Come join others currently navigating treatment in our weekly Zoom Meetup! Register here: Tuesdays, 1pm ET.
New Feature: Fill out your Profile to share more about you. Learn more...

Chemotherapy is NOT healing cancer

12357

Comments

  • pupmom
    pupmom Member Posts: 1,032
    edited July 2016

    twinkly, with all respect, I don't understand why one person's experience would outweigh a medical manual, in terms of expertise.

    I was not even offered chemo, despite having two positive nodes, because of my low Oncotype score. This protocol is now a common standard of treatment for bc. There really isn't a conspiracy to force chemo down people.

  • twinkly
    twinkly Member Posts: 104
    edited July 2016

    It confuses me, truly confuses me how people question natural remedies....are so suspicious of them....yet, humankind has evolved with well tested and proven natural remedies for centuries and centuries. It's only the last century, with the advent of petroleum based pharmaceutical drugs, that we have seen extensive clinical trials performed, faked, etc. in order to patent a drug, so it can be put on the market for profit. These trials are necessary to show that these manmade drugs are safe for human consumption.


    To insist on this testing for natural remedies that have already proven themselves throughout history, something we already know is compatible with our physiology, something that has been proven over centuries to be healing.....is a mindset created by big pharma.

    There are literally thousands of plants, flowers, and roots that can be used to aid human health. The problem is that Big Pharma and Big Ag make BIG MONEY by mono-cropping and destroying the natural balance of mother nature. GMOs are made to withstand greater levels of herbicide use, but these creations cause cancer, infertility, and DNA alteration. They also harm bio-diversity – which means that the incredible variety of plants which could be used to heal us are destroyed in the process. Big Pharma and Big Ag will destroy our thousand-year-old medicine. If they keep planting GMO poisons in our ground, and keep giving us pharmaceutical poisons to 'cure' the ailments they cause, we will soon run out of herbs, and the biodiversity that supports eons of effective, true medicine.


    For instance, take the first pharmaceutical drug ever created, in 1850's. It was chloryl hydrate. Here's how to make it with today's ingredients....sani-flush, bleach, grain alcohol, and sulfuric acid drain cleaner. https://erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/chlor... And chemotherapy is much more dangerous than chloryl hydrate, as it has it's genesis in mustard gas. Here's a warning from the website:

    Visitors have pointed out that this procedure results in extremely poisonous chlorine gas with possible unknown contaminants from the use of over the counter commercial products that might change formulation over time. Inhalation of chlorine gas is potentially lethal and at sub fatal levels can scar and damage the eyes, throat, and lungs. In laboratory settings, chlorine gas would not be synthesized without complex gas containment equipment. This technique should be considered fundamentally unsafe as a home method. .


    Putting these poisons in our bodies, is why clinical trials are necessary before patents can be taken, before profit can be made, before doctors can prescribe. Because our doctors are schills for the pharmaceutical industry....they are only taught about pharmaceuticals...how to prescribe pharmaceuticals.


    In the case of coffee enemas, which haven't been around for centuries (that I know of), they have been used extensively for over half a century to help cancer patients. There is enough data existing to find that coffee enemas could easily be standard treatment....something natural and safe that all doctor's could recommend (if they spent ten minutes looking into the physiology of caffeine and palmitic acid acting on the liver)......coffee enemas could be something we can do in the privacy of our own bathrooms, and then experience ourselves how well our body responds, and then decide if we want to continue with them.....all for under $20 per month.


    I want my positive experience, and the positive experiences of the other's I know, and the thousands of positive experiences of Gerson's patients over decades, to count for something here. People cite 'this person's tumor shrunk with chemo' as something that matters to them....it matters because they've also chosen to take chemo.


    Well, I'm trying to shine a light on the other side of the coin....for those who believe natural therapies can also matter, for those who are interested in helping themselves in a safe, natural and meaningful way.


    I'm not here to defend this information to those who believe in pharmaceuticals with all their heart and money...but simply to present this information for those who haven't yet heard of it, and may want to investigate it further....even try it for themselves. What do we have to lose, really?? We have cancer we've been taught is incurable. That will one day be the reason we die. What do we have to lose, if we try something natural and safe and non-toxic?


    If some/most of us are willing to allow chemo to be injected into our veins, we most certainly should consider coffee enemas, and other natural therapies. To compare chemo to a coffee enema, is like comparing sipping draino to eating a raw carrot, imho.

  • twinkly
    twinkly Member Posts: 104
    edited July 2016

    Yes I know that people have been dying of cancer for eons. In the past, it usually struck us in very old age. Today, it's a different story.


    And the reason natural remedies actually work, the reason pharmaceutical companies do their utmost to copy the effects of a plant or root, so they can patent the drug (since they can't patent the plant itslef) is because the natural synergy of chemicals and turpenes contained in the plant work.


    Until the advent of the pharmaceutical business, the most dangerous chemicals we had were derived from plants...


    That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying everything natural is safe. Why continue to miss the point?


    Why can't you just let it stand, unmolested....that we can all try coffee enemas, and many of us can potentially benefit by them. That they are safe. Inexpensive. And easy to do.


    Is it so difficult to let a natural remedy have a moment to shine, a moment that could mean something to someone who is looking to find out information other than what big pharma spoon feeds us?


    Isn't that what this particular forum is all about?

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 231
    edited July 2016

    As long as you are as informed about the dangers of coffee enemas, as well as the potential benefits, then one can make an informed decision about whether- or not they would be right for you.

  • exbrnxgrl
    exbrnxgrl Member Posts: 4,508
    edited July 2016

    Though the forum header says that this is a safe, judgement free place to discuss alternative medicine, it ends with the following in bold face type:

    "Breastcancer.org does NOT recommend or endorse alternative medicine."

    I think, overall, that may explain why bco is overwhelmingly conventional when it comes to tx preferences and tx information. Just thought.

  • brooksidevt
    brooksidevt Member Posts: 1,432
    edited July 2016

    Twinkly, it seems I misunderstood your earlier post, and perhaps you misunderstood mine as well. I thought you were indicating that coffee enemas were once mainstream treatments for cancer, and looked in the Merck Manual expecting to find that very thing. I was disappointed that that was not the case (leastways, not in 1950).

    If I now understand you correctly, you are saying that Gerson pioneered the use of coffee enemas as a cancer treatment, and a detoxification treatment, not that he resurrected an abandoned practice?

    I'm really happy that this treatment works so well for you, but (unnecessarily, I'm sure) wish to mention that I do have a rather pervasive habit of seeking the source of any really interesting data.

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    Twinkly,

    I'm on your side again. Price gouging and toxins.

    Let's take for example the conspiracy surrounding pharma pricing. I think "conspiracy" is a strong word and is being used in an extremist fashion. I think "collusion" is more to the point.

    In 2015, Ibrance was approved by the FDA. Pfizer, who has a 20 year patent on this product, charges approx. $9,850 for a one month supply. This drug will lengthen a breast cancer patient's life by approx. 20 months. All the drug companies price this way. They swear Research & Development is costly. I searched out Pfizer's ROI (Return on Investment) for 2015. Pfizer's 2015 ROI was 23.31% per share. I think the investors have been paid enough on this relatively average risk stock. 10-15% would still be a healthy return. The investors average 20% They can afford to average 15% and lower drug prices to consumers but they don't. Do you have Pfizer stock somewhere in one of your mutual funds??? (If you do, Harley Davidson's ROI was twice Pfizer's. Just sayin.)

    Letrozole, previously the most effective drug, effectively lengthens life by 10 months at a cost of less than $75 per month.

    Ibrance is currently the most effective drug against breast cancer. Pfizer knows this and is sticking it to our insurance companies. Until the next best thing comes along. For up to 20 years.

    While these two medications are not as toxic to the body as chemo, Ibrance does represent big pharma's price gouging.

    I think we all can agree that the current chemotherapy drugs cannot differentiate between healthy and diseased cells, thereby killing every cell it can, diseased or not. I agree with you 100% that injecting this kind of toxin into a body is a very bad thing and something that I cannot, personally, do.

    So where is a cure/treatment that does more good than harm to a body? Will big pharma find it? Is the answer in homeopathic cures?

    I don't care, When they find it, either way, I want it. Until then, I refuse to purchase snake oil.

    I know, chemo worked for so & so and it's 14 years later and so & so is still alive thanks to chemo. I am thrilled that you and/or your friends and family have been fortunate, but you are in the minority.

    Twinkly, I am right there with you to a point. I don't care if the cure is coffee enemas or big pharma chemo or holistic or natural or witchcraft, as long as it truly works.

    People need to be open minded to alternative treatments and not believe everything big pharma pays the MOs to sell you.

    Is this where some of you think the conspiracy theory lies? Try this website for some factual data about your MO and how much money he/she takes from big pharma: Open Payments dot gov No conspiracy, just facts.

    Best wises on lasting good health to you all,

    cb


  • sarahrae
    sarahrae Member Posts: 52
    edited July 2016

    I have to agree that, generally, enemas offer tremendous health benefits and that coffee enemas seem to target and support the liver function which is so vital to all of us. I am and always have been a big believer in enemas/colonics, so thanks for sharing your experience Twinkly.

    I think that it is important to share any and all leads, conventional, alternative, allopathic, naturopathic, etc. That is why I come to this thread and others, I am interested in all of them and will do the appropriate research, have the necessary convos with my practitioners, etc. because I understand that the the majority of folks who post here are not health practitioners, nor are they prescribing a personal regimen for me and my diagnosis.

    keep the ideas and experiences coming!

    here's hoping a cure and prevention will be found soon <3<3



  • heidihill
    heidihill Member Posts: 1,855
    edited July 2016

    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cance...

    Coffee enemas remove a lot of potassium from your body and have been known to cause

    • Infections
    • Dehydration
    • Fits
    • Salt and other mineral imbalances in the body
    • Heart and lung problems, even death

    Coffee enemas were found to relieve the pain of wounded World War I soldiers. So it may reduce the need for painkillers for some, which may make it worth considering. But again, I would want a doctor monitoring me, just like chemo, because some of the side effects are not trivial.

  • BarredOwl
    BarredOwl Member Posts: 261
    edited July 2016

    It is misleading to say that Pfizer has a "20 year patent" on Ibrance (palbociclib). According to information filed with FDA, Pfizer's two patents relating to the drug product and drug composition currently expire in January, 2023. Pfizer could not market the drug prior to FDA approval in 2015, so it appears that as of this date at least, Pfizer will enjoy about 8 years of exclusivity from these patents (absent an extension* (maximum 5 years) or a successful challenge).

    See for example,

    https://www.drugs.com/availability/generic-ibrance.html

    BarredOwl

    [Edit: Because of the loss of patent term prior to approval, extensions have been requested on those two patents (to January 2028 or March 2027), but only one extension can be allowed and the amount of time will be reviewed.]

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 231
    edited July 2016

    And people don't understand the purpose of patents, which is for the pharmaceutical companies to be able to recoup their research and development investment into the drug in question. I get tired of hearing all this nonsense of about BIG PHARMA conspiracies and patents. Where do you think the money comes from for researching compounds in the first place? The pharmaceutical companies. Who pays for the research, the researchers, the clinical trials? The pharmaceutical companies. Until that drug is approved for sale, the pharmaceutical companies foot the bill and it, often, takes ten- to twenty years and hundreds of millions (billions) of dollars to bring a drug to market. Patents are extended to the pharmaceutical companies so that they have a time period for which they can recoup those losses and make a profit 'cause - let's face it - THEY'VE DONE ALL THE WORK AND SPENT ALL THE MONEY TO GET IT THERE.

    Yes, the pharmaceutical companies need oversight to help eliminate abuse and corruption, and I am not saying that this isn't an issue that needs constant vigilance. And, yes, pharmaceutical companies make money, but I have no problem with pharmaceutical companies having an limited exclusivity on the drug via a patent because, frankly, without them and the money they are putting into research and development, we'd have no antibiotics, no analgesic, no vaccines, no anaesthetics, no anti-inflammatories, no inhalants, no antidepressents, nothing of what we take for granted these days. And I know from experience (I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry) that there are many, many dedicated people who work for pharmaceutical companies because they want to make a difference and that many, many, MANY of those dollars in profit that they make are folded back into researching and developing the next promising compound because there just isn't enough money being generated by governments or the public.







  • Artista928
    Artista928 Member Posts: 1,458
    edited July 2016

    Never thought of it like this. Makes sense. ^^ ^^

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 231
    edited July 2016

    I, often, ask people who are so anti "BIG PHARMA" and anti-patent is... who do you think will step into the gap left behind if pharmaceutical companies stop research and development? Who is going to fund the effort into discovering new drugs, testing old ones, and putting all the pieces together?"

    Most of the researchers I've worked with DREAM of making that one, big discovery that makes a difference. Two of them I know are actively working on a promising cancer vaccine. And I am cheering them on 'cause I would love to see that in my lifetime. And if they find it? How exciting that will be! Any big discoveries in cancer treatment will come from the pharmaceutical industry, whether it is a totally natural substance, a natural substance enhanced by synthesis to increase its effectiveness, or an entirely new chemical. 'Cause the pharmaceutical companies are the only ones with the expertise and money to bring such a thing to fruition.

    And just to be clear: I am entirely in support of research into natural substances because I would love to see something gentler and kinder that is just as effective (or more so) than chemo replace chemo. I support research dollars being spent on validating whether- or not there is anything to various alternative therapies 'cause its just way too important not to find out if they work or they don't, so that we can start to concentrate on what actually WORKS.

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    Still anti-big pharma, NEVER anti-patent. Apparently I do understand much more than you think. How stupid would I be to think that patents weren't to aid these corporations in recouping some of the costs of R&D?

    How stupid would I be not to know that the one successful product that received FDA approval also pays for the R&D on the many others that didn't get approved, had to be scrapped or just didn't pan out. I'm pretty sure my point was made with the investor profit and that's only because I haven't wasted my time looking into the corporate profit.

    Pretend to respect the intelligence of the other people here.

    In response to your question for us anti big pharma folks, "If not big pharma then who?" I'd like to suggest to you Cold Spring Harbor and the countless non-profits just like it around the world. Those organizations who have no vested interest in the projects other than the DREAM of making that one, big discovery that makes a difference.

    Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

    I celebrated CSHL & the US Patent Dept. on their recent victory in protecting one of their patents.

    U.S. Patent Office denies all 4 petitions filed by Benitec Biopharma against CSHL's shRNA patents

    I don't claim to know much about patents, a quick google search gave me the generic (misleading was never my intention) 20 years. BarredOwl's more precise link clearly shows that more than one patent is in use on Ibrance and as early as 2005, with a patent expiration date of 2023. Still not the 20 years I'd thought and I apologize for the misinformation.

    Want to see what a non-profit can do without the negativity that big pharma brings to the industry?

    CSHL News Releases

    I agree the pharmaceutical companies need oversight to help eliminate abuse and corruption, and I am not saying that this isn't an issue that needs constant vigilance. And, yes, pharmaceutical companies make money, but I have no problem with pharmaceutical companies having a limited exclusivity on a drug via a patent.

    I disagree with this statement, " Any big discoveries in cancer treatment will come from the pharmaceutical industry." Because I know there are other avenues.

    cb


  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    I'd just like to add this:

    About Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

    Celebrating its 125th anniversary in 2015, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has shaped contemporary biomedical research and education with programs in cancer, neuroscience, plant biology and quantitative biology. Home to eight Nobel Prize winners, the private, not-for-profit Laboratory employs 1,100 people including 600 scientists, students and technicians. The Meetings & Courses Program hosts more than 12,000 scientists from around the world each year on its campuses in Long Island and in Suzhou, China. The Laboratory's education arm also includes an academic publishing house, a graduate school and programs for middle and high school students and teachers. For more information, visit www.cshl.edu

    image

  • BarredOwl
    BarredOwl Member Posts: 261
    edited July 2016

    cb123:

    I've edited my post above to add information about possible extension of one of the patents. The longest one, if granted for the requested time, would yield a maximum of ~13 years exclusivity.

    Re basic research institutions like Cold Spring Harbor Labs, while they make many significant contributions, they lack many (if not most) of the capabilities required for drug discovery and development. Instead, they out-license their rights to commercial entities who do. See for example,

    https://www.cshl.edu/news-and-features/cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-engages-hairpin-technologies-inc-to-license-its-short-hairpin-rna-shrna-technology.html

    BarredOwl

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    I am about to give up.

    I understand that CSHL licenses out it's patents. This does not mean that they lack the capabilities required for drug discovery and development. In your Ibrance patent link, Warner-Lambert Company pharmaceutical company, allowed Pfizer to use their patent. I have no idea the terms of the agreement whether licensed or other.

    I see on Wiki: "In the late 90's, Warner-Lambert formed an alliance with Pfizer to bring its drug, Lipitor, to market. Lipitor launched in January 1997 to resounding success, reaching $1B in domestic sales within its first 12 months on the market.[1] In 2000 Pfizer bought Warner Lambert along with all of its subsidiary companies."

    I'm sorry, I'm tired of this argument. I have long held, firm beliefs with what I consider, good reason. I find it hard to believe that a Lab that produced 8 Nobel Prize winners couldn't makes drugs if they wanted to. The thing is, labs like CSHL are not in the business of making drugs to sell. They are in the business of scientific discovery for the betterment of mankind. They have every opportunity to discover a cure or two.

    The discoveries are not just used for a fair profit but exploited by the pharmaceutical industry for astronomical profits. Some people only want enough money to run their lab, a comfortable living and a fortune in glory. Other people prefer to be masters of the universe.

    The part that disgusts me is that these masters are exploiting products necessary for human life. This ain't gasoline or electricity that we would somehow find a way to live without. This is life saving medication these big pharma masters are exploiting.

    I remain anti-big pharma.

    cb

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    Thank God that the brainiacs are working with the profiteers on the common goal of curing cancer. Better they should be working against each other? We all know when the cure is found it will not be given away like the cure for polio was. Every stinking dime will be wrung out of it. That's what I don't like about big pharma.

  • beesie.is.out-of-office
    beesie.is.out-of-office Member Posts: 1,434
    edited July 2016

    cb123, did you notice that Pfizer is Cold Spring Harbor Lab's largest corporate investor, and one of their largest investors overall?

    As someone who owns a few Pfizer shares, I should point out that the calculation of investor ROI is based on the stock price and dividends. You suggested that Pfizer lower their drug prices and let investors take a lower ROI. It doesn't work that way; the stock price is influenced by a lot more than just the price of the drugs that Pfizer sells. If Pfizer were to introduce a blockbuster drug this year, the stock price (and ROI for investors) would likely go up, regardless of the price that consumers pay for the drugs that Pfizer is already selling. Alternately, if a major clinical trial fails and/or if the Pfizer pipeline looks bad, then the stock price will drop, regardless of how much Pfizer charge consumers for their drugs. Sure, the revenue from current drugs is an important part of the equation, but the strength of the company and the outlook for the future (i.e. their drug development program and pipeline, including the number and status of theircurrent clinical trials) is really what drive stock prices up or down.

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    kayb,

    You mean to say that a one year supply of Herceptin cost $100,000 and you don't find anything wrong with that?

    You're grateful to the masters who gave it to you freely but charge everyone else that price?

    I'm grateful that you got your medication, the drug company is grateful you risked your life to test their profitable product.

    $100,000 for a 1 year supply. That works out to be almost as expensive as the Ibrance.

    cb

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    Bessie,

    Here's the link to the info I used. Pfizer 2015 ROI

    I see no reason why the investors, yourself included could not accept a lower profit.

    Lowering the price of Ibrance would have an effect on this ROI, not a significant effect.

    Greed hasn't been good for decades.

    cb

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    kayb,

    "Maybe your doctor is a brainiac working with the profiteers for a higher goal."

    I've met her. Charming, lovely, smart but not a brainiac.

    cb

  • BarredOwl
    BarredOwl Member Posts: 261
    edited July 2016

    When I said that basic research institutions lack many (if not most) of the capabilities required for drug discovery and development, I didn't mean the smarts. I meant that drug discovery and development requires a specific kind of infrastructure and different kinds of personnel than does basic research. You seem to hold the same view when you say: "It isn't what they are set up to do." It's also not what they are interested in, which is a good thing, because we need both types of research.

    As for whether those in the non-profit research sector and/or with a bent towards basic research are in the business of scientific discovery for the betterment of mankind, sadly that is not a given either. As with any profession or industry, including the biotech and pharma industries, there are altruistic souls hoping to improve human health and there are those who are in it for the money and prestige.

    BarredOwl

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    At least we all seem filled with faith that one or two of these entities will find a cure. Again, I really don't care who or what, as long as it works. Being affordable would just be a bonus.

    cb

  • twinkly
    twinkly Member Posts: 104
    edited July 2016

    hey cb, hang in there....the people who hug their pharmaceutical beliefs need something to hold onto....even if you try to turn on the light, to show them the rope they have in their hand is actually a snake, many will still refuse to open their eyes, even when the light is turned on. Anyway, this thread wasn't created to draw those who want to throw stones. It was created to bring together those of us who understand the value of alternative treatments, and who want to share our information with each other.


    and selenawolf, you can find information on the greed and profit agenda of big pharma anywhere, if you're willing to open your eyes to the light....and you can also read about their crimes against humanity, which they were convicted of at the Nuremberg Trials, because they used mustard gas petroleum (coal tar) based chemotherapy drugs to test on prisoners in Auschwitz. The pharmaceutical cartel also developed the gas used to kill millions of people. Your beloved pharmaceutical industry, who spend billions in R&D in order to recoup trillions in profits, is founded on the deaths of millions and millions and millions of people.


    tell me, where is the compassion - in an industry developing drugs that will ultimately cost a patient +$100K a year?


    I know many drugs have come to light in research laboratories around the world, that are PROVEN to be effective against cancer, but lose research dollars because the potential profits aren't great enough. Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is so benevolent and compassionate. Yes, that is a rope in your hand.


    This alternative forum represents a tiny SLIVER of this site, where alternative people want to share alternative information in a safe and positive manner. Where they don't want to have to defend themselves against the aggressive bullies out there. Against those who don't believe there is a cure for cancer.


    which brings me to heidi....the information on coffee enemas you posted is from a source that offers many statistics, but none of them are backed up, and much conflicting information that makes me question their right to have a site up in the first place, spewing misinformation about juicing, and how it can be detrimental to your health, as it only gives you a defined selection of veggies and fruits....yadda yadda yadda. It's links like this, that smack of other links like the sciencebasedmedicine.org site, and hundreds of others, that tuck big pharma's paybacks up their rear end all the way to the bank.


    There is no amount of evidence-based research that shows chemo is helping us live longer lives. In fact, the journal of oncology reported chemo is the reason why a whopping 1.5% of people live longer than 5 years. Maybe you should be using your common sense, and wonder what treatments comprise the other 98.5% of the reason why people live longer than five years. Not one of you have offered any information....I never wanted to risk my quality of life on a measly 1.5% chance....especially if I had a much higher chance of developing painful side effects that could last my whole life long, because of the toxicity of chemo....my quality of life was worth much more than the measly potential chemo gave me.....once I was informed. I didn't know this information at first, when I was scared, and full of fear....I was like the sheeple being led to slaughter, until I woke up. This forum exists to help people to wake up, if they want to. To examine what they've been told, by the one side of the coin that is allowed to have a voice in here.


    So please, as Thumper said so eloquently, if you don't have nothing nice to say, then don't say it at all. Offer well researched statistics, to help people understand better. Use your compassion, if you can find any for those of us who choose not to embrace big pharma.


    We don't need to hear from those who HAVE put their faith in chemo (in spite of the statistics) because we hear your opinion wherever we go. We'd simply like to have somewhere where our opinions aren't disparaged, or crappy research isn't thrown out to obfuscate information being shared.

  • beesie.is.out-of-office
    beesie.is.out-of-office Member Posts: 1,434
    edited July 2016

    cb123,

    I don't invest ever expecting a 20% return. To your suggestion, I would be happy to get 15%; frankly 10% (or even less) would be just fine. Like most investors, I just want a reasonable return (and hopefully not too many losses) so that I don't go broke during my retirement. But my point was that the price of Ibrance isn't what drives the ROI. It's way more complicated than that. That said, in principle I certainly have no problem with the price of Ibrance being reduced, at least in the U.S.. The U.S. allows for much higher drug pricing than most other countries in the world; perhaps that's the problem that should be investigated and addressed.

    And thank you for posting the source of your ROI figures for Pfizer. The problem is that I can't find the 23% ROI figure that you mentioned in your earlier post. Using your data source, what I find is a 5.05% annual ROI for 2015. I wouldn't call that greedy, would you?

    http://csimarket.com/stocks/PFE-Annual-Return-on-Investment-ROI.html

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    Ladies,

    If you'll note in my signature, I've had a double mastectomy without reconstruction. I am trying to text back and forth with some man who's asked me out on a date. I don't text well.

    We are no longer discussing alternative medicine. We're discussing big pharma money and I don't want to. Start a thread somewhere else.

    I've checked out a couple of your posts in other threads and see some of you like to argue as much as I do. I just don't want to right now. I seem to have something more interesting to do.

    So you embrace big pharma and I will run from it. Different strokes. You embrace chemo and I will run from it. Again, different strokes.

    You want to talk money - start a thread. If I want to talk money, I'll join you. Meanwhile I'm trying to join a man and wonder when the appropriate time to tell him about cancer might be. But then that's another thread too, isn't it?

    Have a lovely evening and I'll see you around the forum.

    cb

    Hey Twinkly, Sorry I hijacked your thread.

  • cb123
    cb123 Member Posts: 80
    edited July 2016

    Bessie, Where's your money thread? I'll happily explain with pictures how you add all 4 quarters together to get the annual ROI. I didn't want to go out on a date anyway.

    cb

  • Fallleaves
    Fallleaves Member Posts: 134
    edited July 2016

    I'm not a big fan of the pharmaceutical industry. But I also think most people working for them probably are motivated by the desire to help people. However, the people who run the companies, as Beesie pointed out, owe their greatest responsibility to investors. I believe the profit motive skews what research is done and the research done may not meet the needs of the greatest number of people possible, in the most efficient way possible.

    Meanwhile, certain needs are going unmet, like for common vaccines, for which there are often shortages, because they are not profitable. And there is no real comprehensive approach to allocating research dollars. It is very haphazard. I also feel that the direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to patients is unethical, and that there should be no contact between drug makers and doctors because of conflict of interest. Those practices erode trust in the whole system.

    It seems amazing that Americans are 5% of the population but consume 75% of all prescription drugs. Are we that much sicker than everyone else? Or are we that much healthier as a result? I don't think either is true. And is the exorbitant amounts we spend on drugs really the best use of health care dollars?

    I'm sure many people are helped by drugs, but the pharmaceutical industry inflates prices to whatever the market will bear. There's nothing that tailors prices to the actual costs of development. I also feel that pharmaceuticals are one of the big drivers of the inflated health care costs in the U.S. (along with hospitals and device makers). There really are no checks on what Big Pharma charges. The U.S. government chose not to allow negotiation of drug prices through medicare in the Affordable Care Act, which means we are all subsidizing drug company stock prices.

    At the same time, the idea that drugs are automatically safer than natural remedies because of extensive testing, seems a bit optimistic. We are aware of certain drug interactions, but in an age when people are on multiple drugs for multiple illnesses, how do we know how the combinations affect our health? My stepfather, for instance, had lung cancer, and ended up on 17 different medications. Tell me there was ever a study that looked at how THAT many drugs in combination would affect a persons health....

    Edited to add, hope things go well with the new guy, cbl123!

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 231
    edited July 2016

    As a Canadian, my perspective on this issue is different; my government paid for my treatment and drugs, except for the Neulasta shots which were covered by my employer's group health plan. I have worked in the pharmaceutical industry and I understand that there is no big conspiracy going on between government and the industry. Non-profit organizations working on research- and development are all well- and good, but they rarely operate independently and frequently out-source (as mentioned above) much of there research because they simply (as, also, mentioned above) do not have the funds or infrastructure needed to be completely independent.

    Should this change? Probably. In an ideal world, it would. But the world is not ideal and I stand by my statement that any major discoveries in cancer treatment will come through the pharmaceutical industry and/or with collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry. No I am not blind to the "possibilities" and I continue to hope that something gentler and more effective that current approved therapies will emerge. And, no, "seeing the light" is not good enough for me and I make no apologies for it. I don't want "light". I want scientific fact regardless of whether or not something is considered "conventional" or "alternative". I want promising alternative therapies (and there are a few) to undergo the same stringent scrutiny that conventional therapies do because - if they don't - they will never amount to anything in our current world. I want to work within reality because finding something better for cancer treatment is simply too important for just hoping for something better.