Conspiracy theories Big Pharma

[FishandChips]

What are your thoughts on "big pharma"conspiracy theories ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

Are the FDA really hiding the natural cures as they do not want us to know about ?

Are pharmaceutical companies suppressing  negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals ?

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, FishandChips said:

What are your thoughts on "big pharma"conspiracy theories ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

Are the FDA really hiding the natural cures as they do not want us to know about ?

Are pharmaceutical companies suppressing  negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals ?

Mr Bond,

"If I told you the answers I'd have to sedate you permanently"

 

[FishandChips]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Mr Bond,

"If I told you the answers I'd have to sedate you permanently"

 

In that case I better not be asking  these questions

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, FishandChips said:

What are your thoughts on "big pharma"conspiracy theories ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

Are the FDA really hiding the natural cures as they do not want us to know about ?

Are pharmaceutical companies suppressing  negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals ?

I've had a passing interest over the years in people claiming Big Pharma blocking 'cheap' or 'natural' cures and, so far, I've seen no justification. They just don't pass peer review.

Most of it's answered in your link. Conspiracy-based paranoia is a way for some people to avoid the fact that they are largely responsible for how their life turns out.

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, FishandChips said:

Are the FDA really hiding the natural cures as they do not want us to know about ?

No

28 minutes ago, FishandChips said:

Are pharmaceutical companies suppressing  negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals ?

Studies are sometimes suppressed when they don’t demonstrate efficacy of the drugs, but it’s not by financial pressure and it has nothing to do with “natural cures.”

[CharonY]

Also, the FDA does not regulate medical research, i.e. they do not have the means to stop someone from publishing data suggesting efficacy of drugs. Likewise, pharmaceuticals cannot do that either. The only means is to actually finance research themselves and also have a agreement with the researcher to not publish the results. Often that does not fly as most researchers want/need to publish. But pharmaceutical companies are free to do their own research and not publish it. But at the same time it does not limit the abilities of university or other researchers to pursue it independently. The strongest means to interfere which we have seen in cases of tobacco, nutritional and climate change research is to finance researchers to create studies that sow doubt about certain links they do not want (e.g. tobacco and cancer, sugar intake and obesity, CO2 and climate change), as well as create PR and lobbying campaigns (see the Koch brothers). So one could create a political climate where certain types of research are more or less difficult (but note that not too long ago the NIH has funded a section dedicated to things like alternative medicine with rather disappointing results).

However, if you are talking about actively influencing and suppressing research communities the short answer is: no.

[Phi for All]

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I've had a passing interest over the years in people claiming Big Pharma blocking 'cheap' or 'natural' cures and, so far, I've seen no justification. They just don't pass peer review.

There are some almost universal fantasies humans hold, and the idea that there is a simple solution to every complex problem is definitely one of them. We're always searching for the easiest way to solve the puzzle, complete the pattern, and get the job done. It's actually a positive, efficient, and progressive way to approach problems, but in these instances I think we often let the fantasy get out of hand. Folks are fascinated by the prospect of being cured of their woes by a $2 pill, and by the idea that someone is preventing them from buying it.

[Huckleberry of Yore]

Big pharma has to follow FDA rules, and provide return on investment for the owners.  Not a conspiracy as much as simple economics.  Consider the case of ketamine used for severe depression.  Apparently, since ketamine is anesthesia and not approved for depression a psychiatrist can't prescribe it.  But for some reason you can go to a special clinic and spend $10K for ketamine treatments (which insurance companies won't cover).  The drug itself is cheap but since there is no possibility of patenting it no drug company can afford to go through the expensive process of approval for treatment of severe depression.  Once again the government is the problem.

[Leon1961]

1 hour ago, FishandChips said:

What are your thoughts on "big pharma"conspiracy theories ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

Are the FDA really hiding the natural cures as they do not want us to know about ?

Are pharmaceutical companies suppressing  negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals ?

The priority of these pharmaceuticals is to make money. So you can be assured that if they have a cure that they can make money with that they will want us to know about it.

Besides, there are real people working there. People like the rest of us. People that take pride in their jobs. People that do not like a conspiracy any more than the rest of us.

So, I do not believe in a conspiracy for one second.

But perhaps I am just an optimist.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Thanks for asking the question. I think it has had a pretty clear answer.

We do not like to encourage conspiracy theories on this forum, so I am going to close this now.

 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

The drug itself is cheap but since there is no possibility of patenting it no drug company can afford to go through the expensive process of approval for treatment of severe depression.

First of all, the FDA has approved several ketamine-based treatments including the IV drips. They are expensive because, well first you have to lay a drip and second, due to the massive side effects you need medical personnel at hand (which makes it expensive). Recently, a ketamine-based nasal spray has been approved, but you still need medical supervision to use it. So that is rather a bad example for your case.

While blaming the FDA is very popular,  it is really not the limiting factor. Just to provide some numbers, trials for FDA approval average to about $19 million. The average cost for developing a new drug is roughly 2-3 $ billion, i.e. FDA approval is just a small fraction of the overall cost. Looking at overall expenditures, marketing takes up about the same amount as research (depending on company and product it can be much more or less), again dwarfing the FDA-related costs. So no, if companies do not develop something it is because it is not financially viable it is certainly not due to the FDA.

Moreover, it still does not limit public research institutes.

 

Edit, I accidentally crossposted with Strange, but since I feel that my post is addressing a common talking point, I am going to let it stand, unless there are objections.