5 ms·
This has been known for decades, since before most of us here were born. My question is, when do we lynch big pharma for suppressing it?
by LanzVonL 3y ago
This has been known for decades, since before most of us here were born. My question is, when do we lynch big pharma for suppressing it?
- gonzon 3y agothats like asking when do we lynch hackernews for banning the majority of people who would otherwise post here? sorry but theres a lot of money invested in particular agendas
- LanzVonL 3y ago[flagged]
- NotSammyHagar 3y agoI don’t see the international hackernews conspiracy. 99.9% of the world has not heard of hacker news. The pharma industry doesn’t own the US, any more than big fast food, lawyers in general, US automobile dealerships, the petroleum industrial complex, etc. I’d say they all want to continue to make big profits and push for things that help them.
- FactKnower69 3y ago>The pharma industry doesn’t own the US The pharma industry spends more money on lobbying US politicians than any other, almost 2x more than the next biggest spender https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI mean the government probably made it illegal to investigate this thanks to the war on drugs, so we can’t put all the blame on pharma.
- LanzVonL 3y agoBig pharma is the government.
- pipeline_peak 3y agoSo Purdue, Lily, Pfizer, and the German historical Bayer are of the US government?
- ericmcer 3y ago50% of the Food and drug administrations funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. So yeah big pharma runs our government regulatory agencies.
- pipeline_peak 3y agoSource please
- refurb 3y agoThat's because it's based on user fees. If you want a drug approved, you need to pay to have it reviewed. Next you'll be telling me that car owners run the DMV.
- ericmcer 3y agoIf Ford and a few other large car manufacturers accounted for 50% of DMV funding you don’t think that could lead to conflicts of interest?
- LanzVonL 3y agoOf course. And Epstein, Maxwell, you name it. The US government is about power and influence, not chains of command and technical appointments and elections. You should have learned this by now.
- deleted 3y ago
- throwup238 3y agoYou're thinking of Anslinger and Hearst. Big pharma would be the first to jump on this stuff - most of the experimentation is already done for them, they can just stick to what they know which is running clinical trials.
- omeid2 3y agoBig Pharma will not jump on anything that they can not patent, naturally occurring substances are not patent/copyrightable.
- throwup238 3y agoMost psychedelics like MDMA or LSD are synthetic; there are only a few naturally occurring ones like psylocibin or LSA (the natural precursor to LSD) and most of them already have synthetic analogues. Many of them were made by pharma companies: Merck first synthesized MDMA over a century ago and patented several variants, long before anyone realized what it was good for. The FDA grants forms of exclusivity other than patents which would apply and pharma has developed plenty of ways to modify molecules to repatent them like turning them into salts or hydrides, adding amino acid caps, creating alternative methods of application like nasal sprays, etc. It's actually really easy to do which is what led to the proliferation of "research chemicals" over the last twenty years.
- omeid2 3y ago[flagged]
- throwup238 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18-Methoxycoronaridine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18-Methoxycoronaridine
- omeid2 3y agoVery interesting. Thank you.
- cpncrunch 3y agoIt hasn't "been known", as there have never been any RCTs (and this is just a very small open-label trial). So we still have no idea whether or not this drug is actually of any use for PTSD or depression. We certainly can't that it "banishes PTSD" like the overhyped headline here says. I remember all the studies on Ketamine that were posted to the front page of HN, and then we finally had a proper RCT which showed that, while ketamine was very effective in treating depression, the placebo was equally effective. Essentially it was hope that was resulting in the remission [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37948938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37948938
- varispeed 3y agoIt has been known. The thing with trials is chicken and egg. Big pharma ensures certain drugs are illegal and scientists cannot or have limited ways to study them. Some corrupt government departments even only permit studies if they are going to find out that those drugs are bad. It's quite a dissonance that people pretend they don't see. Like with cannabis. Millions of chronic pain sufferers say it helps them and then you can look at studies, you can cherry-pick plenty that say it's a placebo. Let's face it. Scientists, politicians are all corrupt and honest ones can easily get cast out or made fall out of the window.
- throwup238 3y ago> made fall out of the window. The term you're looking for is defenestrated.
- at_compile_time 3y agoOne of my favorite words.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- balfirevic 3y ago> Essentially it was hope that was resulting in the remission It might not be as clear cut as that: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-anaesthesia-prove-ketamine-placebo https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-anaesthesia-prove-keta...
- xk_id 3y agoCrazy that your first assumption is a conspiracy. Ibogaine would never represent any kind of competition to FDA approved pharmaceuticals, because of its cardiotoxicity: it can cause sudden cardiac arrest and death. There are many case studies of sudden death from ibogaine recorded in the literature.
- tacocataco 3y agoWhen the 2nd prohibition ends, drug users will not start a war on sobriety. Who would want to destroy people's lives and community for them doing what they want with their own body? Except both mainstream political parties of course. Thank first past the post voting for our lack of competition in the electoral system.