[Tin Foil Hat Time] Conspiracy Theory

[JuggerNaught]

The original argument was that corporations will keep a patient from getting cured.

No, the original argument were that corporations are out to make money, and are in no hurry to find a cure. People usually don't form corporations, especially pharmeceutical corps because they want to help mankind. They do it to make money.

I'll give you an example. I remember when viagra first came out. It took 6 months for viagra to be talked about in various medical journals to go through fda approval and be on the market. 6 fucking months. Yet at that time there were 17 different possible AIDS therapies that were very promsing that had been sitting in the fda approval pipeline for over 3 years. Merk went on to make BILLIONS (and still does) from viagra...but pharm. corps would lose their ass of those aids therapies came out and actually worked.

 

[ScooBySnaCk]

No, the original argument were that corporations are out to make money, and are in no hurry to find a cure.

Ok im glad you understand..

 

[fartiusstinkius]

This thread is an affront to my good nature.

 

[owner]

No, the original argument were that corporations are out to make money, and are in no hurry to find a cure. People usually don't form corporations, especially pharmeceutical corps because they want to help mankind. They do it to make money.

That's a lie. Your original argument was that corporations will never try to cure a person directly, just keep them medicated.

I'll give you an example. I remember when viagra first came out. It took 6 months for viagra to be talked about in various medical journals to go through fda approval and be on the market. 6 fucking months. Yet at that time there were 17 different possible AIDS therapies that were very promsing that had been sitting in the fda approval pipeline for over 3 years. Merk went on to make BILLIONS (and still does) from viagra...but pharm. corps would lose their ass of those aids therapies came out and actually worked.

Irrelevant.

 

[Eggi]

No, the original argument were that corporations are out to make money, and are in no hurry to find a cure. People usually don't form corporations, especially pharmeceutical corps because they want to help mankind. They do it to make money.

I'll give you an example. I remember when viagra first came out. It took 6 months for viagra to be talked about in various medical journals to go through fda approval and be on the market. 6 fucking months. Yet at that time there were 17 different possible AIDS therapies that were very promsing that had been sitting in the fda approval pipeline for over 3 years. Merk went on to make BILLIONS (and still does) from viagra...but pharm. corps would lose their ass of those aids therapies came out and actually worked.

ppl draw whatever conclusion supports their viewpoint from whatever limited facts they deem appropriate.

there are a ton of research outfits that receive millions of dollars from government grants, nonprofit orgs, and pharm companies that are researching for aids cures, cancer cures, etc. AIDS therapies will require quite a bit longer time for FDA approval because they dont give you an erection in 10 minutes....their effects have to be watched over the course of a year or whatever. Pharm companies probably arent spending a *ton* of money researching cures for AIDS, etc, because thats not the purpose of their business But if the pharm company is a major producer of drugs for AIDS treatment, and a cure does come along and they arent the ones to discover it...they are going to be screwed...so its in their best interest to use some of their capital towards R&D efforts. The way you idiots put the argument, its amazing we even have tylenol or penicillin (and yes i know the story of mr fleming, im just making a point).

And yes, a lot of companies are run by people with consciouses...for example, there are several big companies that have taken voluntary measures to reduce pollutant emissions because it is the right thing to do, even though it hurts their profits *shrug* And then there are a lot of companies that are run by ppl only concerned about the welfare of their company and they wont change until forced to. Of couse its easier for most ppl to look at the picture in black and white and draw broad conclusions from limited facts to support whatever view they have decided to endorse.

 

[JuggerNaught]

That's a lie. Your original argument was that corporations will never try to cure a person directly, just keep them medicated.

No, my original argument is that corporations want to make money, and it is way more profitable to keep someone on a 'program' or 'regime' than a cure. I dont think they are overtly stopping research, i think that they are in no hurry to find a cure and if something were found, that it will take YEARS, if ever for it to go through.

Irrelevant.

Completely relevant. It took 6 months for merk to put out a pill for a hard dick that made them billions over night, it has taken YEARS for a cure to a disease that kills millions and is one of if not THE most profitable revenue streams for both the pharmaceutical and medical communites.

 

[Gow]

You think they're gonna cure AlDS? No, they can't even cure athlete's foot. They ain't curing AlDS. Shit, they ain't never curing AlDS.

Don't even think about that shit. They ain't curing it cause there ain't no money in the cure. The money's in the medicine.

That's how you get paid, on the comeback. That's how a drug dealer makes his money, on the comeback. That's all the government is: a bunch of motherfucking drug dealers, on the comeback.

They ain't curing no AlDS. That's all it is.

You think they're gonna cure AlDS? They're still mad at all the money
they lost on polio!

 

[owner]

Hmm..why would someone think that entites that regularly pollute the environment, knowingly produced toxic substances, have regularly outright stolen things like retirement funds,

Irrelevant. These cases are irregular.

and blatantly produce products that are addictive as well as deadly for open sale on the market have no conscience..?

For the reason that there is demand for such products.

go to canada, buy some medicine...come across the border checkpoint, watch what happens.

So you have no proof.

show me one that has more than a token conscience

Microsoft, although the burden of proof is on you.

It costs the patient a lot of money..not the hospital sunshine. Have you ever been in a hospital for an extended stay? In a place where asprin cost $6.00 a piece, and if they fuck up due to incompetence you cant even sue them...who do you think is getting fucked on the service vs cost debate?

How do you know it doesn't cost the hospital a lot of money to keep a patient in? How do you know the prices a hospital sets are not proper, but overpriced?

and you dont know that it can't.

You made the claim, Not I.

 

[hfingers]

http://www.naturalcures.com/?gclid=CJ6A1dnX5oQCFQ2tLAod0j40ow

You sound like this guy Scoob.

 

[owner]

No, my original argument is that corporations want to make money, and it is way more profitable to keep someone on a 'program' or 'regime' than a cure. I dont think they are overtly stopping research, i think that they are in no hurry to find a cure and if something were found, that it will take YEARS, if ever for it to go through.

You lie again. Read your original posts, since you seem to have forgotten what you originally argued.

Completely relevant. It took 6 months for merk to put out a pill for a hard dick that made them billions over night, it has taken YEARS for a cure to a disease that kills millions and is one of if not THE most profitable revenue streams for both the pharmaceutical and medical communites.

A dick-hardening pill is much simpler than complex AIDS medication, like Eggi explained.

 

[JuggerNaught]

ppl draw whatever conclusion supports their viewpoint from whatever limited facts they deem appropriate.

there are a ton of research outfits that receive millions of dollars from government grants, nonprofit orgs, and pharm companies that are researching for aids cures, cancer cures, etc. AIDS therapies will require quite a bit longer time for FDA approval because they dont give you an erection in 10 minutes....their effects have to be watched over the course of a year or whatever. Pharm companies probably arent spending a *ton* of money researching cures for AIDS, etc, because thats not the purpose of their business But if the pharm company is a major producer of drugs for AIDS treatment, and a cure does come along and they arent the ones to discover it...they are going to be screwed...so its in their best interest to use some of their capital towards R&D efforts. The way you idiots put the argument, its amazing we even have tylenol or penicillin (and yes i know the story of mr fleming, im just making a point).

Well, let me point something out from your example. There are probably a couple hundred forms of natural asprin in the world. Litterally you can go out into the woods, pick eat and it will cure a headache. So pharm. companies didnt 'make' asprin because they wanted to make money on asprin, they made asprin because they lose money to something that is already readily available in nature.

And yes, a lot of companies are run by people with consciouses...for example, there are several big companies that have taken voluntary measures to reduce pollutant emissions because it is the right thing to do, even though it hurts their profits *shrug* And then there are a lot of companies that are run by ppl only concerned about the welfare of their company and they wont change until forced to. Of couse its easier for most ppl to look at the picture in black and white and draw broad conclusions from limited facts to support whatever view they have decided to endorse.

A company growing a conscience after they have shit all over the world isnt all that amazing. Look at big tobacco. Now they are on the whole deal where they are making it harder for teens to buy (supposedly) tobacco, printing warnings on the products, putting out commercials, and making websites.

But take note, this is after how many centuries of producing a toxing addictive substance that has claimed how many lives AND even though they are 'repenting' with websites and tv commercials, you'll notice that they are still making the same fucking product for the market.

 

[Osiris]

Hey, shut the fuck up already. Yes, I'm talking to you.

 

[Amadeus]

That's a lie. Your original argument was that corporations will never try to cure a person directly, just keep them medicated.

You're missing the fucking point, retard. Corporations are there to make money, and nothing more. They don't cure people because typically* it's not the most profitable way to go.


*unless the person in question is filthy rich and can offer enough money for the cure

^^ That was the original argument, and anyone with a little bit of reading comprehension (i.e. not you) can see that.

Irrelevant. These cases are irregular.

You really do live in a happy fantasy world, don't you?

For the reason that there is demand for such products.

There's a demand because they're fucking addictive, dumbass. Your deductive skills are topped by those of smoked ham.

 

[owner]

^^ That was the original argument, and anyone with a little bit of reading comprehension (i.e. not you) can see that.

You insult without basis. This discussion is not intended for you it seems.

There's a demand because they're fucking addictive, dumbass. Your deductive skills are topped by those of smoked ham.

Are Quarter Pounders addictive? Is alcohol addictive?

 

[Amadeus]

You insult without basis. This discussion is not intended for you it seems.

I insult on the basis that you're a complete fuckhead and a functional analphabet. Case in point:

Are Quarter Pounders addictive?

No, they're just very bad for you, and everyone (including those making them) knows this. Oops, where's your "conscience" now?

Is alcohol addictive?

Breaking news: yes. Retard.

 

[JuggerNaught]

Irrelevant. These cases are irregular.

Relevant, if you mean 'irregular' as in you hear about examples every day and there are probably 10-1 for the ones you dont hear about

For the reason that there is demand for such products.

there is a demand for heroin too.

So you have no proof.

http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/050106/tp2ch7.htm?date=050106&story=tp2ch7.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-22-our-view_x.htm

Microsoft, although the burden of proof is on you.

How do you know it doesn't cost the hospital a lot of money to keep a patient in? How do you know the prices a hospital sets are not proper, but overpriced?

Well let see. I can go right down the street any buy bayer asprin, 3.00 for a bottle of like 30, or i can get ONE in the hospital for 6.00. You do the math.

You made the claim, Not I.

And pointed out that you can't prove YOUR claim either.



Welp, this has been fun. You keep telling yourself that big corps really have your best interest at heart, i'm sure they'll thank you for it later.

 

[JuggerNaught]

You insult without basis. This discussion is not intended for you it seems.



Are Quarter Pounders addictive? Is alcohol addictive?

Quarter Pounders - In their base form...as a meat sandwich..no. But when you ad sugar to the bun, meat, ketchup, even the lettuce, well sugar can be addictive....so you figure it out.

Is alcohol addicitive? No...entities like alcoholics anonymous and the betty ford clinic are just public myth...

 

[owner]

Relevant, if you mean 'irregular' as in you hear about examples every day and there are probably 10-1 for the ones you dont hear about

If that is the case, list 5.

there is a demand for heroin too.

And?

http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/050106/tp2ch7.htm?date=050106&story=tp2ch7.htm

...

They may be experimental and not approved for use in the U.S. They may have been dispensed without a valid prescription, or not labeled in accordance with FDA rules.

Jennifer Connors, Chief Customs and Border Protection officer in Miami, said most shipments are confiscated because there is no evidence of a valid prescription.

"If you want to drive to Canada and you take your prescription form, you can fill your prescription there and bring it back for your personal use, and that's perfectly legal," she said. However, when transactions are done by mail or online, there is no way for customs to verify whether the pharmacy filling the order had your prescription, or had a proper ID for the person who ordered it.

"Without that, there's no way to verify that they are filling the right prescription for the right person," Connors said.

...

Google is another.

Well let see. I can go right down the street any buy bayer asprin, 3.00 for a bottle of like 30, or i can get ONE in the hospital for 6.00. You do the math.

Hospitals have more staff and other costs than your local drugstore.

And pointed out that you can't prove YOUR claim either.

Don't turn the burden of proof, sir.

Welp, this has been fun. You keep telling yourself that big corps really have your best interest at heart, i'm sure they'll thank you for it later.

I do not believe corporations have my best interest at heart, but I do not believe they are baby-eating demon either.

 

[owner]

Quarter Pounders - In their base form...as a meat sandwich..no. But when you ad sugar to the bun, meat, ketchup, even the lettuce, well sugar can be addictive....so you figure it out.

That's reaching.

Is alcohol addicitive? No...entities like alcoholics anonymous and the betty ford clinic are just public myth...

I do not consider psychological addiction an addiction at all. Just weakness of the mind.

 

[Eggi]

Well, let me point something out from your example. There are probably a couple hundred forms of natural asprin in the world. Litterally you can go out into the woods, pick eat and it will cure a headache. So pharm. companies didnt 'make' asprin because they wanted to make money on asprin, they made asprin because they lose money to something that is already readily available in nature.

right...that makes no sense...if it was readily available in nature and in an easily consumable form then ppl wouldnt pay for it obviously. anyways, the argument is irrelevant, the point i was making is that the way you guys are basing your argument is as if drug companies have no incentive to make drugs that make ppl healthy, as if that would be a good business decision to NOT make ppl feel better.

A company growing a conscience after they have shit all over the world isnt all that amazing. Look at big tobacco. Now they are on the whole deal where they are making it harder for teens to buy (supposedly) tobacco, printing warnings on the products, putting out commercials, and making websites.

But take note, this is after how many centuries of producing a toxing addictive substance that has claimed how many lives AND even though they are 'repenting' with websites and tv commercials, you'll notice that they are still making the same fucking product for the market.

tobacco is not a good example here. they have been forced, by law, and by necessity to stay in business, to do these things. However, the tobacco industry is a very good example of an industry that is not concerned with the health and wellbeing of the public, only of making money.

Im talking about companies that have literally gone out of their way, not by law or by necessity, or by bad press or by any reason other than the owners or board of directors decided it would be a good thing to do to reduce the emission of pollutants, to become 'green' if you will. There was a decent article on CNN citing several examples, but i would be hard pressed to come up with any now. The point of the example is to point out that there are many people with consciouses who are not just concerned with making money and their own wellbeings, just as there are many ppl of the opposite disposition. And some of these people run companies. And its not a hard stretch to surmise that some of them also run very big companies.