If this TEDx talk is true, how come "Big Pharma" is still making money?

[PharmaInvestmentBeginner]

I'm relatively new at pharma investments. Made some good ones, some bad ones, during the last 5 months. But I'm dying to learn more and understand how to predict general trends.

Just watched this TEDxBerlin talk. Don't know if this person is "big in the industry", but the talk got me thinking. Do you think his prediction that big pharma will slowly decline, or are there holes in the plot here?

Doesn't make sense since profits are still growing for most companies within the pharma industry (biotech companies excluded, they're doing much better in general, it seems).

 

[anonymous]

What a horribly uneducated talk. Complete waste of time.

1) The human body is the most complex organis "thing" on earth. Trying to manipulate it or "treat" it is significantly harder than apply or advancing technology of an airplane.
2) Medical industry is the most heavily regulated industry on the planet. Nothing else is even in the same stratosphere. Because of this the costs are EXTREMELY high to advance medical technology. Regulation of the Avaition industry is nothing compared to healthcare
3) Regenerative Medicine, Stem Cell, CRISPR/Gene Editing, Monoclonal antibodies, biotech, I can go on and on as to how far medicine has advanced in the last 5 years alone. The picutre of the pill bottle was ridiculous.

I can provide 5 more examples of why this talk is one of the worst talk I have seen on TED but I am out of time and annoyed.

 

[anonymous]

This Ted talk is dead-on. Pharma is not innovative and will continue to lose money as people will no longer be able to afford medicine. Also, the human population is reaching unsustainable levels and there will be a dramatic decrease in population within the next 40 years.

 

[anonymous]

This Ted talk is dead-on. Pharma is not innovative and will continue to lose money as people will no longer be able to afford medicine. Also, the human population is reaching unsustainable levels and there will be a dramatic decrease in population within the next 40 years.

You are clueless. Pharma/biotech has been very innovative. I am not going to waste my time debating the obvious with you on here as you can google many areas where pharma has been innovative in the last 24 months alone from Hep C medications to the many many orphan disease drugs that have been approved in the last 24 months. The orphan disease area did not exist 10 years ago and today is one of the hottest in pharma.

 

[anonymous]

You are clueless. Pharma/biotech has been very innovative. I am not going to waste my time debating the obvious with you on here as you can google many areas where pharma has been innovative in the last 24 months alone from Hep C medications to the many many orphan disease drugs that have been approved in the last 24 months. The orphan disease area did not exist 10 years ago and today is one of the hottest in pharma.

But just look at the video again. We are still taking pills to treat symptoms. No one is being cured. Pharma doesn't even know how to treat common ailments like pain, headaches, and inflammation. They just pump out dope like Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, and others while people get addicted with no relief.

These drug companies are doing nothing. That is why research is being shipped overseas. Nobody needs scientists making $100,000 a year for drugs that fail over and over in clinical studies and that do not provide cures. You have to face the facts and listen to the truth at some point!

 

[anonymous]

But just look at the video again. We are still taking pills to treat symptoms. No one is being cured. Pharma doesn't even know how to treat common ailments like pain, headaches, and inflammation. They just pump out dope like Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, and others while people get addicted with no relief.

These drug companies are doing nothing. That is why research is being shipped overseas. Nobody needs scientists making $100,000 a year for drugs that fail over and over in clinical studies and that do not provide cures. You have to face the facts and listen to the truth at some point!

Again, I am not going to debate the obvious with you on here. Not sure what your motive is in your response above but you are purposely missing the obvious for some reason. Not sure what it is but your response is so far from reality there has to be a motive.

I will leave you with one thing then I am done.....

It's nearly impossible to 'Cure" any disease with pharmaceuticals or any other synthetic or nonsyntheic product. In order to truly "cure" a chronic disease you have to change the DNA/genes of the individual which is not being done via gene therapy.

There are exceptions like Sovaldi from Gilead or immunotherapies that now kill cancer. Generally speaking pharmaceutical products will never cure any disease. If that is your definition of innovation you need to change your expectations as well as your definition of innovation.

 

[anonymous]

Again, I am not going to debate the obvious with you on here. Not sure what your motive is in your response above but you are purposely missing the obvious for some reason. Not sure what it is but your response is so far from reality there has to be a motive.

I will leave you with one thing then I am done.....

It's nearly impossible to 'Cure" any disease with pharmaceuticals or any other synthetic or nonsyntheic product. In order to truly "cure" a chronic disease you have to change the DNA/genes of the individual which is not being done via gene therapy.

There are exceptions like Sovaldi from Gilead or immunotherapies that now kill cancer. Generally speaking pharmaceutical products will never cure any disease. If that is your definition of innovation you need to change your expectations as well as your definition of innovation.

So science is a sham? I get it now. These companies should just tell the truth and say cures don't exist. Why gib people false hope? The drug companies should just tell the truth that most diseases will never be cured and that the medicine can only treat the symptoms. That makes the most sense.

 

[anonymous]

So science is a sham? I get it now. These companies should just tell the truth and say cures don't exist. Why gib people false hope? The drug companies should just tell the truth that most diseases will never be cured and that the medicine can only treat the symptoms. That makes the most sense.

Rarely do bipharma companies promote curing any disease. In the very rare instance it does promote this benefit there is a large volume of scientific evidence that has been through a rigorous review of that information to allows the company to promote that its product can cure someone from a particular disease.

 

[anonymous]

I'm relatively new at pharma investments. Made some good ones, some bad ones, during the last 5 months. But I'm dying to learn more and understand how to predict general trends.

Just watched this TEDxBerlin talk. Don't know if this person is "big in the industry", but the talk got me thinking. Do you think his prediction that big pharma will slowly decline, or are there holes in the plot here?

Doesn't make sense since profits are still growing for most companies within the pharma industry (biotech companies excluded, they're doing much better in general, it seems).

Where did this come from?

 

[anonymous]

The US economy (and soon the world) is based on poisoning people with the nonsensical food system to create the illnesses that require a lifetime of drug treatment.

If you don't work for a food or drug company, you work for an industry that supports the food and drug companies.

The priority is economic growth, not curing disease.

Bottom line is if you can't control what you eat, you will be a lifelong customer to the healthcare industry and be supporting millions of American jobs so thank you!

 

[anonymous]

The US economy (and soon the world) is based on poisoning people with the nonsensical food system to create the illnesses that require a lifetime of drug treatment.

If you don't work for a food or drug company, you work for an industry that supports the food and drug companies.

The priority is economic growth, not curing disease.

Bottom line is if you can't control what you eat, you will be a lifelong customer to the healthcare industry and be supporting millions of American jobs so thank you!

I agree food is the number one driver to use all of these pharma products (generally speaking) however lifestyle also plays into this situation.

There are exceptions, however, like genetically acquired diseases that are not aligned to the quality, quantity or specific type of food one would eat.

 

[anonymous]

There are exceptions, however, like genetically acquired diseases that are not aligned to the quality, quantity or specific type of food one would eat.

I still blame the patient. People have to take some accountability and start controlling their genes.

 

[anonymous]

I still blame the patient. People have to take some accountability and start controlling their genes.

Just an FYI it would take thousands of years to "control" ones genes. Gene transformation is mostly due to evolutionary adaptations not through food or even near term exposure to the environment one would thrive in (food, climate, living conditions, etc).

 

[anonymous]

Just an FYI it would take thousands of years to "control" ones genes. Gene transformation is mostly due to evolutionary adaptations not through food or even near term exposure to the environment one would thrive in (food, climate, living conditions, etc).

Well if people would just diet and exercise, they wouldn't get sick. Also, people should get time machines, control their genes by going back and forth through time, and then we wouldn't need all of these garbage medicines. People have all of the excuses but none of the solutions. Once my time machine is fixed, I am going to work on living forever. Evolution can't stop me damnit!

 

[anonymous]

Well if people would just diet and exercise, they wouldn't get sick. Also, people should get time machines, control their genes by going back and forth through time, and then we wouldn't need all of these garbage medicines. People have all of the excuses but none of the solutions. Once my time machine is fixed, I am going to work on living forever. Evolution can't stop me damnit!

Well, when you go back in time tell yourself to start taking your meds at an earlier age. Koo koo.

 

[anonymous]

Well, when you go back in time tell yourself to start taking your meds at an earlier age. Koo koo.

Stop hitting on me!

 

[anonymous]

Stop hitting on me!

I wasn't hitting on you but I might if you were hot. Are you hot and a female?

I'm hot and a male. It really all depends on your gender and physical appearance. I see your intelligence is average by your posts above which is ok for now. Again this really also depends on your physical appearance. The higher your physical appearance the lower your intelligence level an be and vice versa. There is a direct intelligence vs physical appearance relationship here. As reprehensible as it may sound it's accurate based on the general laws of society.

So, back to the original question, are you female and hot?