+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    873

    Default

    I can’t cite one single example of pharmaceutical companies raking in tons of money by producing drugs that require continual usage rather than offering a one-time cure?? Try virtually every single drug that big pharma makes their money off of!! Look at minoxidil and finasteride. They’re both made by large pharmaceutical companies and require continual usage or else a person will continue to lose hair. Cymbalta and Prozac by Eli Lilly fall into this category, so do Lipitor by Pfizer, Nexium by Astra-Zeneca, and Plavix by Bristol-Myers Squibb all fall into this category. These are only a small few of the drugs that big pharma uses to treat diseases/conditions rather than to cure them. I just named the ones that make the most money. And here’s an article which lists the top-selling drugs from 2010 and virtually all of them are made by big pharmaceutical companies and are treatments (that require continual usage) rather than cures. (http://www.drugs.com/top200.html)
    And maybe no one has developed an effective vaccine for acne because none of the big pharmas who have the power to develop an effective vaccine desire to develop it at all when acne “treatments” are very profitable to them. That article that you linked doesn’t mean a damn thing. All it says is that some discovery made in mice “could” lead to an effective vaccine for acne in 5 years. We’ve heard those same promises before from mice researchers with regards to hair loss and those promises haven’t added up to a hill of beans. Scientists have poked and prodded at mice to develop “insights” and “clues” to develop cures for human diseases for many decades now and haven’t produced a cure for much of anything. These mouse discoveries really make me laugh.
    Hair transplant doctors may not command a large sphere of influence when it comes to the federal government in general, but when it comes to hair science and research, they absolutely do. Hair restoration is a multi-billion dollar business and hair transplantation accounts for the majority of this. So if a group of over 1,000 doctors who perform a surgical procedure that accounts for the majority of money generated in a billion dollar business, wants to work to further their monetary self-interest, they absolutely can. No doubt about it. I think about how federal governments have not done anything to oversee the atrocities performed in the hair transplant industry. Before the advent of more sophisticated versions of FUT and FUE, countless numbers of people were getting butchered and permanently disfigured by horrendous hair transplants. And even today plenty of people are getting permanently butchered by hair transplant doctors. Spencer even says this all the time on his radio show that on any given day now, some one will be permanently disfigured by a badly-performed hair transplant. There are people like Joe from Staten Island and Johnny from Ohio who call into the radio show all the time and they were permanently damaged by archaic hair transplants. Yet has government done anything to oversee the hair transplant industry to make sure that they perform up to some standard of ethics? Absolutely not. Some hair transplant surgeons were operating out in the open and disfiguring and scarring people for decades, yet no government agency has done a damn thing to stop them. That among other things leads me to believe that hair transplant doctors actually do have a good deal of influence with certain government agencies and other figures of authority.
    How do you know that Dr. Fawzi’s discoveries “weren’t replicable under controlled circumstances”? Has this ever been proven? Was there ever a larger-scale study conducted to determine this? Of course not. You’re just giving pure speculation without any evidence or proof. All I know is that this study that she conducted produced some excellent and exciting results that could possibly have a huge benefit for all us. Yet instead of being pursued, the results of her study seem to be reported on once 3 years ago, and then largely forgotten. And saying that some conspiracy theory fits into what I want to believe is just absolute bullshit since you don’t even know me.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    715

    Default

    2020, obviously you don't believe that. Well, like they say, "ignorance is a bliss", at least to some. But the truth isn't hard to find. But remember this, many people go ABROAD to get treated (SUCCESSFULLY) because for some mysterious reasons the countries they live in (US, canada) don't offer the treatment -because according to them they're not safe- or have some shitty useless ones that are only considered (duct tape fix) at best and are a huge drain (financially) on the patients. Unless you live on the moon, it shouldn't be hard to verify this fact.


    Depressedbyhairloss, can you imagine big mafia, I mean big pharma making a vaccine or a one time acne treatment? Imagine how many billions of dollars they'd lose every day from the sale of the 1000's of acne treatment products. Yet, for some people it's very hard to see the truth about big pharma -that it's only interest is making as much profit as they can and then some.

  3. #23
    Senior Member 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VictimOfDHT View Post
    But remember this, many people go ABROAD to get treated (SUCCESSFULLY) because for some mysterious reasons the countries they live in (US, canada) don't offer the treatment -because according to them they're not safe- or have some shitty useless ones that are only considered (duct tape fix) at best and are a huge drain (financially) on the patients. Unless you live on the moon, it shouldn't be hard to verify this fact.
    because those "experimental" treatments aren't all safe nor effective. Look up Andy Kauffman.


    Quote Originally Posted by VictimOfDHT View Post
    Depressedbyhairloss, can you imagine big mafia, I mean big pharma making a vaccine or a one time acne treatment? Imagine how many billions of dollars they'd lose every day from the sale of the 1000's of acne treatment products. Yet, for some people it's very hard to see the truth about big pharma -that it's only interest is making as much profit as they can and then some.
    again with the big pharma.... ALL OF THOSE COMPANIES OPERATE INDIVIDUALLY!! THEY DONT ALL ****ING SIT AROUND AT THE TABLE THINKING OF WAYS TO SCREW US. THEY ALL COMPETE FOR THE SAME DOLLAR!!!

    If some company is happy with their profits from their treatment that people have to use continuously, then yes, you're right: that company has no reason to come up with a cure because they would lose money.

    HOWEVER: It's in the best interest of EVERY OTHER COMPANY IN THE WORLD to come up with an even better treatment, or maybe even a cure, something better than what the other company offers.
    A cure will certainly make such company A LOT of money because people will stop buying treatment from that other company and instead opt for a cure from that new company.
    That's it. Company that offers a treatment will start losing money, while the other company with a cure will start making mad profits. THIS IS CALLED COMPETITION AND IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!! SOME COMPANY IS ALWAYS TRYING TO OUT DO OTHER COMPANIES.
    HOW IS THIS NOT MAKING SENSE TO YOU???

  4. #24
    Senior Member gmonasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    869

    Post Biotech Stocks: How to Invest in the Buyout Binge

    Here's a simple overview of the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, big pharma players are eager to buy out biotech companies that are developing promising new treatments -- not to suppress those treatments, but to get them to market as quickly and inexpensively as possible and gain an edge on their competitors:

    http://www.thelifesciencesreport.com/pub/na/13070

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    873

    Default

    I don't know what else I can really say. I've made my claims so many times over and over again. Sure, maybe these big pharmaceutical companies want to get their treatments out sooner rather than later but the fact remains that these large companies make absolutely obscene amounts of money exclusively on "treatments" (some of which are very mediocre like minoxidil) while 99.99% of the time never curing anything. This leads a reasonable person to believe that they're out to "patch things up" when it comes to diseases rather than to cure them. It also leads me to believe that they're a hell of a lot more concerned with making themselves obscene amounts of money than the well-being of the people. And a lifetime of treatments will make them a hell of a lot more money than a one-time cure so that's the direction that they're gonna pursue. Hell, that's the direction that they ALWAYS pursue.
    VictimOfDHT, you are right with regards to your previous statements. If anyone made a permanent cure for acne, it would literally wipe away the billions of dollars that big companies make "treating" acne. Hell, that's why these companies virtually ALWAYS produce constant and continual treatment and never cures.
    I will concede that the FDA and the federal government have some very anally retentive policies when it comes to the approval of new drugs. That's why a lot of companies like Replicel and Histogen take their trials overseas so that they don't need to have the FDA up their asses. And it's also a huge contradiction to me when the government can be so stringent in monitoring such procedures as Latisse for hair growth yet totally turn a blind eye as the hair transplant industry butchers thousands and thousands of people for at least 35 years. And I also wouldn't be surprised if the FDA gives preferential treatment to these large pharmaceutical companies when approving drugs since big pharma is an absolutely huge lobby.
    I can understand how some people say that all these companies operate individually and if they came up with a cure, it would bring them a ton of money and leave their competitors in the dust. That's the way that it should be, yet unfortunately you never see that happening. For the most part, you just see a bunch of companies each making treatments that co-exist with one another so that these companies can make their share of money from a particular market and allow other companies to do the same. In the anti-depressant category, you have Zoloft, Prozac, Cymbalta, etc. In the erectile dysfunction category, you have Cialis, Viagra, Paxil, etc. In the cholesterol drug category, you have Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, etc. All of these drugs are made by different pharmaceutical companies, they're all treatments, and none are cures that have been so superior that they've blown their competitors out of the water. These are just treatments that make their companies loads of money yet co-exist with the other treatments so that no one company owns a superior treatments that resembles any type of one-shot cure.
    Also, it is definitely conceivable that big pharma can totally suppress better treatments coming from smaller companies, especially when these treatments are a lot better than what these bigger companies are offering. Since these large pharmas do have such a huge lobby, they can very conceivably get the FDA to determine that a smaller company's treatment is "unsafe" and force the smaller company to discontinue their program.
    And despite the fact that hair loss represents such a potential gold mine for companies to make money (especially since today's treatments are just downright laughable), and despite the fact that there are loads of potential cures for hair loss (mesenchymal stem cells, thymosin B4, Marwa Fawzi's stem cell treatment), you have only one handful of companies in the world even trying to cure it!! And none of them are large pharmaceutical companies! This is just downright alarming and suspicious to me, and doesn't represent any type of coincidence whatsoever.

  6. #26
    Senior Member gmonasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    869

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by DepressedByHairLoss View Post
    I've made my claims so many times over and over again.
    And they don't get any less false with repetition.

    the fact remains that these large companies make absolutely obscene amounts of money exclusively on "treatments" while 99.99% of the time never curing anything.
    Because drugs generally work by introducing substances to the body that it doesn't produce on its own, and since the body doesn't produce those substances on its own, they have to be reintroduced on a continual basis. It's exceedingly difficult to come up with a drug that will permanently alter what your body is genetically programmed to do, and to do it without causing any deleterious effects.

    This leads a reasonable person to believe that they're out to "patch things up" when it comes to diseases rather than to cure them.
    Not reasonable people who actually have a basic knowledge of biochemistry.

    The rest of your post is just more of the same tired old arguments that have been refuted multiple times.

  7. #27
    Senior Member jman91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    234

    Default

    gmonansco, if you're so sure that we have cures in store why don't you invest in replicel or something?

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Gmonasco: Give me a break, man. You haven't refuted a damn thing that I've said. "Not reasonable people who actually have a basic knowledge of biochemistry". Like you have this understanding and I don't? Give me a break. Since this is only an online forum, that comment really made me a laugh. Sure, I will concede that maybe producing a cure is probably harder than producing some kind of b.s. treatment. But when you see these companies making billions of doctors off all treatments and virtually no cures, then anyone can see that they're interested continually treating something (and continually taking more of your money) rather than curing it. To think that these companies are more concerned with the good of the people rather than padding their own astronomical bank accounts is just downright ridiculous.

Similar Threads

  1. Intrepid Therapeutics tests drug to cure baldness, acne
    By gmonasco in forum Cutting Edge / Future Treatments
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-14-2012, 03:24 AM
  2. Important News!German Research is making huge Progresses theres new hope for a cure
    By DonCarlos in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 09:02 AM
  3. Doing some research
    By bubbalock in forum Introduce Yourself & Share Your Story
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 12:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

» IAHRS

hair transplant surgeons

» The Bald Truth

» Recent Threads

Opinion-scheduled and nervous
Yesterday 11:53 AM
Last Post By adamjimmy
Today 10:53 AM
I'm 35
Today 10:49 AM
Last Post By janessa642
Today 10:49 AM
30 y.o thinking about it surgery. Do I need it or not?
09-22-2016 08:39 AM
Last Post By Artista
Today 08:24 AM
MACA powder
02-06-2016 08:24 PM
by HTsoon
Last Post By thehatman
Today 08:20 AM
6 months post HT (Before after photos)
Today 05:13 AM
Last Post By thehatman
Today 08:16 AM
Derma rolling with topicals. Skin wants hairy skin!
09-12-2016 03:41 AM
by Skin
Last Post By hanginginthewire
Today 07:58 AM