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: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
The argument about who would do it is not realistic, oh it is in todays competitive criminal world of slavery, but its not the only model for society and I don't compromise or bow down, stand under any form of criminal activity, which is what money, banks, realtors and patents is all about. Basically they can bow down with tears of repentance running down their faces as they serve humanity on bended knee trying to mitigate their own consequences at the end of their lives, because they're going to reap what they've sowed otherwise, and its only by grace and forgiveness and service to others they can turn this around. Oh, and possibly huge download of healing and transformation.




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Humanity has many things that can doom it, some we can somewhat control. Poverty, famine, and disease are certainly things we can control to an extent, however if a super bug could present itself wipe out a bunch of us, or a virus that destroys agriculture could do the same.

Yes there is a conspiracy to keep cures hidden from the masses. Curing an ailment or disease with a one time treatment is no where near as profitable as treating that ailment for life. Here is an old thread I dug up that shows what happens if a doctor finds a way to cure thing without big pharma drugs:
Flouride detox with Borax, and a REAL Doctor's experience with big pharma.

I think we are on the brink of becoming a Type I Civilization if we do not destroy ourselves first. Healthcare for profit is a sadistic way of keeping the poor sick and poor while the wealthy enjoy the benefits of modern medicine. I do not think we can advanced as a species so long that we practice business like that at our fellow man's expense.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   

charles1952
reply to post by VoidHawk
 

Dear VoidHawk,

I'm a little surprised you mentioned Health Care. The things I've been hearing are that the NHS is draining money left and right, hospital conditions are falling, and some patients go for a day or two without being seen by anyone on the staff.

Not to mention the NHS is selling patient data to anyone willing to buy it.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

deadcalmIf it were your daughter or son....would the intellectual rights laws be of any comfort to you as watched them draw their last breath?





Option A. They make drugs and sell them to people who can afford them. Usually those who can't can apply for reduced prices. After x amountof years the product can then become generic, and a better drug comes out soon after.

Option B. Drugs are stolen, companies make no profits, companies stop making new drugs, no new drugs hit the market. Drugs we have become useless as immunity to the drug develops. We have no drugs for anyone.

Your choice.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The idea of intellectual property will be the destruction of this planet,
this is a perverse sense of ownership that does and will always cause
problems, cost lives and place profit above human considerations.

I feel no sorrow for those execs that might miss out on a third personal
jet or a fifth or sixth home. I do feel sorrow for those who have
perished because the medicine they needed was patented to protect
profits and not given because they just weren't rich enough to survive.

The reality of our global economy simply is that if you have then you
can dictate life or death for those who do not and that is unacceptable.
No amount of money should grant them that right and certainly not
"intellectual property" ugh i get more and more sick of this planet every
day.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


So if there was no IP why would they ever create these drugs to begin with? Show me all the drugs that are made without anyone asking for IP.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


What annoys me about all you do gooder free loaders is this.

The people who put time and effort into research, the scientists, these are the best of us humans working towards a medication to cure disease - then they and the companies who pay them should be rewarded and rightly so.


It is the POOR people who suck up all the resources and don't ever contribute. Why does POOR automatically mean you should recieve? NO f****** wonder the poor people are poor.....they do NOTHING and then stick their grubby little poor hand out demanding something that has been someone's life work be handed to them at a price determined by their inadequate lives.

Get lost. A medication that has had sweat, blood and tears poured into it by the very best minds in their respective scientific fields should be equally matched in monetary terms.


IF you live in country where YOUR government doesn't want to spend TAX money on getting the drug and dishing it out to TAX payers at a nominal price....then MOVE to a country that does...like INDIA.

Poor people disgust me with their attitude. (AND im not a rich person as some of you know, I make banded and rank pay set by the city rate for the job I do) so don't try and use the RICH card with me.

If you want something for nothing then do the inventing!! Stop the whining about the rich CEO's who put together the teams that made the discovery at a large cost to them.

HAVE some damn dignity and pride about your lives. If you have cancer, deal with it. Generations before did, right now cancer break throughs are new. so like new things they are expensive till its becomes a common commodity!!



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Bazart

TheLotLizard
If you invent something that changes lives for the greater good of our species it should be at an affordable price. If they are so upset about it being stolen why would they trust it entering into foreign countries.

It just goes to show what Bayers real agenda is. Only the wealthy should be healthy.


The drug is not made for Indians equals ( in my mind ) = no market for the generics to undermine. Pharma wasn't interested in these ' markets ' at all - So, they should just be like decent Human Beings... and look the other way.


I agree, if they never intended this drug to go there then they shouldnt miss that $177 bucks a year they are making from it.
And you can bet your a$$ that if they invented this drug over there that an amrecian company would steal it and jack the price way up and sell it here and nothing would be done about that.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure that that drug in most cases only extends your life less than a year anyway. What is the use.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   

charles1952
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I'm a little uncertain about this issue, however, and could use some help. Do I understand that Bayer developed a drug for cancer, an Indian company got their hands on it, and are making and selling a duplicate drug for less than 1% of the Bayer price? I would assume that this would be very profitable for the Indian company, they would expand their operations, make as much as is humanly possible, and reduce Bayer's market share to almost 0.

In many areas of creativity, the developer is entitled to a patent or copyright which he expects will protected, more or less, around the world.


With respect,
Charles1952


Thank you Charles, I'm still recovering. It was a gruelling and delightful experience at the same time.

That covers the basic facts of the matter, more specfics on Bayer's side are hidden for propriatory reasons (cost of research, development, testing, yadda, yadda). The outrage, mine and others is 1) the cost of the drug (what possessed Bayer to develop such an expensive cancer treatment that will only, only benefit the wealthy) and 2) the outrageous behavior of the Bayer directors comments about the drug only being for 'western people that can afford it'.

I'd like to know the companies actual reasoning. @ $98,000.00 it's certainly not the 'ingrendiants'. A special process perhaps - how did the cost get justified to the Board. R&D. Intellectual property rights are fine when the product actually reflects true costs to develop, test and market.....

We know that ALL drugs cost more in the US regardless of the pharmicuedical company. Just why is that? I don't know why the same drug from the same company costs different amounts (adjusted for currency differences)?

This appears to be two things - flat out classism (and honestly racism) - the rich get one set of treatments and the poor get nothing (and I do know that to a large extent it has been that way).

This is an instance of 'passive resistance' by the whole people of India.



An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.”
― Mahatma Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War 1942-49




“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.





“Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.”
― Howard Zinn



Intellectual property laws have become a major tool of imperialism. They are unjust to most and a profit center to only a few. Most of those few (with some very real exceptions) had nothing to do with creating that property, it was the work of employees. Those employees see little from their innovation and work. It has been that way for some time.

There is little 'pure research' done anymore, the public doesn't fund it. So the financiers pick and choose which research to follow based solely on 'possible profit'. With new international treaties, this 'possible profit', if threaten by local regulation or law, can be legally claim as though it actually existed. To my knowledge, India is not a signitories to any of these "free trade" agreements, but I could be wrong.

It's just wrong - it may be legal - what Bayer is doing; but it is unjust to billions of people around the globe.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

TheLotLizard
If you invent something that changes lives for the greater good of our species it should be at an affordable price. If they are so upset about it being stolen why would they trust it entering into foreign countries.

It just goes to show what Bayers real agenda is. Only the wealthy should be healthy.


Only the weathly should be heathy. I love it. Bayer's new slogan.

Remember "Better living through chemistry" A classic from Monsanto.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 



It's just wrong - it may be legal - what Bayer is doing; but it is unjust to billions of people around the globe.


Their hefty deck of false and unlawful legislations are not legal, they violate basic common law, thou shalt not harm nor enslave.

All of these laws are just big fat crimes with signature confessions on them akin to nuremburg trials.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   

charles1952

Do we as a society have a moral code? I wonder what it looks like? And "we as a society." Does that mean the government?



I would have to say that a society's moral code, is codified in their body of laws.

That said, I refer you to the Nuremberg Trials after WWII. Everything the Nazi's did was legal according to their properly (oh so properly) enacted legal code.

The outcome of those trials was (simply and briefly):



Despite their flaws and shortcomings, the Nuremberg trials were crucial in establishing the precedent that individual leaders and administrators, not only states, could be held accountable by the international community for actions that violated widely accepted, even universal, standards of conduct.


archive.adl.org...

The charges were (and I could argue Bayer should be charged with here as well):

1) Crimes against Peace...
2) War Crimes...
3) Crimes against Humanity...

Charter of the International Military Tribunal

August 8, 1945


The War Crimes could be a tough one but the others are pretty straight.

Again, I'm sure you have see it Charles, but many younger members may not, I recommend the fine "Trial at Nurenburg" with Burt Lancaster, Spencer Tracy and a very young William Shatner.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

rickymouse
I'm pretty sure that that drug in most cases only extends your life less than a year anyway. What is the use.


It may just be the 'straw'. The symbolic thing that breaks thing open for change.

Ah, I'm a dreamer - am I the only one?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   

projectbane
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


What annoys me about all you do gooder free loaders is this.



I didn't get past this pejorative.

If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, don't insult the people you want to read it. You will even alianate those that agree with your position with this type of introduction.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The issue here is not patents imo. The issue is that Bayer is so money hungry they think it's ok to mark up the price on this drug way beyond what it costs to produce simply because they know how desperate people are for a cancer treatment drug and they know how hard it is to find any drug for treating cancer. In their mind it's not a way to relieve the pain and suffering of people, it's a niche gold mine which people are willing to pay massive amounts of money for. Almost $100K for 1 year of treatment when it can be manufactured for less than $200? If hell really exists then these a-holes deserve to rot in it forever. The truly sickening thing is that it doesn't appear to be any type of wonder drug for curing cancer, it simply helps to extend the life of the patient for a short while in most cases.
edit on 2/2/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   

ChaoticOrder
The issue here is not patents imo. The issue is that Bayer is so money hungry they think it's ok to mark up the price on this drug way beyond what it costs to produce simply because they know how desperate people are for a cancer treatment drug and they know how hard it is to find any drug for treating cancer.


Or because they need to pay for the cost to develop and test the drug, along with subsidizing for low income people probably, as well as possible lawsuits.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I don't care how much costs they have, their mark up level is completely and utterly absurd. They could still make an absolutely huge profit with a much smaller profit margin, and if they did that then maybe they wouldn't have so many people copying their drug and selling it for a cheaper price. If they go bankrupt because of these Indian manufacturers it's their own damn fault. They deserve what ever is coming to them. And I'm done participating in this thread because reading all the ass kissing of big pharma is giving me a headache.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Reading the article this is literaly the first thing that came to mind.

Our goverment(US) spends billions if not trillions each year on developing weapons to kill through grants. DARPA BUDGET

If we spent half of that on finding cures for disease and developing efficient clean energy basically things that would improve life the result would not only be better lives for our own countrymen, but the world would become less hostile as well.

There have been studies that show better standards of life with populations result in less conflicts.


Then I read the posts on the thread.


Look I do understand that companies need to see a return on their investments and I agree with them at least in principle. That is the way the system is designed.

That tells me the system is flawed if not broken.

Most people do not know our government forces medical companies to develop and make vaccines. Vaccines are not a money maker for those companies I have even seen reports where they operate at a loss, but do so as a social contract with the government. In return the government has allowed them to operate as they do where medicines such as the one in question are set up to make them huge profits for an allotted time through patent protection.

It is a bad system IMO. I would really like to see what they budget towards developing new medications and compare it to what the government spends on developing weapon systems. Only then would I be certain on the issue.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Or because they need to pay for the cost to develop and test the drug, along with subsidizing for low income people probably, as well as possible lawsuits.


...subsidizing low income people.... Really, there's no subsidizing this drug for low income people. Read the material.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join