Thanks for the post SC. We can all get hot about Gilead, and wonder if the shutting down of of the primate facility at OHSU is just a coincidence… But I share your broader frustration that “any real curative medicine gets pushed aside” and feel like it is one of those uncomfortable truths that keeps on coming up, ailment by ailment, and never fades away. Some would say conspiracy theory and brush it off, but it seems more systematic and deliberate than that.
Back in my undergrad days at San Francisco State I was introduced to the work of the French philosopher and social critic Michele Foucault. While I never read an entire book of his (!), lots of discussion in class and I found his critique of various institutions always spot-on and downright illuminating. Kind of a go-to source for understanding social institutions, so when I read your post I thought I’d reacquaint myself with him by asking google AI a basic question--What would Foucault say about the nature of big pharmaceutical companies? And Foucault delivered, like he always does:
"Foucault would likely view big pharmaceutical companies as key agents of biopower and medicalization, transforming human behaviors, feelings, and everyday problems into medical illnesses requiring pharmaceutical solutions. They operate as a “dispositif” (a strategy without a strategist) that shapes societal, medical, and individual behaviors.
• The "Pharmaceutical Gaze": Similar to the "medical gaze", pharmaceutical companies promote a specific, limited view of health, focusing on bodily parts or biochemical imbalances rather than the whole person.
• Medicalization of Life: Big Pharma acts as a powerful force in redefining normal life experiences as pathological, thus creating and expanding its own markets through consumer demand.
• Biopolitics and Control: Pharmaceutical companies, in conjunction with the state, exercise biopower by creating products that dictate how people "live" and manage their bodies, often turning potential "problems-in-living" into chronic, medicated conditions.
• Disciplinary Power: Through the promotion of constant medication, pharma companies encourage individuals to participate in their own surveillance and regulation, encouraging a form of "pastoral power" where people self-regulate according to medical norms.
• Knowledge as Power: Pharmaceutical knowledge is not objective but rather a "discourse" that serves economic systems and power structures rather than just health.
• Foucault would argue that these companies are not merely selling medicine, but rather constructing a new reality where health is a commodity regulated by pharmaceutical power.
In summary, Foucault's view of power is not limited to one aspect of the medical institution's role. Instead, he sees power as being exercised in all aspects of the institution's work, from diagnosis to treatment, and from defining health norms to enforcing them."
Can we say--the medical/industrial/academic complex? Big Pharma and their henchmen, the AMA and the FDA? The last line--from defining health norms to enforcing them--that gave me pause. "Enforcing them." Jeeze, what's next, the medicine police?
I actually have some vague, small, aspirational hope that leronlimab—the cheap, generic version—might eventually lead to a democratization of health care and empowerment for the many by offering a low-cost version of the drug, made available for a range of inflammatory diseases brought on by CCL5. Atherosclerosis, for example, for starters. And then, well, pick what ails you from Ohm’s List…
Would Lalezari go there? I think he has quite a bit on his plate right now, curing cancer and all, as CEO of Cytodyn… But maybe later? Dr Jay is co-founder and on the board of NP2, a not-for-profit pharmaceutical company. (!) Their vision is to bring down the cost of high-priced generic cancer treatments by making and selling them for cost, plus a small profit, which they plan to put back into the biz. I don't know how far along they are, but down the line, I'm curious if they would take advantage of leronlimab when it goes generic, and expand into inflammatory diseases. I would say this idea wouldn't be appropriate for cancer because you'd certainly want medical supervision for all the combinations of other drugs you'd likely be taking... But aspirationally speaking, the NP2 example might become a model, a plausible way to get a life-changing therapeutic into the widest possible hands, for the wide range of chronic conditions that leronlimab can address. And perhaps, with minimal interference from Big Pharma, the medical establishment, and their enforcers. It would be nice to put the Gileads of the world back in their place.
Well, it would be easy to get cynical about the kind of connections you are making with the primate center closing and the Amerex debacle. But it's not a conspiracy theory if there really is a conspiracy! I thought a look at the bright side of the fence might be worth a few words... especially after the Foucault perspective. (Who died of AIDS, by the way, back in 84).
Well, here's the link to NP2. Everybody, it's worth checking out.
https://np2.org/the-problem/
Back in my undergrad days at San Francisco State I was introduced to the work of the French philosopher and social critic Michele Foucault. While I never read an entire book of his (!), lots of discussion in class and I found his critique of various institutions always spot-on and downright illuminating. Kind of a go-to source for understanding social institutions, so when I read your post I thought I’d reacquaint myself with him by asking google AI a basic question--What would Foucault say about the nature of big pharmaceutical companies? And Foucault delivered, like he always does:
"Foucault would likely view big pharmaceutical companies as key agents of biopower and medicalization, transforming human behaviors, feelings, and everyday problems into medical illnesses requiring pharmaceutical solutions. They operate as a “dispositif” (a strategy without a strategist) that shapes societal, medical, and individual behaviors.
• The "Pharmaceutical Gaze": Similar to the "medical gaze", pharmaceutical companies promote a specific, limited view of health, focusing on bodily parts or biochemical imbalances rather than the whole person.
• Medicalization of Life: Big Pharma acts as a powerful force in redefining normal life experiences as pathological, thus creating and expanding its own markets through consumer demand.
• Biopolitics and Control: Pharmaceutical companies, in conjunction with the state, exercise biopower by creating products that dictate how people "live" and manage their bodies, often turning potential "problems-in-living" into chronic, medicated conditions.
• Disciplinary Power: Through the promotion of constant medication, pharma companies encourage individuals to participate in their own surveillance and regulation, encouraging a form of "pastoral power" where people self-regulate according to medical norms.
• Knowledge as Power: Pharmaceutical knowledge is not objective but rather a "discourse" that serves economic systems and power structures rather than just health.
• Foucault would argue that these companies are not merely selling medicine, but rather constructing a new reality where health is a commodity regulated by pharmaceutical power.
In summary, Foucault's view of power is not limited to one aspect of the medical institution's role. Instead, he sees power as being exercised in all aspects of the institution's work, from diagnosis to treatment, and from defining health norms to enforcing them."
Can we say--the medical/industrial/academic complex? Big Pharma and their henchmen, the AMA and the FDA? The last line--from defining health norms to enforcing them--that gave me pause. "Enforcing them." Jeeze, what's next, the medicine police?
I actually have some vague, small, aspirational hope that leronlimab—the cheap, generic version—might eventually lead to a democratization of health care and empowerment for the many by offering a low-cost version of the drug, made available for a range of inflammatory diseases brought on by CCL5. Atherosclerosis, for example, for starters. And then, well, pick what ails you from Ohm’s List…
Would Lalezari go there? I think he has quite a bit on his plate right now, curing cancer and all, as CEO of Cytodyn… But maybe later? Dr Jay is co-founder and on the board of NP2, a not-for-profit pharmaceutical company. (!) Their vision is to bring down the cost of high-priced generic cancer treatments by making and selling them for cost, plus a small profit, which they plan to put back into the biz. I don't know how far along they are, but down the line, I'm curious if they would take advantage of leronlimab when it goes generic, and expand into inflammatory diseases. I would say this idea wouldn't be appropriate for cancer because you'd certainly want medical supervision for all the combinations of other drugs you'd likely be taking... But aspirationally speaking, the NP2 example might become a model, a plausible way to get a life-changing therapeutic into the widest possible hands, for the wide range of chronic conditions that leronlimab can address. And perhaps, with minimal interference from Big Pharma, the medical establishment, and their enforcers. It would be nice to put the Gileads of the world back in their place.
Well, it would be easy to get cynical about the kind of connections you are making with the primate center closing and the Amerex debacle. But it's not a conspiracy theory if there really is a conspiracy! I thought a look at the bright side of the fence might be worth a few words... especially after the Foucault perspective. (Who died of AIDS, by the way, back in 84).
Well, here's the link to NP2. Everybody, it's worth checking out.
https://np2.org/the-problem/
6
