Welcome to my blog! This is a place of information and hope for fellow Canadians who are suffering from Lyme disease. I want to share with you the knowledge I have gained during my fight with this debilitating, frightening, and misunderstood illness. I hope you will be blessed.

Friday, June 01, 2012

Big Pharma

I've often wondered WHY pharmaceutical companies would have any problem admitting to "chronic Lyme" when they stand to make millions on long-term antibiotic therapy.  It never made sense to me.  I could understand why insurance companies would have a problem; afterall, why would they want to pay out for the treatment?  Here is one explanation I found on the Under Our Skin blog page.  Makes sense now.

Submitted by John Kreutzer (not verified) on June 7, 2011 - 7:15pm.

To reply to your question about "why would pharmaceutical companies want to suppress the use of long-term antibiotic therapy" the answer lies in the cronic problems that were mentioned in the movie such as MS, ALS, Lupus, and so on. Doctors will tell you that they don't know what causes these "auto immune diseases" and that there is no cure. If Lyme is the cause and you are able to give a cure the cost to the pharmaceutical companies would be in the multiple billions every year.
I have Lyme as well as CNSV, my wife Crones and will be tested this week for Lyme. As this question, how much more money can pharmaceutical companies make on a lifetime of treatment for these two illness and their complication verses simple antibiotics?
By the way, I am not afraid to put my name with my thoughts. I am tired of dealing with doctors over the last 10 years and this movie is a reflection of my personal problems. How about you?


  1. the conspiracy theory of pharma not helping because they can make millions on other treatments is a comforting one but ulitmately it is untrue.

    The pharma cos are a naturally conservative bunch. They get sued all the time by patients who claim they didn't understand the side-effects of a product. Because of this they are reluctant to move off of a fairly well known and well supported treatment regimen.

    To claim that they are trying to stop diagnosis of disease because the cure would be less lucrative is belied by the small sums involved. the big money is in hypertension, mild pain management, and depression. Just about every other disease state, including oncology, neurological disorders, and autoimmune don't affect enough people, have litigious patient support groups, and are very costly to develop. If a good proportion of these diseases could simply be treated by anitbiotics this would be a net gain for the pharma cos. It would leave the field clear for treatments that are easier to prescribe and less likely to causing litigation.

    I hope this helps to give another perspective.

    1. Thank you for your insightful comment, offering another point of view. It is very difficult to judge the motives of pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, given that the public is not privy to the closed-door conversations of the management and strategists. I do believe that for them, profits trump altruism every time. As you state, perhaps Lyme is just not profitable enough for them to give it a second glance.

      When it comes to insurance companies, on the other hand, one would think that a year of antibiotics would be cheaper than ongoing treatment for chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, or neurological problems. And if that is the case, then why are they not jumping on the antibiotic bandwagon? It's perplexing.