Leftchick: "I Knew Big Pharma Was Blocking Possible Cures for Diabetes"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Over in GD, Leftchick connects the dots between Big Pharma & blocking cure for diabetes

AHA! I Knew Big Pharma was Blocking Possible Cures for Diabetes leftchick Sun Jan-25-09 10:34 AM (posted in General Discussion)
Original message

And most certainly cancer, Parkinson's, MS, etc. My son was diagnosed a Type 1 Diabetic (insulin dependent) at the age of 12 exactly 2 years ago. From the beginning I was astounded at the cost of insulin, testers, supplies, everything diabetes related was expensive. And we have insurance! Then I started thinking about how long insulin has been available, for literally decades, I believe about eighty years. So there really is no excuse to keep these medicines artificially high. Then the light bulb moment as I frantically researched my son's disease before his pancreas finally pooped out! Big Pharma makes too damn much money to ever allow trials for possible cures. Duh!

Jump ahead to last weeks announcement of using stem cells for spinal cord victims. Great News I thought. So I went back into research mode with hopes for stem cell research for diabetes in the near future. Then I stumbled upon this.....

more at the link

Its just like the efforts to extend patents on drugs by creating new uses or doses.

The issue is that PHARMA is for profit, so they must make profit to keep stockholders happy,
and without regulation and oversight, they will game the system to their favor, and to our disadvantage.

Why should they stop doing so?

[polichick]

1. imo the only reason we don't have a cure for cancer is the cancer industry...

...which is aided and abetted by the ama, fda and Congress ~ where would that industry be if hundreds of thousands of people didn't "need" testing, surgery, chemo etc. each year??

[Liberal Veteran]

5. The reason we don't have a cure for cancer is because it's a complex set of illnesses.

Even in countries where there is socialized medicine, cancer is still a killer (without any AMERICAN Medical Association, UNITED STATES FDA, and US Congress).

Cancer is a catch all term anyway that encompasses a couple of hundred different diseases. Even within subgroups of that we have different types of illnesses referred to generically (breast cancer can refer to any number of specific types, phyllodes tumor, angiosarcoma, osteosarcoma, metaplastic breast cancer, adenoid cystic carcinoma, ductal carcinoma, etc...)

While most people would like their to be some magic bullet to cure all cancers, it would the be the equivalent of saying that a fuel additive will fix your transmission, engine problems, give better radio reception, reduce tread wear, restore the belts to pristine condition, and remove dents and scratches.

It's just not that simple.

[trotsky]

9. Well done.

Your BIG PHARMA check is in the mail. :sarcasm: ;-)

[gristy]

2. discuss here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4907575

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. You can discuss here too - the Health Forum needs to be talking about this

although its in GD, and is a major issue, we need to make sure this stays visible here in Health as well.

[cosmik debris]

4. Wow! Now big pharma controls the drug companies in China as well as

Russia, Japan, India, all of Europe, South America, and even Australia.

I wonder how they convinced the Chinese and Indian drug companies to reject this research so that American drug companies can make more money.

Imagine the fame and prosperity they are passing up just to help their competitors.

I guess the people in Asia, Europe, and South America just don't want to be rich and famous.

Oh well.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. Multi national n/t

[trotsky]

8. Oh, absolutely.

This conspiracy goes all the way to the top. Gawd himself takes orders from big pharma.

[cosmik debris]

10. Oh, absolutely.

This conspiracy goes all the way to the bottom as well.

Even the smallest drug company in S. Korea is on the take from Pfizer. Same for India.

But the miracle is how Merck perverted the Chinese government to allow it to bribe independent drug makers there.

And apparently Glaxo is more powerful than the Russian Mafia too.

Imagine the power of being able to completely stifle all competitors in this wonderful globalized world.

Everybody hates America, but everybody loves our drug companies.

[HamdenRice]

39. For your sarcasm to work as implicit criticism, you would have to know how Chinese treat diabetes

You are assuming that the Chinese in fact treat diabetes the same way and with the same drugs as the disease is treated in the west, and that their control of the disease is no more efficacious as ours.

Can you back that statement up? Do you have any data to support that?

No?

Hmmmm...

Sounds like someone is making scientific claims based on gut feelings again rather than on the basis of data.

[cosmik debris]

41. You are stalking me again.

[greyl]

50. The regulation of blood glucose level is very complicated.

Additionaly, the treatment of diabetes, in both the East and West, is much more diverse than you appear to realize.
It's not as though there is only one treatment practiced in each region! :rofl:

It's non-controversial knowledge that traditional, unconventional, and so-called modern Western varieties of diabetes treatments are shared among the East and West. From your post, it isn't evident you're aware that communication and commerce have been taking place between the East and West for at least several years now. There are, of course, measurable differences in proportion of sundry treatments used in, for example, Beijing and New York.
I remember reading a study published in TDE, the official journal of the American Association of Di­abetes Educators(you should really check it out) that went into some detail, but I won't risk boring you with details too mundane and irrelevant.
I read, for example, that citizens of Beijing are more likely to rely on exercise to regulate their glucose levels than New Yorkers, but are less likely to restrict their diet. Also, that Beijingers primarily rely on Western pills to treat their diabetes. Isn't that fascinating? I bet that sarcastic criticism is really tickling you where it counts, right about now.

To those who believe the civilized East is some mysterious place cordoned off from Western thought & influence where everyones Aunt practices acupuncture, I suspect this information must be quite eye-opening indeed.

Btw, when you said "You are assuming that the Chinese in fact treat diabetes the same way and with the same drugs as the disease is treated in the west", from where on Earth did you acquire that knowledge? You haven't been consulting with magic psychic spoonbenders, have you?
:rofl:

[cosmik debris]

52. No point in addressing the facts with someone who believes

that sarcasm is "making scientific claims", or that "crock-o-shit" is not an adequately scientific phrase for expressing suspicion. It is obvious that his marble collection has left the building.

[dkf]

6. I read once where a famous medical clinic stopped Diabetic education and monitoring

because it was expensive to provide in personnel and they were losing $ as there were less surgical procedures like amputations. I found it outrageous.

I'm trying to google for it, but its not coming up.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. NY Times: "Vaccines and Diabetes Drug Lift Glaxo's Profit"

Vaccines and Diabetes Drug Lift Glaxo's Profit - New York TimesJul 27, 2006 ...

GlaxoSmithKline, Europe's largest drug maker, said yesterday that its second-quarter profit increased 14 percent, driven by children's vaccines and the diabetes treatment Avandia. But the shares fell after its forecast was lower than expected.

Glaxo said its net income rose to £1.32 billion ($2.44 billion), or 23 pence a share, from £1.16 billion, or 20.2 pence, a year earlier. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News had a median estimate of £1.31 billion. Revenue at Glaxo climbed 11 percent.

...Sales of Advair for asthma increased 12 percent while vaccine sales rose 17 percent, helped by a 35 percent increase in revenue from the United States.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Wow. The come up with a decent medication or vaccine and their profits rise?

Shocking!

It's a no win situation for them, apparently.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. the partnership of PHARMA and Republicans is OVER now

so defending them won't do any good once FDA is cleaned up and
laws are put into place to provide transparency and negotiating the prices of meds.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. I'm all for cleaning up the FDA, where do you suppose we start?

Vioxx? Let's see....that was approved in 1999 when the Bush administration was responsible for the appointments to the FDA.

Oh, my goodness! I just looked at the date on that! It was approved during the Clinton administration....however is that possible?

While I don't doubt there is massive room for improvement in the FDA, once again, you show a disturbing US centric viewpoint that indicates you believe all medications go through the FDA before anywhere else in the world. Apparently France, UK, Germany, Australia, Japan, etc....have absolutely no impact on approving drugs for use in their country.

You might want to cogitate and masticate on some of your assumptions.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. come rushing to protect Big Pharma

surprise.

[Liberal Veteran]

17. Just offering balance to the discussion.

If you want to offer your opinion without allowing for viewpoints that don't mesh with your own, I hear mirrors are cheap and don't require FDA approval.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

18. Yes, the republicans and big pharma really need that "fair and balanced" help

I guess we should promote Fox News over here too.

[Liberal Veteran]

21. So you posit that not buying the vast conspiracy would-be whistleblower line...

...is the equivalent of Fox News and republicanism?

Well, I suppose that's not entirely surprising, although hardly the most convincing argument I have ever heard.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

33. STRAW MAN

the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

[Liberal Veteran]

43. That's rich.

I'm fairly certain that lecturing people on logical fallacies from the post hoc ergo propter hoc contingent is laughable.

[SidDithers]

20. You didn't address the point about other countries...

Health Canada is certainly not under the control of the FDA or the Booshies.

Sid

[Liberal Veteran]

22. Oh, you and your inconvenient monkey wrenches!

How dare you skewer such nice pat explanations for all that is wrong in medicine with your logic and stuff.

[SidDithers]

23. I'm all about the monkey wrenches...

:hi:

Sid

[cosmik debris]

30. The whole conspiracy falls apart if they consider foreign competition.

So they have to pretend that it doesn't exist.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

31. Red Herring

edited for clarity:

introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

[SidDithers]

34. Irrelevant only because they don't fit your conspiracist worldview..nt

Sid

[cosmik debris]

40. Only American companies can do research?

That will be big news in Asia where drug research has been going on for years.

Several Asian and European countries have vibrant drug industries that would have the capability to produce this "cure". And they would LOVE to undercut their competitors in America.

Do you honestly believe that every drug company in the world is bought off by their competitors?

Do you honestly believe that no one in any other country wants to be rich and famous for finding a cure for diabetes?

[cosmik debris]

54. I guess she is going to ignore all evidence that doesn't fit

Her bogus conspiracy theory.

But then, it wouldn't be a bogus conspiracy theory if it explained ALL of the evidence.

I just find it amusing that while "Slumdog Millionaire" is the hottest thing at the box office, she is telling us that Indians don't want to be rich and famous for beating diabetes.

It is equally amusing that while we fight with the Chinese to protect our patents and copyrights, the Chinese are ignoring a miraculous breakthrough in medical technology that could make billions of dollars for them.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. This OP (from General Discussion) is NUMBER 1 and on the Home Page

Most of the comments are opposite of what you see from the Health Forum regulars.

[SidDithers]

24. Yeah, well, the volume of the noise...

and the accuracy of the shouting are not always related.

Sid

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

28. Yes, and I am sure that History will be on your side 100 years from now

and that the ratings mean nothing.

[SidDithers]

32. The last bastion of those without an argument...

"Just you wait! History will prove me right!!!"

meh...

Sid

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

35. Yep, you and George Bush will be vindicated in 100 years

everything you've posted here will then be proven correct.

[SidDithers]

37. When all else fails, tar your critics with the George Bush brush...

you need to come up with a new schtick. This one's been done to death by far better than you.

Sid

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

38. only if the shoe fits

[tavalon]

19. Stem cell research limits had a part in it, but yes, when you ask a company

that is making big profits in this disease or that disease, why would they want to. They might pretend for the PR, but no need to take the bacon off the table.

I work in healthcare and the problems and so huge and so tentacled as to look like the flying spaghetti monster but not nearly so holey. Even if we could get the bloodsucking insurance companies out (doubtful) big pharma out or at least severely regulated (not likely), once you look under the cover you will see a system that has been held together with tape, baling wire and the moral fortitude of a lot of people who haven't much left to give. The bloodsuckers have destroyed whatever "system", there might have been. When HRC was screaming for healthcare reform, we had a halfway working system that could have transformed. Now, there are so many areas destroyed, I can't wrap my mind around how it gets "fixed"

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. Here is an interesting article - if you're not already familiar with its theme:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038079/Just-ONE-glass-orange-juice-day-make-obese-AND-increase-risk-diabetes-says-research.html

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. ...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

27. There's a section here you may I said may want to

read:

http://www.pycnogenol.com/media/media_research_library.php

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

29. LeftChick's OP now up to 113 recommends

its pretty hard for an item to get that many recommends, or to
stay in view so long.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. Leftchick's OP in General is up to 118 recommends now

Democrats!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

42. Leftchick made it to 135 recommends in the General Discussion with this OP

wow.

Guess the democrats GET it.

[Liberal Veteran]

44. Argumentum ad populum

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

45. 135 recommends, thats probably a record for a "Health" OP

awesome, she kicked the snot out of this forum.


Go Democrats!

[SidDithers]

46. Once again, we're all democrats here...nt

Sid

[Liberal Veteran]

47. Oh noes! I've been beaten by vaporware!

:rofl:

[semillama]

48. You keep using that word "democrats"

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

49. nowhere has the meaning been more clear than in the GD Forum

on Leftchick's post.

[trotsky]

51. It is insulting, childish, and terribly disruptive to essentially claim...

that only people who agree with your conspiracy theories can be Democrats.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

53. so hilarious to hear you complain of insults, childishness or disruptiveness

coming from you its too funny.

[trotsky]

55. So you don't believe in setting a good example?

When have I ever claimed that you weren't a Democrat? Hmmm? I'll just wait right here for the proof.

[varkam]

56. And this coming from the queen of the ad hominem.

How much is Lilly paying these days?