Comments on: Why homeopathy dosen’t understand the pharmaceutical industry

By: University Online

University Online — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:49:24 +0000

The argument that Big Pharma is on the warpath against alternative medicine is trotted out on a regular basis by the faithful defenders of naturists, homeopaths and biomedical quacks who feel free to administer all sorts of highly speculative treatments without going through the proper clinical trials and approvals by the FDA.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:08:29 +0000

The Chinese have been practicing natural medicine/homeopathy longer then any modern drug companies and the FDA have been in existence. Tell me who is right? In fact i suggest everyone studies ancient Egyptian medicine as well. It’s not that there evil for making profit but it is that the US has something against alternative treatment even though interestingly enough some cancers can be cured by diet alone. Don’t believe me then do the research. Self-reliance into ones well being is the first step to prevent illness, something that most have forgotten because we rely on big medicine too often, huh big government as well. Yes, they can solve all of our problems because were dumb and helpless and there smart and have all of our answers.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:24 +0000

Why do these people insist Big Pharma is evil for making profit? How much profit is there in selling magical water or sugar pills with a “memory”? No expensive double blind placebo controlled studies just give odd, high dilutions to healthy people record any effects call it “proved” and start racking in the cash from gulible or desperate people, now who’s evil?
Homeopathy – There’s nothing in it!
10:23

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:25:20 +0000

Spot on as usual.

You can almost hear her excitement building as she gets further emboldened by her unique authoritative view, finally exposing a spelling mistake as proof.

You couldn’t make it up! Except in the case of potentization. A completely made up process more akin to a religious belief.

Homemopathy – There’s nothing in it

10:23

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:38:06 +0000

Far be it from me to accuse homeopaths of logic, however this is a bad example.
“What if an expensive drug could be potentized to create billions of effective doses at essentially no cost?” If by “no cost” you take them to mean not just that the raw materials for the medicine are cheap, but the actual manufacturing infrastructure that pharmaceutical companies have invested in is not required, the point become more reasonable. If it was not only cheap to manufacture a new drug, but the capital to start production was negligible, AND THE PRODUCED MEDICINE WERE AS EFFECTIVE AS TRADITIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS, it would suck to be Merck.

That last requirement is a dilly, though, and it’s one that the homeopaths just assume.

By: keeyop

keeyop — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:41:56 +0000

“DOSEN”T”?… pun, typo, or Freudian slip?
1. homeopathy is fine with being “fringe”, passed along like home remedies. the less corporate it seems, the better.
2. trials & FDA: double blind studies would merely point out inefficacy. FDA approval? the FDA approves drugs whose side effects are FAR more dangerous and damaging that the illnesses they “treat”. why bother?
3. doubt homeopathic “remedies” are in danger of buyout… even if they worked, the consumerism model is “outmarket, outsell”. Windex comes to mind. people cleaned glass with ammonia and water for generations. convince them it’s better when tinted blue in a flashy bottle, and they’ll buy it at 50 times the price. the DIY pendulum is swinging the other way, but attitudes persist…
(kindly refusing LoL’s “pass”. GW and Pfizer didn’t coexist, wastoid)

By: Jobin K. Varughese

Jobin K. Varughese — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:38:10 +0000

The problem is that they’re not entirely wrong. Think about the difference between generic drugs and brand drugs. Brand drugs and their patents bring in much of the money generated by the pharmaceutical industries, even while it is possible to produce them much cheaper. When the patents run out, then the cheaper generic drugs flood the market, and the earnings for Big Pharma go down for those particular drugs.

It’s not wrong that Big Pharma makes a lot of money, nor that not everything is done for entirely altruistic purposes. “It could be done cheaper” is a valid argument that they propose, but nonetheless, the pseudoscientific process of homeopathy is not the way to go.

By: Zeno

Zeno — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:10:00 +0000

A good rebuttal to the AltMed nonsense about Big Pharma. Coincidentally, Skepitcat blogged about Amy Lansky yesterday: Homeopathy: there’s nothing in it. Part 1.

By: LoL

LoL — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:05:21 +0000

LOL. You\’re right. We don\’t get Big Pharma. Neither did George Washington (who understood the value of hemp – unlike the \’author\’ of this nonsense). http://not4me.tk | http://thymeforhemp.viviti.com makes more sense. *passes it on*

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:55:31 +0000

Ang on a minute – “Big Pharma would be buying their cures and saving countless billions in getting them to market.” – buying from whom? Surely these ‘antick remedyes’ are – diluted to ineoperability or not – just as available to big-pharma as they are to lil-apothecary right now? Why does ‘buying’ anything’ come into this at all? Unless I’ve missed something (which I feel I must have) then Lansky’s argument is not even wrong.

Companies don’t necessarily know what cures what – or what the most effective technique is. That’s what they would be effectively “buying”. – Phillis