Big Pharma

[ManaMinori 4,143]

This has been bugging me fr awhile. Yoj know how they test for certain diseases and side effects on Lab rats to determine the effectiveness of the product? Are we all just human 'lab rats' to Big Pharma, since we're consuming these "lab rat tested, lab rat approved" drugs that we've become so relaint on to fix every little thing in our lives? 

[LunarShadow 397]

I don't understand the correlation you are trying to make here. How is testing experimental drugs on lab rats make humans lab rats just because we use the end product?

[Vulcan 3,254]

A Lab Rat is defined not merely by its species but it's purpose. 

Lab Rats consume to test, Humans consume to treat. 

 

One could say the same thing about Beta testers playing a game and regular players.

Sure they both play the game, but their purpose is different. 

One plays to test, The other plays to play.

 

 

[Weles 100]

No, we're treated almost worse than rats. Some rats must survive to legally sell a drug, but we are considered to be taking a "consumer risk."

 

New pharmacies are always opening everywhere, but people are not getting healthier (US life expectancy just went down, not up).

[Invincible 2,090]

It's almost cynical to think that results reported by consumers are treated as yet another test phase.

Big pharma is a business, it works like a business. It strives to make temporary achievements in order to satisfy a mediocre crowd and maintain it's market. It's an Oligapoly, where a small number of powerful companies holds absolute economic power - some are even just subsidiaries of one another.

[Nerdy Luigi 2,064]

I wouldn't doubt it. The sick thing about it is that they make MONEY off of the drugs they distribute, ones that they don't even test thoroughly. (If someone says that they do, then I'd ask them this: how come there are DOZENS of side effects...?).

[BlueStreak98 828]

9 hours ago, Weles said:

New pharmacies are always opening everywhere, but people are not getting healthier (US life expectancy just went down, not up).

I would attribute that to the inability to access healthcare due to cost, rather than the healthcare itself. Rich people are still living longer.

Edited July 19, 2017 by BlueStreak98

[Weles 100]

47 minutes ago, BlueStreak98 said:

I would attribute that to the inability to access healthcare due to cost, rather than the healthcare itself. Rich people are still living longer.

This is the truth; we don't have a national healthcare service in Murica. But most pills are still junk and I think people should focus on workout, diet, and spiritual health first before turning to drugs.

[Guest]

I wouldn't say so, the things we consume have been atleast tested a bit more on those rats before us, so that's something nice.

[Vulcan 3,254]

12 hours ago, Barik the Luigineer said:

I wouldn't doubt it. The sick thing about it is that they make MONEY off of the drugs they distribute, ones that they don't even test thoroughly. (If someone says that they do, then I'd ask them this: how come there are DOZENS of side effects...?).

I think I can answer that question! 

Imagine if you somehow discovered a way to treat Heart Failure but testing showed that one in every ten thousand people get a minor reaction after consuming your drug. 

You wouldn't just NOT sell it. You could save so many lives. 

Just stick it as a warning on the label to prevent law suits and carry on. 

 

Saving the lives of the 9,999 People is worth having the one guy go through some headaches or skin irritation. 

8 hours ago, Weles said:

But most pills are still junk

I highly doubt that, 

"In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your medicine cabinet. That is, if it makes it.

Only 5 in 5,000 drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is approved. The chance for a new drug to actually make it to market is thus only 1 in 5,000. Not very good odds."

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9877

 

Every drug that  gets sold in pharmacies had to have initially gone through rigorous testing before approval , if they ever get approved at all.

Snake oil drugs may have been a thing a hundred or so years ago, but you can't sell placebo drugs anymore. 

 

[Venomous 18,813]

For anyone who many not be familiar with "Big Pharma", it is defined clearly and simply by Wikipedia.com:

"According to the Big Pharma conspiracy theory, the medical establishment in general and pharmaceutical companis in particular operate for sinister purposes against the public good"

In other words, the medical establishments throughout the world are simply using those who are ill for financial gain. The theory also claims that there are cures for various diseases, such as cancer and Alzheimer's, that have been discovered but will not be released because patients bring in profit to drug companies. 

Being a bit if a conspiracy theorist myself, I am a believer in Big Pharma. Even so, I understand why others may not and I can see why some may also see it as plain ridiculous. I am not so stuck on this idea that I refuse to trust the words of people who have studied to disproved but I will likely still remain skeptical.

[Weles 100]

16 minutes ago, Venomous said:

 

The theory also claims that there are cures for various diseases, such as cancer and Alzheimer's, that have been discovered but will not be released because patients bring in profit to drug companies. 

 

 

I have heard of this theory, but the term "Big Pharma" usually refers to pharma companies in general I think.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Weles

[Venomous 18,813]

1 hour ago, Weles said:

 

I have heard of this theory, but the term "Big Pharma" usually refers to pharma companies in general I think.

While this is indeed true, the conspircay theory falls under that same name so I wanted to include it should it creeate a discussion.