YES or NO
Thread Rating:
Quote: dmDo you think the medical community, including mental health and pharmaceutical companies, would welcome cures for all of cancer, depression, and allergy? I am at NO.
Idealistically YES but in reality NO. Although business would focus much more on the diagnosis end and the delivery of said cures.
Cancer is such a huge money maker for non-profit organizations, research institutes, cancer related companies. These are organizations that will have no reason to exist practically overnight, and they will fight for survival. Any medical accidents involved with these new cures will be front pages news, and any negative feedback from the treatments will also get top priority. God bless corporatism.
For profits - NO
The bottom line is that there will always be something to work on in the medical field because we are all on our way to the grave--even if they cure cancer and the others, we'll still be aging and passing away, so there will still be things to fix, cure, or delay the inevitable.
Corporations are here to make money. So they absolutely have the right to lobby to discredit results to protects its profits (and have done so in the past). Corporations are not here to benefit society, just their shareholders.
Quote: RonCI'd say they'd be happy to find a cure and be able to make money from it.
How dare you be rational in a conspiracy thread?
Seeing as many people have been cured of cancer, And that cancer treatments keep getting better, I fail to see any need for hypotheticals.
Quote: FinsRuleNot-for-profits - YES
For profits - NO
Absolutely right, I thought of that later.
Quote: NareedHow dare you be rational in a conspiracy thread?
Seeing as many people have been cured of cancer, And that cancer treatments keep getting better, I fail to see any need for hypotheticals.
I guess that's a YES, but just about the only one.
A great read: The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer.
There are so many diseases for "the medical community" to treat, there will never be a lack of need for doctors, researchers, nurses, EMTs, hospital administrators, etc.
Quote: boymimboOf course the answer is no.
Corporations are here to make money. So they absolutely have the right to lobby to discredit results to protects its profits (and have done so in the past). Corporations are not here to benefit society, just their shareholders.
Therefore, it's in their best interests to discover all sorts of new diseases to spread around to increase demand for their services. Damn, I hope that's illegal. Screw the shareholders if that's what they are demanding.
Quote: SOOPOOThis is silly- the answer is an unqualified yes. Even taking the cynical idea that the people looking for a cure have a profit motive as their FIRST motive, the cure would be worth zillions. Many of the 'near cure' drugs available now are sold at astronomical profits while they are still under patent. I am NOT saying that the company that owns the rights to 'the cure' will make it available for little money, but they will make it available for big money, that's for SURE.
I recently saw Michael Moore?, the social injustice guy who does the documentaries, on Piers Morgan. He put forth his opinion that
no entity should have a right to profit in health care. That you do not have a right to treat life and death as mere commodities, or products that you dole out to the highest bidder, the richest, whatever. If you had a lethal health condition and one company had the patent, monopoly on the cure aren't you pretty much absolutely at the mercy of the seller? They can charge you every single cent that you have, or can beg, borrow, or steal? Or simply you can't afford to remain alive? Of course the company is merely recouping a little bit of research and development cost, plus a whole lot of bribes paid to doctors to create the demand for the product, plus pay for lots of perks and junkets and conferences to Vegas, and of course have lots of billions left over for the stockholders, who, if they only knew, may never receive any share of it. I agree completely with that. It's not exactly you have a product, and I can buy it or not. Maybe it's even buy it or die. Good old capitalism. Have something that the buyer cannot refuse and charge him til it hurts-him not you.
Whatever zillions is you can be assured that some guys are making a whole lot more than that as things now stand.
Quote: dmTherefore, it's in their best interests to discover all sorts of new diseases to spread around to increase demand for their services. Damn, I hope that's illegal. Screw the shareholders if that's what they are demanding.
Boymimbo, have to block you.
My point is that corporations who provide pharmaceuticals would not be happy if a cure for a disease where they make the greatest amount of money was found. Imagine if they found a herbal remedy that resolved the need for Cialis and Viagra. Pfizer and Lilly would be lobbying washington to make the remedy a controlled drug so that their profits would be protected. Let's talk about allergies and the fact that Claritin performs no better than a placebo yet the FDA approved it as a drug. Now, let's talk about heart disease and cholesterol medicines. If a magical procedure was found that doctors could give to clear out your major arteries that stopped the need for say, Lipitor, what would Pfizer do? They would try to black the passage of that procedure.
I mean, look at insurance companies and what they do to prevent payment to those who are sick? Their whole involvement is to profit through making the minimum amount of benefit payments on behalf of its insured. Of course their interest is to find a cheap cure to a disease to lower their costs, so they would be happy for a cure.
That said, the major pharmaceuticals are so diversified that there will always be a need for drugs of some kind, and a cure for one thing will just be an opportunity for something else.
Finally, for non-profits -- their whole goal is to find a cure for a disease. Many are volunteer driven anyway. So, a cure for a disease would be a victory.
And finally, my comment was directed toward those who believe that corporations exist to serve only themselves and not socieity. It was a little bit sarcastic.
Quote: boymimboIf a magical procedure was found that doctors could give to clear out your major arteries that stopped the need for say, Lipitor, what would Pfizer do? They would try to black the passage of that procedure.
There already is such a drug under testing for dissolving all but the major blockages of the arteries which will then still be otherwise replaced manually (with those of the patient's arm/leg).
I don't have the specs, but know this because my significant other had a bi-bass years ago, so i listened to the news-segment when it appeared about a year ago.
Quote: MarieBicurieI highly doubt it. Just look at how hard they have been trying to discredit the Liberation treatment for MS. I know the MS Society of Canada was working overtime trying to talk people out of taking the treatment. They also are fighting hard to prevent Canadian Government from endorsing the procedure. As a result MS patients have been flying to 3rd world countries in the hopes of finding doctors willing to do the procedure. Things may have changed in the past year, but this is MS. Cancer is a much bigger donation bucket.
Cancer is such a huge money maker for non-profit organizations, research institutes, cancer related companies. These are organizations that will have no reason to exist practically overnight, and they will fight for survival. Any medical accidents involved with these new cures will be front pages news, and any negative feedback from the treatments will also get top priority. God bless corporatism.
I have 3 friends with MS who have all gone for the treatment over the last year and a half. All came back somewhat disappointed and all now wish they had saved their money because they have little if any improvement now.
Quote: dmI recently saw Michael Moore?,
That's ok. We all make mistakes.
But anyway, no need to worry, they've found several ways to act unethically in this area anyway. (let's see, performing unnecessary procedures, false or questionable treatments, fooling with patents so generics don't reach to market as soon as they might, price gouging, most likely areas of the health insurance market...)
Quote: kenarmanI have 3 friends with MS who have all gone for the treatment over the last year and a half. All came back somewhat disappointed and all now wish they had saved their money because they have little if any improvement now.
That's sad. They were probably actually treated for ED. Don't take that wrong, that's just the first thought that popped into my head that seemed to be a proper insult to those that probably just ripped them off.
Quote: NareedThat's ok. We all make mistakes.
Mind stating what you meant by that? Actually, never mind. You made my blocked list - wow - 2 in one day.
Zillions. Look how long it actually took to suppress scurvy via lime juice. Look at all the doctors who refused to even keep statistics on hand washing in hospitals. Look at how long it took doctors to resist treatment with sunlight despite nurses having noticed that neonates with a certain disease were always located in the center of the room well away from the windows. Look how long there was a campaign to ignore Dr. Cade because he was an Australian country doctor, not a research fellow and was advocating a non-patentable treatment of lithium salts. Look how long America ignored a country doctor because he was black and had polio cure rates that were too high? Look how long it was "known" that Pellegra was an infectious disease until one brave Southern governor promised parole to ALL prisoners, White or Black who offered themselves for experimentation.
>>>>But anyway, no need to worry, they've found several ways to act unethically in this area anyway.
>>>>(performing unnecessary procedures, false or questionable treatments, ...
Such as "reducing tumor burden" in cancer patient treatment: massive expenditures to reduce the number and size of tumors at great discomfort to the patient, but not one moment of a longer life, just fewer and smaller tumors.
>>>> fooling with patents so generics don't reach to market as soon as they might,
Oh thats nothing, look at how so much research is "me tooism" rather than actually advancing the state of knowledge,
Or look at how most drugs are vitamin analogs but research is not done on the vitamins because those can't be patented.
>>>> price gouging,
Oh come now, whether it be a pharmaceutical drug or a recreational drug, you KNOW the producers want competition eliminated. Heroine or Aspirin makes no difference, keep the competitors few and barriers of entry high.
> most likely areas of the health insurance market...)
Wall street judges a health insurance company by how LITTLE it spends on patients with health problems, just as it judges a fire insurance company by how many solid stone houses directly across from a fire station are insured.
So go tell the quacks to treat Tosis (a condition of the vital organs being too high in the chest instead of at the proper levels as shown in autopsies... until someone pointed out data derived from corpses just might not be relevant to the living).
Quote: SOOPOOThis is silly- the answer is an unqualified yes.
I agree, but I do have one question: how are stomach ulcers treated?
As I understand, such ulcers are caused mostly by a bacterial infection. They used to be treated with beta blockers, antacids and diet, or rather "managed" that way. Some types at least can be cured with antibiotics rather cheaply.
Quote: FleaStiff>>>>Was there a specific example of a cure that was discovered and suppressed?
Zillions. Look how long it actually took to suppress scurvy via lime juice. Look at all the doctors who refused to even keep statistics on hand washing in hospitals. Look at how long it took doctors to resist treatment with sunlight despite nurses having noticed that neonates with a certain disease were always located in the center of the room well away from the windows. Look how long there was a campaign to ignore Dr. Cade because he was an Australian country doctor, not a research fellow and was advocating a non-patentable treatment of lithium salts. Look how long America ignored a country doctor because he was black and had polio cure rates that were too high? Look how long it was "known" that Pellegra was an infectious disease until one brave Southern governor promised parole to ALL prisoners, White or Black who offered themselves for experimentation.
I see what you're saying FleaStiff, though I was thinking more along the lines of traditional research and then suppressing the results.
Several of the examples are similar to the auto industry ignoring the backyard inventor who keeps wondering why no one notices the device that increases mileage, or whatever it is he's come up with. That sort of thing isn't specific to the medical area at all. That's the way it goes if you're not part of the standard hierarchy - people often dismiss you.
There's been plenty of bad ideas supported by MDs, (country docs or otherwise), so it's not a given they've got a good one either even if someone would just look at their data.
Quote: dmTherefore, it's in their best interests to discover all sorts of new diseases to spread around to increase demand for their services. Damn, I hope that's illegal. Screw the shareholders if that's what they are demanding.
Cigarette companies didn't care that they were killing people despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Car companies didn't want to install seat belts despite their overwhelming ability to save lives. Insurance companies will deny coverage to those who have preexisting conditions. Agriculture companies will sue other farmers if their seed happens to blow onto their field and they use it. Pharmeceutical companies do everything they can to protect their patents and to extend the period that their patents have effect, despite the fact that generics drive the price down and make it available to those who need it.
You, dm, made the jump to say that I believed it was in the the best interest to send out new dieseases to spread around to increase demand for their serviers. I don't believe that. That is moronic. I've said on other threads that corporarations are there to benefit its shareholders and not society and that's the problem with corporations today. I know that if someone came along and found a natural way to cure cancer or cure erectile dysfunction, that line of business within the corporation would not be happy at all. Its revenue would miss targets! Shares would go down. The president would sell shares in front of the annoucement to the public, just like Martha Stewart did.
Quote: rxwinethe backyard inventor who keeps wondering why no one notices the device that increases mileage
If a research scientist was on track to discover a device to increases automobile mileage, the company would shut down the program because that is not the business that are in. Likewise, they are not in the business to cure disease, just to treat it.
Pharmaceutical companies are in the subscription business. Like cable companies, they depend on the monthly reoccurring revenue. Also like the cable company they would not be interested in selling a product that was a one-time purchase and replaced the monthly revenue stream. What business in their right mind would go for such a deal?
Quote: FleaStiff>>>>Was there a specific example of a cure that was discovered and suppressed?
Zillions. Look how long it actually took to suppress scurvy via lime juice. Look at all the doctors who refused to even keep statistics on hand washing in hospitals. Look at how long it took doctors to resist treatment with sunlight despite nurses having noticed that neonates with a certain disease were always located in the center of the room well away from the windows. Look how long there was a campaign to ignore Dr. Cade because he was an Australian country doctor, not a research fellow and was advocating a non-patentable treatment of lithium salts. Look how long America ignored a country doctor because he was black and had polio cure rates that were too high? Look how long it was "known" that Pellegra was an infectious disease until one brave Southern governor promised parole to ALL prisoners, White or Black who offered themselves for experimentation.
>>>>But anyway, no need to worry, they've found several ways to act unethically in this area anyway.
>>>>(performing unnecessary procedures, false or questionable treatments, ...
Such as "reducing tumor burden" in cancer patient treatment: massive expenditures to reduce the number and size of tumors at great discomfort to the patient, but not one moment of a longer life, just fewer and smaller tumors.
>>>> fooling with patents so generics don't reach to market as soon as they might,
Oh thats nothing, look at how so much research is "me tooism" rather than actually advancing the state of knowledge,
Or look at how most drugs are vitamin analogs but research is not done on the vitamins because those can't be patented.
>>>> price gouging,
Oh come now, whether it be a pharmaceutical drug or a recreational drug, you KNOW the producers want competition eliminated. Heroine or Aspirin makes no difference, keep the competitors few and barriers of entry high.
> most likely areas of the health insurance market...)
Wall street judges a health insurance company by how LITTLE it spends on patients with health problems, just as it judges a fire insurance company by how many solid stone houses directly across from a fire station are insured.
So go tell the quacks to treat Tosis (a condition of the vital organs being too high in the chest instead of at the proper levels as shown in autopsies... until someone pointed out data derived from corpses just might not be relevant to the living).
LOVE IT. I didn't know any of that. Maybe public will wake up some day and kick some ass. Our country is controlled by some bad guys that we need to eliminate.
Quote: GarnabbyThere already is such a drug under testing for dissolving all but the major blockages of the arteries which will then still be otherwise replaced manually (with those of the patient's arm/leg).
I don't have the specs, but know this because my significant other had a bi-bass years ago, so i listened to the news-segment when it appeared about a year ago.
Under study, my ass. The FDA makes it extremely difficult to get new drugs to the market. Protecting you? Hell no, protecting someone else, and probably themselves included.
Quote: kpIf a research scientist was on track to discover a device to increases automobile mileage, the company would shut down the program because that is not the business that are in. Likewise, they are not in the business to cure disease, just to treat it.
Pharmaceutical companies are in the subscription business. Like cable companies, they depend on the monthly reoccurring revenue. Also like the cable company they would not be interested in selling a product that was a one-time purchase and replaced the monthly revenue stream. What business in their right mind would go for such a deal?
That's precisely the point. Health care should not be a mere business. I see it as an inherent right.
Quote: dmThat's precisely the point. Health care should not be a mere business. I see it as an inherent right.
So doctor's should work for free? How will they pay back their Federal student loans? Does everyone deserve Mayo Clinic level expertise, or just Free Clinic?
Military servicemen do not work for free ... neither do policemen or firemen ...
It's not like some totally cuckoo, out there, communist idea, that some services better serve society when they are not run for profit ...
Quote: AyecarumbaSo doctor's should work for free? How will they pay back their Federal student loans? Does everyone deserve Mayo Clinic level expertise, or just Free Clinic?
Hell no, they would work for the government, and they would be relegated to just being regular, overpaid federal employees.
Also, let me say that medical school in its present form is a joke. They expect the poor guys to know every muscle, nerve, cell name of every single part of the body. How can anyone retain that much? I know for a fact that normal people can do many individual tasks that a doctor performs. I, personally, can stick my finger up a male rectum an feel the prostate gland and tell if it's hard, enlarged, whatever. In other words, a group of just normal people could pretty easily learn the specific tasks that a doctor has to perform.
Quote: kpPharmaceutical companies are in the subscription business.
Do you think I should report my dermatologist? He cured me of eczema rather quickly. Then there was that GP who cured me of pneumonia, with drugs from a pharmaceutical company no less (the nerve!)
While I'm at it, should I report my aunt's oncologist? She had skin cancer about 11 or 12 years ago, but got treatment and it went into remission. It hasn't recurred, either. Where do you figure the oncologist went wrong?
Quote: dmUnder study, my ass.
Okay, i guess also i'm part of the world-wide conspiracy going on now.
Though it's hard to believe on that level, when the richest live and die by basically the same technology as most of the remainder of us. In fact today, i venture to add that the overly-rich have come to lead those shorter lives of "quiet desperation" once attributed to only the poor. "All dressed up but no where to go."
Quote: jwblueThe number of conspiracy theorists in this world never cease to amaze me.
That's what they want you to believe....
Quote: boymimboOh great, another health care debate! Wait. I've been blocked.
Not by me! I stated on here that I unblocked both you and Nareed. Too boring to miss her outrageous take on things.
Quote: boymimboOh great, another health care debate! Wait. I've been blocked.
Sorry, dup - never done that before. Working with a brand new computer!
Quote: jwblueThe number of conspiracy theorists in this world never cease to amaze me.
Really? I personally find my amazement in just the number of conspiricies that exist.
Quote: dmReally? I personally find my amazement in just the number of conspiricies that exist.
I didn't know there were so many. Miss one or two Trilateral Commission Meetings and you are out of the loop.
Quote: kpIf a research scientist was on track to discover a device to increases automobile mileage, the company would shut down the program because that is not the business that are in. Likewise, they are not in the business to cure disease, just to treat it.
Pharmaceutical companies are in the subscription business. Like cable companies, they depend on the monthly reoccurring revenue. Also like the cable company they would not be interested in selling a product that was a one-time purchase and replaced the monthly revenue stream. What business in their right mind would go for such a deal?
Because, without oppressive government regulation, they could charge a hefty fee for the 'cure'. Most surgeries end up costing insurance companies tens of thousands of dollars. If you could invent a one time pill, sell it for $8000, then both you and the insurance company (AND the patient) are all better off. If the government says that no pill can cost more than $100, then you are correct, the researching company will not put the R and D funds needed to find that pill. Funny how capitalism works without the government getting in the way.
Quote: SOOPOOBecause, without oppressive government regulation, they could charge a hefty fee for the 'cure'. Most surgeries end up costing insurance companies tens of thousands of dollars. If you could invent a one time pill, sell it for $8000, then both you and the insurance company (AND the patient) are all better off. If the government says that no pill can cost more than $100, then you are correct, the researching company will not put the R and D funds needed to find that pill. Funny how capitalism works without the government getting in the way.
Well said.
