Martin Shkreli hikes price of drug 5000%

[mpp]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/martin-shkreli-is-big-pharma-s-biggest-asshole.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0

just google his name, there are dozens of articles like the above.

basically this kid bought the rights to a drug that was discovered to help HIV+ patients and increased its price per pill 5000%.

now everyone screams outrage and blames capitalism probably based on emotions of injustice a la poor HIV+ patients are getting exploited. clinton of course is riding this wave to the fullest, using it for her agenda.

what do saner minds say about the above? is it a free-market failure, are people now dying because of a greedy capitalist? or is there more to the story or a different perspective?

please share your thoughts.

[mpp]

normally you could resolve such issues with the appeal to competitiveness in a free market, e.g. if one were to sell a bottle of water to a dehydrated person in the desert for 1 million dollars, you could just say someone else will sell it for 900,000, etc.

here it's more complicated because of patents, so it isn't as easy to come up with a competitive product, plus R&D expenses to develop one would probably not be justified as there aren't many people with the illnesses the pill is supposed to help cure.

the question you can ask: what is every company's goal? to make the maximum profit. so if this price increase leads to higher profits, we would have to say it is justified and good, even if it meant, hypothetically, that you make more money selling to the people that can afford the high prices than selling to everyone, fully recognising that those who can't buy it will die or suffer of bad health.

if the price increase yields lower profits because it diminishes demand, then of course it's bad. however the issue is additionally complicated by the fact that there are health insurances which would provide a stable demand for the medication.

thanks for contributing.

[jts]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/martin-shkreli-is-big-pharma-s-biggest-asshole.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0

just google his name, there are dozens of articles like the above.

basically this kid bought the rights to a drug that was discovered to help HIV+ patients and increased its price per pill 5000%.

now everyone screams outrage and blames capitalism probably based on emotions of injustice a la poor HIV+ patients are getting exploited. clinton of course is riding this wave to the fullest, using it for her agenda.

what do saner minds say about the above? is it a free-market failure, are people now dying because of a greedy capitalist? or is there more to the story or a different perspective?

please share your thoughts.

It can't be a 'free market failure' because we don't have a free market. If we did have a free market, companies that peddle poison drugs would get their asses kicked by the non-drug competition so hard that they would have to clear their throat to fart.

I have no sympathy for people who are gullible enough to pay $750 per pill. They get what they deserve. I wouldn't accept it for free.

It doesn't stop with $750 per pill. When the victim patient gets poisonous side effects from the drug, then big pharma gets to peddle more poisons drugs. And it gets better than that because drugs tend to be addicting. Congratulations to big pharma on a clever money making racket.

The correct dose of a drug is the dose that makes the most money. Too much and the patient dies and it's hard to make money out of dead people. Too little and the patient recovers and it's hard to make money out of healthy people.

The medical profession is in the business of torturing people. What do doctors do? Tests followed by diagnosis (which half of the time they get wrong) followed by cut poison burn. What do you call cut poison burn? Torture, what else. So doctors are in the business of torture. They torture you to death really slowly. The longer you stay alive, the more money they make. At least until either you or the government runs out of money. And they have most people brainwashed to think all this torture is something wonderful. A fun business to be in.

Don't look to government to protect you against companies that peddle poison. Government is probably the most crooked entity of all. There is a revolving door between government and big pharma. Don't let anyone except you do your thinking for you. Not government, not MDs (Medical Deities), not FDA (Fraud and Deception Administration), not Ayn Rand, nobody! Anyone besides you who makes decisions for you will make decisions for you to their advantage, not yours.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me. But they can't get me because I don't let them. I figure anyone who is not paranoid is crazy.

In a truly free market, doctors would be in the business of helping people to get well and to stay well, not to be confused with symptoms management. This means doctors would be in the business of putting themselves out of business. And the doctor who is the most effective in putting himself out of business (most effective in helping people to get well and to stay well) would get the most business. Quite logical. So in a truly free market with every doctor doing his best to put himself out of business (which is the only way he could stay in business in competition with other doctors doing the same), this process continued over time would eventually lead to a population with excellent health and little need for doctors.

[Guyau]

. . .

[turkeyfoot]

Interesting topic. As usual its but one example of drugs at exorbitant prices, politicians will use to their advantage.

Rather than make a pill more cheaply available to the masses, the kid figured hed make more money by appealing to a smaller market of those with funds enough.

Novartis invented Gleevec. Its hard to tell really if thats accurate due to an NIH scientist discovering how well the drug acted on the philadelphia gene. In any event, it was brought to market by the companies efforts. After 10 yrs the patent falls away and a drug becomes available in generic form. Its been delayed due to litigation by Novartis with the generic form maker.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304908304579563560797460496

"A seven-month delay of generic forms of Gleevec will probably cost U.S. consumers and our health system half a billion dollars or more,"

An insured person has avoided cancer being detected for 10+ yrs and avoided paying the wholesale cost of $300+ per day. There are 2 other CML drugs in the pipeline to assist patients with intolerable side effects from Gleevec, none of them cheap.

What price on a wonder drug capable of saving your life?? Gleevec was a truly remarkable discovery available only after yrs effort. I wouldnt want govt assistance in reducing prices nor would I expect the creator or marketer of a drug to take less than what they can get.

While saying you wouldnt pay $750 a day for a pill, if you had funds, I bet you would explore the downside of alternatives and come back to pay for a drug able to save your life.

What allows the kid to get the price he asks are the patients willing to pay. That leaves some without a benefit that others receive. In a free market, *especially* a free one unhampered by govt controls, its more likely than not that "chaos" ensues causing distortions in price at some level while leaving some unable to benefit. The free market is neutral about individual needs apart from profit motive.

With every bad example of unfettered Capitalism, safety from it is sought by its opponents. Thus has the market spoken in asking for a gun to be pointed.

[merjet]

According to CNBC, Turing Pharma CEO Martin Shkreli said yesterday he will lower the cost of Daraprim due to the public outrage. Shkreli doesn't say his company is losing money but suggests it.

According to Forbes, Shkreli suggests the extra revenue from the price hike would be used for R&D.

Turing Pharmaceuticals is a privately-held company, so it doesn't publish financial reports like publicly-traded companies. Anyway, losses (negative profits) for pharmaceutical companies are very common, especially smaller companies. Also, they spend a lot of money on R&D to develop a drug that generate no revenue. The only way to make a profit is to make big margins on a rare success.

[Guyau]

Thanks for the information, Merlin.

Jim Peron has additional perspective here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . .

My wife, oth, has CML. The street price for Novartis Gleevec is in excess of $300 per pill, one every day forever. The non deductible policy she has pays for the otherwise hefty expense. It goes generic next yr although we dont worry about the cost but whether her system will tolerate the cocktail recipe.

Never say never. )

Good luck with this, Eric.

[merjet]

Jim Peron has additional perspective here.

Thanks for that link. I was surprised to see an article like his on the leftist rag, the Huffington Post. This is way more typical.

Searching a bit, I found that the marketing rights to Daraprim changed hands twice in only 2015.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ: IPXL) today announced that it has sold its U.S. rights to the Daraprim brand to Turing Pharmaceuticals AG for approximately $55 million.

Impax acquired Daraprim as part of the Company's acquisition of Tower Holdings, Inc. (including operating subsidiaries CorePharma LLC and Amedra Pharmaceuticals LLC), and Lineage Therapeutics Inc. (together "Tower") which was completed on March 9, 2015. Link.

Wikipedia shows two other earlier owners.

I thought I might find a story about the FDA granting a monopoly on Daraprim -- as suggested by Peron's article -- but didn't find one. Of course, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The marketing rights may have changed hands a few more times since then.

[moralist]

mpp writes:

are people now dying because of a greedy capitalist? or is there more to the story or a different perspective?

How people die as a consequence of how they live.

If was going to die just because I couldn't get some drug, I'd first question what I was doing wrong that could cause such a weak dependent state of being.

I've said this before. America is a narcoculture where drugs are worshipped by secularists as gods.

If some guy wants to jack up the price of his own drug 5,000%, let the puppets dance to his tune as they deserve.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

mpp writes:

are people now dying because of a greedy capitalist? or is there more to the story or a different perspective?

How people die as a consequence of how they live.

If was going to die just because I couldn't get some drug, I'd first question what I was doing wrong that could cause such a weak dependent state of being.

I've said this before. America is a narcoculture where drugs are worshipped by secularists as gods.

If some guy wants to jack up the price of his own drug 5,000%, let the puppets dance to his tune as they deserve.

Greg

Your repetitive statements are essentially ideological only and you know little about medicine.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/martin-shkreli-is-big-pharma-s-biggest-asshole.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0

just google his name, there are dozens of articles like the above.

basically this kid bought the rights to a drug that was discovered to help HIV+ patients and increased its price per pill 5000%.

now everyone screams outrage and blames capitalism probably based on emotions of injustice a la poor HIV+ patients are getting exploited. clinton of course is riding this wave to the fullest, using it for her agenda.

what do saner minds say about the above? is it a free-market failure, are people now dying because of a greedy capitalist? or is there more to the story or a different perspective?

please share your thoughts.

It can't be a 'free market failure' because we don't have a free market. If we did have a free market, companies that peddle poison drugs would get their asses kicked by the non-drug competition so hard that they would have to clear their throat to fart.

I have no sympathy for people who are gullible enough to pay $750 per pill. They get what they deserve. I wouldn't accept it for free.

It doesn't stop with $750 per pill. When the victim patient gets poisonous side effects from the drug, then big pharma gets to peddle more poisons drugs. And it gets better than that because drugs tend to be addicting. Congratulations to big pharma on a clever money making racket.

The correct dose of a drug is the dose that makes the most money. Too much and the patient dies and it's hard to make money out of dead people. Too little and the patient recovers and it's hard to make money out of healthy people.

The medical profession is in the business of torturing people. What do doctors do? Tests followed by diagnosis (which half of the time they get wrong) followed by cut poison burn. What do you call cut poison burn? Torture, what else. So doctors are in the business of torture. They torture you to death really slowly. The longer you stay alive, the more money they make. At least until either you or the government runs out of money. And they have most people brainwashed to think all this torture is something wonderful. A fun business to be in.

Don't look to government to protect you against companies that peddle poison. Government is probably the most crooked entity of all. There is a revolving door between government and big pharma. Don't let anyone except you do your thinking for you. Not government, not MDs (Medical Deities), not FDA (Fraud and Deception Administration), not Ayn Rand, nobody! Anyone besides you who makes decisions for you will make decisions for you to their advantage, not yours.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me. But they can't get me because I don't let them. I figure anyone who is not paranoid is crazy.

In a truly free market, doctors would be in the business of helping people to get well and to stay well, not to be confused with symptoms management. This means doctors would be in the business of putting themselves out of business. And the doctor who is the most effective in putting himself out of business (most effective in helping people to get well and to stay well) would get the most business. Quite logical. So in a truly free market with every doctor doing his best to put himself out of business (which is the only way he could stay in business in competition with other doctors doing the same), this process continued over time would eventually lead to a population with excellent health and little need for doctors.

Your approach to your favorite subject area is basically ideological leavened by factual cherry-picking and well-banked hysteria.

--Brant

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Your repetitive statements are essentially ideological only and you know little about medicine.

You're absolutely spot on, Brant.

There's no need to know about drugs if you know about health. Health is simple. Drugs are complicated and only treat symptoms without ever touching causes.

I don't belong to the narcoculture drug worshipping religion.

I worship Elsewhere.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Your approach to your favorite subject area is basically ideological leavened by factual cherry-picking and well-banked hysteria.

In my opinion, Jerry is right.

In America today, drugs are a secular religion.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Brant writes:

Your approach to your favorite subject area is basically ideological leavened by factual cherry-picking and well-banked hysteria.

In my opinion, Jerry is right.

In America today, drugs are a secular religion.

Greg

Apey doesn't understand what the word "secular" means. He probably also believes that there are married bachelors.

How did this moron end up here?

J

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:

Apey doesn't understand what the word "secular" means.

It means having nothing to do with religion or spirituality... but that does not mean people can't be religious about non religious things.

In secular leftist America today, drugs are a secular religion because they are worshipped as gods. And so is perversion, and abortion. Those are the three pillars of faith in the secular political religion of leftism.

Greg

[Jonathan]

If that's what you're trying to say, then the way to say it, without being an apey moron, would be that you think that drugs and perversions, etc., are the left's religion. Get it?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

Your repetitive statements are essentially ideological only and you know little about medicine.

You're absolutely spot on, Brant.

There's no need to know about drugs if you know about health. Health is simple. Drugs are complicated and only treat symptoms without ever touching causes.

I don't belong to the narcoculture drug worshipping religion.

I worship Elsewhere.

Greg

If you had 10% a notion of what your body does biologically you'd be able to begin to understand the real complexity of what goes on in a body and medicine as a discipline. There are four categories one can work off of: good health; maintaining good health; bad health; correcting bad health. "Health" as good health means the body is doing all the work. Maybe not all the work for good long term results, but probably good enough for starters (and biological reproduction). This is remarkable considering the incredible complexity of a human being from the DNA on up. The simplicity you find in your health is the only place for it. It's all in your head, not your body. That's just the first of the four. Jumping over to the fourth there are so many specialties no doctor would fail to avail himself of another specialist in his own treatment. A dermatologist does not pretend to be a cardiologist and it would be a stupid cardio guy to make believe he is a dermatologist.

--Brant

[jts]

Brant writes:

Your repetitive statements are essentially ideological only and you know little about medicine.

You're absolutely spot on, Brant.

There's no need to know about drugs if you know about health. Health is simple. Drugs are complicated and only treat symptoms without ever touching causes.

I don't belong to the narcoculture drug worshipping religion.

I worship Elsewhere.

Greg

If you had 10% a notion of what your body does biologically you'd be able to begin to understand the real complexity of what goes on in a body and medicine as a discipline. There are four categories one can work off of: good health; maintaining good health; bad health; correcting bad health. "Health" as good health means the body is doing all the work. Maybe not all the work for good long term results, but probably good enough for starters (and biological reproduction). This is remarkable considering the incredible complexity of a human being from the DNA on up. The simplicity you find in your health is the only place for it. It's all in your head, not your body. That's just the first of the four. Jumping over to the fourth there are so many specialties no doctor would fail to avail himself of another specialist in his own treatment. A dermatologist does not pretend to be a cardiologist and it would be a stupid cardio guy to make believe he is a dermatologist.

--Brant

The body has some resemblance to a very complexicated machine, like Star Trek or beyond technology. Imagine a machine that is self-maintaining and self-repairing. Someone asks: how does it work? You answer: ahh... hrm ... very well. It doesn't get any simpler than that. The problem starts when you take a sledge hammer and damage it beyond its self-repair ability. Then it gets complexicated as all hell and you need to call in those thousands of specialists and they probably can't do a damn thing.

In the case of severe but reparable damage, the machine might need to go into shutdown mode for self-repair, like sleep or fasting in biological machines.

About drugs:

Drugs are poisons. They mask symptoms, creating the illusion of health. They 'work' because they are poisons. What are side effects? Side effects are poisonous effects. But drug pushers call them side effects because that sounds nicer. If you had the same side effects from an unknown plant, you would have no difficulty recognizing these side effects as poisonous effects.

[william.scherk]

Brant writes:

Your repetitive statements are essentially ideological only and you know little about medicine.

You're absolutely spot on, Brant.

There's no need to know about drugs if you know about health. Health is simple. Drugs are complicated and only treat symptoms without ever touching causes

If you had 10% a notion of what your body does biologically you'd be able to begin to understand the real complexity of what goes on in a body and medicine as a discipline.

It is curious. What Greg may not take on board is progress in medicine. What were once deadly diseases can be successfully treated in novel ways, built on a understanding of complex disease states. One promising treatment is "targeted cellular therapy," part of what is known more generally as 'molecular medicine.' To over-simplify grossly, therapy acts to redress key metabolic processes at work in tumours, for example in acute cancers, where the only other therapy option (aside from hospice care) may be dangerous bone-marrow transplantation. For some folks with some disorders and cancers, gene therapy may serve as an alternative to certain death.

Here, for example is a report -- in simple language -- that announced effective cures for a particularly insidious cancer. From http://singularityhub.com/-- Gene Therapy Turns Several Leukemia Patients Cancer Free. Will It Work for Other Cancers, Too?:

Targeted cellular therapy is an extension of long-standing efforts to ramp up the patient’s own immune system to destroy cancer cells. With advances in genetics, doctors can now reconfigure patients’ T cells to target a particular type of cancer cell.

June and Porter removed the patients' T cells and genetically “rebuilt” and multiplied them before reintroducing them into the patient's bloodstream. The weaponized T cells find and destroy all cells with the protein CD19 on their surface, which includes the cancerous B cells found in chronic and acute lymphocytic leukemia.

Patient Doug Olson had long suffered from chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or CLL, when in 2010 he became one of the first patients to undergo targeted cellular therapy. A few weeks after his treatment, June and Porter could find no cancer cells in Olson’s body.

“The immune system eradicated his tumor. He had pounds — literally pounds — of tumor, and it went away in less than a week. It was an astonishing event that we saw,” June said in a Penn video.

More than 3 years later, Olson still shows no signs of CLL. Other early patients have also remained in remission, according to the doctors.

“There are clues that the T cells continue to kill leukemia cells in the body for months after treatment. Even in patients who had only a partial response, we often found that all cancer cells disappeared from their blood and bone marrow, and their lymph nodes continued to shrink over time. In some cases, we have seen partial responses convert to complete remissions over several months,” Porter said in a news release. [embedded links at source]

I am imagining a sunny day conversation with Greg on the subject of this 'drug' therapy.

Brant: what do you think of this new therapy?

Greg: Narcoculture.

Brant: let me read it to you slowly.

Greg: Libertine socialized narcoculture.

Brant: This therapy apparently cured a deadly cancer, removed tumours, and gave these folks a chance at a normal life.

Greg: Lies. God makes cancer to punish. You get what you deserve. Narcoculture. Feminized drug-worship perversion. Hi Jerry. Take a seat.

Brant: I am going to chug this whiskey and try again. [pause] Okay, what do you think about this apparent cure?

Greg: Shmitah. End-times. Narco-feminized secular narco narco.

Brant: You are insane. You treat your fucking dog with anti-flea 'drugs.'

Greg: No I do not. And if I did, I would use masculine drugs. Beep.

Jerry: Drugs are poison. In 1862, it was all explained by Trall. Completely and utterly.

Brant: Good-bye. I have left a housewarming present. It is on its way to the septic tank.

Jerry: Drugs are poison. Copy paste cut poison burn. Medicine is no better than it was in Trall's age. He cured leprosy, typhoid, cholera, smallpox with fasting, coffee enemas and fresh air. And stern looks. And sunbathing. And more stern looks.

Greg: Damn right. Wanna go for a train ride?

In the event that this fantasy is 100% bullshit and does not resemble what Jerry and Greg think about the promise of molecular therapy, an open question to our two health 'experts.'

Jerry, Greg, what do you think about this kind of therapy -- does it fit within your understanding of all medicine as variants of 'cut-burn-poision' -- or does it open in your mind a new category?

Hello? Hello?

Edited September 24, 2015 by william.scherk

[jts]

If a therapy is heroic (you can't do it yourself) and expensive and selective (works only on 1 health problem), then there is nothing wrong with it from the point of view of making money even if it works. The medical profession has no problem saving your life, because they can't make money out of you if you are dead. But they wouldn't want you to prevent the disease in the first place so you don't need their heroic and expensive and selective therapy thereby screwing their plan to make money out of you.

There is another kind of molecular therapy. Not targeted to any one single health problem but to health in general. That's called nutrition. In the case of a very serious health problem, 'overdosing on nutrition'. This can improve health at the cellular level. There are multiple forms of nutrition therapy. One of them is Gerson therapy. And btw, Trall did not use coffee enemas.

Why targeted? Charlotte Gerson says it is not possible to heal selectively. Often when people have cancer, they have other health problems. In fact it's probably not possible to have cancer without also having other health problems. How could the nutritional problems that caused the cancer not cause other health problems? I don't see how that could be possible. With few or no exceptions, every tissue in the body needs every nutrient. When the cancer reverses with Gerson therapy (or somesuch overdosing on nutrition therapy), everything tends to heal, not just the cancer. The body becomes a healing machine, which it always was, it just needed some nutrients to work with.

Why is it that a success story based on something heroic and extremely expensive is accepted while a success story based on nutrition and/or fasting is rejected? In the 1st case the medical profession (they would have you believe) is in control of your health. In the 2nd case you are in control of your health. Heaven forbid you to be in control of your own health. How the hell are they going to make money out of you if you are in control of your own health?

Why is nutrition therapy (Gerson therapy) illegal in the USA and poison therapy is enforced by law (chemotherapy on children)? Why? Not to support freedom of choice. More likely to protect their business against competition by force of law because they can't compete honestly in a free market.

Chemotherapy sometimes works in the limited sense that it kills the cancer. But it does nothing to remove poisons that contributed to causing the cancer and is itself a poison. And it does nothing to correct the nutritional problems that contributed to causing the cancer. Oncologists even go so far as to tell their patient to avoid anti-cancer foods because they fight the chemo. The cancer goes away if it doesn't kill the patient first, does damage to the patient while killing the cancer, and then with the causes of the cancer not corrected, the cancer comes back, and it comes back worse. And if you think Gerson therapy is expensive, look at how expensive chemotherapy is.

[william.scherk]

Jerry, take a moment to understand my question. The disorder/disease for which the genetic therapy showed great promise of permanent cure -- acute leukemia.

The Gerson therapy, as you should know, but perhaps do not, offers its products and services in the United States. Moreover, they have a long list of conditions and stages of disease for which they will not provide therapy. Notably among them is, you guessed it, acute leukemia.

Maybe you want to try answering again? Give it some time and thought, please.

-- for other readers looking for a critical examination of the Gerson Therapy, a sad and sobering report from James Randi's site, written by William M. London: Charlotte Gerson: Promoter of cancer “therapy” that failed the “Wellness Warrior”

[jts]

Jerry, take a moment to understand my question. The disorder/disease for which the genetic therapy showed great promise of permanent cure -- acute leukemia.

The Gerson therapy, as you should know, but perhaps do not, offers its products and services in the United States. Moreover, they have a long list of conditions and stages of disease for which they will not provide therapy. Notably among them is, you guessed it, acute leukemia.

Maybe you want to try answering again? Give it some time and thought, please.

-- for other readers looking for a critical examination of the Gerson Therapy, a sad and sobering report from James Randi's site, written by William M. London: Charlotte Gerson: Promoter of cancer “therapy” that failed the “Wellness Warrior”

What is the question? If it works, it works. We will see how it plays out. We have seen promises before that didn't work so well and had negatives. Based on the record for modifying genes by gene gun, they have a long way to go before they can do it without collateral gene damage and without unforseen consequences. And what if in a given case, the leukemia is not caused by a bad gene? Then there is no bad gene to change and gene therapy would not help.

I believe people should have the legal freedom to choose or reject any therapy, including genetic, chemo, Gerson, whatever. Let them all compete in a free market.

Gerson therapy used to be banned in the USA; that's why Charlotte Gerson moved to Mexico. Maybe the law changed since.

I don't see how Charlotte Gerson's bragging about her good health at her advanced age is a debunking point. I don't see that as proof of anything one way or the other. Even if her good health at her age is impressive, it is only one data point in the bell shaped curve. I'm not even convinced that her health is good (or bad); I've heard that line before.

I am well aware that Gerson therapy doesn't work for some health problems. So what?

Debunking Gerson therapy based on only 1 failure? Nobody claimed a 100% success rate. I heard a claim of 40% success rate for advanced cancers and 90% success rate for mild cancers. A success rate of 50% success rate for advanced cancers was claimed for a more advanced form of Gerson therapy not approved by Charlotte Gerson.

Nutrition is a science, capable of development, with improvements in Gerson therapy. Charlotte looks upon Gerson therapy as more or less written in stone by God her father Max Gerson, with only herself having the authority to change it. She legally owns the name Gerson. Then there are other Gerson therapy doctors who look upon Gerson therapy as a work in progress, keeping pace with every advance in nutritional science, as Max Gerson did. They cannot legally call themselves Gerson therapy doctors because of Charlotte. Something a bit like Peikoff vs Kelley; closed Objectivism vs open Objectivism.

What would be your response if someone tried to debunk chemotherapy or genetic therapy or whatever your favorite therapy based on only 1 failure? Probably everything known to man could be debunked that way.

Some of the Gerson therapy patients got chemotherapy prior to getting Gerson therapy. The chemo, being a poison, reduces the chance of success of Gerson. At some point there is no return.

Gerson therapy is difficult to do properly on one's own. If it is not done properly, the result can be failure. This is, I think, a serious negative of Gerson therapy and probably accounts for lots of failures. But if you have lots of money, you can get professionals to help you. Still much cheaper and better than chemo.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

Your repetitive statements are essentially ideological only and you know little about medicine.

You're absolutely spot on, Brant.

There's no need to know about drugs if you know about health. Health is simple. Drugs are complicated and only treat symptoms without ever touching causes.

I don't belong to the narcoculture drug worshipping religion.

I worship Elsewhere.

Greg

If you had 10% a notion of what your body does biologically you'd be able to begin to understand the real complexity of what goes on in a body and medicine as a discipline. There are four categories one can work off of: good health; maintaining good health; bad health; correcting bad health. "Health" as good health means the body is doing all the work. Maybe not all the work for good long term results, but probably good enough for starters (and biological reproduction). This is remarkable considering the incredible complexity of a human being from the DNA on up. The simplicity you find in your health is the only place for it. It's all in your head, not your body. That's just the first of the four. Jumping over to the fourth there are so many specialties no doctor would fail to avail himself of another specialist in his own treatment. A dermatologist does not pretend to be a cardiologist and it would be a stupid cardio guy to make believe he is a dermatologist.

--Brant

The body has some resemblance to a very complexicated machine, like Star Trek or beyond technology. Imagine a machine that is self-maintaining and self-repairing. Someone asks: how does it work? You answer: ahh... hrm ... very well. It doesn't get any simpler than that. The problem starts when you take a sledge hammer and damage it beyond its self-repair ability. Then it gets complexicated as all hell and you need to call in those thousands of specialists and they probably can't do a damn thing.

In the case of severe but reparable damage, the machine might need to go into shutdown mode for self-repair, like sleep or fasting in biological machines.

About drugs:

Drugs are poisons. They mask symptoms, creating the illusion of health. They 'work' because they are poisons. What are side effects? Side effects are poisonous effects. But drug pushers call them side effects because that sounds nicer. If you had the same side effects from an unknown plant, you would have no difficulty recognizing these side effects as poisonous effects.

So too is water--or it can be; the dose makes the poison.

--Brant

[jts]

So too is water--or it can be; the dose makes the poison.

--Brant

I explained this before. You didn't pay attention.

Drugs are poison in any amount.

[moralist]

Brant writes:

If you had 10% a notion of what your body does biologically you'd be able to begin to understand the real complexity of what goes on in a body...

Take another look at what I said, Brant.

I said health is simple... not my body.

...and medicine as a discipline.

By default, medicine is for when the discipline of health is lost. And it only suppresses symptoms without ever addressing or resolving causes. This fact assures the continued life of the pharmaceutical industry.

America is a NARCOCULTURE.

Last year over 4,000,000,000 drug prescriptions were written.

This fact is irrefutable

so I rest my case.

Greg