOW what to look for. And this means that the doctors aren't tailoring their prescriptions to their clients. How many people with high blood pressure do you think are on Lisinopril? How many are using Telmisartan? I bet Lisinopril is prescribed MUCH more often because it's just a starndard, and the differences between the two drugs are rarely considered.

Mix into all of this the FDA, Government Regulations, Tort Law, and liability - and you can see that pharma companies are INCENTIVISED to avoid costly liabilities at all costs while maximizing profits. There are no incentives for these companies to actually cure people unless they can lock up the cure and even then it may not be in their best interest. I don't believe in conspiracies, but follow the incentives and you get the story.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Anyone see 'Prescription Thugs'? That former pharmaceutical rep that was interviewed had some interesting things to say. It's on Netflix.
 

Daycrawler

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Anyone see 'Prescription Thugs'? That former pharmaceutical rep that was interviewed had some interesting things to say. It's on Netflix.
Yeah. There's definitely a nasty side to the business. Especially on the painkiller side of the business. I'd also say the same for Adderall.

For instance, Vyvanse has a special enzyme in it that if its snorted, as people do with Adderall, the enzyme breaks down the stimulant preventing any high. So, for a company to produce that type of product just shows the risk level of Adderall.

Fwiw, I have taken Adderall before to study for finals and I can understand why it was/is amazingly addicting.
 

Qiod

New member
Awards
0
You bring up statins and red yeast rice. They are examples, especially statins, of the hype and fraud affecting both big industries ("phamarceutical companies" and "supplement companies") - google or bing "Do Garcinia Cambogia Side Effects Boost Diabetes?"

Because medical business is much larger than the supplement business you have much more scams, propaganda, lies, and deception in the former. And so you have more believers and followers of the former.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Does anyone ITT actually work in the industry, or are they speculating based on what you believe to be true?

I strongly recall coop getting into it with members who don't actually work in the industry, when he actually did and them trying to tell him he was wrong, lol.
 
Synapsin

Synapsin

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Does anyone ITT actually work in the industry, or are they speculating based on what you believe to be true?

I strongly recall coop getting into it with members who don't actually work in the industry, when he actually did and them trying to tell him he was wrong, lol.
I do, but I gave up on arguing with people online ages ago.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Does anyone ITT actually work in the industry, or are they speculating based on what you believe to be true?

I strongly recall coop getting into it with members who don't actually work in the industry, when he actually did and them trying to tell him he was wrong, lol.
No, I'm a bitter outcast. When I graduated from college, almost 15 years ago, I decided I wanted to be a pharma sale rep. I had VPs of pharmaceutical companies calling on my behalf to tell their HR people to interview me. A lot of these companies never interviewed me anyway, even though their VP brought my resume to them and told them he wanted them to interview me.

One day, I was at my doctor's office and he asked what I was looking to do and I told him. He laughed. I looked at him. He said, "You'll never get that job. You're not a blond woman with big tits."

One day I was at a Pfizer interview. I was sitting in a room, with a bunch of other candidates. I was looking around the room, and every one of the other people being interviewed was a REALLY good looking female. Not all blond mind you. But I was in good company. I started talking to them and most of them didn't even know what position they were applying for, or what geography in new England they wanted to cover. I doubt any of them could hold a conversation about chemistry or even list off the drugs that Pfizer wanted them to sell.

I never got a call back. They weren't interested in someone actually knowing how to help people. They just wanted to get a doctor's attention so they could sell more over priced drugs.

Having said that, this is a necessary evil in some ways. This is also how they get the funds to pay for all this research and come out with good products. And to say they don't have good products is crazy. I don't think anyone on here would choose RC chems over a pharmaceutical grade product. And coming out with new compounds isn't easy. But the application of these products isn't always so great, and part of that is the nature of life itself.
 
Synapsin

Synapsin

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
No, I'm a bitter outcast. When I graduated from college, almost 15 years ago, I decided I wanted to be a pharma sale rep. I had VPs of pharmaceutical companies calling on my behalf to tell their HR people to interview me. A lot of these companies never interviewed me anyway, even though their VP brought my resume to them and told them he wanted them to interview me.

One day, I was at my doctor's office and he asked what I was looking to do and I told him. He laughed. I looked at him. He said, "You'll never get that job. You're not a blond woman with big tits."

One day I was at a Pfizer interview. I was sitting in a room, with a bunch of other candidates. I was looking around the room, and every one of the other people being interviewed was a REALLY good looking female. Not all blond mind you. But I was in good company. I started talking to them and most of them didn't even know what position they were applying for, or what geography in new England they wanted to cover. I doubt any of them could hold a conversation about chemistry or even list off the drugs that Pfizer wanted them to sell.

I never got a call back. They weren't interested in someone actually knowing how to help people. They just wanted to get a doctor's attention so they could sell more over priced drugs.

Having said that, this is a necessary evil in some ways. This is also how they get the funds to pay for all this research and come out with good products. And to say they don't have good products is crazy. I don't think anyone on here would choose RC chems over a pharmaceutical grade product. And coming out with new compounds isn't easy. But the application of these products isn't always so great, and part of that is the nature of life itself.
Sales is much different than research, and tbh that is typical in most industries. Sales staff just gives docs copies of trial results, etc. They don't really "educate" the doctors on the newer drugs. Most restaurants typically hire attractive servers, lol
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Sales is much different than research, and tbh that is typical in most industries. Sales staff just gives docs copies of trial results, etc. They don't really "educate" the doctors on the newer drugs. Most restaurants typically hire attractive servers, lol
Yeah, I was saying that it is the nature of life itself...like you said, every industry does it to some degree. And the point is, pharmaceuticals are businesses, just like everything else. There is good and bad to that.

And most restaurants will hire a good looking person who can do the job - my point is, these people didn't have a clue why they were even there!! Like you said, their job isn't to actually help anyone or provide real information, their job is to deliver pamphlets to a doctor.

And I agree - the research side is much different. The sales is just part of the business side of things. I don't think most people actually think doctors or someone trying to cure cancer is out to be malicious. It's the business ethics that constrain these individuals that we have issues with.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Plus, it's rare for a person *in* an industry, to trash talk it, if they plan on staying in it and making mortgage payments.
 
BCseacow83

BCseacow83

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
If you look at the diseases that have been cured they all had pretty clear causes and more times than not it was one virus/bacteria. I doubt there will ever be a silver bullet for all cancers, too many causes/differences. Take AIDs/HIV it has been around since 1959. It was not widely studied till much later. It takes a very long time to figure some of this out. Don't think for a second that the maker of a cure could not simply charge what they want for it. Say I have cancer and the average life expectency is a year with my case. The pharma company can simple average the lost in treatments and make it up in cure price. Not to mention what about the companies that DO NOT have the treatments in there companies holdings, you don't think they would love to take the whole maket share with a cure?
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I for one do fully believe that aids and cancer have a cure that are being hidden from us.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
If you look at the diseases that have been cured they all had pretty clear causes and more times than not it was one virus/bacteria. I doubt there will ever be a silver bullet for all cancers, too many causes/differences. Take AIDs/HIV it has been around since 1959. It was not widely studied till much later. It takes a very long time to figure some of this out. Don't think for a second that the maker of a cure could not simply charge what they want for it. Say I have cancer and the average life expectency is a year with my case. The pharma company can simple average the lost in treatments and make it up in cure price. Not to mention what about the companies that DO NOT have the treatments in there companies holdings, you don't think they would love to take the whole maket share with a cure?
Of course after you know and understand something it seems simple and easy. But a lot of the diseases we have cures for or treatments for had a lot of dead ends. Also, to the medical fields credit, just 70 years ago you went to a hospital to die, nothing more. I know a guy who is 77 and when he was 13 his dad had a heart attack. They called the doctor, who advised them to put him in bed and have him rest. That was the best medical treatment they had for a heart attack less than 65 years ago! Now, not only can we operate but we have machines that will make small incisions and get the job done with little tissue damage. That's a big improvement in 65 years that we often overlook. And then we expect the best treatment should be available and free to everyone.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I for one do fully believe that aids and cancer have a cure that are being hidden from us.
Knowledge is available to all. If someone has figured it out, there would be evidence and it would be easier for others to figure out eventually. And if you are getting money for cancer research that you don't need at all, why wouldn't you stop spending money on research and just reap profits? Every dollar saved is a tax free dollar earned.

We all have pubmed research available. Have you seen evidence of a cancer cure?
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Does anyone ITT actually work in the industry, or are they speculating based on what you believe to be true?

I strongly recall coop getting into it with members who don't actually work in the industry, when he actually did and them trying to tell him he was wrong, lol.
Thank you!!! I do work for several pharma companies and these threads always drive me nuts. If you're using the term "chemo" to describe general cancer treatments, then you don't know jack about oncology.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
One day I was at a Pfizer interview. I was sitting in a room, with a bunch of other candidates. I was looking around the room, and every one of the other people being interviewed was a REALLY good looking female. Not all blond mind you. But I was in good company. I started talking to them and most of them didn't even know what position they were applying for, or what geography in new England they wanted to cover. I doubt any of them could hold a conversation about chemistry or even list off the drugs that Pfizer wanted them to sell.

I never got a call back. They weren't interested in someone actually knowing how to help people. They just wanted to get a doctor's attention so they could sell more over priced drugs.
That's not just pharma. That's sales in general. The reps though are just messengers. They're told exactly what they can and can't say. Show me an MSL and then I might have a little more respect as they tend to at least have a PhD in a science field.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I for one do fully believe that aids and cancer have a cure that are being hidden from us.
There isnt one cause for cancer, and so there isn't one cure. Let me ask you something, if you were a researcher that just cured the world from aids or various cancers, would you keep that quiet, or would you shout that from the rooftops?

I didnt shut up about it when I thought invented an exercise used to stabilise the hips haha
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
There isnt one cause for cancer, and so there isn't one cure. Let me ask you something, if you were a researcher that just cured the world from aids or various cancers, would you keep that quiet, or would you shout that from the rooftops?

I didnt shut up about it when I thought invented an exercise used to stabilise the hips haha
The conspiracy theorists are actually giving the pharma companies too much credit. We are still so far away from solving things that it's scary.
 
Woody

Woody

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I just looked up "Zoloft no better than placebo" and got a lot of hits - no idea on reliability. I don't think BigPharma wants to cure anything it can treat long term - the guy on Central Bodybuilding is a Type I Diabetic and went through the math on this very issue. Then there's the 50,000 deaths caused by Vioxx - without anyone doing jail time, PhenFen, Statins, etc... They're scumbags, but some of their sh&t does work well and is useful. I also think their industry has changed course since the 50's - different mindset. They used to be curing things left and right - when was the last cure?
There's a cure for Hep C now.
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
There isnt one cause for cancer, and so there isn't one cure. Let me ask you something, if you were a researcher that just cured the world from aids or various cancers, would you keep that quiet, or would you shout that from the rooftops?

I didnt shut up about it when I thought invented an exercise used to stabilise the hips haha
Good point. I was more joking but its hard to give a sarcastic tone in writing. However, i do feel that we are close to cure for aids, and not far from cancer. I get there isnt one cause for cancer. Although we have built in mechanism for fighting it. Create things that mimick these but stronger you do have a "cure". They are already doing that too, they are already selling artifical t-cells that are "programed" to fight a certian type of cancer(cant remeber what it is). When it first came out you saw commercial for it all the time, but now i cant remeber the name and its only been a couple months.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Good point. I was more joking but its hard to give a sarcastic tone in writing. However, i do feel that we are close to cure for aids, and not far from cancer. I get there isnt one cause for cancer. Although we have built in mechanism for fighting it. Create things that mimick these but stronger you do have a "cure". They are already doing that too, they are already selling artifical t-cells that are "programed" to fight a certian type of cancer(cant remeber what it is). When it first came out you saw commercial for it all the time, but now i cant remeber the name and its only been a couple months.
Immuno-oncology is far from close. Modifying the immune system is beyond tricky. Ramp things up too much and now you have autoimmune disease
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Immuno-oncology is far from close. Modifying the immune system is beyond tricky. Ramp things up too much and now you have autoimmune disease
See these are things i dont know. But i am trying to learn
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
See these are things i dont know. But i am trying to learn
And it's awesome that you are! Messing with the immune system to target cancer cells is a great idea and has a lot of potential, but that one needs to be fine tuned a lot.
 

Daycrawler

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Thank you!!! I do work for several pharma companies and these threads always drive me nuts. If you're using the term "chemo" to describe general cancer treatments, then you don't know jack about oncology.
I'm not a doctor but I've seen House M.D several times. Wilson's job didn't look too hard.
 

Rob1882

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not a doctor but I've seen House M.D several times. Wilson's job didn't look too hard.
Lol fkn dead

Ben Carson a neurosurgeon.. I mean come on.. ;) how hard can it be? :p

Gots me some gifted hand ya'll















I keed I keed
 
BCseacow83

BCseacow83

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Good point. I was more joking but its hard to give a sarcastic tone in writing. However, i do feel that we are close to cure for aids, and not far from cancer. I get there isnt one cause for cancer. Although we have built in mechanism for fighting it. Create things that mimick these but stronger you do have a "cure". They are already doing that too, they are already selling artifical t-cells that are "programed" to fight a certian type of cancer(cant remeber what it is). When it first came out you saw commercial for it all the time, but now i cant remeber the name and its only been a couple months.
IF you watch the awesome mini-series "Cancer: The Emperor of all Malladies" on PBS, it's free on their site and other streaming devices, you will notice that we have been on the "cusp" of a cure pretty much since day one according to some. The problem is you can't know how close you are to the finish line if you don't know where the hell it is. If we knew for instance that this causes all cancer and all we have to do it stop this one process and we are really close then you could predict how close we are.

No doubt we KNOW more than ever and are learning/discovering at a fast rate. The problem is the more we learn the more we discover that we have no idea about. It is akin to waiting in line for an amusement ride when the ride's line is indoors, Universal Island of Adventure anyone??? You look at what you can see of the line and think, "Hey we are close!" Then you turn a corner and see another 45mins of line in front of you DOH!!! This is cancer research.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
There's a cure for Hep C now.
*Golf Clap* :D Ok, awesome, lets look at numbers:

Hep C -

An estimated 3.2 million people in the United States are living with chronic hepatitis C infection, and most don't feel ill or know they are infected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
So 3.2 million, with *most* not even spending money on treatment because they don't know they have it.

Diabetes -

Prevalence: In 2012, 29.1 million Americans, or 9.3% of the population, had diabetes... Undiagnosed: Of the 29.1 million, 21.0 million were diagnosed, and 8.1 million were undiagnosed.

American Diabetes Association®
21 Million versus what - 1 million Hep C'ers?, paying for Glucometers, Test Strips, Glucagon Kits, Insulin Pumps, Syringes, Insulin, Pump Site Injectors, etc...

I think that some opinions are that sure, they'll cure some small stuff - but the long term treatment diseases are of the "why buy the cow" variety.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I think that some opinions are that sure, they'll cure some small stuff - but the long term treatment diseases are of the "why buy the cow" variety.
Why would it not make more business sense to keep people alive so that they could get other diseases? Think about it. You're saying that the pharma companies are hiding cures for terminal diseases. How does that make logical business sense at all. That's letting all of the customers die. And sure, there are always more customers coming along, but wouldn't it make even more business sense to cure somebody of one cancer so that they could get another disease a few years later. Which makes more sense, a company building a car that blows up after 6 months and kills the driver or a car that runs for 5 years and keeps the driver alive to buy another car.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
*Golf Clap* :D Ok, awesome, lets look at numbers:

Hep C -



So 3.2 million, with *most* not even spending money on treatment because they don't know they have it.

Diabetes -



21 Million versus what - 1 million Hep C'ers?, paying for Glucometers, Test Strips, Glucagon Kits, Insulin Pumps, Syringes, Insulin, Pump Site Injectors, etc...

I think that some opinions are that sure, they'll cure some small stuff - but the long term treatment diseases are of the "why buy the cow" variety.
You are lumping two very different forms if diabetes together, and both require different treatments. You cannot apply treatment for type 1 for a purpose with type 2.

Type 1 is a whole lot rarer than the generally self inflicted type 2. Want to limit your chance of developing type 2? Dont get obese.

The best preventative measure is already under your control.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
You are lumping two very different forms if diabetes together, and both require different treatments. You cannot apply treatment for type 1 for a purpose with type 2.

Type 1 is a whole lot rarer than the generally self inflicted type 2. Want to limit your chance of developing type 2? Dont get obese.

The best preventative measure is already under your control.
The outlay of cash to treat *just* the 2 Million Type I's, still dwarfs the bottle of Anti-Viral pills a Hep C'er takes. I've had to buy *2* Insulin Pumps - IIRC the Co-Pay was like $1500 each. Please tell me you are not saying that Diabetes (even just Type I) isn't a HUGE money maker????? Especially compared to Hep C.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Why would it not make more business sense to keep people alive so that they could get other diseases? Think about it. You're saying that the pharma companies are hiding cures for terminal diseases. How does that make logical business sense at all. That's letting all of the customers die. And sure, there are always more customers coming along, but wouldn't it make even more business sense to cure somebody of one cancer so that they could get another disease a few years later. Which makes more sense, a company building a car that blows up after 6 months and kills the driver or a car that runs for 5 years and keeps the driver alive to buy another car.
I never said they hide the cure for terminal stuff - my "expertise" is in Type I Diabetes. I pretty much agree with Geoff (Who's a Type I) from the Central Bodybuilding Podcast in that stuff that doesn't kill you (ie. treatment lets you live a damn long time) get's low billing. Other people are on the Cancer kick, not me.
 

Daycrawler

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
The outlay of cash to treat *just* the 2 Million Type I's, still dwarfs the bottle of Anti-Viral pills a Hep C'er takes. I've had to buy *2* Insulin Pumps - IIRC the Co-Pay was like $1500 each. Please tell me you are not saying that Diabetes (even just Type I) isn't a HUGE money maker????? Especially compared to Hep C.
I'm curious. Do you know anyone who works in the medical industry, specifically medical devices? It's incredibly regulated, and with that the R&D cost alone is enormous for a medical device. So, yes while $1500 may seem like a lot for an Insulin Pump after your co-pay, the cost to produce that product from inception to production was millions.

One of my best friends works for Medtronic doing R&D, specifically in the realm of diabetes and the cost to produce a new product is incredible.

Is it a money maker? Sure, but the money to make up the initial cost and continue to push forward R&D has to come from somewhere.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
The outlay of cash to treat *just* the 2 Million Type I's, still dwarfs the bottle of Anti-Viral pills a Hep C'er takes. I've had to buy *2* Insulin Pumps - IIRC the Co-Pay was like $1500 each. Please tell me you are not saying that Diabetes (even just Type I) isn't a HUGE money maker????? Especially compared to Hep C.
Any medical care in the US is expensive. Guess what? I get healthcare for next to free and *gasp* diabetes is not cured for me either.

Do you understand the etiology of diabetes? Do you understand how one might cure diabetes? Because you don't work in the field, the answer seems simple to you, but it isn't simple.

If you think you can solve it, get amongst finding a cure. It really irks me when people who have no clue, think they could solve the world yet have no idea what it takes to solve it.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I never said they hide the cure for terminal stuff - my "expertise" is in Type I Diabetes. I pretty much agree with Geoff (Who's a Type I) from the Central Bodybuilding Podcast in that stuff that doesn't kill you (ie. treatment lets you live a damn long time) get's low billing. Other people are on the Cancer kick, not me.
Type 1 incidence is a lot lower than type 2. And type 1 can be seemingly random and occur at almost any time.

Your own immune system destroys islet cells - so how exactly do you get the body to produce more of these cells once they destroyed?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21248163

Again, not so simple. Plus, cancer kills in many cases and effects a wider number of people, so of course cure hunters will chase the one that effects the greater number of people and has the propensity to be destructive.

There is a lot about the body we still dont know, and even though we may know how things happen, we often do not know exactly why.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
@jiggz - I wish we had kind of like a wiki medical research.com where average people could somehow learn and contribute to these cures.

I don't think many people actually believe there is some guy in a lab coat withholding cure. I think there are business practices at play and govt regulations that make things way too convoluted and thus turn the focus onto making money. I mean, the point if business is to make money....no fault there.

I would bet there are more researchers than we could imagine though who have done a study that showed promise, and need funding to further research and just can't get it because someone doesn't understand the impact.

And yes, I've been trying to casually read up on biochemistry and medicine, etc. And it becomes awe inspiring how things all click but how many pieces of the puzzle are missing. We know so much, but we are so far away still.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
@jiggz - I wish we had kind of like a wiki medical research.com where average people could somehow learn and contribute to these cures.

I don't think many people actually believe there is some guy in a lab coat withholding cure. I think there are business practices at play and govt regulations that make things way too convoluted and thus turn the focus onto making money. I mean, the point if business is to make money....no fault there.

I would bet there are more researchers than we could imagine though who have done a study that showed promise, and need funding to further research and just can't get it because someone doesn't understand the impact.

And yes, I've been trying to casually read up on biochemistry and medicine, etc. And it becomes awe inspiring how things all click but how many pieces of the puzzle are missing. We know so much, but we are so far away still.
Trust me, you do not want the average joe contributing to research lol. People simply think they know more than they do. How do you cure something that you do not fully understand? Many people believe that scientists and researchers have all the answers when they simply do not. What caused the immune system to attack islet cells? How do you stop it? How do you make islet cells produce insulin again once destroyed?

You alter one thing and you cause an issue somewhere else. It's a delicate balance.

While it is awesome that the average joe might want to help, or has read a select few of research papers on a subject, that does not by any means make you an expert on how to solve an issue. Look at what happened when the average joe news reporter caught wind of the lipid hypothesis.

Money is important, it is a business afterall, but you cure one thing and we die of something else. People think that there is more money simply pumping out drugs and prolonging illnesses to milk it, but that is based on a conspiracy you hold founded in nothing but speculation. Where are your credientials? What about evidence?

Do car manufacturers purposely create cars that break down to keep themselves in business?

What about builders? Surely we can produce materials that last forever.

What about sparkys?
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Trust me, you do not want the average joe contributing to research lol. People simply think they know more than they do. How do you cure something that you do not fully understand? Many people believe that scientists and researchers have all the answers when they simply do not. What caused the immune system to attack islet cells? How do you stop it? How do you make islet cells produce insulin again once destroyed?

You alter one thing and you cause an issue somewhere else. It's a delicate balance.

While it is awesome that the average joe might want to help, or has read a select few of research papers on a subject, that does not by any means make you an expert on how to solve an issue. Look at what happened when the average joe news reporter caught wind of the lipid hypothesis.

Money is important, it is a business afterall, but you cure one thing and we die of something else. People think that there is more money simply pumping out drugs and prolonging illnesses to milk it, but that is based on a conspiracy you hold founded in nothing but speculation. Where are your credientials? What about evidence?

Do car manufacturers purposely create cars that break down to keep themselves in business?

What about builders? Surely we can produce materials that last forever.

What about sparkys?
I hear ya man. I don't hold a co piracy theory necessarily. I am kind of on both sides of this one.
 

NewAgeMayan

Well-known member
Awards
0
Ill admit, as a casual observer it is really easy and tempting to let stereotypes guide ones thinking on this topic.

I mean, to "caricature-ize" the two sides, the skeptic position sometimes feels to be a symptom of the "X-Files" or "Alex Jones" culture, whereas the opposition is "Nah, big pharma would never do that!!"

My layman's guess is that, in reality, there is no sinister Commercialist conspiracy going on; rather, if anything, the apparent "no cure here" is a symptom of the system, and not some conscious decision that has been made by a Board of Overlords.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Ill admit, as a casual observer it is really easy and tempting to let stereotypes guide ones thinking on this topic.

I mean, to "caricature-ize" the two sides, the skeptic position sometimes feels to be a symptom of the "X-Files" or "Alex Jones" culture, whereas the opposition is "Nah, big pharma would never do that!!"

My layman's guess is that, in reality, there is no sinister Commercialist conspiracy going on; rather, if anything, the apparent "no cure here" is a symptom of the system, and not some conscious decision that has been made by a Board of Overlords.
I certainly won't argue that pharma company is big money, but that doesn't automatically mean they're holding out on anything. There also seems to be a lot of throughts on here that researchers are making money off of any of this. The CEOs and VPs are making a LOT of money, but the researchers make way, way less. I'm talking over a million and under 100k, and sometimes 40 or 50k which may sound like a lot of money to some, but doesn't go very far when you've got over 100k in student loans to pay off.

But yes, pharma is a business just like anything else. People seem to want things for free, but also want breakthrough discoveries that cost money.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
@jiggz - I wish we had kind of like a wiki medical research.com where average people could somehow learn and contribute to these cures.
Funding is hard to get and researchers need to be creative to keep alive, both in academia and in private pharma companies. If you want to learn about diseases and possible therapies, I think it would be great for you to email a researcher with your ideas. If there is an area or disease that you are particularly interested in, I would be more than happy to help you find people to reach out to. I can't guarantee that they'll all be receptive, but I personally would never have turned away somebody that wants to help me think outside of the box. Researchers typically love to talk about their research. It's their life and it's really long hours trying to find one tiny piece of a puzzle that nobody will ever realize that you had any part of. This is why I take it so personally when people think researchers sit around the lab lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills while the cure for all diseases is locked away in a filing cabinet.
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
People have mentioned "when was the last cure" and saying that pharma doesnt fund cures, but makes medicine to treat rather then cure. I think the reason why we arent seeing as much for cures, has a lot to do with ethics. We have ethics alot better ethics now then they did 50 years ago. Doctors did alot of medical testing to mental ill patient and mentally handicaped, that would definitely be illegal now.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Any medical care in the US is expensive. Guess what? I get healthcare for next to free and *gasp* diabetes is not cured for me either.

Do you understand the etiology of diabetes? Do you understand how one might cure diabetes? Because you don't work in the field, the answer seems simple to you, but it isn't simple.

If you think you can solve it, get amongst finding a cure. It really irks me when people who have no clue, think they could solve the world yet have no idea what it takes to solve it.
Yes Jiigzz, I think I can cure Diabetes.... Come on man. Apparently you believe in the altruistic good that permeates the pharma industry. As a layman, I've seen enough evidence backed data that says they will get away with what they can, and when they F up (Vioxx, Phen-Fen, etc...), nothing happens anyway. Man, I could go on about Glucometers and Test Strips all day, what a racket that is, but I'm sure there's no monetary incentive behind that too, LOL. Anyway, I'm just giving an opinion that I believe BigP would choose profits uber alles if given the choice - not that I KNOW they are standing on cures.
 

Similar threads


Top