BigPharma- if you didn't hate them before, you will now!

[Koman]

Big pharma is big, bad, but we can't live without them unfortunately... : (

 

[Petrodus]

The FDA, Big Pharma & The Lies

 

[mrfixit]

What is extremely sad is that there have been and still are cures in nature for many diseases we face today. Our ancestors knew and in some cultures and societies they still use these. If you try and bring this out you will be labeled a new age cultist or worse in some cases. I for one research every prescription my doctor wants to give me I then decide if I'm going to take it or not based on that. Problem is most people don't do this as they trust their physician to make the correct choices for them. Just be aware and read up on all this stuff. An informed decision is the best one.

 

[Petrodus]

 

[Petrodus]

My friends ...
The ugly reality is Big Pharma couldn't care less if everyone
knows the truth. The FDA is in place to insure
Big Pharma's business and prevent any competition.

The FDA will show up, with their guns drawn, anytime anyone
or organization promotes anything to be healthy ... other than
FDA Approved BP Drugs (period)

Unless you educate yourself in alternative health related
natural remedies and cures ... You have no choices available
to you than Big Pharma products ... which really are not
remedies and cures ... because BP is not in the health care
business...they are in the drug maintenance business.

 

[PDADoc]

What is extremely sad is that there have been and still are cures in nature for many diseases we face today. Our ancestors knew and in some cultures and societies they still use these. If you try and bring this out you will be labeled a new age cultist or worse in some cases. I for one research every prescription my doctor wants to give me I then decide if I'm going to take it or not based on that. Problem is most people don't do this as they trust their physician to make the correct choices for them. Just be aware and read up on all this stuff. An informed decision is the best one.

If only it were truly this simple. Believe me, contrary to what many people would like to believe, not every physician is in the pocket of big pharma or is imperious enough not to consider every possible option when someone's life is at stake.

There are a few things going on here: one, what you say is true, there are indeed natural remedies that MAY help people with certain illnesses, but what is usually left out of this statement is that the situation is far more nuanced than that. For one, many natural remedies caused just as much harm (or perhaps more) for some patients who took them as the illness they were trying to treat. People like to talk about the Chinese and Native Americans and even the Egyptians and their approaches to medicine, and many of their remedies did indeed work, but what isn't talked about is the number of people who weren't helped, or even killed by these same remedies.

Now, over the last couple of decades, if I've learned anything, it's this: people are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of whatever information is placed in front of them. Two, some people are inherently distrustful of physicians in general (like my father-in-law) and will therefore seek out any information they think will contradict them. Three, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing --for anyone-- but especially without the education and knowledge base and experience to disseminate what is and isn't true or feasible. The internet may give people access to information, but it isn't going to make you a physician (or lawyer, for that matter).

It's probably best to gather the information and discuss it with your physician and others as well before deciding what's going to work for you.

 

[Debbie Lee]

Hey!

I just thought I would share a section of an essay I wrote in May. Genuinely, if you didn't hate the BPs before, you will after this! I appreciate that this is not specifically about nicotine but I'd like to show you the information I discovered. I am able to share this with you now because my final grade for my masters has been decided (distinction!).

To add some context to this essay, the title was 'What does it mean to speak of evil as 'banal'? How might the documenation of 'social suffering' expose the 'banality of evil' in our times?'

For those who haven't read the book, Hannah Arendt wrote a book about the Eichmann Trial and described his evil as 'banal' because he effectively signed the death warrants for millions of people during the genocide in Nazi occupied Europe. He was a pen-pusher, a bureaucrat. He ticked a box and went home to his family. This is not to say that the evils of his crime are no less horrendous, but that human beings are capable of such evil by ticking a box or signing a form. It's a hotly contested book and if you'd like to debate it's merits, let's do it elsewhere. I present this section of my essay for the statistics and the historical details within, not the philosophical debate.

Please, go ahead and read... I'd be interested to know your response.x

P.S. If this makes you angry, you should read the section on mobile phones!!!

In the mid 1980s, Western society became aware of a new, incurable disease. HIV and AIDS medications to slow the progression of the disease have been made available but these are costly. In 1999, Monbiot reported that twenty-two percent of pregnant women in South Africa were HIV positive and within ten years, the average life expectancy would drop from fifty-nine to forty years of age (Monbiot, 1999). The South African Government began taking steps to produce cheaper, generic versions of antiretroviral drugs to prevent the spread of the disease from mother to foetus and to lessen the chances of contracting the disease after rape. A new law passed allowed the Government to compulsorily purchase the rights to drugs or buy the drugs more cheaply from countries producing them. Some research into HIV and AIDS medication had been publically funded but the United States Congress overwhelmingly voted to prevent the South African Government from manufacturing the drugs which could have saved many thousands of lives. Had South Africa succeeded the pharmaceutical companies’ share values would have decreased and, as Monbiot scathingly wrote, ‘nothing, even the lives of millions, can be permitted to threaten the value of their shares’ (Monbiot, 1999).
Stavudine was invented at Yale University in 1994. Between 1994 and 2002, the drug had earned the university two hundred and sixty one million dollars. In the United States, daily use of the drug would cost the patient $8.66 but in South Africa, the drug could be bought for the daily cost of $4.46, however, this was still far too expensive for widespread use. While one inventor of the drug, Dr William Prusoff, was happy for the drug to be widespread, saying ‘people shouldn’t die for economic reasons, because they can’t afford the drug. If Aids was completely solved and no royalties came in, I would be very happy’, thirty-nine pharmaceutical companies sued the South African government (Demenet, 2002).
HIV and AIDS is one of many diseases impacting on the lives of ordinary human beings living in Africa. The treatment for the disease is one of many which are not ‘economically viable’ to give to the masses. The cure of sleeping sickness, caused by the tsetse fly, for example, was found to be so expensive for the patient that it became unusable and was no longer manufactured by the inventing pharmaceutical company. The patent was later transferred to the World Health Organisation but a manufacturer for the drug was difficult to find, given the difficulties in raising profits. Similarly, the cure for leishmaniosis, a common parasitic disease found in Africa, remained in the laboratory for years without going into a production because it was feared there was no ‘guarantee of a return on the investment’ (Bulard,2000 ).
Over a decade later, the battle for generic drugs continues. In 2011, Mumbai patent office rejected the patent for Kaletra in India for the treatment of HIV and AIDS. Cheaper versions of the drug have now been manufactured and are ready for consumption in south-Saharan Africa. It is worth noting that five million people are alive in Africa only because they have access to these drugs and at least ten million more people need access (Boseley, 2011). Estimates of the cost to human life under the Nazi’s genocide vary from six to ten million people (Jones, 2006:147)
Were the profits from HIV and AIDS medications reinvested in new research and treatments, one might suggest that the action of pharmaceutical companies was somewhat understandable, if not justifiable. Reinvestment in research is particularly important because HIV gradually becomes resistant to medications (Bosely, 2011). The reality, however, is that eighty percent of biomedical research funding at Yale university is publically subsidised, deriving from the National Institute of Health (Demenet, 2002). The cost to human life without these medications is unimaginable but the cost of human life was quantified by the Clinton Health Access Initiative at four hundred and forty dollars per life, per year. With generic drugs to cost would be less than eighty dollars per life, per year (Boseley, 2011). The pharmaceutical companies and United States government, concerned for the economic stability of their country, are placing the bottom line of an accounts balance ahead of the lives of millions of people across the globe. The lives of those infect with HIV are seemingly ‘superfluous’ (Arendt, 1973:459) to the economic requirements of these companies.

GREAT READ AND I ALREADY WAS AWARE OF ALL THIS AND I cant stand big PHARMA never have ever liked them or BIG TABACCO and especially the FDA. SUCH EVIL DOERS AND I MEAN EVIL PEOPLE ARE AT THE HEAD OF ALL THESES BIG CORPS. SO ALL THIS DIDN'T SHOCK ME AND ALL THEY DO WON'T SHOCK ME JUST DISGUST ME EVEN MORE THAN I HAVE BEEN.


LOVED YOUR ESSAY GREAT READ AND THANKS FOR SHARING IT ALL HERE I LOVE WHAT YOUR FINAL GRADE LOL

 

[Tebo]

Hey!

I just thought I would share a section of an essay I wrote in May. Genuinely, if you didn't hate the BPs before, you will after this! I appreciate that this is not specifically about nicotine but I'd like to show you the information I discovered. I am able to share this with you now because my final grade for my masters has been decided (distinction!).

To add some context to this essay, the title was 'What does it mean to speak of evil as 'banal'? How might the documenation of 'social suffering' expose the 'banality of evil' in our times?'

For those who haven't read the book, Hannah Arendt wrote a book about the Eichmann Trial and described his evil as 'banal' because he effectively signed the death warrants for millions of people during the genocide in Nazi occupied Europe. He was a pen-pusher, a bureaucrat. He ticked a box and went home to his family. This is not to say that the evils of his crime are no less horrendous, but that human beings are capable of such evil by ticking a box or signing a form. It's a hotly contested book and if you'd like to debate it's merits, let's do it elsewhere. I present this section of my essay for the statistics and the historical details within, not the philosophical debate.

Please, go ahead and read... I'd be interested to know your response.x

P.S. If this makes you angry, you should read the section on mobile phones!!!

In the mid 1980s, Western society became aware of a new, incurable disease. HIV and AIDS medications to slow the progression of the disease have been made available but these are costly. In 1999, Monbiot reported that twenty-two percent of pregnant women in South Africa were HIV positive and within ten years, the average life expectancy would drop from fifty-nine to forty years of age (Monbiot, 1999). The South African Government began taking steps to produce cheaper, generic versions of antiretroviral drugs to prevent the spread of the disease from mother to foetus and to lessen the chances of contracting the disease after rape. A new law passed allowed the Government to compulsorily purchase the rights to drugs or buy the drugs more cheaply from countries producing them. Some research into HIV and AIDS medication had been publically funded but the United States Congress overwhelmingly voted to prevent the South African Government from manufacturing the drugs which could have saved many thousands of lives. Had South Africa succeeded the pharmaceutical companies’ share values would have decreased and, as Monbiot scathingly wrote, ‘nothing, even the lives of millions, can be permitted to threaten the value of their shares’ (Monbiot, 1999).
Stavudine was invented at Yale University in 1994. Between 1994 and 2002, the drug had earned the university two hundred and sixty one million dollars. In the United States, daily use of the drug would cost the patient $8.66 but in South Africa, the drug could be bought for the daily cost of $4.46, however, this was still far too expensive for widespread use. While one inventor of the drug, Dr William Prusoff, was happy for the drug to be widespread, saying ‘people shouldn’t die for economic reasons, because they can’t afford the drug. If Aids was completely solved and no royalties came in, I would be very happy’, thirty-nine pharmaceutical companies sued the South African government (Demenet, 2002).
HIV and AIDS is one of many diseases impacting on the lives of ordinary human beings living in Africa. The treatment for the disease is one of many which are not ‘economically viable’ to give to the masses. The cure of sleeping sickness, caused by the tsetse fly, for example, was found to be so expensive for the patient that it became unusable and was no longer manufactured by the inventing pharmaceutical company. The patent was later transferred to the World Health Organisation but a manufacturer for the drug was difficult to find, given the difficulties in raising profits. Similarly, the cure for leishmaniosis, a common parasitic disease found in Africa, remained in the laboratory for years without going into a production because it was feared there was no ‘guarantee of a return on the investment’ (Bulard,2000 ).
Over a decade later, the battle for generic drugs continues. In 2011, Mumbai patent office rejected the patent for Kaletra in India for the treatment of HIV and AIDS. Cheaper versions of the drug have now been manufactured and are ready for consumption in south-Saharan Africa. It is worth noting that five million people are alive in Africa only because they have access to these drugs and at least ten million more people need access (Boseley, 2011). Estimates of the cost to human life under the Nazi’s genocide vary from six to ten million people (Jones, 2006:147)
Were the profits from HIV and AIDS medications reinvested in new research and treatments, one might suggest that the action of pharmaceutical companies was somewhat understandable, if not justifiable. Reinvestment in research is particularly important because HIV gradually becomes resistant to medications (Bosely, 2011). The reality, however, is that eighty percent of biomedical research funding at Yale university is publically subsidised, deriving from the National Institute of Health (Demenet, 2002). The cost to human life without these medications is unimaginable but the cost of human life was quantified by the Clinton Health Access Initiative at four hundred and forty dollars per life, per year. With generic drugs to cost would be less than eighty dollars per life, per year (Boseley, 2011). The pharmaceutical companies and United States government, concerned for the economic stability of their country, are placing the bottom line of an accounts balance ahead of the lives of millions of people across the globe. The lives of those infect with HIV are seemingly ‘superfluous’ (Arendt, 1973:459) to the economic requirements of these companies.

Nice read. There was also a possible cure for cancer in 2012 I believe they stopped because they couldn't monopolize the product it was made from. After further developing - anyone coulda made it

 

[Koman]

The FDA, Big Pharma & The Lies

Good vid, thanks!

 

[MonkInsane]

This is nothing new, Big pharma is a business, businesses are in it to make money.

It would not suprise me if a cure for Cancer and HIV has allready been discovered, and was shelved because less effecient treatments bring in a constant revenue stream.

Money rules the world. That is the sad reality we face.

 

[Jo Patterson]

The first actual written study to tie bacteria to the cause for Cancer was in 1890. Medical bigwigs and pharma crushed it.
120 years later, we now have overcome them enough to prove exactly which bacteria cause several different kinds of cancers.
Still have more to go. All those so called fakes with cancer cures - they were not fakes, they simply had antibiotic foods and herbs
in a bottle that did indeed cure those cancers caused by the bacteria effected by those antibiotic chemicals. (no artificial or natural antibiotic kills all bacteria)

I could go on with lot's of other infections that are called diseases by these agencies willing to kill for money.

Back on topic - with that kind of background, and it going on for over a century, do we really have access to enough publicity
and enough spot lights to even barely hold even, let alone win ?

This is nothing new, Big pharma is a business, businesses are in it to make money.

It would not suprise me if a cure for Cancer and HIV has allready been discovered, and was shelved because less effecient treatments bring in a constant revenue stream.

Money rules the world. That is the sad reality we face.

 

[RTYPE11]

This is nothing new, Big pharma is a business, businesses are in it to make money.

It would not suprise me if a cure for Cancer and HIV has allready been discovered, and was shelved because less effecient treatments bring in a constant revenue stream.

Money rules the world. That is the sad reality we face.

Dr. Burzynski (sp?) in Houston has had the cure for many cancers since the 80's, he has been sued, been before 5 (i think) grand jury, had his patent stolen, all the while curing thousands at a private clinic. Big pharma is not interested in one time purchases, they want you hooked on their pills. please do not read the Wikipedia page on him, it was written by Pharma.

 

[Orb Skewer]

From the horses mouth

Former pfizer CEO Dr Peter Rost

Peter Rost tidligere vicedirektør hos Pfizer - Den multinationale lægemiddelindustri - YouTube

 

[emus]

Dr. Burzynski (sp?) in Houston has had the cure for many cancers since the 80's, he has been sued, been before 5 (i think) grand jury, had his patent stolen, all the while curing thousands at a private clinic. Big pharma is not interested in one time purchases, they want you hooked on their pills. please do not read the Wikipedia page on him, it was written by Pharma.

Highly recommended watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJSWWaoXfOw

 

[dahlialady]

It is extremely easy for BP to forsake the lives of millions of people in exchange for profit. Especially South Africa. They don't have any oil or stuff we need. Who cares!? Not BP! That's for sure. It is a sick world we live in. No compassion for our fellow human beings. Yup. BP is in purely for the profit. And a big thanks to Byten for elaborating on the OP.

 

[squee]

This has always said everything I need to know about BP:

A drug that prevents miscarriages will soon skyrocket from less than $20 per shot to more than $1,000.

For 50 years, a synthetic hormone has been on the market. Doctors prescribe it to help high-risk pregnant women, 10TV's Andrea Cambern reported on Thursday.

It is made-to-order in compounding pharmacies and costs $19 a shot.

Next week, KV Pharmaceuticals will market their own version, with approval from the federal government to do it exclusively.

They will charge $1,500 a shot, Cambern reported.