Big Herba's Research Deficit - Why it isn't about the Money

thenewme · April 2011

One of the most common complaints we read about here is some variation of "well, nobody is researching alternatives and we need to demand more research."

Here's an interesting article about how the alternative manufacturers are doing very well financially, and are choosing not to put the profits back into research.

http://getbetterhealth.com/big-herbas-research-deficit-why-it-isnt-about-the-money/2011.03.08?utm_source=scienceblogs.com&utm_medium=fixed_post&utm_campaign=widget

Here's the summary:

*******************************************************************

Big Herba is clearly big business, and on a purely financial level, it's hard not to be impressed by what they've achieved. But that success - 2.5B in revenues concentrated in the seven companies above - makes it equally difficult to give them a pass on their research deficit. Simply put, the leading natural health products companies have the coin for research, they just choose to spend it on marketing products and buying their competitors instead. The result: While pharma typically spends upwards of 15 percent to 20 percent of revenues on research, Big Herba contributes less than a tenth of that.

To the question of why, I'd like to propose simply that they don't need to. The products are clearly selling well already, and without the regulatory approvals pharmaceuticals require, spending money on research presents more risk than reward. After all, if you don't conduct research, you can't find out that your product doesn't work.

*****************************************************************

Yazmin · April 2011

I LOVE this expression (Big Herba). Cool LOL So funny.

Big Herba, Big Pharma..... We will simply keep going back on forth on what's best. And that's great, in my opinion.

Yes, of course, Big Herba is ALSO making big money. Someone ever tried to contest that?

While Big Pharma and Big Herba are going back and forth on different treatments, there is still no cure. And worse still: there is insufficent gain in long-term survival in absolute (not relative) statistics.

thenewme · April 2011

Hi Yazmin,

I'm afraid you may have missed the point - it's not about arguing, right-vs-wrong, lack of a cure, etc. It's about the fact that whenever questions are raised about the lack of research and facts and evidence for "alternative" treatments, the responses almost invariably claim that "they" won't do research on these treatments, and the manufacturers don't have the means to conduct the research."

I'm not sure who the "they" is that some think should be performing this research. I guarantee if I was the manufacturer of an effective breast cancer treatment, prevention, or cure, you better believe I'd be pouring all my profits back into R&D, as I'd be practically guaranteed to become wealthy and famous beyond belief when my product was proven effective.

This article shows clearly how profitable these "alternative" companies are. The question is why are they not funneling some of the profit into research? The author of the article has his theory about why, but what are some other possibilities?

Yazmin · April 2011

EDITED TO SAY

thenewme:

Sorry, I had posted the wrong stuff here, what have I been thinking about?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still, I believe, with Fran Visco, President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund, arguably one of the most "mainstream" and respected advocacy groups, that "exciting research" does not pay.

http://www.breastcancerdeadline2020.org/

I believe, with her, that any research that is too "adventurous", too "out of the box" is quickly stifled and does not get the appropriate funding, because it is then considered "unsafe" (financially) for the sponsoring corporations.

And this is not even an alternative/conventional type of issue.......

....And I will continue to believe, with Fran Visco, a victim like us, that "We fought cancer, and cancer won":

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/05/we-fought-cancer-and-cancer-won.html

_______________________

Please question more. And then more.

thenewme · April 2011

Hi Yazmin,

Thanks for coming back to continue the dialog! I really do appreciate your input.

I'm not familiar with Fran Visco, but I did do some reading on the Deadline2020 site you linked to. I didn't see where she discusses the concept of "exciting research does not pay." Instead, I came away with a message of hope. I don't necessarily agree with putting an artificial deadline on something so complex as finding a cure for breast cancer, but it seems that they are creating a great deal of hope, along with financial and political support for BC research - a great example of a grassroots effort! Why would she dedicate herself to this sort of effort if she didn't believe in the possibility of a cure?

The other article about "We Fought Cancer and Cancer Won," I found to be a very pessimistic throw-in-the-towel view of why we shouldn't even bother with hope. Basically it's a high-level summary of the disappointing and frustrating BC research that has yet to find The Magic Cure. Of course we're all disapppointed and frustrated, and I'm willing to bet the researchers themselves share the frustration. I think it's inaccurate and shortsighted to portray the past research as useless and utter failure, and I feel sorry for the author that she's apparently lost all hope and faith in research - I don't share that fatalistic and pessimistic view at all, but to each her own.

Anyway, the point of the article I linked in the original article was that contrary to popular belief, the "Big Herba" companies ARE making money, and LOTS of it. But they aren't choosing to put much of it back into research and development. "Big Pharma" companies are dedicating a lot more, percentage-wise, into research than "Big Herba" is. Do you (general you) have a theory about why that is?

Member_of_the_Club · April 2011

It is absolutely true that adventurous theories, the ones most likely to result in dramatic improvements, are not tested. They are high risk and therefore unlikely to be profitable and so most of the industries studies are into incremental changes. Herceptin was an exception and the researcher had to work hard to get funding.

I believe I read recently about a foundation that has been established to fund the high risk research.

But newme's point is an important one. The alt industry is huge and highly profitable. And they have exempted themselves from government oversight. I think this is important to keep in mind when we think of alt approaches as somehow above the profit motive.

pip57 · April 2011

Absolutely 'Big Herba' is making huge amounts of money. I am with you thenewme. Why don't they put their money where there mouth is?

I am a user of 'alternative/complimentary' treatment. However, I did feel it was necessary to do the standard tx first. It confuses me when people refuse to believe the facts gleaned from studies done on conventional tx but have no expectations of supportive data from alternative tx.

However, I don't see how you can do a truly unbiased study on the alternative. Who is going to say,"yes, I will only take this particular supplement or tx in exclusion of all others." It is the only way to truly decipher if a certain tx will be effective. And then they would have to slowly add in other things to see if a particular combination worked. I, personally, don't have that much time to risk my life on a study of that nature. So, I poke away at the available 'petrie dish' test conclusions and devise my own alternative tx plan. What else is there once conventional tx is done?

Anonymous · April 2011

thenewme and all,

I agree that we must challenge Big Herba to do more research in the same way that we are challenging Big Pharma to use their research dollars for honest unbiased research instead of conducting research just to disprove the inefficacy of alternative treatments and diagnostic tests...

even NICAM who is supposed to advocate complementary (meaning integrated conv/alt) seems to just say, there is not enough clinical studies for natural approach, and although not outright saying no to natural approach--- they still write in politically correct statements such as "there is not enough studies"

an implied no. but still a no.

I still yet to see a group/organization who is really 100% unbiased.. even myself I cannot say I am unbiased, because my mother is 100% natural girl-- I cannot say I can provide an unbiased decision towards promoting one or the other..

all I can say is that, at the time when I almost wanted to tell her ""PLEASE, take your TAMOXIFEN, if you cannot do it for you, or for me, can you at least do it for your 5 year old daughter""

just when I was about to beg on my knees, I realize I am fighting against the tide, but the tide has actually calmed down... there is so much improvement in her.. that reading (and translating) all the studies that I have printed to her, is probably of no value.

what proof do I have to show her-- she has shown me the results that I have been searching for--- paid doctors hundreds of dollars to get the reassurance that she will be ok, took 3 months of to research everything,, including Herceptin..

she has shown me remarkable progress.. its a shame you cannot see her, its a shame that the diagnostic tests that we use, are not yet widely accepted in the conventional world, that you cannot even understand what am saying..

its like am saying 3cm is the width of my notebook and you are saying no..it is 1.2 inches..when both of us are actually using different measurements, for practically the same issue. you are treating symptoms, while we are treating the root cause. you have chosen quantity of life, we have chosen quality of life. there is no right or wrong here. its a matter of choice.

if even the conventional world cannot agree on sequencing of conventional treatments.... how can we (conventional camp and alternative camp) can agree on anything?

Yazmin · April 2011

Perhaps I should point out that [to me, at least], this is not about Big Pharma versus Big Herba....

We all know that many pharmaceuticals and supplements are manufactured by the same companies (sometimes you have to dig deeper to find the tentacules).

No..... to me the whole treatment choices discussion is about what can be done to:

(1) minimize the seriously toxic side effects of many "conventional" treatments, and reduce those to the strictly necessary amount (European oncs are usually much less aggressive than their American counterparts, with similar results); (2) DIVERSIFY research, so that "exciting" research can finally get the necessary funding (despite the financial risk that means to the funding corporations);(3) support the body, yes, with well-researched supplements/nutrition to maximize our chances of staying in remission once we have reached that stage...... Instead of continuously "harassing" the body with strong "preventive" substances which side effects, again, can be devastating (in this forum, we will never stop discussing the fact that, unfortunately, a very large portion of the patients are still dying of cancer even after going through EVERY imaginable treatment that science has to offer).Big Pharma versus Big Herba? No, that's not the point, frankly.And thenewme, you wrote:I didn't see where she discusses the concept of "exciting research does not pay." That's because you haven't read her and attended her conferences as much as I do: I am card-carrying member of the NBCCF. Smile

Member_of_the_Club · April 2011

Nanay, are you saying your mother has a five year-old daughter?

thenewme · November 2011

Bumping for relevance to this current discussion:

http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79/topic/778621

Bottom line: "While pharma typically spends upwards of 15 percent to 20 percent of revenues on research, Big Herba contributes less than a tenth of that."

Anonymous · November 2011

"Big" herba is owned by the pharmaceutical drug companies.

rosemary-b · November 2011

If big herba and big pharma are the same companies why is so little spent on herba research?

Anonymous · November 2011

Call and ask them.

cp418 · November 2011

Which Pharm companies: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Aventis, Novartis, Glaxo, Genetech, J&J, Wyeth etc own "Big Herba" companies? I know many have purchased smaller biotech companies with specific research concentrations and others have undergone MANY mergers - - but I am not familiar with any involved in the Herbal supplements. It would be very interesting to know which ones are.

edited to add --- I do know some Pharma companies have/had OTC ventures with some medical related and non-medical companies. But again, my memory cannot recall any in the Vitamin or Herbal supplement industries. It just seems like a conflict of business interests.

thats-life- · November 2011

Well, lucky for us The National Cancer Institute is doing some research on "botanical Therapies":

http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=8075456&amp;vers=1

Anonymous · November 2011

Centrum is a multivitamin, made by Wyeth, which is now owned by Pfizer pharmaceuticals. Geritol is owned by GlaxoSmithKline.

And with all the billions raised for breast cancer, why is no money being put towards studies that involve vitamins and herbs? Ask yourselves that question. I'll answer it for you. It's all about $$$$$. There is no real money in vitamins and herbs.

cp418 · November 2011

Very valid points. Sorry, but I had a chuckle when you mentioned Centrum owned by Wyeth. They probably are using the $$$$$ from Centrum sales to pay their legal department against HRT lawsuits. Yes, all these big businesses are about money. What is critical for us as consumers is finding safe products with real efficacy and we need to research these companies, missions, and their products. This applies as well to what ever treatments we pursue and the doctors who we trust with our lives.

Kaara · December 2011

I said this on another thread, but it bears repeating. Big pharma and big herba are both in the business to make a profit, and that will never change. We live in a capitalist society and that is a fundamental belief....profit is not a dirty word. It would be great if the two could work together to find a cure for disease, but I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.

That being said, we need to be our own advocates and do our own research to determine what type of therapy best suits our needs. IMHO, I don't need a lot of scientific studies to convince me that chemo and hormone treatments are necessary for my survival. Even if they are, I choose not to take them and reduce my quality of life. I would prefer to take another path, incur some risk, and feel better in the process. Diet and lifestyle changes have become a priority for me, and I already feel and look better as a result. If it becomes necessary, I will explore other options that involve treatments with fewer SE's. The choice is mine alone, and I take full responsibility for the outcome of that choice.

It's really not a matter of who is right and who is wrong. It's all about choices.

Big Herba's Research Deficit - Why it isn't about the Money

Comments

Categories