Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cure For Hepaitits C has been found !!! But it will cost you $100,000

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

benrl

NavyDoc

You fail in demands for socialization of staple goods. Socialization of staple goods has, in evidence of history, provided shortages of staple goods. Socialization always brings failure. It is a Star Trek pipe dream.

You say you don't trust government, but you want it to protect you from "evil corporations." Which is it?

We shouldn't subsidize ANY industry because subsidization leads to control--control by those very people you don't trust. How logical is that?


Alright, lets do it, Im on board.

Ive voted the right ways, ive signed on to the right campaigns.

Lets remove all subsidizes, Im all for it, period.

Wont happen, Im all for it.

So since we are talking "ideals" Yeah in a star trek cornocopia society where technology has reached a level where scarcity is a thing of the past, it would be possible.

What part of in an Ideal world didn't translate?

But we don't live in that world, NOR do we live in a world where government WONT subsidize.

We need to do things like repeal citizens united, tackle lobbying reform, get senators down to 2 terms max, address the tax code.

Baring a wish granting genie, we have to live in the real world.

I don't want a Rep Majority in congress trying to fix things the Dems screwed up, any more than I want Dems doing the reverse.

Subsidies wont stop, and the two parties will stand.

Nothing will get fixed, So lets just keep everything par the course?

F-education?
F-healthcare?

The old healthcare rules, frankly equally flawed as the current one, just the current one spreads the misery around a whole lot more.

We have a government where any "reform" is bad reform, time for new Representation.


I'm all for term limits. I'm all for applying the same FEC rules to members of congress and the senate. Insider trading that would land a banker in prison is allowed in congress.

Subsidize nothing. Get the government out of healthcare, education, what you wear and what you eat. That is the real answer, since we are talking about ideals.




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

NavyDoc

jude11
Meanwhile in India:


(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.


So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace


Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.


Ok then,

Call it what you want but 1,000 per pill is robbery of the highest sort. I have a feeling you know this but choose to take an opposite knee. Your choice.

Care to guess how many times Big Pharm has been taken to court for Deaths from their "Safe" Drugs but never paid? Accountability?



www.justice.org...
Washington, DC—The U.S. Supreme Court gave pharmaceutical companies another gift today, largely shielding the generic industry from lawsuits for the design of their drugs. This is the second Supreme Court decision giving the generic drug industry immunity. In 2011, the Court decided generic makers cannot be held responsible for failing to warn about a drug’s side-effects, saying the generic maker is only making a “copy” of the brand drug and must follow the brand drug’s label.

“I know of no other industry where the maker of a product has such limited responsibility for the safety of the product they make,” said American Association for Justice President Mary Alice McLarty. “Over eighty percent of drugs dispensed are generic; the manufacturers must be held responsible for their drugs’ harmful effects.”

The case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett is about Karen Bartlett, a woman who permanently suffers from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain. The disease left Karen nearly blind and caused over 60% of her skin to burn off. She spent months in a coma and a year being tube fed. She is permanently disfigured and will need care for the rest of her life.


Most importantly:

"Hundreds of cases have been dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s Pliva v. Mensing decision."

Peace



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Krystian

NavyDoc

jude11
Meanwhile in India:


(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.


So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace


Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.


The article blatantly states that the manufacturer is hoping to agree to a voluntary deal to sell its own drug and avoid rip offs.

The logic pro capitalism presented in this entire thread is wrong.

Based on the logic that R&D, lawyers ect mark up this drug to $1000 a pill, then literally EVERY new drug should be $1000 a pill. Every new drug has to pay the same ridiculous FDA fees, go through clinicals, ect - The reason this particular pill is $1000 a pill is because it "saves lives" so they are leveraging your life to charge $1000 vs say leveraging your hardon to charge $7/viagra.
edit on Apr-05:00pm3007 by Krystian because: (no reason given)

Actually, you are quite wrong, not every drug goes through the same FDA criteria. Drugs that deal with life threatening issues and have a more serious potential life altering effects go through more scrutiny. Want to know how I know you don't know what you are talking about?


You are absolutely correct but that doesnt make a difference in my argument. There are different parameters and costs for the FDA to even take a whiff of your drug however NONE of them will equal out to 1000X more the lowest parameters cost. The difference in price will be under 5mil when you factor in FDA fees + additional hoops to jump through. I just watched a company drop 3.5m into a trade show for a new heart drug they were hoping to release only to find out THE DAY of the show that it wont clear. Literally just WASTED 3.5mil to promote a drug to other pharmaceutical employees.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

jude11

NavyDoc

jude11
Meanwhile in India:


(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.


So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace


Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.


Ok then,

Call it what you want but 1,000 per pill is robbery of the highest sort. I have a feeling you know this but choose to take an opposite knee. Your choice.

Care to guess how many times Big Pharm has been taken to court for Deaths from their "Safe" Drugs but never paid? Accountability?



www.justice.org...
Washington, DC—The U.S. Supreme Court gave pharmaceutical companies another gift today, largely shielding the generic industry from lawsuits for the design of their drugs. This is the second Supreme Court decision giving the generic drug industry immunity. In 2011, the Court decided generic makers cannot be held responsible for failing to warn about a drug’s side-effects, saying the generic maker is only making a “copy” of the brand drug and must follow the brand drug’s label.

“I know of no other industry where the maker of a product has such limited responsibility for the safety of the product they make,” said American Association for Justice President Mary Alice McLarty. “Over eighty percent of drugs dispensed are generic; the manufacturers must be held responsible for their drugs’ harmful effects.”

The case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett is about Karen Bartlett, a woman who permanently suffers from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain. The disease left Karen nearly blind and caused over 60% of her skin to burn off. She spent months in a coma and a year being tube fed. She is permanently disfigured and will need care for the rest of her life.


Most importantly:

"Hundreds of cases have been dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s Pliva v. Mensing decision."

Peace


And yet you conveniently ignore stuff like this:

Company

Settlement

Violation(s)

Year

Product(s)

Laws allegedly violated
(if applicable)

GlaxoSmithKline[6] $3 billion Off-label promotion/
failure to disclose safety data 2012 Avandia/Wellbutrin/
Paxil False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[7] $2.3 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2009 Bextra/Geodon/
Zyvox/Lyrica False Claims Act/FDCA
Abbott Laboratories[8] $1.5 billion Off-label promotion 2012 Depakote False Claims Act/FDCA
Eli Lilly[9] $1.4 billion Off-label promotion 2009 Zyprexa False Claims Act/FDCA
TAP Pharmaceutical Products[10] $875 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2001 Lupron False Claims Act/
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Amgen[11] $762 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2012 Aranesp False Claims Act/FDCA
GlaxoSmithKline[12] $750 million Poor manufacturing practices 2010 Kytril/Bactroban/
Paxil CR/Avandamet False Claims Act/FDCA
Serono[13] $704 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/monopoly practices 2005 Serostim False Claims Act
Merck[14] $650 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2008 Zocor/Vioxx/Pepsid False Claims Act/
Medicaid Rebate Statute
Purdue Pharma[15] $601 million Off-label promotion 2007 Oxycontin False Claims Act
Allergan[16] $600 million Off-label promotion 2010 Botox False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[17] $520 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Seroquel False Claims Act
Bristol-Myers Squibb[18] $515 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2007 Abilify/Serzone False Claims Act/FDCA
Schering-Plough[19] $500 million Poor manufacturing practices 2002 Claritin FDA Current
Good Manufacturing Practices
Schering-Plough[20] $435 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2006 Temodar/ Intron A/K-Dur/
Claritin RediTabs False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[21] $430 million Off-label promotion 2004 Neurontin False Claims Act/FDCA
Cephalon[22] $425 million Off-label promotion[23] 2008 Actiq/Gabitril/Provigil False Claims Act/FDCA
Novartis[24] $423 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Trileptal False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[25] $355 million Medicare fraud 2003 Zoladex Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Schering-Plough[26] $345 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2004 Claritin False Claims Act/


I know you don't know what "off label" is so please look it up for me.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Krystian

NavyDoc

Krystian

NavyDoc

jude11
Meanwhile in India:


(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.


So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace


Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.


The article blatantly states that the manufacturer is hoping to agree to a voluntary deal to sell its own drug and avoid rip offs.

The logic pro capitalism presented in this entire thread is wrong.

Based on the logic that R&D, lawyers ect mark up this drug to $1000 a pill, then literally EVERY new drug should be $1000 a pill. Every new drug has to pay the same ridiculous FDA fees, go through clinicals, ect - The reason this particular pill is $1000 a pill is because it "saves lives" so they are leveraging your life to charge $1000 vs say leveraging your hardon to charge $7/viagra.
edit on Apr-05:00pm3007 by Krystian because: (no reason given)

Actually, you are quite wrong, not every drug goes through the same FDA criteria. Drugs that deal with life threatening issues and have a more serious potential life altering effects go through more scrutiny. Want to know how I know you don't know what you are talking about?


You are absolutely correct but that doesnt make a difference in my argument. There are different parameters and costs for the FDA to even take a whiff of your drug however NONE of them will equal out to 1000X more the lowest parameters cost. The difference in price will be under 5mil when you factor in FDA fees + additional hoops to jump through. I just watched a company drop 3.5m into a trade show for a new heart drug they were hoping to release only to find out THE DAY of the show that it wont clear. Literally just WASTED 3.5mil to promote a drug to other pharmaceutical employees.


Exactly. In your example they lost 3.5 million in a SINGLE day when a drug they thought will clear, doesn't. Multiply that by the dozens of drugs a year that don't clear and the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on each and every drug that doesn't clear and that they have to recoup that on the single drug that does clear and you might understand why the cost is so high.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

SonoftheSun
reply to post by amatrine
 


I find this disgusting on so many levels.

If we were human, so many diseases we could cure for those in need. If we were human, so much food we could supply to those in need. If we were human, so much shelter we could offer to those in need. Money would not be the obstacle. It would just be the right thing to do.

Sometimes, I think we are still Neanderthals in our way of thinking and acting. This OP is just an example out of many.


Well said!!!!! I think the same way.

For a Country that is trillions of dollars in debt, we can magically afford to send money to other countries to help them for whatever reason. Money that we don't have magically appears when we need it for other things.

So here we have a life saving pill that will save those who can afford it and goodbye to anyone who can't. Lovely world we live in. NOT! For those responsible for setting such high prices, if anyone they knew and loved needed that pill to survive and couldn't afford it, you bet your butt the price would be different.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   

NavyDoc

jude11

NavyDoc

jude11
Meanwhile in India:


(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.


So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace


Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.


Ok then,

Call it what you want but 1,000 per pill is robbery of the highest sort. I have a feeling you know this but choose to take an opposite knee. Your choice.

Care to guess how many times Big Pharm has been taken to court for Deaths from their "Safe" Drugs but never paid? Accountability?



www.justice.org...
Washington, DC—The U.S. Supreme Court gave pharmaceutical companies another gift today, largely shielding the generic industry from lawsuits for the design of their drugs. This is the second Supreme Court decision giving the generic drug industry immunity. In 2011, the Court decided generic makers cannot be held responsible for failing to warn about a drug’s side-effects, saying the generic maker is only making a “copy” of the brand drug and must follow the brand drug’s label.

“I know of no other industry where the maker of a product has such limited responsibility for the safety of the product they make,” said American Association for Justice President Mary Alice McLarty. “Over eighty percent of drugs dispensed are generic; the manufacturers must be held responsible for their drugs’ harmful effects.”

The case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett is about Karen Bartlett, a woman who permanently suffers from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain. The disease left Karen nearly blind and caused over 60% of her skin to burn off. She spent months in a coma and a year being tube fed. She is permanently disfigured and will need care for the rest of her life.


Most importantly:

"Hundreds of cases have been dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s Pliva v. Mensing decision."

Peace


And yet you conveniently ignore stuff like this:

Company

Settlement

Violation(s)

Year

Product(s)

Laws allegedly violated
(if applicable)

GlaxoSmithKline[6] $3 billion Off-label promotion/
failure to disclose safety data 2012 Avandia/Wellbutrin/
Paxil False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[7] $2.3 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2009 Bextra/Geodon/
Zyvox/Lyrica False Claims Act/FDCA
Abbott Laboratories[8] $1.5 billion Off-label promotion 2012 Depakote False Claims Act/FDCA
Eli Lilly[9] $1.4 billion Off-label promotion 2009 Zyprexa False Claims Act/FDCA
TAP Pharmaceutical Products[10] $875 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2001 Lupron False Claims Act/
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Amgen[11] $762 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2012 Aranesp False Claims Act/FDCA
GlaxoSmithKline[12] $750 million Poor manufacturing practices 2010 Kytril/Bactroban/
Paxil CR/Avandamet False Claims Act/FDCA
Serono[13] $704 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/monopoly practices 2005 Serostim False Claims Act
Merck[14] $650 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2008 Zocor/Vioxx/Pepsid False Claims Act/
Medicaid Rebate Statute
Purdue Pharma[15] $601 million Off-label promotion 2007 Oxycontin False Claims Act
Allergan[16] $600 million Off-label promotion 2010 Botox False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[17] $520 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Seroquel False Claims Act
Bristol-Myers Squibb[18] $515 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2007 Abilify/Serzone False Claims Act/FDCA
Schering-Plough[19] $500 million Poor manufacturing practices 2002 Claritin FDA Current
Good Manufacturing Practices
Schering-Plough[20] $435 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2006 Temodar/ Intron A/K-Dur/
Claritin RediTabs False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[21] $430 million Off-label promotion 2004 Neurontin False Claims Act/FDCA
Cephalon[22] $425 million Off-label promotion[23] 2008 Actiq/Gabitril/Provigil False Claims Act/FDCA
Novartis[24] $423 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Trileptal False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[25] $355 million Medicare fraud 2003 Zoladex Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Schering-Plough[26] $345 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2004 Claritin False Claims Act/


I know you don't know what "off label" is so please look it up for me.


No time to even look at the article? sigh.

Or the Dates? Another...sigh.

Or the "Expanding Immunity" as in gaining more ground.

I get it now.

Ok, carry on.

Peace



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

jude11

NavyDoc

jude11

NavyDoc

jude11
Meanwhile in India:


(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.


So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace


Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.


Ok then,

Call it what you want but 1,000 per pill is robbery of the highest sort. I have a feeling you know this but choose to take an opposite knee. Your choice.

Care to guess how many times Big Pharm has been taken to court for Deaths from their "Safe" Drugs but never paid? Accountability?



www.justice.org...
Washington, DC—The U.S. Supreme Court gave pharmaceutical companies another gift today, largely shielding the generic industry from lawsuits for the design of their drugs. This is the second Supreme Court decision giving the generic drug industry immunity. In 2011, the Court decided generic makers cannot be held responsible for failing to warn about a drug’s side-effects, saying the generic maker is only making a “copy” of the brand drug and must follow the brand drug’s label.

“I know of no other industry where the maker of a product has such limited responsibility for the safety of the product they make,” said American Association for Justice President Mary Alice McLarty. “Over eighty percent of drugs dispensed are generic; the manufacturers must be held responsible for their drugs’ harmful effects.”

The case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett is about Karen Bartlett, a woman who permanently suffers from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain. The disease left Karen nearly blind and caused over 60% of her skin to burn off. She spent months in a coma and a year being tube fed. She is permanently disfigured and will need care for the rest of her life.


Most importantly:

"Hundreds of cases have been dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s Pliva v. Mensing decision."

Peace


And yet you conveniently ignore stuff like this:

Company

Settlement

Violation(s)

Year

Product(s)

Laws allegedly violated
(if applicable)

GlaxoSmithKline[6] $3 billion Off-label promotion/
failure to disclose safety data 2012 Avandia/Wellbutrin/
Paxil False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[7] $2.3 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2009 Bextra/Geodon/
Zyvox/Lyrica False Claims Act/FDCA
Abbott Laboratories[8] $1.5 billion Off-label promotion 2012 Depakote False Claims Act/FDCA
Eli Lilly[9] $1.4 billion Off-label promotion 2009 Zyprexa False Claims Act/FDCA
TAP Pharmaceutical Products[10] $875 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2001 Lupron False Claims Act/
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Amgen[11] $762 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2012 Aranesp False Claims Act/FDCA
GlaxoSmithKline[12] $750 million Poor manufacturing practices 2010 Kytril/Bactroban/
Paxil CR/Avandamet False Claims Act/FDCA
Serono[13] $704 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/monopoly practices 2005 Serostim False Claims Act
Merck[14] $650 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2008 Zocor/Vioxx/Pepsid False Claims Act/
Medicaid Rebate Statute
Purdue Pharma[15] $601 million Off-label promotion 2007 Oxycontin False Claims Act
Allergan[16] $600 million Off-label promotion 2010 Botox False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[17] $520 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Seroquel False Claims Act
Bristol-Myers Squibb[18] $515 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2007 Abilify/Serzone False Claims Act/FDCA
Schering-Plough[19] $500 million Poor manufacturing practices 2002 Claritin FDA Current
Good Manufacturing Practices
Schering-Plough[20] $435 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2006 Temodar/ Intron A/K-Dur/
Claritin RediTabs False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[21] $430 million Off-label promotion 2004 Neurontin False Claims Act/FDCA
Cephalon[22] $425 million Off-label promotion[23] 2008 Actiq/Gabitril/Provigil False Claims Act/FDCA
Novartis[24] $423 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Trileptal False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[25] $355 million Medicare fraud 2003 Zoladex Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Schering-Plough[26] $345 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2004 Claritin False Claims Act/


I know you don't know what "off label" is so please look it up for me.


No time to even look at the article? sigh.

Or the Dates? Another...sigh.

Or the "Expanding Immunity" as in gaining more ground.

I get it now.

Ok, carry on.

Peace


LOL, that was just one article. There are many more, just on the front page of google. And you still haven't looked up what "off label" means--you like to work from a position of ignorance?

news.heartland.org... e/2006/01/01/litigation-raising-health-care-costs-study-says

www.kpmg.com... ls-june-2011.pdf

I got it. You hate corporations. Here's the rub though. If corporations do not research, you get no new drugs. If there is not a profit motive, no new research gets done. If you think that all great research comes from the government, you are an idiot without any knowledge of history.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Good news. the most elite of the rich can get cured of their hep c.
hooray for the top 5%. Good for you.

Meanwhile, back in reality...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I tried to hack the drug, but I can't seem to find anything natural that is potent enough to do any good. They added some specialized chemistry to it so they could get rid of side effects and boost the active part. It appears to inhibit a few specialized nucleotides. I could only find about five pertinent articles on this. I know there some natural nucleotide inhibitors but I just couldn't find enough information to put anything together YET. Maybe more will slip out in the future. Inhibiting or antagonizing reactions to hasten healing on stuff like colds or flues isn't that hard, but this is a lot different. Without research to study I can't hack it. I'll have to try more tomorrow, with a fresh mind. Just ate a chicken dinner and it inhibited my thinking too much.
edit on 12-4-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   

rickymouse
I tried to hack the drug, but I can't seem to find anything natural that is potent enough to do any good. They added some specialized chemistry to it so they could get rid of side effects and boost the active part. It appears to inhibit a few specialized nucleotides. I could only find about five pertinent articles on this. I know there some natural nucleotide inhibitors but I just couldn't find enough information to put anything together YET. Maybe more will slip out in the future. Inhibiting or antagonizing reactions to hasten healing on stuff like colds or flues isn't that hard, but this is a lot different. Without research to study I can't hack it. I'll have to try more tomorrow, with a fresh mind. Just ate a chicken dinner and it inhibited my thinking too much.
edit on 12-4-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


Well, hopefully, with a clear head and a few hours on the Internet, you will be able to replicate years of study by dozens of dedicated scientists.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

SaturnFX
Good news. the most elite of the rich can get cured of their hep c.
hooray for the top 5%. Good for you.

Meanwhile, back in reality...


...there would be no new drugs at all.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   
All in all, $90,000 for a cure isn't that ridiculously priced when compared to the cost of a lifetime of treatment.

That said, the reason it costs so much is because of all the countries that have provided socialized medicine. Now, I'm not against socialized medicine at all but I believe every government other than the US government has taken a very irresponsible approach to the cost of medications.

They have decided to put the price of these pills at near generic levels from the moment they are introduced but still only allow patents for a few years, if they recognize the patent at all. What that means to the drug companies is that to make back their several billion dollar investment in creating a new successful drug they have to raise the prices in the countries that allow for it like the US.

Because a patent only lasts for so long, and there's an actual hardcap to the number of cases of a disease each year, that means there's an actual limit to the number of drug sales that can be made during the patents lifetime and no amount of marketing, advertising, or alternative business models will change that. From that limited number of cases of a disease they have to generate several billion dollars, plus a profit margin for their shareholders.

If other nations actually let these drugs sell at a higher price for 7-10 years the price would come down for all of us.

If we all cooperate we can each pay $10,000 for treatment until generics take over or we can have the current situation where citizens of some countries pay $5000 for treatment while others pay $100,000 for treatment and it puts the $100,000 country in the position where if they stop paying, no more medical advancements will happen at all.

In my opinion what we need to do is make the drug companies entirely public funded. They can still seek to earn and pocket a profit to provide motivation (they do have global companies to compete against for example in racing to a patent for treatment) but the initial funding for a drug needs to come entirely from the taxpayers. Then the taxpayers can see a return on their investment in the form of a heavily reduced cost of new medications as we would only need to pay for a profit margin as the initial expense was funded with tax dollars.

This is the only solution I see to high drug costs because no other nation is going to make their citizens pay more money for medication.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I would like to explore the birth certificate bond created by who?
Something that needs a little more attention is who owns who and who is responsible for who!
Health included.
Registration or handing over title, who is really responsible for all costs and why?


Edit
The reason for my post is, if we are registered then we are owned and the cost for medical expenses should by rights come from the owners of the registered property.
So... The cost of treatment is the responsibility of the registered owners!

edit on 12-4-2014 by Trollsmustdie because: No reason



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Interesting that so many people here are SO SURE they understand the economics of bringing a drug to market AND the PROFIT off of drugs. You are so outraged at $1,000 a pill to treat Hepatitis C, a disease that is transmitted how, exactly?

The widely touted cost for developing a single new drug is said to be $1 billion. At that cost, the company would have to sell 1 million pills to break even. But actually, the cost to produce a new drug is often much more, as is shown here


The range of money spent is stunning. AstraZeneca has spent $12 billion in research money for every new drug approved, as much as the top-selling medicine ever generated in annual sales; Amgen spent just $3.7 billion. At $12 billion per drug, inventing medicines is a pretty unsustainable business. At $3.7 billion, you might just be able to make money (a new medicine can probably keep generating revenue for ten years; invent one a year at that rate and you’ll do well).

There are lots of expenses here. A single clinical trial can cost $100 million at the high end, and the combined cost of manufacturing and clinical testing for some drugs has added up to $1 billion. But the main expense is failure. AstraZeneca does badly by this measure because it has had so few new drugs hit the market. Eli Lilly spent roughly the same amount on R&D, but got twice as many new medicines approved over that 15 year period, and so spent just $4.5 billion per drug.

Why include failure in the cost? Right now, fewer than 1 in 10 medicines that start being tested in human clinical trials succeed. Some biotechnology companies do manage to make it to market without having to spend money on failed medicines – but only because other startups went bust trying to test other ideas.


So why not plug in $12 billion as the cost? That's only 12 million pills.

So, how many people actually have Hepatitis C?


How Common Is Hepatitis C?
The number of hepatitis C cases has been decreasing since its peak in the 1980s. Currently, there are fewer than 30,000 cases of hepatitis C diagnosed each year.


Source. This number has been decreasing steadily over the years. In 1982 it was 180,000. In 2004 it was 26,000. Altogether, according to this source, 3.9 million people are infected, but THIS DOES NOT MEAN that all 3.9 million people even NEED to take this new drug because their disease is already controlled by drugs already on the market. So we really don't have a figure on how many people would actually be helped by this drug.

Why has the disease DECREASED so dramatically? It's usually transmitted via infected blood. 60% of cases are caused by intravenous drug use, and as people become more aware (likely because of AIDS) they are not as likely to infect themselves.

We do know that from 8-10,000 people a year die from the disease. Source

If you are willing to attempt the math here you will see that 12 million pills at $1000 a pill will cure how many people again? And this is just for the company to break even with NO PROFIT AT ALL.

You folks who accuse this company of making an unreasonable profit have really no idea what it takes to even bring a drug to market, much less make it profitable. But then, most of you have never run a business.
edit on 4/12/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Krystian
The article blatantly states that the manufacturer is hoping to agree to a voluntary deal to sell its own drug and avoid rip offs.

The pro capitalism logic presented in this entire thread is wrong.

Based on the logic that R&D, lawyers ect mark up this drug to $1000 a pill, then literally EVERY new drug should be $1000 a pill. Every new drug has to pay the same ridiculous FDA fees, go through clinicals, ect - The reason this particular pill is $1000 a pill is because it "saves lives" so they are leveraging your life to charge $1000 vs say leveraging your hardon to charge $7/viagra.


Wrong. Drug companies work off of averages, they don't know ahead of time which drugs will succeed and which will fail. The average patent lasts for 7 years and the average drug after all the costs and failed drugs are accounted for costs 5 billion.

www.hhs.gov...

The number cases per year is 17,000, however only 25% of those need treatment. Over the average 7 year lifespan of a patent that's 29,750 cases or to put it another way a maximum of 29,750 sales. From those 29,750 sales they need to generate $5 billion to recoup their investment as well as a profit margin (lets say 20%) for their shareholders. So you're looking at 6 billion spread across just under 30,000 people, that's a cost of $201,680 per person. When you consider that the US currently subsidizes drug costs by about 50% you arrive at a number near $100,000 which should explain the $90,000 price tag.

If you want the medication to be cheaper either push for higher taxes so that we can subsidize a larger percentage of research (the closest thing to a politically viable solution), or push for politicians to get other countries to recognize our drug patents and enforce them for 7-10 years (no country will do this because they like medications being affordable for all).

The reason viagra is so cheap (and before there was a generic it wasn't nearly that cheap) is because it has such a broad customer base, with the rare ability to increase sales through marketing that it could generate enough volume to keep prices low.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Don't worry .. you'll soon be able to travel to places in Asia and get it for like 10 Cents a pill .. and have a good time too while you're there ..



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   

NavyDoc

SaturnFX
Good news. the most elite of the rich can get cured of their hep c.
hooray for the top 5%. Good for you.

Meanwhile, back in reality...


...there would be no new drugs at all.

Yes, I am greatful to society to dangle the drug out of the reach of most people.
Lets you know who to rob when you have it. heh


An estimated 3.2 million people in the United States are living with chronic hepatitis C infection, and most don't feel ill or know they are infected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

lets do math. Also, this is just a US thing (Eff the world, the Americans are the only ones who deserve a cure anyhow)
so 3 million at say, 75k per procedure (keeping things conservative)
That's 225,000,000,000 (225 billion).
Just for Americans...

This price is not some sort of reinburcement for development. hell, they could charge a hundred bucks for the entire treatment and bank like mad with an amazing ROI. No. This is simply punishment to the poor


I fully support any and all drug companies to get ahold of this pill, back engineer it, and sell a competition for a fraction of the cost. This pharma company doesn't deserve to be in business. researching doesn't mean jack if the end result is patent and hoard your discoveries so that only a select few get to benefit...it actually harms science and progression

-vent done



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

junglimogli
Don't worry .. you'll soon be able to travel to places in Asia and get it for like 10 Cents a pill .. and have a good time too while you're there ..


Its actually kinda funny. They price it so absurdly high, that there simply has to be a black market and patent infringement...else the whole system would collapse through revolt and the plebs storming the rich / executing them for basically laughing at their misery



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   

NavyDoc

rickymouse
I tried to hack the drug, but I can't seem to find anything natural that is potent enough to do any good. They added some specialized chemistry to it so they could get rid of side effects and boost the active part. It appears to inhibit a few specialized nucleotides. I could only find about five pertinent articles on this. I know there some natural nucleotide inhibitors but I just couldn't find enough information to put anything together YET. Maybe more will slip out in the future. Inhibiting or antagonizing reactions to hasten healing on stuff like colds or flues isn't that hard, but this is a lot different. Without research to study I can't hack it. I'll have to try more tomorrow, with a fresh mind. Just ate a chicken dinner and it inhibited my thinking too much.
edit on 12-4-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


Well, hopefully, with a clear head and a few hours on the Internet, you will be able to replicate years of study by dozens of dedicated scientists.


But you have to remember, the information about this new drug along with it's chemical formula is on Wikki. Also, the heads of these companies like to brag a little and often leak out a little info. I am trying to figure the origination of their research, backwards engineering things. This doesn't always work but most times it does. I can find alternative sources on most things, the method of it's action is the important part.






top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join