Big Pharma

[Kee]

http://www.naturalnews.com/020345.html

If you have a long, drawn-out, incurable but treatable disease, it's unfortunate for you but great for pharmaceutical companies. While you're suffering indefinitely, you're also buying expensive pharmaceutical drugs to make the disease "manageable."

"Managing" diseases is the trend in mainstream medicine, and it's the main message that pharmaceutical companies and the media market to consumers. "You have a mental disorder? That's okay. You can live a normal life, if you take these pills every day."

According to "AIDS: A Second Opinion" authors Gary Null and James Feast, the profits "stack up better" for pharmaceutical companies when people have to take treatments indefinitely for an incurable disease. HIV, for example, is a relative goldmine, since HIV-positive people have to take drug "cocktails" each day even before they develop symptomatic AIDS. Then, the profits add up even more after these people develop full-blown AIDS because they have to take drugs to treat opportunistic infections in addition to their regular drug cocktail.

Many people believe that pharmaceutical companies' hunger for profits triumphs over their desire to genuinely help the public, and that this blinded concern for profit above all has shaped -- and continues to shape -- mainstream medicine as we know it. The bottom line is simple: As Life Extension Magazine puts it, "Marketing issues frequently outweigh medical science in drug company decisions."

Modern medicine is a platform for profit, not health

This has implications that are more serious than one might initially think, especially considering the heavy role that pharmaceutical companies play in mainstream medicine. "Deep Healing" author Dr. Emmette Miller writes, "We have to remember that most medical research in this country is financed by pharmaceutical companies who are looking for new drugs they can produce and sell."

Now, things were not always this way. In his book, "Overdosed America," Dr. John Abramson describes the shift of medical research from the academic to the commercial sphere: "As the function of medical research in our society has been transformed from a fundamentally academic and scientific activity to a fundamentally commercial activity, the context in which the research is done has similarly changed: First in universities funded primarily by public sources, then in universities funded primarily by commercial sources, then by independent for-profit research organizations contracting directly with drug companies. And most recently, the three largest advertising agencies, Omnicom, Interpublic and WPP, have bought or invested in the for-profit companies that perform clinical trials." In my view, advertising agencies having financial ties to the companies that perform clinical trials – companies that are supposed to conduct objective research – is blatant conflict of interest; yet it's the basis of most mainstream medical research in the United States. In fact, according to Dr. Abramson, in the year 2000, only one-third of all medical research was performed in universities and academic medical centers.

Since, according to these and other sources, drug companies predominantly fund medical research, scientists have almost no choice but to mainly focus their time and effort on the most profitable, but not necessarily the most effective, treatments. Though an herb, which by its very nature cannot be patented, may treat and possibly even cure a disease, drug companies may nevertheless not fund research or marketing for it, leaving the general public largely ignorant of the herb's benefits. Mainstream medicine largely dismisses vitamins and minerals in the same manner as herbs.

Furthermore, research bias often continues into the doctor's office. As Gary Null writes in his Complete Guide to Health and Nutrition, "One report published in Fact magazine speculates that the principle reason vitamin C is not commonly prescribed is that it is not as profitable as those syrups and pills your doctor dispenses."

Stealing medicine from nature

However, this doesn't mean that pharmaceutical companies ignore plants and other natural medicines altogether; it's actually quite the opposite. According to Asian Health Secrets by Letha Hadady, approximately one-third of all pharmaceuticals are derived from plants' active ingredients. Though companies cannot patent natural plants in their whole form, they can patent plants' individual ingredients after a long, painstaking process of breaking down the plant into its components, isolating active ingredients and then claiming to have "discovered" these natural ingredients. However, this system, though profitable for drug companies, has a downside that Hadady reveals: "Many times the active ingredient does not work as well as the entire plant. According to tests done in Germany, Saint John's Wort, the entire herb, kills the AIDS virus in the test tube, while hypericum, the isolated active ingredient, does not." In other words, though the bottom line is simple, it means that this society is in a very dangerous predicament indeed.

This horrific state of modern medicine is a uniquely American phenomenon, according to "Innocent Casualties" author Elaine Feuer. She writes, "Because the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that does not regulate the prices or profits of drug companies, prescription drugs generally cost 25 to 40 percent more than in other countries." In fact, drug companies rely on American sales for the bulk of their profits, even though many of their products are marketed worldwide, says "Natural Alternatives to Drugs" author Dr. Michael T. Murray.

Though this is bad for the average American consumer, it's great for pharmaceutical companies. According to Mike Fillon's book, "Ephedra Fact and Fiction," the global pharmaceutical market earned $364 billion in 2001, making it the world's most profitable stock market sector. Fillon writes that more than half of this revenue is from the United States alone, so although pharmaceuticals are more expensive for the American consumer, Americans still buy more prescription drugs than any other nation.

Hawking for Big Pharma

Now, at this point, you're probably wondering about the role the U.S. government plays in all this. In "Death by Prescription," Ray D. Strand writes, "The FDA is actually listening and catering to the industry's desires." According to Strand, the FDA facilitates the drug-approval process. Many people attribute the FDA's bias against herbs and other natural medicine to the agency's close "friendship" with the pharmaceutical industry, but it seems that they can't agree about the level of corruption. According to American Medical Publishing's book, "Prescription Medicines, Side Effects and Natural Alternatives," "The government is also part of the problem because it does not have the resources or the political will to do more about the dangers of prescription drugs. Also, powerful members of the American government, from the President on down, are all lobbied heavily by the cash rich drug companies."

In order for mainstream medicine to reach the level of effectiveness that it can and should attain, the inner workings of the medical community must change, starting with the pharmaceutical companies' hold on the government agencies that are supposed to protect American consumers. As Burton Goldberg writes in "Alternative Medicine," "To realize effective health care with cost reduction requires unlocking the strangulation hold of the pharmaceutical companies, the American Medical Association (AMA) and ... the FDA on all forms of fully effective, low-cost alternative, complementary, integrative, holistic medicine." Until then, mainstream medicine will remain the same, and that's the last thing American consumers need. It's time to put concern for public health, medicine and genuine science over corporate profits.

The experts speak on pharmaceutical companies and profits:

There is probably nothing more profitable to the drug companies than interminable treatment of patients with drugs that do not work. Yet countless patients, at great cost to our nation, are kept on these treatments because they have been proven to help two-thirds of people and health-care providers have no policies or procedures to do otherwise. When those who pay the bills realize how much of their money is being wasted, and how much can be saved by requiring policies and procedures to identify patients not helped by standard treatment and select alternatives for them, it may happen.

Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 458

Diabetes is such a profitable business that physicians will put pre-diabetic patients, with only marginally high blood sugar, onto diabetes drugs before even trying weight loss and exercise.

Prescription Alternatives by Earl Mindell RPh PhD and Virginia Hopkins MA, page 403

With the growing epidemic of obesity, the drug companies can look forward to a financial windfall. Many millions of Americans will be taking their statin drugs to lower their cholesterol levels. And they could each be spending $3 a day, or $1100 a year, for the rest of their lives.

Health Care Meltdown by Robert H Lebow MD, page 229

Drug companies are profit-driven entities, so marketing issues weigh very heavily. Manufacturers feel great pressure to keep costs down while hastening new drugs to market. And drug companies aren't held responsible for the huge costs of dose-related side effects to the healthcare system. The result is that marketing issues frequently outweigh medical science in drug company decisions.

Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 723

We have to remember that most medical research in this country is financed by pharmaceutical companies who are looking for new drugs they can produce and sell. Psychoneuroimmunology research is aimed at showing that the body is capable of producing its own healing substances. The bottom line is that stockholders of the companies that invest in medical research can't see how they can profit from such research and so will naturally put their developmental money into the money-making ventures instead.

Deep Healing by Emmette Miller MD, page 138

As the function of medical research in our society has been transformed from a fundamentally academic and scientific activity to a fundamentally commercial activity, the context in which the research is done has similarly changed: first in universities funded primarily by public sources, then in universities funded primarily by commercial sources, then by independent for-profit research organizations contracting directly with drug companies. And most recently, the three largest advertising agencies, Omnicom, Interpublic, and WPP, have bought or invested in the for-profit companies that perform clinical trials.

Overdosed America by John Abramson MD, page 110

Moreover, if a drug company's profits increase because of slanted research, hasty marketing, and misleading advertising, other companies must adopt these same methods in order to remain competitive--and the race to the bottom accelerates. This is why in any area of endeavor, codes of behavior must be periodically reexamined. Doing so is a common occurrence in politics and sports, and it is what the drug companies must now undertake.

Overdose by Jay S Cohen, page 168

An independent research center could study other uses of new medications that were not studied by their manufacturers. It could research new uses or problems with generic drugs, which drug companies do not study because the patents of generic drugs have lapsed and there is little likelihood of profit.

Overdose by Jay S Cohen, page 175

In the United Sates, pharmaceutical companies support most medication research and development. Because they really can't earn a profit from natural substances, which they can't patent, they're reluctant to fund studies on plant estrogens. Fortunately, many medical centers are helping to bridge this research gap by establishing departments of complementary and alternative medicine. At the Rosenthal Center of Columbia University, for example, scientists are conducting studies of black cohosh and other phytoestrogens.

The Rhodiola Revolution by Richard P Brown MD and Patricia L Gerbarg MD, page 179

One of the reasons for this is economic. Herbs, by their very nature, cannot be patented. Because of this, drug companies cannot hold the exclusive right to sell a particular herb and they are not motivated to invest in testing or promoting herbs. The collection and preparation of herbal medicines cannot be as easily controlled as the manufacture of synthetic drugs, making profits less dependable.

Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 252

The FDA estimates it costs over 7 million dollars to bring a new drug to market pharmaceutical companies put that figure closer to 70 million dollars. They say they need two million users of a substance just to break even. Since natural substances cannot be patented, there is even less room for profit in them.

Scientific Validation of Herbal Medicine by Daniel B Mowrey PhD, page 291

The pharmaceutical industry is, obviously, a very powerful force in American science, medicine, business, and politics. The industry must make large profits to realize a return on investment, particularly in a regulatory system where it costs $100 to $200 million dollars to bring a new drug to market.

Choices In Healing by Michael Lerner, page 613

While it is in the interest of such companies to find patentable cancer treatments, there is no corresponding incentive to develop non-patentable natural methods. Since it currently costs around $200 million to develop a new drug in the US, mainly to comply with Byzantine FDA regulations, the drug companies claim they must seek enormous profits from each and every drug.

Cancer Therapy by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 14

In order for pharmaceutical companies to earn a profit, they must develop drugs that are potent enough to patent and can be approved by the FDA. To gain FDA approval, these drugs must demonstrate an acceptable safety profile. However, the safe dose of potent drugs can vary considerably among individuals. What is safe for some people can be a lethal overdose for others. Yet doctors and drug companies usually recommend the same dose for everyone, even though lower doses of many prescription drugs can achieve the same beneficial effects, while dramatically reducing side effect risk and the cost of the medications.

Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 708

In addition, since niacin is a widely available generic agent, no pharmaceutical company stands to generate the huge profits that the other cholesterol-lowering drugs have enjoyed. As a result, niacin is not intensively advertised like the other drugs. Despite the advantages of niacin over the cholesterol-lowering drugs, niacin accounts for only 7.9 percent of all lipid-lowering prescriptions.

Encyclopedia Of Natural Medicine by Michael T Murray MD Joseph L Pizzorno ND, page 352

Unlike the standard treatments for heart disease, coconut oil is cheap, has no adverse side effects, and is readily available to everyone. Because it is a natural product that is already widely available, pharmaceutical and medical industries have no desire to fund studies or promote interest in this area. There is no profit for them. Since most of the information on MCFA and coconut oil are buried in scientific literature, few people are aware of the benefits. Knowledge about the true health aspects of coconut oil has to come from experienced clinicians, authors, and researchers who are familiar with the true facts about coconut oil. Yet they face an up-hill battle because they must fight prejudice and misguided popular opinion that is fueled by powerful profit-seeking enterprises.

Healing Miracles of Coconut Oil by Bruce Fife ND, page 85

By their very nature, prescription drugs are the perfect product for a monopoly. Drugs are patented and available from only one manufacturer, and prices can be increased at the discretion of the company with few consumer complaints. How many people who are ill question the cost of drugs prescribed by their doctor? During the 1980s, inflation rose 58 percent and pharmaceutical companies managed to triple their prices. In 1990 the drug industry was the most profitable industry in America, with 13.6 percent annual profits, more than triple the average Fortune 500 company. The 1991 median profit of a Fortune pharmaceutical company was $592 million. Because the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that does not regulate the prices or profits of drug companies, prescription drugs generally cost 25 to 40 percent more than in other countries. For three out of four elderly Americans, prescription drugs are their biggest expense.

Innocent Casualties by Elaine Feuer, page 73

Drug costs are higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world. Most major industrial nations employ profit-control measures that limit how much a drug company can charge for a drug. Because most drug companies market the same drug throughout the world, they rely on American sales for the bulk of their profits.

Natural Alternatives To Drugs by Michael T Murray ND, page 23

The global pharmaceutical industry--which generated revenues of more than $364 billion in 2001--is the world's most profitable stock market sector. According to IMS Health, the leading drug industry market analyst, half the global drug sales are in the U.S. alone, with Europe and Japan accounting for another 37 percent.

Ephedra Fact And Fiction by Mike Fillon, page 144

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/020345.html#ixzz1b84GsNlv

[chnt]

fucking cunts, this shit makes me so fucking angry, what can we do? what can anyone do? nothing, not a single thing, it makes me sick how hopeless and helpless we all are

[qualia]

fucking cunts, this shit makes me so fucking angry, what can we do? what can anyone do? nothing, not a single thing, it makes me sick how hopeless and helpless we all are

 

eat healthy, exercise regularly. don't smoke too much, don't drink too much, don't take too much shit. realise you don't have to pop a pill for every stupid thing some quack tells you they think is wrong with you. humans survived plenty long without western pharmaceuticals, just don't go running to the medicine cabinet every time you feel a tickle in the back of the throat. the human body is a remarkably resilient machine, it can withstand far more than we give it credit for.

[chnt]

eat healthy, exercise regularly. don't smoke too much, don't drink too much, don't take too much shit. realise you don't have to pop a pill for every stupid thing some quack tells you they think is wrong with you. humans survived plenty long without western pharmaceuticals, just don't go running to the medicine cabinet every time you feel a tickle in the back of the throat. the human body is a remarkably resilient machine, it can withstand far more than we give it credit for.

 

this is true but i was speaking in more misanthropic terms

[McTeeth]

I wrote a big response to this without reading the full article but now realise there would be no point in what I was originally going to say.

I just want to preface this comment with a question: How many people that read this and got furious have any background in pharmacology?

Reading through this article made me really annoyed because it took a valid point - pharmaceutical companies are CAN BE ruthless profiteers - and then went on to badly attempt to stitch together evidence to supposedly support it. Some of the points raised seem (to me) to even be in support of the opposite opinion of pharmaceutical companies.

-"The industry must make large profits to realize a return on investment, particularly in a regulatory system where it costs $100 to $200 million dollars to bring a new drug to market". I don't think people grasp the importance of this. Of course the companies need to make money. Without that kind of money there can be no new drugs and medicinal chemistry cannot progress. at all.

-"Diabetes is such a profitable business that physicians will put pre-diabetic patients, with only marginally high blood sugar, onto diabetes drugs before even trying weight loss and exercise". I'm sorry but since when do physicians get profits from pharmaceutical sales? There are also strict regulations about the kind of advertisement allowed for drugs and the kinds of bribing tactics allowed in getting physicians on-board to prescribe drugs. Certainly it used to be big practice to coax doctors into recommending your company's drug but that is no longer protected by the system. If anything this is a problem with physicians being careless with prescription, not the companies that make anti-diabetic medication.

I don't have the time or energy to nitpick the entire thing and I don't disagree with many criticisms of the way the pharmaceutical industry is set up but I think that people may need to actually re-evaluate the importance of pharmaceutical businesses. Sure, if you don't think that western medicine has anything to offer and you wouldn't use it even if you had severe diabetes, parkinsons, cancer, a stroke, a heart attack, chronic neuropathic pain, surgery, a bacterial infection, meningitis or were poisoned by a nerve agent then that's fine, I have no problems with your position on Big Pharma. If, however, you would ever choose to use any pharmaceutical (whether it exists yet or not) for any reason then maybe such a crucifixion is biting the hand that feeds (in at least some small way).

Call me an idiot if that's what I'm being, it is late after all and rather than seeming aggressive (which I hope I'm not) I am hoping to just open up the discussion with an opposing viewpoint.

[Roopey]

I don't think people grasp the importance of this. Of course the companies need to make money. Without that kind of money there can be no new drugs and medicinal chemistry cannot progress. at all.

At what cost? Is the blatant disregard for human life supposed to be OK because they need to make money?

I'm sorry but since when do physicians get profits from pharmaceutical sales? There are also strict regulations about the kind of advertisement allowed for drugs and the kinds of bribing tactics allowed in getting physicians on-board to prescribe drugs.

How naive you must be. Pharmaceutical companies payout huge amounts of money to doctors and hospitals that push their drugs for them, most of the time in the guise of lavish gifts. The media lies to you.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Roopey

[faustus]

How many people that read this and got furious have any background in pharmacology?

it's funny, cos last night i was reading this thread and all the shit in it was also making me agitated. i even hit the reply button and started typing up a response.

it makes me laugh that i'll have extreme difficulty believing something that's in a peer-reviewed journal, yet most people are willing to accept a copy and paste job from some chatty website. some of the numbers are way off but my major gripe with the article is that as mcteeth said it's poorly stitched together.

i personally don;t like pharmaceuticos, i just think that most of the criticisms in this article are totally chat.

now, i'll be the first to admit it: i've thought about selling out and going to work for a pharmaceutical company. but please don't hold it against me, i was in a pretty dark place and had hit rock bottom.

[poisonshroom]

I think the point Mcteeth was trying to make is that even big pharma executives wouldnt have the $100-$200 million it costs to develop a single drug to just throw away (not really throw away, but essentially hand out just because people are sick) - It costs the company money to produce things that can at least make sick people's lives better, and they need to make that money back, and what percentage of the population do you think require these medications? On top of the cost of developing the medication, they also need to pay staff, repair lab equipment, build builings, buy new equipment etc.

I agree that they often go for the band aid solutions, rather than trying to find cures, but Id rather have a band aid then nothing. Its not a blatant disregard for human life if (although expensive) they are producing drugs that actually help people.

I dont think ill go into whether they pay off doctors to push their products onto people, but I dont think theres as much of conspiracy as people like to think. I know Iv never had brand name medication pushed on me when Iv gone to see a doctor, and if anything when I go to the chemist, they try and push generic medicines more than brand name.

[cactuscarl]

[quote name='Roopey'

How naive you must be. Pharmaceutical companies payout huge amounts of money to doctors and hospitals that push their drugs for them, most of the time in the guise of lavish gifts. The media lies to you.

 

Good point I've actually had a doctor sit there and point out all the things in the room that drug companies sent him ''for free'' and the more they push there drug the more they get.

[Kee]

Like anything on the internet I would definately read it with a grain of salt unless it's attached to a peer reviewed journal. But we Australian's are lucky that we have PBS and don't see the full fore-front of the pharmaceutical patenting machine that goes on in places like America.

@McTeeth/Faustus: To a degree you are very very right, money does motivate intuitive new inventions and it's a great thing about capitalism - but the corporations are run in a way where directors are OBLIGED to do what's best in the name of company profitability. Corporatism is the evil factor here. In fact, they'd be breaking the law if they didn't put company profitability over all else.

The point I took from this, is that these inventions could be used to the greater good of humanity - most medicines are very cheap to manufacture under the adequate capital and distribution would be an ease. There is no doubt in my mind the individual who develops a breakthrough drug would be able to patent his composition and earn millions of dollars regardless of it's sold for $100 or $1.

Again, this wasn't intended to be a "WHISTLEBLOWER PROOF" thread, but more a reminder of the broad reach of the pharmaceutical companies and their highly immoral actions. I am highly thankful for the advancements made in medicine by pharmacologists and think their work is integral, it's just a shame the system is set up in a way as to shift profits to the few at the expense of the sick and vulnerable. Which in any other industry is breach of consumer law!

Edited October 18, 2011 by Kee

[qualia]

at least we know for a fact pharmacists will sell out

http://www.theage.com.au/national/kickbacks-for-chemists-20111018-1lyun.html

i think the problem is a lot of the most profitable medications (i.e. cholesterol lowering etc.) can be prevented by just following a better lifestyle. my dad went on the full gamut of type 2 diabetes meds a few years ago, if he'd just exercised more and ate healthier he could have avoided it because as soon as he started doing those things his blood sugar returned to normal and his cholesterol lowered to healthier levels. he's still on a lot of them from what i can gather, probably a comfort thing as much as anything now though.

[Kee]

I agree qualia, the traditional 3 branches actually don't take into account lifestyle. Diet and exersize can be a preventative measure for most common ailments (insomnia, diabetes, high cholesterol, obesity, blood pressure, headaches/migranes). It's unbelievable how some people will just go to their GP and swallow whatever crap they're pedaling as opposed to doing some research into their own symptoms and lifestyle and using that research to make their own decisions (whether to go to a GP or try something else first).

Edited October 18, 2011 by Kee

[CβL]

Again, I think that pharmaceutical companies are really just another symptom of our Western brand of capitalism. It's unhinged and unregulated, where profit (short and long term) is the only driving force. It's a smile at the front and a stab in the back.

I don't particularly like capitalism, but I would be happy to put up with it if we could dethrone profit as the main driving force, in exchange for omnipresent camaraderie (omnaraderie, as I have now called it). Doing this in a way that all parties can be happy with... that's the difficult part. It's extremely hard to convince a "winner" that they should give up their "lead", for ANY reason. Perhaps the best way is to convince everyone that they're all losing?

[McTeeth]

Totally agree Faustus, Poisonshroom and Qualia. Definitely not in defence of the system, I just personally think that its all too easy to demonise.

I don't appreciate being called naive, nor the assumption that the information I have I got from 'the media'.

The information I have is from people who have worked for the pharmaceutical industry (GlaxoSmithKline) and other people who I would trust to know due to their positions. While pharmaceutical companies can TRY and bribe doctors into prescribing their products, if someone were to whistleblow a doctor for accepting gifts or a company for sending them then the matter would be taken very seriously by the related authorities.

This is not to say the pharm reps cannot go to a convention or find an influential physician and try and get them on side. They are absolutely allowed to do that. However there are even regulations surrounding the maximum amount of money that is allowed to be spent on a dinner by a pharmaceutical company trying to argue their case (I think it is $100).

Don't go thinking that your GP's new Jaguar was a present from Pfizer for agreeing to prescribe Zoloft instead of Prozac. If, somehow, it is? Well that's not a poor system working, its a system poorly working. There's a difference.

But yes, my main gripe was that the evidence for a valid criticism was insubstantial and ineffective. I don't have a problem with the argument, just the way it was constructed.

(someone please tell me honestly if I just sound like an arse-hole - I will take it on board)

[shruman]

"I'm sorry but since when do physicians get profits from pharmaceutical sales? There are also strict regulations about the kind of advertisement allowed for drugs and the kinds of bribing tactics allowed in getting physicians on-board to prescribe drugs. Certainly it used to be big practice to coax doctors into recommending your company's drug but that is no longer protected by the system. If anything this is a problem with physicians being careless with prescription, not the companies that make anti-diabetic medication."

The article never stated quacks profit from pharmaceutical sales that was your inference. Quacks profit everytime you go into their office to get a script which will lead to a pharma sale so it makes financial sense to put you on a bunch of meds you will have to come back again for in a month rather than reccomend exercise & healthy eating which would most likely prolong your next visit.

Whats good for big pharma is good for the quack & vice versa.

"I don't think people grasp the importance of this. Of course the companies need to make money. Without that kind of money there can be no new drugs and medicinal chemistry cannot progress. at all."

These companies are motivated by making the maximum profit for their share holders not by advancing medicinal chemistry, inovation is a by product of maximising profits. Please do'nt confuse the 2.

Pharmaceuticals are an essential service I personaly don't understand why we put any essential service in the hands of those only concerned with maximising profit.

I do'nt like the article much either but its sentiment deffinitely holds true.

[Torsten]

The article never stated quacks profit from pharmaceutical sales.

 

no, but this article does:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-16/doctors-accepting-payments-from-drug-companies/3573530

[McTeeth]

My inference was drawn from this - "Diabetes is such a profitable business that physicians will put pre-diabetic patients, with only marginally high blood sugar, onto diabetes drugs before even trying weight loss and exercise."

Does that not seem to imply that physicians are supposed to be reaping some profit from prescribing medications unnecessarily? I don't know which doctors you've been to but I've never had one neglect to tell me that diet, exercise, alcohol etc are all not doing people any favours and to try and stay healthy.

As you say, innovation is a byproduct of maximising profits. Without innovation in medicinal chemistry they will not expand their business and without expanding their business they cannot innovate medicinal chemistry. Thus, the two are inherently interrelated. How am I 'confusing' the two when they are products of the same process?

I take it that you're not a fan of the medical profession as it is, what with the constant 'quacking'.

Edit: Really interesting Torsten, bad news for the industry and my insistence on restrictive measures being in place to prevent that. Not going to insist I'm right when I'm not and this brings up a number questions I'm going to pose to a few people..

Edited October 19, 2011 by McTeeth

[McTeeth]

I will stop clogging this thread but apparently the regulations I mentioned have only been put in place this year

[Francois le Danque]

hey teeth, threads are made to be clogged, maaaan.

Quacks profit everytime you go into their office to get a script which will lead to a pharma sale so it makes financial sense to put you on a bunch of meds you will have to come back again for in a month rather than reccomend exercise & healthy eating which would most likely prolong your next visit.

It's unbelievable how some people will just go to their GP and swallow whatever crap they're pedaling

well personally i dunno where y'all find your doctors but none i have ever gone to give me anything to swallow (what is this, the shawshank redemption?). i mean i very rarely go to the doctor for this exact reason. plus i am a big fan of doing the smart thing and trying to stay healthy without using drugs, as mentioned. but seriously i only go to the doctor when i am genuinely unwell, and i know there is a treatment for my ailment. however, when i do go, the doctor will inevitably tell me that:

a ) i am imagining it

b ) it isn't as bad as i think

c ) i should exercise and eat better

d ) and basically that i should just harden the fuck up.

never mind that i:

a/b ) have had crippling symptoms for weeks,

c ) that i do eat and exercise better/more than 99% of australians, and

d ) am obviously already pretty hard if i waited this long before giving up on it getting better by itself, when most people go as soon as they get sick.

so in this vein it seems doctors are extremely UNlikely to prescribe pharmas. then again maybe it's because i look like a 'drug user' and they don't want me to snort my doxycycline or whatever....

humans survived plenty long without western pharmaceuticals

define survived? obviously we survived as a species but living till 25 instead of 90 isn't what i would call doing a good job of it..if you want to see how things were before mainstream pharmaceuticals go to east africa. mmm, malaria!

-lifetime student of pharmacology ("perenially quack")

Edited October 20, 2011 by frank