Big Pharma's Secret Agenda Exposed !!!!

citation needed wrote:

I don't think this is true either. Dr. Cathcart obviously managed to do so.

Either in Mexico or as private practice, outside your insurance - not sure about IV vitamin C, but for example Gerson treatment can't be administered inside USA, even as private practice.

someone else wrote:

You're missing the point. Big pharma DOESN'T WANT things that work. They want things that will make you feel comfortable while doing nothing for your condition. Why make money off of something that works when you can keep people addicted to something that doesn't actually work but makes you feel better?

I don't know, dude. I screwed a lot of chicks back in the day, and picked up The Clap one time. Got a shot. Antibiotic of some kind. Kicked the shit outta that Clap.. and I was back screwin in no time.

Big pharma worked like a champ.

So what were you saying again? Big pharma would give me something to keep my dick in a semi-burning sensation, semi-normal condition? Nope. Didn't happen.

jimmy joe the camel tail wrote:

But, if you educate them, talk to them, instill morals and self-respect instead of just giving them a shot...our country as a whole might look different.

I'm all for education but exactly why is sex immoral?

had an infection once wrote:

I don't know, dude. I screwed a lot of chicks back in the day, and picked up The Clap one time. Got a shot. Antibiotic of some kind. Kicked the shit outta that Clap.. and I was back screwin in no time.

Big pharma worked like a champ.

So what were you saying again? Big pharma would give me something to keep my dick in a semi-burning sensation, semi-normal condition? Nope. Didn't happen.

But you are aware of fact, that antibiotics were discovered by pure accident BEFORE era of pharma corporations?

Trust me, if it was today, you would be getting medicines every day for the rest of your life - just like HIV infected ones.

jimmy joe the camel tail wrote:

turkey leg wrote:

I agree. I tell my kids to just drive safely so they don't need to wear safety belts.

Faulty analogy. Celibacy would be more like not driving the car at all. It's hard to get a sexually transmitted virus when you don't have sex. I still can't believe people in this day and age just think it's a forgone conclusion kids will have sex. Is it a possibility? Absolutely. But, if you educate them, talk to them, instill morals and self-respect instead of just giving them a shot...our country as a whole might look different. Instead, we tend to take the easy way out and let quick fixes do the job parents should.

Look, I applaud your method of education and instilling morals, but teaching these are still not 100% effective. Yes, celibacy is 100% effective, but you have no control over that - only the teaching of those. Mistakes do happen so why not take a little precaution like the HPV vaccine? Redundancy, at this convenience, is a no brainer.

turkey leg wrote:

why not take a little precaution like the HPV vaccine?

Because this vaccine is:

1. ineffective

2. ridiculously expensive

For such money you can reduce change of dying MUCH more effective, maybe hundred times more. All you need is use brain and make some research - read about role of omega 3 for example, or about iodine consumption in countries with longest lifespan. Commercials are about money for corporations, not about your health. Vaccine is great for them, but not so great for you. Omega 3 is great for you, but not for them - therefore you can't really see commercials about it, at least not as much as it deserve.

Use brain and turn you TV out.

tomtom wrote:

It's not proven because no one performed a study. No one performed study because no one got permission to do so. And no one got permission because such permissions are controlled by corporations.

In the U.S. we don't "get permission" to do research. Instead, we write grant proposals that are submitted and peer reviewed. Peers are scientists that do similar research to that proposed and, consequently, have the expertise to evaluate the proposal. Peers do not work for corporations or the granting agency. In general, the competition for federal research dollars is fierce, and only the best of the best proposals get funded. This is one of the many, many differences between science and the anti-science that you are peddling. That said, the US federal government has created a federal agency that specifically funds "alternative and complimentary medicine", which sees proposals that would never be competitive otherwise. The best of these proposals are something like the AG winners at a local 5K.

oslo wrote:

someone else wrote:

You're missing the point. Big pharma DOESN'T WANT things that work. They want things that will make you feel comfortable while doing nothing for your condition. Why make money off of something that works when you can keep people addicted to something that doesn't actually work but makes you feel better?

I feel so very bad for people who are this paranoid.

It's not paranoia, it's common sense. If somebody can make more money, they will. The ones who find a way to make more money will win over the ones who are right but make less money. That's why this feel good business is the one running the medical system.

middle professor wrote:

In the U.S. we don't "get permission" to do research.

nooooo.....?

That said, the US federal government has created a federal agency that specifically funds "alternative and complimentary medicine", which sees proposals that would never be competitive otherwise. The best of these proposals are something like the AG winners at a local 5K.

Tell me, do you really believe any kind of study that can endanger corporations would be even funded by US government?

Not to mention fact, that cost of trials is raised to insanely high value, so no one can make his private research (for example about vitamin C). Google "dca cancer" if you want to find out why these trials cost millions.

citation needed wrote:

someone else wrote:

You're missing the point. Big pharma DOESN'T WANT things that work. They want things that will make you feel comfortable while doing nothing for your condition. Why make money off of something that works when you can keep people addicted to something that doesn't actually work but makes you feel better?

OK you've got me confused. Are you actually on my side and trying to subtly parody conspiracy theorists? If so I apologize for not catching on.

Why do you expect people in the business to follow some sort of ethical code that compels them to make legitimate treatments at their own expense? To them, it's completely ethical to make people feel comfortable while keeping them addicted to their medicine. It's not wrong as long as the patients feel comfortable. Why on earth would they purposefully make less money by curing people and risking losing tons of patients? It's a dog eat dog world and the dog that makes the most money is the winner. Is this too hard to grasp? How do you refute this?

tomtom wrote:

But you are aware of fact, that antibiotics were discovered by pure accident BEFORE era of pharma corporations?

Trust me, if it was today, you would be getting medicines every day for the rest of your life - just like HIV infected ones.

Penicillin was effectively discovered in 1928, first used medically in 1930 and first large scale trails in around 1939-1942.

Top 5 "Big Pharma" companies

1. Johnson & Johnson. Founded 1886

2. Pfizer - founded 1849

3. Roche - 1896

4. GlaxoSmithKline - founded 1830, 1843, 1880, 1904

5. Novartis - 1996

I wish that I could just make up facts without feeling like an idiot. Arguing would be so much easier.

tomtom wrote:

Because this vaccine is:

1. ineffective

2. ridiculously expensive

The vaccine is certainly effective in the short term. It is unknown if it will be effective in the long-term because it hasn't been around that long. I can't really dispute point #2. But cervical cancer a major killer that is worth fighting (and now oropharyngeal cancer is being linked to HPV as well). If the vaccine does end up providing long-term immunity, it will be worth the cost. The vaccine is one more tool in the toolbox, in addition to nutritional and lifestyle interventions.

I can see we're mostly just repeating our conversation from the Flu Vaccine thread again, so I'm going to sign off here. I promise to keep using my brain if you promise to keep using yours.

someone else wrote:

Why do you expect people in the business to follow some sort of ethical code that compels them to make legitimate treatments at their own expense? To them, it's completely ethical to make people feel comfortable while keeping them addicted to their medicine. It's not wrong as long as the patients feel comfortable. Why on earth would they purposefully make less money by curing people and risking losing tons of patients? It's a dog eat dog world and the dog that makes the most money is the winner. Is this too hard to grasp? How do you refute this?

I assume from this that you regularly steal, lie, and cheat instead of following some sort of ethical code?

someone else wrote:

Why do you expect people in the business to follow some sort of ethical code that compels them to make legitimate treatments at their own expense? To them, it's completely ethical to make people feel comfortable while keeping them addicted to their medicine. It's not wrong as long as the patients feel comfortable. Why on earth would they purposefully make less money by curing people and risking losing tons of patients? It's a dog eat dog world and the dog that makes the most money is the winner. Is this too hard to grasp? How do you refute this?

If that were true "Big Pharma" would have just kept selling us those miracle elixers from a century ago that were just ethanol placebos. Turns out we have mechanisms these days to root out the kind of fraud you are describing. Not perfect mechanisms, but good enough to prevent the massive conspiracy between millions of businessmen, doctors, researchers, bureaucrats, philanthropists, investors, and media that you apparently believe is occurring.

No, people are not superstitious, so miracle elixirs would not work because they are obviously fake, but pharmaceuticals actually work in that they help eliminate the symptoms, but don't treat the disease so that the patient must come back for more. That's why the business is an ever-evolving system of creating medicines that mask symptoms. At face value, they appear to work because they help the patient's symptoms, but the patient doesn't know that you can get better without these treatments. They think that the medicine works because it makes them feel better. And again, it's not a conspiracy because the people doing it think it's perfectly reasonable to help people feel better while they make money. They're actually doing something for the patient from their perspective and getting paid in return for their services.

You appear to have a near omniscient understanding of how "people" think and how "they" operate. Clearly your insider information and carefully-compiled research is beyond any level of knowledge I could ever hope to attain in my natural lifespan, so I guess I had better just blindly accept your blanket statements about the entire western medical establishment. Thank you for enlightening me. Sincerely. I mean that.

(and again, my apologies if this is one of those Godwin's Law situations)

tomtom wrote:It's not proven because no one performed a study. No one performed study because no one got permission to do so. And no one got permission because such permissions are controlled by corporations. I used term "your doctor" because it simply sounds better as this whole statement written above.

You truly are an f'tard idiot. Big corporations do not control what is studied. Maybe in your 13 year old girl world it does. The NIH controls most of the funding in the United States, not big corporations.

Seriously got away, you're a huge F'tard.

citation needed wrote:

You appear to have a near omniscient understanding of how "people" think and how "they" operate. Clearly your insider information and carefully-compiled research is beyond any level of knowledge I could ever hope to attain in my natural lifespan, so I guess I had better just blindly accept your blanket statements about the entire western medical establishment. Thank you for enlightening me. Sincerely. I mean that.

(and again, my apologies if this is one of those Godwin's Law situations)

What you call omniscient understanding I call basic psychology. If some people think that's unethical, I guarantee there will be somebody else who will do it and doesn't think it's unethical. And I'm sure there are people in the practice who really don't believe there is a cure and that treating the symptom is the only way to help the patient. It doesn't take a genius or omniscient understanding to know that greed happens and that ignorance happens. Combined, you get a lot of big businesses built on faulty foundations. It's not just that it happens, it's pretty much inevitable.

tomtom wrote:Tell me, do you really believe any kind of study that can endanger corporations would be even funded by US government?.

EVERY SINGLE FRIGIN DAY! You are one huge F'tard.