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.

 

We Made New Cancer Drug For Rich White People Not (Ick) Poor Indian People, Pharma Giant CEO Actuall

page: 12
32
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

maddy21

Blaine91555
reply to post by Aazadan
 


India does matter. If other countries are in effect stealing, somebody has to make up the difference. India is starting to sound like China and is in fact the topic in the OP. We pay, India steals. We pay, China steals.


Why does it matter if it saves lives ? we are talking about millions of lives , people with families here ... Isn't it worth it if lives are saved ? Can you just condemn them to their deaths just because the prices of the medicine i so obscenely high no body can afford it ...


If the drug is not developed zero lives get saved. Before the drug was developed, nobody had it. How are they any worse off now then they were before? If you discourage innovation and production, nobody will get any benefit at all.


I'd rather companies and researchers continue to strive to improve medications and procedures and advance technology than stagnate due to illogic and emotion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

NavyDoc

maddy21

Blaine91555
reply to post by Aazadan
 


India does matter. If other countries are in effect stealing, somebody has to make up the difference. India is starting to sound like China and is in fact the topic in the OP. We pay, India steals. We pay, China steals.


Why does it matter if it saves lives ? we are talking about millions of lives , people with families here ... Isn't it worth it if lives are saved ? Can you just condemn them to their deaths just because the prices of the medicine i so obscenely high no body can afford it ...


If the drug is not developed zero lives get saved. Before the drug was developed, nobody had it. How are they any worse off now then they were before? If you discourage innovation and production, nobody will get any benefit at all.


I'd rather companies and researchers continue to strive to improve medications and procedures and advance technology than stagnate due to illogic and emotion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Companies will keep making drugs , if Bayer does not ..their competitor will, if not them someone else will.. Bayer does not have the sole authority to research and make drugs . if they stop making drugs...too bad... someone else will.. Not every doctor or researcher out there does his work for money ....

They charge obscene prices because they know too well a cancer drug will always be in demand , so they can charge what ever they want... i wouldn't shed a tear if that company collapsed ...



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

NavyDoc
If the drug is not developed zero lives get saved. Before the drug was developed, nobody had it. How are they any worse off now then they were before? If you discourage innovation and production, nobody will get any benefit at all.


I'd rather companies and researchers continue to strive to improve medications and procedures and advance technology than stagnate due to illogic and emotion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


How is saying we're going to subsidize 50% of your R&D costs, and then allow you to profit $4 for every $1 you spent ($14,800 pricetag vs $96,000) stifling innovation? That sounds like a really good deal to me. Or are these drug companies going to refuse to work because we say they can only pocket $20 billion when all is said and done rather than $70 billion?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

NavyDoc

maddy21

Blaine91555
reply to post by Aazadan
 


India does matter. If other countries are in effect stealing, somebody has to make up the difference. India is starting to sound like China and is in fact the topic in the OP. We pay, India steals. We pay, China steals.


Why does it matter if it saves lives ? we are talking about millions of lives , people with families here ... Isn't it worth it if lives are saved ? Can you just condemn them to their deaths just because the prices of the medicine i so obscenely high no body can afford it ...


If the drug is not developed zero lives get saved. Before the drug was developed, nobody had it. How are they any worse off now then they were before? If you discourage innovation and production, nobody will get any benefit at all.


I'd rather companies and researchers continue to strive to improve medications and procedures and advance technology than stagnate due to illogic and emotion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



You want 100% dog eat dog captism were money gets you the best treatment? Well dont whine when crime starts popping up over matters of life and death. You expect people who are poor and cant afford treatment to just roll over and die quietly for the greater good of capitlism? You got a big surprise. Maybe Bayer should not have been so weak to let there patent get stolen


When life and death is in the fold, expect patent law and even morality go straight out the window.

If I was dying and and there was a treatment that could save my life being denied to me wanna bet I wouldnt defraud and steal to get it? I have one life and dam if il lose it over money and the ideal of capitlism. Luckly im probably a 1% and wont ever have to care about healthcare costs but if I did I would fight for ever minute of life! Would you just roll over and die?
edit on 4-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

maddy21

NavyDoc

maddy21

Blaine91555
reply to post by Aazadan
 


India does matter. If other countries are in effect stealing, somebody has to make up the difference. India is starting to sound like China and is in fact the topic in the OP. We pay, India steals. We pay, China steals.


Why does it matter if it saves lives ? we are talking about millions of lives , people with families here ... Isn't it worth it if lives are saved ? Can you just condemn them to their deaths just because the prices of the medicine i so obscenely high no body can afford it ...


If the drug is not developed zero lives get saved. Before the drug was developed, nobody had it. How are they any worse off now then they were before? If you discourage innovation and production, nobody will get any benefit at all.


I'd rather companies and researchers continue to strive to improve medications and procedures and advance technology than stagnate due to illogic and emotion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Companies will keep making drugs , if Bayer does not ..their competitor will, if not them someone else will.. Bayer does not have the sole authority to research and make drugs . if they stop making drugs...too bad... someone else will.. Not every doctor or researcher out there does his work for money ....

They charge obscene prices because they know too well a cancer drug will always be in demand , so they can charge what ever they want... i wouldn't shed a tear if that company collapsed ...


You don't get it. It isn't just about Bayer. NO company will R&D drugs if all of their work and investment can be stolen from them in the name of "social justice."

Want to make drugs cheaper? Tort reform. Less regulation. Of course so many people who complain about the cost of drugs want to sue for millions and want the government to control the "evil corporations" so that will never happen.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Aazadan

NavyDoc
If the drug is not developed zero lives get saved. Before the drug was developed, nobody had it. How are they any worse off now then they were before? If you discourage innovation and production, nobody will get any benefit at all.


I'd rather companies and researchers continue to strive to improve medications and procedures and advance technology than stagnate due to illogic and emotion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


How is saying we're going to subsidize 50% of your R&D costs, and then allow you to profit $4 for every $1 you spent ($14,800 pricetag vs $96,000) stifling innovation? That sounds like a really good deal to me. Or are these drug companies going to refuse to work because we say they can only pocket $20 billion when all is said and done rather than $70 billion?


The taxpayers of India subsidized this drug how?

Please point out where the taxpayer subsidized 50% of the R&D (which would be less if the government regulation wasn't so bad anyway.) Sometimes the government helps R&D for drugs for rare diseases because otherwise they would not get made at all.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

NavyDoc
The taxpayers of India subsidized this drug how?

Please point out where the taxpayer subsidized 50% of the R&D (which would be less if the government regulation wasn't so bad anyway.) Sometimes the government helps R&D for drugs for rare diseases because otherwise they would not get made at all.


India did not, India stole the drug. That's not what I'm referring too. I'm referring to the inflated cost for the US. I've already shown that it is well beyond what Bayer needs to make a healthy profit. They are simply price gouging because they can, and they're gouging us on something we funded. The public should not be ruined financially to buy a drug they paid for the development of.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

maddy21

NavyDoc

maddy21

Blaine91555
reply to post by Aazadan
 


India does matter. If other countries are in effect stealing, somebody has to make up the difference. India is starting to sound like China and is in fact the topic in the OP. We pay, India steals. We pay, China steals.


Why does it matter if it saves lives ? we are talking about millions of lives , people with families here ... Isn't it worth it if lives are saved ? Can you just condemn them to their deaths just because the prices of the medicine i so obscenely high no body can afford it ...


If the drug is not developed zero lives get saved. Before the drug was developed, nobody had it. How are they any worse off now then they were before? If you discourage innovation and production, nobody will get any benefit at all.


I'd rather companies and researchers continue to strive to improve medications and procedures and advance technology than stagnate due to illogic and emotion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Companies will keep making drugs , if Bayer does not ..their competitor will, if not them someone else will.. Bayer does not have the sole authority to research and make drugs . if they stop making drugs...too bad... someone else will.. Not every doctor or researcher out there does his work for money ....

They charge obscene prices because they know too well a cancer drug will always be in demand , so they can charge what ever they want... i wouldn't shed a tear if that company collapsed ...


They will keep making drugs, they just won't invest any money into researching new ones.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 





I've already shown that it is well beyond what Bayer needs to make a healthy profit.


So 1 billion/93,000 is 10,000 one year course of this medicine to break even, not considering manufacture costs though. So more like 12,000 (guesstimate). What is the demand for the drug in one year courses pa? How much profit is required to stop shareholders selling up?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Blaine91555
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


How would you deal with tort reform which is likely a huge factor in the cost of drugs? Those for socializing medicine and the pharmaceutical industry in some way, always seem to be opposed to tort reform. I think it's at the top of the list for reducing the costs.


There would have to be tort reform. Litigation against pharma companies would be saverly limited to such things as quality control issues in manufacturing.

Liability to pharma companies would be greatly reduced. For one as stated R n D would be funded by us we would also own the patent. We then either license or autherise companies to manufacture to companies this would stimulate competition this could be done contingent that the also manufacture some medications which they may not consider money makers.

There would still have to be ways for the population to pursue compensation for drugs that were licensed which shouldn't have been. The ones that slip through. Hopefully that would occur less because we are removing an element of greed. However being able to pursue compensation would be limited as the suits would be against the developers the ones who funded and own research. US.

So yes there would be tort reform much more than I just outlined.

I think in the next couple days I will write a thread outlining my proposal detailing things further simply as an excessive and it could be fleshed out in the thread. It would be interesting.

Please excuse my spelling mistakes as I am typing from a phone.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Antigod
reply to post by Aazadan
 





I've already shown that it is well beyond what Bayer needs to make a healthy profit.


So 1 billion/93,000 is 10,000 one year course of this medicine to break even, not considering manufacture costs though. So more like 12,000 (guesstimate). What is the demand for the drug in one year courses pa? How much profit is required to stop shareholders selling up?


They spent $5 billion (2.5 billion taxpayer subsidy, 2.5 billion of their own money), that includes the costs of all the failed drugs that didn't make it to market, as well as the various overhead. There are 96,000 cases of the cancers this drug treats in the US annually. A patent lasts for 20 years, from what I've read the average drug has 7 years worth of time on the market before the patent expires.

5 billion/7/96000=$7400. That's their break even point if all $5 billion were theirs. That means they would profit $5 billion (100% return) at $14,800. At $22,200 they get a 200% return. Of course that's assuming all $5 billion were theirs to begin with. In actuality because of the subsidies $7400 is a 100% return, $14,800 is a 300% return. That's plenty for shareholders. Besides that, the public is more important than the shareholders... we contribute more money especially on an ongoing basis.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


You do realize the most capitalist countries are the safest and most healthy right? Actual facts fly in the face of your anecdotal hatred of capitalism.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 





Healthcare for profit is a sadistic way of keeping the poor sick and poor while the wealthy enjoy the benefits of modern medicine.

The benefits of modern medicine? Tell me you are joking?

Heres some of the side effects of the drug in question -Nexavar - an anticancer medicine used to treat a certain type of kidney cancer called advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or a certain type of liver cancer known as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), when it cannot be treated with surgery.
nexavar...

NEXAVAR may cause serious side effects, including:

decreased blood flow to the heart and heart attack. Get emergency help if you have chest pain, shortness of breath, feel lightheaded or faint, have nausea or vomiting, or you are sweating a lot.
bleeding problems. Tell your doctor if you have any bleeding or easy bruising while taking NEXAVAR.
high blood pressure. Your blood pressure should be checked every week during the first 6 weeks of starting therapy and then regularly, thereafter. If your blood pressure is high, it may need to be treated.
a skin problem called hand-foot skin reaction. This causes redness, pain, swelling or blisters on the palms of your hands and soles of your feet. Your doctor may change your dose or stop treatment for a while.
serious skin and mouth reactions. Tell your doctor if you have skin rash, blistering and peeling of the skin, blistering and peeling on the inside of your mouth.
an opening in the wall of your stomach or intestines (perforation of the bowel). Tell your doctor right away if you get high fever, nausea, vomiting or abdominal (stomach) pain.
wound healing problems. If you have a surgical or dental procedure, tell your doctor you are taking NEXAVAR. Your treatment may be stopped until after your surgery or until your wound heals.
changes in the electrical activity of your heart called QT prolongation. QT prolongation can cause irregular heartbeats that can be life-threatening. Tell your doctor right away if you feel faint, lightheaded, dizzy, or feel your heart beating irregularly or fast while taking NEXAVAR.

And the last on the list....


inflammation of your liver (drug-induced hepatitis). Your doctor may stop your treatment with NEXAVAR if you develop changes in certain liver function tests. Call your doctor right away if you develop yellowing of the skin or white part of your eyes (jaundice), dark "tea-colored" urine, light-colored bowel movements (stools), worsening nausea, worsening vomiting, abdominal pain


I'm sorry, but are they serious? It is prescribed for liver cancer . Of course they are going to have abnormal liver function tests.

Heres another gem...


Before starting NEXAVAR, tell your doctor if you have: .............. kidney or liver problems.

Ummm, why else would they be getting it prescribed for them?


The most common side effects with NEXAVAR may include:hair thinning or loss; diarrhea; nausea/vomiting; loss of appetite; abdominal pain; tiredness; or weight loss. Tell your doctor if you have any side effects that bother you or do not go away.

Does this sound like what some one undergoing chemotherapy for something like...I dunno...Cancer might feel?

One year of treatment wth Nexavar costs $96,000 in the U.S, so I doubt anyone in the US will actually be able to get it prescribed anyway. Obamacare has seen to that little fact quite nicely...


Recently, the U.S. FDA recommended withdrawal of the blockbuster cancer drug,
Avastin, for its indication in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, July 20, 2010. It is
often the only treatment available for late stage breast cancer, and has been shown to
prolong "progression-free survival" for a period of about 5.5 months. The FDA committee
thought this was not enough to justify the cost. This is the first time in history that the
FDA has recommended termination of a drug's indication based on its cost. Welcome to
Obamacare

Of course, providing you fall into the right age bracket alls well, you have nothing to worry about...


Their rules for rationing are clear. Those aged 15-40 will receive preference for health care. In The Lancet.com on Jan 31, 2009, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and co-authors presented a "Complete Lives System" for allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, and ICU beds. Dr.
Emanuel states:"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

whats wrong with obamacare?

Surely Bayer would actually be loosing good American taxpayer money if they don't bite the bullet and charge less for the drug that clearly does not need to be charged so much for (the generic company will be selling it for....$177 per year - that is not a typo...$177 PER YEAR). God damn criminals!! And no, I dont refer to don't mean Bayer when I say that.

And finally, cast your eyes over these adverse reaction stastistics from clinical trials- from Bayers own documentation on prescribing information for their drug. Which, by the way they reported " patients who received Nexavar lived 44% longer than those patients who did not receive Nexavar -10.7 months versus 7.9 months"

Liver cancer adverse reactions on placebo vs Nexavar

Kidney cancer adverse reactions on placebo vs Nexavar


Health care should be targeted for prevention....not some sham treatment that does anything but that - feeling worse, in no way, shape or form constitutes a treatment. Are people really that misguided? Please tell me I am wrong. Pharmaceutical companies provide considerable monetary incentives (kickbacks) for doctors to prescribe their drugs, which are approved by the FDA due to the studies Big Pharma themselves fund at universities they have direct affiliations with - usually in the way of providing expensive equipment and the actual capital to do the research needed to get their product through clinical testing and onto the shelves. Does the word "bias" ring any bells here folks? How about the phrase "Conflict of interest"? Doctors treat an illness often with little explanation to the patient on the side effects they may experience – which, low and behold… usually will “require” another medication to treat which is easily arranged….the Big Pharma rep just happens to be promoting the new wonder drug for those ailments too. The actual problem is never addressed – only masked. Chronic disease is a fallacy….there are only ever symptomof a body being out of homeostasis (balance or equilibrium) that need to be addressed to eliminate the source of the problem….a band aid is not the answer.

Now, do you still believe in the "benefits" of modern medicine you speak of that the wealthy get to "enjoy" whilst the poor are "sadistically" made to suffer?
The thing that isn't lost on me is that the wealth, greed and consumerism that are the cornerstones of western society probably caused the cancer in the first place.
Oh the Irony. The sweet, sweet irony.


edit on 4 2.1414 by
edit on 4 2.1414 by taketheredpill because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by crazyewok
 


You do realize the most capitalist countries are the safest and most healthy right? Actual facts fly in the face of your anecdotal hatred of capitalism.


Your point? I have no issue with capitlism. where did you get that I hate it? Im just not willing to die for it. Beleive it or not there a huge range between love of 100% capitlismand being a through and through red lover of communism.

If there is a drug I need to save my life and its been deemed to expsensive, Im going to get be I have to steal or defraud for it.

You want caplitlism fine. But you have to accept when it comes to LIFE AND DEATH matters and one segment is denied life saveing treatments then you will get crime, you will get fraud which is exactly what happened in India. Yes they commited fraud, but can you actually blame them?

You wouldnt do the same?
edit on 4-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

NavyDoc

You don't get it. It isn't just about Bayer. NO company will R&D drugs if all of their work and investment can be stolen from them in the name of "social justice."



And your missing the whole point.

If a whole segament of people are excluded from life saving treatment what do you expect them to do? Role over and die queitly for the greater good? wishfull thinking. Your going to get defrauding and stealing and in extreme causes killing.

What would you do if you got diagnosed with a fatal illness but there was a treatment that could save you but you couldnt afford? what would you do? Fight for your life or role over and die quietly?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I'm not as opposed to some of this as you might think. Thanks for your thoughts.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


I hate to burst your bubble, but Bayer have sponsored 70 trials for this particular drug alone in collaboration with many different organisations...it was not the taxpayers I'm afraid.
And thats just one drug. Its sick and makes me embarrassed to be a human quite frankly.

Bias, corruption and greed at Bayer Healthcare....



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 

Where is your accounting for future liabilities?
2nd.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

crazyewok
And your missing the whole point.

If a whole segament of people are excluded from life saving treatment what do you expect them to do? Role over and die queitly for the greater good? wishfull thinking. Your going to get defrauding and stealing and in extreme causes killing.

What would you do if you got diagnosed with a fatal illness but there was a treatment that could save you but you couldnt afford? what would you do? Fight for your life or role over and die quietly?


And, when you are done with your theft...what do my grandchildren steal?

Oh...nothing...the R&D was shut down, so nobody even made drugs for their conditions...let alone them having the opportunity to steal them.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

peck420

crazyewok
And your missing the whole point.

If a whole segament of people are excluded from life saving treatment what do you expect them to do? Role over and die queitly for the greater good? wishfull thinking. Your going to get defrauding and stealing and in extreme causes killing.

What would you do if you got diagnosed with a fatal illness but there was a treatment that could save you but you couldnt afford? what would you do? Fight for your life or role over and die quietly?


And, when you are done with your theft...what do my grandchildren steal?

Oh...nothing...the R&D was shut down, so nobody even made drugs for their conditions...let alone them having the opportunity to steal them.


And that's the unintended consequences of the "social justice" types. They don't think beyond the emotionality of a perceived injustice in the here and now. Why is the US the medical R&D for the entire world? Because we haven't taken away all incentive just yet--but we're working on it. The US does the research, produces the medicines, machines, techniques, and devices, and the world benefits eventually. People want everything for free, right now, and will take if they can not realizing that if they kill the golden goose, there will be nothing for the future.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join