Cure Pharmaceutical Companies

But instead of finding ways to prevent or cure cancer they pour all their funding into treating cancer. Why would they want to get rid of this money machine? The “Cancer Machine” rakes in loads of cash from chemotherapy drugs, radiotherapy, diagnostic procedures, and surgeries. The typical cancer patient will spend around 50,000 dollars fighting the disease, but if the cancer industry allows a cure then their patient base goes away along with all their funding. It makes more sense for them to keep their patients alive, but sick and coming back for more. A crazy statistic points out that “two out of three cancer patients will be dead within five years after receiving all or part of the standard cancer treatment…” It makes you wonder as to how well is this “cancer treatment”

According to statistics published by the American Cancer Society, there will be an estimated 1.5 million new cancer cases diagnosed each year over the next decade. What factors contribute to the yearly incidence

The pharmaceutical industry along with the manufacturers of healthcare products and technologies often encourage the misappropriation and distribution of marginally beneficial products and technologies in the healthcare industry. These companies often use various advertising methods to influence members of the public to request their products and services without adequate knowledge of their effectiveness and implications to their medical condition.

In the video Escape Fire, I was so flabbergasted by the numbers and health outcomes we as a society have let our nation become. One of the most heart-wrenching evidence is, even though our health care industry is so expensive our health outcomes are the worse. 75% of disabilities and dead’s are preventable, according to the film.

It has been proven that smoking is the cause of 30% of general cancer deaths and 80% of lung cancer deaths in the U.S. Lung cancer has also been found to be the biggest cause of cancer deaths among breast cancer, prostate cancer, and ovarian cancer. This year alone, 190,500 of about 600,900 cancer deaths will be caused by smoking tobacco. This means that one in every three cancer patients will die due to tobacco products. In fact, smoking tobacco caused such high amounts of lung cancer that tobacco companies are legally required to include a surgeon general’s warning that outlines the potential of developing cancer on their packaging. The numbers and warnings of smoking-related lung cancer can be seen everywhere from statistics to the companies themselves being held liable for the illnesses their products

Many have accused that Food and Drug Administration is not aggressively monitoring drugs prices, the FDA is in charge of regulating devices and drug production. Big Pharma spends billions of dollars annually on direct-to- consumer advertising which entitles manipulative strategies (4). The theory behind such good progress is the company attracts doctors, scientist, and other health related personnel’s. Medical research teams and doctors conduct extensive research with funds from Big Pharma. Even though many accuse Big Pharma for not following their mission statement it has not restricted them from purchasing their prescriptions medications. Big Pharma a company with many tactics and strategies, have been hiring former government workers whom have authoritative links to gain political influence. Currently, they have hired, 36 who worked for a member of Congress, 13 who worked for a federal agency, 2 who worked for the White House (4). With influenced members from Congress, they use their connection to reach their company goals. Unfortunately, U.S law permits drug manufacture companies to set prescriptions drugs prices without any restriction from the FDA. On the other hand, other countries set a limit on what companies can charge bases on the benefit of the drug (4). There are many hidden facts, which Big Pharma does not reveal; for example, the company spends double the amount of advertising then they do on research. Persuasion is the key to pharmaceutical industry, paying physicians/surgeons to incorporate their names on research articles, with the intent of getting published in

It is a benefit versus risk gamble that these companies take. An example: marijuana is a plant that is medically proven to reduce nausea. Long-term use has not been evaluated, and it is illegal in most states. However, people continue to utilize it for its alleviating benefits despite the risk of not being approved by the Federal Drug Administration. The Federal Drug Administration struggles to have control over the legalization of marijuana. The battle of getting marijuana legalized for medical purposes is a struggle that some states will continue to fight against the Federal Drug Administration. The argument that has been made is that one may benefit from marijuana for medical uses. Some patients have had beneficial results from marijuana, and they prefer to use the drug instead of over the counter medication or treatment (Berg,

This casebook concentrates on the negative effects that the pharmaceutical industry’s trade and production policies have on third world nations suffering from disease epidemics. My position is that pharmaceutical companies are not concerned with the health benefits of their drugs, but rather with the market that their drugs generate. I illustrate this notion by describing the trade policies that pharmaceutical companies influence and the pharmaceutical companies’ production policies which concentrate on producing life-style drugs rather than drugs that cure life-threatening diseases.

The dependency of profits to promote sales to please shareholders and research and development of new products seem to be the mindset of the pharmaceutical industry. It is without question that the pharmaceutical companies only care about making a profit more than they do to help the people of the United States. Pharmaceutical companies and doctors that represent them are only acting in their own best interest; patients are the ones who are suffering the most. With that, new information being produced it is not always being fully disclosed in the fine print, or the other option to the drugs they take, this just only helps fuel business’s.

Once the medication is available to the general population, then there is the hypocrisy that comes with dealing with pharmaceutical companies. Many believe that pharmaceutical companies are in the business of disease management not healing and curing people. Ethically and morally withholding or offering the price of medication at such a high price it is not feasible to general working class individuals in need of the medication. Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (CITED), recently raised the price of Thiola from $1.50 to $30 a pill. Causing many to argue the ethical or moral aptitude of those working at “Big Pharma” and where there interest truly lies? With little to no regulation of profit and cost management those who have the ability to increase medication price, how do we really know what cures are available but beyond our financial

Cancer is figured to be the second leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. With approximately 14 million new cases and 8.2 million cancer related deaths in 2012, alone .Why are so many people stuck suffering with this deadly disease? Millions of dollars have been invested into cancer research, yet there is no cure. Are these pharmaceutical companies focus on finding a cure for cancer or concentrating on elongated treatments in order to lengthen their pockets? We must first understand that cancer is big business earning huge profits. Nonetheless, the cancer industry is spending virtually zilch of its multi-billion dollar resources on effective prevention strategies, like dietary guidelines, exercise, natural remedies and herbs proven to cure cancer. Instead, it pours its money into treating cancer, not preventing or allaying it.

Cancer. We all know someone who has suffered from it or has passed away because of it. Cancer now affects one in every three people, and is the second highest cause of death in the United States. For decades, the medical community has been on the hunt for a cure for cancer, and have been subjected to intense ridicule from the public because of a lack of progression toward a possible cure. In recent years, many scientists, doctors, researchers, and the general public have come to believe that the cure for cancer is being suppressed because of this lack of progress. Those who say it is suppressed claim that the drugs used to treat cancer actually cause cancer, making a patient sicker and sicker. As a result, the patients are forced to spend

One of the fastest-growing sectors of our nation is pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical companies have been mass producing thousands of life-saving vaccines and medications for both this nation and the world. Millions of lives have been saved worldwide by these medications and they will continue to heal and protect all these people. Despite not having cures for AIDS, cancer, etc., the life expectancies have greatly increased since the past, and people are no longer suffering from the effects of many conditions. Nowadays, there seems to be a medication for almost anything. Sometimes if there isn’t a pill to fix the actual condition, there will almost always be one to treat the symptoms. So what is the problem if all these medications are helping people? When I began college, it became

I think the reason hundreds of millions of dollars are spent into the search for cancer treatments because the act of diagnosis is denser than the search for early signs of cancer. So, what follows is the demand for treatment is higher than the demand for prevention. Another reason is because the process to approve preventative research is similar to a bureaucratic process. You would need to think of the best idea, go through peer review, find the best budget and the best way to fund. Dr. John Bailar in the PBS News Hour about “Cancer Treatment vs. Prevention” explains the prevention process, “One is to find out specific causes of individual cancers, individual forms of cancer, and get rid of them, such as turning away from the use of tobacco.”

For example, Vedula (2012) notes that FDA guidelines state pharmaceutical companies can use peer-reviewed articles to publicize evidence of a drug’s effectiveness for off-label uses, as long as a number of conditions are met—perhaps the most essential of which is that “the information disseminated must not be false or misleading.” However, Vedula continues, there is no unyielding regulation that all research findings have to be published. Therefore, a company can still choose to selectively disseminate favorable findings. His article concludes that there is now a copious amount of evidence that suggests selective reporting of study results, based on the strength and direction of findings, is performed extensively by the pharmaceutical industry.