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: 13
32
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

deadcalm

Morally I find it reprehensible that we as a society should deny you a drug that could save your life merely because you can't afford it. It places a greater value on the aquisition of profit than the value of a human life.



Yeah, that about trumps anything anyone could say about this as far as I'm concerned. What if food manufacturers raised their prices so high that no one could buy food except a few rich people? Yes, I know, it's their right to, it's just business, it's capitalism, we're all part of it. But there is only so long people can play by those rules before the morality steps in and says, "I want to be part of this."




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:24 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.


So im meant to roll over and die for your grandchildren? Im not denying its theft and what the indian company did is fraud. But its going to be done.

People want to live, so if theres a product that means life a detsth and a segment is exculuded. Your going to get theft and fraud, thats a hard cold fact.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

NavyDoc

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.



So if you or a loved one got diagnosed with a fatal illness and you could not afford the life saving treatment you would just roll over and quietly accept death for the good of the systemz?

And im not even claiming social justice i know fall well its theft and fraud, do i give a flying crap? No. I want to live so i will take the treatment useing legal or illegal means. If companys are going to exclude groups the people will take by force. Thats a fact of life with life and death issues. What you hoing to do bomb india? Drone strike people that use illegal means?

And the usa isnt the only R&D center, Britain, france , japan and germany do there fair share.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

crazyewok
So I'm meant to roll over and die for your grandchildren? I'm not denying its theft and what the Indian company did is fraud. But its going to be done.

People want to live, so if there's a product that means life a deaths and a segment is excluded. Your going to get theft and fraud, that's a hard cold fact.

And there will be repercussions to their short-sightedness...also, a cold, hard fact.
2nd.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

peck420

crazyewok
So I'm meant to roll over and die for your grandchildren? I'm not denying its theft and what the Indian company did is fraud. But its going to be done.

People want to live, so if there's a product that means life a deaths and a segment is excluded. Your going to get theft and fraud, that's a hard cold fact.

And there will be repercussions to their short-sightedness...also, a cold, hard fact.
2nd.


And that is exactly what that is, short sightedness. If one is hungry and takes all of the vegetables out of someone else's garden, that might feed them for a season or two, but eventually the farmer isn't going to be bothered to plant anything anymore if his garden keeps coming up empty. Then no one has fresh veggies.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

peck420
reply to post by Aazadan
 

Where is your accounting for future liabilities?
2nd.


Those are covered by the drug companies as insurance which factors into the $5 billion number. Here's some articles on it for you (once of which I already linked earlier)

money.msn.com...

www.advisory.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

ketsuko
This is probably because after spending all the millions/billions it costs to develop the drug, places like India and Australia have laws on the books that will allow them to simply strip a drug's patents and open it immediately to generic production if they deem the finished costs too expensive.

There is no protection of intellectual property at all. So why should the company take its medications to those countries again if they cannot expect any return on their investment and will have their intellectual property pirated and potentially sold out from under them everywhere across the globe by others who will make pure profits off of something they did no work to develop?

It represents a major loss on the balance sheet, a potential total loss.

But I guess if the company goes bankrupt ... then we can just expect no new drugs at all. After all, the generic producers aren't making anything except what they're taking from the big dogs who can afford to put the time and effort into R & D.
Ahh, you do know how much $$$ the pharmaceutical company made last year, right?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

NavyDoc
And that is exactly what that is, short sightedness. If one is hungry and takes all of the vegetables out of someone else's garden, that might feed them for a season or two, but eventually the farmer isn't going to be bothered to plant anything anymore if his garden keeps coming up empty. Then no one has fresh veggies.
edit on 4-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


If a company is still making a profit it's not a big deal (such as in this case). If the US were taking the route of stealing the patents on a bunch of medications drug companies were putting out and intending to sell in the US? I would be right there with you arguing that it's wrong and I would demand that it stop.

There's a huge difference here though. India was not an intended beneficiary of this drug, the Indian market was not a place this drug was ever going to be sold during it's patent lifetime. It's like arguing torrenting movies in China is disrupting theater attendance in the US. They have nothing to do with each other.

The article mentioning the price and the CEO's comment bring up the other point people are arguing in this thread however. They are marketing this drug to people with money, and attempting to get as much of it as possible. Profit is great, if there were no profit this drug wouldn't exist in the first place. There's a point however where additional profits cease to bring about additional good to society, and instead start to do the opposite and harm it. That is what many here are arguing. This drug should not cost $96,000 for a year of treatment.

The taxpayers are heavily subsidizing medicinal research. The taxpayers should see a reduction in drug prices as a result, even if that means the company only makes 300% profit rather than 2700%. If they don't like it, they can stop using public funds.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


As I mentioned earlier : there is no market for the drug in India ( according to Pharma ). At this point , they are kicking people who are going through the dumpster. Pathetic and low...



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Why does everyone keep saying that India stole the medication?

Bayer was forced to license to them. They are going to be paid for the medication that the Indian company sells. How is that theft?

Also, the patent agreement that gives Bayer patent rights includes a provision for this type of situation, which is what this decision is based on.
WTO's TRIPS agreement FAQ

I find it difficult to believe that their lawyers didn't know this was going to happen.

Personally, tinfoil hat firmly on, Bayer price gouged for as long as they could knowing full well that the time would come when they would be forced to license the production of the drug to other parties. At this point it doesn't matter because it is all profit.

Of course they are not going to admit to that.
edit on 4-2-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   
One thing I'm not clear on comes from the frequent statement that Bayer, and the pharmaceuticals in general, are making a (bad word here) profit. What is a wildly excessive profit? 80%? 60%? 40%? Is that true for other companies as well?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   

charles1952
One thing I'm not clear on comes from the frequent statement that Bayer, and the pharmaceuticals in general, are making a (bad word here) profit. What is a wildly excessive profit? 80%? 60%? 40%? Is that true for other companies as well?


I remember something I learned in school, public elementary school, I believe about 5th or 6th grade while doing a simple business math block learning that 6% profit was a 'good' profit. That would be net profit. As I recall mortgage rate were around that rate as well and were very steady.

What happened?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


As I recall mortgage rate were around that rate as well and were very steady.

Really? You were paying attention to mortgage rates when you were 11?
But...not so steady with some short exceptions.
images.dailywealth.com...

I'll take current rates, thank you.

6% profit. Is that gross or net?
edit on 2/5/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   

FyreByrd
I remember something I learned in school, public elementary school, I believe about 5th or 6th grade while doing a simple business math block learning that 6% profit was a 'good' profit. That would be net profit. As I recall mortgage rate were around that rate as well and were very steady.

What happened?


It's really difficult, and quite honestly dangerous to regulate profit margins. For most businesses a profit margin of 6-10% is still considered good, though other than in the recent couple decades interest rates usually well surpassed that. That's why I've used values that are WAY above that as a point of comparison. 300%, 400%, 500%, these are enormous profit margins and while allowing for margins that high we could still have drugs that cost nearly 1/10 of what they currently do.

You can even bring usury into it when you consider they're accepting subsidies to develop these drugs. The problem there however is that usury is very hard to define in a capitalist system, even though in principal it's the most serious financial crime possible and virtually every major religion in the world speaks out against it. Which as a side note is quite humorous when you consider religious bankers are legally exempt from usury laws.
edit on 5-2-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 



You can even bring usury into it when you consider they're accepting subsidies to develop these drugs.

No. You can't. Unless you are claiming that the corporations are making loans. But they aren't, so no, you can't.

edit on 2/5/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Aazadan
 



You can even bring usury into it when you consider they're accepting subsidies to develop these drugs.

No. You can't. Unless you are claiming that the corporations are making loans. But they aren't, so no, you can't.

edit on 2/5/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Sorry, the word I meant to use was windfall. Don't know why usury was what I thought of. Regardless windfall profits are very difficult to define as an exact number and bring about a largely ideological debate over what is fair, that has no quantifiable values.

So I return to my previous argument. They are being heavily subsidized with public funds. The people that fund the research should see a heavy discount on the medication as a return on investment. If that means the company only profits 200% gross instead of 2700% gross then so be it. If they don't like it, they can stop accepting public funds to research medications.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   

peck420
[
And there will be repercussions to their short-sightedness...also, a cold, hard fact.
2nd.


Of course
.But short sightedness and repercussions dont mean nothing if your dead.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   

NavyDoc


And that is exactly what that is, short sightedness.


If one is starving hungrey then one does not care about sightedness. Concequences and moralility fly out the window when life and death are at stake.

As I said and the queation your not awnsering. If you or a loved one ended up with a fatal illness and the treatment to save there life cost more than you could afford would you role over and die like a good citizen or would you fight?

It beyond left/right ect It down to survival. And I like many will do anything to survive. Theft/Fraud and patent laws dont matter squat and not worth MY life or MY sacrifice. If a whole group is excluded in a matter or life/death then you can expect lawlessness. People will not role over and happily die so that a small few can carry on living, short sighted maybe but its called SURVIVAL. Long term plans and trickle down economics and drug research matter little if your DEAD.

Luckly Im in the the top 10% probably bordrline 1% so likley wont ever have to worry about medical care. But I understand that a poor dying indian will not care or want to lay down his or his familys life so a rich Brit can carry on living long after hes dead and burried nor do I expect him or the 3rd world to willingly make that sacrifice for me.
edit on 5-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 




It's amazing how people will spend years gaining qualifications so they can earn a decent living.

IF YOU STEAL THE RIGHTS TO THE DRUGS THE COMPANIES WILL STOP RESEARCHING DRUGS.

Seriously, how hard is this for you people to grasp?

The money to fund new research comes from the profits made on the existing patents. Stop paying this and there will be no money to fund research.

If 'the people of the world' want these new drugs, they can start funding the research through taxes and not leave it up to private companies.


Where is this misunderstanding coming from? I provided an example explaining how to reimburse the costs of the research that also provides a way for the researchers to make some money as well. Also, you seem to think that I am advocating "stealing" patents from researchers. I was specific that I was referring to this drug individually. As well, eminent domain is not "stealing". In this specific case the benefit to billions of people FAR OUTWEIGHS the profits for the few.

Do you honestly feel that this particular drug therapy should cost the obscene amount of money that it does? Knowing the illness this therapy is designed to combat. Knowing that denying this treatment would lead to death in a large majority of cases.

To answer my own question(for the sake of posterity): In this particular case all the research should be seized and made available in the public domain. I do respect the fact that companies pay millions upon millions of dollars to develop the drug. I do respect the fact that the researchers themselves must undertake years of training and work combined with significant personal sacrifice. Even so, those factors pale in comparison to the benefit this drug could provide to our species as a whole.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

charles1952
One thing I'm not clear on comes from the frequent statement that Bayer, and the pharmaceuticals in general, are making a (bad word here) profit. What is a wildly excessive profit? 80%? 60%? 40%? Is that true for other companies as well?


Let's be honest. ALL profit is evil to some people.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join