# 'Big Pharma'



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Keep seeing this ridiculous conspiracy theory repeated about on here. Who actually believes this and why?


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

What conspiracy exactly?


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Ian_Montrose said:


> What conspiracy exactly?


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

From that brief article I think it's pure stupidity. I do not see why anyone would invest themselves into such a ridiculous idea. The Pharmaceutical companies will capitalize on the market indefinitely, no argument. Do I think they are purposefully 'spreading toxic drugs'? Doubt it very much.

This is almost as deluded as Feminism.


----------



## Jj1 (Dec 3, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> From that brief article I think it's pure stupidity. I do not see why anyone would invest themselves into such a ridiculous idea. The Pharmaceutical companies will capitalize on the market indefinitely, no argument. Do I think they are purposefully 'spreading toxic drugs'? Doubt it very much.
> 
> This is almost as deluded as Feminism.


 Spreading toxic drugs maybe/maybe not but hiding drugs which can help I think that's very believable


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

Of course its real, disease management rather than cure, whats so hard to understand, you telling me Statins are decent science?!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and its coming here, apparently in the future cancer will be managed!! and anyone that wants to research and treat with non toxic alternatives will be prosecuted and imprisoned, the FDA are in the pay of big pharma...


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Jj1 said:


> Spreading toxic drugs maybe/maybe not but hiding drugs which can help I think that's very believable


 If they had drugs that people need then they would be selling them to make money. It is an industry just like any other. They would patent the drug in question and then sell it at an extortionate price. How would hiding this product help them in any way?


----------



## Jj1 (Dec 3, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> If they had drugs that people need then they would be selling them to make money. It is an industry just like any other. They would patent the drug in question and then sell it at an extortionate price. How would hiding this product help them in any way?


 Hide drugs to prevent a cure whilst selling drugs to prolong an illness makes for long term customer


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Jj1 said:


> Hide drugs to prevent a cure whilst selling drugs to prolong an illness makes for long term customer


 I take back my previous comment. This is actually more deluded than Feminism. Never thought it possible.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Jj1 said:


> Spreading toxic drugs maybe/maybe not but hiding drugs which can help I think that's very believable


 What do you mean by hiding exactly? Do you mean fully developing a drug and proving its safety & efficacy then burying it or do you mean identifying a new molecule that might have potential and choosing not to develop it?


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

Quackerz said:


> If they had drugs that people need then they would be selling them to make money. It is an industry just like any other. They would patent the drug in question and then sell it at an extortionate price. How would hiding this product help them in any way?


 So how would that work with Statins, that is a major cash cow to them, and its poison, a massive study shown that 2 thirds of people admitted in to hospital with heart attack had lower than normal cholesterol levels, people with high cholesterol live longer anther study showed, it is now known the whole science it was based on was rubbish?! so what are they going to sell you next lard?!


----------



## SwAn1 (Jun 4, 2012)

The government keep taxing and taxing the fuk out of cigarettes because they know smoking them prevents you from getting cancer! I smoke as many as I can whilst I still can


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

This idea might have legs if there were one big global pharmaceutical company who had the power to control things.

But there isn't. There's loads of them, based in different countries, all competing with each other, and with their own interests to look out for. If Bayer decided to bury a cure, then Pfizer could easily pick it up & develop it. Any company developing a cure for something would serve it's own interests by marketing it.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Jj1 said:


> Hide drugs to prevent a cure whilst selling drugs to prolong an illness makes for long term customer


 It is not one sole entity. There are numerous Corporations that control the market, and they are all working to develop the same drugs. These drugs can be internationality patented. The first company to produce is the winning company. There is no time to hide, it's a f**king money hungry race for the guys. Business 101 - keep the crappy drugs for the people that cannot afford the good stuff, sell the good stuff at a ridiculous price to those who can. They make MORE money this way. Use your loaf mate.


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

It is no good doing a Wikki search yes they are very good but they are not going to get contentious they would spend the rest of their days in litigation, you have to dig deeper, then you can make your own mind up, but if you believe that Big pharma with billions$$$ don't use them in their own interest, then??!! but just watching Dallas buyers club should make you ask a few questions about the ethics employed....


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

freddee said:


> So how would that work with Statins, that is a major cash cow to them, and its poison, a massive study shown that 2 thirds of people admitted in to hospital with heart attack had lower than normal cholesterol levels, people with high cholesterol live longer anther study showed, it is now known the whole science it was based on was rubbish?! so what are they going to sell you next lard?!


 They already sell lard in the supermarkets, I doubt it very much. Just read and re-read my previous posts, hopefully it will start to make sense to you.


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> It is not one sole entity. There are numerous Corporations that control the market, and they are all working to develop the same drugs. These drugs can be internationality patented. The first company to produce is the winning company. There is no time to hide, it's a f**king money hungry race for the guys. Business 101 - keep the crappy drugs for the people that cannot afford the good stuff, sell the good stuff at a ridiculous price to those who can. They make MORE money this way. Use your loaf mate.


 X amount of people have cancer, big pharma comes along with wonder drug and cures them all. They then create a wonder drug that everyone takes to prevent them from getting cancer, it costs just a few bucks to make, they sell it for £150.

Step back to the present day. X amount of people have cancer, big pharma comes along and with endless amounts of drugs that show consitency in not curing people. Each product they make costs a few bucks to make, they sell their endless amount of various drugs for £12 to £300. No one gets cured so they keep earning big bucks.

See what happened there? No money is being made by curing people. BIG money is being made by not curing people.

As for your Bussiness 101 statement. If only


----------



## benji666 (Apr 18, 2015)

My cousins husband is a drugs rep , there are some very unhealthy relationships between some doctors and drugs companies. Happens both within the NHS and private medicine.

I only have to read about court cases involving acts of horrendous violence ,the links with anti depressant medications in america and how those court cases went to know something really stinks. In some of those cases,not all but some in my view the drugs company,the doctor who was pushing these samples of their drugs ought to have been in the dock with the killer.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Mildo said:


> X amount of people have cancer, big pharma comes along with wonder drug and cures them all. They then create a wonder drug that everyone takes to prevent them from getting cancer, it costs just a few bucks to make, they sell it for £150.
> 
> Step back to the present day. X amount of people have cancer, big pharma comes along and with endless amounts of drugs that show consitency in not curing people. Each product they make costs a few bucks to make, they sell their endless amount of various drugs for £12 to £300. No one gets cured so they keep earning big bucks.
> 
> ...


 Your idea is based upon 'big pharma' actually being the sole leader of the market for said drugs. Which it is not. As I stated there are numerous corporations controlling this.


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

Quackerz said:


> It is not one sole entity. There are numerous Corporations that control the market, and they are all working to develop the same drugs. These drugs can be internationality patented. The first company to produce is the winning company. There is no time to hide, it's a f**king money hungry race for the guys. Business 101 - keep the crappy drugs for the people that cannot afford the good stuff, sell the good stuff at a ridiculous price to those who can. They make MORE money this way. Use your loaf mate.


 Ye you got the idea, what I cant get over is how they own the law too, like the FDA, people will say a bit of vitamin C wont help you, its a bit more than that it is very intense treatment but not toxic to the body, and has had good results but has been made illegal??!, surely if 200 billion+$$$$$$ has been spent in the last 30 years on research, its time to open up that research and look in to other areas but, it is hard for Big pharma to hand you a massive bill for a vitamin!!.

I am not saying one thing is better than another, but why do they stop people finding an alternative to the point they imprison them.

On another tack some hedge funder bought the patent of an aids drug, then he raised the price by 5000%, and there was nothing illegal about this?? so he got arrested for insider trading, and that is?!


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

Quackerz said:


> Your idea is based upon 'big pharma' actually being the sole leader of the market for said drugs. Which it is not. As I stated there are numerous corporations controlling this.


 Yes but there are less, just last year Astra zenica nearly got taken over, and a small pharma got taken over by a much larger one, but they done it backwards so they never paid as much tax, just like the media it is run by fewer and fewer, there are 5 families in New york but its all a Mafia, they cut up territory and make backroom deals all the time, and the latest one is this pacific deal?? this will mean no generics if it goes through, so all otc drugs will go through the roof!!


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> *Your idea is based upon 'big pharma' actually being the sole leader of the market for said drugs.* Which it is not. As I stated there are numerous corporations controlling this.


 Not at all. I use the term Big Pharma as its intented, the pharmacuetical companies.

I agree there are numerous corporations controlling this though, they are called the powers that be. Each corporation answers to a controlling body called the FDA. This is the very reason why we dont see miracle cures on the market, the miracle cures are being kept of the shelves because there is no money made in curing people.

If you take the time to research the FDA and there placement/restrictions and control they have within the Big Pharma industry you would be shocked.


----------



## Varg (May 17, 2010)

I'm a bit of a conspiracy nut, and there are definitely shady practices within Big Pharma.

But if one of the companies came up with a real cure for cancer or AIDS they would clean up, because they'd have 100% market share.

This has happened in the past with various lower profile conditions. Also, just because something is cured doesn't mean they wouldn't make money on a continuing basis.

People would still get cancer, and still need to buy the drugs that cured them of it. Unless they develop a cancer vaccine, in which case they'd make a s**t ton of vaccine sales as everyone would want it.

Big Pharma still make a fortune from flu vaccines (ok it changes every year so people take it once a year, slightly different).


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Mildo said:


> Not at all. I use the term Big Pharma as its intented, the pharmacuetical companies.
> 
> I agree there are numerous corporations controlling this though, they are called the powers that be. Each corporation answers to a controlling body called the FDA. This is the very reason why we dont see miracle cures on the market, the miracle cures are being kept of the shelves because there is no money made in curing people.
> 
> If you take the time to research the FDA and there placement/restrictions and control they have within the Big Pharma industry you would be shocked.


 That's not quite correct. The FDA is not a global authority. It is the Regulator for the US market only. So any company, even if located outside the US, supplying drugs or other medical devices into the US needs to meet FDA requirements. There are however dozens of other regulatory agencies for all the other markets around the world. This is one of the problems with conspiracy theories. Most of them are heavily driven by Americans, many of whom seem to think that the world begins and ends at the US border. Other people latch onto the American theories and just assume they apply equally and entirely to other nations.

As to miracle cures being kept off the market (or hidden), I asked a question earlier that went unanswered. Perhaps you would care to take a stab at it:

" What do you mean by hiding exactly? Do you mean fully developing a drug and proving its safety & efficacy then burying it or do you mean identifying a new molecule that might have potential and choosing not to develop it? "


----------



## Varg (May 17, 2010)

Ian_Montrose said:


> That's not quite correct. The FDA is not a global authority. It is the Regulator for the US market only. So any company, even if located outside the US, supplying drugs or other medical devices into the US needs to meet FDA requirements. There are however dozens of other regulatory agencies for all the other markets around the world. This is one of the problems with conspiracy theories. Most of them are heavily driven by Americans, many of whom seem to think that the world begins and ends at the US border. Other people latch onto the American theories and just assume they apply equally and entirely to other nations.
> 
> As to miracle cures being kept off the market (or hidden), I asked a question earlier that went unanswered. Perhaps you would care to take a stab at it:
> 
> " What do you mean by hiding exactly? Do you mean fully developing a drug and proving its safety & efficacy then burying it or do you mean identifying a new molecule that might have potential and choosing not to develop it? "


 True. The FDA regulatory process is notoriously tough to get through (for medical devices, which I work in, and for pharmaceuticals as well).

Lots of people complain about this and think the US is suffering because they aren't being allowed treatments that other people have access to.

I know of several therapies which are approved within the EU and available, yet not in the US. There is tons of safety and efficacy data from the clinical results, but still not approved in the US.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

I got into a debate recently on Facebook with someone who was convinced that cannabis is the big miracle cancer cure that 'Big Pharma' is suppressing via national laws against the plant.

Had to point out that

A: Cannabis oil is already used as an adjunct to chemotherapy for certain forms of cancer, where it proves useful in certain cases. If it were the miracle cure it's touted to be, the results would be much better.

B: Bob Marley was a massive toker, and he died of cancer.


----------



## Varg (May 17, 2010)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I got into a debate recently on Facebook with someone who was convinced that cannabis is the big miracle cancer cure that 'Big Pharma' is suppressing via national laws against the plant.
> 
> Had to point out that
> 
> ...


 The part of that argument I don't buy, is that it is being suppressed because it's natural, because it's a plant.

But there are many natural plants which have been developed into commercial drugs and the companies have done the development and are making the money.

Why aren't big pharma suppressing opiods because it's a natural source, freely available from a plant?

Or digitalis, or aspirin?


----------



## Jj1 (Dec 3, 2015)

Mildo said:


> X amount of people have cancer, big pharma comes along with wonder drug and cures them all. They then create a wonder drug that everyone takes to prevent them from getting cancer, it costs just a few bucks to make, they sell it for £150.
> 
> Step back to the present day. X amount of people have cancer, big pharma comes along and with endless amounts of drugs that show consitency in not curing people. Each product they make costs a few bucks to make, they sell their endless amount of various drugs for £12 to £300. No one gets cured so they keep earning big bucks.
> 
> ...


 This


----------



## Jj1 (Dec 3, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> It is not one sole entity. There are numerous Corporations that control the market, and they are all working to develop the same drugs. These drugs can be internationality patented. The first company to produce is the winning company. There is no time to hide, it's a f**king money hungry race for the guys. Business 101 - keep the crappy drugs for the people that cannot afford the good stuff, sell the good stuff at a ridiculous price to those who can. They make MORE money this way. Use your loaf mate.


 Petroleum companies are not one sole entity yet different oil companies sell the same product at similar prices, they have also patented and hidden many different types of efficient engines which don't use petrol or diesel as a source of fuel???why!


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

its all very simple. the illumanti control EVERYTHING. all "big pharma" is linked through the illumanti. so in essence its all priced fixed and all controlled through one external group pulling the strings.. same with fuel. same with all global cooperations .. the people you see at the top of the tree have bosses who you dont know about..


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Varg said:


> The part of that argument I don't buy, is that it is being suppressed because it's natural, because it's a plant.
> 
> But there are many natural plants which have been developed into commercial drugs and the companies have done the development and are making the money.
> 
> ...


 The problem with naturally occurring actives is that you can't patent them. If you can use them as the starting point for developing a new molecule that can be patented then there is commercial potential. However, as it costs between hundreds of millions and billions to bring a new treatment to market, no sane business would make that investment if they would immediately find themselves competing with generic manufacturers, so having something patent-able is essential. That's neither right nor wrong, it's just the way it is. Opiods are actually a very good example because it is a class that has seen little in the way of new products or investment, mainly for those reasons. Aspirin is only of interest to large pharma companies where they can profit from branding and in many markets (e.g. here) that only applies to OTC consumer healthcare products as they are not allowed to advertise prescription medication to consumers and even their marketing to HCPs has been massively restricted.

Consumers can't have their cake and eat it. They can't expect to have drugs that are proven as much as is viable to be safe and effective, expect the right to sue for 7 or 8 figure sums in the event that a prescribed treatment causes them harm yet not expect to have to pick up the bill at some point. I'm not saying the industry or the regulatory framework is perfect. It's not IMHO and can never be - it will always be subject to numerous compromises. However, if some consumers think they're hard done by now I wonder how they'd feel if regulation was removed or drastically reduced. Sure they'd get all sorts of new treatments at much more affordable prices but how would they sort the good stuff from the snake oil and how many Thalidomides would they accept before they started demanding stricter regulation?

There is no great conspiracy. What there is is regulation that gives a significant advantage to large corporations, a conflict between the commercial drive for profit and the needs of some patients and a load of well-meaning lay theorists who don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Jj1 said:


> Petroleum companies are not one sole entity yet different oil companies sell the same product at similar prices, they have also patented and hidden many different types of efficient engines which don't use petrol or diesel as a source of fuel???why!


 Why would you not expect the same product to be sold for roughly the same price by different suppliers? Do you not understand how markets work?


----------



## Jj1 (Dec 3, 2015)

Ian_Montrose said:


> Why would you not expect the same product to be sold for roughly the same price by different suppliers? Do you not understand how markets work?


 Not at all what I'm getting at


----------



## mrwright (Oct 22, 2013)

Can confirm my missus works in the cancer sector of a large pharma company

She brought home a pill when i got cancer now im cured

She told me to shush

True story


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

Ian_Montrose said:


> That's not quite correct. The FDA is not a global authority. It is the Regulator for the US market only. So any company, even if located outside the US, supplying drugs or other medical devices into the US needs to meet FDA requirements. There are however dozens of other regulatory agencies for all the other markets around the world. This is one of the problems with conspiracy theories. Most of them are heavily driven by Americans, many of whom seem to think that the world begins and ends at the US border. Other people latch onto the American theories and just assume they apply equally and entirely to other nations.
> 
> As to miracle cures being kept off the market (or hidden), I asked a question earlier that went unanswered. Perhaps you would care to take a stab at it:
> 
> " What do you mean by hiding exactly? Do you mean fully developing a drug and proving its safety & efficacy then burying it or do you mean identifying a new molecule that might have potential and choosing not to develop it? "


 To answer your question. It's believed " they " have had the cure for cancer for a long time. We don't have privy to it so you could it's being hidden. I believe they have many cures for many illnesses but fail to provide it because there is no money in curing people.

Further, the FDA doesn't stop at the US borders, they have a huge impact on the world as a whole, the share holders are private corporations ( funders) from around the world that contribute to withholding curable medicines and making medicines that not only harm people but don't cure anyone, or at the very least very few.

Could I show evidence of what I'm saying? Sure. Will I? No, it would fall on deaf ears and make me out to be someone that doesn't believe in the mainstream nor deluded


----------



## Varg (May 17, 2010)

Mildo said:


> To answer your question. It's believed " they " have had the cure for cancer for a long time. We don't have privy to it so you could it's being hidden. I believe they have many cures for many illnesses but fail to provide it because there is no money in curing people.
> 
> Further, the FDA doesn't stop at the US borders, they have a huge impact on the world as a whole, the share holders are private corporations ( funders) from around the world that contribute to withholding curable medicines and making medicines that not only harm people but don't cure anyone, or at the very least very few.
> 
> Could I show evidence of what I'm saying? Sure. Will I? No, it would fall on deaf ears and make me out to be someone that doesn't believe in the mainstream nor deluded


 Why would "they" spend billions to develop cures, perform the clinical trials which are needed to prove they work, then not commercialise them?

If there is no money in curing people, it's commercial stupidity on a massive scale to waste billions which you aren't going to recoup through sales.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Mildo said:


> Could I show evidence of what I'm saying? Sure. Will I? No, it would fall on deaf ears and make me out to be someone that doesn't believe in the mainstream nor deluded


 This is a surprisingly common response when conspiracy theorists are asked to produce some actual evidence.


----------



## b0t13 (Jan 3, 2013)

Although I agree theres money in not producing a working cure, just treating people and drag it out, I don't believe they have a secret stash of fixes for all deadly deceases,

I do however think if they wanted to avoid it being found they will direct 'research' away from what they suspect will cure it and provide alternative more profitable treatments,

These big corps don't care about the cattle that pay them, look at the amount of damage producing something simple like an iPhone causes, in the name of profit, we just don't see the ruthlessness because we live in a first world country


----------



## HakMat75 (Dec 5, 2015)

There is a (minority) cross over of angry, disillusioned men who like to believe that conspiracies are controlling the world, and men who lift. These this will usually smoke weed too, and possibly abuse AAS. They believe the problems in their life are due to the secret elite keeping us all down as a way of making excuses for their own shortcomings or failings.

Look at Dorian Yates' latest real London interviews for example. He rants on about cancer cures, fluoride in the water, and even calls Arnold out for being close friends with the rothchilds, which borders on anti-semitism and the usual 'blame the Jews' for everyones financial problems. Very sad to see a great bb'er, an inspiration to many including me, reduced to this.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

freddee said:


> Of course its real, disease management rather than cure, whats so hard to understand, you telling me Statins are decent science?!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and its coming here, apparently in the future cancer will be managed!! and anyone that wants to research and treat with non toxic alternatives will be prosecuted and imprisoned, the FDA are in the pay of big pharma...


 You've just watched a load of youtube conspiracy videos (which is a business in itself) and you've bought it all. You've done very little of your own research. I know this because you keep referring to the FDA, which is an american organisation that has nothing to do with us.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Mildo said:


> Not at all. I use the term Big Pharma as its intented, the pharmacuetical companies.
> 
> I agree there are numerous corporations controlling this though, they are called the powers that be. Each corporation answers to a controlling body called the FDA. This is the very reason why we dont see miracle cures on the market, the miracle cures are being kept of the shelves because there is no money made in curing people.
> 
> If you take the time to research the FDA and there placement/restrictions and control they have within the Big Pharma industry you would be shocked.


 The FDA? So now it's not the pharmaceutical companies and it is the Government instead? Do you realise how silly this sounds? You are changing your argument.


----------



## ironman1985bcn (Mar 3, 2010)

Imagine a company has the cure for cancer, and they patent it. Do you have any idea the amount of money they would make?

So I do believe this conspiracy about hiding cures and meds for their own benefit is 100% bullsh*t.


----------



## HakMat75 (Dec 5, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> With the technology at our disposal, we can put men on the moon, have men floating around in space etc etc do you really think we couldn't cure cancer or aids?


 No.

And if you're a subscriber to the big pharma conspiracy, surely you must be signed up to the 'moon landings were faked too' conspiracy?!?


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Jj1 said:


> Petroleum companies are not one sole entity yet different oil companies sell the same product at similar prices, *they have also patented and hidden many different types of efficient engines which don't use petrol or diesel as a source of fuel*???why!


 Where are they hidden?


----------



## Jj1 (Dec 3, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> Where are they hidden?


 Lol they are not hidden they have not been made because the petroleum companies own them and chose not too


----------



## HakMat75 (Dec 5, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> Where are they hidden?


 They're hidden in plain sight mate. In all those hybrid and electric cars we don't see on the roads because the lizard men hid them all.


----------



## HakMat75 (Dec 5, 2015)

Jj1 said:


> Petroleum companies are not one sole entity yet different oil companies sell the same product at similar prices, they have also patented and hidden many different types of efficient engines which don't use petrol or diesel as a source of fuel???why!


 So.... Are there only petrol or diesel powered vehicles on our roads then?


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Jj1 said:


> Lol they are not hidden they have not been made because the petroleum companies own them and chose not too


 So why did you say they were hidden? You are changing your argument much like @Mildo has been. I seem to see a trend in this batshit crazy conspiracy fiasco we have going here.



HakMat75 said:


> They're hidden in plain sight mate. In all those hybrid and electric cars we don't see on the roads because the lizard men hid them all.


 This had me in stitches.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.
> 
> Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.
> 
> ...


 One article on a dodgy website?


----------



## HakMat75 (Dec 5, 2015)

Jj1 said:


> Lol they are not hidden they have not been made because the petroleum companies own them and chose not too


 Can you define 'not been made' cos these dastardly petroleum companies aren't doing a good job of hiding jackshit.


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

DatGuy said:


> Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.
> 
> Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.
> 
> ...


 Nope.

http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/5545865143/lets-talk-dichloroacetate-and-curing-cancer


----------



## HakMat75 (Dec 5, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.
> 
> Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.
> 
> ...


 Got a link to the peer reviewed literature for this study?


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

"Big Pharma" conspiracy is the exclusive indulgence of people who have absolutely no idea about what cancer even is (It's an entire class of incredibly diverse and numerous diseases) let alone how medicine works.


----------



## Varg (May 17, 2010)

Quackerz said:


> Where are they hidden?


 Hidden in freely available patent libraries apparently.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Varg said:


> Hidden in freely available patent libraries apparently.


 Where is it located?


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

DatGuy said:


> Nice article. Any studies?


 Bother reading it and you'll see...


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> One article which has a link to the original research done by the canadian scientists


 If it had any relevance I am sure it would have been posted in more refutable places......


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

DatGuy said:


> I did. It was poorly written


 Wow you read that entire article in just 3 minutes! I don't suppose I can compete with that...

I'll help you out anyway.

Here is a peer reviewed paper that directly contradicts the fledgeling ideas about DCA being beneficial in cancer treatment;

*"DCA promotes progression of neuroblastoma tumors in nude mice"*

*http://www.ajcr.us/files/ajcr0003151.pdf*


----------



## Varg (May 17, 2010)

Quackerz said:


> Where is it located?


 lol, he said " *they have also patented and hidden many different types of efficient engines which don't use petrol or diesel as a source of fuel*???why! "

Patents are public domain, so not a very good place to hide anything. And patents last for 20 years. So if you discover a super efficient engine and patent it to "hide" it, your competitors or anyone can freely use it after 20 years time.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.
> 
> Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.
> 
> ...


 I just googled cure for cancer to see if that is how you came across this website, seems I was right.


----------



## HakMat75 (Dec 5, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> I did. It was poorly written


 Relevance?

The bible was fairly well written in places, quite poetic with a great character list, but it was still 100% bullshit.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Varg said:


> lol, he said " *they have also patented and hidden many different types of efficient engines which don't use petrol or diesel as a source of fuel*???why! "
> 
> Patents are public domain, so not a very good place to hide anything. And patents last for 20 years. So if you discover a super efficient engine and patent it to "hide" it, your competitors or anyone can freely use it after 20 years time.


 Was being sarcastic mate


----------



## HakMat75 (Dec 5, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> I did. It was poorly written


 For the bits you skim read too fast... It basically states that the study used (only) 5 patients, but they were ALL on other anti-Cancer drugs at the time, which nullified their 'findings.'


----------



## Jj1 (Dec 3, 2015)

HakMat75 said:


> So.... Are there only petrol or diesel powered vehicles on our roads then?


 No. obviously I'm 10 years late and they have released there vast expanse of differently fuelled vehicles now lol


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> How else would you come across a website? I don't discuss conspiracy and cancer cures that often


 So you just Google random pieces of information to post on public forums to argue your opinion when you have not even read them properly? Well done. :stupid:


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Jj1 said:


> No. obviously I'm 10 years late and they have released there vast expanse of differently fuelled vehicles now lol


 What other fuels are we talking about? And I want the comprehensive list. The vast, expansive list as stated if you can please.


----------



## Tag (Jun 19, 2013)

If you're ignorant or thick enough to think cancer can be solved with a miracle, one size fits all cure...you need to do some reading on what cancer actually is


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> I Googled relevant information to help support my argument Lotte come back with a counter argument which I'm reading now cos I like knowledge
> 
> It's only a discussion on a forum relax yourself


 Just trying to wind you up mate. Don't take it personally


----------



## Dazza (Aug 7, 2010)

When you see the fda banning sarms, then you do have to question if big pharma are in their pockets.

Wasn't statins in the news yesterday for increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Do you 'Big Pharma' believers agree with vaccination?


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

ive never had any vaccination and im fit and healthy. whole things a con to make money. go look back in history to when medicine was split in to two groups. the one ousted the other and well the rest is history.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> ive never had any vaccination and im fit and healthy. whole things a con to make money. go look back in history to when medicine was split in to two groups. the one ousted the other and well the rest is history.


 what about the life debilitating diseases vaccination has eradicated?

and you're fit and healthy...which is helped by the fact that most people are vaccinated


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Sambuca said:


> ive never had any vaccination and im fit and healthy.


 Are you familiar with the concept of sample size ?

Seriously - there should be a law against people who are completely ignorant of science being allowed to express an opinion on it.


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Are you familiar with the concept of sample size ?
> 
> Seriously - there should be a law against people who are completely ignorant of science being allowed to express an opinion on it.


 im just doing a banzi. if people want to believe its there to help and not make money then you need to wake up. you see it at every level of the NHS. Drug companys pushing their products, middle management fking the guys on the ground over etc etc. as for vaccinations ye we had an era of necessary ones that saved lives. but look now certain states in america control vaccinations to the extent healthcare wont insure you unless you have had the list they want (not because you need them, but because they get paid). Im pretty sure australia has made them mandatory too with incentives for doctors to keep parents within schedule..... money money money greed greed greed zzzzzz


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> im just doing a banzi. if people want to believe its there to help and not make money then you need to wake up. you see it at every level of the NHS. Drug companys pushing their products, middle management fking the guys on the ground over etc etc. as for vaccinations ye we had an era of necessary ones that saved lives. but look now certain states in america control vaccinations to the extent healthcare wont insure you unless you have had the list they want. Im pretty sure australia has made them mandatory too with incentives for doctors to keep parents within schedule..... money money money greed greed greed zzzzzz


 More references to AMERICA...

*sigh*


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

ellisrimmer said:


> More references to AMERICA...
> 
> *sigh*


 and? im just stating my POV.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> and? im just stating my POV.


 Why would you mention america then? we're in the U.K.

Your P.O.V shouldn't be considering USA

The only reason you're mentioning them is because you read all the conspiracy mumbo jumbo which is always done by quack Americans

'Big pharma' controls all the meds, bribes all the health organisations, and medical professionals...but can't take down some Yank posting videos from his bedroom ffs lol


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

ellisrimmer said:


> Why would you mention america then? we're in the U.K.
> 
> Your P.O.V shouldn't be considering USA
> 
> ...


 what u on about, i only heard of big pharma till I came in this thread lol just my opinion . i quoted three places UK, AUS, USA. considering we have drugs/medical equipment etc from that region nothing wrong in using it as an example. end of the day it comes down to money not conspriacy. just the way the world works.....


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> what u on about. i quoted three places UK, AUS, USA. considering we have drugs/medical equipment etc from that region nothing wrong in using it as an example. end of the day it comes down to money not conspriacy. just the way the world works.....


 No you started going on about the U.S's insurance politics as if that is affecting us. It's just that you listen to the american conspiracists you've not actually researched it yourself.


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

ellisrimmer said:


> No you started going on about the U.S's insurance politics as if that is affecting us. It's just that you listen to the american conspiracists you've not actually researched it yourself.


 all I have read is an article in the times mate not wikipedia.... mind you rupert murdoch whole new box opened going in to media :thumb:


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> all I have read is an article in the times mate not wikipedia.... mind you rupert murdoch whole new box opened going in to media :thumb:


 Would be funny if it wasn't such a dangerous mindset to have!


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

ellisrimmer said:


> Would be funny if it wasn't such a dangerous mindset to have!


 sorry I dont understand what you mean what mindset?


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> sorry I dont understand what you mean what mindset?


 anti-vaccination


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

ellisrimmer said:


> anti-vaccination


 maybe not so much anti-vaccination but anti trust


----------



## Varg (May 17, 2010)

Sambuca said:


> ive never had any vaccination and im fit and healthy. whole things a con to make money. go look back in history to when medicine was split in to two groups. the one ousted the other and well the rest is history.


 The reason you can be healthy despite not having any vaccination is a direct result of other people's vaccinations.

Take one example, polio. Because polio has pretty much been eradicate in the UK, you can get away without having a vaccination.

Worldwide the number of cases of polio has fallen from 350,000 in 1988 to 359 in 2014.

But no, carry on thinking they're a con.

EDIT. Also, as @Major Eyeswater said, nice sample size of one, bro.


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

Varg said:


> The reason you can be healthy despite not having any vaccination is a direct result of other people's vaccinations.
> 
> Take one example, polio. Because polio has pretty much been eradicate in the UK, you can get away without having a vaccination.
> 
> ...


 sample size of one is fine im the centre of my own universe.

:thumb:


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Sambuca said:


> im just doing a banzi. if people want to believe its there to help and not make money then you need to wake up. you see it at every level of the NHS. Drug companys pushing their products, middle management fking the guys on the ground over etc etc. as for vaccinations ye we had an era of necessary ones that saved lives. but look now certain states in america control vaccinations to the extent healthcare wont insure you unless you have had the list they want (not because you need them, but because they get paid). Im pretty sure australia has made them mandatory too with incentives for doctors to keep parents within schedule..... money money money greed greed greed zzzzzz


 I'm one of those NHS managers you are slagging off. Our job is to run the service as efficiently as possible in the face of ever increasing demand & ever tightening grips on resources. We don't generally try to screw anyone over.

US health insurance companies refusing to cover people who refuse to be vaccinated isn't evidence of some 'Big Pharma' conspiracy - it's evidence of insurance companies trying to minimise their losses. Why the hell should they, as a business, leave themselves open to paying out for measles treatment to someone who refuses to take the simple step of being vaccinated.

There is a massive measels epidemic going on in the US now, because dumb people are getting their medical knowledge from Food Babe & Alex Jones.


----------



## Varg (May 17, 2010)

Sambuca said:


> sample size of one is fine im the centre of my own universe.
> 
> :thumb:


 Someone I know is nearly 70 and has smoked all their life.

Another, who never smoked died of lung cancer at 60.

Would you conclude that not smoking causes lung cancer?


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

ellisrimmer said:


> You've just watched a load of youtube conspiracy videos (which is a business in itself) and you've bought it all. You've done very little of your own research. I know this because you keep referring to the FDA, which is an american organisation that has nothing to do with us.


 Well big Pharm are mainly American, and many of the largest most powerful pharm companies are American, and if you think that in a global market what those companies has nothing to do with us you are deluded, they wine and dine all the consultants to GP's they finance the research and training of these people, what you fail to understand is that if this is the best presently available and billions are spent every year, why do they use the likes of the FdA as their own police, and lobby against alternatives.

I have not just watched a few wild youtbe vidoes, in my past post these issues have been proven, I myself was given statins, and I would advice against almost everyone using them personally. but that's my opinion!


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Varg said:
> 
> 
> > Someone I know is nearly 70 and has smoked all their life.
> ...


 maybe they passive smoked and got lung cancer from that


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I'm one of those NHS managers you are slagging off. Our job is to run the service as efficiently as possible in the face of ever increasing demand & ever tightening grips on resources. We don't generally try to screw anyone over.
> 
> US health insurance companies refusing to cover people who refuse to be vaccinated isn't evidence of some 'Big Pharma' conspiracy - it's evidence of insurance companies trying to minimise their losses. Why the hell should they, as a business, leave themselves open to paying out for measles treatment to someone who refuses to take the simple step of being vaccinated.
> 
> There is a massive measels epidemic going on in the US now, because dumb people are getting their medical knowledge from Food Babe & Alex Jones.


 He says we need to know how the world works but doesn't even know how insurance works :lol:


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

ellisrimmer said:


> He says we need to know how the world works but doesn't even know how insurance works :lol:


 i wonder how many insurance companies have vested interest in the companies providing the vaccinations..... im not debating insurance but theres more to it than cutting their losses.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

freddee said:


> Well big Pharm are mainly American, and many of the largest most powerful pharm companies are American, and if you think that in a global market what those companies has nothing to do with us you are deluded, they wine and dine all the consultants to GP's they finance the research and training of these people, what you fail to understand is that if this is the best presently available and billions are spent every year, why do they use the likes of the FdA as their own police, and lobby against alternatives.
> 
> I have not just watched a few wild youtbe vidoes, in my past post these issues have been proven, I myself was given statins, and I would advice against almost everyone using them personally. but that's my opinion!


 Why you still banging on about the FDA?


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Sambuca said:


> i wonder how many insurance companies have vested interest in the companies providing the vaccinations..... im not debating insurance but *theres more to it than cutting their losses.*


 Nah it's just standard insurance.

It's like saying "Motor insurers want you to wear seatbelts because they've got shares in the seatbelt companies"


----------



## alchemystical (Jan 16, 2013)

*A Philadelphia jury ordered Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals to pay $1.75 million to a man who developed female breasts after taking the antipsychotic Risperdal (risperidone) as a child.*

The fourth Risperdal lawsuit to go to a trial by jury resulted in another verdict against Johnson & Johnson.



A jury awarded the family of Austin Pledger $2.5 million in the first Risperdal trial in February 2015.


A month later, a jury found J&J failed to warn of the risks of male breast growth in the second Risperdal trial. However, the jury did not award damages because a direct link between the man's breast growth and Risperdal could not be established.


The third Risperdal trial began Oct. 15, 2015. That trial is ongoing.


The fourth trial centered on Nicholas Murray, who began taking Risperdal in March 2003 when he was nine years old. At the time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had only approved Risperdal to treat schizophrenia in adults.

However, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen had illegally promoted Risperdal for use in children during the 1990s and early 2000s. The company settled charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for those offenses for $2.2 billion in 2013.

Murray took Risperdal for five years, but while he was taking it the FDA expanded the drug's approval to treat irritability in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders.

"The most significant part of the case is the patient took the drug after the label change in 2006," Steve Brill told Drugwatch. Brill is a New York Times best-selling author who wrote a 15-chapter docuseries covering J&J's Risperdal cover-up for the Huffington Post Highline.

Brill said the case was tougher for the plaintiff than the first two trials, because Murray continued to take Risperdal after the expanded approval. However, the jury found J&J and Janssen failed to warn doctors and patients of the risk of gynecomastia (male breast growth) in boys. The jury awarded $1.75 million for damages from disfigurement and mental anguish.

"We will consider our options going forward," Robyn Frenze, a Janssen spokeswoman, said in an e-mail to Bloomberg. "Dealing with child psychiatric disorders can be very difficult for families and we sympathize with the plaintiff, Nicholas Murray, and his family."

http://www.drugwatch.com/2015/11/10/johnson-and-johnson-loses-risperdal-verdict/

*
When Crime Pays: J&J's Drug Risperdal
*

Risperdal is a billion-dollar antipsychotic medicine with real benefits - and a few unfortunate side effects.

It can cause strokes among the elderly. And it can cause boys to grow large, pendulous breasts; one boy developed a 46DD bust.

Yet Johnson & Johnson marketed Risperdal aggressively to the elderly and to boys while allegedly manipulating and hiding the data about breast development. J&J got caught, pleaded guilty to a crime and has paid more than $2 billion in penalties and settlements. But that pales next to some $30 billion in sales of Risperdal around the world.

In short, crime pays, if you're a major corporation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/opinion/nicholas-kristof-when-crime-pays-jjs-drug-risperdal.html?_r=0

Further reading:

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> This is not directed to you Quack
> 
> This quoting thing is messed up. Whoever I quote someone to reply to it adds the text from another member ffs!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Mildo said:


> Quackerz said:
> 
> 
> > This is not directed to you Quack
> ...


 Lorian is on the 'Big Pharm' payroll and he's trying to stop you getting the message out mate


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

ellisrimmer said:


> Lorian is on the 'Big Pharm' payroll and he's trying to stop you getting the message out mate


 He bloody is man. Your all out to hush me 

Ps, the quoting worked this time.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

alchemystical said:


> *A Philadelphia jury ordered Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals to pay $1.75 million to a man who developed female breasts after taking the antipsychotic Risperdal (risperidone) as a child.*
> 
> The fourth Risperdal lawsuit to go to a trial by jury resulted in another verdict against Johnson & Johnson.
> 
> ...


 People are mixing up two different things.

I don't think that anyone realistically denies that pharma companies are in the business of selling medication, and therefore have an interest in pushing drugs as a remedy for things that may be better treated with other methods. The vast market in mental health drugs is evidence of this - whilst some mental conditions (schizophrenia, psychosis etc) are undoubtedly best treated with meds, simple depression is often best treated by helping people sort their lives out.

But to take this fact, and use it to suggest that pharma companies are somehow hiding cures for things like cancer because they make money on chemo drugs is just nuts. The US FDA doesn't have the power to do this - if it did, it would stop the Indian pharma companies from producing cheap generic meds which infringe US patents & cost companies like Pfizer billions in lost revenue on Viagra.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Mildo said:


> Quackerz said:
> 
> 
> > This is not directed to you Quack
> ...


 Fooking pissed myself. Can't figure out how your phone works? :lol:


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

ellisrimmer said:


> Nah it's just standard insurance.
> 
> It's like saying "Motor insurers want you to wear seatbelts because they've got shares in the seatbelt companies"


 Go ask an American, they have a terrible name, they use there power for some questionable issues, and like I say are in the pay of big pharma, and all the top pharmaceutical companies are multi national, so even if they are Swiss they are everywhere like BP or Ford these companies can make the law to suit themselves..


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> Fooking pissed myself. Can't figure out how your phone works? :lol:


 Lmao 

Ya see I can quote you now but if I was to change my mind and a few minutes later I quote someone else then your text is being quoted lol

Also. I have no idea how to remove the members name from the quote, just the text lol

Seriously though, I really don't now how to use my phone


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Mildo said:


> Lmao
> 
> Ya see I can quote you now but if I was to change my mind and a few minutes later I quote someone else then your text is being quoted lol
> 
> ...


 https://wordery.com/android-phones-for-dummies-dan-gookin-9781118720301?currency=GBP&gtrck=Mktkb1Y4Y1l3bWZLTjNwMk1hMkNtdE8vcnRCRHNCMndyeUwvalM1eGJsVjl6UENrdG92TWxpK3h4MXNBaUswK250a085OTY3QlRVQjNwejZhalYyaFE9PQ&gclid=Cj0KEQiAiNi0BRDaobaq3dKJhrwBEiQAyVThzUOKX7I3YX_Mzrg8nPiwoYWi4PCxOcRWhsPuNzd_n78aAqVm8P8HAQ

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/311366422276?adgroupid=13585920426&hlpht=true&hlpv=2&rlsatarget=pla-131843275986&adtype=pla&ff3=1&lpid=122&poi=&ul_noapp=true&limghlpsr=true&googleloc=1006656&device=c&chn=ps&campaignid=207297426&crdt=0&ff12=67&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff14=122&viphx=1&ops=true&ff13=80

Should help.


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> https://wordery.com/android-phones-for-dummies-dan-gookin-9781118720301?currency=GBP&gtrck=Mktkb1Y4Y1l3bWZLTjNwMk1hMkNtdE8vcnRCRHNCMndyeUwvalM1eGJsVjl6UENrdG92TWxpK3h4MXNBaUswK250a085OTY3QlRVQjNwejZhalYyaFE9PQ&gclid=Cj0KEQiAiNi0BRDaobaq3dKJhrwBEiQAyVThzUOKX7I3YX_Mzrg8nPiwoYWi4PCxOcRWhsPuNzd_n78aAqVm8P8HAQ
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/311366422276?adgroupid=13585920426&hlpht=true&hlpv=2&rlsatarget=pla-131843275986&adtype=pla&ff3=1&lpid=122&poi=&ul_noapp=true&limghlpsr=true&googleloc=1006656&device=c&chn=ps&campaignid=207297426&crdt=0&ff12=67&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff14=122&viphx=1&ops=true&ff13=80
> 
> Should help.


 Thanks bud, I'll give them a read when I'm not on my phone


----------

