Big Pharma and the Vested Human Revenue Stream

Last evening’s interview with our resident health expert Jeff Knott and NHPPA President Shawn Buckley provided a moment of epiphany that all shows strive to achieve but do not often attain.

Given the complexity of the subject matter which centers around what some may consider to be the sensationalistic headline “Criminalizing the Sale of Natural Health Products?,” we attempted to understand the motives and effect of recently proposed legislation that many predict could outlaw three quarters of the natural health products that are currently available on the market.

Against the backdrop of the public’s increasing awareness of, and interest in natural products, coupled with the fact that mainstream medicine and in particular pharmaceuticals are taxing a system in which chronic illnesses and escalating medical costs could cause the system to collapse under the weight of its own inefficiencies, understanding the core issues can be difficult.

That said Shawn’s simple explanation that the primary cause for the existing disconnect between traditional mainstream medicine and the treatment avenues available through natural or allopathic health care is that big pharma seeks to treat symptoms as opposed to finding cures, was powerful.

The logic here of course is that a cure does not result in a vested human revenue stream, and as such it is more beneficial to the pharmaceutical industry that we remain dependently ill on their products.

Think about it for a moment, if say for example an auto mechanic fixes your car so well that with your proper maintenance it rarely if ever breaks down, you are no longer dependent on the mechanic.  What impact does this have on the mechanic’s revenue stream?

Conversely, if your car is repaired just well enough to be functional but when combined with a poor self-maintenance regimen requires you to visit the shop once every three to six months, how is this reflected in the mechanic’s revenue stream?

Because the natural health products industry seeks to find a cure versus simply treating symptoms, this poses a direct threat to the “financial health” of the pharmaceutical industry.

Specifically, allopathic medicine (which was a term coined by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy), simply means “other than the disease.”  Allopathy reflected Hahnemann’s desire to “point out how regular doctors used methods” that he believed “had nothing to do with the disharmony produced by disease,” and focused more on merely addressing symptoms.  This approach according to Hahnemann, meant that the methods employed by mainstream medicine were in reality “harmful to the patients.”

This “disharmony” within the realms of allopathic medicine is often times addressed by Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment “OMT” methods, which takes into account “the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health of a patient, and how each aspect could be contributing to the disease state.”

Similar to the circumstances surrounding a seminal case in which Buckley defended the owner of the Strauss Herb Company from 73 charges brought by Health Canada, in which necessity was the mother of invention, the origins for Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine “OMM” date back to 19th century physician Dr. Andrew Taylor Still.

According to our research, in 1864 Still lost 3 children to spinal meningitis in spite of his use of current medical practices.  (In Strauss’ case, the underlying motivation for pursuing alternative treatment options was linked to his being diagnosed with heart disease).

The devastating loss of 3 children, coupled with his strong commitment to scientific medical treatments, led Still to more “thoroughly study the processes of health and disease.”  Leveraging his understanding of the anatomy to first screen for structural abnormalities and then restore normal functionality, became an essential part of Still’s proposed treatment regimen.

Still’s studies, which many credit with creating a “distinctive approach” to health care once again, incorporated a more holistic view of treatment which recognized the connection between “mental, physical, emotional and spiritual health” and how each plays an “important role in overall patient health.”

In this regard, the natural health care product industry’s threat to the pharmaceutical industry extends beyond products to encompass the very treatment options that are available to patients.

If an increasing number of physicians like Still expand their treatment capabilities and studies to obtain a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, this will afford them with the same flexibility to use natural health products in much the same way they currently utilize or prescribe off label pharmaceutical products.

Perhaps in response to this threat the proposed legislation, which creates the greatest concern for the natural health product industry, appears to serve the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.  Specifically, as the mainstream industry giants rush to create what Buckley referred to as pharmaceutical grade “natural” products, the proposed legislation creates unrealistic “safe” ingredient level standards.  In short, these pharma grade products contain enough of a desired ingredient to qualify as a safe natural product, but not enough to provide the maximum effectiveness to treat the illness.

This means that if a manufacturer or natural health practitioner produces and/or “prescribes” a natural health product with a higher level of the ingredient than what legislators determine as being safe, even if the lower dose is for all intents and purposes ineffective, they can be charged and even closed down.

All in all, last evening’s show only touched on the surface of what is undoubtedly going to be a growing issue that is ultimately bound to gain wider media exposure.

With both Shawn and Jeff returning to the virtual airwaves in late August or early September to resume the discussion, I am glad that we are able to provide you with this ground level view of a developing story.  Stay tuned for further updates.

On-Demand Broadcast

If you were unable to catch the live broadcast of yesterday evening’s program, not to worry.  You can tune in to the on-demand version at your convenience through the following link: “Criminalizing the Sale of Natural Health Products.”


One Response to “Big Pharma and the Vested Human Revenue Stream”
  1. Concerned Person says:

    The big PHRMA companies are all about treating symptomatology FOREVER. They do not want disease cures as that would eliminate their drug usage, marketshares and ultimately their quarterly profits. For example: Ask a PHARMA company CEO if it’s okay to stop the use of LIPITOR (Multi-Billion Dollar Product) because a latest study proved that the development of heart disease had nothing whatsoever to do with cholesterol and that the statin drugs were not only ineffective, but grossly harmful and should be taken off the market. Do you think that CEO would just say, Okay that’s fine we’ll just take it off the market then? BS…..That CEO is going to go nuts and directly for the throat of the person that just did the studies to discredit them in all ways possible. WALL STREET does not have a conscience and does not give a crap about the human condition. BIG PHARMA wants to SQUASH all OTC & nutraceuticals as they are also doing studies that are being shown to reverse the pathology that PHARMA drugs treat symptomatically. So….what do you think? Who do you think will win this battle? BILLION DOLLAR PHARMA companies with Lobbyists or the OTC Nutraceutical companies…..just watch the St. Valentine’s Day – Style bloodbath……(ps: The Big PHRMA companies will be shooters & will clean up the mess so fast with the bulldozers that Joe Public will never see it.)

  • Books Written by Jon Hansen

%d bloggers like this: