There has always been some suspicion that pharmaceutical companies would rather keep people sick and on drugs than cure them in one shot and lose the ability to create return customers.
Although the massive motive here is easy to see, with the industry bringing in over $453 billion in the United States alone in 2017, many people have a hard time considering that these companies don’t have their customers’ best interest at heart. The idea that these companies would want to keep us sick is dismissed by many as a “conspiracy theory,” but let’s not forget that these companies and their high-level investors are here to sell drugs, not save lives.
This point was brought up openly earlier this month in a memo that Goldman Sachs analyst Salveen Richter sent out to clients of the firm, about the potential of curing diseases with gene therapy. Richter estimated the market size for gene therapies could be as large as $4.8 trillion as “genes are the foundations of all biological activity,” according to CNBC.
However, he has some concerns about how the ability to cure diseases could negatively impact the industry’s bottom line. In the report, titled “The Genome Revolution,” Richter asks the question, “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” and the conclusion that he seems to come to is “no.”
In the memo, Richter plainly said, “The potential to deliver ‘one-shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy, and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies. While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
As an example of how cures can be bad for business, Richter pointed to the case of Gilead Sciences’ a company that developed a treatment for hepatitis C, which had a cure rate of more than 90 percent.
As Richter pointed out, “GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients. In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”
It seems as if Richter is suggesting that he would rather people have hepatitis and that he has no interest in the prevention of diseases like cancer. Next, he suggested that pharmaceutical companies should only focus on diseases that have a steady stream of new customers, such as common inherited and genetical disorders. The report gave three suggested solutions for drug makers:
“Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually.” “Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe.” “Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness)”
These suggestions seem innocuous enough at first glance, as he is suggesting cures for some very serious conditions. But at the end of the report, Richter said, “Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets.”
While this statement can be interpreted in a number of different ways, it certainly seems that Richter is suggesting that drug makers should slow the pace of development of cures to allow the growth of these new markets to catch up with the level of their current revenue streams. On a very surface level, it may seem that this is just some toxic manifestation of a selfish human nature or an example of the greed that exists in the world of business, but there is much more nuance to this situation.
Goldman Sachs, along with many other Fortune 500 companies, have a very twisted way of looking at the world and conducting business, because they achieve and attain their success by lobbying for monopoly or cartel-like protections from governments—not by actually providing value to their customers. Goldman Sachs analysts and big pharma executives have a business model that depends on cornering markets with patents and keeping innovation in their industries as stagnant as possible, which is why we see such cutthroat behavior from companies in these positions, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
If companies were forced to compete to stay relevant and keep their customers happy, instead of just developing and maintaining government-granted patents and monopolies, innovation would be driven by the desires of the customers, which would keep businesses honest, even if their only intention was to make money.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY:
My name is John Vibes and I am an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. I write for numerous alternative media websites, including The Free Thought Project @tftproject and The Mind Unleashed. In addition to my first book, Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance, I have also co-authored three books with Derrick Broze @dbroze : The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality, Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion and Manifesto of the Free Humans
I just won a 3-year-long battle with cancer, and will be working to help others through my experience, if you wish to contribute to my medical bills, consider subscribing to my podcast on Patreon.
This is an obvious and urgent matter that requires we rethink economic incentives regarding health. Presently we pay for treatment, and thus being kept perpetually ill is the most emunerative business model for the medical industry.
I think we should pay for being healthy, and illness should create losses for the industry. This incentivizes the industry to prioritize our health.
It ain't a perfect model, but it's damn sure better than the one we've got now!
Thanks!
In the book, Sacred Economics, the author talks about just such a model. One in which money is used to reward businesses and industries who do good for others, preserving health, preserving the environment and all of that. The model is that money is used as a tool to reward those actively doing measurable things for individuals, communities and the planet.
I'm not a self described environmentalist (I barely can keep my own recycling in check), but I think it is high time we start changing the models of how we do things. I like how you flipped the model.
that is a good idea, i def like that, that is the type of imagination that we need for the future.
I think patents and licencing is also a big part of the problem, and it is a big part of the reason why cartels are formed
I have had so many people recomend that book, i guess its time that i check it out lol
This Richter is just confirming what we in the TRUTH community already knew, that corporations are legally required to put the profits of their shareholders above all else. Lets read that again...legally required to put the profits of their shareholders above all else. It seems that in all areas the powers that shouldn't be are no longer interested in hiding their fraud, theft, rape &\or murder from us little people. More & more the stories are coming out like this one in which they expose these horrible truths that previously would have been considered crackpot conspiracy theories. To me, the most important thing we can do to fight back is to make sure as many of our brothers & sisters as possible hear about these admissions. Hopefully, that'll shake 'em & wake 'em.
well said as always :-)
Thank you kindly good sir...or should I say Good Vibes?
Conservative videos and replies in defense of preservation of god's creation are likely sponsored by pharmaceutical industry.
You got a 6.67% upvote from @sleeplesswhale courtesy of @stimialiti!
What A great article, it clearly shows the concerns of big pharma and their investors. But why not take it further and recognize the outer circle of this travesty.
In this case the inner circle is big pharma’s business model that demands a planned sustainability of illness in humankind to maintain profits. There is an even larger circle of conspiracy where food production and marketing works hand and hand with big pharma to ensure that the food supply creates a steady supply of hormone and genetically modified foods saturated in insecticides and antibiotics. This way, the population writhes in the agony of strange and new diseases that must have the symptoms glossed over by a steady stream of new and more expensive pharmaceuticals. Not that I refer to covering over the symptoms in the effort to sustain a steady demand rather then cure the cause of the symptoms. Humanity is basically a crop that the corporatists farm for the generating of wealth.
As for corporations being required by law to maximize profits for shareholders, we should remember that these laws on the books are amendable by us. Change the laws back to an earlier day when corporate persons were not allowed to have a permanent existence but where required to renew their charter every so often having to justify their continued existence.
all good points, that is a level deeper than I went here, but that is definetly a level that exists
God forbid we should be in good health because the deep state wants to benefit from our health...sickening
Just want to say perfect post @johnvibes I hate when people want to put all the blame on the medical industry, by posting stuff like this even though it is true. If we only focus on the medical business and how they want us to be sick it will throw us away from the cause of why they are able to not cure people and only give them side effect's. I find this with people all the time they blame someone, but when I say what is the cause of that like how are they able to do that, they never have an answer and that is a problem. Thank's for the post! keep it going.
Thanks for sharing this @johnvibes. Further evidence that the for-profit mechanism can't be applied to public health if it's going to be effective for the recipients moreso than the corporate providers.
It reminds me of Chris Rock's bit back in Bigger and Blacker, 'ain't no money in the cure, the money's in the medicine'
duh, like they need to be told, why do you think they work so hard to keep lifesaving cannabis illegal? Because legalizing it kills their margins.
Sad to hear but we all know its true. We just have to start curing ourselves 💯🐒
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Relevance: Sharing the truth.
Curated for #informationwar (by @truthforce)
Relevance: Big Pharma Corruption
The Cubans, Chinese and perhaps other free nations will get onto it. If peace wins, technological advances will ensure that these gangsters will become irrelevant quite soon. The problem is that peace will probably not win and they'll make an excuse to blow whatever part of the planet not in compliance with phony trade rules, sky high.
Just now waking up to the incideous practices of big pharma. I thought for some reason that most drugs made were meant to perhaps not cure but alleviate symptoms making we humans feel better instead of worse. Thanks for a good read. 🐓🐓
It's so true. There is no money in curing, they would rather have you come in as often as possible, taking as many drugs as possible and doing as many expensive procedures are possible. My dad recently had some cancer go into remission or disappear altogether and the doctor still asked him if he wanted to go through chemo anyways. I asked him if he punched the doctor in the face.
Wow! I've always known this was the case, intuitively. But for these pharma fat cats to admit openly, in a public forum....Wow...just wow.
Somebody needs to hear the clank of a closing jail-cell door, and SOON!