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: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
If you people are positive you can do better, then get off your behinds and do it. Do all the R&D, develop all these new medicines, do it all... Find the cures, having it be your time, intelligence and your monetary investment.

I am pretty sure we will all die waiting for that to happen.


I had a chemistry professor who as a grad student did a lot of R&D for some big companies. He had of a lot of insight on how most of the best new drugs and chemicals are created by under grads trying to get a PHD, receive no compensation for their efforts and the professor they are working under receives all the credit while the company who pays the university for the R&D get to keep all the profits.

He was killed in a hit and run accident.




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


Yes, they should be allowed to charge whatever they wish during those 20 years. If people don't like it, they DON"T have to purchase it. Seriously. NO ONE is forcing you to purchase anything. Its a free market.

If you think you would like to compete on that same market then go into the same business and do better. Do your own R&D.

You regulate companies through purchasing habits. If no one is making purchases, well... the companies usually drop their prices don't they?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


A free market does not exist.

If we have a free market in the US, then why is purchasing health insurance now mandatory in the US?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


And what profit are you looking at? Are you looking at gross or profit after overhead is taken out? A lot of time, the profits you see are posted before overhead is taken out in order to make you feel even more outraged. They do with Big Oil profits all the time.

And how many drugs did the company strike out on in order to find the one that got through the process? How many more will they strike out on before they find their next success and how long will that take before they get there? All these things have to be taken into consideration.

It is not a zero-sum game as you are trying to make it. We have one drug, so we just have to make our return on it ... no, they have an entire business and they have to keep it going. That one drug is only a part of it, and who knows how long it will be before there is another seller in there?

Due to loss of patents on big selling medications at Pfizer, they've had to take some pretty major down-sizing steps already including selling off entire divisions of the company like their animal pharma division. My own husband's company profited from that. This is because they don't have any new big sellers on the pike to take up where their soon to be off patent meds are leaving off. That's how much damage losing patent can do, and there is no guarantee the employees and businesses affected by those sell-offs and downsizing will keep any of their jobs.

And the guys who make generics don't do any R&D. They just make what others have already discovered.
edit on 2-2-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

jrod
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


A free market does not exist.

If we have a free market in the US, then why is purchasing health insurance now mandatory in the US?


Ha! And you all want to just make it worse than it already is. It should be a free market, and if it was, things wouldn't be as bad as they are. Once they control medicine, where will new drug development take place? ... because it won't take place here anymore.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 




If we have a free market in the US, then why is purchasing health insurance now mandatory in the US?

You have a choice of medical insurance providers who are competing with each other for your money. That is the definition of a free market. That it is mandatory that you purchase insurance is not relevant, though it is annoying.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
Yes, they should be allowed to charge whatever they wish during those 20 years. If people don't like it, they DON"T have to purchase it. Seriously. NO ONE is forcing you to purchase anything. Its a free market.

You regulate companies through purchasing habits. If no one is making purchases, well... the companies usually drop their prices don't they?


Are you serious? For starters it's not a free market and the entire concept of a free market is unsustainable but that's not really here or there. Are you seriously suggesting that if people don't want to pay that price they should just die? That is the alternative. Buy their medicine or die.

And no, a lack of purchases doesn't lower their prices, drug companies are able to leverage expected sales against the actual sales, if a drug underperforms they're given tax breaks to offset it. It's part of lessening the risk of producing medicine.

As far as regulating a company through purchasing habits goes, that assumes consumer apathy isn't a thing. As it turns out it's a pretty major thing.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

ketsuko

And what profit are you looking at? Are you looking at gross or profit after overhead is taken out? A lot of time, the profits you see are posted before overhead is taken out in order to make you feel even more outraged. They do with Big Oil profits all the time.

And how many drugs did the company strike out on in order to find the one that got through the process? How many more will they strike out on before they find their next success and how long will that take before they get there? All these things have to be taken into consideration.


If you checked the sources I linked you would see the $5 billion to develop a drug figure is the total, that's after testing, FDA approval, and everything else. An individual drug is $325 million, however most drugs fail so that's how you get to the 5 billion figure. After that it's a simple matter of looking up how many new cases are diagnosed per year, that tells you how many customers there are. From there it's easy to figure out how many treatments need to be sold to cover development costs. Everything past that value is profit.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


I agree with your background logic but reality in practice demonstrates that governments that are often more corrupt than a large part of the private entrepreneurs would just run the enterprise into the red if not destroy it (no more R&D) or cover their added inefficiencies with public funds (increasing national spending). First we need to reform the state (get rid of the corrupts and chance of corruption) to implement something like you propose.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

LOSTinAMERICA
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I'm so glad I'm a poor white person. I'm sure the color of my skin will offend you in some way, shape, or form. I'm not going to sweat it. Maybe instead of being a victim, go out and learn about how to cure cancer yourself. You will never grow until you take that dive into independence. The power that comes from that is the mana of life. I don't hate anyone for anything. I do pity.


The benefits of this drug are wildly exaggerated and the negative studies were buried.it is more of a marketing scam like more anti-cancer drugs.

look at the side effects.

even i was shocked at the list.they read like a horror story.the side effects i mean.they can take this crapy drug and shove it.i would not want if was free.

JUST LOOK AT THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THIS RUBBISH.


www.nexavar-us.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   


20 years is all the drug companies ask of humanity before a generic comes into play.
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



You talk only in terms of years here but what about the lives of the people who die before the patent expires? What's an acceptable body count....10,000....a million? Lives that could have been saved.

I'll ask you....what if it were your wife? Your mother? What if you couldn't afford the 96k for treatment....does that mean that you would be ok with the fact that you would have to watch them die?

I swear...the lack of humanity in people is disturbing.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


you are talking nonsense.most research comes from grants.the drugs companies spend very little.look at their balance sheet.

i fear you have been brainwashed by their marketing.maybe you should watch less foxnews.


The benefits of this drug are wildly exaggerated and the negative studies were buried.it is more of a marketing scam like more anti-cancer drugs.

look at the side effects.

even i was shocked at the list.they read like a horror story.the side effects i mean.they can take this crapy drug and shove it.i would not want if was free.

JUST LOOK AT THE horrific SIDE EFFECTS OF THIS RUBBISH.

www.nexavar-us.com...

inflammation of your liver (drug-induced hepatitis). Nexavar may cause liver problems that may lead to liver failure and death. Your doctor ma...



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   


Really? It's implied???
reply to post by raymundoko
 


Well if you need the drugs....and you can't get them because you can't afford them....where does that leave you?

Dying a slow, painful and agonizing death. As the CEO said...the drug was made for those who could afford it....if you don't have the cash you are SOL.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:17 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.


I couldn't agree more! Who says we have a "right" to be made healthy? I'm serious!!! We don't have a "right" to be healthy, be fed, be given healthcare or anything else. That is a fact that can not be changed but will be abused by a tyrant of government to control the people.

I was chatting with a friend who was in favor of the "accepting pre-existing conditions" of Obamacare. He has an adult son with medical problems. His argument was basically that his son can't get health insurance due to pre-existing condition clauses and thinks the insurance companies should be forced to accept him. I disagreed...nicely.

I gave this as an example. If you force an insurance company to take people who are currently ill, with problems that will cause them to lose money...then how is that different than someone with cancer and given a year to live demanding that an insurance company spend billions, hire all the "great minds" in the world and get them to produce a cure for his cancer? If an insurance company can be forced to accept one person with an illness regardless that it will cost them money...then why not force them to spend more and force them to cure a disease? Regardless of the cost. Why not force them to cure all diseases at their expense? There is no difference in the mind-set. Either these insurance companies are responsible for everyone's health or they are not. Fact is...they are not. As much as you may dislike them...they are not responsible for YOU any more that I am, or your neighbor is.

Why not? Because it is not a "right". You have the right to take care of yourself and lick your wounds. You don't have the right to force others to do something just because you want it...even if you will die as a result. Life is tough. That is a fact of life. It has always been a fact of life. Just because we are "humans" instead of animals doesn't change that. I wish my fellow Americans would get over their self-importance. You are not important...not at the level you seem to believe. You have certain rights and deserve them. You don't have a right to an office job, a iPhone, a flat screen TV, free NetFlix, or any of the other crap you have sold our country for.

Grow up...take care of yourself and be thankful for what you have, work toward making life better and realize you are not special. You are one in seven billion people. That is almost germ level. Get over yourself.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

charles1952
reply to post by FyreByrd
 

Dear FyreByrd,

First, thanks a lot for coming on the Wednesday night ATS Live show. You made a good impression on everybody. I hope you come back and perhaps persuade a few others to call in as well.

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.

Is your position that medicine is the only creation that should not be protected? Those people were all going to die of cancer before this drug was invented. Bayer isn't hurting their health with this, but they are objecting to another company making it without their permission.

If Bayer is told, "Anytime you come up with a new and effective medicine, we will ship the formula to an impoverished country whose workers will make a dollar an hour. They will sell it for far less than you ever could," what do you think their corporate response would be, or should be?

And what happens if a country is suffering from desperate hunger, and they say "Give us some GMO food and seeds, please?" We could ask them if they want to die from cancer in 20 years, but they would respond, "If we don't get food, we'll be dead in two." Is that another area where the ideas should be taken and transferred to India or a similar country?

With respect,
Charles1952


There have been situations in the past where a "cure" for humans would be priced at $50,000 or more, when the equivalent product for agricultural use was set at $50 per head. This happened in the real-world for a skin disease treatment that worked on both humans and sheep. When challenged about this, the attitude of the pharmaceutical company was "What price is a human life?"



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Well from the information others have posted in this thread the cost of developing that drug was 250 million WE THE PEOPLE paid for half of that yet the company has made over 1 billion from it.

BTW WE THE PEOPLE were never paid back.

The system is broke as I have already said. WE THE PEOPLE should fund 100% of drug research and regulate the profits said companies can make from OUR investment.


It could be done with relative ease the only thing holding us back have been politicians in the pocket of said companies and GREED.



edit on 2-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 

Dear deadcalm,

Thank you, a couple of very good questions. I'm glad you asked.


Of course we have morals as a society....otherwise civilization would not work.
This may be a problem with definitions. I've heard many people say, in a variety of issues, "Don't force your morals on us." That tells me at least, there are multiple sets of morals floating around in society. Some people like one, some another, and some pick bits and pieces from them all.

When someone says "society has morals," they frequently mean that society should adopt the morals that the speaker has, and if they don't they're immoral. At best, we get to a point where most of society can agree on a rule, most of the time. But I don't believe that society as a whole has morals.


Profit vs People.

Your argument suggests that you believe that healthcare should only be available to those with the resources to access it...ie...money.
I'm very sorry that that is what my argument suggested. That concept doesn't exist now, and I don't think it ever will exist. My healthcare is basically free. My income is so low, the chain of hospitals and clinics lists me as a charity case. I suspect something like that is available in most of the country, if not all.

Pharmaceutical companies also advertise the assistance they give to low income people. But the point is that the companies and hospitals choose to do it, it's not taken from them.


With more and more of our resources being funnelled to a priveledged few, that means there are less resources for everyone else to share among themselves. Ergo....healthcare will only be accessible to those with the means to get it.
What do you mean by resources? Money? Lab equipment? Completed drugs? I get drugs and treatment, I don't have the means to get it. And the rise in generics means that millions get drugs for far less than they were able to before. That's why I was asking about what "resources" means to you.


Ergo....healthcare will only be accessible to those with the means to get it.
Isn't that true of anything, except maybe air and sunlight)?


Which means that the majority of the human race will suffer and die....
Last time I checked, a lot more than the majority of the human race will suffer and die. Nothing anybody can do will change that.

so that those profit margins can be met.
Again, isn't that true of any company? How is Bayer profited by people in Africa dying when the most modern medical advances can save their lives for a year, maybe more? And what is Bayer going to do with this wonder drug? Sell it to the hundred thousand richest people, then lock it away? They know it will become generic soon enough, so to maximize profit, they price it like technology. When it just comes out it's high priced and the rich buy it. Following that there are price drops, so more and more people can buy it.

I found WHO figures for 2002. www.who.int... They broke the world into three income groups, High, Medium, and Low. In the low income countries, cancer isn't even one of the top ten causes of death. It has less than 2% of the deaths, which places it behind traffic accidents. The poor countries don't need cancer drugs. There is no need to feel sorry that they're being deprived of cancer cures.

In the middle income countries, cancer causes 5.5% of the deaths, and in the high income countries, cancer causes 12.8% of the fatalities. I can see why they'd market it to high income countries first, low income countries don't need it very much, and probably can't pay for it anyway.


With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I've said it before and i'll say it forever; NO PROFITS IN MEDICINE - EVER!

Immoral doesn't do it justice.

I hope every poor country on Earth rips off everything these vultures make, not to necessarily take a swipe at the vultures because they are miserable inhuman swine, but to save Human life which would otherwise suffer and die.

Frankly i would like to see the end to pharma corporations and bring all medicinal R&D in under Government control and remit, take the drive to make profit away completely and start actually putting Human beings before wealth for a change. Yes, there are details, and yes there would need to be serious thinking involved, but it is the right thing to do and more importantly, the Human thing to do.

It's long overdue IMO.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles it good to see you again. I hope you are doing well.

I wanted to touch on some of the information you just presented. I am glad that you have shown the cancer statistics for higher and lower income countries, but I think those figures can be a bit misleading in there raw form.

I think you will find that in poorer countries cancer often goes undiagnosed. It isn't so much that they are afflicted less percentage wise, but they lack facilities. In many of those countries it is not customary like ours to determine a cause of death in each case unless foul play is suspected and even then some places simply do not have the means to do so. India does not determine the cause of death in each case even though they do have some magnificent medical facilities.

My neighbor actually went to India a few years ago for heart surgery where he paid 25K the same surgery here was going to cost him over 350K. Just something to think about even if it is a little off topic.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

Dear Grimpachi,

I am looking forward to saving up enough money to visit you and spread my ugly old body out on one of your beaches. I'm doing fine thank you. Peace and Strength to you and your family.

I'd like to explore that cause of death issue a little more. There might very well be a problem diagnosing cancer, but I suspect that it's a disease for older people, and low income country citizens my not live long enough to experience it as we do. Here are the WHO numbers for the top 10 causes of death in low income countries. It's from the same source I used earlier, and I didn't bother to look for something more up to date. The numbers are the percentage of deaths caused by that condition.

Coronary heart disease 10.8
Lower respiratory infections 10.0
HIV/AIDS 7.5
Perinatal conditions 6.4
Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases 6.0
Diarrhoeal diseases 5.4
Malaria 4.4
Tuberculosis 3.8
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 3.1
Road traffic accidents 1.9


About the question of age at death, here are some numbers from the same source.

In high income countries, 70% of deaths occur to those over 70 years of age.
Middle income countries, 44%
Low income countries, 22%

In high income countries, 1% die before they're 15
Middle income countries, 10%
Low income countries, 34%

It seems to me that age has something to do with it.

With respect,
Charles1952



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join