|
|
|
|
|
| | Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?Page 1 of 8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) | Granted that everybody needs to make a living, but at what a cost? Is it at a human cost? Every drug has so very many side effects that cause some folks to have even more drugs to counter the side effects and that in of itself can lower the immune system, for then giving rise to a host of diseases and infections to enter the body easily.
I feel that the bottom line or core foundation for most if not all businesses is MONEY.
Yes, to make money. A cure would not make money. Many drugs makes alotta money and over the long haul of the disease, WoW! We are now talking big big bucks, but then maybe what we all need to do, is look at the quality of life with all those drugs in our body. The Drug companies are extremely powerful, as most of us probably know. The powerful big money companies are the ones that pull the strings sorta speak. They are the companies that support politicians on both sides of the coin. Does someone have an answer for me or just another excuse...? | |
|
| |
| |
Ender
| | Joined: 2/1/2004
Msg: 4 | |
| |
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/13/2007 6:26:14 AM | Someone beat me to it. I was gonna say "Why cure it when you can just MANAGE it?" plus now with managing it you are making sure doctors are needed thus increasing demand with a limited supply so healthcare costs in turn go up.
Do you ever wonder why they even 'invented' a cure for strep and staph infections? Because once "cured" you can get them again and be sold medicine again. What if it was not so much invented as a controlled release? Would a medicine that really cured anything even get to the public or would it likely be hidden while they try to make a less powerful one that would 'manage' it but sell more pills?
Sorry to be so cynical about this topic but healthcare is anything but altruistic these day. Marketing experts drive medicine sales more than anything, too. Apparently I need the purple pill so I can go clamming like the guy in the commercial so I will be happy as a clam( full pun intended ). How subliminal was that inference? I am hoping hippocrates comes back from the grave, grabs an uzi in one hand and an ak-47 in the other and takes out as many of the crooked doctors as he can! He would do it because he knows it would be in the best interest of the patient.  | |
|
| |
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/13/2007 3:14:55 PM | Oh, come on, do you people seriously believe that there is a big conspiracy out there to keep people sick so the drug companies can make money? That is absolutely the most silly thing I have ever heard.
I work in oncology with children, and I can tell you that there are new treatments coming out all the time. The problem is, there are so many different types of cancers that there will never be a magic pill that we can pop to cure it. I have seen the life expectancy of children with cancer increase dramatically just in the few years I have been working where I work. Our bodies are always making cancer cells, just in most cases our immune system takes care of them. Cancer treatment involves killing the mutated cells while not harming good cells, and that is difficult to do.
Many other diseases are genetic, such as cystic fibrosis. Since we can't change someone's genetic makeup, the best we can do is look for new treatments to prolong the life of those who are afflicted.
I'm not denying that the pharmaceutical business is money drive. But, to argue that there isn't a cure for cancer, therefore the drug companies must be plotting to keep us all sick is just ludicrous. If that were the case, why would they keep developing new vaccines? It costs more to treat polio than prevent it, so wouldn't they want us all to get polio? Come on. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:45:28 PM | Keep in mind that the polio issue was extremely politically charged. We had our last four term president then that the nation saw with their own eyes go from being a stout hearted leader, avid hunter, to living his life in a wheelchair. That was unprecedented drive and massive political power to actually solve the medical problem.
Do you see any presidents with AIDS? Heard rumor of any running for office? Kennedy had some big medical issues, also hidden from the public, but they offed him so maybe that does not count. Anyway my point was that there is no current political equivalent of the last time a med close to being a cure came along. But even a vaccine is not a cure -- it assures that the next oncoming generations need it so the bottom line is not much different -- THE DRUG STILL SELLS PLENTY. In a sense a vaccine sells even better because now you do not just treat the ill but the entire population.
But back then I don't think they thought so sinisterly. I have little doubt about that now. Would they keep us sick? Some might, hopefully most would not. The real question is: Would they never really concentrate on a cure in the first place? Is research for cures even really and TRULY being done?
I believe the burden of proof is in your court on this issue because the drug companies never fully reveal, to anyone, the whole research process. How do we know they were not close to a cure at a certain point and just steered research more towards yet another everlasting "treatment"?
I am dead serious about this. They are never held accountable for their ethics and later when I see guys like Dr Jarvis being the latest tv spokesmodel for lipitor I have no question that money can steer these 'treatments' because I look around and I don't see many artificial hearts in place. I think people have a great distrust for the corporate climate and rightly so -- it is steered by lawyers and 'fudiciary responsibility' and in the long haul there are few companies who can really ethically hold their heads up high and say "we did the right thing for the people".
I applaud and appreciate your work in oncology but it is also possible to be so close to the issue that one just does not realize the big picture going on. Obviously some of the other users here are not sold on the goodwill of the large corporations, either. It may or may not be so but if you start checking into the actual statistics I think you will see that drug companies are becoming such a part of all of our lives and along with the overly manipulative nearly dishonest advertising campaigns it is only reasonable to question it all: Are the drug companies really trying to cure any major disease?
Are they just looking for ways to increase profit?
Why would they run such strange ads if they were not yet another dishonest approach to increase profit?
And ultimately do we want our health in the care of such a company? If not, what can we do to steer it ourselves? We have the FDA and it has a hard time just keeping afloat much less delving into finer issues such as whether the drug companies are truly looking for cures. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/13/2007 6:12:49 PM | ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Most people did not know that Roosevelt had polio. He was President before the time of television, and he took great efforts to hide his disability from the public. He was NEVER seen in a wheel chair in front of people, and was fitted with iron braces that allowed him to walk short distances with a cane. There was no drive to cure polio because Roosevelt had it -- his illness was totally HIDDEN from the public. BTW, recently a clinical paper suggested that FDR did not have polio, but Guillain–Barre Syndrome:
http://www.rsmpress.co.uk/jmb_2003_v11_p232-240.pdf
FDR was the ONLY US President to serve more than two terms. Before that time by tradition the President only served two terms. Roosevelt died one month into his 4th term, and after that the 22nd Amendment was adopted officially limiting the President to two terms (passed 1947, ratified 1951).
 | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/13/2007 9:53:26 PM | How easily the Readers Digest crowd forgets that most of the major killer diseases of previous millenia have been prevented and largely eliminated in our lifestime through the advent of modern medicine. These people will whine and winge that medicine is not doing enough to cure cancer, diabetes, AIDS or heart disease, when the truth is this:
Most modern chronic and acute disease can be prevented and avoided by the careful and educated patient, obviating the need for the doctor, the diagnoses, the pill and the costs. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/14/2007 12:49:54 AM | | In our society as a whole we've become accustomed to treating the symptoms and not seeking a cure. Cures are great, but pharmaceutical companies are more focussed on the bottom line. We all know they can make much more money treating symptoms for the rest of your life than providing you with a cure. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/14/2007 7:18:29 AM | I honestly wonder how many times a cure for cancer has been found only to be disposed of for economic reasons.
Many conspiracy theorists believe a cure will never be found, or at least acknowledged due to the detriment of both the economy and political backing.
The billions of dollars that are raised pay the thousands of doctors that conduct the research, the salaries of the fund raisers, and the hundreds of advertisers for these organizations.
Not to mention the money spent on medication, these drug companies would go out of business if a cure were to be found. The tobacco companies are some of the largest donators when it comes to political election money.....what does that say???
The estimated link to each working person to cancer research is one in every thousand. A failed industry would cause a raise in taxes to support the influx of the newly unemployed and bring more people under the poverty level in the U.S.
As sad as it sounds, I don’t think a cure will be found as it would be a detriment to the U.S. economy.
The “economy” will be reason for this planets demise….it’s all about money!  | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/14/2007 8:51:35 AM | Sorry, Random, I am just not buying it.
I agree that drug companies are motivated by profit. I think the TV advertisements for drugs are disgusting, and encourage the average Joe to go to his doctor and ask for a pill for some new ailment that he "needs." However, I really do not believe that the drug companies are plotting to keep us all sick so they can make money. Ridiculous.
There is also much, much research that is being done by major universities and hospitals that are not connected with pharmaceutical companies. Smallpox has been eradicated in the world thanks to vaccines. When I first started nursing, we averaged probably 20 admissions a year of children with chicken pox related illnesses, and even saw children die. I haven't seen a single case in the last year.
15 years ago, AIDS was an instant death sentence. Today, with proper medication, someone with AIDS can live a much longer life. I believe we will see a vaccine for AIDS in my lifetime, although it is going to take tons of time and research because the virus is constantly mutating.
I will honestly never understand conspiracy theorists. I am thankful I was born in this century and not 100 years ago due to the medical progress we have made. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/14/2007 8:20:34 PM | Just a thought - if the drug to treat the symptoms has horrible side effects, what side effect might a cure have?
I've been on medications that made a problem worse that it was trying to fix. Its not fun. Somehow, I can just picture, here's a magic pill that cures X, but causes Y & Z in some people.
Maybe I'm a sceptic, but I don't see how you can cure some of these diseases out there without any side effects. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/14/2007 9:11:53 PM | You guys are idiots if you really believe there is a market incentive to not cure diseases. Any company that came out with a cure for even one type of cancer would absolutely corner the market, take 100% of their competitor's customers, and essentially put anyone dealing in "treatment" out of business.
Can you please explain to me why a rationally self-interested company would pass up an opportunity like that?
In addition, if a scientist were to find some kind of "cure" for a major disease, they'd most likely win a nobel prize, get all the grants/endowed chairs they wanted, be a science celebrity, and undergrads would totally give him bjs for letters of recommendation.
What scientist in their right mind would pass up something like that? | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/14/2007 9:16:45 PM | It is a fact that the "Cancer Business" is a multi billion dollar industry. This industry has shareholders who demand a profit. Many of them also are heavily invested in the oil industry and vise versa as well as the Munitions and Armament Industry, or "The Military Industrial Machine" as Eisenhower warned in 1953 and Truman in 1962. This business has to produce not only profits, but better profits than the last quarter or there is a problem. The money spent directly in the "fundrasing" component of this "industry" is a scam and there are a lot of people walking away with millions in the name of benevolence. The lotteries that sell tickets for million dollar prizes collect many more millions. They do not nor are they obligated to disclose to the public the amount of money they receive as a "private" lottery seller. They also do not disclose where the lions share of the money is "invested". They have press events and announce buying a new MRI, fantastic, but where did the other 80 million go?? Per year?? Per hospital lottery ??
I do not beleive there is a conspiracy to keep people sick, but in Ontario there is currently a case before the courts, seeking a resolution to the standoff between a Pharmaceutical company and Ontario Health. Keeping people sick is fallout and helpfull to the bottom line, but not a conspiracy! That wouldn't be "Christian", but that's another story, lol.
The conflict is that Ontario Health refuses to purchase a particular cancer pill at $17.50 per pill, from this company, as they already have a longstanding "arrangement" with one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on the planet to purchase virtually the same drug at a cost of $300.00 per pill. This is genocide. In the past 4 years there have been 40,000 deaths in Ontario due to the fact that there is a "cap" on the amount of money Ontario health will spend on any "non important" person, which is $3400.00 per patient. When a patient has received approximately this amount of "drug treatment" they are generally informed that the patient is terminal and there is no point in administering drugs to this patient any longer. Then if they die, we told you so, if they live, the drugs worked. If Ontario Health were to have purchased the less "extremely" expensive medication, the cap would be approximately $10,000.00 per patient. This could have directly saved 40,000 lives over the past 4 years. This is a cancer drug I am speaking of. Then there is the story of a medical researcher in the US in the 30's that invented an apparatus that could "cure" cancerous cells in a human being in one visit, with no side effects. He was awarded a citation by the American Medical Association for his groundbreaking work. He was subsequently destroyed by the Pharmaceutical Industry. His lab was raided, his research destroyed, his equipment destroyed and eventually his lab was burned to the ground and he died discredited and an alcholic. His associates were also bought off, set up with their own labs and prohibited from continueing his line of research. He had also invented the worlds first and only, to this day, electron microscope capable of viewing a living virus. It was also destroyed. This "apparatus" can now be purchased online for use in "curing" race horses of disease, but it is "illegal" to use it on a human being. Conspiracy, I'm not sure, but there is definitley more going on than we are being led to beleive. I have more, I'm a filmaker, I do research, lol. Any response? | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/15/2007 7:10:28 AM | ^^^
This sounds like more of a problem with socialized medicine rather than the pharmaceutical industry. Do you have sources to back up your "facts" about the cancer "business" being a multi billion dollar industry, complete with shareholders? I work in oncology, and every year there are advances in treatment. I see many more children living longer and better qualities of life as opposed to 10 years ago, and many more children reaching remission. There are hundreds of different types of cancers. It is impossible to create one pill to cure all types, which is why there is so much ongoing research.
As for your "story" about whomever it was in the 30's, I would be interested in seeing an actual, documented article written with factual information about what you are telling me. Otherwise, it is just hearsay. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/15/2007 7:48:28 AM | Do you really think a pharmaceutical company would pass up something that killed cancer cells for no money? They could charge whatever they wanted. This is all besides the fact that there never was such a device. There are literally hundreds of thousands of researchers dedicating every waking moment to the research of cancer biology. Explain to me why these people with PhDs, that usually only are paid 40-60K a year to do research, are still working if there's already a well established cure? You don't seem to understand that people are literally dedicating their lives, 14,15 hours a day researching cancer biology.
Since you're talking about radionics, here is a study from a peer-reviewed veterinary journal that shows radionics to do absolutely nothing:
Controlled trial on the effects of radionic healing and anthelmintics on faecal egg counts in horses
S. Lloyd and S. A. Martin
The Veterinary Record 2006 158: 734-736
"No evidence was obtained to demonstrate that radionic
healing reduced the FECs of equine strongyles. In year 2,
the group 2 horses (radionic healing) were compared directly
with the horses receiving no treatment (group 1) and
there were no significant differences in FEC between the two
groups."
Here are some web links:
http://www.inspirationline.com/Brainteaser/quack.htm
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html
The fact of the matter is these stilly treatments such as peroxide injections, chealation therapy, and radionics are not used by the medical field for cancer therapy for one simple reason: THEY DON'T WORK. The only reason they still exist is so that con artists can prey on the weak and desperate, people that are afraid of death and dying. They hope beyond hope that there is something that can save them, and shills and con artists like yourself give them a false hope in exchange for large sums of money.
I can't think of anything more despicable. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/15/2007 8:47:49 AM | The pharmaceutical industry is worth trillions, not billions. Some of its CEOs are billionaires. Of course drug corporations have stockholders. They lobby hard, as an industry. Are the in cahoots to keep people sick?
Are you kidding?? NO! Its like saying Detroit is responsible for keeping pollution loads high. People make personal decisions as consumers. Those decisions have repercussions, personal and social. Those repercussions include lifestyle induced illness.
Very, very few people are affected by genetic disease that is not directly influenced, in its induction, by lifestyle. Of each person, of his parents, grand parents and great-grandparents.
There are not hundreds of types of cancers, there are thousands, because you have 55 to 70 trillion cells in your body as an adult and many of those cells are highly specialized, and therefore the genes under expression, a paltry 23,000, act in a large number of combination, to form the defective state we call cancer. Cancer is really cells in revolt - anarchists who shuck their social responsibility and become resource hogs, growing their own vascular supply to gather even more food. So much so, that they suck energy from the entire body.
Cells function through their surface. Cancer cells signal that they are defective by the changes in cell surface receptors produced. These receptors and the appearance of the cells themselves, help pathologists to determine the originating cell type. Thus, with many different combination of cell surface receptors = the 'handle' the drug companies use to attack and kill cancer cells, are highly varied.
Just as there are many roads between one destination and the next, there are many process paths in the formation of cancer. Were oncogene sis a simple process, the "cure" would have been found many years ago. Another method for treating cancers is to use the changed metabolism within cells - to short circuit metabolism that keeps these aberrant cells alive.
The truth is that cancer is simply a state in which cells become nonsocial. There are many external and environmentally associated factors - compounds - that may induce it.
For breast cancer alone, 2000 compounds were identified earlier this week as playing a key role in the onset of breast cancer.
Non social cells don't stay put - they 'travel' (metastasize) because they become 'dissociative', are no longer like their normal tissue brothers. They loose the ability to synchronize their activity with their neighbors. They loose "cell identity". A small number of these aberrant cells have changes in how they defend themselves - very much like bacteria do. The ones that become life threatening have defenses that keep the cells from being detected and killed off by the immune system.
BUT - there are general conditions, set by family genetics or changes in gene expression during your life time - that boost risk of forming cancers IF external factors associated with cancer onset are present - and, if the immune system is not functioning correctly.
The family genetics - what are they? They are aberrants in gene expression, caused by changes in the DNA coding for the genes. They maybe breaks caused by faulty gene repair. They maybe deletions, again caused by faulty repair. Why do they persist? Because the body doesn't recognize them as damaged enough to shuck the cell line completely and start over again with blank cells, called stem cells. And the blank cells themselves may also carry the benign defect.
When families have certain combinations of defects - a common condition - they have a proclivity towards forming certain cancers.
The other sort of family defect lies in how the body protects itself, in the production of natural antioxidants.
Every single antioxidant made is derived from external sources - diet and environment (sunlight). The coup de grace in the formation of cancers is the accumulation of cellular damage from free radicals. Free radicals form constantly, throughout life, during each and every second, in trillions of your cells - its part and parcel of using oxygen for cellular respiration - for making energy. How well your body counters oxidation - that is how well you will fight off cancer.
This is the critical point, where personal lifestyle choices come to bear on the risk of forming a cancer that will become life threatening.
So you must understand the complex cycle of moving parts that form cumulative risk for oncogene sis, tumor and cancer cell formation.
Now, an answer for the person who made the comment on side effects.
Side effects arise when drugs either interact with an unintended cellular target OR when a patient has an unintended cellular reaction (is hypersensitive - in other words, one of their gene products does not act as expected in the presence of the drug).
Now, if you are significantly overweight, you have a problem with fat metabolism. Fats are formed in the liver. The liver must be able to 'solubilize', to keep those fats in excess, dissolved, in order for them not to accumulate locally. Overweight people can and do accumulate excess fatty deposits in liver. Because the liver also produces bile, a potent solvent, another problem occurs: the bile dissolves into these fatty deposits, and this slowly eats at cells in the liver, causing a condition called cirrhosis. This can physically damage cells, or it can change the way cells function. The change in fat metabolism in those overweight also includes changes in the cell membranes. The changed membranes no longer "seat" important cell membrane cells correctly. The change in the way these proteins "sit" in membranes also changes their function.
And in the liver, an organ dedicated to detoxification and biosynthesis of compounds for the body, that is very bad news indeed. Certain membranes contain the proteins, called cytochrome P450s, that are important for metabolizing drugs. They are known to be changed in their action and in their production (so that their numbers either increase or decrease from normal concentration) by either changes in cell membranes or from the localized accumulation of excess fat.
Thus, drug metabolism is altered, and with it, body reaction to drugs.
This is important to understand. While you need not be overweight to have an adverse reaction to drugs, obesity significantly alters the way drugs are metabolized and therefore increases the risk of 'side effects', unintended reaction to drugs.
In normal weight patients, the abnormal expression of gene products, unusually high or low gene product (protein, enzymes, cell surface receptors or CNS activity) can also cause adverse reaction to drugs.
Drugs are tested against fairly large test groups. Risk of a side effect is a crap shoot, determined by the average reactions in the body to the presence of the drug - in either acute and short term exposure, or chronic and longer term exposure.
Where big problems tend to arise: in the need to make a drug patentable, the structure must be unique. To make it unique, the drug must be metabolized to an active form (the unpatentable form that already exists naturally or is a structure already patented) - and that is where problems sometimes arise, in the incomplete or unusual metabolism of these drugs (usually when taken orally) in the abnormal liver.
Those who bothered to read this long post get a technical explanation you don't often see discussed in public.
The bottom line is that formation of cancers doesn't form in a vacuum. Consumers make personal decisions that directly affect risk. You don't need cures if you can prevent cancer formation. And, for nearly all cancers, that is exactly the case.
The onus of responsibility to reduce the cancer "epidemic", the tangible and intangible costs, lies not in the hands of the drug manufacturer consortium, but in the hands of the consumers. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/15/2007 11:27:15 PM | shyblonde, these words of yours are just making my point because it goes towards treatments not cures.
When I first started nursing, we averaged probably 20 admissions a year of children with chicken pox related illnesses, and even saw children die. I haven't seen a single case in the last year.
15 years ago, AIDS was an instant death sentence. Today, with proper medication, someone with AIDS can live a much longer life. I believe we will see a vaccine for AIDS in my lifetime, although it is going to take tons of time and research because the virus is constantly mutating.
And believe it or not I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not one of the hardliners here. I have never had a raging debate with anyone about why JFK was blown away. I don't necessarily believe pollution caused the greenhouse effect. Mine is a mind that is able to suspend belief for long periods of time, nearly inevitably if need be, until I feel the data is reasonable to warrant a conclusion with not only a good possibility but advanced plausibility.
Even then I am not so naive as to believe it may not be rewritten and rediscovered a dozen times over again, like has been done with butter and cholesterol which eventually became transfats, for example.
In short, I am not so much accusatory as I am highly suspicious of an already highly complex field of biological drug chemistry as well as the complexities of organic beings. I know my suspicion has good reason and that is enough to keep wondering. The growing nature of the economics in play in medicine further the need for more scrutiny because with each magnitude it moves economically there is also that much more potential for abuse. I am sorry if that reality of the world disturbs you.
'Wondering' being to ask good questions, refine knowledge, and occasionally poke at the dragon and see if a chink in its armor reveals itself. That is why I chose to participate and expound as much as I have in this thread. Remember Robert Heinlein wrote that "Truth is stranger than fiction." and my life experiences have shown that to be true and to be highly skeptical in certain cases. This is definitely one of them. | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/15/2007 11:51:07 PM | shyblondee^^^^
Oh, come on, do you people seriously believe that there is a big conspiracy out there to keep people sick so the drug companies can make money? That is absolutely the most silly thing I have ever heard.
I am a Pediatric Nurse Practitioner, & I couldn't agree with you more. You, as well as I know how quickly and frequently new treatment protocols and meds come out.
Thanks for a great post....
You too, sombient! | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/15/2007 11:56:58 PM |
And believe it or not I am not a conspiracy theorist
Great!
I have never had a raging debate with anyone about why JFK was blown away.
Ok...
I don't necessarily believe pollution caused the greenhouse effect.
Whoops no, you're actually a nut if you're not extremely convinced of the effects of human activities on global climate change Check out the latest IPCC summary.
Can you explain to me why a business would rather compete with other businesses for a certain market(treatments) instead of putting their competition out of business(cures) and being able to set whatever price they want via controlling supply?
It doesn't make economic sense for companies to not produce cures. | |
|
| |
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/18/2007 10:35:07 PM |
It doesn't make economic sense for companies to not produce cures.
Producing treatments makes more economic sense.
It's called long term viability.
Sombient is correct...."lifestyle induced illness."
Yet media perpetuates that many illnesses are incurable....example....Ted Koppell was on Jon Stewart a week or two ago and stated that type 2 diabetes (amongst other things) was incureable....completely false! A whole foods, plant based diet has shown to iradicate a whole host of diseases, diabetes included.
"Lifestyle induced"....indeed....especially when governments select food guides that are approved, and funded (in part) by the meat and dairy industries.
Remember the old saying....an apple a day keeps the doctor away....now it's...have a glass of juice, it's the same thing.....poppycock! | |
|
| Why can't drug companies find a cure for a major disease?
Posted: 5/19/2007 12:03:21 AM | Bullshit. Supply and demand. A company with a cure stomps out all the companies making treatments and sets their own price.
Also, it's not rocket science(or counter to current medical science) that a proper diet desults in better health.
Old sayings are bullshit. An apple a day doesn't stop people from dying of cancer and heart disease every day | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
