Political Crossfire Forums

[$orideals]

I've been reading a book regarding pharmaceutical companies and the power they wield over government and the medical field.

What is the obsession with our western culture to cure disease with manufactured drugs?

Is it to make money and create a populace dependent on perscription drugs or is it a noble quest to cure all disease??

If anyone has seen me post before you probably know my position, "follow the money"

[George W Bush]

$orideals wrote: I've been reading a book regarding pharmaceutical companies and the power they wield over government and the medical field.

What is the obsession with our western culture to cure disease with manufactured drugs?

Is it to make money and create a populace dependent on perscription drugs or is it a noble quest to cure all disease??

If anyone has seen me post before you probably know my position, "follow the money"

huge profits + curing sick people = progress

i believe any profit machine like pharmaceutical companies, have an obligation to maintain the momentum of non-stop profit.

with that in mind, i suspect shady practices such as making medicines that require other medicines to heal side effects.

another idea is if the industry cured everything, what value is in their stock? They require sickness, disease and the fear of death.

I would be accusing if I made a comment like "they make us sick" but, I dont know for sure how this would get done.

Then again, things like Flouride make me wonder why we are being medicated without our permission.

[mojo]

It is a noble casue to make money. The pharmaceutical companies will never try to harm their consumers because that ruins their business. But they are out to make money and in the process creates drugs that completely revolutionize the way we lve our lives. Guess what people have never lived longer than what they are living now. That is almost entirely due to companies endless pursuit of profit. Capitalism at its finest.

[Skiazo]

politicalmojo wrote: It is a noble casue to make money. The pharmaceutical companies will never try to harm their consumers because that ruins their business. But they are out to make money and in the process creates drugs that completely revolutionize the way we lve our lives. Guess what people have never lived longer than what they are living now. That is almost entirely due to companies endless pursuit of profit. Capitalism at its finest.

I agree with you 99.99% on this. The only thing I would like to change is government involvement in pharmaceutical policies. I do not believe it is right for the government to subsidize these industries. Certainly we as people need and want the cures, but if we help pay for the R&D, we deserve a claim to a portion of the copyright.

[thorn]

well, I'd say that both sides are there, bth the capitalist making of money (by the bigshots in the companies) but I wouldn't imply that there's not a genuine interest in improving he lives of people (at least by the scientists involved).

What should never be forgotten though is the following: do the bigshots really have an interest in making people healthy? Wouldn't that be the stupidest strategic and operative thinking ever seen, basically destroying your consumer base?

If they are really as altruistic in giving people the means to survive or to get well, why do they do everything in their powers to keep generics off the markets?

There might be a noble cause in the basic thinking, but in the end it boils down to big business. pharma companies really sit on the limits of both, and so it's kinda hard to come to a final conclusion without sitting in front of a nice dilemma.

[DarkMerlin]

Well, like anything corporate medical research has both benevolent and harmful effects. Yes, the advancements made in medical and pharmaceutical technology by corporations has saved, improved, and extended countless lives. On the other hand, we must always remember that it is part of the very nature of the corporate structure that a corporation's first priority is never what is ethical or what is good for the public or even their customers. The goal of a corporation is to get you to give you their money. Now, if they have an amazing new drug that will make you healthier and help you live longer---that's fine and dandy. But if they can get you to buy a product that you don't need, or that will get you to buy other drugs, or that will treat the symptoms but not actually cure the problem---well, money is money, eh? In many ways, yes, it is capitalism at its finest, but, even at its finest, capitalism, like any other institution or method of organization, is far from perfect.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

DarkMerlin wrote: Well, like anything corporate medical research has both benevolent and harmful effects. Yes, the advancements made in medical and pharmaceutical technology by corporations has saved, improved, and extended countless lives. On the other hand, we must always remember that it is part of the very nature of the corporate structure that a corporation's first priority is never what is ethical or what is good for the public or even their customers. The goal of a corporation is to get you to give you their money. Now, if they have an amazing new drug that will make you healthier and help you live longer---that's fine and dandy. But if they can get you to buy a product that you don't need, or that will get you to buy other drugs, or that will treat the symptoms but not actually cure the problem---well, money is money, eh? In many ways, yes, it is capitalism at its finest, but, even at its finest, capitalism, like any other institution or method of organization, is far from perfect.

This is why I don't believe that many long term terminal diseases will ever be cured. Aids, cancer, and diabetes are the bread and butter of some corporations. To cure it would be the single most idiotic business move you could make.

[DarkMerlin]

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: DarkMerlin wrote: Well, like anything corporate medical research has both benevolent and harmful effects. Yes, the advancements made in medical and pharmaceutical technology by corporations has saved, improved, and extended countless lives. On the other hand, we must always remember that it is part of the very nature of the corporate structure that a corporation's first priority is never what is ethical or what is good for the public or even their customers. The goal of a corporation is to get you to give you their money. Now, if they have an amazing new drug that will make you healthier and help you live longer---that's fine and dandy. But if they can get you to buy a product that you don't need, or that will get you to buy other drugs, or that will treat the symptoms but not actually cure the problem---well, money is money, eh? In many ways, yes, it is capitalism at its finest, but, even at its finest, capitalism, like any other institution or method of organization, is far from perfect.

This is why I don't believe that many long term terminal diseases will ever be cured. Aids, cancer, and diabetes are the bread and butter of some corporations. To cure it would be the single most idiotic business move you could make.

Well, perhaps. But then again, the longer people live, the more chances they have to spend money. We must also consider the factor of competition between companies. If you can make a drug that cures cancer a little better than your competitors, people will start giving you their money instead. Eventually this may get to a point where the only way to make money over your competitors is to just sell the cure. Also consider competition from other related industries. If a gengineering company can offer you the chance to make your kids genetically resistant to cancer, the drug companies will need something to compete with that. That way people will say "hey, why bother to get my kid the anti-cancer trait now, when he can just be cured of it if it ever actually comes up?" The key to this is competition, so as long as the pharmaceutical companies don't merge, there is still hope.

[jawsome]

politicalmojo wrote: It is a noble casue to make money. The pharmaceutical companies will never try to harm their consumers because that ruins their business. But they are out to make money and in the process creates drugs that completely revolutionize the way we lve our lives. Guess what people have never lived longer than what they are living now. That is almost entirely due to companies endless pursuit of profit. Capitalism at its finest.

is creating dependence harmful, or beneficial?

and i don't think i'd put that much trust into pharmaceutical companies. they have numerous "risk analyzers" who have jobs to decide whether or not producing something that is harmful to people and will result in court cases/law suits is less profitable than the money they can make before said law suits.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

DarkMerlin wrote: Well, perhaps. But then again, the longer people live, the more chances they have to spend money. We must also consider the factor of competition between companies. If you can make a drug that cures cancer a little better than your competitors, people will start giving you their money instead. Eventually this may get to a point where the only way to make money over your competitors is to just sell the cure. Also consider competition from other related industries. If a gengineering company can offer you the chance to make your kids genetically resistant to cancer, the drug companies will need something to compete with that. That way people will say "hey, why bother to get my kid the anti-cancer trait now, when he can just be cured of it if it ever actually comes up?" The key to this is competition, so as long as the pharmaceutical companies don't merge, there is still hope.

But corporations didn't turn out to be the individual, competitive investor groups they were supposed to be. They from pacts instead of competing. Competition is risky. If they band together and make agreements, then they can screw the consumer unquestioned.

[jawsome]

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: DarkMerlin wrote: Well, perhaps. But then again, the longer people live, the more chances they have to spend money. We must also consider the factor of competition between companies. If you can make a drug that cures cancer a little better than your competitors, people will start giving you their money instead. Eventually this may get to a point where the only way to make money over your competitors is to just sell the cure. Also consider competition from other related industries. If a gengineering company can offer you the chance to make your kids genetically resistant to cancer, the drug companies will need something to compete with that. That way people will say "hey, why bother to get my kid the anti-cancer trait now, when he can just be cured of it if it ever actually comes up?" The key to this is competition, so as long as the pharmaceutical companies don't merge, there is still hope.

But corporations didn't turn out to be the individual, competitive investor groups they were supposed to be. They from pacts instead of competing. Competition is risky. If they band together and make agreements, then they can screw the consumer unquestioned.

indeed.

many of the massive pharmaceutical corporations are NOT capitalistic--they try to fend off competition via the government and lobbying and such.

[DarkMerlin]

Which is precisely what concerns me most. The most logical strategy is to do our best to create chaos and discontent among the ranks, so they will behave the way we want them to.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

There is really a fine line between free markets and controlled markets. Its hard to tell the difference. I think those that vote for Neocon feudalism are simply confused, their intentions are for a free market, but they just don't know what one is.

[jawsome]

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: There is really a fine line between free markets and controlled markets. Its hard to tell the difference. I think those that vote for Neocon feudalism are simply confused, their intentions are for a free market, but they just don't know what one is.

i respectfully and vehemently disagree.

free markets and controlled markets are markedly different and easily observed as such. i would say it's extremely easy to tell the difference on a number of levels: efficiency, costs, influence, etc.

what do you mean by neocon feudalism? i would also say that most of the traditional and founding members of neoconservatism are not for free markets whatsoever in the sense that they believe strongly in state power and security, and if the means for this require heavy state intervention in the economy, then so be it. i think there are very few true neoconservatives in high government positions right now (thankfully), but if there were, i feel it would be very, very, very fascistic.

furthermore, i think they know fully what a free market entitles, but do not like the results.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

jawsome wrote: free markets and controlled markets are markedly different and easily observed as such. i would say it's extremely easy to tell the difference on a number of levels: efficiency, costs, influence, etc.

What has been call a "free market" is simply giving full power to corporations to monopolize the economy and use whatever means they wish to hoard. The law is clearly slanted away from protecting and supporting individuals. This may not be truly a free market, but it is the American definition of a free market.

jawsome wrote: what do you mean by neocon feudalism? i would also say that most of the traditional and founding members of neoconservatism are not for free markets whatsoever in the sense that they believe strongly in state power and security, and if the means for this require heavy state intervention in the economy, then so be it. i think there are very few true neoconservatives in high government positions right now (thankfully), but if there were, i feel it would be very, very, very fascistic.

Its simple. Corporatism (which is what the Neocons ultimately strive for) is feudalism, lords owning all, and forcing people to work for next to nothing, because they have nowhere else to go. Neocon Feudalism. A heavily enforced class system based on a hierarchy. Corporations taking the role of feudal states.

jawsome wrote: furthermore, i think they know fully what a free market entitles, but do not like the results.

Most conservatives-turned-liberals I've talked to say they've switched because they finally realized that the republicans representing them really aren't the ones looking out for the little guy. If more of their voters would figure this out, I'd say that the Neoconservative movement would die out.

Neocons have think-tanks of their best and brightest working ful time on "talking points" and other underhanded tactics to win elections. They are manipulators. Your average Joe-Shmoe Neocon supporter hasn't the slightest clue as to their real agenda.

[jawsome]

well, i see our definitions of "free market" are quite different. :wink: i'd call that corporatism, which is NOT free nor capitalistic.

[Sailor Moon]

Actually, pharmaceutical companies DO have to protect their stockholders best interests, legally.. and there are SOOO many drugs out there that cause disease and illness.

Just look and listen to all the side effect and health risk warnings in the ads. Open ONE magazine, and you will see at least one ad for a FDA approved drug, and along with it, a huge long list of risks and side effects.

If you say something "cures" something else, then whatever the substance is (be it an herb or a fruit, or a root, or a leaf, or plain water, even) it has to be FDA approved, and sold as a "drug" or a "pharmaceutical". Now, the government wont allow this to happen.

Type in any old keyword on the internet. Anything you can think of. "orange" "treats" "therapeutic" or use another common fruit like pineapples, or cherries. Put the word "ginseng" in there and see what you get.

Cant call it cure, cause the government wont allow it.

And PS- the only reason why people live longer now, is really because we have technology to CREATE organs, and also we have more experience in organ and tissue transplantation. We cant even make BLOOD. We can make some of the stuff found in blood, but it is difficult. We cant make even one drop of usable human blood.

Drugs hurt people. Skills save people. Get it?

[DarkMerlin]

It looks like someone has been paying a bit too much attention to that guy with the infomercial and the book "Natural Cures THEY Don't Want You to Know About" or something. At least 60% of what that guy says is bulls**t. What you are saying has some merit, but it isn't the whole story.

[mojo]

Sailor Moon wrote: Actually, pharmaceutical companies DO have to protect their stockholders best interests, legally.. and there are SOOO many drugs out there that cause disease and illness.

Just look and listen to all the side effect and health risk warnings in the ads. Open ONE magazine, and you will see at least one ad for a FDA approved drug, and along with it, a huge long list of risks and side effects.

If you say something "cures" something else, then whatever the substance is (be it an herb or a fruit, or a root, or a leaf, or plain water, even) it has to be FDA approved, and sold as a "drug" or a "pharmaceutical". Now, the government wont allow this to happen.

Type in any old keyword on the internet. Anything you can think of. "orange" "treats" "therapeutic" or use another common fruit like pineapples, or cherries. Put the word "ginseng" in there and see what you get.

Cant call it cure, cause the government wont allow it.

And PS- the only reason why people live longer now, is really because we have technology to CREATE organs, and also we have more experience in organ and tissue transplantation. We cant even make BLOOD. We can make some of the stuff found in blood, but it is difficult. We cant make even one drop of usable human blood.

Drugs hurt people. Skills save people. Get it?

Side Effects are almost inevitable when it comes to creating a chemical compound. It has always been that way. But having a stuffy head and running nose after curing hepatitis is a fair trade off in my eyes.

It has long been a myth that nature can cure diseases that are out today. They may have certain healing properties but they will probably never have the chemical compostion in order to cure most major viruses.

In a capitalistic economy the product that works best and proced best will always prevail. If a scientific study came out today and stated that eating large amounts of oranges cured AIDS. Oranges would be consumed in tremendous amounts. If a simple cure was out there it would be known. If the Natural Cures guy was right he would be making ridiculous amounts of money. But its not happening so I can only assume that Natural Cure stuff is just a bunch of bulls**t.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

DarkMerlin wrote: It looks like someone has been paying a bit too much attention to that guy with the infomercial and the book "Natural Cures THEY Don't Want You to Know About" or something. At least 60% of what that guy says is bulls**t. What you are saying has some merit, but it isn't the whole story.

Ya, how is that man not in prison? He is the same as any other thief or con-man, in fact, he's quite worse.

Telling people at the end of the line that he'll cure their cancer with berries....shameless bastard!