Question for those who are anti-pharma: How do you explain this?

reply to post by WWu777


Your questions have been admirably addressed by other posters. In the interest of not rehashing, all I want to add is that what is more important than a pro vs anti pharma debate is the importance of discussing our freedom to choose the mode of treatment with which we are most comfortable and confident.

I think it's great that you can elect Western-medicine pharmaceuticals as your course of treatment, but more and more those of us who subscribe to more natural approaches to treatment and healing are having their freedom of choice threatened. Restrictions on supplements, proven age-old remedies now being outlawed as quackery, etc. are the tip of the iceberg.

Why would you care about our reasons fore eschewing Big-Pharma unless you are starting to have nagging doubts yourself?

Here is my opinion:
Most medicine works and has more benefit then harm when used in time of need.
They are also more efficient then natural medicine (i am not going into homeopathy or holistic junk) due to potency - but also have more side effects. Again,due to potency. However in time of need tey are needed.

The thing is,in real life it is not only used in time of need. It is used in times of:
maybe it will work; patient saw commercial and thinks he needs it; prescribing a new medicine makes me appear better doctor; if i prescribe enough of this medicine the company will invite me to a 3 day conference in some cool place;....
The other thing is - Pharma companies are no different then other corporations.They need to maximise the profit in the face of competition, just as electronic or any other companies. Selling medicine to only those who need it is not the best way to increase market share. Just like selling ipads or galaxies to only those who really need it vs those who think they need it due to marketing campaign.
But since people see that it concerns not only bank account but also health of lots of individuals who get medicine that usually works as declared ,but which they do not need, due to aggresive marketing - the image of Pharma companies is lower then that of their electronic twins.

reply to post by WWu777


Some of the stuff you are saying, you are not providing legitimate proof of. Your quote on AIDS for example. Inconclusive. Sorry. The studies are inconclusive as well, as it has been proven over and over again that people die from AIDS or as a result of AIDS.

As far as Antibiotics, they have been around since long before pharmaceutical companies became corrupt. Syphilis or Gonorrhea were taken care as well before that time, along with many others.

Its not the whole medical community that is corrupted by money. The point that irritates people, is their has been no new cures for anything for quite some time. We have computer's that will do a trillion calculations a second, but can't cure the common cold. That's the issue. Technology for detecting is leaping forward at tremendous rates, but treatments are lame and cures are non-existent.

Originally posted by WWu777
I have a question for those who are anti-pharma and claim that doctors are medicine peddlers. A common reason people go to the doctor is to treat infectious diseases. The doctor then prescribes antibiotics, which are very effective, and the treatment is completed. Simple as that. When it comes to infections, there is no New Age/holistic type of medicine, or energy healing, that get rid of them as well as antibiotics can. How do you explain that? Don't you give big pharma credit for this area?

Even if there were some holistic/alternative remedy for infections, they would be nowhere near as effective as antibiotics are. How does your anti-pharma paradigm explain that?

For example, if you contracted syphilis or gonorrhea and were in a lot of pain, would you take the necessary antibiotics to get rid of it? Or use some New Age healing that will probably not work?

A few additional questions:

- If chemo is so bad and makes cancer worse, then why do they continue using it? It seems too obvious. Are there any studies or evidence that cancer patients who do not use chemo have a higher recovery rate than those who use it?

- The AIDS denialists and revisionists do seem to have many good logical arguments that HIV does not cause AIDS. However, none of their books and documentaries addresses one simple question: What about the people with AIDS who do not use AZT yet die anyway?

They say that no one dies from AIDS, and that they die from malnutrition (as in Africa) or from using the toxic drug AZT that was prescribed to them, right? If that's so, then all those Americans who died from AIDS, could have survived by just not taking AZT right? If so, then what about those who died from AIDS yet took no AZT at all, such as Christine Maggiore? en.wikipedia.org...

How do they explain them? The AIDS revisionist documentaries seem to ignore this point and do not seem to address it.

Also, where are the studies that show that most people diagnosed with AIDS and do not take AZT end up living normal lives?

Furthermore, if the HIV test is unreliable, then why doesn't someone who is HIV positive just test again to get a negative result and then consider themselves not infected?

You seem to be mixing up issues big time. We really need a mandtory-read forum guidline for creating an easy to follow subject.

The "AZT-is-prescription-AIDS" thing, as well as the "chemo-is-more-deadly-than-cancer" thing are two VERY extreme conspiracy theories that relate to the pharmaceutical industry. I think most people disagree with both, although it is well known that both of these treatments cause extreme side effects which in some cases can seem even worse than the diseases they are treating.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most powerful and corrupt we have.

I repeat (better wording): The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most powerful, corrupt, and greedy industries this planet has ever seen in recorded history.


I could write pages and pages on this topic. I'll address that part of your post by pointing out that :



1- Many antibiotics are no longer patented, as such, cheap generic versions are very widely available.

2- Despite 1(above) brand-name antibiotics are very often prescribed instead. (like Zithromax)

3- Oral antibiotics are not usually treatments for serious illness. As such, most serious illnesses can not be "healed" with them, and it is common that your average person will need multiple treatment-regimens of antibiotics over the course of their life. I can't even tell you how many I've had. I know it's over 10.

4- Your body actually already has natural defenses against SOME of the stuff that can be cured with antibiotics.

5- Antibiotics are only CRUMBS from the massive pharmaceutical pie.

6- Most medications being prescribed DO NOT CURE an illness. Most are designed to "treat" an illness, and will be prescribed permanently, long-term, or indefinitely.

Again, i could go on, but I'll spare you the lengthy list.

I don't know that I am entirely "AntiPharma" but I have some issues when it comes to the CDC, NIH and some pharma companies. I haven't researched each and every company so can only answer these in general terms with what I know. I will never claim to be an expert on really anything except signing my name, but here are my answers/thoughts.

"A common reason people go to the doctor is to treat infectious diseases. The doctor then prescribes antibiotics, which are very effective..."

I'm going to stop you at that point and say the last part is not always true. It depends on the infection, the doctor, your immune system, and multiple other factors but antibiotics are many times NOT "very effective."


and the treatment is completed. Simple as that. When it comes to infections, there is no New Age/holistic type of medicine, or energy healing, that get rid of them as well as antibiotics can. How do you explain that? Don't you give big pharma credit for this area?

There are many herbal medicines that treat infections quite well and have proven, at times, to be "better" because they do not kill "good bacteria."


Even if there were some holistic/alternative remedy for infections, they would be nowhere near as effective as antibiotics are. How does your anti-pharma paradigm explain that?

I wonder, from this statement, if you are including herbal medicines at all. I apologize for my new-ness and if I am getting this wrong.

I'm not sure why you would think that no alternative therapy would be better than antibiotics, and by alternative therapy I am mostly talking about herbal remedies. That is all I really have knowledge of as far as alternative medicine. To KNOW this, you would need to know how antibiotics work (some work on killing the cell wall, some work in other ways) and you would need to know how the herbal medicines work. Then you could compare them.

For example, if you contracted syphilis or gonorrhea and were in a lot of pain, would you take the necessary antibiotics to get rid of it? Or use some New Age healing that will probably not work?

For these examples, I would first do my own research and would most likely go with the usual treatment for these just because they have been around a while and are pretty straight-forward to treat. I do have a bit of a medical background, though, so I don't exactly advise that to everyone. Luckily, I also have a doctor who is well-versed on all treatments and can advise me better than your "usual" doctor.

I don't quite know about the whole AIDS topic that you are referring to so I'm staying out of that one.

One thing you may not realize is that the research/study publishing process is not what it used to be. There are many hands in many pies guiding research and treatment guidelines in a way that would profit them and the places they work for, including drug companies, universities, "researchers," those teaching new physicians, some newer-vaccine patent owners, etc.

I'll probably get into more detail about that in the Lyme topics I reply to.

The FDA is butting in on the supplement industry. Why? In my opinion because there is a lot of money in it. Any why is that? Because they work.

There are other theories out there, but I think the pharma companies want to get their hands on these and make their own proprietary formulas and kick out their competition.

If you find any typos, words that are just WRONG in the sentence, please excuse my Lyme brain and the late time of the night. It happens.

reply to post by WWu777


Because of life support machines....

reply to post by WWu777


You forget that the first antibiotic was a natural product. Penicillin is a type of mold. So your theory is shot down from the get go.

There are also many plants and spices which have similar properties and help fight infection. A little research and you would know this.

Even turmeric - that humble little spice we have in our curry - has the most amazing properties. Like being an anti inflammatory, and fighting infection in wounds. Manuka Honey is also an anti bacterial.

Big pharma have managed only 1 thing. Antibiotic resistant bugs. And big pharma has stopped working on new antibiotics because there is not enough profit in it. So in years to come we will be back where we started. They have not helped us as much as you may think.