Pharmacies want to keep us sick 🙁 is there ANY truth to this?

[TuscanMum]

There’s a lady I know who posts lots of pharmaceutical conspiracies on a regular basis. Things like, they have a vested interest in keeping us sick so as we continue to need their drugs.

The sane part of me says this is rubbish, can’t be allowed, no way.

But a little part of me wonders.🙁

I have a vested interest in this as I’ve an autoimmune disease and keep trying different types of strong medication that haven’t yet worked but Rheumatologist says it’s not cureable and drugs are necessary.

Met a man, just today, who said his wife has lupus but refuses meds and just manages with diet.

I’d be interested to hear what others think or know about this?

Lithium is the safest most effective drug for schizophrenia yet was unavailable for years as it is not possible to patent it. Pharm companies basically wouldn't go near it as it would make them no money...

They can't be expected to spend billions running trials on something that they could only sell for pennies. Why should they put themselves out of business? That kind of thing should be funded centrally via taxes.

Some illnesses better treated by diet and self help (blood pressure

I have high blood pressure and there is no way in hell that I am treating it solely with diet and "self help" (whatever that means).

Tell a Type I diabetic that they should treat their condition with diet and "self-help" and watch their reaction.

OP here and sorry for taking so long to come back. Definitely not intentionally stirring, to the poster who wondered where I was🤔

Of course I should have said pharmaceutical companies and not pharmacies.

I’ve been really interested to read the replies and am feeling reassured. It was a bit stupid of me to let a random social media comment wonder about this. I guess it’s just the thought of a future on methotrexate that makes me wonder about these drugs and the wider context.

Really sorry if I have offended any pharmaceutical people with my question 😳 i definitely didn’t mean to.

Thanks to everyone who replied.

I’m going to read the thread again.

I wonder where people think most pharma R&D funding comes from.

Most of it comes from the royalties for whatever they've successfully developed AND PATENTED before. By the time you've got your product to market you maybe have ten to twelve years left of monopoly, so damn straight they squeeze every penny out of that protection, to fund the next generation of innovation. Like a shoemaker using the profits from one pair of shoes to buy leather to make another pair of shoes!

Sorry haven’t read the full thread yet but this made me lol.

The evidence shown already that cannabis can cure and help cancer and epilepsy is outstanding.

Yet not one real study into using this to help tells me all I need to know.

So wh I is all of this evidence exactly if there aren’t any studies? What do you think evidence actually is?

I’ve been really interested to read the replies and am feeling reassured. It was a bit stupid of me to let a random social media comment wonder about this. I guess it’s just the thought of a future on methotrexate that makes me wonder about these drugs and the wider context.

If you are on methotrexate, be assured that no one is making much money out of it, least of all pharmaceutical companies. It costs pennies.

Some illnesses better treated by diet and self help (blood pressure

You do realise that diet and lifestyle are always promoted first for type 2 diabetes and blood pressure because the NHS isn't actually keen on spending money on drug treatment if it doesn't have to. The drugs are only licensed to be used if the diet and lifestyle changes are not effective enough. Even then they are supposed to be used in conjunction.

I came to say pretty much exactly the same thing as @MrsHathaway. I have a friend who works for one of the big pharmaceutical companies and he would agree that the problem is getting funding for research into medication that won't be profitable (often this is a potential 'cure'), simply because there is just not enough money to go around and these companies are businesses with shareholders to answer to. So there's no big conspiracy, but certainly research is slower than it might otherwise be because it is so expensive.

I detest the term ‘big Pharma’. It’s costly to develop new medications for the market - the R & D process, approval, scheduling, marketing, promoting to medical professionals, etc. Then, don’t forget it needs to be protected by trademarks and patents. That isn’t cheap. I depend upon a particular immunosuppressant drug that can be stupidly expensive in some countries - luckily not mine - and it has kept me walking, talking and functioning. Without it, I was very ill. So for me, ‘big Pharma’ is a godsend.

If you are an adult and of sound mind, you are perfectly free to knock yourself out trying to cure your own cancer/ high blood pressure/ diabetes/ heart disease with prayer or cannabis or Apple Cider vinegar or a raw vegan diet. The courts will only intervene if you are imposing your views on your children or if you are mentally incapacitated. Its highly unlikely you will even be arrested for possession of cannabis if its for your own use, especially if you say its for medicinal purposes. You are perfectly free to decide not to use any medication that you don't want to and do as much internet research into home made cures that you want. The problem is that by the time you find out you were wrong, 'Big Pharma' won't be able to help you.

Basin can you link to any peer reviewed studies linked to cannabis curing cancer?

If so please link them if not then there’s no evidence :)

Tuscan mum.
I speak from both sides of this issue as i have an auto immune disease and am a medical professional .Previous poster is right,no-one is making money out of methotrexate as it is probably the cheapest rheumatology /autoimmune disease modifier going.The biologic drugs cost thousands per month,but methotrexate is still first line and this is because it is around for about 50 years and doctors know exactly its results side-effects and limitations.
Your rheumatologist is correct,there is sadly no cure and most people with RA and auto-immune diseases are on medication for life.This is mostly however, a very normal and good life with much better control of symptoms than years ago and very little disability and certainly far less major disability in comparison to years ago.All down to the amazing developments in biological drugs which have revolutionised treatment of autoimmune disease.I was crippled with mine in less than 3 months.Took about a year to fully sort my treatment but I live a completely normal life.Without these drugs I have no doubt that I would be significantly disabled,probably on disability and live a life of pain and limitations.
Mine said to me,you live with it ,you dont die from it.
It does however often take a few months for disease modifiers like methotrexate to fully work, so it can take a while to work through the treatment protocols and find whats right for you.
As for your friend whose wife is treating lupus with diet,I wish her the very best of luck.Lupus unlike a lot of autoimmune diseases, can be fatal and I would be very concerned for this lady and her longterm health,unless she has an extremely mild form which of course is possible and hopefully the case.
Treatments for auto -immune diseases are amongst the most heavily researched and funded treatments because there is such need and such demand for them and frankly I am very thankful that I am alive now with big Pharma and not 50 years when no doubt I would be in a wheelchair.
I hope this eases your mind somewhat.

Life is a chronic condition that always ends in death - sorry to sound flippant, but it's true.

So, what we want to avoid is suffering and premature or avoidable death.
There is not doubt that in terms of improved life expectance in the rich West better hygiene and nutrition, public health campaigns and more effective treatments for common infectious diseases have achieved more than, say, statins.
A lot of health improvement messages are reaching the 'worried well' rather than those most in need of changing their diet/exercise/smoking habits etc etc.

I think it's multifactorial, but I do have a deep mistrust for those sounding holier than thou re their intentions. Pharma industry needs to make money and that is fair enough (unless we want to start a conversation about the relative merits and demerits of rampant capitalism ), but some of the decisions made strike me as rather cynical.

I detest the term ‘big Pharma’

Oh I don't know, I think its very useful. Anyone who says it might as well tattoo "I'm a twat" in big letters on their face.

There is not doubt that in terms of improved life expectance in the rich West better hygiene and nutrition, public health campaigns and more effective treatments for common infectious diseases have achieved more than, say, statins.

Statins have actually had a huge impact in reducing cardiovascular disease and nowadays also cheap.

Statins had an unprecedented impact on reducing CVD! They literally save lives

Difficult to assess whether antibiotics or antiseptics do more for life expectancy.

Sometimes stuff crosses my desk that looks genuinely life-changing ... and it ends up going nowhere because the funding dries up. Vastly frustrating.

My Dad has MS and there is a Cannabis based drug for that which he was given. He hated it and stopped taking it.

SativeX (if you can get someone to prescribe it). Which is essentially just cannabis (they go to a lot of trouble wrapping it in jargon to hide the fact that all they do is grow cannabis, extract the THC/CBD in precise ratios and dissolve them in a solvent).

Sadly because most medicines that would be based around cannabinoids start (as with SativeX) the whole plant, there are problems with patenting them.

As the partner of an MS suffer who decided a long time ago that I'd rather break the law than see a loved one in pain, I know that it's totally possible to prepare cannabis to relieve pain (more the spacisity which causes the pain) without psychoactive effects ("getting high"). Which suggests there are different components at work.

20 years ago, we would have been activists and pushing for a change - as those 20 years older than us did in the 70s.

Now we just quietly grow our own, try and achieve the best quality of life possible, and keep our heads down.

The effects of cannabinoids on cancer are not observed by smoking, or using cannabis recreationally. There are various stages to isolate particular types (THC and CBD have many variants) and from what I've learned, the resultant substance is usually consumed as a suppository with no psychoactive effects.

People can believe what they like. But the fact that cannabis is illegal, and St. Johns Wort (or opium poppies) are not is a case of res ipsos loquitor as far as it goes.

One thing which is true in medical research, is that scientists are becoming more used to the idea that individuals react to diseases in individual ways - which is why treatment that is effective for one person has no effect on another. (I have a family member in the US with a PHd who has made this their career. Current thinking is that there's a genomic relationship between disease and cure.). There's also a lot of evidence to suggest that individuals have an inbuilt rhythm which can affect the rate of absorption of medicines.

If this family member is right, then the future really will see individually tailored treatment, based on a persons genetics.

(If reading that you remember that medieval medicine had the idea that cures were based on astrology and celestial rhythms, you'd probably best keep it to yourselves. Modern scientists really don't like the idea that they're just reinterpreting previous bullshit ....)

Returning to the PP ... if you ask around in all the right places, you'll find there are quite a few people who have tried SativeX and found it unpleasant (if it worked) that have managed to use regular cannabis with much better outcomes.

Before we all bow down and worship at the altar of science, I'd highly recommend people check out Ben Goldacre and his works. They are a very good look at quackery and charlatans, but also highlight how "proper science" isn't above using a few tricks to fool the punters. Cherry picked research being one.

Addressing the OPs assertion ... never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. I don't think there's any great conspiracy from the big pharmaceutical companies to keep us ill. However the bottom line is that when the board of GlaxoSmithKline have a decision to make, they will more often than not make the choice which is best for the board of GlaxoSmithKline, rather than Mrs. Miggins of Acacia Avenue who isn't really getting on with .

And since I had to dredge that up, I'll leave you with a ...

Statins had an unprecedented impact on reducing CVD! They literally save lives

Hm. Yes. Maybe.

The evidence is stronger in secondary prevention, i.e. reducing the risk of a furtyer CVD event, rather than primary prevention.

I find Numbers Needed To Treat and Numbers Needed To Harm usually very interesting in the conversation whether or not to start any kind of medication.
I only used statins as an example of a medication that is often seen as 'Take this and you won't get a heart attack' rather than the far more complex "This may help to reduce your risk at the cost of possible side effects'.

I agree re the genetic component of why we react how to certain illnesses or chronic conditions. I think there are exciting times ahead in terms of individualised health care (however my worry is that once again it is likely to be the well off West that will be most likely to afford that kind of tailored approach. And epidiomologically speaking, the well off who tend to be more educated, have a better diet, know about exercise etc are not those who would most benefit from many preventative drugs).

Tbh, it makes my head hurt to think about the complexities of this all!

But I am glad I can take an Aspirin for that rather than having to go an boil up some willow bark for my Salicylic acid!

Returning to the PP ... if you ask around in all the right places, you'll find there are quite a few people who have tried SativeX and found it unpleasant (if it worked) that have managed to use regular cannabis with much better outcomes.

You don't even need to ask in the right places. I think that anyone who has looked into the evidence regarding Sativex would say that it is expensive and not very good. It is highly possible that it is less effective than cannabis itself. I think it outrageous that cannabis is not legalised for medicinal use but that isn't the fault of the pharmaceutical industry.

My partner works in the pharma industry and yes he would argue they don’t want to cure you, I mean that makes sense as then their business would dry up.

I mean that makes sense as then their business would dry up.

Well no,curing one person of a disease doesn’t mean everyone will be cured of that disease and doesn’t mean people will stop being diagnosed with it, one drug doesn’t fit all.

@MadisonMontgomery

One GP said to me that most people would be better off if they cut meds down to what they absolutely couldn’t survive without - that often people take one thing, then get side effects so take a tablet for those, etc etc.

Absolutely ^ this

Everyone i've ever known who's had the flu jab gets the flu
That didn't happen

I think the Big Pharm paranoia is bollocks
I do think we need a better treatment for cancer than the ones we are still relying o.

Treatment of childhood cancers i particular are brutal. We need kider cures.

(sorry, do't have a 14th letter of the alphabet o my keyboard atm.)

There are lots of natural things that can help illness but if it can’t be patented, they aren’t interested. That’s why they are after the active ingredient, so they can wrap it up in a pill and sell it.