# Not a good sign



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I read recently that drug companies spend 19 dollars of advertising per 1 dollar R&D. I don't have the link as I am on my phone but if this is true what does that say about big pharma?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I would love to help them redirect those funds. 

They should not be able to advertise to the general public. Who can't buy their product directly anyway. All those TV and print ads need to stop.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I agree with that but as it stands right now it's not illegal. I have read articles that state they "make up" diseases. What they really meant was they make you think you have that disease and go to your doctor with all the above symptoms. Just about every commercial I could relate to in some small way. 

It's my opinion they are in the business of creating people scared for their life and giving them an easy way to "fix" it by selling them a cure.


----------



## gerold (Jul 18, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I agree with that but as it stands right now it's not illegal. I have read articles that state they "make up" diseases. What they really meant was they make you think you have that disease and go to your doctor with all the above symptoms. Just about every commercial I could relate to in some small way.
> 
> If it wasn't for the drug sales people informing the Doc. about new med. the Doc. would be up the creek.
> 
> It's my opinion they are in the business of creating people scared for their life and giving them an easy way to "fix" it by selling them a cure.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

America is a the only first world nation that allows big pharma to advertise on television.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> I would love to help them redirect those funds.
> 
> They *should not be able to advertise to the general public*. Who can't buy their product directly anyway. All those TV and print ads need to stop.


I agree 1,000%


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well I don’t think companies should be allowed but since they are why do you think their freedom of speech should be restricted ?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

A corporation is not and never should be considered a "person" with the same rights as a "person" - they are an entity created on paper.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I totally agree with you but the Supreme Court of United States does not .


They are blatantly unconstitutional


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

They are a business trying to make money. If people are not smart enough to see through the marketing hype then it is there own fault. Making new laws to protect stupid people from themselves is not a good idea.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

"This may fix your ED, but note some users have experienced blackouts, depression and suicidal thoughts, seizures, swallowing of the tongue, random fits of rage, liver failure, temporary blindness, nausea and vomiting, ringing of the ears, severe headaches and cramping, swelling of the extremities, bleeding from the eyes, hair and nail loss and night sweats."

Seems more like a product that needs a little more R&D before the commericials comes out.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...you forgot the part about random body parts falling off...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> I read recently that drug companies spend 19 dollars of advertising per 1 dollar R&D. I don't have the link as I am on my phone but if this is true what does that say about big pharma?


That it's a highly competitive market would be my guess.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> A corporation is not and never should be considered a "person" with the same rights as a "person" -* they are an entity created on paper.*


as opposed to entities created on satin sheets, back seats of automobiles, in elevators, and on numerous other surfaces!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> They are blatantly unconstitutional


Interesting, how do you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> as opposed to entities created on satin sheets, back seats of automobiles, in elevators, and on numerous other surfaces!


I see you know your way around.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Seems more like a product that needs a little more R&D before the commericials comes out.


If just one person during testing has any of those side effects, they have to be listed.
The vast majority have none of those side effects at all.

Some act like they would be happier if we went back 100 years when 45 was "old age" for a lot of people.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Honestly, I think I prefer eating organic over processed, working outdoors over a gym membership and binge tv, and herbs and herbal medicine over synthetics, steroids, and Siri, but thats just me.
If it were 45 full years vs 60 in a grind and another 30 in a home, meh....


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

The other $18 should be spent on looking at all the interactions between medications and the side effects on the patient and subsequent generations...

Yvonne's Hubby, DH got a chuckle out of your comment!


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> It's my opinion they are in the business of creating people scared for their life and giving them an easy way to "fix" it by selling them a cure.


Yup.. I agree 100%.. 

Products have been sold that way for over 2000 years.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Well I don’t think companies should be allowed but since they are why do you think their freedom of speech should be restricted ?


Why do they restrict the freedom of speech for big tobacco?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That it's a highly competitive market would be my guess.


Keep *guessing* then. Only one company sells Ambien. There is no competition per se. Its my *guess *they instead make people think they need to take it instead of looking at other issues that could cause the insomnia. OTC Benadryl is a competitor but you dont see it advertised on TV as such. In fact my doctor told me to take Benadryl if I cant sleep well. I dont take pills though so I just get by as best as I can. 

Prolly should have took one tonight lol.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Murby said:


> Yup.. I agree 100%..
> 
> Products have been sold that way for over 2000 years.


Try 8000 years. You forgot to bash the Jews too. You are slipping in your old age.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Keep *guessing* then. Only one company sells Ambien. There is no competition per se. Its my *guess *they instead make people think they need to take it instead of looking at other issues that could cause the insomnia. OTC Benadryl is a competitor but you dont see it advertised on TV as such. In fact my doctor told me to take Benadryl if I cant sleep well. I dont take pills though so I just get by as best as I can.
> 
> Prolly should have took one tonight lol.


Ambien. My advice - steer clear of it. It is a hallucinatory drug. Doctor prescribed it for me - took it one evening, had a beer or two... woke up the next day in my underwear on the couch, mud up to my thighs, no idea where I nor the clothes that I was wearing that night went...

Not understanding [it was a long time ago] that I might be contributing to the rest of the area having a divergent thought or two, I dumped the whole bottle in the crapper and sent it on it's way...


----------



## Bungiex88 (Jan 2, 2016)

Big pharmaceutical is just 1 faction of many that run this world


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That it's a highly competitive market would be my guess.


Yes it is.
Just ask any drug dealer in any city.........white coat OR trench coat.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> Ambien. My advice - steer clear of it. It is a hallucinatory drug. Doctor prescribed it for me - took it one evening, had a beer or two... woke up the next day in my underwear on the couch, mud up to my thighs, no idea where I nor the clothes that I was wearing that night went...
> 
> Not understanding [it was a long time ago] that I might be contributing to the rest of the area having a divergent thought or two, I dumped the whole bottle in the crapper and sent it on it's way...


I never fill any narcotic type scrip. To be honest I am afraid I will like it too much. When I had my hernia surgery I just took Motrin and did the best I could.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Keep *guessing* then. Only one company sells Ambien. There is no competition per se. Its my *guess *they instead make people think they need to take it instead of looking at other issues that could cause the insomnia. OTC Benadryl is a competitor but you dont see it advertised on TV as such. In fact my doctor told me to take Benadryl if I cant sleep well. I dont take pills though so I just get by as best as I can.
> 
> Prolly should have took one tonight lol.


Without "big Pharma" I'd have died most likely a number of years ago. Condemn the medical world all you want but they have added many years to a lot of lives.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> Try 8000 years. You forgot to bash the Jews too. You are slipping in your old age.


And yet, people still haven't learned anything so they keep pulling the same sales routine over and over. 

Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the Universe. _Albert Einstein


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

Here is a scientist take on this topic


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nothing will ever matter until honest people rule the world. Until then, very few people will care about your well being as much as they care about how much they can take from you. That's the sad thing.

I know... I see it every day.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

[QUOTE=" I dumped the whole bottle in the crapper and sent it on it's way...[/QUOTE]

I'm sure the fish appreciated that, now if we could only get millions of people to do the same.........


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Without "big Pharma" I'd have died most likely a number of years ago. Condemn the medical world all you want but they have added many years to a lot of lives.


I'm not bashing the researchers of medicine. I'm bashing the advertisers and the way they can seem to get people to think there is something serious wrong with them. 

The doctors saved your life. There ones that diagnosed you and the ones that created your medicine. It wasn't the ones in the TV screen. 

Btw, glad you're still here.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> Nothing will ever matter until honest people rule the world. Until then, very few people will care about your well being as much as they care about how much they can take from you. That's the sad thing.
> 
> I know... I see it every day.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Without "big Pharma" I'd have died most likely a number of years ago. Condemn the medical world all you want but they have added many years to a lot of lives.


Yep.
Like every profession, they aren't ALL bad.
You were lucky enough to have your life saved instead of shortened, but don't confuse your luck with someone else's.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Murby said:


> And yet, people still haven't learned anything so they keep pulling the same sales routine over and over.
> 
> Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the Universe. _Albert Einstein


You forgot another infinite commodity, the arrogance of man.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> Why do they restrict the freedom of speech for big tobacco?


Because its "bad" and once the public decides you are "Bad" you have no rights. Just one of the downsides of democracy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> They are a business trying to make money. If people are not smart enough to see through the marketing hype then it is there own fault. Making new laws to protect stupid people from themselves is not a good idea.


 But isn't this a case of protecting stupid people from those that would take advantage of them?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting, how do you arrive at that conclusion?


You are not to be deprived of your propert without a trail. 
Its a individual thing too, group theft isn't allowed.
I think it might be covered here;
*Amendment IV*

T*he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable *searches and *seizures, shall not be violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

*Amendment V*
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;* nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.*


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> You are not to be deprived of your propert without a trail.
> Its a individual thing too, group theft isn't allowed.
> I think it might be covered here;
> *Amendment IV*
> ...


Apparently I misunderstood your previous comment. I thought you meant corporations were unconstitutional. Sorry bout that. My bad.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

That’s exactly what I meant. The only Unique quality of a corporation is limited liability. Limiting that liability for the corporation means they are depriving others of the ability to recover damages ahead of time.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

............Doctors use to be objective in their relationships with their patients ! Now , they are bribed by Big Pharma to Prescribe 'Their' products with the most expensive drugs finding favor over the generics . And , pharma buys the generic mfgers and immediately raises the prices . , fordy


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

A private healthcare system should be more like a YMCA or a gym membership. You're a member, you get all services, right down to retirement home care and mental health. Suddenly their priorities become prevention and cure, and to make their customers as comfortable as possible for as cheap as possible. As long as there's competition, anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> That’s exactly what I meant. The only Unique quality of a corporation is limited liability. Limiting that liability for the corporation means they are depriving others of the ability to recover damages ahead of time.


So, in your mind corporations cannot be held responsible for damages caused to others. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with all of the lawsuits being filed and won against them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, in your mind corporations cannot be held responsible for damages caused to others. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with all of the lawsuits being filed and won against them.


No that's not at all what I said.
Corporations are a Idea. They exist to create a special class of people who are not responsible for their actions. By limiting the liability of the owners of the corporation for its actions it takes away the rights of a corporation's victims to recover damages.
In short answer to your post You can recover from a company but only to the limit of what's in the company, there is no obligation of the companies owners to pay you as much as they stole from you.


As a example
Joe wants to make money off a gas station worth $250,000 but after looking at it he realizes its shoddy and unsafe. But he thinks he can still make money on it a long time before anybody gets hurt. A insurance consultant even tells him that stations in this type of condition will on the average net ten million bucks before a million dollar claim arises against them.
So he creates a company to own the station. Then another to Operate it.
All pretty straight forward and normal right? But he doesn't buy insurance cause the insurance company wants 20 percent of net.
After ten years the Ed family is in a car fire caused by his cheap shoddy pumps the station burns down. The poor disfigured burnt family trys to recover enough to pay their one million in medical bills.
Joe has a 5 million dollar house he bought with the profits. He also has 5 million in the bank just sitting there.
Joe offeres Ed the burnt up station.
Its all that Ed can get. Ed cant recover anymore than whats in the company. Ed cant get anything out of the company that operated the station. Joe gets to keep the 10 million profit he made knowing this would happen. Joe never had any incentive to fix the shoddy stuff cause he knew it couldn't hurt him. Joe never had any incentive to even hire decent safe help. Joe never even had any incentive to pay the 2 million insurance would have cost him.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> No that's not at all what I said.
> Corporations are a Idea. They exist to create a special class of people who are not responsible for their actions. By *limiting the liability of the owners of the corporation* for its actions it takes away the rights of a corporation's victims to recover damages.
> In short answer to your post You can recover from a company but only to the limit of what's in the company, there is no obligation of the companies owners to pay you as much as they stole from you.
> 
> ...


You never heard of Union Carbide, or John Mansville?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well yes I have. What is your point?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Well yes I have. What is your point?


Maybe I misunderstood that you said incorporation was a protection mechanism from liability. Those two companies, and many, many others, have suffered tremendous liability costs.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I see. It protects the owners from liability not so much the company it’s self. 
The liability is limited to the companies assets.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I see. It protects the owners from liability not so much the company it’s self.
> The liability is limited to the companies assets.


No, shareholders could see their value drop, or even bankruptcies from a liability lawsuit.

What you maybe thinking is; it protects the personal assets of the officers.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

An evil corporation had the gall to cut me a check last Friday. 

How dare they.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

HDRider said:


> No, shareholders could see their value drop, or even bankruptcies from a liability lawsuit.
> 
> What you maybe thinking is; it protects the personal assets of the officers.


A corporation protects the personal assets of the officers of the corporation. It also limits liability of the shareholders to the amount of stock they own in the corporation. I believe if the corporate officers personally committed crimes they can be held liable for those crimes. For example if CEO from corporation A personally shot the CEO from corporation B, whether he did it in name of corporation A or not, he still will stand trial for murder, unless he can buy off the prosecutor or jury or judge.... even then he can buy the best legal team for sale. Money buys the rich more justice. Justice isnt blind, it has its hand out ready for some filthy lucre.

So like what happened 2008 to 2009. The banking corporations paid big fines, the officers of those banks got a mild scolding from their bought and paid for legislators and paid no penalty. Congress now has undid the mild restrictions it put on the banks at the time. Those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it. How much more effective if not only the shareholders of those banks lost their shirts but the officers were personally liable and every personal asset they owned and every dime they earned went to paying off the harm they caused for THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIME. Hold them to same standard that Bernie Madoff was held. This would send a serious message. Course even then there are loopholes, assets would be moved to spouse or childrens names or disappear off shore someplace soon as it was earned.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Some valid problems and ideas presented. On the other hand where is the protection for unjust lawsuits from fraudulent employees and customers.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> No, shareholders could see their value drop, or even bankruptcies from a liability lawsuit.
> 
> What you maybe thinking is; it protects the personal assets of the officers.


 No it protects the assets of the owners. 
Except of course the company. 
The company is the only asset the owners has at risk. 
I don’t think it protects the officers from liability but I may be wrong on that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> No it protects the assets of the owners.
> Except of course the company.
> *The company is the only asset the owners has at risk.*
> I don’t think it protects the officers from liability but I may be wrong on that.


Which is normally the single largest asset they own. Bill Gates's companies are worth quite a bit as I understand it, so he has "only" billions at risk.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

My Doctor says I have to wait until the Patent is up on one Medication before I can get it.

It is better but cost too much now.

big rockpile


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I wonder if I should dig up that rock in the back yard or just continue to mow around it?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

gilberte said:


> I wonder if I should dig up that rock in the back yard or just continue to mow around it?


I think you should plant flowers around it and continue on.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which is normally the single largest asset they own. Bill Gates's companies are worth quite a bit as I understand it, so he has "only" billions at risk.


LOL Bill Gates is not the average by any means, but even he has lots of companies. Very little of his wealth is at risk in any one of them.
No a company is seldom its owneres greatest asset.
But you are missing the point or misdirecting the viewer when you say that arnt you?
See lets say his company C Somehow injures you to the tune of just one million. Yes there you are left without anything and no prospects of making any more. The company C admits fault and offers you its entire assets.$259.
Even though Bill Has billions and the million you are owed wouldn't hurt him a bit all it cost him and all you can get is that tiny paltry amount.
You were left with nothing, so you wont be paying your medical bills and you will be on public dole for the rest of your life.
All because we gave Bill and his shareholders a piece of paper that says they wont be held responsible.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Shine said:


> Ambien. My advice - steer clear of it. It is a hallucinatory drug. Doctor prescribed it for me - took it one evening, had a beer or two... woke up the next day in my underwear on the couch, mud up to my thighs, no idea where I nor the clothes that I was wearing that night went...
> 
> Not understanding [it was a long time ago] that I might be contributing to the rest of the area having a divergent thought or two, I dumped the whole bottle in the crapper and sent it on it's way...


Trazodone is another one to watch out for. For me it causes dreams that are so real they stay with me for days.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

There are problems pros and cons with corporations and their paper work for sure. Keep in mind the insurance companies are the ones most likely to be doing the settling.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Redlands Okie said:


> There are problems pros and cons with corporations and their paper work for sure. Keep in mind the insurance companies are the ones most likely to be doing the settling.


 Quite true so you get the amount of insurance they decide on.

What are the pros to dealing with a corporation if you are not a owner ?


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Forcast said:


> Trazodone is another one to watch out for. For me it causes dreams that are so real they stay with me for days.


But yet psychedelics are kept illegal 

Also, the ads for pills on tv are like SNL skits.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

As a small business owner I can assure you that my insurance on vehicles and work related items would be for a couple hundred thousand at the very most and not in the 1 and 2 million and up range if I had a choice. Its required to be in the higher amounts due to the requirements of the government organizations or the the corporations I do work for. Seldom has a home owner asked about insurance and never had one ask for proper verification of such. Just have to add the cost of insurance to the overhead. So in my case the corporations are the reason for the extra insurance and attending cost which is passed on to their customers since their covering their butt.
Pros to dealing with a corp is (usually) the professional manner that the work specifications and paper work is handled. Other than that not a lot of pros on the day to day operations.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Redlands do you think being a corporation is the reason for that or is it just the size of the business ?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Redlands do you think being a corporation is the reason for that or is it just the size of the business ?


Doesn't have to be a corporation. LLC as the name implies is a limited liability company.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Is there a difference ?
Arnt all companies limited liability ?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> Keep *guessing* then. Only one company sells Ambien. There is no competition per se. Its my *guess *they instead make people think they need to take it instead of looking at other issues that could cause the insomnia. OTC Benadryl is a competitor but you dont see it advertised on TV as such. In fact my doctor told me to take Benadryl if I cant sleep well. I dont take pills though so I just get by as best as I can.
> 
> Prolly should have took one tonight lol.



Benadryl can't advertise as a sedative because it is off label.

But it works.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> I'm not bashing the researchers of medicine. I'm bashing the advertisers and the way they can seem to get people to think there is something serious wrong with them.
> 
> The doctors saved your life. There ones that diagnosed you and the ones that created your medicine. It wasn't the ones in the TV screen.
> 
> Btw, glad you're still here.



They come up with conditions you could never think of yourself. But a few ads and all of a sudden you have it.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Joe gets brought up on arson and racketeering charges. That pisses off his loan officer, Vito. The fire pisses off Vito's boss, Bubba. It wasn't his cigar but his nemesis in crime, Hil, ain't buying it. She was busy smashing her hard drive, then looking for Bubba's to smash.


----------

