posted
A favourite topic of the likes of right-wing extremists like "Bo" Gritz, Lyndon LaRouche and the ilk is the claim that The Establishment is withholding information about (let alone supplies of) "natural" and "effective" homeopathic treatments for the likes of such Loathsome Diseases as HIV/AIDS, cancer, TB, like that.
Is there any truth to such claims?
-------------------- "Nie lees die hoofopskrifte--lees die daagliks phosdex in plaas ..." Posts: 1316 | From: Winona, MN | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I doubt it. If those things actually worked pharmaceutical companies would invest big $$ in creating super versions of these magic treatments. Unless you buy into the theory that pharmaceutical companies are purposely keeping us sick to make money.
-------------------- I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.
posted
The trouble with conspiracy theories is that, in real life, there's always one person who can't keep his mouth shut and ruins everything. Rhiandmoi mentioned the tinfoil hat theory that pharmaceutical companies are deliberately blocking the "real" cures from the market in order to make money. Unfortunately, if shark cartilege or lotus blossoms actually cured anything, some ungrateful company would seize the opportunity to make a profit on them, thus bringing down the whole system. You just can't depend on people to keep the public in the dark, at least not as long as someone stands to gain something from disclosure.
-------------------- "If God wrote it, the grammar must be infallible. Perhaps it is we who are mistaken." -MapleLeaf Posts: 977 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, yes. However, all herbal remedies tend to get lumped under the homeopathy umbrella.
-------------------- "If God wrote it, the grammar must be infallible. Perhaps it is we who are mistaken." -MapleLeaf Posts: 977 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Esprise Me: the tinfoil hat theory that pharmaceutical companies are deliberately blocking the "real" cures from the market in order to make money.
There is at least one case where a drug company stopped making a life-saving drug because there wasn't enough profit for them.
Aventis abandoned making eflornithine, the only safe cure for some forms of sleeping sickness, because the people who suffered were too poor for the company to make money.
It was only when (a) there was a public outcry, and (b) the drug was also found to be a useful component in hair-removing cream for the wealthy, that Aventis agreed to a deal with the World Health Organisation.
quote:Originally posted by Esprise Me: the tinfoil hat theory that pharmaceutical companies are deliberately blocking the "real" cures from the market in order to make money.
There is at least one case where a drug company stopped making a life-saving drug because there wasn't enough profit for them.
Aventis abandoned making eflornithine, the only safe cure for some forms of sleeping sickness, because the people who suffered were too poor for the company to make money.
It was only when (a) there was a public outcry, and (b) the drug was also found to be a useful component in hair-removing cream for the wealthy, that Aventis agreed to a deal with the World Health Organisation.
Google on Aventis, eflornithine and sleeping sickness for more.
But that example doesn't have anything to do with the pharmaceutical company blocking the cure in order to make money on other drugs. From your article, "Last year Aventis offered the licence to the WHO, but the organisation could not find anyone to produce the drug." So instead of blocking the cure, they offered the cure to the World Health Organization. It isn't Aventis' fault that no other company wanted to produce the drug either.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GenYus: But that example doesn't have anything to do with the pharmaceutical company blocking the cure in order to make money on other drugs.
A more convincing example might be the helicobacter pylori story: it took the medical establishment over 20 years to accept that acid reflux dyspepsia is almost always caused by a bacterium and can be cured with a cheap course of antibiotics - which meant far lower sales of relatively expensive drugs such as Zantac, Prepulsid (RIP), Tagamet, Motillium and the rest. Could it have been purely the natural conservatism of doctors, or did the pharmaceutical manufacturers influence the reluctance to accept the findings?
Of course, this isn't a homeopathic alternative story but a cheap alternative drug story. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think that people do tend to be influenced by the profit motive; in the case of naturopathic alternatives, as you imply there would probably be a profit to be made.
Kate
Posts: 2451 | From: Hong Kong/Cairns | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kate: A more convincing example might be the helicobacter pylori story: it took the medical establishment over 20 years to accept that acid reflux dyspepsia is almost always caused by a bacterium and can be cured with a cheap course of antibiotics - which meant far lower sales of relatively expensive drugs such as Zantac, Prepulsid (RIP), Tagamet, Motillium and the rest.
You're probably thinking of stomach ulcers, not acid reflux. Acid reflux is caused by a faulty esophageal sphincter, which can have a variety of causes.
- Pseudo "stomach this" Croat
-------------------- "At all events, people who deny the influence of smaller nations should remember that the Croats have the rest of us by the throats." - Norman Davies, Europe: A History
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts. Posts: 4578 | From: Sunrise, FL | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pharmaceutical companies are (in the most part) publicly listed companies whose sole aim is to make a profit for their shareholders. Do they have a moral obligation to produce money-losing drugs? I don't believe so. But quite possibly they do have a moral obligation to share the information so that others may decide to make the drugs.
Perhaps a compromise could be for other public-spirited companies/individuals to donate money to pay for the production of these life-saving drugs.
-------------------- "I always tell the truth. Even when I lie." - Tony Montana Posts: 890 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Leashes?! We don't need no stinking leashes!! Posts: 4771 | From: The Berkeley of the East Coast: Montgomery County MD | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
