AHA! I Knew Big Pharma was Blocking Possible Cures for Diabetes

[leftchick]

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.....

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2009/01/23/scientist-revives-research


Scientist Revives Research


By Danny Ash
Published January 23, 2009

Twelve years ago, Irving Weissman discovered a treatment that might have saved the lives of thousands of women with advanced breast cancer, but pharmaceutical companies weren’t interested in developing the therapy. Though that interest is finally being reignited, Weissman doesn’t pull any punches. “I hate to say I told you so,” he said.

Weissman, a professor of pathology and developmental biology at Stanford University, spoke Wednesday and Thursday as part of the Columbia University Department of Religion’s Bampton Lecture series. The lecture series is modeled after a centuries-old Oxford series of the same name, and invites famous authorities in their respective fields to give talks on various issues of interest to the religious community.

In Wednesday’s lecture, Weissman laid out the conceptual foundation of his work—that stem cells are rare, self-renewing, and can regenerate body tissues. Weissman repeatedly expressed frustration that while many of his discoveries seemed to hold remarkable potential for life-saving treatments, commercial or regulatory hurdles have prevented his scientific research from benefiting human beings.

One example is Weissman’s mid-’90s research on type I diabetes, in which he demonstrated the ability to fully cure type I diabetes in mice using stem cells. But even though the experiments avoided political controversy by using so-called adult stem cells, which do not come from embryos, Weissman ran into a road block when pharmaceutical companies refused to sponsor clinical trials. The therapy went nowhere. Weissman implied that the pharmaceutical companies had put profit over principle, preferring to keep diabetes sufferers dependent on costly insulin than to cure them once and for all.

“He has a long history of being at the forefront of his field,” Arthur Palmer, professor of structural biology at Columbia said, remarking that Weissman has never been afraid to challenge scientific orthodoxy.




.... great article and a great man! So we not only need to hope for actual stem cell research, for all promising cures for many diseases. We also need to put pressure on congress to not let the coffers of Big Pharma compromise principle yet again. I am afraid this will be a long hard slog. :(

[av8rdave]

1. Thank you for posting

My daughter has been a type 1 for nearly 10 years. I have found that there is little or no interest among pharmaceuticals to pursue potential cures (or at least lifelong effective treatment) for this disease.

Unfortunately, I believe it will be a struggle. In the research world, evidence exists that this disease may be curable. There is little evidence that big pharma is interested.

[TZ]

32. Do research into biotechs.

There are TONS working on stem cell technology and cures for diseases like diabetes. The idea that nobody is interested in "cures" is nonsense.
I work for a biotech looking for things like that..because Diabetes type 1 is an immunological problem and we work on immunological research.
The idea that pharmas is uninterested is stupid btw..the company that came up with a cure would be very rich.

[av8rdave]

48. Perhaps you're right

I guess from the layperson's point of view, there is a lot of frustration. The meds/supplies are ungodly expensive, and little is heard in the MSM regarding what's going on. Sorry if the post seemed offensive.

Any recommended resources for finding out who/what is doing the leading edge stuff on particular diseases?

[TZ]

type I diabetes is now considered an immunological issue

So I would assume alot of companies do research on that area. My company is such although I don't know if they are working on diabetes at the moment (focusing on Lupus COPD, asthma and cancer)
I know its frustrating. The reasons why some of this stuff is good awful expensive has to do with how expensive the research and development are.
Here's a link I googled on some research going on:
http://www.ncbiotech.org/news_and_events/industry_news/plureon.html
If you can, get a google alert for anything related to diabetes..It will give you an idea of what is being done.
Its hard for laypeople to understand what goes on in this complex field. I'm not offended by your post. What I AM offended by is the OP jumping to conclusions and lack of research into this topic. But its easier to scream CONSPIRACY than to try to understand the complex issues going on here. I would want to look at this scientists research..this claim to me sounds more like sour grapes on an individuals part than an coverup. Not all science is equal and just because someone claims to have come up with a breakthrough does not mean it is so...look at the human cloning claim made by the fraudulent South Korean scientist a few years ago.

[av8rdave]

101. I'm aware of the process of becoming type 1 being essentially an autoimmune response

I don't know if it has yet been determined if a particular virus or family of viruses trigger it.

I keep telling my daughter that we probably aren't too far away from much more effective treatments. Her job is to keep herself healthy so she might benefit when the time comes.

Thanks for the info!

[kristopher]

107. I have a question

Funds for research and development are limited.

Pharmaceutical companies are profit seeking entities.

Your post implies that seeking maximum profit is absolutely compatible with directing funds into specific areas that may threaten large existing profit centers.

I don't believe it.

The ability to roadblock marginally profitable threats to extremely profitable products exists under the current system. This isn't like saying that auto makers suppress high mileage innovations, because high mileage innovations don't threaten their existing profits. It is like saying that fossil fuel companies act to discourage action on climate change, because that will threaten profits.

So unless you can show me an internal system within corporate pharma decision making that places altruism above profit, I'm inclined to believe that you are an honorable person who can't fully appreciate that those in command of your work are capable of acting in a manner you can't imagine for yourself.

I think the answer is pretty simple, though. Just increase funding in basic research at the academic level and provide a separate path for testing and approval for universities that comes with the price of highly limited intellectual property rights. Public funding and public ownership of the results. Let the pharma companies develop another antacid if that is the best way for them to meet broad public needs; but channel some resources into bringing some of the excellent basic research produced in our academic institutions all the way to the public.

[wolfgangmo]

125. Research was privatized decades ago.

Look to Saint Ronnie, the president who drove the country into the ditch and then had his rep PR'ed to death. He started the cutting of government research.

To say that private research in the US is the only research on the planet and that if we upset that apple cart then all the worlds cures will be stopped as all the Big Pharma companies go out of business and the worlds population dies out of some horrible disease. It's BS.

IF it were true then the research done with public money in public institutions the world over would not exist. Stop believing and spreading the lie.

[kristopher]

175. What are you talking about?

If you responded to my post you didn't read it well enough. I'm advocating for more public funding so I'm guessing you intend your remarks for post #48.

[Hanse]

176. Well, that's not really true.

Government funding has gone up, not down. Those dips are corrections for inflation.

"To say that private research in the US is the only research on the planet and that if we upset that apple cart then all the worlds cures will be stopped as all the Big Pharma companies go out of business and the worlds population dies out of some horrible disease. It's BS."

Huh? Your whole argument is that private research is the only thing going on.

The private industry spends billions of dollars on medical research, and that's billions of dollars the U.S. government isn't spending.

[Hannah Bell]

237. Dollars contracted out to private corps have also increased.

[defendandprotect]

193. The entire system is polluted with corruption . . .

I think the answer is pretty simple, though. Just increase funding in basic research at the academic level and provide a separate path for testing and approval for universities that comes with the price of highly limited intellectual property rights. Public funding and public ownership of the results. Let the pharma companies develop another antacid if that is the best way for them to meet broad public needs; but channel some resources into bringing some of the excellent basic research produced in our academic institutions all the way to the public.

Academia is now corporatized - all of our colleges and universities --!

And the public has funded much research -- that's the norm, but it is always then privatized.

Yet somehow people believe that drug companies fund their research -- and ignore how much

they spend on advertising --- !!

Drug Companies spend double on Advertising ...

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=drug+companies+spend+more+on+advertising+than+research&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

As I recall it, in the UK all drugs must be proven to be effective and not harmful.

And that is not our situation ...

That's why we rank 37th in health care in America.

[bjobotts]

224. They've got a goose laying gold eggs.No way they will end that unless they get more profit

[TZ]

247. "Pharmaceutical companies are profit seeking entities"

DING WRONG! Some are but not ALL are! There are PLENTY of nonprofits..also there ARE govt grants that encourage research into areas like orphan diseases like I have where there aren't large numbers of people sick.
This industry DOES NOT have the same dynamics as most. The extent which both private and public research goes on is not well understood as your post has shown!
I ask again, if Pharma is blocking research explain anti-cancer vaccines which prevent the disease in the first place (gee less people needing chemo!) Explain again why companies are constantly doing research on ways to make their drugs more efficient..Prozac once a week dose instead of everyday.
The excellent research done in academia is NOT POSSIBLE without the large resources that the Pharmas bring. Again I cite the Merck/NIH collaboration on finding a malaria vaccine.
Its quite obvious that the BIG PHARMA IS EVIL crowd knows NOTHING about the field.
Its intellectually lazy but so much more satisfying to blame all the problems on the pharmaceutical field. I'm not saying there aren't issues in this field...there are but the CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY crowd is dead wrong on what the issues are.
FWIW you know where I saw the WORST science being practiced? NIH. Because there is NO oversight. Pharmaceuticals have, despite what idiots here think, TONS OF OVERSIGHT. I know, I'm currently working on a project that the FDA is very interested in.

[leftchick]

281. this is on the news stands now

but not the internet until next week. Get back to me after you have read it...

http://www.rollingstone.com/issue1071

SPECIAL REPORT
Marketing a Phony "Miracle" Drug

Zyprexa was created to treat schizophrenia, but it wound up being used on depressed moms and misbehaving kids. How one of the nation's biggest pharmaceutical companies turned a flawed, dangerous pill into a multi-billion-dollar bonanza — and who paid the price. By Ben Wallace-Wells

[momto3]

306. I mostly agree with you.

Of course biotech research is profit driven. They do not get federal funding and rely on profits for further research. We can debate that their profits are exorbitant until the end of times. I agree that some companies have been found to operate under less than ethical conditions. I also have contact with other companies that are very committed and dedicated to the cause of helping people. But, all companies must make a profit. This is why biotech companies tend to focus on big diseases that affect many people in the general population. This is why the majority of the companies are researching diseases such as diabetes and cancer. But, I do know that most of these companies would not hinder finding a cure for any disease. It would be a huge boon to the company that found a cure for diabetes. It would put their competitors out of business. Plus a cure for diabetes, does not mean that people will no longer get diabetes. This is not the same as "curing" smallpox, where once the virus no longer has a host, it becomes eradicated from the population. People will still develop diabetes in the future and will still require the "cure".

But, the corporation is made up of individual scientists that do feel that what they are doing is worthwhile to the public. I can tell you from personal experience that scientists do not decide to go into research for the money.

I am in total agreement on the need to improve funding for academic research. I am personally involved in research at a major university, and increases in funding for the NIH essentially stalled during the Bush administration. There are great expectations among my colleagues that things will improve soon. Then maybe academic research can once again act as a balance to the profit driven biotech industry.

[FlaGranny]

260. New meds

and equipment might have cause to be expensive, but insulin, testing equipment, and syringes? They have paid back their research and development costs many times over and their prices are no longer justified. IMHO.

[Joe Chi Minh]

54. Wouldn't that depend on the cure? It sounds to me as if you're talking through your hat.

I'm just a layman, but I'm having difficuly grasping how pharmaceutical companies would make as much from a "once only" surgical operation, as they would from a life-time dependency on insulin. Would the cells not be the patient's own? If taken from another adult, I suppose they might make money from a pemanent regime of anti-rejection drugs.

[TZ]

87. I'm talking from knowledge

Want to tell me WHY my company is busy working on new technolgy that extends the half life of drugs so instead of 6 doses needed only two are? Its complete BULLSHIT that ALL the companies in the biopharmaceutical field behave the exact same way. There are CURES being tried to find but until then most of these companies are working on finding better treatments for both the company AND THE PATIENT

[Joe Chi Minh]

90. ANSWER the question. You're wriggling like an eel. And you're posing as a brain-box.

It's not rocket science. I asked you ONE simple question:

Which would make more money for Big Pharma? A "one time only" surgical procedure, or a life-time of insulin dependency!
If you can't answer it, don't insult our intelligence with your "bullsh*t baffles brains" piffle.

If you're from knowledge, heaven help mankind! I'll answer the question you put to Dave:

"Want to tell me WHY my company is busy working on new technolgy that extends the half life of drugs so instead of 6 doses needed only two are?"

Why do you think, dopey? So that they can charge the same price or more at half the cost to themselves! I really thought you might have had SOME gumption. If you represent the panoply of state, they need an operative just a wee bit more intelligent than you, by the looks of it.

[TZ]

92. both would make money

Or do you know NOTHING about patents and technology? So tell me what is your BIOLOGY degree in tinfoil hattery?
This is a complex field. Read sometime about companies like HGS WHICH HAS MADE NO PROFIT but receives instead research funding.
There is all sorts of government grants to encourage research into cures.
But the ILL INFORMED public has no idea. Do you know that Merck is working with NIH to come up with a malaria vaccine..that would mean the end of selling malarial drugs...basically preventing sickness in the first place. Does that sound like a conspiracy to keep people sick.
Idiot.

[Joe Chi Minh]

95. Still you evade the question! That's it! I've had you from a long distance.

You just can't bring yourself to admit, BIG PHARMA ARE MAKING GAZILLIONS MORE FROM A LIFE-TIME OF INSULIN DEPENDENCY THAN THEY WOULD FROM A "ONCE ONLY" SURGICAL PROCEDURE.

YOU DENIED THAT. Now argue with us about it. AND STAY ON TOPIC. Smart is as smart does.

Now beat it! Before I tan you hide. Well, I seem to have done that already. Oh, by the way, I've got a doctorate from the George Galloway University of Bullsh*t Calling, and currently hold the chair of Emeritus Professor.

[Hanse]

177. I take it George Galloway University of Bullshit Calling is unaccredited?

"BIG PHARMA ARE MAKING GAZILLIONS MORE FROM A LIFE-TIME OF INSULIN DEPENDENCY THAN THEY WOULD FROM A "ONCE ONLY" SURGICAL PROCEDURE. "

Some pharmaceutical companies make money from selling insulin. Many more pharmaceutical companies do not make money from selling insulin.

Because they do not make or sell insuling.

Therefore, they'd have a good incentive to come up with a cure for insulin.

Because they'd make a shit load of money, and drive their competitors out of business.

"Well, I seem to have done that already."

Only in your own dreams, Sunny Jim.

[TZ]

249. boy are you dumb..

Really. I ask you again why is Merck helping to look for a malaria vaccine when they could sell anti malarials forever.
Why is Astra Zeneca studying JAK2 which is the ROOT CAUSE for certain leukemias and leukemia like conditions.
Yes I can see you are an exerpt in bullshit idiocy narrowmindedness pomposity and tinfoilhattery! How long did it take you to get all those degrees? Or have you been a know it all moron your entire life?

[uberllama42]

99. If you could somehow ensure that diabetes is never cured

then sure, I think it's safe to say that a pharma company could make more money by treating diabetes than by inventing and distributing a cure. But what happens to the companies who didn't patent the cure? Now they're not making money from treating or curing the condition.

If there were only three companies in the whole world that could do biomedical research, it would be possible to collude and ensure high profits indefinitely. But there are more firms than that, plus non-profits, government agencies, and foreign firms all doing research. There are simply too many firms in the market to collude, not to mention all the agencies that have no financial incentive to suppress a cure anyway.

Economically, this conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense.

[Dr. Strange]

113. Astounding isn't it?

Normally, conspiracy theories like this are quite intellectually sound. :crazy:

[ekwhite]

202. It's quite simple, really

The biotech industry is very competitive. If biotech company X can make a billion dollars a year by eating Eli Lilly's lunch, they will jump at the chance to do it. A cure for type 1 diabetes would be a blockbuster product. By your logic, there would be no vaccine industry, as many vaccines are just a few doses, and prevent the need for antibiotics or antiviral drugs.

[Raksha]

225. It's very simple...they wouldn't.

Re I'm just a layman, but I'm having difficuly grasping how pharmaceutical companies would make as much from a "once only" surgical operation, as they would from a life-time dependency on insulin.

That's why Big Pharma is only interested in "treatments," not CURES.

[TZ]

251. and you know what research is going on in EVERY COMPANY?

What are vaccines good for then? Hmmm? What about research on JAK2 as a root cause of leukemias and blood malignancies? Malaria vaccines? HIV vaccines?
You have no clue. Really.

[ekwhite]

201. Amen

There must be another reason no one was interested. I work for a biotech company also, and I can't believe no one would jump at the chance for a cure for type 1 diabetes, other than Eli Lilly, of course. There must have been patent issues or something else scaring companies away.

[sendero]

305. Nobody said "nobody"...

... they said BIG PHARMA. The biotechs are small fish compared to them.

[D-Lee]

100. Going Low Carb absolutely helps now -- see these links

Low carb (30 g a day) NOW helps both Type 2 and Type 1 diabetics -- reducing both diabetic complications and (reducing but not necessarily eliminating) the need for medications sold by Big Pharma. By the way, those pharmaceutical companies are sponsors of the American Diabetic Association ...

If you need instructions for both T1 and T2, read the book "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution" (here is the Amazon link: www.amazon.com/Dr-Bernsteins-Diabetes-Solution-Achieving/dp/0316099066). Much of the book can be read for free online at this link: http://www.diabetes-book.com/readit.shtml. Dr. Bernstein is brilliant and has looked for what really works, which fits with his engineering background which preceded his medical school training. Indeed, he was the first private person to own a personal glucose testing meter, which is noted on the FDA pages. He is a T1.

A good explanation of why low carb works is provided by Dr. Mary Vernon (start reading about half-way down the page here: http://rjr10036.typepad.com/askdrvernon/2008/08/well-well-updat.html). Dr. Vernon co-authored the Atkins diabetes book and has terrific medical credentials.

The first half of the Dr. Vernon post linked above is well worth reading if you are concerned about diabetic medications. As addressed there, you will see that diabetics are ill-served by using only medication to control diabetes (both T1 and T2). The JUPITER study showed just how dangerous piling on more medication is because the heavy medication part of the study had to be terminated for patient safety reasons.

The best approach is to reduce the carbs, which a diabetic body cannot use effectively. The need for medication will fall and, if needed, medication should be continued at that lower level. Such need will continue for T1s, but likely with less risk.

For a detailed lay background, here are two web pages which are written by Jenny Ruhl. The first is called "Blood Sugar 101" and the link is http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/. A low carb information page appears at http://www.phlaunt.com/lowcarb/. Both are excellent. Jenny Ruhl also has a book out titled "Blood Sugar 101" (the Amazon link is: http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sugar-101-About-Diabetes/dp/0964711613) and it has great reviews.

The Bernstein website also has a Forum (enter at http://www.diabetes-book.com, free sign up required) and it is a common experience that both T1 and T2 Forum members see significant health improvements and a reduction in diabetic complications by going low carb.

If you or anyone whose life touches your is a diabetic, you could do no better than look at these links and follow the advice.

Finding these resources has improved my life and health beyond expectation, as well as reducing my prescription bill ...

[leftchick]

104. these are great links!

thank you

:)

[Avalon Sparks]

140. Bernstien Fan here!

Completely agree D-Lee - low carb is the way to go. A couple of years ago Doc said I was on the fast track to type II based on fasting blood sugars increasing over the last several years. Still not even in the preDiabetic range, but he was smart enough to realize that even in the lower 90's - that was a big warning sign. I did over about 400 hours of research of Type II on my own, and discovered that Dr Berstien and Atkins had the only RIGHT solution. By following a low carb diet I have perhaps delayed the onset of Type II for a long time and all other medical issues that were entering into the red flag zone (upon turning 40) High Blood Pressure ,Cholestral, Headaches, weight gain, occasional Irritable Bile Syndrome and Hives are all PAST issues as well.

Low carb IS NOT EASY at first, but once it becomes a lifestyle it gets easier and easier. I can eat out almost anywhere. Salads with yummy ranch dressing and all kind of ingredients are a daily staple, eggs, bacon and sausage and all types of meat have become my way of life. Low carb way of cooking and recipes are difficult at first, but once you get the hang of it... they aren't too challenging. Taste way better than any LOW FAT recipe.

I eat pretty moderate carb now, but should my blood sugar ever indicate problems at my yearly physical, I will adopt the Bernstein principles in full force.

I have no doubt the discovery of Dr Bernstien has added years to my life and quality of life.

[Ladyhawk]

157. I can attest this is true.

I've been on a low carb diet for over six months and my blood glucose levels are now NORMAL. I still have to take a pill (Actos), but fewer milligrams. As time goes on, I may be able to come off the pill entirely. I don't know.

[KittyWampus]

2. challenging the Scientific Establishment and its demand for total, slavish obedience to its dogma

is very unpopular here on DU.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arikara]

57. Wow...

condescending to and insulting people is a sure way to win converts to big pharma's deceitful junk science cause. Not. Do you truly believe that they are looking for a cure for chronic illnesses such as diabetes when they make billions off of treating it with their potions?

Personally I would rather find the cause and address a health problem with diet, accupuncture and herbs than to take a damned pill, drug, chemical or vaccine. There are ways to improve diabetes through natural means.

[TZ]

94. I know they are

because I HAVE a goddamned bone marrow chronic condition which BTW diet has nothing to do with and I'm WELL aware of the research going on in BIG PHARMA and ACADEMIA for the condition.
You do know that a root CAUSE for certain types of cancers has been discovered and that various companies are working on ways to permanently fix the problem? Including in my case Astra Zeneca is working on this..Its called JAK2.
Personally I prefer sound science to snake oil pills and chicanery!
Potions..yeah you know ALOT about biology don't you. How the HELL do people graduate from school with so little understanding of science..:banghead:

[defendandprotect]

204. You're advocating synthetic medicines over natural plants . . . !!

It is synthetic medicines which create the many side-effects which patients

suffer from -- then only to be given more synthetic medicine to combat those

side-effects . . . which in turn create new side-effects!

[TreasonousBastard]

215. Sure, now tell me what plants to eat to...

solve my problems with Lyme disease, cataracts, T2 diabetes, and a central venal occlusion in my right retina.

(Good thing I'm not REALLY sick or I'd have to eat a LOT of plants)

[defendandprotect]

219. You have all of the internet for this advice . . . however . . .

Dairy products are linked to cataracts ---

and some forms of diabetes --

the presumption is that the cells do not open because they are locked

by fat from dairy/animal products. Your body does then naturally produce higher levels

of insulin trying to open the cells naturally; however, there is a limit to this.


First, all raw fruits and vegetables will be helpful to you --

If you have eye problems try organic carrots -- many ways to eat them besides raw.

If you are taking a medication it may have a side-effect of harming your eye.

Computer use can create dryness which is harmful to the eyes.

Lyme Disease . . .
Natural and alternative treatments have had great success in reducing the symptoms of Lyme disease. Treatments such as herbal remedies are safe and effective to use without the harsh side effects of prescription drugs. Two well known African herbs such as Hypoxis Rooperi (extract of African Potato) and Agathosma Betulina (also known as buchu) supports the immune system, act as a natural convalescent, supportive tonic and diuretic


As for synthetic medications . . .

You might be interested in checking whatever it is that you take to see what

other patients have to say about what they have experienced in taking the drug.

http://www.askapatient.com

Just put in your medicine/or generic equivalent --

[Grinchie]

240. If your that sick, then you are totally toxic and need to review

Your environment, Your Diet and your lifestyle.

The body can only flush so much bad stuff out of your body in a 24 hour period, and if you overwhelm that limit every day for 40 years your going to see issues like this when the system breaks down.

You may want to take a survey and see if you get enough Oxygen, are not breathing air loaded with Microparticulates, Fragrances from detergent, pet dander and are not inadvertantly eating a load of crap every day. It's hard not to in this country these days.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

273. You're saying Lyme disease is caused by diet/allergens?

How interesting.

What roles do imbalanced humours and demon posession play in unwanted pregnancy?

[ekwhite]

218. 'Natural Plants' also have side effects

Some of them quite severe. Natural supplements do not require the sort of proof for their claims that drugs have to provide. There are very few clinical trials to support their claims, no post marketing surveillance, nothing. FDA has to PROVE there is something dangerous about a 'nutritional supplement' before they can act against it. Drugs have to prove they are safe and effective before they can be marketed.

I would say to take claims about natural plants with a grain of salt, just as you would take claims about drugs. Some plants, such as marijuana are safe and provide real relief to conditions such as neuropathy. Other plants, such as St. John's Wort, can be extremely dangerous, as they can interfere with life-saving drugs such as anti-retroviral drugs, anti-rejection drugs, and anticoagulants.

[defendandprotect]

220. Side-effects of natural plants are NEVER as severe, as complex, or as

prolific as with synthetics . . .

Drugs have to prove they are safe and effective before they can be marketed.

This is nonsense and naive -- especially re "Monsanto's FDA" and the Bushed FDA---!!!

Unfortunately, only in the UK do drug companies have to prove their usefulness for synthetics

and/or their SAFETY. Here in America, that doesn't happen!

History is behind natural plants ---

Though FDA does approve many treatments --- when I see FDA approved . . . it worries me!

Give me a break -- grapefruit can interfere with synthetic drugs -- !!

[Hanse]

228. Atropine is a natural product that comes from plants. Nightshade, to be specific.

Side effects include seizures, hallucination, and death.

The deadliest organic compounds come from nature. And the idea that natural products are innately superior to synthetic drugs reveals an appalling lack of understanding of chemistry and biology.

"This is nonsense and naive -- especially re "Monsanto's FDA" and the Bushed FDA---!!!"

You're confusing agricultural companies with pharmaceutical companies.

Oh, and btw, Bush isn't president anymore.

"Unfortunately, only in the UK do drug companies have to prove their usefulness for synthetics

and/or their SAFETY."

This is nonsense and naive. Hullo? Queen Elizabeth II?

"Give me a break -- grapefruit can interfere with synthetic drugs -- !!"

Grapefruit juice contains a class of chemicals calls furanocoumarins. These chemicals affect intestinal drug transporters. This can affect natural products just as much as synthetic drugs. The enzymes don't care.

In fact, you've just provided an example of natural products (grapefruit juice) that can be bad for yo.

[Grinchie]

243. Atropine comes from Daffodil Bulbs

It is used as a muscle relaxant in cases of anaphilactic shock, and is also used to neutralize Nerve Gas Agents.

I can name dozens on plants that are toxic, if fact, thats what made them useful for Fish poisons, Relaxants and sedatives. So what?

Plants have been making these substances for millions of years, but you tend to believe that man and his science is infallible. You are deluded if you think this, because man makes compounds that last forever, never break down, invade every niche of the evironment, and are only now being linked to subtle changes in the endocrinal signaling system.

Your supposed understanding of Chemistry and Biology means nothing if compounds marketed as safe one day, turn out to induce mongolism in children tomorrow. Perhaps your mom took some of those miracle drugs when you were gestating. That would explain why you are such a closed minded, pissed off cheerleader.

[defendandprotect]

289. And what health food store is selling Atropine . . . ???

As I understand it, Pointsettia plants -- if some part of it is eaten -- can kill you.

So can Global Warming --- !!!

Fecal matter in our oceans -- and medical wastes -- can also make you quite ill.

Is it safe to even enter a hospital any longer -- ????

Eat cattle -- Mad Cow/Alzheimer's --

Dairy products -- cataracts, obesity, diabetes, HBP, heart failure -- granted, it

takes a little bit of time to be wrecked by our deadly foods.

Not only are the synthetic drugs proving very dangerous to the human body, some very

dangerous substances are being incorporated in these drugs in order to create legitimacy

for holding/extending patents on these drugs.

And what I am pointing to here . . .

D&P: "This is nonsense and naive -- especially re "Monsanto's FDA" and the Bushed FDA---!!!"

You're confusing agricultural companies with pharmaceutical companies.

is the influence of corporations over our FDA, including Monsanto and drug companies.

And, our USDA has also been heavily influenced by corporations which have limited inspections

of animal processing plants --- allowing now up to 17% fecal matter on animal carcasses!

Limiting and ending tests which would alert us to the presence of "Mad Cow."

I think this really helps . . . cause few of us know this, right -- !!

Oh, and btw, Bush isn't president anymore.

Again, our drugs companies do not have to prove that their drugs are safe ---

and, btw, take a look at some of the pamphlets that come along with the drugs.

You'll note only a paragraph or so about the side-effects and maybe a reference to some

info they picked up AFTER the tests -- but there are much longer lists of side effects in

reality. See: http://www.askapatient.com


Grapefruit is one of the natural foods which can lower your blood pressure.

Many other foods also do this, as well -- and garlic will REGULATE your blood pressure.


Grapefruit juice contains a class of chemicals calls furanocoumarins. These chemicals affect intestinal drug transporters. This can affect natural products just as much as synthetic drugs. The enzymes don't care.

In fact, you've just provided an example of natural products (grapefruit juice) that can be bad for yo.

Therefore, the strength of the HBP medication increases -- and can thereby cause damage to

the patient.

Meanwhile, alcohol is generally allowable while taking HBP medicines -- I think it's one

drink daily for women, two for males. But some of the HBP medicines can be less forgiving

than what is indicated on the directions. Alcohol can create HBP.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

320. Atropine is routinely used in hospitals all over the world.

It's a very important medicine.

"As I understand it, Pointsettia plants -- if some part of it is eaten -- can kill you.

So can Global Warming --- !!!

Fecal matter in our oceans -- and medical wastes -- can also make you quite ill.

Is it safe to even enter a hospital any longer -- ????

Eat cattle -- Mad Cow/Alzheimer's --

Dairy products -- cataracts, obesity, diabetes, HBP, heart failure -- granted, it

takes a little bit of time to be wrecked by our deadly foods."

Well there you go. Natural things like plants, feces, and prions are bad for you. Debunking the notion that natural things are better for you than synthetic things. Mad Cow and Alzheimers, btw, are still two different things.

"Not only are the synthetic drugs proving very dangerous to the human body"

Some synthetic drugs are perfectly safe for the human body. Some much safer than natural products.

"some very dangerous substances are being incorporated in these drugs in order to create legitimacy for holding/extending patents on these drugs."

That's a load of bullshit and doesn't even make any logical sense whatsoever.

"Therefore, the strength of the HBP medication increases -- and can thereby cause damage to the patient."

Which is why patients are commonly refrained from drinking grapefruit juice while taking prescription medication.

[ekwhite]

264. I'm afraid your response is naive

History is not necessarily behind natural plants. Look at the difference in childhood survival rates before the use of 'natural plants' and childhood survival rates today. Look at life expectancy before 'synthetics' and today. Both have gone up significantly due to the use of ethical pharmaceuticals.

Natural plants can and do have complex and often dangerous side effects, just as any other pharmacologically active substance. I take the claims about 'natural' substances with the same grain of salt I take claims about new 'miracle' drugs. Do your research first.

By the way, making your argument in BOLD doesn't make it any more true. Pharmaceutical companies are required by the FDA, yes even Bush's FDA, to conduct clinical trials and present the results of these clinical trials before an advisory committee before they can be marketed. These clinical trials cover many years and literally cost millions of dollars. Where are the trials for your 'natural substances.'

Also, are you aware that there are so-called 'natural supplements' that are deliberately adulterated with drugs. So-called male enhancers adulterated with Viagra, for example (the real reason Bob was smiling)?

Yes, grapefruit can interfere with synthetic drugs, and with 'natural supplements' for that matter. But go ahead and do as you wish. It's your health after all. Just don't expect me to buy into

[Grinchie]

291. BS. Longevity Tripled when they discovered soap and not to shit in your water supply.

This is that fallacy that Modern medicine has made us healthier. Modern medicine came long after salk, Koch and Price discovered that microbes and parasites were the primary cause of illness in man. Unfortunately, the work has been stuck like a record in the same track for the last 20 years due to sweet fat profits and ever growing margins for the shareholders.

Like I said, doctors working with the sick do not pop pills as a propahlaxis every 4 hours to prevent disease. They simply wash their hands, and don't rub their eyes, or pick their nose.

People are so stupid it's frightening. I went to Disney World a few years ago. In the restrom, I watch in horror as these fat. bloated bags of filthy water walked out after using the restroom without washing their hands. No wonder america is full of sick people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

322. Oh boy.

"Longevity Tripled when they discovered soap and not to shit in your water supply."

1. Soap's been around as long as civilization.

2. People have been avoiding shitting in their water supply since before civilization.

"Modern medicine came long after salk, Koch and Price discovered that microbes and parasites were the primary cause of illness in man."

Salk invented the Polio vaccine. In the 1950s. And he increased the human lifespan. By the use of modren medicine.

[LeftishBrit]

265. That simply isn't true. There are plenty of poisonous plants that can kill you if you eat them...

And many 'Pharma' drugs come from plants in the first place.

If something is powerful enough to cure you, it's also powerful enough to have side effects.

[momto3]

310. Okay....

You do realize, don't you, that many drugs in use today were developed from plants? The taxane family of chemotherapeutic drugs (docetaxol and paclitaxol), that have had good success in treating breast cancer, are a plant derivative. They are diterpenes derived from yew plants.

Just because something is "natural" does not make it safe.

[mr blur]

105. Then you are an idiot.

If you think "acupuncture and herbs" will cure anything. You are of course entitled to your delusions but I sincerely hope that there are no children in your life for whom you are responsible who might suffer needlessly through your ignorance and stupidity.

[wolfgangmo]

129. Please keep up your condescending tone.

In our clinic we help people to understand the alternatives they are curious about. They tell us about relatives and doctors who try to make them feel like bad people for looking at all of their alternatives and demanding more of all of medicine. Our patients tell us about these bad experiences. Almost none of them will return to their past doctors and most of them will not return to allopathic medicine at all despite our efforts to make them understand that not all people are assholes.

It is people with your attitude that is driving the alternative medicine revolution. If your aim is to promote it, you couldn't be doing a better job. Please keep it up.

[fudge stripe cookays]

242. Yes, condescension is terrible.

Especially when, like Mr. Blur and I, you're dealing with MS. :eyes:

What alternative would you recommend that will give us back the use of our legs, or our eyes, or give us our energy back, or cause us to quit hurting?

I hate the pharma companies too, but until someone comes up with a natural alternative that WORKS, that's all we've got. Kindly take your sanctimony and shove it up your ass.

[Fireweed247]

286. This is an interesting movie which features a story of a woman with MS...

who found out the symptoms were actually caused by the aspartame in her diet soda.

sweet misery movie
stream
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=244

download
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

[Grinchie]

292. Thank you Donald Rumsfeld

I believe he should be sentenced to eat only really sweet foods, sweetened with Aspartame for the rest of his life.

[fudge stripe cookays]

295. I quit drinking that shit a long time ago.

So your theory is full of hot air, sorry.

Some people just get MS. We need drugs for it to keep it from progressing faster and with symptoms that are more pronounced. Because once it does, it's irreversible.

I'm not taking my chances with herbal witch doctor potions, thanks.

[kimmerspixelated]

115. Touche'!!

It always makes more sense to find the cause of a problem, which is usually always a vitamin or mineral deficiency. And work from there. I don't have a link or the name, but have read recently that certain herbs have the ability to stimulate the pancreas so that it makes enough insulin. WHy throw more chemicals on the situation? The result is the body sends a message to the pancreas to stop working altogether...it's a terribly sad and tragic cycle.

[TreasonousBastard]

217. Even if these herbs exist...

you do realize that T2 diabetes is not necessarily always the lack of insulin, but can be the inability to use it.

(But I will believe in these herbs when I see the evidence-- such scams and false hopes have been killing diabetics for years)

[Grinchie]

293. I remember an herb called Katuk or latin name Sauropus

Very intersting plant of the Euphorbia family. Grows very well from cuttings in the tropics.

Takes like Sugar Snap Peas.

[TreasonousBastard]

211. Well, should you find yourself with...

diabetes, cancer, a broken leg, or just a good dose of the clap, let us all know how acupuncture worked out.

(If you live through it)

[Grinchie]

244. You obviously never think about how doctors rarely get sick..

Think about it, they are around some of the sickest people in the population, yet they rarely fall ill with anything.

Why is this? Could it be due to the fact that they understand the methods of infection, the harm a bad diet and no exercise plays in contracting illness?

Now compare that knowledge of self preservation to the McD's chomping, Cigarrette smoking, Beer swilling, I'm invulnerable to the world, and you can see why people get sick. They are poisoning themselves to the point where the bad bugs see nothing but paradise. Once the bad bugs invade, they are there to stay, crapping all over the insides of your body, nesting and reproducing in the toxic brew you provide for them.

For all these idiots who condescend and try to ridicule others by offering only one of hundreds of methods used by Alternative medicine, then you know that they have neither the capacity or brainpower to imagine that the human body is a complex system designed to live in fresh air, run around and perform plenty of enjoyable work, and be happy with what they are, not what the latest version of GQ tells them to be. They are out of debt, have no crushing debt to cause stress and worry.

The body does not behave like and On and Off switch, and pills don't solve everything.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

285. Doctors rarely get sick?

What do you think the average lifespan of a doctor is?

[Grinchie]

294. I'm related to one, he's 89 years old.

And stronger than a ox, and could beat me up to the top of St. Pauls Cathedral in London. Mentally however, you can't tak to the dude, cause he knows everything and their is no room for an alternate view.

Books smart, but dumb as a nail when it comes to common sense, social skills, or good parenting.

I had the luxury of growing up with a huge medical library, and loved to read the stuff.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

313. Then how come you don't know anything about medicine?

My guess is, you hardly ever read a thing.

[ArbustoBuster]

102. Yes, our evil, evil dogma.

The one that created penicillin and refrigeration and AIDS drugs and electric lights. The evil dogma that created the engines that bring food from the rural areas into the cities. The terrible dogma that researches ways to use computers to translate natural languages so that we can talk to each other more and therefore understand each other better.

That kind of slavish dogma. Right.

Science IS NOT a religion with a dogma. It's a method of examining the world. The method says, "Look at the world, try to explain it, and then tell others what you came up with so they can figure out if you're right or if you're wrong. If it looks like you're right, build on it and learn more. If it looks like you're wrong, build on that, too."

Your statement is beyond merely nonsensical, it's actively destructive.

[Grinchie]

132. The Slavish Dogma that Crushed Rife Research

Or completely disavows Electro Magnetic Radiation when it comes to killing pathogens. Or the Dogma that likes to Portrays Ozone as the "Primary Component is Smog", instead of a naturally occurring allotrope of Oxygen that will kill just about any Anaerobic pathogen there is, oxidize heavy metals to a point where the human body can remove them, and provide a mechanism for removing dead and damaged cells from the human body.

The Dogmatic leaders that prosletyze these lies are directly tied to Big Pharma, Cancer Research, and Diabetes research organizations that are run like any other For Profit Coorporation that see a cure for any of these killers as a threat to there sweet funding that they milk for their personal profit at the expense of millions of people.

Even Tesla was relegated to the pigeon hole of forgetfullness when he developed highly efficient lighting systems that didn't make enough profit for the investors.

Medicine and electricity are so closely linked that if the secret were to come out, people would rise up and heads would roll.

Penicillin was a great discovery. However, resting on ones laurels and using it evertime it appears that it might be needed has led us to more resistant bacteria and pathogens. Instead of finding out what makes the bacteria tick, when change their environment so much that they adapt to the new environment, potentially becoming more virulent in the process.

Our technologists can look at the individual atoms of a carbon nanotube, but to this day, they still cannot look at a living Virus. How can this be?

[defendandprotect]

191. Recommend this post -- !!

[ArbustoBuster]

245. I apologize for saying this, but you're wrong.

Science in fact discovered that electromagnetic radiation kills pathogens. (This is what irradiated food is, after all - it's food that has been exposed to high-frequency EM radiation.) Ozone is one of the components of smog and has several positive benefits - science is capable of showing that some things are both good and bad. (As an addendum, the more common O2 allotrope of oxygen will also kill anaerobic bacteria - that's what makes the bacteria anaerobic; they are intolerant of oxygen). When you say that ozone is natural, you're both right and wrong. It occurs in the environment caused by nonhuman processes, and it also occurs in the environment caused by human processes as pollution. The ozone near ground level in smog comes in large part from the reaction of sunlight on hydrocarbon pollution pumped out by our cars, power plants, and factories.

The vast majority of scientists whom I've met have nothing whatsoever to do with pharmaceutical companies. However, that's immaterial. People who believe that Big Pharma is somehow holding back science need to also believe that a scientist who has discovered the cure for cancer or AIDS or diabetes (or whatever) will turn down a Nobel Prize in Medicine to keep his job with a pharmaceutical company. That, and please pardon me for saying it, is completely insane.

To say that medicine and electricity are closely linked...I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're referring to the Victorian- and Edwardian-era magnetic and electrical therapies, they've pretty much been shown to be bunk. Beyond that: your own belief that pharmaceutical companies want to make money would suggest that if electricity were some kind of panacea, pharmaceutical companies would be all over it. Electricity is cheap, and if it can be sold as a medical cure, it would be almost pure profit. Companies like high-profit products.

Anyone who thinks that medical science is resting on its laurels needs to look into the constant and large strides made in discovering new antibiotics, antivirals, surgical techniques, and so on. Hell, I'm not even a medical researcher and I know about these things. One just needs to pay attention to the news and to science magazines.

Your last question is very simply answered. Carbon nanotubes aren't alive. Viruses are. (Sort of.)

[Grinchie]

296. Not wrong, just abstract since writing a comprehnesive tome on DU is a lot of work.

As for Irradiated food.. heh heh, I have news for you. Irradiation as used in the industry today uses broad spectrum radiation at very high levels to destroy the cell structures of both the organism and plant or tissue. It is not a method of dialing in to the frequency of say Salmonella or Trichonosis and eradicating that pathogen. No, the industry uses a one size fits all, which in fact does not get the job done as efficiently as it could. It also leaves altered chemical compounds that are now used as indicators in Irradiated food. These indicators are tested for by those backward foreign countries to identify irradiated food and deny entry into the country. Our system of irradiation is Stone axe, dangerous, and creates unwanted chemmical compounds in the food. Additionaly, while it may kill most of the pathogens, it does not eliminate all of them, so the burden of cooking remains for the consumer, but the Agribusiness giants can allow their processes to become yet more unclean and rely on Irradiation to remove the potentially higher load of pathogens, and absolve them of higher cleaning costs.

Personally, I's rather cook my meat myself and not worry about the billions of Microbe carcasses already present in Irradiated foodstuffs, packed on an unclean assembly line. If I dress a wild pig, I know exactly how dirty is was, and what precautions to take when I cook it. Many American think they pour meat into a mold, it hardens into a steak and it's wrapped up in plastic.

As for Ozone (O3), there is a myth that it is never supposed to occur at ground level, yet Ozone is heavier than Oxygen (O2). How strange that a compound that originates in the high atmosphere as a result of Ultraviolet-B raditiation is never supposed to sink through the atmospher, reacting with water vapor and creating natural h202 on the way down. H2O2 is Hydrogen Peroxide for those that are curious.

Ozone and H202 are related in that they have a free oxygen that is willing to react more readily than the stable O2 molecule.

Perhaps you may see the significance when you realized that our body, or any creature for that matter is driven by electron exchanges between chemical compounds. Mammals like oxygen. We run on the stuff in conjunction with a number of other minerals. This mass of chemical reactions makes us a electrochemical device, but the real coordinator is still not understood fully, yet we will happily alter the genetic instruction of our food plants without even know what the hell we are doing.

As I suspected, your mentioning of Victorian and Edwardian era magnetic therapies, may I remind you that Crookes invented the X-Ray in the 1800's, which has pretty much been shown to be a useful device. Their have been many devices beginning in 1900 that had definately efficacy, but electronics in those days was difficult. To many people. electricy is still some sort of mystery, but it follows the same laws nearly all of the time, and we baheve like an electro chemical device, there is no doubt about that. The Electro magnetic means of disease control is restricted by the FCC of all people, since they wouldn't want the frequency that killed cancer interfering with Oprah or Dr. Phill broadcasts.

Currently, medical frequencies are restricted to a narrow band, 27.12 MHZ I believe, which is so narrow that basically restricts these devices to nothing more the heating devices. Diathermy is still around, and still making money, just not in America where you have to have a Pill to heal disease. You have higher frequencies eminating from your computer chip right now than a researcher is able to use legally in a device without going through major hoops.

You simple answer says nothing. I asked why we cannot view a living Virus, instead of Virii that have been killed by the microscope they use to view it? You missed my point entirely. The Electrons in the Electron Microscope kill the virus. It's pretty obvious when you realize that Doctors are actually trying to kill bad viruses isn't it? Wouldn't it be useful to develop a technique to look at live virrii to see if you killed them?

Oh right, the Military doesn't pay for that soft cuddly research, they want Carbon Nanotubes for the next generation of smart bombs.

[leftchick]

254. what an excellent post!

:thumbsup:

[kimmerspixelated]

111. I've certainly noticed that.

Most likely due to some of the mad scientists that hang out here wanting to keep their jobs with Big Pharma. Seems like they would want to find a job doing research in the growing alternative medicine field, be part of the really next big wave, that way they can practice being ethical as well.

[defendandprotect]

190. Right . . . meanwhile, perhaps we should name all the CURES we know of -- !!!

[Deep13]

221. Yes, we don't believe paranoid allegations with no basis in fact.

Pointing out that someone might have a motive for doing something is the the same as proving that someone did that something.

[momto3]

312. Actually science is a method, not a dogma.

If you have ever taken a biology class, you would know that science is based on the presentation of novel findings and the attempted repudiation of those findings by other scientists. There is no scientfic "dogma".

[IDemo]

3. leftchick, we will see a cure within 5 years

or so I've been hearing every year for the 46 years I've been a Type 1. x(

Test strips are criminally overpriced. I figure the ones I use are about 95 cents each, and likely cost only pennies each to produce.

[leftchick]

11. I know what you mean

I research all of the time and am always disappointed at the lack of political will to find cures. Until the Heath Industry stops being profit driven and becomes instead Health Care for all, I don't expect much.

I hope you are doing well. :hug:

[IDemo]

20. I'm still doing well, overall

The feet are beginning to show some reluctance to heal, even minor scratches take weeks.

I just got laid off Friday, so no more health benefits. It should get "interesting" paying for
supplies shortly. I have discovered there are sites you can purchase test strips for nearly 50%
off normal retail.

Your son has the benefit of much better bg test technology and insulin formulations than I had at
that age. It was pork/beef insulin and urine testing for glucose levels for many years. I also had
to boil a glass syringe and stainless steel needle every day before disposable syringes came out.
And I had to walk through three feet snow drifts, uphill both ways, to do it! :)

[leftchick]

41. at least it has not affected your sense of humor.

:)

Even with the ease of testing he needs to be reminded all of the time. I suppose him being almost 14 does not help. He just started on the tubeless Ipod pump and seems to like it better than daily injections. And no more Lantus at night.

[madmom]

51. Price of test strips....I too noticed the high price of diabetes related

paraphernalia, I have found a brand called Reli-ON, which is about 1/2 the cost of the others, including test strips. The only place I have found them is Wal-mart (I know that will not be popular here, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do)I don't know if this is an in house brand or not, put they work for me.

[Contrary1]

69. I have hundreds of lancets

not the most expensive aspect of diabetes, of course; but if I can save you some money, drop me a PM. I got them on Ebay some time ago, as a "bonus" for buying testing strips.

I would be happy to share. :hi:

[IDemo]

97. I'm a bad patient (or customer) when it comes to lancets

They generally get replaced only when I think about it, which is rarely.

[Grinchie]

133. What about Insulin Syringes!

The prices have gone up 30% every year for the past 10 years, and %100 since 2008.

[grannie4peace]

4. off to the greatest page! thanks for the info!!!

[merh]

5. Dear god, this needs to be investigated and people charged

with murder, criminal conspiracy - this is appalling

Get Hollywood screaming, stars like Mary Tyler Moore who have spent their lives struggling with the disease and years trying to get the funding for a cure.

Jerry Lewis, Michael J. Fox and countless others

[leftchick]

13. I am beginning to think that JDRF is a front

for big Pharma. It is all just so maddening.

[Grinchie]

137. JDRF is most likely making BIG BUCKS off milking Diabetes

I have come to thins conclusion after reading the book "The Cancer Cure That Worked" Which is a book regarding the research and works of a man named Royal Rife. The executive summary goes like this. Royal Rife developed an optical microscope in the late 1920's that used polarazed light of certain wavelengths to illuminate the chemical components of very small organisms. The basis of this was that the organisms were composed of certain molecules that would fluoresce when exposed to certain wavelengths of light. It was reported that he could actually see the organisms that caused cancer, and they they were definately motile organisms. He was able to isolate these organisms and was able to infect test animals with the isolated organisms, which is a pretty good indicator of having found the cause of cancer.

He also noted that the organisms were able to change form depending upon the medium in which they lived, which is called Pleiomorphism, or the ability to change form. Pleiomorphism was fought every step of the way by Pasteur, and Pasteur won the battle. Science still like to pretend that Pleiomorphism is not true, but in reality, it occurs in simple organisms all the time.

Rife took the discovery that these oranisms Fluoresce at certain wavelengths of light, and took it a step further and developed the Rife Ray, which was a more advanced version of the common Viloet Ray apparatus of the late 1800's and early 1900's. His device allowed him to dial in variable frequencies, some of which would literraly cause the target organism to sxplode or become "Devitalized" or inert.

I was amazed when I read the book, it's truly a remarkable work. It continues on to show how Political rivalry, deceit and lack of funding basically supressed his technology almost to this day. Independant researchers have stumbled upon the same discoveries on their own, but have been fought in much the same way as Rife was, further suppressing the technology.

So, I looked for the missing piece of the puzzle. Why would Research organizations go out of their way to discredit such an innovative and promising discovery?

First of all, it was a Cure for Cancer.
Second of all, it was the start of the Great Depression. People were destitute, and money was hard to come by. Turning off the spigot of a neverending flow of Cancer patients and research funding would deal a huge blow to these organizations.
Thirdly, if we look at the behavior of modern corporations, we see the continual push towards profit motivated results without regard to the external costs that we the people ultimately have to pay for. For example, do you think that GM paid for the Millions of miles of roads, that we drive their cars upon? Did they pay for the pollution and diverted rainwater that all these roads produce? Do they pay for the Air Pollution which pollutes our bodies, diminishes or global oxygen supply and consumes our limited energy resources?

No, they didn't. We pay, because we were never taught to look at the ultimate result of uncontrolled growth.

Big Pharma is the same way, but there is a more insidious factor involved, and that is collusion with Government regulators to help quash any movement away from established profit systems.

We see the same trend in the Genetic Modification of our Food supply. If people took the time to look at the process, thay could see that we are now eating poison. It may not be enough to kill you in one sitting, or perhaps 50,000 sittings, but you are being poisoned nonetheless. Whats worse is that it tastes good, so people are unaware that they are eating pesticides that will accumulate in their body throughout their lives. Add to that the willingness of the GMO Food industry to alter test results, use manipulated statistics, as well as dicarding negative results, and you can see that we are going to be in for a very rude awakening down the road.

If you look at the drug companies product at the turn of the century, you would see bottles of herbs. Now Herbs, the root of the industry is non-existant, and the FDA makes law's that promote man made drugs over the use of herbs.

If they do not teach the value of herbs in schools, this knowledge will be lost and uneducated drones pull up a weed, that used to be the cure for some ailment, oblivious to the fact that they removed a resource that would benefit themselve for free, without patent infringement.

[leftchick]

276. what a great post!

Speaking of herbs, another tragedy in the american pro-corporate historical agenda is Hemp. For, food, fuel, textiles it is a wonderful resource. Yet demonized and banned but our over lords. It makes me sick.


http://www.hempcar.org/hempfacts.shtml

Compiled from Jack Herer.com
Fuel:

* Farming 6% of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America's energy needs. 1
* Hemp is Earth's number-one biomass resource; it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre in four months. 1
* Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol, or gasoline at a cost comparable to petroleum, and hemp is much better for the environment. Pyrolysis (charcoalizing), or biochemical composting are two methods of turning hemp into fuel.2
* Hemp can produce 10 times more methanol than corn.
* Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution.
* The use of hemp fuel does not contribute to global warming.

top
Food:

* Hemp seed can be pressed into a nutritious oil, which contains the highest amount of fatty acids in the plant kingdom. Essential oils are responsible for our immune system responses, and clear the arteries of cholesterol and plaque.2
* The byproduct of pressing the oil from hemp seed is high quality protein seed cake. It can be sprouted (malted) or ground and baked into cakes, breads, and casseroles. Hemp seed protein is one of mankind's finest, most complete and available-to-the-body vegetable proteins. 2
* Hemp seed was the world's number one wild and domestic bird seed until the 1937 Marijuana prohibition law. Four million pounds of hemp seed for songbirds were sold at retail in the U.S. in 1937. Birds will pick hemp seeds out and eat them first from a pile of mixed seed. Birds in the wild live longer and breed more with hemp seed in their diet, using the oil for the feathers and their overall health. 2

top
Fiber:

* Hemp is the oldest cultivated fiber plant in the world.
* Low-THC fiber hemp varieties developed by the French and others have been available for over 20 years. It is impossible to get high from fiber hemp. Over 600,000 acres of hemp is grown worldwide with no drug misuse problem.
* One acre of hemp can produce as much usable fiber as 4 acres of trees or two acres of cotton.
* Trees cut down to make paper take 50 to 500 years to grow, while hemp can be cultivated in as little as 100 days and can yield 4 times more paper over a 20 year period.
* Until 1883, from 75-90% of all paper in the world was made with cannabis hemp fiber including that for books, Bibles, maps, paper money, stocks and bonds, newspapers, etc. 2
* Hemp paper is longer lasting than wood pulp, stronger, acid-free, and chlorine free. (Chlorine is estimated to cause up to 10% of all Cancers.) 2
* Hemp paper can be recycled 7 times, wood pulp 4 times.
* If the hemp pulp paper process reported by the USDA in 1916, were legal today it would soon replace 70% of all wood paper products. 2
* Rag paper containing hemp fiber is the highest quality and longest lasting paper ever made. It can be torn when wet, but returns to its full strength when dry. Barring extreme conditions, rag paper remains stable for centuries. 2
* Hemp particle board may be up to 2 times stronger than wood particleboard and holds nails better.
* Hemp is softer, warmer, more water absorbent, has three times the tensile strength, and is many times more durable than cotton. Hemp production uses less chemicals than cotton. 2
* From 70-90% of all rope, twine, and cordage was made from hemp until 1937. 2
* A strong lustrous fiber; hemp withstands heat, mildew, insects, and is not damaged by light. Oil paintings on hemp and/or flax canvas have stayed in fine condition for centuries. 2

top
Medicine:

* Deaths from marijuana use: 0
* From 1842 through the 1880s, extremely strong marijuana (then known as cannabis extractums), hashish extracts, tinctures, and elixirs were routinely the second and third most-used medicines in America for humans (from birth through old age). These extracts were also used in veterinary medicine until the 1920s and longer. 2
* For at least 3,000 years prior to 1842 widely varying marijuana extracts (bud, leaves, roots, etc.) were the most commonly used real medicines in the world for the majority of mankind's illnesses. 2
* The U.S. Pharmacopoeia indicated cannabis should be used for treating such ailments as fatigue, fits of coughing, rheumatism, asthma, delirium tremens, migraine headaches, and the cramps and depressions associated with menstruation. 3
* In this century, cannabis research has demonstrated therapeutic value and complete safety in the treatment of many health problems including asthma, glaucoma, nausea, tumors, epilepsy, infection, stress, migraines, anorexia, depression, rheumatism, arthritis, and possibly herpes. 3
* Deaths from aspirin (U.S. per year): 180 - 1,000 +
* Deaths from legal drugs (U.S. per year) at doses used for prevention, diagnosis, or therapy: 106,000

top
Industry:

* Almost any product that can be made from wood, cotton, or petroleum (including plastics) can be made from hemp. There are more than 25,000 known uses for hemp.
* For thousands of years virtually all good paints and varnishes were made with hemp seed oil and/or linseed oil. 2
* Hemp stems are 80% hurds (pulp by-product after the hemp fiber is removed from the plant). Hemp hurds are 77% cellulose - a primary chemical feed stock (industrial raw material) used in the production of chemicals, plastics, and fibers. Depending on which U.S. agricultural report is correct, an acre of full grown hemp plants can sustainably provide from four to 50 or even 100 times the cellulose found in cornstalks, kenaf, or sugar cane (the planet's next highest annual cellulose plants). 2
* One acre of hemp produces as much cellulose fiber pulp as 4.1 acres of trees, making hemp a perfect material to replace trees for pressed board, particle board, and concrete construction molds. 2
* Heating and compressing plant fibers can create practical, inexpensive, fire-resistant construction materials with excellent thermal and sound-insulating qualities. These strong plant fiber construction materials could replace dry wall and wood paneling. William B. Conde of Conde's Redwood Lumber, Inc. near Eugene, Oregon, in conjunction with Washington State University (1991-1993), has demonstrated the superior strength, flexibility, and economy of hemp composite building materials compared to wood fiber, even as beams. 2
* Isochanvre, a rediscovered French building material made from hemp hurds mixed with lime petrifies into a mineral state and lasts for many centuries. Archeologists have found a bridge in the south of France from the Merovingian period (500-751 A.D.), built with this process. 2
* Hemp has been used throughout history for carpet backing. Hemp fiber has potential in the manufacture of strong, rot resistant carpeting - eliminating the poisonous fumes of burning synthetic materials in a house or commercial fire, along with allergic reactions associated with new synthetic carpeting. 2
* Plastic plumbing pipe (PVC pipes) can be manufactured using renewable hemp cellulose as the chemical feed stocks, replacing non-renewable coal or petroleum based chemical feed stocks. 2
* In 1941 Henry Ford built a plastic car made of fiber from hemp and wheat straw. Hemp plastic is biodegradable, synthetic plastic is not.

top

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

278. LOL

You just sighted one of the kookiest examples of quack conspiracy theories out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife

[Grinchie]

297. Oh yeah, so Kooky! Tell it to John Kanzius and then go hide in shame.

Or the hundreds of others that found the same thing as Rife.

It may sound kooky if you ignore the fact that America was in the midst of a Great Depression, and that if the cure were allowed to progress, many a job would be threatened.

After doing my research, I believe that Rife was onto something that the medical community did not understand, or feared. This was bout the same period when we criminilized Marijuana as well, so profits were on a lot of peoples minds during that period.

Perhaps if you bothered to take the energy to get off you fat ass and find the Book and read it, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to disparage the work of Royal Rife.

Personally, I find that quality of work done in the past is far more attentive to detail and observation, than say, Genetically Altering Plants and saying it's ok cause it looks like a Corn plant, which is basically the process the FDA, USDA and Monsanto uses to get approval for toxic food.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

314. Alright, I'll be happy to tell it to that kook John Kanzius.

"Or the hundreds of others that found the same thing as Rife."

"It may sound kooky if you ignore the fact that America was in the midst of a Great Depression, and that if the cure were allowed to progress, many a job would be threatened."

Well that makes it even worse. Here people were desperate for money, and this fucker was scamming even more out of them.

"Perhaps if you bothered to take the energy to get off you fat ass and find the Book and read it, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to disparage the work of Royal Rife."

If you got off your semi-literate ass and read a book, maybe you wouldn't be capitalizing random improper downs.

"Personally, I find that quality of work done in the past is far more attentive to detail and observation, than say, Genetically Altering Plants and saying it's ok cause it looks like a Corn plant, which is basically the process the FDA, USDA and Monsanto uses to get approval for toxic food."

You're saying some quack with a nine volt batter and a couple of copper leads who claims it cures cancer is more attentive to detail than actual scientists?

That's a good one.

[kimmerspixelated]

116. Exactly!

I read a book that exposed the cancer industry, and I was so appalled to read that in fact the pap smear was available a good ten years before it was practiced for the first time. THEY were trying to squash it because it would cut into their profits....knowing damn well it would save lives! What kind of satanic logic is that??

[Greyhound]

6. I'm so sorry for you and your son. Of course they stifle any research that

might cure disease, there is no profit in cures, but as you have learned, there is great profit in treatment.

Just one more reason to get the profit motive out of health care.
:kick: & R

[Kansas Wyatt]

7. I've had Type 1 for 27 years now and I KNOW exactly what you have discovered.

Big Pharma WILL NOT risk loosing it's golden goose. They are raking in Billions year after year off of diabetes. They will only invest in "treatment," which guarantees them more money.

To all of you working in the pharmaceutical industry... Bullshit, your pharmaceutical company is doing the very same thing, and your highly caring scientists can and are bought off, silenced, and/or marginalized. Take your objection elsewhere, because your pharmaceutical company profits off of death, and that is the bottom line.

People thought Bush banned stem cell research for the fundie crowd, but he really did it for Big Pharma.

[Patiod]

16. You said it yourself, and you're absolutely right

"They will only invest in "treatment," which guarantees them more money."

For instance, they are able to invest in cancer treatments, which have put many into remission, but not into cancer surgeries. Pharmaceutical companies do not invest in surgeries or procedures (which is where a likely cure will come from), not because they are inherently evil, but because it's not what they do.

"...your highly caring scientists can and are bought off, silenced, and/or marginalized."

Here's where you are dead wrong. People at pharmaceutical companies, at all levels, have children, spouses, or siblings with T1D. What price to you think they would accept to be "bought off, silenced, and/or marginalized" if they knew of a magical pill that cured T1D and they had a kid with it? You wouldn't be able to shut them up - they would be the ultimate whistle-blowers. But this magic pill doesn't exist.

Face it, there's no pharmaceutical cure, and there isn't likely to be. No evil scientist or CEO is sitting on a "cure" for diabetes, cancer, etc, or consciously avoiding it.

God bless people like Lee Iaccoca who are not pharmaceutical focused and therefore not limited to looking at pills or injections or infusions or treatments and therefore more likely to invest in something that looks more like a cure - whether it's islet cell transplant, stem cell transplant, or some other type of procedure.

[tsuki]

58. Big Pharma is still pissed that Salk would not patent the polio vaccine. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

62. and Pharm loves vaccines because they can get govt to require them

so all healthy people have to pay for this shit, or the taxpayers.

If you try to argue that a certain vaccine is too new, or maybe isn't necessary,
then you'll get attacked. Especially in the Health Forum.

There is a group over there that attacks anyone who is skeptical of some vaccines as
being completely "anti vaccine".

So you can't post opposing views in that forum.

This post would get flamed by the pro vaccine crowd who believe ALL vaccines are necessary
and criticism of big Pharma is wrong.

[marybourg]

81. Actually B.P. hates vaccines --

and frequently the government has to subsidize their production of them --because most vaccines are taken only once in a lifetime, or a decade or a year at most, while meds need to be taken daily or more often are therefore much more profitable.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

85. Pharmexec.com: annual spend per child rose from $10 in the 80's to $400.00 today

Bush removes liability for PHARMA, govt mandates more vaccines, no price controls, Vaccines are the new rainmakers for big Pharma.

Vaccines: Market on the Rebound

The vaccine business was safely inoculated against higher profits. But innovative therapies and looser government controls may spark an outbreak. Ready for opportunity?

May 1, 2006
By: Andrew Pasternak, Adam Sabow, Andrew Chadwick-Jones
Pharmaceutical Executive

...over the past decade, several trends converged to revive the market. Among investors and the broader public, vaccines are suddenly hot. New vaccines have been introduced to replace older ones, and innovative products are taking aim at unmet medical needs—all of which improve the pricing environment. Producers have consolidated, so that a handful of companies with real manufacturing and marketing muscle control the field. And the public sector has begun to institute policies that spur investment and therapeutic innovation. In 2004, President George W. Bush signed legislation adding the flu vaccine to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. More recently, the president has called for broader liability protection for vaccine manufacturers.. Not least important, the non-profit sector—led by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—has fostered public–private partnerships that enable vaccines to penetrate markets in poorer nations. The result: a new wave of investment in vaccines.

...
Big Changes

The first noticeable change in the domestic vaccine market over the past 25 years is an increase in pricing. For example, a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) treatment course that was priced at roughly 30 cents in 1980 now costs $20, in part because a new acellular pertussis antigen was added. More important, vaccine manufacturers are increasingly able to capitalize on new products, with some emerging vaccines priced at $300 or more per treatment course.



....Adjusted for inflation, the annual spend per child has risen from less than $10 in the early 1980s to approximately $400 today (see "The Rising Cost of Immunization").

[marybourg]

173. $400 per child 1x per life?

Do you know what people spend per month for statins???? And your source is -- Big Pharma, whom you were just lambasting???

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

178. You read it wrong. Its "ANNUAL spend per child rose from $10 in the 80's to $400.00 today"

ANNUAL COST.

[varkam]

241. So kids get the MMR vaccine annually, now?

:crazy:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

88. GSK Pharma Gains from Vaccines, Priority Products

No price controls, more vaccines mandated for more things, govt mandates.

GSK Pharma gains from vaccines, priority products

Mumbai, Feb. 22

Growth in the vaccines segment and across GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceutical’s (GSK Pharma) basket of priority products has helped it post a 19 per cent growth in net profit for the three months or fourth quarter ended December 31, 2007.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

89. CBS: "How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?"

Payoff + corruption

How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?
Sharyl Attkisson Investigates Vaccine Advocates Taking Funding From The Companies Whose Vaccines They Endorse
Comments 102
WASHINGTON, July 25, 2008 |

They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.

But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.

The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

112. 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.

[LeftishBrit]

256. Good point.

And there is a contradiction which I often notice in the strongest critics of modern medicine as a 'Big Pharma' plot. On the one hand , they tend to argue, as here, that Big Pharma is suppressing or at least uninterested in real cures, as it's much more profitable to treat conditions over a long period than to cure them. On the other hand, they tend to be particularly hostile to and suspicious of most vaccines - which are surely the polar opposite of a preference for long-term non-curative treatment, as vaccines prevent conditions from ever arising in the first place, and thereby from needing any treatment.

Treatment is much better than nothing. Cure is much better than treatment. And prevention is much better (and probably less profitable for Big Pharma!) than cure.

[kimmerspixelated]

118. Right you are!!!

[LeftishBrit]

253. It is possible to be critical of Big Pharma and nevertheless to consider access to vaccination as a

BASIC HUMAN RIGHT!!! of which far too many in the world are deprived.

Some of the posts here remind me of the fundamentalist opposition to stem cell research.

[momto3]

309. And how do you know this??? eom

[kimmerspixelated]

117. TOUCHE!!!!!!!

DING DING DING!!! Thank You !

[bluesmail]

8. When * denied the use of stem cells I thought now why would he do

such a thing...then Bingo. It would cut into profits for BigPharma/Big/Health Corps.

[momto3]

311. Bush denied the use of stem cells to satisfy the pro-lifers.

Bush denied the use of stem cells to satisfy the pro-lifers. He did this to appease to his base.

This was disturbing to those of us in academic research since it left the development and use of stem cells in the hands of biotech, where it would not be as closely monitored as it would be in NIH funded research. I do not believe that all biotech is "evil", but I do believe in over sight.

[juno jones]

9. I have no quibble with science

But I have a BIG problem with science that is misused in the quest for ever-increasing capitalist profits.

[davsand]

55. Science can be blinded by its own bias even if divorced from profits.

I'm in the process of reading a book by Gary Taubes titled Good Calories Bad Calories, and it discusses this a fair amount (not in the context of Diabetes research exclusively, but on the subject of research as a whole.) Taubes is fairly well respected science reporter, and I can see why after just a couple hundred pages of this book.

ANYHOW, one thing he discusses in this book is the tendency that researchers have to fall in love with a hypothesis rather than looking to disprove it. They look for data to SUPPORT it rather than looking to see if it can be disproved. Even IF there is no profit motive there is a certain amount of human frailty that comes into play in research interpretation.

H.L. Mencken once said, "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong." Taubes uses this quote in his book, and you have to wonder if maybe it needs to be be inscribed over the doors of every lab in the world.



Laura

[LeftishBrit]

258. The thing is, though...

that researchers aren't just one big harmonious community. They are rival individuals and groups with their own agendas. And though it's perfectly true that people tend to fall in love with their own hypotheses, they also tend to have their egos (and often their careers and publications and grant money) invested in proving OTHER people's hypotheses wrong. While the rivalries and cut-throat competition don't always have very happy results, they certainly prevent any big conspiracy or single scientific dogma of the sort that is sometimes proposed to exist,

[defendandprotect]

194. Wasn't Rumsfeld involved with investment in treatment for bird flu . . .?

And there was some kind of action on that recently . . .???

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

236. yep. Rumsfeld tried to force the Anthrax Vaccine on our troops

even though he hadn't had it himself.

Check out this wikipedia article on the Anthrax Vaccination program:

By August 6, 2008, an FBI pressing briefing revealed the that the "failing" anthrax vaccine immunization program lied as the primary motivator in the fall 2001 anthrax letter attacks by a US Army scientist, Dr Bruce Ivins. FBI documents reveal the FDA "suspended further production" of anthrax vaccine just prior to the attacks (Dr Ivins' emails and FBI analysis available on pp. 12-16 of affidavit).By August 6, 2008, an FBI pressing briefing revealed the that the "failing" anthrax vaccine immunization program lied as the primary motivator in the fall 2001 anthrax letter attacks by a US Army scientist, Dr Bruce Ivins. FBI documents reveal the FDA "suspended further production" of anthrax vaccine just prior to the attacks (Dr Ivins' emails and FBI analysis available on pp. 12-16 of affidavit).<10>
http://www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax/docs/07-524-m-01.pdf

Failed potency tests prevented FDA approval. FBI released emails by Dr Ivins showing the vaccine "isn’t passing the potency test" and that "no approved lots" were available just prior to the letter attacks. The FBI explained Dr Ivins' involvement with the failed potency tests. FBI affidavits also documented Dr Ivins receiving the highest Defense Department honors for "getting the anthrax vaccine back into production." The U.S. Department of Justice press statements theorized Dr Ivins’ anthrax letter attack motive: "by launching these attacks, he creates a situation, a scenario, where people all of a sudden realize the need to have this vaccine."<11>
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-opa-697.html


Anthrax Vaccine Producer in U.S. Hit With Lawsuit
By Robert L. Jackson
October 20, 2001 in print edition A-17

The sole U.S. producer of anthrax vaccine, already facing trouble from government regulators, was hit Friday with a private multimillion-dollar lawsuit alleging negligence in its manufacturing procedures.

The suit against BioPort Corp. of Lansing, Mich., was filed in federal District Court here and is believed to be the first action on behalf of soldiers allegedly harmed by vaccine shots they were required to take.

...The lawsuit, filed on behalf of one dead and one injured soldier, notes that most of those who have received vaccine produced by BioPort are about 150,000 U.S. military personnel. The military began administering the vaccine in the early 1990s, sparked by concerns about the potential use of anthrax as a biological weapon by the Iraqi government.

...The legal complaint alleges that the efficacy of the vaccine in the mass immunization program for the military was never sufficiently tested nor were adverse reactions by soldiers accurately assessed.

“There was insufficient data to demonstrate protection against inhalation anthrax,” the lawsuit says.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/20/news/mn-59482

[Vickers]

10. When my daughter was diagnosed Type I 2-1/2 years ago, we were told

that a possible cure was maybe 5 years out. We later learned that this has been told to newly-diagnosed people for about 15 years or so.

:eyes:

I hope that with a new President and a new Congress that some things will turn around, especially regarding stem cell research and maybe a little oversight over the all-powerful pharm conglomerates.

My daughter deserves better.

[Kansas Wyatt]

15. I heard the same thing back in the 80's

'Keep testing all the time and make quarterly doctor appointments.... Buy everything new that comes out, because the new products will help.' I cannot tell you how many times I have heard diabetics tell me that they always feel horrible and have problems when they listen to and do what their doctors and Big Pharma tells them they must do.

15 years ago, I rejected all their bullshit, because I realized it was nothing but a scam. When I go to the doctor once a year, for only prescription refills, I tell them that if it wasn't around in 1980 and it is not a cure, then I will have not part of it.

[Vickers]

18. "if it wasn't around in 1980 and it is not a cure, then I will have not part of it"

Har!

:thumbsup:

[Kansas Wyatt]

28. Just saying....

I have the experience of seeing the 'Diabetes Health Care Industry' rise up and blossom. They are saying the same things now as they were then. I actually began using the first test meters. Funny how my doctor will not push me on the issue, especially when there is no reply to what it has cured in the last 25 years.

Oh, and I have all limbs, fingers, toes, eyesight, no organ problems, etc. etc. Kind of hard for a doctor to blow up a patient taking care of himself, by shackling Big Pharma's chains to him.

[Liberal Veteran]

131. Now take the flip side of that....antivirals.

Sure, I could still take AZT, 3TC, and Crixivan. Who cares about the fact that AZT is more likely to cause anemia, 3TC is more likely to cause pancreatitis, and Crixivan is more likely to cause "Crix farts", "Crix belly" and metabolic disorders and needs to be taken more than once a day with specific food restrictions on a specific schedule?

It was the gold standard 12 years ago for HIV treatment, so it must be better!

If that damned once-daily Atripla which has less side-effects and is more convenient and can be taken without regard to food and has a much longer serum and cellular half-life doesn't cure my HIV disease, I want no part of it!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. we need 'People-Friendly' Healthcare

not drug company-friendly healthcare

[dkf]

14. This is why it is important to have your own stem cells which don't have to be

engineered from your hair or whatever.

If you have your own stem cells from cord blood, no one is going to give much of a hoot if you use it.

But once you have to modify cells using techniques that the FDA or the Govt have to approve, it will be ages before they let you do it.

[RC]

17. Try this site. Can't hurt.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

[leftchick]

24. thank you

I am not a complete cynic. Yet. :)

[lunatica]

19. Here is proof that evil does exist

Doctor's must take the Hyppocratic Oath which is simply the ethical oath that First they will do no harm. This requires that they think about what they're doing and that they have the obligation of searching deeply within themselves to make the decision of what action is best for the patient. Not which one is best for the doctor or the doctor's reputation, financial or social status.

But drug companies who have the legal rights of an individual don't have to also take on the responsibilities and ethical considerations or be held accountable for exclusively making decisions based on what's best for their bottom line. In the case of Diabetes 1 they have a group of humanity which needs them in order to stay alive. The drug companies use that dependency, which makes them wealthy to keep from finding a cure.

That is evil and that has to end. If they benefit through dint of having personhood then they should also be accountable for every single action or inaction they take. It's like karma. No matter what you do or don't do you are accountable. There are sins of commission and sins of ommission, and the sins are equal.

[kimmerspixelated]

120. I couldn't agree more.

How do they sleep at night?

[sarcasmo]

21. Kick and Bookmarked. Big pharma is a big problem in this Country.

[Joe Chi Minh]

65. There was a farmer who decided to study the cause(s) of "mad cow disease" or spongiform

encephalopathy. He eventually obtain a doctorate. I can't remember the precise discipline, presumably, chemistry.

He postulated that it was caused by the treatment of cattle for warble-fly with an organo-phosphate and it led him into deep, deep trouble with the clandestine services, because Big Pharma in the UK, one of the top 8 industries in the country, would be slugged good and proper by the enormous damages they would be liable for.

It is also postulated, I'm not sure if it was by him, that it could be a factor in the development of Alzheimer's. You'd think they, themselves, and their families could not succumb to Alzheimer's, as a result of commercially-implemented exposure to organo-phosphates. Children are apparently being treated with organo-phosphates for scabies and head-lice. There also seems to be a chemical bonding between the prion protein and manganese, which could mean that unleaded petrol would prove more deadly than leaded.

Well, here's a link that gives an outline of the story:

http://www.cyberdelix.net/parvati/ici_bse.htm

[defendandprotect]

198. Correct: Mad Cow and Alzheimer's . . . same thing ---

It is also postulated, I'm not sure if it was by him, that it could be a factor in the development of Alzheimer's.


On the other hand, spongiform diseases go way back -- comes from cannibalism -- feeding

animals to other animals. And, that's exactly what we did in America and taught to other

nations over the past decades. The first experiences with this proved it should NEVER be

done. Now best known for infecting cattle -- I believe the first experiences at least

400 or more years ago were with sheep. It's called "Scrapie" but same characteristics;

spongiform disease of brain. Didn't have a lot of time to search; this is best link I

could find right now.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/25/1821?ijkey=wzvWBaVZgg/.U


ALSO, in cattle there is a 20 year delay in the disease becoming - !!

We've also done this with chickens and other animals -- feeding them dead animals and

even road kill!! But in the case of chickens they die before any disease becomes evident.





Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History|Causes|Incidence and prevalence|Symptoms
Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease (CJD) is a very rare and incurable degenerative neurological disorder (brain disease) that is ultimately fatal.<1> Among the types of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy found in humans, it is the most common.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt-Jakob_disease - 119k - Cached

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

284. Uh, no, BSE and Alzheimers are not the same thing.

You've reached a "AIDS is God's cure for gays" level of pseudoscience at this point.

[defendandprotect]

316. "Mad Cow" and "Alzheimer's" have nothing to do with "god" . . .

they are -- including CJ disease -- all spongiform diseases of the brain caused

by human activity in feeding dead animals -- even road kill -- to livestock.

It began with sheep long, long ago - "Scrapies."

And, America reintroduced this abominable practice a few decades ago, using it here

and re-introducing it to other nations.

Again, anyone's religious homophobia has nothing to do with the creation of our many

new diseases -- only human greed and human ignorance are responsible.


http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Trust-Connection-Misdiagnosed-Alzheimers/dp/0743499352

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

317. One problem- AD isn't spongiform.

"new diseases -- only human greed and human ignorance are responsible."

Well, there's also prions, which cause CJD.

And beta-amyloid plaques, which cause AD.

But then again, they're not exactly new diseases, are they?

[defendandprotect]

318. Unfortunately, Alzheimer's is spongiform . . .

And "Mad Cow" in its new labeling is a "new disease."

Alzheimer's and Related Disorders Overview
... two of the major changes in brain structure caused by Alzheimer's disease. ... The disease is similar to Mad Cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in ...
www.dbs-sar.com/SAR_Research/alzheimer_research.htm - Cached

And -- http://www.vegsource.com/articles/bse_editorial.htm

The type which come from eating or handling infected tissue include Kuru, a disease found in a South Pacific cannibal population traced to handling brain material of their deceased relatives, bovine spongiform encelphalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease), which comes from eating infected cow meat, and transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME), which arises from mink being fed "downer" cows in the U.S. (See related TME article - opens new browser)


In humans, eating meat from a diseased cow causes a brain-wasting disease called New Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, or nvCJD. A closely related brain-wasting disease called Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, or sCJD, is thought to kill about 300 people a year in the U.S. The full numbers of CJD victims aren't actually known because CJD is not a reportable disease like syphilis. The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) only surveys "death certificate" CJD, meaning if an end-stage CJD victim catches pneumonia and dies, this doesn't get tracked as a CJD case by the CDC, but is counted as a "pneumonia" death.

In addition, CJD victims have been known to be misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's patients, unless family members insist on an autopsy and examination of brain tissues. (In fact, a recent study by CJD researchers at Yale University found 14% of patients thought to have died of Alzheimer's actually died of CJD; a larger study from the University of Pennsylvania found a misdiagnosis rate of 5%, and estimated there may be 200,000 cases of CJD in the U.S. each year which are misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's.) (See related New Science article - opens new browser.)

About 15% of CJD is thought to be a hereditary disease, a "bad gene" which mutates ("autosomal dominant prion gene mutation") causing the disease to spontaneously appear and turn the victim's brain to mush.

But researchers in France were dealt a huge surprise in a recent test when mice in a control group contracted CJD from a lamb infected with scrapie. Previously, the brain wasting disease scrapie was not thought to be transmissible in this way, and more experiments are now underway, with Germany tracking it's human CJD cases to try to determine if infected lamb may have been a common denominator in some cases there.

We already know that studies show dementia and Alzheimer's disease are both found at significantly lower rates in vegetarian populations. (see related article - new browser)

It is entirely possible the current epidemic of Alzheimer's Disease may be like spongiform diseases which attack the brain - brought on by what you eat. New clues regularly point in this direction, and this theory is supported by recent news that cholesterol lowering drugs (which attempt to combat cholesterol buildup inherent to diets heavy in animal products) can also help and impact Alzheimer's.

Spongiform diseases have been found to be connected to the ingestion of the meat of animals, so shouldn't we be examining U.S. cows to see if they contain prions which could be a causative factor in these serious diseases?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

319. No, DP, it's not.

Yes, I realize there are a bunch of loony websites that claim so.

But there are clear differences in the pathology of CJD and AD. And they're clearly not the same.

[Jennicut]

22. Well, its obvious that they keep testing supplies at unnaturally high levels

I am a type 2 but insulin dependent and the cost of strips WITH insurance is crazy. There was recently a breakthrough for those with type 2. Its similar to gastric bypass-those that got the gastric bypass done immediately had their symptoms disappear, not with the loss of weight but just by separating the top of the small intestine from the stomach. I would not be surprised if nothing comes out of it though.

[sammythecat]

23. We have no problem handing over billions of dollars

every year for defense contractors to research exotic and fanciful weapons systems that might never be deployed, while research like this is left to languish on the desks of corporate CEO's whose primary concern is maximizing profits for their companies. The job they're hired to do isn't to save lives, it's to make money. It takes no stretch of my imagination to think of them shelving research into a cure and, instead, developing yet another expensive symptom treating drug that sick people can purchase for the rest of their lives. That's where the money is and that's the direction they're supposed to go. It's a shame, but money will corrupt people to do what they once might have considered unthinkable.

[NashVegas]

25. Begs The Question: Why Was It Necessary For Pharms to Sponsor The Research?

Was there no one else who could provide the grant money?

Government?

Private individuals a la Buffet and Gates?

[stray cat]

27. Absolutely right, pharma is for profit corporation - it has to be government meaning our tax dollars

and we then need to put are money where are mouth is...

[NashVegas]

31. Great, But Doesn't Answer My Question

Why was it *necessary* for a pharm to sponsor the research?

[nashville_brook]

39. ding ding ding! it's time we restore SCIENCE to its rightful, FULLY FUNDED, place.

the free market is not concerned with curing illness -- not when they make so much money off of the suffering.

it's time we restore sanity to our "civilization" and kick the free marketeers out of where they don't belong.

[leftchick]

42. The majority of our taxes go to more 'worthwhile' causes

as sammythecat pointed out above the DoD budget is much more important to this country than the health of its people.

:(

[MannyGoldstein]

172. Yes, The NIH Spends Billions On Research Each Year

Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. Funding something that would hurt their profits would violate this responsibility.

The NIH should have funded it if it was promising.

[NashVegas]

174. Yeah

I mean, the guy has creds, apparently, I looked him up. It just strikes me that if he thought what he was doing was *so* promising, he could have talked *someone* into funding the research. I have to wonder if perhaps he somehow contractually obligated himself to a particular pharm that had exclusive rights (patent-sharing) to his work, and they were nixing it.

[momto3]

303. You are right to an extent.

Of course biotech is only going to pursue areas of research that will result in profits for their shareholders. This is why they put so much energy into cancer, diabetes, etc... and very little thought to rare diseases. But, I think that not all biotech is "bad" or "evil" as suggested by several posters. Most of these companies do want the "big cure". This would put their competition out of business. Additionally, in fields such as cancer, their will not be any "cure all" drug. Different cancers form through various different mechanisms and rely on different pathways for continued growth. So a cure for breast cancer (which, BTW, I am being very simplistic)will more than likely not be a cure for lung cancer.

Academic research should act as a balance to biotechs need for profits. Academic research should be a place for research to be performed for the sole reason of finding answers, big or small. As an academic researcher in the cancer field, I can tell you that it is nearly impossible these days to get funding from the NIH to fund novel research. First, funding for NIH research has stagnated. A previous poster presented a graph showing an increase in NIH budget. I would like to know where they got this data. I can tell you that a 20% cut for all existing NIH grants was put into effect 4-5 years ago. The increase in the NIH budget has not equaled the raise due to inflation since Bush took office. Second, it is nearly impossible for young scientists to get federal funding to start their own research programs. This has seriously stifled novel research. Third, established scientists with previous NIH funding are much more likely to receive federal research money. NIH "study groups", which rank and score grant applications, give higher marks to established researchers and are generally unwilling to fund research that may be novel with a higher chance of failure.

For these various reasons, many academic scientists "boost" their budget by working with biotech. My laboratory performs preliminary toxicology experiments for several big companies of potentially new cancer therapeutics.

I agree that this is not an ideal situation, but until the funding problems in the NIH are corrected it is going to continue. I guess what I am trying to say with this post that the research may be promising, but that that does not guarantee NIH funding.

Thanks if you have made it through my rant.

[stray cat]

26. Corporations are not interested in spending billions of dollars with no potential profit

You need government, private or academic institutes to do research not based on for profit and then a special non-profit government funded institute to bring the most promising solutions forward. However, that means a lot more of your tax dollars going to research. Someone has to pay if there is not a commercial profit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Problem With The Article Is That It's Purely Anecdotal And There's No Verification Of Claims.

It's the only article on the web that I've found that even begins to reference a 'cure' for diabetes and it being blocked due to lack of support from the pharma industry. When such a claim can't be corroborated by a second source, it usually should be taken with a grain of salt. The article also doesn't attribute the quote to Irving, but instead is just written from the author's point of view with no further corroboration. I can't take this obscure unverified uncorroborated article with any credibility towards the claim it makes.

[TZ]

30. Then WHY are there WHOLE COMPANIES that do ONLY STEM CELL RESEARCH

If your theory is true? There is alot of pharma resources devoted to stem cells....I know I worked for a company a very large biotech that invested heavily in stem cell research. I interviewed with a company HERE in the Baltimore area that ONLY does stem cell research.
I would like to hear more about this research before I cry CONSPIRACY! Maybe the science was questionable and maybe it was considered too risky..Some Pharmas will not invest in questionable or risky research. And why not? Because some companies can't afford to throw away millions of dollars in research that seems unlikely to pass muster.
I would agree that I would like to see more Pharmas take more risks, but being unwilling to invest in new, risky technology is NOT THE SAME as blocking research.
There is TONS of research being done with stem cells in the biotech industry but its a new and still not well understood biology. This story PROOVES nothing but that the field is still difficult to get REAL results.
The technology still needs to be perfected...Anyone who thinks that stem cell research can be done overnight is a fool who doesn't have a clue about science.\
BTW--the ban Bush put on is for FEDERAL FUNDING--Pharmaceuticals don't depend on federal funding for research. Academics and govt agencies DO. So this whole idea that Bush banned it because of big Pharma is INCREDIBLY STUPID--the biotech going into clinical trials PROVES THAT..that clinical trial experiment was NOT FUNDED BY THE GOVT.

[global1]

37. What Happens To Biotech Company's That Are Into Forward Looking Research.......

they get bought up by the older established companies - that's what. Then what happens to the promising research that they've been working on? Hmmmmmm.... Sound familiar? How about oil companies buying up patents and products that might conserve or eliminate our dependence on oil and putting them on a shelf or out to pasture.

Diabetes is a very product heavy disease. Insulin, test strips, monitors, syringes, syringe pens, etc, etc, etc - all of these make a lot of money for the companies producing and the pharmacies and outlets that sell. Why would you want to kill the golden goose.

I worked in the Pharma industry and am embarrassed to say that I did. Many in the industry are in it for one just the profit - not a lot of humanitarians out there these days. Perhaps when the pharmaceutical industry first started there were - but not now.

If you want help - talk with a 'compounding pharmacist'. They are the true clinicians now. But Big Pharma and the FDA are trying to shut them down. Don't let that happen. Get involved.

[Liberal Veteran]

119. Outside of "hormone replacement" compounding pharmicists don't make a lot of drugs.

And do you know where compounding pharmacists gets their drugs from? The same place everyone else does.

They aren't whipping up a new batch of antivirals to treat AIDS patients in compounding pharmacies or magical new treatments. Every so often, a compounding pharmacy will whip up a nice all in one product like "magic mouthwash" or whip up a nice baby butt cream using a specific formulation because they baby is allergic to the vehicle or active ingredient in a specific branded drug or generic.

That is not to say they don't do good work, but I usually deal with a compounding pharmacy when I need them to mix up some tuna flavored antibiotics for my cats (which is basically just changing the diluent from that nasty bubble gum flavored shit to something the cats like.

[nickgutierrez]

47. Oh, you and your entirely plausible alternative theories.

:thumbsup:

[Joe Chi Minh]

67. Read this, Dumbo:

http://www.cyberdelix.net/parvati/ici_bse.htm

"We can be nice to researchers pursuing the 'wrong path'... and we can be..... not nice..... We call them , 'wrong'uns'; or 'temporary citizens'. Capisce?"

You need stringing up. Dumb as a box of rocks!

This is worth Googling, too:

warble fly spongiform 2008

And, in general, when reading any blandishment by governments concerning fears raised by apparent incidences of "profits before people":

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7963

[Liberal Veteran]

114. On the flip side of that, if they take more risks, then the same people...

...who claim "Big Pharma" is withholding this or that cure will claim that they are deliberately trying to kill people with their "risky" treatments and medications and fund the next round of ambulance chasing lawyers who enrich themselves off pharmaceutical companies and then when no huge breakthrough is made because they aren't willing to risk being sued out of existence, they will say Big Pharma is withholding a cure or a revolutionary treatment.

It's a pretty little circle.

[Grinchie]

151. Monsanto threw away billions developing GMO Food plant

and potentially devastating ecological conequence, but thats nothing a payoff to corrupt Goverment regulators and million dollar marketing campaigns won't gloss over. Not to mention paying off Universtities to teach future farmers the "Monsanto" approved way of growing crops.

When the damage finally becomes to great to cover-up with payoff, glossy brochures and coverups, they will take a slap on the hand, and we will be left to clean up their mess.

Just ask yourself why GMO Ingrediants are not listed on food labels? The answer is simple -- Accountability. If America knew it was consuming massive quantities of food that is banned in many countries, if any problems arose, then they could trace it back to the corporations that developed this poison in the first place. If that were to occur, then the GMO companies would have more incentive to do REAL research instead of tailoring research to benefit to desired outcome of their product goals.

FOOD IS A DRUG.

[L0oniX]

33. It's just as bad as war profiteering if not worse. Sociopath bastards!

Do you still like uncontrolled capitalism?

[leftchick]

44. I NEVER believed in it

even so called 'controlled' capitalism. I am more of a Socialist. :)

[Vinca]

35. They block everything that cuts into the profit margin.

Apparently someone invented a diabetic testing device that worked without the need for testing strips and lancets. Big pharma bought the rights to it and it's been in the locked safe ever since.

[catzies]

98. Just like the auto industry and any advance (fuel-efficiency for 1 example)

If it was likely to be a threat against future profits, they'd buy the invention and make sure it would never see the light of day.

K&R, BTW.

[Grinchie]

153. When the Auto Companies Invest is Energy stocks

Such as the way GM shareholders also hold Energy stocks, it would be against the Profit goals of the Auto companies.

[Grinchie]

152. Or tied up in never ending government regulation

Initiatited by the lobbiests for Big Pharma, or perhaps the Big Pharma people installed in the regulatory agency itself.

[IDemo]

36. The annual cost of not curing diabetes (from the American Diabetes Association)

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-statistics/cost-of-diabetes-in-us.jsp

Direct and Indirect Costs of Diabetes in the United States
* The total annual economic cost of diabetes in 2007 was estimated to be $174 billion. Medical expenditures totaled $116 billion and were comprised of $27 billion for diabetes care, $58 billion for chronic diabetes-related complications, and $31 billion for excess general medical costs. Indirect costs resulting from increased absenteeism, reduced productivity, disease-related unemployment disability, and loss of productive capacity due to early mortality totaled $58 billion. This is an increase of $42 billion since 2002. This 32% increase means the dollar amount has risen over $8 billion more each year.
* The 2007 per capita annual costs of health care for people with diabetes is $11,744 a year, of which $6,649 (57%) is attributed to diabetes.
* One out of every five health care dollars is spent caring for someone with diagnosed diabetes, while one in ten health care dollars is attributed to diabetes.

Medical Expenditures Attributed to Diabetes:

* Estimated at $116 billion, including $27 billion for care to directly treat diabetes, $58 billion to treat diabetes-related chronic complications, and $31 billion in excess general medical costs.
* People with diagnosed diabetes, on average, have medical expenditures that are approximately 2.3 times higher than those without diabetes. Diagnosed diabetes patients account for 5.8 percent of the total U.S. population.
* $58.3 billion was spent on inpatient hospital care and $9.9 billion on physician’s office visits directly attributed to diabetes.
* Diabetes-related hospitalizations totaled 24.3 million days in 2007, an increase of 7.4 million from the 16.9 million days in 2002. The average cost for a hospital inpatient day due to diabetes is $1,853 and $2,281 due to diabetes-related chronic complications, including neurological, peripheral vascular, cardiovascular, renal, metabolic, and ophthalmic complications.

Indirect Costs of Diabetes:

* Estimated to be $58 billion in 2007.
* In 2007, diabetes accounted for 15 million work days absent, 120 million work days with reduced performance, 6 million reduced productivity days for those not in the workforce, and an additional 107 million work days lost due to unemployment disability attributed to diabetes.
* Diabetes caused 445,000 cases of unemployment disability in 2007.
* The value of lost productivity due to premature death related to diabetes is $26.9 billion.

snip -- The actual national burden of diabetes likely exceeds the $174 billion estimate because it omits the social cost of intangibles such as pain and suffering, care provided by non-paid caregivers, excess medical costs associated with undiagnosed diabetes, and diabetes-attributed costs for health care expenditures categories not studied.

[leftchick]

76. you are right

it is probably way more costly in the long term for sure. Those are some devastating figures!

[underpants]

91. That is cost (not paid by Pharma) the REVENUE of not curing is endless (collected by Pharma)

there is only a one time revenue in the cure

[IDemo]

96. I suspect any near-term 'cure' will involve an ongoing maintenance med

whether or not it is directly related to antirejection drugs. Pharma won't be left out in the revenue cold.

[buzzycrumbhunger]

38. Big Pharma blocks everything

. . . that would potentially cost them profits. The whole "go pink for breast cancer" thing? A huge money maker. Unfortunately, studies have shown that as little as 15 minutes of sunshine daily (or a good vitamin D supplement) can prevent/reverse breast cancer. Why has that not made the news? Because they can't slap a name brand on it and charge a fortune. They can't create foundations and funnel huge amounts of money through them (where "administrative" costs receive more than actual research). Vitamins D and B6 have also been shown to reduce the risk of MS (a disease that is more prevalent in parts of the world with less sunlight).

Even worse, the FDA is systematically trying to ban nutritional supplements so that they can be marketed as prescription drugs. They used this propaganda to ban red rice yeast (why fight cholesterol naturally when you can sell statins that have the added benefit of causing liver problems later?) and countless other supplements that can do the job better than many of the new drugs being shoved in our face every day. Why let us take a good B-complex or St. John's wort when we could be buying a cocktail of mind-altering pharmaceuticals? Even old standby Rx medications are taking a back seat to more expensive ones simply because the patent has run out. Why prescribe a generic when there's money to be made?

They're not even stopping at supplements. The FDA--IMHO, squarely in bed with Big Pharma--is out to squelch anything that falls under "alternative medicine", i.e. anything from juice bars to Pilates machines, acupuncture needles, massage, Reiki, biofeedback, and anything else sold as "good for you."

It is obviously far more lucrative to keep the artificial, prepackaged garbage in our diets and overpriced drugs to halfway treat the effects than to simply do the right thing. The whole system needs an overhaul.

[Lorien]

52. No kidding. In other countries this device is offered over the counter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=276&topic_id=1649&mesg_id=1649 not here. It requires a prescription even though there are no negative side effects. It's been proven to be far more effective for bi-polar disorder than any drug on the market, and even offers hope for autism patients-but most doctors won't prescribe it because it's a one time purchase; no ongoing revenue (a GP I know even said as much). Our society is set up to sicken people and keep us ill; there's money to be made, after all. :grr:

[pink-o]

56. The Hugest evidence of that is how this country treats Marijuana

You can't take this herb (this weed that's so easy to grow), chemically synthesize it into THC and preserve its healing effects. Pharma has tried, epically failed, so the US Govt demonizes it, calls it an evil drug. Even it's non-medicinal cousin hemp--a plant which could solve a lot of energy problems and be made into fucking ANYTHING--isn't allowed to be grown in this country.

Not to mention this: my friend was diagnosed with HIV almost 5 years ago, and is on a hugely expensive drug regime to keep it under control. His doc blatantly told him there isn't a whole lot of enthusiasm in finding a cure for AIDS because it would cut into Pharma's profits. I realize the HIV virus (yes, redundant, but it's made its way into our lexicon) is very elusive and mutates all the time, but it seems like an unspoken conspiracy not to exert a lot of effort into cutting into those profits.

We need to move science away from money. Science in its pure form could actually save our species and our planet; when it collides with greed it just turns our lives to shit.

[kimmerspixelated]

123. Absolutely true!

Grassroots organizations must move quickly. We have to fight the nazis!

[Warpy]

40. Big Pharma wasn't the problem, Bush and the religious nuts were

because they canceled all the NIH grants that would have funded the pure research into stem cells at the university level.

While some private companies are researching on their own, the loss of funding and access to different stem cell lines has hurt them badly and turned most research toward finding a substitute for the holy blastocyst that the religious right would prefer to see discarded than provide a cure for suffering people.

Because of all those stupid and short sighted, superstitious people, this country is now a good two decades behind the rest of the world and cures for things like diabetes will likely now be found in secular countries with socialized medicine.

Regrowing islet cells has been done, along with pancreatic transplant with mixed success. I think we will see a cure for type I diabetes in our lifetime.

We just won't see it here, thanks to our silly Christian fringe.

[SmileyRose]

43. We need

to find a country with socialized medicine to put the money toward development. Big pharm is not going to ever do the work for cures unless they can make more money off the cure than they do the treatment - which is going to be difficult to do.

This is something government HAS to do.

[acmavm]

45. Scientific research on mucho big business. Look at how long Jerry has

been annoying people on t.v. for muscular dystrophy. The find a cure and it's good bye cash cow. And for Jerry it's good bye whatever frigging career he may have had for the last forty years.

[goforit]

46. This is why I have not donated One penny to the Cancer society!!!!

[Lorien]

49. This is why Nationalizing our health care system is so important

cures are out there, but big pharma will ALWAYS put profits over the health of the people. They have no intention of ever curing anything; the name of the game is creating a dependent and desperate consumer. With universal health care we could cut out insurance companies entirely and cap prices on medications, as other nations do. Our tax dollars could also go to work finding CURES instead of just treatments. As things stand now a significant percentage of Americans are skipping exams, not filling prescriptions and not seeking out treatment for various conditions because it's not only not affordable, but often the treatments themselves offer only a little help (diabetes being an exception-most of the time).

[earth mom]

50. With the amount of money that has been thrown at Cancer & Breast Cancer for YEARS,

there should have been a cure or at least far better treatments by now.

Which is why I've no doubt the pharma giants are nothing but the biggest snake oil salesmen on the planet. :grr:

[defendandprotect]

199. Absolutely correct -- and the treatments are horrific--!!!

As I understand it, if you have a slow acting cancer, you have a good deal of time.

If you have a fast acting cancer, no matter what you do, it wins.

Also, our system of medicine rarely looks at the immune system ---

In America we eat a great deal of dairy products -- from animals -- and mainly the

fat from dairy is stored on your body because your system has no use for it.

Some suspect that your immune system cannot detect cancer cells thru the stored fat. . .

In the last decade there was an interesting book written on cancer treatment which shrinks

tumors. It is most effective if you have NEVER had surgery for the cancer and if you haven't

had chemo. For instance with brain tumors, supposedly shrinks the tumor while not harming

brain tissue which surgery does. I think I have this in my bookcase, but can't find it right

now. I'll check again tomorrow. My library had this book. Certainly better treatments are

being suppressed in all fields of medicine.

[barb162]

53. All RX is expensive as the companies have to make their money

I know a few insulin dependent people too and they think their diabetes supplies are way cheaper than many other drugs they use. Personally, I think the test strips are pretty expensive. Don't get me wrong, but the insulin itself is pretty damned cheap compared to some heart, cancer ,etc meds. I hope we get the FDA beefed back up again. I expect great things from stem cells and hope this country puts some decent research money into it.

[gvstn]

74. Insulin is not that cheap..

Why has it gone from $20.00 to $48.00 in less than 6 years? No new research no new formulations. It is necessary to live and yet it increases every 30-60 days by a $1.00 a bottle. I realize all pharmaceuticals have risen since Medicare part D but this is ridiculous. It was under $10 a bottle for 30 years.

Don't even get me started on aspirin. You could of bought a bottle of Bayer for under $2.00 or a lifetime supply of a store brand for 99 cents for about 40 years from 1945-1985. When it became a heart attack preventative the price went up 300%. Not just for stomach safe formulations but all aspirin. Something has gone very wrong.

[barb162]

80. 30years ago...check the rate of inflation on all goods in that period

and insulin is still incredibly dirt cheap, especially compared to may other drugs people need every day. It really is. The test strips are where they get people. It reminds me of HP, the printers are cheap but they kill you on the ink; that's where they have all of their income. A huge markup on what it actually costs them.

When there are only one or two makers of a drug, they can charge whatever the hell they want and they do.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

127. The republicans passed law to prevent Govt from negotiating the prices

So to protect the "free market" the government was banned from negotiating
drug prices.

never mind this is already done for the VA.

[Grinchie]

139. Try buying it before you start yapping about how cheap it is.

"They think" is unqualified in any sense of the word.

They probably have insurance eh? How much do they pay annually on their insurance? How much co pay do they outlay on Insulin?

OK, now try the price of their Insulin without insurance.

Then you will see the picture.

[defendandprotect]

207. The medicines for HBP are among the cheapest . . . yet not cheap here!!

And this is true of many medicines --- cheap, well known -- highly costly!

[Dulcinea]

59. As Chris Rock once said....

"Ain't no money in the cure. The money is in the treatment."

[ShockediSay]

60. So all this advertising about Novartis

not being in the business of diabetes

but being impassioned thereby;

is, I think, beginning to sound

like bullshit

I think the passion is beginning to look

like passion for profits

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

61. recommended. Big Pharma + donations = expensive meds for chronic illness

I hope the cure for diabetis comes soon.

Thanks for this post, I hadn't thought of this connection, but you are right,
Diabetis supplies are expensive (OMG the cost of test strips alone!)

But what is sad is the other costs - the health of the diabetic.

Especially if a young person has it.

[glinda]

63. Big Pharma probably gave Bush his drugs. Hope Obama cracks down on them.

[K Gardner]

64. Diabetes is not the only disease "they" don't want to cure. K&R

[kimmerspixelated]

126. Right, and plus one of the the biggest scams

these days is the cholesterol drugs, the statins they push. It's the imflammation that needs to be addressed! Our bodies need cholesterol, it's dangerous to have it too low!

[Grinchie]

246. It's a pretty good way to control a populations afflicted by Diabetes

They are addicted to a substance in order to live, so they will be less likey to cause trouble and potentially disrupt the supply lines for their medications.

Kind of like Duke Harkonnen in Dune sowing the Genetically modified cat that provided the drug for the good doctor to stay alive. Kind of like a ball and chain. They can still be productive, but they are always handicapped by having to run a manual transmission instead of an automatic like most of the others.

[Hanse]

66. They blocked the cure by not funding research?

I blame Wal-mart. I don't see them funding any stem cell research.

[leftchick]

77. they blocked the trials

his research was done and qualified for trials by pharma companies. Now had it been for male enhancement? :eyes:

[Hanse]

82. Why is it the pharma company's obligation to conduct trials for somebody else?

Why don't you conduct trials?

Why are you blocking diabetes drugs?

[leftchick]

86. why are you

being intentionally obtuse?

:crazy:

[Dreamer Tatum]

109. It's actually a very good point

This guy cured diabetes in 1995, just before VC companies were writing $100 million checks for people
to sell dog food on the Internet. Are we supposed to believe that if Big Pharma won't underwrite drug
testing, that the drug won't exist? Show Cerberus, Texas Pacific, Cargill, ADM, or any other group with
billions to invest a cure for a verifiable PLAGUE, and trials will be conducted.

There has to be more to the story.

[Hanse]

134. Why are you ignoring the clear logical fallacies of the story you posted?

You haven't got much ground in calling other people obtuse.

A cure for diabetes would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

So not only could a company make a shitload of money with a cure for diabetes, they'd crush their competitors.

So they'd be falling over themselves to fund this guy's trials. Assuming, of course, he had a cure for diabetes.

Which he doesn't.

[Grinchie]

144. One Company could make lots of money

But under the current system, HUNDREDS of companies make lots of money.

The company with the cure would make more money by taking donations from the Hundreds that want to continue making money on the business that they would see disappear overnight. Of cousres, that would benefit his shareholders immensely...

And say if the Company that had the cure was ethical and wanted to proceed, I am sure you would see a concerted effort to destroy that company, like we have seen in the past.

You sound like a true Corporatist Hanse. Strawman flailing in the wind.

[Hanse]

146. Are you familiar with a thing called "competition?"

Do you know what it means?

[defendandprotect]

205. Capitalism isn't about competition . . . it's about killing the competition . . .

[Hanse]

226. Well there you go.

Regardless of the self-contradiction, you've supported my point.

[defendandprotect]

290. Well, you could fool me . . . !!!

And maybe you should send that message on to Tucker . . . ?

And makers of electric cars --

alternative energy - wind and solar -- now pretty much bought up by the same people

who own and control oil and other natural resources.

[Grinchie]

141. Why do GMO Companies have to test the safety of the Food Plants they Alter?

Why do they discredit and sue anybody that finds safety issues with GMO Food?

[Hanse]

143. Why? Because it's the responsible thing to do.

To protect the consumer, and to protect the company.

"Why do they discredit and sue anybody that finds safety issues with GMO Food?"

1. They do no such thing. You, or somebody you take way too seriously, are just making that up.

2. You realize the "GMO companies" and pharmaceutical companies are two different things. Right?

[Grinchie]

155. Troll

Obviously you don't know a thing about GMO Food. Just look at what they did to Dr Pusztai.

2. They are one in the same. They are Genetically Modifying Food crops to produce drugs. It is called "Pharming", and in 2006, the entire US Rice supply was found contaminated with GMO Rice. I'm relly looking forward to eating Uncle Bens Improved Rice -- Now with Human Serum Albumin!

Please do your own Research before you spout off.

[Hanse]

159. LOL

Could you posit a logical argument using complete sentences as to why I'm a troll?

I'd love to see you try.


"2. They are one in the same. They are Genetically Modifying Food crops to produce drugs. It is called "Pharming", and in 2006, the entire US Rice supply was found contaminated with GMO Rice. I'm relly looking forward to eating Uncle Bens Improved Rice -- Now with Human Serum Albumin!"

There are fields where they intersect, sure.

They're hardly one and the same.

There was an incident in 2006 where unapproved GMO rice got into the system. It was resistant to weed killer, had nothing to do with drugs, albumin, or the "entire U.S. Rice supply (sic)."

[Grinchie]

248. Try comprehending this company name that makes GMO Rice.

BAYER Crop Sciences.

BAYER does a lot more than make aspirin.

[defendandprotect]

206. Right . . . Monsanto wasn't bribing Canadian farmers over the border to use

their bovine treatment which forced cows to produce even more milk ---

and they certainly weren't suing farmers where Monsanto's seeds ended up in their

fields -largely unwanted --!!!

Bovine somatotropin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physiology|Posilac|Controversy|Regulation
Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST) is a protein hormone produced in the pituitary glands of cattle. It is also called bovine growth hormone, or BGH.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_Growth_Hormone - 81k - Cached

Milk: America's Health Problem
How recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone increases Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 in milk and how it is related to increased risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.
www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm - Cached

Health Warning - Bovine Growth Hormone Disaster In Milk 12-03
Monsanto has done it again, bio-engineered bovine growth hormone has possibly contaminated dairy products, FDA is aware of problem.
www.dldewey.com/columns/dec03bf.htm - Cached

[PatSeg]

68. Incredible, but sadly not surprising

[xyouth]

70. Diabetes research is still going strong.

My Aunt founded JDF which is now JDRF. She also founded and runs NDRI. There are top geneticists from all over the world working on it.

[Bushknew]

71. k&r

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. So a university prof had a cure for diabetes

...and he was dissuaded by Big Pharma saying no?

I'm sorry, I have to call just a smidge of bullshit here.

The man CURED DIABETES, but shelved the beakers and pipettes because Big Pharma said no.

There is more to the story than just this, or else Prof. Weissman is himself complicit in the
suppression of a cure.

"Hi, Congressperson, I'm an eminent researcher at one of the top 10 universities in the world. I think I have a
cure for diabetes, but Big Pharma doesn't want it. Any interest in having me testify before Congress?"

"Hi, British/Canadian/French government, I'm an eminent researcher at one of the top 10 universities in the world. I think I have a
cure for diabetes, but Big Pharma doesn't want it. Do you?"

"Hi, super-rich guy with diabetes, I'm an eminent researcher at one of the top 10 universities in the world. I think I have a
cure for diabetes, but Big Pharma doesn't want it. Do you want to fund a startup?"

[Grinchie]

149. The IMF can cause whole Economies to Collapse

And you say Big Pharma could not put enough pressure on anyone to dissaude them for moving ahead with something?

You are very Naieve. Would yousacrifice yourslf, or your life when facing Powers that could make you disappear overnight?

You forgot to mention "Hi Congressperson Ownedbybigpharma"

"Hi jaques, who do I speak to about the cure for X"

Name one Super Rich guy with diabetes.

[Dreamer Tatum]

222. So...wait...NO rich people have diabetes...riiiiight.

If this guy could be disappeared overnight, why hasn't he been as he continues to insist he has a cure?

I think YOU'RE the (extremely) "Naieve" (sic) one. If I'm a business development guy at Merck, I market
the drug for $x, and the cure for $y, where $y is the discounted present value of the cash flow from $x.

This cure happened in 1995. Are you telling me that no one, not ONE person the Clinton admin. HHS, NIH, CDC, or FDA
would or could have taken interest? The government spends billions dealing with diabetes, and will only spend more.
The cost of the cure < discounted present value of the public cost of dealing with diabetes. You're telling me the
government has had NO interest in that?

Please.

[Grinchie]

250. Yes that is what I am telling you.

I have seen lots of trials that have been disappeared, lost under the cloud of Paris Hilton coverage, and the media that is too lazy to continue to cover a story, or at least followup on one.

It's not just Merck and $x -- Its Merck $x + (Company * 50) * $_x. Merck just happens to own stock in (Company * 50).

Please.

[Patiod]

267. So none of the people involved in the "disappeared" trials

have familhy members with diabetes? So not one person had any motivation to blow the whistle or scream from the highest rooftop that there's a cure and it's being hidden?

Please.

Again, this is a condition that's not going to be "cured" by drugs. Change is going to come either from a procedure (ex: islet cell transplant, stem cell transplant) that's outside the purview of the pharmacos or some radical shift in understanding of the cause of conditions based on inflammation (heart disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, etc)

[Dreamer Tatum]

269. I see you took your MBA from the X-Files School of Business

If there was a tested cure for diabetes that could be taken in a pill or in a vein, the mere
announcement would probably permanently double a pharm's stock price in a day.

I will give you style points for putting the media on trial, and in fact, here is a
proposition:

Dreamer's Law: When the argument runs against you, blame corporations. When logic runs against
you, blame the media. If your argument is on fire, blame both.

[Grinchie]

299. Your the one whining about us picking on the Poor Corporations...

Hate to say it, but they do announce a half assed treatment for diabetes every few months or so. The stock goes up, then the bad news comes, but the inside traders already got out, yadda yadda yadda.

The game is rigged gentlemen. there is no incentive to speedily find a cure for anything.

There is a mess of Government corruption and Corporate manipulation going on and you guys seem quite happy with it. Trying to attack my conclusions is useless. Simply because I know you have access to the same information that I do.

The biggest problem is that you probably agree that Ronald McDonald sells healthy happy food, and leave it at that, because actually looking for what that crap is made out of take too much effort.


I'm not going to Flame war with you about my conclusions. You have your own brain, use it.

[leftchick]

282. he is an MD, PhD

and renowned around the world for his stem cell research. :eyes:

[Dreamer Tatum]

287. Thanks for bolstering my argument nt

[leftchick]

288. apparently

in your world view.

[trotsky]

304. BPOTT

Best Post On The Thread. :thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

73. My understanding is that Canada has made big strides in the treatment of diabetes.

Has your research led you in that direction?

What you are pointing to is CRIMINAL.. which we all knew, right?

:nuke:

[leftchick]

108. as a matter of fact I have

Perhaps the fact that Canada has socialized medicine makes them want to actually find a cure and drive down costs. What a concept, eh?

If only we had that motivation here. :(

[GinaMaria]

75. so how could we fund his clinical trials?

Is there a way, regular folks like us could help this along? This would be an amazing gift to the world... How do we accomplish this? Does he already have his own lab? Can a lab be rented? How much money would we need to raise?

[canucksawbones]

78. As a IDDM patient and physician

There is lots of research going on in the use of stem cells, cloning of Beta cells, etc.

The biggest problems at this point in IDDM transplanted cells/stem cell research is adequate production of Beta cells and rejection issues. It is useful to remember that IDDM is an autoimmune disease caused by endogenous antibodies destroying the Beta cell by recognizing specific Beta cell antigens. Using stem cells to create Beta cells at present is possible, but it isn't yet possible to produce antigen free Beta cells. The consequence is the IDDM patient destroys his new Beta cells, or needs to be on potent anti-rejection drugs (which Big Pharma also sells). I wouldn't get to caught up on Big Pharma stopping the cure of IDDM, the vast majority of money made in the Diabetes market by big pharma is in the NIDDM market, and replacing Beta cells in NIDDM patients is pointless as that disease is caused by aberrant insulin absorption, not in inadequate production. This is one conspiracy theory that won't fly.

Obviously the intricacies of Beta cell transplantation, stem cell vs. cloned cells, production of antigen free Beta cells, commonality of IDDM, NIDDM and NIDDM requiring insulin, as well as profit made from treatment of IDDM, vs. NIDDM, vs, NIDDM requiring insulin would require pages and pages of detail. But the bottom line is that IDDM makes a very small percentage of diabetic patients, and that ratio is getting much smaller as NIDDM becomes much more prevalent (due to increasing obesity). And that small percentage is certainly not going to stimulate interest in stopping "cure research" they make almost all the diabetes profits from NIDDM.

G

[ekwhite]

210. Someone should translate

IDDM = Idiopathic Diabetes Mellitus, AKA Type 1 diabetes or Juvenile Diabetes

NIDDM = Non-idiopathic Diabetes Mellitus, AKA Type 2 diabetes or Adult Onset Diabetes.

[Grinchie]

300. The best treatment I found is through diet.

Diet appears to be the number one causal factor in Diabetes, in both Type 1 and Type 2.

Althought NIDDM is more prevalent, there are cases of IDDM appearing overnight that is not explained.

[leftchick]

315. could you share some diet resources?

Please? I have been mulling this since my son was diagnosed, but have not found much about it.

[spanone]

79. when my mother went through her cancer death i came to the same conclusion

it's making way too many people way too much money....cynical? maybe.

[Contrary1]

83. Three anti-nausea pills cost me almost $200,

and that was eleven years ago. It's ridiculous.

[spanone]

93. my mom tried them and they didn't help...she had lung cancer and smoked pot to alleviate the nausea

her doctor at the time had anti-nausea pills that cost 40 bucks each in 2000. they didn't help.

he actually told me that he didn't tell many patients about them cause they were so expensive and at the time insurance didn't cover them

[dflprincess]

148. I don't think you're cyncial, I think you've grasped a truth.

I remember reading once that there were many who slammed Jonas Salk for finding a way to prevent polio, not a way to cure it. Not much money in prevention - especially when Salk refused to patent the vaccine so as much of it could be made as quickly and cheaply as possible.

[Pharaoh]

84. Yes this is what For Profit Medicine is all about

It's insane, it's about money not health,

Why is that so difficult for people to see.

Drug co's don't want to cure you, they just want to hook you on their expensive snake oil for the rest of your life.

K&R

[AdHocSolver]

103. The problem is worse than you think.

As someone who worked in hospitals and a medical school, I have observed that the entire "health care system" is run on the basis of maximizing profit.

The hospitals I am familiar with were run by executives who had business degrees in health care administration. They were as devoted "bean counters" as any corporate executives I ever observed.

A majority of the medical research in this country is funded by taxpayer money via grants from such agencies as the National Institute of Health. The pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment companies spend more money on marketing, advertising, and plying doctors and academics in medical schools with gifts than they do on actual research. Many doctors and hospitals are happy to accept these "gifts" and return the favor.

From personal experience, from the experiences of relatives and acquaintences, and from observation, many doctors and hospitals are quick to promote the most expensive treatments to patients.

The major medical school where I worked was a real eye-opener. Academic rivalry was fierce. The prize was grant money. If it helped to knock other professors' work, it was done with passion and enthusiasm. Equipment was barely removed from its packaging and installed when plans were made to apply for grant money for newer equipment. I discovered there were huge storage rooms, aside from the labs, filled with millions of dollars worth of used equipment that was practically brand new.

The professors I worked for went on all expense paid trips to other universities to promote equipment that they had purchased or had donated to them by their manufacturers. I was told that this was common practice and the universities saw this as a perk for their own professors.

I could explain more about the health care industry describing what I observed, but I see no use in upsetting you any more than necessary.

I do want to point out that I obseved many really fine doctors and medical school professors. A while ago, I had some surgery in a hospital that was really well run. Years ago, I worked for a medical equipment company that was superb in every way.

The problem is that the "bad" outnumber the "good", and the "bad" usually run things.

We desperately need more government oversight of the health care industry (oversight done by knowledgeable, ethical people, not industry shills), and we need single payer health insurance (managed by knowledgeable, ethical people).

[leftchick]

181. you are not upsetting me at all

just reconfirming what I have already experienced. Way back in the early 1990s I went through the gamete of reproductive technologies. From Clomid to IVF! After 5 1/2 years I had my first son who is the one with DT1. From that long experience I know the bad out weigh the good. It was extremely difficult to find the right doctor.

Health care should be a right not an industry.

:(

[defendandprotect]

208. Yes...!!!

[diane in sf]

106. This is another reason we need to have single payer health insurance and have

a government interested in cost-effectiveness and cure effectiveness paying for medical research, not profit-based drug companies.
Time to take control of our medical structure back from insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

[Fire1]

110. I believe they're blocking cures for alot of things, like various

forms of cancer.

[kimmerspixelated]

128. Oh, Hell Yes!

And the thing is, they say there's no science between natural cure a or b, when, in fact, it's because it's natural and they can't patent it, so therefore, "it doesn't exist". Nice, huh??!!

[Fire1]

130. BINGO!!! We have a winner!

[Hanse]

135. A couple of flaws.

1. You can get patents for "natural cures." Assuming it really works, and it's a novel application of an existing product.

2. It's not Big Pharma's fault that snake oil quackery doesn't work.

[Grinchie]

158. You cannot patent an Herb.

Just because there are further charlatans preying upon people in a similar fashion as the Corporate greed monkeys, does not mean that Herbs or Natural cure don't work. Your example applies to all sociopaths, Corporate or Snake-oil quack. They are one in the same, so therefore, according to your logic, just because it's Big Pharma, yet behaves the same as a Snake Oil Quack, that they should not be held responsible?!?

I think you are on the wrong web site. I think Free Republic is more your style, as your logic is so twisted that you might just have your head explode here trying to make you silly points.

[Hanse]

165. Yes, you can.

If you can show that Oil of Oregano cures colon cancer then you can patent it, license the patent, cure colon cancer, and make billions of dollars.

The only issue standing in your way is that Oil of Oregano doesn't cure colon cancer.

Neither does realigning your chakras, or silver amalgam, or speaking in tongues or whatever it is you think the pharma companies are suppressing.

"I think you are on the wrong web site. I think Free Republic is more your style, as your logic is so twisted that you might just have your head explode here trying to make you silly points."

I think you're a few straws short of a crop circle.

[Hannah Bell]

196. you can't patent oil of oregano. you can patent your special formulation

or processing method, but not oil of oregano generically.

[Hanse]

229. You can patent a formulation. Or a novel use.

Regardless, it's still a patent.

[Hannah Bell]

239. Thanks for repeating what I already said.

[Grinchie]

252. What the heck are you on about. Show me a patented herb.

If this, Hypothetical that.

You are so not making sense it's hilarious.

[kimmerspixelated]

277. Next time you get something you want to get rid of,

try Oil of Oregano, and watch it disappear. This is from personal experience, myself, and many, many others. It's okay if you're a non-believer, just don't belittle those that CHOOSE to use things that work for them!

[ekwhite]

214. Not to mention that many so-called "natural" treatments

Have been found to have been spiked with the real drug. Look at the FDA recalls site sometime (www.fda.gov) to see the sort of things they are recalling natural supplements for, it is enlightening.

[SidDithers]

121. The woo is strong in this thread...

it burns, it burns.

Sid

[Tuesday Afternoon]

142. ~

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Hannah Bell]

197. The gatekeepers from the "Health" forum have descended! Spreading their

own special brand of 'wisdom' with generous admixtures of snark!!

Beware, beware!!

[SidDithers]

203. Wow, I'm a "gatekeeper"? Cool!...nt

Sid

[Hannah Bell]

209. only of the health forum, don't get a big head. why don't you go back there now,

someone's spreading woo. gotta stamp that stuff out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

274. Are you the gatekeeper? I'm the key master.

Vince Clothor, Key Master of Gozer.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

234. don't worry, they are way outnumbered by Democrats

Notice this article was the number one article on front page today?

[Hannah Bell]

235. Yay for the "woos"!

[SidDithers]

275. We're all democrats here, toots...nt

Sid

[lelgt60]

122. I get tired of general accusations

First while it is true, Big Pharma (and little pharma, etc) operates on the principle of making profits. What you seem to dismiss without any specific claims, is that there just might be people in many for profit corporations that do anything but think of profit. You act like Big Pharma is a machine. It's not. It's made up of PEOPLE. Human Beings with lots of motivations, some of them very moral, some not. I suspect that there may be a few people in DU who work for a variety of companies that engage in drug research.

Second, if you know of a specific person in a specific company that blocked a cure, name the company and person. Show us some evidence. Just because it could have happened doesn't mean it happened. The OP said Big Pharma "blocked" the cure. Then they go one to say they weren't interested in it. Well, I see that as a pretty big difference. Again, give me some names and specific incidents.

I don't work in Pharma - I'm a software engineer at a scientific software company. But I see similar claims from people who somehow think we could make software bug free "if we only wanted to". Well, I'd like to see them try. I have a similar feeling about some of these claims against PEOPLE who work at companies you call "Big Pharma". There's no real thing as a "corporation" (as opposed to a legal thing). It's just a bunch of real people. So, make your claims against real people and don't mask them with the general anti-corporate stuff.

Now, I have to admit, that I do think that many of THE PEOPLE who set prices for products developed and produce by other PEOPLE at their companies are doing bad things. But, unlike the claims of blocking cures in this thread, these claims have obvious proof: the prices being charged are public. Financial analysis can pretty much determine the cost of development. We can see if different prices are charged in different countries or to different groups od people. These are all much more legitimate claims, in my opinion.

[Grinchie]

160. So So Tired...

"But I see similar claims from people who somehow think we could make software bug free "if we only wanted to". Well, I'd like to see them try."

You certainly are not going to see it when the Software Jobs are outsourced to entities such as "Satyam or Infosys", especially since we were the ones that developed the original solution in the first place.

Corporations remove any accounability to anybody or anything. Pollute the world, no problem, take it out to the Shareholders cut. Destroy the environment, My bad, Chapter 11, i'm outta here!

Decision made my committe are not accountable, and I am sure that as a software developer, you are rushed for time to get product out, whether it is ready or not, whether it is for internal consumption or not. The fact is that you need more time, but someone else makes the decision to ship, bugs and all for you.

How many times have you had to rewrite the same function? In how many different languages du jour? That fact is that they don't want you to wirte bug free software, otherwise you'd be out of a job.

[lelgt60]

167. Not where I work. Who is the "they"?

Even though we're a $3 billion company with 10,000 employees, I still occasionally talk to the CEO, as well as frequently talk to VPs. No one has ever told me to ship software that had significant bugs in it (I explain below in #2 what I mean by significant). One reason people buy our stuff is that it computes the right numbers. An executive would be crazy to risk that. I've worked for almost 10 different corporations during my lifetime. They just don't neatly fall into your broad brush criminal enterprise category. Some do. Not all. Sorry.

1. I wouldn't be out of a job if we wrote bug free software. We have virtually an infinite set of requests for features and extensions. In addition, we come up with new products all the time.

2. We spend significant time testing each release, and we have no problem holding a release if it has bugs above a certain class. What this means is, we make a trade off for our customers: new features in their hands vs fixing bugs that don't affect many people or that have reasonable workarounds. Is this shipping the software too soon? You see, it's not that clear. Sometimes the new features can literally be lifesaving whereas the bugs may simply be an inconvenience.

3. I have a number of bugs assigned to me right now. Only one was a mistake on my part (that I'm willing to admit to). The odds of catching it in a testing environment was small. The others are due to weird interactions with other software that we don't make. I have no idea how to test for all these possibilities. Let me know if you do.

[Grinchie]

255. You nailed the indirect point I wanted to make

The integration of software does not always go well, yet the Big Pharma gets to concoct compunds, usually based on a known pattern, like a compound in an herb, and tweak it a little bit, patent it and make huge sums of money. Forget about the liver toxicity, as long as it makes that 10% growth per quarter slice of the pie.
I know you don't personally see that profit. If fact, I would be surprised if you've seen any meaningful wage growth in the past several years.

I'm sure that there are corporations that are not full of unethical greedy crooks, but thats not what this thread is about. You and I agree that a broad brush catches too many entities, but that not a problem. If we were allowed to see into these organizations we could determine it quite easily.

I'm just curious as to why you got your panties into a bunch while talking about this? Do you actually follow the news and see the corruption that has taken place in Corporate America in the last 20 years and really think that we are on the right track?

[lelgt60]

270. Agree - we're not on the right track

I guess you can call it a pet peeve or hot button.

I just have a hard time with broad brush logic. Have some bad experiences with a black people - all black people are bad. Bernie Madoff runs off with $50 billion, some other Jews steel money, all Jews are bad, etc.

I'm especially sensitive to claims against Pharma companies because of two things. First, while these people are not our only customers, they are some of our customers. The ones I've dealt with seem pretty passionate about curing diseases. Second, I believe I would be dead if not for the a couple of the drugs these companies discovered, produced, and sold. So, when I see claims that "they" blocked cures, I want to know more specifically who "they" are. Company and names. You know, many of the misdeeds in the last 8 years were not hidden. The perpetrators told us loudly and clearly what they were doing. Shit, they were PROUD of it.

On the other hand, I have specific issues with how these companies charge for their products. And, don't get me started on patents, especially patents for things like adding aspirin to a drug to "discover" another drug. Clearly we need extensive patent reform. But, again, these things are public facts, not conspiracy theories. As far as I can tell in this thread alone, we have claims of suppressed cures for both diabetes and breast cancer. I feel sorry for people with these diseases, but I don't think it is right to generally claim such evil doing without some more specific facts.

The solutions, I believe, are not specifically going after these companies, but changing the environment. Single payer health care. Better government oversight. More transparency regulations. Maybe getting rid of corporate personhood - As I said, there's really no such thing as a corporation, it's just a bunch of real people. They should be held accountable personally for what they decide as a group.

[Grinchie]

302. I am in full agreement with you on your proposed solutions.

Unfortunately, I tend to use a broad brush with Corporations specifically due to the fact that normally nobody is accountable to anybody. Maybe the poor shlub that is used as a scapegoat, but he's the small fish.

If people actually had perfect ethics, and stood by them, Corporations would change quite quickly. It is up to the Drones to grow a backbone.

[AdHocSolver]

233. Your criticisms are unrealistic. Corporate practice is dictated by management.

Most executives think solely of pursuing maximum profits and then give themselves big bonuses and perks for their efforts. An employee better be a "team player", or at least pretend to be one if that person wants to keep his or her job. The role model for the average executive is Ken Lay of Enron fame.

This attitude applies to executives in hospitals and universities as well.

Exposing individuals' or corporations' "dirty little secrets" could get one involved in nasty legal problems or ruin one's career. That is why you don't hear about it.

I worked for many years as a computer programmer for a variety of companies and nonprofit organizations. I would estimate that one-third of the software written is never used because it cannot do the job for which it is written, or it is so riddled with bugs that it is useless.

A lot of legacy software that I worked with had some really stupid problems. Errors in computation, bugs that caused program crashes, programs that perpetuated or disseminated bad data, and programming practices that were classic textbook examples of what not to do. Some of the bugs had existed in the software for years.

Sometimes I was criticized for finding and fixing a problem because a senior programmer or manager "didn't understand" how I fixed the problem. A few times I was asked to roll back the bug fix for this reason. This kind of experience led me, in some cases, to update my resume.

One "program from hell" (bad user interface, frequent crashes, lost data) I fixed in less than three months (it had been written in-house and used for about eight years). Calling the program "spaghetti code" would be too kind. I fixed the user interference and eliminated the crashes.

A lot of the legacy code that I worked on was little better. Some of the software was actually sold to other companies to earn revenue.

I did see some well designed, well written, thoroughly debugged software. It was a refreshing rarity. I am not complaining, mind you. The mass of lousy software out there provided me with a living for many years.

The main reason for the existence of so much bad software is that most of the managers in IT are not trained or experienced programmers, but people who are business executives who have no clue how to manage software projects or programmers.

[Grinchie]

257. It's not just Corporate practice, It's Government too.

Management in Government entities rules with an Iron Fist. Expose any shortcoming such as you described ealier, you will be destroyed. Ethics be damned! It's cover thine ass and incinerate the Canary.

[byrok]

124. My mother died

from breast cancer 12 years ago. It sucks when I think about how she may have been helped if not for greed. Heartbreaking.

[bertman]

136. WOW!! This thread is a barnburner!! As someone who has no background in medicine

or pharmaceuticals or research but who has fairly substantial experience with hospitals and medications, I have been reading this with great interest. Although, I admit I have not read most of the links.

AdHocSolver's post pretty much summed it up. The good guys, the researchers and scientists who toil in the trenches to come up with the cures and develop the machinery to save the lives are always at the mercy of those who control the business end of the process. Pharmaceutical companies are BUSINESSES first and foremost.

As in any business, the decisions that the corporate executives make are based on what maximizes profit. They cannot ignore their LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PUT PROFITS FIRST. So, the researcher who has been making great strides in his field may be told that there are any number of reasons that his work is not being made available to those who need it, when, in fact, it may be nothing more than the desire of the company to keep the product off the shelf until they want it to be on the shelf.

That is basic business 101.

To act as if the pharmaceutical industry or any other industry is working for altruistic reasons is to ignore the reality of our world.

[lelgt60]

150. There is no legal obligation to put profits first

Have you ever formed a for profit corporation?

You may only have a legal obligation to be truthful to the shareholders. Certainly not to put profits over people. That is a moral decision each executive group makes on its own.

I certainly believe that many corporations do this. But, I also believe that some don't.

Sorry, I just can't stand this broad brush condemnation of all the management teams that work in this industry.

[Grinchie]

161. Thats too bad you can't see the results of the lack of ethics we've had for 8 years.

[lelgt60]

168. I never said there weren't problems. I just said is not a legal obligation

I said it is up to the particular executive team as to whether they're socially conscious or not. Not that there weren't immoral teams.

[Grinchie]

259. The problem lies with the dependance on money

Ethics and the need for money are two opposite goals.

Have you ever stood up for the ethical thing, stood by your decision and were severely punished for it? Did this ever cause you loss of wages, or did the thought of lost wages ever make you think twice about sticking to the correct ethical path?

I'm pretty confident that you have never had to face that kind of situation, or experienced the repurcussions of being a whistleblower, and bringer of bad news, or the harbinger of security weaknesses that left millions of taxpayers information vulnerable to scrutiny by a motivated hacker.

I have, and it was extremely painful. However, it did cause me to review this so called dependence upon money and figure out is is indeed slavery. Once you sell your ethics for money then you have no choice but to live with the fact that you are lying to yourself. After a while, people just take it for granted, and wouldn't dream of jeopardizing their Car or House payment, Kids future, or food on the table.

They have no empathy for anyone other than themselves, and as long as the suffering caused by their lack of ethics is out of sight, it's out of mind, and they go along with the program.

The most dangerous thing that can happen to corporate america these days is if people actually get the courage to stand up for Ethics.

[lelgt60]

271. No - never had to do that, fortunately

I hope I have made smaller ethical decisions as a person working for a corporation, though. Not "whistle blowing" class, but things small things like delaying releases of software until it was tested better.

Being a whistle blower would be tough. I guess you never really know how what you would do until you're in that situation. I hope I would do the right thing.

[Grinchie]

308. I survived it, and it made me much stronger.

First of all, it taught me to remove any emotional attatchment to material things. This was due to losing the most wonderful property I've ever owned.

It enabled me to free myself from the shackles of overconsumption and carrying around a lifetime of doo-dads that ultimately were worth nothing to anyone but myself.

By sticking to my ethics, I am able to stand up to any challenge without fear of repurcussion, damn the consequences barring physical attacks.

It enabled me to study and prepare for this economic crisis, as well as review our system for it's general worth. What I found was that our Doctors know very little about healthcare. Tiy go through the motions, much like Marcus Welby M.D. Ask them a simple question like "Where does all the dust you breathe in every day go?" and they will give you an authoritative, simple answer such as "You cough it out".

Meanwhile, they push Lipitor on you because your one point too high in Cholesterol.

In todays society, just losing ones job would be catastrophic for many people, and I have no doubt that the current job losses were planned by the administration as a going away gift to the Democrats after they failed to turn America into a fascist state. People will now be further weakened and reluctant to stand up for their basic rights and demand accountability for fear of their livelihoods or the lack of energy to do so..

[bertman]

195. I am one of two owners of a for-profit corporation that is a closely held company.

By virtue of the fact that my business partner and I make all of the corporate decisions and have no obligation to shareholders (we are they), we are obligated to do whatever we decide to do. We could decide to operate at a loss if we wanted to, but I'm hoping we won't do that. Nonetheless, we are trying to make our corporation profitable but we have great leeway to do it honestly and in a moral manner, so we and our employees are proud of our work.

In a publicly-held corporation, it is my understanding that the executives have a LEGAL obligation to maximize the profits to the shareholders. I have seen this discussion in dozens of threads here and on other blogs but I cannot cite chapter and verse to substantiate my claim.

I do know that any CEO who fails to maximize profits and is discovered not doing so, is generally given the opportunity to pursue employment elsewhere.

There are some corporations who, in their charter, specify certain parameters within which they may maneuver to be better corporate citizens at the expense of their shareholders, but the vast majority of publicly-held corporations are supposed to do everything they can to increase shareholder earnings.

[SharonRB]

138. My daughter was diagnosed with MS last April

and her once-a-month infusions at the doctor's office are $6,000 for a relatively new drug.

[leftchick]

182. omg that is outrageous!

:hug:

god help us all!

[Downwinder]

188. Interferon has worked well for me.

Sharon, 10 years ago I couldn't walk, talk, or see. Today I was roller blading. It stops the immune system from attacking the nerves so the body gets a chance to heal. At about $1,500 per month.

[SharonRB]

261. Tysabri has an 80% effective rate

whereas the other MS drugs have a much lower effective rate.

[Kajsa]

145. I do know this,

I do not trust the FDA to be on the side of the patients vs. in the pockets
of Big Pharma.

If this isn't true, then why are
medicines that are safe, effective and prescribed in other countries,
still not allowed in the US?

Don't even get me started on pain management!
:grr:

The FDA may do a good job in keeping our food safe, but when it comes
to medicines- NOT on our side.

[Grinchie]

163. The FDA does nothing of the sort when it comes to the Food Supply.

Hate to burst your balloon, but the GMO issues are going to come to the forefront of many peoples minds very soon.

GMO and the dangers involved have been suppressed and avoided with great vigor for the past 15 years. Only in the past few years have the Canaries been able to get a muffle peep out of their cages and raise the warning flags to a conscious public.

Just to a Google search on GMO. You'll be horrified.

Just read Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith. You'll crap your pants.

Just try buying organic food, and seeing how much is costs compared to the crap they feed us in processed foods.

Go to a feed store, and price Organic chicken feed vs mainstream, GMO laced feeds such as Purina.

What constitutes "Feed Grade" Peanut butter? Is is GMO peanuts coming in from China?

If a GMO plant becomes invasive, or cross-pollinates with another variety, who pays to clean up the contamination?

[Kajsa]

166. You make a very good points here, Grinchie.

I stand corrected.

Thinking back to when they OKed HFCS to be added to damn
near everything we eat and drink and YEAH,

I missed that one by a mile!!

I retract that statement.

[Mike 03]

147. Awesome post. This worries me too. Sometimes I think I'm just being paranoid and ridiculous, but

other times, I see exactly how much more profitable it is to treat disease as a chronic, incurable but controllable state, and just ignore the actual cures.

Then on the other hand I know and admire doctors who have devoted their lives to curing things like pancreatic cancer and the hematological cancers that have ravaged my family. And I know they do care.

I wish I knew for sure what the hell is going on.

[defendandprotect]

154. Medical care for profit is killing us and bankrupting us--!!!

And FDA approved medicines are making us ill --- for which we receive more medicines

to combat those illnesses -- and then they create new problems!

[lelgt60]

156. Agree on medical care for profit. Disagree on medicines.

While some medicines that are prescribed incorrectly can make people sicker, I have certainly taken medicines that made me better. I would have been dead without them.

Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[defendandprotect]

189. Most people don't understand that plants are our natural medicines . .. .

and how much of this knowledge and plants, themselves, we have destroyed.

Unfortunately, many of our medicines are making people sicker.
It is too often the case that our medicines are creating diseases and then new
medicines are prescribed for those conditions - medicines which create other new diseases.
And so on --

While I doubt few of us are naive about our medical system and its failures --
the corruption of the FDA over the Bush years has brought even greater harm.

For our military and for a shockingly increasing number of our young children, vaccines
represent a large question.

Basically, our medical care is based on "slash and burn" concepts rather than on any true
or proven care -- and always in a fruitless search for "cures" rather than for prevention.


AND,

you are probably aware that hormones and chemicals from medications that our citizens
take have also polluted our drinking water - !

These reports are at least a decade old, but probably this pollution has existed much longer.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=drugs+and+hormones+in+drinking+water&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Contracepting the Environment
Environmentalists Mum on Poisoned Streams
BY WAYNE LAUGESEN REGISTER CORRESPONDENT
July 15-21, 2007 Issue | Posted 7/10/07 at 2:25 PM

BOULDER, Colo. — When EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied fish in a pristine mountain stream known as Boulder Creek two years ago, they were shocked. Randomly netting 123 trout and other fish downstream from the city’s sewer plant, they found that 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 were strange “intersex” fish with male and female features.

It’s “the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me,” said then 59-year-old University of Colorado biologist John Woodling, speaking to the Denver Post in 2005.

They studied the fish and decided the main culprits were estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth control pills and patches, excreted in urine into the city’s sewage system and then into the creek.

Woodling, University of Colorado physiology professor David Norris, and their EPA-study team were among the first scientists in the country to learn that a slurry of hormones, antibiotics, caffeine and steroids is coursing down the nation’s waterways, threatening fish and contaminating drinking water.

Since their findings, stories have been emerging everywhere. Scientists in western Washington found that synthetic estrogen — a common ingredient in oral contraceptives — drastically reduces the fertility of male rainbow trout.

Doug Myers, wetlands and habitat specialist for Washington State’s Puget Sound Action Team, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that in frogs, river otters and fish, scientists are “finding the presence of female hormones making the male species less male.”

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/3151


And, here's a story from today . . .

World's highest drug levels entering India stream

By MARGIE MASON, AP Medical Writer Margie Mason, Ap Medical Writer – Sun Jan 25, 5:40 pm ET AP –
A man covers his nose to keep out the stench from the polluted Iska Vagu stream in Patancheru, on the … PATANCHERU, India – When researchers analyzed vials of treated wastewater taken from a plant where about 90 Indian drug factories dump their residues, they were shocked. Enough of a single, powerful antibiotic was being spewed into one stream each day to treat every person in a city of 90,000.

And it wasn't just ciprofloxacin being detected. The supposedly cleaned water was a floating medicine cabinet — a soup of 21 different active pharmaceutical ingredients, used in generics for treatment of hypertension, heart disease, chronic liver ailments, depression, gonorrhea, ulcers and other ailments. Half of the drugs measured at the highest levels of pharmaceuticals ever detected in the environment, researchers say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_re_as/pharmawater_india

[bobshin]

162. Ah, welcome to the world of self-realization!

As children we were taught to respect medical doctors. At an early age we were aware that being a medical doctor was one of the most valuable professions and only the smartest among us would become doctors. As adults we carried that training with us, took it for granted. We wouldn't dare question those learned people. They know more than us, they know better about our health. You want the answers to a problem you aren't knowledgeable about, you go to an expert.

Problem is that the only difference between a doctor and us "regular" folks is that they memorize stuff better than most of us do. They have no more knowledge than what's printed in books. Dare to question most of them and their attitude of superiority becomes apparent. Trust me, they say, having fallen for the same hype they were all brought up to believe.

Now we have the internet. It allows one to challenge what we take for granted. Even those of us who aren't the brightest, have information at our fingertips that no other generation has had. There sure is a lot of crap on the internet, but there is also many things that we never would have come across without dedicated research in specialized libraries. We now have intense information at our fingertips.

Regarding diabetes, a simple search on YouTube will bring up a pile of videos referring to proven "cures" of diabetes. They're harmless, don't depend on drugs and if more people followed this advice would put a lot of the medical industry out of business. Finding ways to make money is the American way. The medical industry/big pharma was invented by the Rockefellers to increase their wealth ad infinitum. They funded the first schools which wrote the theses, taught the students and did the research. Follow the books, base your research on that which will not make waves and will depend on more drugs and you're in like flynn. The grants are endless. But all that research is biased toward the industry that founded it, profits from it and funds it. It's so ingrained in the system that even the legal system has acknowledged it without any more proof than what's put in front of these judges and juries. It's becoming illegal not to vaccinate. It's becoming illegal to travel without having some drug squirted into your body. You're chastised if "safe sex" isn't in your lexicon. And if you do not follow the crowd, you're labeled as dangerous.

The Scientologists make questioning the medical industry look like pure kookiness, it's all part of the plan.

Until you stop trusting, ask questions, do research and take control of your own health will you truly live a healthy life. Trust in yourself and your ability to make informed decisions. "Nationalized Health Care" is a sham, used to transfer tax dollars to big pharma and the medical industrial complex without our consent.

Putting trust in the same system- that kills more than saves lives- to do more research is changing the subject. It muddies the truth and the debate. The secrets to live a healthy life without the medical industry are out there. You just need to take the initiative.

[FedUpWithIt All]

164. I am so sorry that some rich assholes cannot find fulfillment unless they are hurting others.

I was insulin dependent during my pregnancy and i was breaking my heart thinking about the kids who go through the needles, the diets and the countless other concerns.

:hug: to you and your boy. :mad: to the assholes.

[leftchick]

298. do you know

you are at a high risk of getting diabetes later given that history? One of my son's nurses told us that happened to her. I hope you stay well and thank you for your kind thoughts.

:)

[Beregond2]

169. The cost of insulin, syringes, etc. is peanuts compared to most

drugs. They don't make enough profit off of them to justify trying to suppress a cure.

I get very tired of this kind of paranoia aimed at the medical profession. Yes, the system is rotten. But the motivations of most of those involved in it are noble.

[Kansas Wyatt]

179. Bullshit!

I remember when I first got diabetes, insulin was around $10 (early 80's) a bottle. Now it's around $40. Syringes did not rise like that, but how much does it cost to keep shoving out the very same (yes the same) product? Besides, the real money is made off of all the 'testing testing, and buy this and that too, and more testing and don't miss any of your appointments, or you're going to die' rhetoric.

I have no paranoia aimed at the "medical profession." I, unlike you, do not believe that the MEDICAL INDUSTRY would not scam it's dependent consumers. I'm sure there are noble health professionals out there who cannot rock the boat, due to proprietary information clauses as well. But at what point does it have to get to, before that nobility turns into just saving your own position?

[leftchick]

183. my son's insulin is over 100.00 a bottle

without insurance. the co-pay is 45.00. I still fight them monthly over his dosage changes. It is so fucked up!

[Kansas Wyatt]

186. I still use the same kind they had in the 80's, but the recumbent DNA version.

My doctor tried to get me to take a newer kind instead of my NPH, which I mix with Regular, a few years ago. I refused after I did some research and found out that the two different kinds of insulin could not be mixed and I would have had to take an additional shot. It probably cost a lot more too. Doctors don't always know what it is best for the patient. I also do not believe in their 'everyone should be at this level' crap. I quit taking their word that lower was always better and letting them dictate what dosage I took, when I blacked out while driving and ended up with a crippled leg.

[Lost4words]

262. You have a serious mental problem re this issue, you dont know the facts

my sister is type 1 and on a pump for 15 years and now cannot work, has had to get medicare and there are virturally no packages of supplemental ins that will cover her meds & equipment. So for her, from me, you are stunningly ignorant of this subject matter.

Stick to what you know.

[Kajsa]

170. I'm so sorry you are going though this, Leftchick.

It IS very frustrating when you know that
medicines are out there that can help your son.

It's getting past Big Pharma,
that's the challenge.
:(

Love and hugs to you and your son.

:hug: :grouphug:

[leftchick]

184. thank you so very much

through all of this crap I am still hopeful.

:hug:

[waiting for hope]

171. I just found out last night

my Mother has breast cancer - I can only hope that she will be okay, but to have a cure, I have no words for the Big Pharma companies. My Mother's life is worth more than all their stinking money.

[Joe Bacon]

180. Business screws Diabetics both ways

First they poison with you high fructose Corn Syrup that kills your beta cells and makes you diabetic then they nail you on the other side with expensive medicines and exploding prices for meters and test strips!

[TheDebbieDee]

185. Your right, of course. There is no money in curing diseases

compared to the money Big Pharma can make helping you MANAGE your disease for decades!

[caseymoz]

187. Diabetes has always been a big scam.

I mean, it's a cash cow. Unfortunately, a cure is less profitable than selling a daily fix. When they come up with the one-dose cure for heroin addiction, I don't expect the drug pushers to be selling it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

192. you should see the defense of big Pharma over in DU's Health Forum

it would make you sick.

[SidDithers]

200. Or the abject ignorance of the antivaxx brigade...

unfortunately, they make more than just themselves sick.

Sid

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

227. sorry you can haz epic fail

[SidDithers]

266. Oh, good. Cartoons...

Appropriate, given your cartoonish understanding of health issues.

Sid

[varkam]

301. How much is Lilly paying you these days? eom

[nolabels]

212. Right on leftchick, and hopes for your son

I am betting there is also some glowing reports and studies on prevention regimens that were also tossed in the round files. It is much more profitable for medical corporations when people are getting chronic medical conditions

[defendandprotect]

213. Two things . . .

First -- we have a problem with drug patents where they seem to have been putting the

same drug out -- let's say for HBP -- in various strengths under three different names.

Most of the product is the same -- but they add variations in order to keep the patent

going longer.

Second -- if you take any medication, you might be interested in this site where

you can put in the name of your drug/genetic or otherwise and see what other patients

have to say about it.

http://www.askapatient.com

Good luck, everyone -- we have too much illness in America -- our food is suspect for one --

our immune systems seem to not be performing properly -- our medicines are overpriced ---

too much of our treatment for illness is invasive, if not "slash and burn."

[whistle]

216. Abso-freak-en-lutely!

[crimsonblue]

223. My great uncle was lucky enough to get involved in a stem cell trial about 10 years ago

He had a terminal cancer, and the stem cell treatment put him into complete remission. It is idiotic for anybody to oppose stem cell research, especially since all new embryonic lines are coming from discarded embryos. I cannot wait until Obama signs into law a stem cell bill.

[aggiesal]

230. Imagine if Salk had this problem with his Polio vacine.

This should be criminal offense.

[wildbilln864]

231. thank you and rec #120! nt

:hi:

[wildbilln864]

232. this thread reminded me....

of this cancer cure video I watched on line a while back. There's lots of cash to be made from treating people for diseases but the money stops after they're cured. Treatment can last many years in many cases. :banghead:

[elleng]

238. MUCH WORSE,

'The board of Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, agreed on Sunday night to acquire a rival, Wyeth, for $68 billion, according to people involved in the negotiations.

The deal would not only create a pharmaceutical behemoth but would be a rarity in the current financial tumult: a big acquisition that is not a desperate merger of two banks orchestrated by the government.

It would also be the first big merger backed by Wall Street in months. While credit has been notoriously tight of late, five banks have agreed to lend Pfizer $22.5 billion to pay for the deal. Pfizer, which has roughly $26 billion in cash, would finance the deal through the loans, some of its cash and stock.

If the transaction is completed as planned, it would be the biggest merger since AT&T and BellSouth combined in a $70 billion deal in March 2006, according to the research firm Capital IQ. . .

If the acquisition is completed, it may demonstrate that Wall Street is willing to lend again, at least to the nation’s top companies with the best credit ratings.

“If banks need to send a message that they’re loaning, they want to be loaning to this quality of company,” said Catherine Arnold, an analyst at Credit Suisse.

Pfizer’s bid is being financed by four banks that received federal bailout money: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America, the people involved in the deal said. Such banks have been criticized for not doing more lending since they received the government aid.

Barclays, which acquired Lehman Brothers out of bankruptcy in the fall, is also providing financing, these people said.

Pfizer appears to be taking advantage of the bad market for credit to buy Wyeth at a lower price than it might fetch if competing bids were to emerge, which analysts do not expect.

“They have a unique opportunity now because not everybody can get that capital,” said Barbara Ryan, an analyst at Deutsche Bank.

Because the combined company is expected to generate more than $20 billion in cash a year, Ms. Ryan said, “even when they borrow money, they will still have plenty of revenue.”'


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/26drug.html?ref=business

[fascisthunter]

263. sociopaths living like parasites off a system that kills

because it's more profitable. Not surprised by this at all...

[uponit7771]

268. K&R!!! I worked in the non for profit health care industry for a while, it was VERY understood that

...big Pharma was a huge drag on research.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

272. So let me get this straight.

Some scientist has a magical cure for diabetes, but we can't have it because evil multinational corporations are conspiring to keep it a secret.

And you haven't got any actual evidence for this, but you know it to be true.

Am I right so far?

[SidDithers]

279. I think that pretty much sums it up...

:hi:

Sid

[kimmerspixelated]

280. Why is that so far-fetched???

To put a lid on the argument once and for all....Big Pharma doesn't care about health, just profits. They have run their corps much like the mafia, with death threats, etc. to many whistleblowers...one thing to consider is that ALL DRUGS ARE SYNTHESIZED, BASED ON a natural or herb ...of SOMETHING THEY KNOW....works!!! Something they know works!!!! I'm certainly no history major, but prior to having a synthetic drug for everything imaginable, there were doctors that used fairly natural meds, right? Homeopathics, etc. That was the norm!!! For instance... Aspirin used to be made from White Willow Bark, correct me if I'm wrong, but BIG PHARMA knows exactly what herbs do , and they use a portion of their model to create drugs! They know all about these herbal or plant properties, because they have documented for thousands of years!!!! It's insanity, truly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

283. Well, for starters, it's a standard paranoid schizophrenic delusion.

"I know a secret and it can save teh world, but evil mysterious forces are trying to stop me."

And it's standard conspiracy theory baloney as well.

Oh, and there's also no evidence to support this extraordinary claim.

"Big Pharma doesn't care about health, just profits."

And then there's that too. A cure for diabetes would be worth billions of dollars for anybody who could market it.

"one thing to consider is that ALL DRUGS ARE SYNTHESIZED, BASED ON a natural or herb ...of SOMETHING THEY KNOW....works!!!"

A few flaws here.

1. Not all drugs are synthesized.

2. Not all drugs are based on a natural herb.

3. Synthesized drugs are often better than the natural substances. Acetylsalicylic acid is better than the natural salicylic acid.

Or, by synthesizing chemicals, pharmaceutical companies can do it cheaper, and don't have to destroy the environment.

You no longer have to chop down Pacific Yew trees in order to get paclitaxel. And you can thank organic chemists and the pharmaceutical companies for that.

"For instance... Aspirin used to be made from White Willow Bark, correct me if I'm wrong"

Yeah, you're wrong. Salicylic acid comes from willow bark. The superior product- acetylsalicylic acid comes from petroleum distillates.

"They know all about these herbal or plant properties, because they have documented for thousands of years!!!! It's insanity, truly."

ZOMG! For reals?!

[trotsky]

307. Damn fine post. n/t

[demodonkey]

321. My father died of Type 1 and he said this exact thing DECADES AGO.

My father said there will never be a cure because they make too much money from Diabetes.

My father died in 1993.