It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NOVARTIS To Charge $475,000 For $20,000 Cancer Cure Funded By Taxpayers And Charity

page: 1
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Crap like this really makes you think twice about donating to Charity organizations that fund research as the damned Pharmaceutical companies will just end up taking it and robbing the public anyway. This story is about a leukemia cure that was funded by taxpayer and charity money because the Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't (you know, cures are not what they are in business for).

So, after the cure has went through trials (and cost less than 20K not even under mass-production which should actually reduce the cost) these SOB's get their hands on the distribution rights and want to charge almost $500K .......


A virtual cure for leukemia - paid for by taxpayers and charity, hijacked and sold for nearly half a million dollars by pharmaceutical giant, Novartis.
www.technologyreview.com...


www.blacklistednews.com...




For the past 20 years, American taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) helped fund a revolutionary cancer treatment that sidesteps devastating and ineffective chemotherapy and instead, re-engineers a patient's own immune system to find and destroy tumors.

In most articles, concerted attempts are made to portray the $475,000 price tag as more reasonable than previous "expert" estimates. One article published by STAT even claimed the nearly half million price tag was a "bargain."

Novartis clearly did not develop this breakthrough. It merely bought the license to commercialize and market it to the public.

In reality, the cost of curing Emily Whitehead in 2012 under highly experimental conditions, using customized equipment cost under $20,000. The head researcher, University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Carl June, has repeatedly stated in public that while the cost was under $20,000 when he and his team provided the therapy, upon commercialization, with automation it should cost even less.

We received a lot of money over the last 15 years from the Leukemia [& Lymphoma] Society and they've been the primary ones that developed this. There was no industry support available.




posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker


I need a better source than blacklisted news.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Really?

www.nytimes.com...


markets.businessinsider.com...


45:40 to 47:00
edit on 1-9-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker


Much better, thank you.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

This is where the federal government should step in a determine a "reasonable profit" ceiling, like they did with health insurance companies in 2010.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

And applications have been made so it can be used in Europe and the UK. That means, if someone in the UK needs it, they will get it under the "awful socialist" (as some put it) NHS for no more than what they're currently paying (TAX).

Also, for the US residents, from your first link it says....


The one-time treatment will cost $475,000, but Novartis says there will be no charge if a patient doesn't respond to the therapy within a month.


And people in the US wonder why people outside of the US are laughing at your healthcare service.
edit on 192017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: infolurker


I need a better source than blacklisted news.


How about:

theoncologist.alphamedpress.org...
or

www.forbes.com...

or perhaps:

www.commondreams.org...#

My question is why is all the profit going to private 'entities' ? Why, since the taxpayers fund most of this research, are taxpayers nnoy seeing any of the the profits?

edit on 1-9-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

LOL,

NOVARTIS is sucking in the profit.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker
Edit: This is no free market, at some point this will all be corrected. But for the time being the people in control are stripping every last dollar they can before the correction in medical.
Our system is a force monopoly with no consumer protection.



.
edit on 1-9-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: infolurker

Free market, if you don't want it don't buy it. Right?



Not a free market...

When some jackass company gets "exclusivity" with no possibility of competition by law, that is not the free market it is a monopoly.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Someone close to me has a rare form of cancer requiring medicine that costs 85,000 a year. Luckily insurance covers it (regular and cancer insurance covers the rest).

I'm sure they justify the high price with the cost of R&D. Though I'm sure they don't say if they are given money for these trials.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

You are right, I edited.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


Because the government is ran by idiots.
Remember the Wall Street bailout?
People got their bonuses paid for with bailout money.
Fricken idiots.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The cost of these treatments (that are needed) are what is driving the cost of medical out of sight. Not the $100 visit to the Dr.

We need medical reform, and single payer seems to control costs much better than our form of capitalism.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: infolurker

You are right, I edited.


Similar issue as these jackasses getting a 40 year old drug classified as "Orphan" so they can boost the price 5,000% and nobody can compete with them for 7 years.

Information on that here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 1-9-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Modern day banditry is what this is.

I wonder how these people sleep at night.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

The govt is supposed to "protect" the consumers. lobbying is working as intended. So is the back and forth between huge corps and govt hiring each other.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Drugs and medications are becoming a bigger part of so many lives, because people are now "sicker" than they've ever been. It's a shame that we are exposed to so many toxins in this modern world.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The cost of these treatments (that are needed) are what is driving the cost of medical out of sight. Not the $100 visit to the Dr.

We need medical reform, and single payer seems to control costs much better than our form of capitalism.


That can be fixed in a few quick steps... Also, Single Payer will not work unless these other issues are addressed. We will just have the highest cost single payer in the world and the same jackasses will be even richer. Informative Research Below:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The article from Harvard Business Review is a "must read" to really dig into cost savings and innovation for healthcare

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 1-9-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Money grubbing bastards, this is why I pray for the giant meteor of death.
edit on 1-9-2017 by richapau because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join