Who believes Pharmaceutical companies purposely withhold cures to keep people sick in order to profit off lesser, more long term treatment? Why?
i know people in healthcare that believe there are many cures being held.
imo its possible.
There's a patent for adding Coq10 to statin drugs which is not used for the obvious reason that statins lower coq10 which causes blood pressure to rise. That sells more drugs etc. Merck holds that patent.
No, I don't believe this. If they had a slam dunk cure for something like cancer or heart disease, they'd release it.
But let's say research went into a direction of using a common un-patentable chemical or nutrient to cure disease. In such a case I believe they'd cease spending R&D money in that direction because there is no return on their investment. If they already were making crap tons of money selling a drug for that disease, they likely would not go out of their way to encourage others to research this possibility either.
It makes sense if you're running one of them. Fuck am I going to release the perfect version of my product for? Medicine is sadly no different than any other industry.
Idk, Steve Jobs died of cancer and he was a wealthy high value member of society. If there was a secret cure, id think a guy with his success would be privy to it.
There r a ton of medicines that quickly cure common ailments. Theyre available in a fuck load of countries but nit in the US. "The most advanced medical country"
kingkoopa - There r a ton of medicines that quickly cure common ailments. Theyre available in a fuck load of countries but nit in the US. "The most advanced medical country"
Thats more the cause of lawyers than big pharma.
You make a lot more money off treatment then you do a cure .
Mihow -Many of them are naturalkingkoopa - There r a ton of medicines that quickly cure common ailments. Theyre available in a fuck load of countries but nit in the US. "The most advanced medical country"
Cures to cancer? For sure alternative medicine .
I SNORTED SOME POWDERED LAMA DICK IN CHINA ONCE.
BIGWHITESEXY - I SNORTED SOME POWDERED LAMA DICK IN CHINA ONCE.Llama is Chinese for Donuts right?
I don't believe this is true. Why would they spend billions on research to find a cure if they are worried that a cure would kill their business? Why not just spend nothing on research?
overall, no way.
BUT, I 100% believe a cure for the common cold or a vaccine against it is being withheld b/c
1) its harmless (unlike the flu)
2) being harmless, there is BIG BIG BIG $$$$ spent on cold meds.
explain how it would be withheld
makes no sense to me
These big CEOs die and have kids die from the diseases they are holding back the cure for.
They wouldn't give up their own lives for profit.
My first thought on this is "competition." The companies are in business first and foremost to make money. They compete with each other to put out the better products in order to make a profit and increase their stocks. To me, it would be a poor business practice to hold back a superior drug (cure or for treatment)in order to keep people dependent on less effective drugs, because the competition could produce and profit off a better drug. Unless they are all conspiring with each other to keep everyone sick, which I am sure is not the case. Now, cruedi above mentioned that Merk owns a patent for adding Coq10 to statin drugs and it is withheld in order to keep BP high in patients in order to sell more BP meds, which is interesting, but it suggests that everyone in the company with knowledge of this and is involved in the development of that drug is extremely unethical, which is to say a lot of people. I find it hard to believe, as it would take a great deal of cooperation to pull off.
'Withholding cures' = No
Not bothering to fund research that can cure things = yes
Basing research decisions on profit potential = yes