quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred "The FDA has approved a once-a-day pill...reported at $1,125 per tablet. 'The therapy is called Harvoni, and it combines two new drugs into a single pill that's taken once a day. Gilead says the pill cures more than 93 percent of patients, sometimes in as little time as eight weeks.'"

So it costs a MINIMUM of $63,000 and normally costs more.

Are you sure the Iboga helped your head work better? Your seeming to have some serious problems with general math here.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred No, this one:

so you're asking me to prove a negative? well lews was nice enough to do that already. please refer to his earlier post.

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred Holland is not the US, which my original post was in reference to.

sorry buddy, "big pharma" is BIG. it knows no boundaries.

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred "The FDA has approved a once-a-day pill...reported at $1,125 per tablet. 'The therapy is called Harvoni, and it combines two new drugs into a single pill that's taken once a day. Gilead says the pill cures more than 93 percent of patients, sometimes in as little time as eight weeks.'"

and? what is your point? didn't I just fucking say that? wtf is wrong with you?

___________________

I'm going to bed, I can't handle this much stupid shit.

Honestly, Alpha, if Iboga helped you, I'm truly pleased for you. That's great. If it's a miraculous plant, I can't wait till it's been capitalized and turned into a nice legal drug. But there is no giant conspiracy of big pharma companies trying to keep us all ill because profits they make off treatment. There is not only no evidence to support that, but it is completely illogical and goes in the face of what capitalism does.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by Lews So it costs a MINIMUM of $63,000 and normally costs more. Are you sure the Iboga helped your head work better? Your seeming to have some serious problems with general math here.

$63,000 is not hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Honestly, Alpha, if Iboga helped you, I'm truly pleased for you. That's great. If it's a miraculous plant, I can't wait till it's been capitalized and turned into a nice legal drug.

Thank you, sir, I appreciate it.

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred $63,000 is not hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars.

you're a fuckwit.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I fucking love how illogical this shit is. 'They're all in a cartel together to keep down cancer research! All they care about is profit! None of them are human at all!' 'But also, despite their love of money, genius, and indecency, they totally couldn't figure out a way to make FUCK TONS of money off of their invention that would be loved by all of mankind.' Weapons-grade twattery is, I believe, the correct term for such a thought process.

Lews, while it's dumb to use a wide brush to paint the entire pharma industry as "evil:, you have to be be so fucking naive to think that huge corporations, that make money off slow, sometimes ineffectual treatments that in turn also require huge amounts of medical care and supporting therapies and drugs, don't look at these things as business models.

A vaccine that get's injected once and not just "treats" but CURES cancer in a few weeks is, I promise you, a huge threat to a massive and ongoing revenue stream. The average cost for a chemo (by itself, no aftercare, no other medicine etc) is around $30,000 in the USA.

Now how much do you think they can charge for one injection? It's not going to be $30,000. And then think. You're cured. No aftercare. No extra drugs.

So you say there not "keeping it down?" Did you actually watch the video?

The Doctor who pioneered the most promising vaccine (the one with the 90% cure rate), and already had the first stage FDA trials behind him as proof, COULD NOT GET ANYONE TO FUND THE NEXT STAGE. I wonder why big pharma didn't want in? I mean after all, they'd end up owning a cure. Funny that they didn't want this this going to stage two?

He had to publish his findings (incredibly rare for a trial to publish at that early stage) just to get funding, and thankfully, he got it, and expanded the trail from 4 to 39 people.

Again, I don't think you watched it. Some of the patients had been fighting their forms of cancer for 10+ years, throwing every form of radiotherapy, stem cell therapy and chemo they could at it.....Now think about what that cost is. It's in the millions and the companies that make these drugs aren't doing it for free. They made a huge profit off all these people.

If you think giant multinational corporations do not protect their existing revenue streams, then you really have no idea how business works, and healthcare is a business. BIG business in the states. And cancer treatment is sadly big business. They may not bury it, but not investing in it, not fast tracking it, not facilitating trials? That is "keeping it down"?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN A vaccine that get's injected once and not just "treats" but CURES cancer in a few weeks is, I promise you, a huge threat to a massive and ongoing revenue stream. The average cost for a chemo (by itself, no aftercare, no other medicine etc) is around $30,000 in the USA. Now how much do you think they can charge for one injection? It's not going to be $30,000. And then think. You're cured. No aftercare. No extra drugs. So you say there not "keeping it down?" Did you actually watch the video? The Doctor who pioneered the most promising vaccine (the one with the 90% cure rate), and already had the first stage FDA trials behind him as proof, COULD NOT GET ANYONE TO FUND THE NEXT STAGE. I wonder why big pharma didn't want in? I mean after all, they'd end up owning a cure. Funny that they didn't want this this going to stage two?

but all of this assumes that all the available capital for such a product is tied up in existing pharmaceutical companies and/or that all existing pharmaceutical companies are involved in existing cancer treatments to such an extent such a break through is ignored. I don't find either implicit assumption credible.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN He had to publish his findings (incredibly rare for a trial to publish at that early stage) just to get funding, and thankfully, he got it, and expanded the trail from 4 to 39 people.

if that's indeed the case, I suspect it was merely a case of aversion to risk, and when his research was published somebody sought merit in taking on that risk? who funded it btw?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN If you think giant multinational corporations do not protect their existing revenue streams, then you really have no idea how business works, and healthcare is a business. BIG business in the states. And cancer treatment is sadly big business. They may not bury it, but not investing in it, not fast tracking it, not facilitating trials? That is "keeping it down"?

and if you think every single multinational or biotechnology company is tied up in cancer profits already, then I feel you're exaggerating. corporations are not one homogenous group of buddies.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lews

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/..._n_5651855.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ich-people-sick

http://www.healthline.com/diabetesm...a-diabetes-cure

http://www.sott.net/article/228583-...ne-takes-notice

https://www.diabeteshealth.com/busi...itable-disease/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...le-africa.shtml

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/th...o-allow-a-cure/

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/...al-cancer-cure/

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/778709:

"Sixty percent of respondents of an international public-opinion survey believe that pharmaceutical companies are "more interested in treating cancer than curing it," according to a press release from poll organizers.

The survey, which was funded by Eli Lilly, used telephone interviews to uncover the public's knowledge and attitudes about cancer. It was conducted in 2012 and involved 4341 people from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Of the survey respondents, 3009 were members of the general public, 663 were cancer patients, and 669 were caregivers."

Yup, I'm gonna go with the majority here. To each their own, I suppose. I can't say for certain that I believe "big pharma" or the FDA is deliberately trying to prevent cures (no, I never liked "conspiracy theories," either) considering they're making huge profits from "treating" people, but I certainly don't think it's implausible, either.

Last edited by AlphaStarred on Mar-05-2015 at 04:52

I know, i'll post a poll showing 80% of Americans believe in an afterlife. that'll prove that angels are real!

___________________

Conspiracy theorists are feeble minded people who can't deal with the complexities of the world.

Diseases are immensely complex and rarely lend themselves to an immediate cure. Usually the best we can hope for is a series of treatments that improve upon the last.

There is no getting around the fact pharma is a business and risk/reward drives research into certain areas. But to suggest they're actively avoiding cures is laughable.

In summary: Ibouga, iboga, iblouga, imoran