You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Thadeus ago

That article is complete crap.

Companies have to weigh many things when developing and marketing their drug. Bringing a drug to market takes ~12 years and billions of dollars. In general marketing will outspend R&D because marketing 20 drugs probably costs more than the 1 or 2 drugs in the development pipeline.

I don't understand his point on side-effects, as if more R&D would prevent that. Chemotherapy has side effects because it doesn't target solely the cancer cells. There are many other cells which it targets as well. Believe me, if someone has a better drug for cancer, they would be using it.

For full disclosure I work in the industry, and I think there are plenty of underhanded things going on. One of them is stopping a drug from losing its patent by SUPRISE! I just found a new use for it the week before it was supposed to be available for generic. This allows them to conduct for studies and keep the drug off the generic market for and extra 5 (?) years. Or the fact that they only make drugs for first world illnesses, and things that aren't curable so they can get recurring money from treatment.

Marketing isn't the biggest problem with pharma, and just because they spend more on marketing doesn't mean much considering many of the companies mentioned make OTC drugs like Nyquil (which gets t.v. spots during NFL games, which is some of the most expensive ad space) and Tylenol.

OWNtheNWO ago

>For full disclosure I have a vested interest in attacking this article

Good to know, lol.

What if I told you a generic drug was discovered to kill cancer cells much in the same way cannabinoids do, almost a decade ago but nothing came of it, because it was generic. That not only did they sweep it under the rug, but they had their media shills then down play the finding years later to throw people interested in curing their cancers for less than half a million dollars, off the trail.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/04/dca-and-turmeric-on-cancer.aspx

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

http://www.chrcrm.org/en/rotm/dr-evangelos-michelakis

Thadeus ago

If that was true these companies would make it and sell it for millions. Cancer is so prevalent they would still make billions no matter who produced. If not the US, then why no one else? There isn't just 1 way to treat cancer because cancer is very different for each individual and body part.

OWNtheNWO ago

It's a generic drug, they can't re-patent it.

You are right a multi-pronged approach is the best course of action against cancer, diet is one of the key factors from my research, most cancers are arising from toxic exposures in food or in the environment of the individual.

You are also wrong, there's no point in curing people of a long term debilitating disease when you can "manage" the illness and milk as much money possible out of each individual.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005548/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22110202

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.full

http://www.bbm1.ucm.es/cannabis/archivos/archivos/publicaciones/Exp_Cell_Res06_312_2121_2131.pdf

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/332/2/336.full