Big Pharma's Secret History

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Heroin, cocaine and morphine were once widely used by corporations, governments and in the medical profession for all sorts of things we would now cringe about.

So what is the difference between using morphine opposed to heroin in a clinical setting, ie, pain management? They still used opiate derivatives in cough syrups, ie hydrocodone & codeine. What is causing you to cringe exactly?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

So what is the difference between using morphine opposed to heroin in a clinical setting, ie, pain management? They still used opiate derivatives in cough syrups, ie hydrocodone & codeine. What is causing you to cringe exactly?

Tradition is the difference, as far as I understand it. Morphine was a more acceptable and known quantity at the time. Heroin was grouped in with cocaine and other substances that were believed to have little medical value and posed more of a "danger" to society.

I easily cringe at the use of cocaine in Coca-cola, the use of heroin in psychological "treatments"....just examples of people using substances and drugs without understanding the consequences.

soulsinging

gue_barium wrote:

WTF are you talking about? The original post was an informative article. The post you're questioning seems to have nothing to do with what you're asking the poster.

the original post was a ridiculous propaganda piece. the foxnews of the left. it says pharma companies are so evil and business smart, they invented a horrible drug like heroin, then promptly tried to get it outlawed so as to eliminate competition (which makes no sense becos until it was outlawed there was no competition!). the article is so distorted and conclusory that you'd be a fool to take it seriously. he started writing this with the agenda that pharmas are evil (so buy my books and videos instead) and then dug up a very small and select handful of facts, distorted a few others, and strung them together in a nonsensical and contradictory manner to make a nice sounding article that digs at his competitors and is a pretty effective sales pitch... if you're one of the people who thinks michael moore and loose change are objective information sources.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Tradition is the difference, as far as I understand it. Morphine was a more acceptable and known quantity at the time. Heroin was grouped in with cocaine and other substances that were believed to have little medical value and posed more of a "danger" to society.

I easily cringe at the use of cocaine in Coca-cola, the use of heroin in psychological "treatments"....just examples of people using substances and drugs without understanding the consequences.

you're so square... you know you wanna have some couples therapy with mdma

though the cia using lsd in interrogation is a scary thought... that would be one bad trip.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Tradition is the difference, as far as I understand it. Morphine was a more acceptable and known quantity at the time. Heroin was grouped in with cocaine and other substances that were believed to have little medical value and posed more of a "danger" to society.

I easily cringe at the use of cocaine in Coca-cola, the use of heroin in psychological "treatments"....just examples of people using substances and drugs without understanding the consequences.

I think you missed the point of Baraka's post. What you are basically saying it is alright for government regulation (hell just froze over) of illicit drugs, as long as doctors and pharmacueticals are running the show.

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

you're so square... you know you wanna have some couples therapy with mdma

though the cia using lsd in interrogation is a scary thought... that would be one bad trip.

Unless it was Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. being interrogated. I fantasize about that, that would make some good primetime TV.

soulsinging

gue_barium wrote:

I think you missed the point of Baraka's post. What you are basically saying it is alright for government regulation (hell just froze over) of illicit drugs, as long as doctors and pharmacueticals are running the show.

if you think this is what ffg is saying, then maybe you've never read a post by ffg before

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

I think you missed the point of Baraka's post. What you are basically saying it is alright for government regulation (hell just froze over) of illicit drugs, as long as doctors and pharmacueticals are running the show.

I'm not saying it's all right for government regulation. I think the production and sale of drugs should be completely free of all regulation. If Pfizer wants to make and sell heroin, what do I care? If you want to make Meth in your basement and kill yourself with it, I think that's your right.

I was simply answering the question of why heroin and morphine were treated somewhat differently in the regulatory environment 100 years ago.

soulsinging

gue_barium wrote:

Unless it was Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. being interrogated. I fantasize about that, that would make some good primetime TV.

im not sure it would make a difference for them. im pretty sure they've been on lsd for 7 straight years now. it's the only way to explain his policies.

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

im not sure it would make a difference for them. im pretty sure they've been on lsd for 7 straight years now. it's the only way to explain his policies.

oh man. lol...i dunno, maybe lsd has some flashback policies of it's own.

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

the original post was a ridiculous propaganda piece. the foxnews of the left. it says pharma companies are so evil and business smart, they invented a horrible drug like heroin, then promptly tried to get it outlawed so as to eliminate competition (which makes no sense becos until it was outlawed there was no competition!). the article is so distorted and conclusory that you'd be a fool to take it seriously. he started writing this with the agenda that pharmas are evil (so buy my books and videos instead) and then dug up a very small and select handful of facts, distorted a few others, and strung them together in a nonsensical and contradictory manner to make a nice sounding article that digs at his competitors and is a pretty effective sales pitch... if you're one of the people who thinks michael moore and loose change are objective information sources.

It's a simple article giving some simple historical facts. Jesus Christ.

soulsinging

gue_barium wrote:

It's a simple article giving some simple historical facts. Jesus Christ.

but ffg has pointed out some of those facts are flat out wrong or at best misrepresented or circumstantial. and they are interspersed with ridiculous conclusory allegations like the pharmas being behind the narcotics bans to eliminate competition. all in all, this is a pretty poorly written and inaccurate "article" that serves little informative purpose. it's just the kind of dirty campaigning you all love to hate... he's trying to paint them as the hand of darth vader to move more of HIS product. the pharmaceutical companies are dirty enough, you don't need a joke of an article like this of dubious credibility to expose their disgusting policies.

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

but ffg has pointed out some of those facts are flat out wrong or at best misrepresented or circumstantial. and they are interspersed with ridiculous conclusory allegations like the pharmas being behind the narcotics bans to eliminate competition. all in all, this is a pretty poorly written and inaccurate "article" that serves little informative purpose. it's just the kind of dirty campaigning you all love to hate... he's trying to paint them as the hand of darth vader to move more of HIS product. the pharmaceutical companies are dirty enough, you don't need a joke of an article like this of dubious credibility to expose their disgusting policies.

They are evil. I know this first hand.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Tradition is the difference, as far as I understand it. Morphine was a more acceptable and known quantity at the time. Heroin was grouped in with cocaine and other substances that were believed to have little medical value and posed more of a "danger" to society.

You are correct. It is all very interesting. Morphine is actually more dangerous than heroin, not that heroin by any means is a 'safe' drug.

farfromglorified wrote:

I easily cringe at the use of cocaine in Coca-cola, the use of heroin in psychological "treatments"....just examples of people using substances and drugs without understanding the consequences.

nerd

Although I've never heard of heroin used for 'psychological treatments', the fact that cocaine was used in coca-cola is very interesting, indeed. Didn't Freud think cocaine was a 'treatment' for morphine addiction?

Just an aside, while we are talking about drugs/toxicity.......did you know that water can be deadly, that you can 'overdose' on water. Too much water in a short period of time causes hyponatremia which can lead to death. Just an interesting little fact..........

soulsinging

gue_barium wrote:

They are evil. I know this first hand.

i've no doubt about that. but i dont think this article really gives the right reasons. it's confused and contradictory and, like i said, just propaganda to sell this guy's healthy living system. there's no doubt they're one of the more brutal industries out there, if not the most brutal (minus maybe the health insurance industry), but this article doesn't really say why. just has some nonsensical drug conspiracy bunk. they do very real and shady things. but this article only talks about the cheapest, most tenuous "future tom cruise movie" reasons for it.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

They are evil. I know this first hand.

Oh...then it's proven.

Look, have pharmaceutical companies done unethical things in their history? Very much so, yes. Have they done illegal things in their history? Very much so, yes. Have they also saved a lot of lives and helped a lot of people that wouldn't have been helped otherwise? Very much so, yes.

This author is grouping a bunch of companies, current and historic, together and pretending they're all the same evil. He grabs onto a handful of facts and then extrapolates them into all sorts of ridiculous conclusions in the guise of fact. Soulsinging is right -- it's a total propaganda piece that serves to push this guy's own approach and products.

All that said, I'm actually more in agreement with this dope than his target. I tend to agree that pharmaceutical products are too often abused, poorly understood, and carelessly prescribed. We have a drug-addicted culture in a lot of ways, and it masks better alternatives. But to lampoon an industry as causing that addiction while their products are the most heavily regulated in the world is pretty silly. The primary drivers of drug use (legal or otherwise) are consumers, not pharmaceutical companies.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Yeah...I really want to know what a "BioPhotonic scanner score" is.

http://www.cadoninc.com/bpscanner.htm

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

You are correct. It is all very interesting. Morphine is actually more dangerous than heroin, not that heroin by any means is a 'safe' drug.

nerd

Although I've never heard of heroin used for 'psychological treatments', the fact that cocaine was used in coca-cola is very interesting, indeed. Didn't Freud think cocaine was a 'treatment' for morphine addiction?

Just an aside, while we are talking about drugs/toxicity.......did you know that water can be deadly, that you can 'overdose' on water. Too much water in a short period of time causes hyponatremia which can lead to death. Just an interesting little fact..........

I think heroin was used as a "treatment" for morphine addiction, but I suppose that means cocaine would have been a likely candidate as well.

Definitely on the water thing! I can't think of a single substance you can't "overdose" on. Oxygen too.

baraka

gue_barium wrote:

I think you missed the point of Baraka's post. What you are basically saying it is alright for government regulation (hell just froze over) of illicit drugs, as long as doctors and pharmacueticals are running the show.

Actually, I was taking a stab at our government's silly 'war on drugs'. I work in the medical field and I can tell you a lot of the docs & pharmacists think what is deemed 'illegal' & what isn't is ridiculous.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

The primary drivers of drug use (legal or otherwise) are consumers, not pharmaceutical companies.

No, it's the illusion of cure. Pharm's spend more on marketing and sales than they do research and development. Most of those ridiculous drugs we see advertised on television today are nothing more than slightly altered drugs that have been around for years and years.