|
|
Post by Jetworks on May 7, 2020 9:13:44 GMT -5
Another reason is because what Mikovits mentions in passing; suramin, the hydroxychloroquine of autism. Look it up (if you can find stuff on it). I saw the vids and it was unclear to me why (I'm not very bright) why the suramin was being hidden. I get that medicine is delayed by researchers looking to cash in on patents, but is there anyone cashing in on suramin..hence...why are they hiding it? Serious question. Bayer is apparently the only manufacturer of it, and they are holding it back because 1) there is no longer a patent on it, and therefore 2) has no real profit potential for them. In other words, they took their ball and went home. Shame, because this seemed really, really promising. I remember when the study was released, gave us more hope than anything had in years. Here's a Q&A on it: health.ucsd.edu/news/topics/suramin-autism/pages/q-and-a.aspxHad to go back and double check, an investment group had taken on the task of making Suramin since Bayer was unwilling to supply it for additional trials. So, we wait... |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 7, 2020 9:26:30 GMT -5
I saw the vids and it was unclear to me why (I'm not very bright) why the suramin was being hidden. I get that medicine is delayed by researchers looking to cash in on patents, but is there anyone cashing in on suramin..hence...why are they hiding it? Serious question. Bayer is apparently the only manufacturer of it, and they are holding it back because 1) there is no longer a patent on it, and therefore 2) has no real profit potential for them. In other words, they took their ball and went home. Shame, because this seemed really, really promising. I remember when the study was released, gave us more hope than anything had in years. Here's a Q&A on it: health.ucsd.edu/news/topics/suramin-autism/pages/q-and-a.aspxHad to go back and double check, an investment group had taken on the task of making Suramin since Bayer was unwilling to supply it for additional trials. So, we wait... The Bayer comment really doesn't add up. Bayer already donated millions of doses of Hydrocholorqine and it if isn't on patent any longer then any company can make a generic. |
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on May 7, 2020 9:54:01 GMT -5
Bayer is apparently the only manufacturer of it, and they are holding it back because 1) there is no longer a patent on it, and therefore 2) has no real profit potential for them. In other words, they took their ball and went home. Shame, because this seemed really, really promising. I remember when the study was released, gave us more hope than anything had in years. Here's a Q&A on it: health.ucsd.edu/news/topics/suramin-autism/pages/q-and-a.aspxHad to go back and double check, an investment group had taken on the task of making Suramin since Bayer was unwilling to supply it for additional trials. So, we wait... The Bayer comment really doesn't add up. Bayer already donated millions of doses of Hydrocholorqine and it if isn't on patent any longer then any company can make a generic. Maybe they're just being pricks? Maybe they were pressured by anti-cure autism groups (yes, there is such a thing)? Making a drug from scratch costs a lot of money. As for the 'donation', kind of a PR nightmare if you turned around and charged money to save lives. The high profile coverage of the pandemic surely played into that. If you doubt that, then tell me if you ever heard of what I posted about suramin before I mentioned it. |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 7, 2020 9:57:08 GMT -5
The Bayer comment really doesn't add up. Bayer already donated millions of doses of Hydrocholorqine and it if isn't on patent any longer then any company can make a generic. Maybe they're just being pricks? Maybe they were pressured by anti-cure autism groups (yes, there is such a thing)? Making a drug from scratch costs a lot of money. As for the 'donation', kind of a PR nightmare if you turned around and charged money to save lives. The high profile coverage of the pandemic surely played into that. If you doubt that, then tell me if you ever heard of what I posted about suramin before I mentioned it. I know the person who imported the donated Hydrocholorqine and there was definitely no agenda. I have asked her if she knows anything about suramin. While I know there are groups like you are talking about acting like all pharma companies are evil is ridiculous. There are many more anti-pharma groups out there and everyone hates pharma until they are dying and pharma saves their lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on May 7, 2020 10:09:02 GMT -5
Maybe they're just being pricks? Maybe they were pressured by anti-cure autism groups (yes, there is such a thing)? Making a drug from scratch costs a lot of money. As for the 'donation', kind of a PR nightmare if you turned around and charged money to save lives. The high profile coverage of the pandemic surely played into that. If you doubt that, then tell me if you ever heard of what I posted about suramin before I mentioned it. I know the person who imported the donated Hydrocholorqine and there was definitely no agenda. I have asked her if she knows anything about suramin. While I know there are groups like you are talking about acting like all pharma companies are evil is ridiculous. There are many more anti-pharma groups out there and everyone hates pharma until they are dying and pharma saves their lives. Hmmm, I'm curious to hear what she says about suramin, but you kind of answered my question in asking her (you never heard of it). Since I'm apparently in the dark on this, tell me why you feel a pharmaceutical company would withhold a 100 year old medication that could possibly help literally millions of people worldwide from being studied for efficacy and safety? Also, your taking aim at "anti-pharma groups" is a bit silly from a "pro-pharma" perspective. David vs Goliath would be a kind analogy. Fact is pharmaceuticals, like vaccines, can and do save lives. However, questioning agendas and asking for liability, to say nothing of transparency, isn't anti-pharma, it's ethics. EDIT- not looking to fight here, and I am genuinely interested in her response. Went back and read what I wrote and realized that it comes across as sort of bitchy, so sorry for that. Lots going on right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 7, 2020 10:31:35 GMT -5
I know the person who imported the donated Hydrocholorqine and there was definitely no agenda. I have asked her if she knows anything about suramin. While I know there are groups like you are talking about acting like all pharma companies are evil is ridiculous. There are many more anti-pharma groups out there and everyone hates pharma until they are dying and pharma saves their lives. Hmmm, I'm curious to hear what she says about suramin, but you kind of answered my question in asking her (you never heard of it). Since I'm apparently in the dark on this, tell me why you feel a pharmaceutical company would withhold a 100 year old medication that could possibly help literally millions of people worldwide from being studied for efficacy and safety? Also, your taking aim at "anti-pharma groups" is a bit silly from a "pro-pharma" perspective. David vs Goliath would be a kind analogy. Fact is pharmaceuticals, like vaccines, can and do save lives. However, questioning agendas and asking for liability, to say nothing of transparency, isn't anti-pharma, it's ethics. EDIT- not looking to fight here, and I am genuinely interested in her response. Went back and read what I wrote and realized that it comes across as sort of bitchy, so sorry for that. Lots going on right now. All good. I am not the sensitive type. I can't say I am aware of Suramin but I am sure there are a lot of drugs I haven't heard of that are being tested for autism. Something tells me that if the PR for donating some Hydrocholorqine was good, curing Autism would make Bayer a world hero. From Bayer's site regarding Suramin those greedy bastards are donating it for their on-label use: Please tell me how Bayer is withholding suramin if it is off patent. Anyone can make it, and according to the article you linked and others I found related to it, it is being tested for efficacy in curing Autism. Now I can believe that the FDA isn't allowing off-label use yet because the FDA takes forever to do anything but back to my original point I don't see any evidence of Bayer withholding anything. If I missed it in your article, I apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by 32Green on May 7, 2020 11:24:01 GMT -5
I saw the vids and it was unclear to me why (I'm not very bright) why the suramin was being hidden. I get that medicine is delayed by researchers looking to cash in on patents, but is there anyone cashing in on suramin..hence...why are they hiding it? Serious question. Bayer is apparently the only manufacturer of it, and they are holding it back because 1) there is no longer a patent on it, and therefore 2) has no real profit potential for them. In other words, they took their ball and went home. Shame, because this seemed really, really promising. I remember when the study was released, gave us more hope than anything had in years. Here's a Q&A on it: health.ucsd.edu/news/topics/suramin-autism/pages/q-and-a.aspxHad to go back and double check, an investment group had taken on the task of making Suramin since Bayer was unwilling to supply it for additional trials. So, we wait... Interesting and eye-opening for sure. I get your frustration. Id be furious. |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 7, 2020 11:58:48 GMT -5
Bayer is apparently the only manufacturer of it, and they are holding it back because 1) there is no longer a patent on it, and therefore 2) has no real profit potential for them. In other words, they took their ball and went home. Shame, because this seemed really, really promising. I remember when the study was released, gave us more hope than anything had in years. Here's a Q&A on it: health.ucsd.edu/news/topics/suramin-autism/pages/q-and-a.aspxHad to go back and double check, an investment group had taken on the task of making Suramin since Bayer was unwilling to supply it for additional trials. So, we wait... Interesting and eye-opening for sure. I get your frustration. Id be furious. Why is it eye opening? If it is not under patent then EVERYONE can make it. You can't hold it back. |
|
|
|
plandemic
May 7, 2020 14:51:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Hotman on May 7, 2020 14:51:18 GMT -5
B@y3r is Mon$@nto. Fuck them regardless there is nothing good behind any decision
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure Rock Fury on May 7, 2020 15:06:32 GMT -5
new thread so those that think "conspiracy" talk is ridiculous can stay the fuck out.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on May 7, 2020 16:24:36 GMT -5
All good. I am not the sensitive type. I can't say I am aware of Suramin but I am sure there are a lot of drugs I haven't heard of that are being tested for autism. Something tells me that if the PR for donating some Hydrocholorqine was good, curing Autism would make Bayer a world hero. From Bayer's site regarding Suramin those greedy bastards are donating it for their on-label use: Bayer provides two substances which are used in the fight against human African trypanosomiasis. Both are on the WHO's list of essential drugs Since 2000 Bayer has been supporting the WHO with donated medicines. Since 2013 financial contribution to implement WHO mobile intervention teams in the DR Congo, the country with the highest disease burden of African sleeping sickness. pharma.bayer.com/african-sleeping-sicknessYes, it's deemed an essential drug by the WHO, and therefore it is made available for free. Again, it's in their best interest to do so because of the optics. They could stand to lose quite a bit of money across their product line if they didn't do that. As for the autism thing, the research isn't theirs, so they would in essence be helping a potential competitor become very, very rich. There's no incentive in doing that I think we can agree. Please tell me how Bayer is withholding suramin if it is off patent. Anyone can make it, and according to the article you linked and others I found related to it, it is being tested for efficacy in curing Autism. Now I can believe that the FDA isn't allowing off-label use yet because the FDA takes forever to do anything but back to my original point I don't see any evidence of Bayer withholding anything. If I missed it in your article, I apologize. They are the sole producer. The production has to start from the beginning, including R&D, sourcing ingredients, safety and efficacy studies to ensure you have made the right drug, etc. I'm just spitballing here, but I'd imagine it's quite the endeavor given the boilerplate stuff from pharmaceutical companies I read which explain why drugs cost so much. Bayer owns no patents on suramin, but it has all the product and is refusing to make it available for this research, which is their right as a for-profit company. But if you make that decision, you completely lose the moral high ground, which is my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 7, 2020 16:33:22 GMT -5
All good. I am not the sensitive type. I can't say I am aware of Suramin but I am sure there are a lot of drugs I haven't heard of that are being tested for autism. Something tells me that if the PR for donating some Hydrocholorqine was good, curing Autism would make Bayer a world hero. From Bayer's site regarding Suramin those greedy bastards are donating it for their on-label use: Bayer provides two substances which are used in the fight against human African trypanosomiasis. Both are on the WHO's list of essential drugs Since 2000 Bayer has been supporting the WHO with donated medicines. Since 2013 financial contribution to implement WHO mobile intervention teams in the DR Congo, the country with the highest disease burden of African sleeping sickness. pharma.bayer.com/african-sleeping-sicknessYes, it's deemed an essential drug by the WHO, and therefore it is made available for free. Again, it's in their best interest to do so because of the optics. They could stand to lose quite a bit of money across their product line if they didn't do that. As for the autism thing, the research isn't theirs, so they would in essence be helping a potential competitor become very, very rich. There's no incentive in doing that I think we can agree. Please tell me how Bayer is withholding suramin if it is off patent. Anyone can make it, and according to the article you linked and others I found related to it, it is being tested for efficacy in curing Autism. Now I can believe that the FDA isn't allowing off-label use yet because the FDA takes forever to do anything but back to my original point I don't see any evidence of Bayer withholding anything. If I missed it in your article, I apologize. They are the sole producer. The production has to start from the beginning, including R&D, sourcing ingredients, safety and efficacy studies to ensure you have made the right drug, etc. I'm just spitballing here, but I'd imagine it's quite the endeavor given the boilerplate stuff from pharmaceutical companies I read which explain why drugs cost so much. Bayer owns no patents on suramin, but it has all the product and is refusing to make it available for this research, which is their right as a for-profit company. But if you make that decision, you completely lose the moral high ground, which is my point. My friend said that it has been talked about as a possible great use of their drug in a company town hall. Not everything is a conspiracy. Where do you see that they won't make it available? I still don't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by 32Green on May 7, 2020 18:30:24 GMT -5
Interesting and eye-opening for sure. I get your frustration. Id be furious. Why is it eye opening? If it is not under patent then EVERYONE can make it. You can't hold it back. Not arguing, just was unaware of alot of the background info on a drug I never heard of. I know its an important issue to JW, and I'd be pissed as well if an effective treatment is being sat on for $$ reasons, no matter who makes it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on May 7, 2020 19:17:15 GMT -5
Yes, it's deemed an essential drug by the WHO, and therefore it is made available for free. Again, it's in their best interest to do so because of the optics. They could stand to lose quite a bit of money across their product line if they didn't do that. As for the autism thing, the research isn't theirs, so they would in essence be helping a potential competitor become very, very rich. There's no incentive in doing that I think we can agree. They are the sole producer. The production has to start from the beginning, including R&D, sourcing ingredients, safety and efficacy studies to ensure you have made the right drug, etc. I'm just spitballing here, but I'd imagine it's quite the endeavor given the boilerplate stuff from pharmaceutical companies I read which explain why drugs cost so much. Bayer owns no patents on suramin, but it has all the product and is refusing to make it available for this research, which is their right as a for-profit company. But if you make that decision, you completely lose the moral high ground, which is my point. My friend said that it has been talked about as a possible great use of their drug in a company town hall. Not everything is a conspiracy. Where do you see that they won't make it available? I still don't see it. Not saying it's a conspiracy, actually said it was likely a business decision. Unfortunately I am relying on what I was personally told by someone who ran a clinic we used to go to. This was later confirmed by someone I have a lot of respect for in the autism community, and it's the reason the researcher who did the initial study went ahead and joined forces with the investment group. Can your friend say otherwise? Perhaps I have bad information. |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 7, 2020 19:32:04 GMT -5
Why is it eye opening? If it is not under patent then EVERYONE can make it. You can't hold it back. Not arguing, just was unaware of alot of the background info on a drug I never heard of. I know its an important issue to JW, and I'd be pissed as well if an effective treatment is being sat on for $$ reasons, no matter who makes it. Agreed. I just don't think that is the case. |
|
