True cost of Cancer drugs. Is Ca. too profitable to cure???

Post Reply New Topic

Many have wondered how much profit is being made on Cancer drugs.

Is Big Pharma gouging people?
...or innocently recouping their R&D with a modest profit margin for their trouble?

Does Big Pharma have a financial incentive to cure Cancer?

or is Cancer treatment so profitable that they will make sure they never do?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-health-pharmaceuticals-cancer-usa-idUSKCN0RM1EC20150922

"....he found that Novartis' leukemia drug Glivec actually cost $159 for a year's treatment, against the $106,000 charged in the United States.

Roche's Tarceva for lung cancer cost $236, against a U.S. price of $79,000, and Novartis' Tykerb cost $4,000 against a price of $74,000.

In all these cases the U.S. cost was far above that charged in certain western European countries, where Glivec costs approximately $29,000-35,000, Tarceva $26,000-29,000 and Tykerb around $35,000, Hill reported."

NB:cost of chemicals + 50%, does not include R&D

Does their R&D justify the mark-up?, you decide.

There will never be a cure even though I believe they already have one.

Reminds me of the doctors and nurses that caught Ebola and they all just happened to get a certain "serum" and came out of it alive. I think they have a cure for Ebola too, but because of money they don't want to sent the treatment over to Africa.

Pharmaceutical social engeneering, the profits of big pharma, noticed you can't hardly even die without contributing to it, it's productivity too ! ! http://www.naturalhealth365.com/drug_dangers/disease_care.html
aw, or check on pharma-karma, lol
Pharma's Bad Karma
Resistance Is Not Futile
And as mentioned before, existentialist questioning has been picked up by psychology, when religion lost importance, and wonderfully in psychology we find religions and sects working in the therapy-sections.

The money is always in treating the symptoms, not the disease.

The only incentive to "cure" a disease is if it can't be contained and threatens the "elite" who feel they shouldn't contract it.

I don't doubt there are therapies or outright cures to many things in the world, but who gets it depends on many factors.

After all, we all are going to die someday, so what incentive is there to give the "cure" to just anyone?

I think our culture has taught most of us a false assumption, much of which came about after WWII. Capitalism does not *care* about you as an individual. Our entire economic system exists to reward the concentration of wealth. By definition it is a zero sum game and thus the only way to concentrate wealth is to take as much away from as many as possible.

Think of all that cheap processed food available on various markets (fast food, grocery shelves, pre-made components for restaurants, etc). Any ingredient you would not have used at home exists only to increase profits either by extending shelf life or replacing food ingredients with cheaper substitutes. Your health as the consumer is not a consideration beyond causing heath problems that would cause an immediate drop in sales (ie traceable food poisoning). If our economic system treats food thus, why would it treat medicine any different?

Never forget; the "working class" - those who survive on wages, salaries & /or government assistance* - is also the consumer class. As such it is considered nothing more than fodder by the capital class, those who "survive" on investment and the accumulation of massive wealth.

*which typically comes from taxes, which in turn comes from...the working class, not corporate persons or their very human owners & beneficiaries.

It is obvious that people would be prepared to pay more to cure cancer than to treat it.

Furthermore, the individuals who came up with a cure for cancer would be heroes who would go down in history. They would certainly win the Nobel Prize for medicine and become multi-billionaires. The organisations they associated with would receive huge amounts of good will to go with their record profits.

This is a bottom-tier conspiracy theory. It proposes that people are acting against their own self interest in order to be shadowy. It offers absolutely no evidence or credible motivation and collapses under the slightest scrutiny.

Pharmaceutical drugs are and always will be a scam, there should be no controlled substances and you should be responsible for what you put in your own body. Think about it, everything is just patented copyrighted chemical formulas that they change ever so slightly to get more patents and copyrights How could anything natural or abundant ever be approved or endorsed by this corrupted medical establishment if they couldn't make money on it?

So do you know how to tell if something is safe for you to put in your body?

Pharmaceutical patent trolling is a very real concern.

Many "natural or abundant" things that don't generate a profit for "Big Pharma" are approved for consumption in the USA. Carrots, for example.

Many will send government assassins for daring to defy their authority like they do with raw milk where they have sent literal SWAT units to run paramilitary raids on them.

How do I know what is safe? I dunno, I think I'll figure it out since it is my interest not to poison myself. I don't need to government to tell what is safe, google would probably do a better job now. I do my own research, self righeous men in white robes don't impress me.

Curing cancer is not as simple and black and white as most peoples think.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1884-amputated-thumbs-6-weirdest-parts-curing-cancer.html

Drug researchers and their families are at the same risk of cancer as everyone else.

Combine that with the fact that a lot of research happens in universities and me why a researcher would keep a cure hidden or allow it to be hidden?

They would be immediately the most famous medical researcher in history, and would be remembered for centuries.

As for ebola, for years now medical science has known that it is not actually a hemorrhagic fever.

It's an illness that makes you spew at both ends and run a bad fever. It's hard on your kidneys and liver. You treat it by treating the symptoms and keeping the patient hydrated.

The doctors and nurses that caught it were treated very early in the disease cycle. There is, in fact, no evidence that the experimental drugs that some of them received worked at all.

Or are you referring to people who received transfusions from people who had recently recovered from the disease? This is very old-school medicine with regard to viruses -- since it is the patient's immune system that defeats the virus, the blood from someone who has recovered likely contains a strong immune response to the disease.

It's not mysterious, it's T-cells. We don't have a way to manufacture t-cells outside of human bodies. Well, not a reliable way.

I think it is possible. A lot of people get into research to make money, not ethics. Pseudoscience is pretty common.