OWNtheNWO

Colloidal or Angstrom silver will work against antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

Thadeus

There exists drugs for specific types of cancer and depending where they are they may be able to be treated by capsule or injection. The two most prevalent types (lung, colon) are still treated by chemotherapy and radiation.

imhereforfruits

Watching TV with my family has been made impossible by drug commercials. If you're just sitting down to watch the news with your family, EVERY SINGLE commercial break you will get harassed by ads about urinary incontinence and dick pills. They've actually made me stop watching TV just because I'm that sick of looking at dick pills

Thadeus

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.

MagnaFarce

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.

Is that why I'm seeing commercials now advertising Botox as a method to combat overactive bladders? I've always just known it as a face lifter.

european

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.

What is the rationale given for allowing an extension? I would have thought that having a patent in the first place is the recognition of the research and development of the drug? Is it kind of them saying they have put r and d into discovering it can be used for something else?

Thadeus

I tried to find the recent article, but I believe it was Adderall or Ritalin that was soon going off patent, then they 'discovered' it can be used for weight loss as well. Now they want to do studies to find out.

Your last line is right on. That is a justification and the fact that they need years of exclusivity to recoup the costs.

OWNtheNWO

>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

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

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

Daylom

well, how else am i supposed to know that i can talk with my doctor about whatever drug i see on TV and want?

BOMZULU

Conspiracy!