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: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:24 AM
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.


So lets just let people die! Yay!




posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04


Any non-profit group is welcome to develop any cure they want, no one is stopping them.


Actual the legal framework in the USA and EU is.

Unless you are a big pharma company with billions and a team of crack lawyers its next to impossible.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 



Why does it cost millions/billions to develop the drug anyway??

Something's wrong with our medical system I tell you... I think most of the costs come from professional fees.....


Most of that ungodly cost is tied up in the years upon more years of Government mandated and required process, which they may or may not come out of with an approved drug ...even if the rest of the world declares it a miracle drug and the best thing since sliced bread and Star Wars.

If the Government, in the form of the FDA, reviewed drugs with *ONLY* two criteria in mind ....does this do real harm, and if so, does the benefit outweigh that harm?....the process would likely take a fraction of the time it does now and cost a fraction of what goes out for it at present.

Uncle Sammy can take a good share of the credit as once again he'd screw up a wet dream ...then find a way to declare it a basis for benefits and counseling afterward. (sigh)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04
. Since expecting to be paid for your work is egotistical and selfish.

There being paid for your work and extorting billions of the backs of the suffering of people.

I work(ed) in Pharma. Prices they charge are well above what they need to make a profit.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

FlyersFan

FyreByrd
I know my pro-big-business friends will rail about 'research costs' and 'regulations' but this is just sick.

Okay .. here you go ...

Drug companies are in the business of making money. If you take away their ability to make money, then they won't bother with the research and the development of new drugs and treatments. Money is the motivator. Take that away and there won't be any drugs for anyone.

And no, the government taking over won't be any better. In fact, it would be worse. It's far more corrupt then the drug companies. The drug companies have to answer to people and to stock holders. The gov't answers to no one. Not really.



There makeing money and there overcharging. Fact is we have to pay whatever price they set as its not a case of simply not buying there product as its a case of life and death. So they can fix prices well above profit makeing into the realm of extortation. Look at the india companys that stole the drug and is makeing itat a tenth the cost? They are still makeing a profit.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Blaine91555

AnIntellectualRedneck
I was under the impression that a good chunk of the clinical research that goes into this is subsidized by tax payers in the United States either via direct grants to do much of the research, a lot of research being done by graduate students that make a pittance, or through massive tax breaks.


The Pharmaceutical companies come by the patents by directly developing themselves or funding studies directly. Otherwise they would not have the patent in the first place.

There is not a doubt in my mind if this were Socialized, drug development would come to a screeching halt and far fewer people would be helped in the end.

This is about a genuine theft and sensationalized by taking an Exec's words out of context IMO.


really???....so why is this happening?
abcnews.go.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I thought this might help people get some perspective onn costs.

www.fdareview.org...



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ahnggk
 



Why does it cost millions/billions to develop the drug anyway??

Something's wrong with our medical system I tell you... I think most of the costs come from professional fees.....


Most of that ungodly cost is tied up in the years upon more years of Government mandated and required process, which they may or may not come out of with an approved drug ...even if the rest of the world declares it a miracle drug and the best thing since sliced bread and Star Wars.

If the Government, in the form of the FDA, reviewed drugs with *ONLY* two criteria in mind ....does this do real harm, and if so, does the benefit outweigh that harm?....the process would likely take a fraction of the time it does now and cost a fraction of what goes out for it at present.

Uncle Sammy can take a good share of the credit as once again he'd screw up a wet dream ...then find a way to declare it a basis for benefits and counseling afterward. (sigh)




none of you looked at the side effects including death.

are you all so easily brainwashed by big pharma short skirts?

i would rather try a 1/2teaspoon of bleach rather this toxic poison.
why you all worried and fighting about this crappy drug?



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 



none of you looked at the side effects including death.

are you all so easily brainwashed by big pharma short skirts?


Becky, none of us are brainwashed. We do, however, seem to have legitimate differences of opinion on how proper it is to charge such an extreme amount for life saving medication, that status in life or a defacto 'Caste' system is coming to be formed by it. Pretty scary if one asks me, on that.

Each person's view on the efficacy of medication itself, not withstanding...the ability to access it should not be dependent upon the ability to pay more per treatment than many in a given nation's market make for income across an entire year.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

FyreByrd
I know my pro-big-business friends will rail about 'research costs' and 'regulations' but this is just sick. Do you really want these tools of big business running the world?

This happened:



Right up there in the annals of multinational corporations doing heinous things in the name of obscene profits comes the response of the German-based Bayer to India's unprecedented ending of the pharmaceutical giant's monopoly for a new, insanely expensive anti-cancer drug Nexavar - a brave move that allows a small Indian drug company to make a generic version of the drug that regular poor sick people can actually afford. One year of treatment with Nexavar, used largely in liver and kidney cancer cases, costs $96,000 in the U.S. and $69,000 in India, or 41 times the per capita income; India's Natco Ltd. made it for $177 a year.


And this was the big business response (we won't discuss Bayer's history any):



Outraged Bayer officials charged the Indian action allowing poor people to have their fancy drug was "essentially theft" and they will damn sure explore their legal options to the ends of the (white people's) earth to "defend our intellectual property rights." We know all about turning the other cheek and meeting hate with love, but still: May they one day need medicine they cannot get.

"We did not develop this medicine (Nexavar) for Indians," said Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers at a little reported pharmaceutical conference. "We developed it for Western patients who can afford it."


www.commondreams.org...

Now that is declaring sovereignty for the people of India. You go brown people.
(really, really dislike these emoticons).


When the author of an article throws the race card all over the place, as this one did, that is demonstration of stupidity and histrionics on the author's part.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

beckybecky
none of you looked at the side effects including death.

Well that because of a certain side effect of untreated cancer.....CERTAIN AGONISING DEATH!

100% Certain death or a small chance of possible death? Hmmmm not a hard trade off.



beckybecky
i would rather try a 1/2teaspoon of bleach

I suggest a tablespoon in your case

edit on 3-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

NavyDoc

When the author of an article throws the race card all over the place, as this one did, that is demonstration of stupidity and histrionics on the author's part.



FyreByrd


Outraged Bayer officials charged the Indian action allowing poor people to have their fancy drug was "essentially theft" and they will damn sure explore their legal options to the ends of the (white people's) earth to "defend our intellectual property rights." We know all about turning the other cheek and meeting hate with love, but still: May they one day need medicine they cannot get.

"We did not develop this medicine (Nexavar) for Indians," said Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers at a little reported pharmaceutical conference. "We developed it for Western patients who can afford it."


www.commondreams.org...

Now that is declaring sovereignty for the people of India. You go brown people.
(really, really dislike these emoticons).



And how is "We did not develop this medicine for Indians" not a racist statement from bayer CEO.

No it's the author of the piece that's racist. No, No, now I see. I'm racist for applauding brown people.

Interesting point of view.
edit on 3-2-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

theMediator

OccamsRazor04
You think the next guy wanting to create something is going to waste his money doing it?


Hm...probably not if he is a shallow minded egoistical individual geared towards profit like you seem to be.

If we ever hope to evolve beyond apes with guns, we will need to sway away from such mentality.


LOL. This is very easy for non-producers to say. It is easy to say "let it be freeeeeeee" when it is someone else's blood, sweat, and investments.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

FyreByrd

NavyDoc

When the author of an article throws the race card all over the place, as this one did, that is demonstration of stupidity and histrionics on the author's part.



FyreByrd


Outraged Bayer officials charged the Indian action allowing poor people to have their fancy drug was "essentially theft" and they will damn sure explore their legal options to the ends of the (white people's) earth to "defend our intellectual property rights." We know all about turning the other cheek and meeting hate with love, but still: May they one day need medicine they cannot get.

"We did not develop this medicine (Nexavar) for Indians," said Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers at a little reported pharmaceutical conference. "We developed it for Western patients who can afford it."


www.commondreams.org...

Now that is declaring sovereignty for the people of India. You go brown people.
(really, really dislike these emoticons).



And how is "We did not develop this medicine for Indians" not a racist statement from bayer CEO.

No it's the author of the piece that's racist. No, No, now I see. I'm racist for applauding brown people.

Interesting point of view.
edit on 3-2-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)


Last I checked, India was a country comprised of many different ethnic groups and races.


You are racist because you, like typical Western Leftists, buy into that "white man is the devil," crap.

Bayer CEO is correct. They did not develop the medication for the nation of India and the nation of India has no right to steal their research.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

UnBreakable
I guess for some people it's not all about the money. Jonas Salk made absolutely nothing from his polio vaccine, forgoing @ $7 billion.

"For those who want a short answer, Salk would have been richer by $7 billion if his vaccine were patented"
www.forbes.com...


You forget that Salk's research was funded by the university. He didn't do it for cash profit (well he did get a paycheck but that amount of profit is okay as long as its not too big) , but he did not outlay personal funds to do so. He did profit of course in tenure and pay and fame.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Last I checked, India was a country comprised of many different ethnic groups and races.



...and 95% or more are brown, or black, or yellow.





You are racist because you, like typical Western Leftists, buy into that "white man is the devil," crap.



I never said that, nor implied that -- you did.




Bayer CEO is correct. They did not develop the medication for the nation of India and the nation of India has no right to steal their research.


Correct? In your opinion perhaps. Correct in intend perhaps. Either way , the statement was both racist and nationalistic and we know where that leads. Throw in corporate authoritarianism and we get.... what do we get?



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

stormcell

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?"






Did the company say that or are you making stuff up? The reason why veterinary medication is so much less expensive than human medication of the same type, is that the regulations and R&D costs for veterinary use are much. much, much, less than human use



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

NavyDoc



Bayer CEO is correct. They did not develop the medication for the nation of India and the nation of India has no right to steal their research.


So its ok to just let indians die then? Just because they live in india?

Well you want a brutal dog eat dog ? Well dont whine if people steal stuff so they can carry on living. Maybe Bayer should not have been weak enough to steal from. You want competition? Well dont whine when the competition gets to hot handle especialy when it comes to life and death. In life and death expect moral lines like theft to become blured.
edit on 3-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join