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.
benrl
NavyDoc
You fail in demands for socialization of staple goods. Socialization of staple goods has, in evidence of history, provided shortages of staple goods. Socialization always brings failure. It is a Star Trek pipe dream.
You say you don't trust government, but you want it to protect you from "evil corporations." Which is it?
We shouldn't subsidize ANY industry because subsidization leads to control--control by those very people you don't trust. How logical is that?
Alright, lets do it, Im on board.
Ive voted the right ways, ive signed on to the right campaigns.
Lets remove all subsidizes, Im all for it, period.
Wont happen, Im all for it.
So since we are talking "ideals" Yeah in a star trek cornocopia society where technology has reached a level where scarcity is a thing of the past, it would be possible.
What part of in an Ideal world didn't translate?
But we don't live in that world, NOR do we live in a world where government WONT subsidize.
We need to do things like repeal citizens united, tackle lobbying reform, get senators down to 2 terms max, address the tax code.
Baring a wish granting genie, we have to live in the real world.
I don't want a Rep Majority in congress trying to fix things the Dems screwed up, any more than I want Dems doing the reverse.
Subsidies wont stop, and the two parties will stand.
Nothing will get fixed, So lets just keep everything par the course?
F-education?
F-healthcare?
The old healthcare rules, frankly equally flawed as the current one, just the current one spreads the misery around a whole lot more.
We have a government where any "reform" is bad reform, time for new Representation.
NavyDoc
jude11
Meanwhile in India:
(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.
If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.
Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.
So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?
hmmmm...
Peace
Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.
www.justice.org...
Washington, DC—The U.S. Supreme Court gave pharmaceutical companies another gift today, largely shielding the generic industry from lawsuits for the design of their drugs. This is the second Supreme Court decision giving the generic drug industry immunity. In 2011, the Court decided generic makers cannot be held responsible for failing to warn about a drug’s side-effects, saying the generic maker is only making a “copy” of the brand drug and must follow the brand drug’s label.
“I know of no other industry where the maker of a product has such limited responsibility for the safety of the product they make,” said American Association for Justice President Mary Alice McLarty. “Over eighty percent of drugs dispensed are generic; the manufacturers must be held responsible for their drugs’ harmful effects.”
The case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett is about Karen Bartlett, a woman who permanently suffers from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain. The disease left Karen nearly blind and caused over 60% of her skin to burn off. She spent months in a coma and a year being tube fed. She is permanently disfigured and will need care for the rest of her life.
NavyDoc
Krystian
NavyDoc
jude11
Meanwhile in India:
(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.
If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.
Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.
So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?
hmmmm...
Peace
Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.
The article blatantly states that the manufacturer is hoping to agree to a voluntary deal to sell its own drug and avoid rip offs.
The logic pro capitalism presented in this entire thread is wrong.
Based on the logic that R&D, lawyers ect mark up this drug to $1000 a pill, then literally EVERY new drug should be $1000 a pill. Every new drug has to pay the same ridiculous FDA fees, go through clinicals, ect - The reason this particular pill is $1000 a pill is because it "saves lives" so they are leveraging your life to charge $1000 vs say leveraging your hardon to charge $7/viagra.edit on Apr-05:00pm3007 by Krystian because: (no reason given)
Actually, you are quite wrong, not every drug goes through the same FDA criteria. Drugs that deal with life threatening issues and have a more serious potential life altering effects go through more scrutiny. Want to know how I know you don't know what you are talking about?
jude11
NavyDoc
jude11
Meanwhile in India:
(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.
If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.
Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.
So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?
hmmmm...
Peace
Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.
Ok then,
Call it what you want but 1,000 per pill is robbery of the highest sort. I have a feeling you know this but choose to take an opposite knee. Your choice.
Care to guess how many times Big Pharm has been taken to court for Deaths from their "Safe" Drugs but never paid? Accountability?
www.justice.org...
Washington, DC—The U.S. Supreme Court gave pharmaceutical companies another gift today, largely shielding the generic industry from lawsuits for the design of their drugs. This is the second Supreme Court decision giving the generic drug industry immunity. In 2011, the Court decided generic makers cannot be held responsible for failing to warn about a drug’s side-effects, saying the generic maker is only making a “copy” of the brand drug and must follow the brand drug’s label.
“I know of no other industry where the maker of a product has such limited responsibility for the safety of the product they make,” said American Association for Justice President Mary Alice McLarty. “Over eighty percent of drugs dispensed are generic; the manufacturers must be held responsible for their drugs’ harmful effects.”
The case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett is about Karen Bartlett, a woman who permanently suffers from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain. The disease left Karen nearly blind and caused over 60% of her skin to burn off. She spent months in a coma and a year being tube fed. She is permanently disfigured and will need care for the rest of her life.
Most importantly:
"Hundreds of cases have been dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s Pliva v. Mensing decision."
Peace
Krystian
NavyDoc
Krystian
NavyDoc
jude11
Meanwhile in India:
(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.
If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.
Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.
So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?
hmmmm...
Peace
Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.
The article blatantly states that the manufacturer is hoping to agree to a voluntary deal to sell its own drug and avoid rip offs.
The logic pro capitalism presented in this entire thread is wrong.
Based on the logic that R&D, lawyers ect mark up this drug to $1000 a pill, then literally EVERY new drug should be $1000 a pill. Every new drug has to pay the same ridiculous FDA fees, go through clinicals, ect - The reason this particular pill is $1000 a pill is because it "saves lives" so they are leveraging your life to charge $1000 vs say leveraging your hardon to charge $7/viagra.edit on Apr-05:00pm3007 by Krystian because: (no reason given)
Actually, you are quite wrong, not every drug goes through the same FDA criteria. Drugs that deal with life threatening issues and have a more serious potential life altering effects go through more scrutiny. Want to know how I know you don't know what you are talking about?
You are absolutely correct but that doesnt make a difference in my argument. There are different parameters and costs for the FDA to even take a whiff of your drug however NONE of them will equal out to 1000X more the lowest parameters cost. The difference in price will be under 5mil when you factor in FDA fees + additional hoops to jump through. I just watched a company drop 3.5m into a trade show for a new heart drug they were hoping to release only to find out THE DAY of the show that it wont clear. Literally just WASTED 3.5mil to promote a drug to other pharmaceutical employees.
SonoftheSun
reply to post by amatrine
I find this disgusting on so many levels.
If we were human, so many diseases we could cure for those in need. If we were human, so much food we could supply to those in need. If we were human, so much shelter we could offer to those in need. Money would not be the obstacle. It would just be the right thing to do.
Sometimes, I think we are still Neanderthals in our way of thinking and acting. This OP is just an example out of many.
NavyDoc
jude11
NavyDoc
jude11
Meanwhile in India:
(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.
If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.
Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.
So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?
hmmmm...
Peace
Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.
Ok then,
Call it what you want but 1,000 per pill is robbery of the highest sort. I have a feeling you know this but choose to take an opposite knee. Your choice.
Care to guess how many times Big Pharm has been taken to court for Deaths from their "Safe" Drugs but never paid? Accountability?
www.justice.org...
Washington, DC—The U.S. Supreme Court gave pharmaceutical companies another gift today, largely shielding the generic industry from lawsuits for the design of their drugs. This is the second Supreme Court decision giving the generic drug industry immunity. In 2011, the Court decided generic makers cannot be held responsible for failing to warn about a drug’s side-effects, saying the generic maker is only making a “copy” of the brand drug and must follow the brand drug’s label.
“I know of no other industry where the maker of a product has such limited responsibility for the safety of the product they make,” said American Association for Justice President Mary Alice McLarty. “Over eighty percent of drugs dispensed are generic; the manufacturers must be held responsible for their drugs’ harmful effects.”
The case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett is about Karen Bartlett, a woman who permanently suffers from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain. The disease left Karen nearly blind and caused over 60% of her skin to burn off. She spent months in a coma and a year being tube fed. She is permanently disfigured and will need care for the rest of her life.
Most importantly:
"Hundreds of cases have been dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s Pliva v. Mensing decision."
Peace
And yet you conveniently ignore stuff like this:
Company
Settlement
Violation(s)
Year
Product(s)
Laws allegedly violated
(if applicable)
GlaxoSmithKline[6] $3 billion Off-label promotion/
failure to disclose safety data 2012 Avandia/Wellbutrin/
Paxil False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[7] $2.3 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2009 Bextra/Geodon/
Zyvox/Lyrica False Claims Act/FDCA
Abbott Laboratories[8] $1.5 billion Off-label promotion 2012 Depakote False Claims Act/FDCA
Eli Lilly[9] $1.4 billion Off-label promotion 2009 Zyprexa False Claims Act/FDCA
TAP Pharmaceutical Products[10] $875 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2001 Lupron False Claims Act/
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Amgen[11] $762 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2012 Aranesp False Claims Act/FDCA
GlaxoSmithKline[12] $750 million Poor manufacturing practices 2010 Kytril/Bactroban/
Paxil CR/Avandamet False Claims Act/FDCA
Serono[13] $704 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/monopoly practices 2005 Serostim False Claims Act
Merck[14] $650 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2008 Zocor/Vioxx/Pepsid False Claims Act/
Medicaid Rebate Statute
Purdue Pharma[15] $601 million Off-label promotion 2007 Oxycontin False Claims Act
Allergan[16] $600 million Off-label promotion 2010 Botox False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[17] $520 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Seroquel False Claims Act
Bristol-Myers Squibb[18] $515 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2007 Abilify/Serzone False Claims Act/FDCA
Schering-Plough[19] $500 million Poor manufacturing practices 2002 Claritin FDA Current
Good Manufacturing Practices
Schering-Plough[20] $435 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2006 Temodar/ Intron A/K-Dur/
Claritin RediTabs False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[21] $430 million Off-label promotion 2004 Neurontin False Claims Act/FDCA
Cephalon[22] $425 million Off-label promotion[23] 2008 Actiq/Gabitril/Provigil False Claims Act/FDCA
Novartis[24] $423 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Trileptal False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[25] $355 million Medicare fraud 2003 Zoladex Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Schering-Plough[26] $345 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2004 Claritin False Claims Act/
I know you don't know what "off label" is so please look it up for me.
jude11
NavyDoc
jude11
NavyDoc
jude11
Meanwhile in India:
(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O) new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.
If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and middle-income countries.
Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying virus.
So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?
hmmmm...
Peace
Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper product. It is just hyperbole.
Ok then,
Call it what you want but 1,000 per pill is robbery of the highest sort. I have a feeling you know this but choose to take an opposite knee. Your choice.
Care to guess how many times Big Pharm has been taken to court for Deaths from their "Safe" Drugs but never paid? Accountability?
www.justice.org...
Washington, DC—The U.S. Supreme Court gave pharmaceutical companies another gift today, largely shielding the generic industry from lawsuits for the design of their drugs. This is the second Supreme Court decision giving the generic drug industry immunity. In 2011, the Court decided generic makers cannot be held responsible for failing to warn about a drug’s side-effects, saying the generic maker is only making a “copy” of the brand drug and must follow the brand drug’s label.
“I know of no other industry where the maker of a product has such limited responsibility for the safety of the product they make,” said American Association for Justice President Mary Alice McLarty. “Over eighty percent of drugs dispensed are generic; the manufacturers must be held responsible for their drugs’ harmful effects.”
The case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett is about Karen Bartlett, a woman who permanently suffers from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain. The disease left Karen nearly blind and caused over 60% of her skin to burn off. She spent months in a coma and a year being tube fed. She is permanently disfigured and will need care for the rest of her life.
Most importantly:
"Hundreds of cases have been dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s Pliva v. Mensing decision."
Peace
And yet you conveniently ignore stuff like this:
Company
Settlement
Violation(s)
Year
Product(s)
Laws allegedly violated
(if applicable)
GlaxoSmithKline[6] $3 billion Off-label promotion/
failure to disclose safety data 2012 Avandia/Wellbutrin/
Paxil False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[7] $2.3 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2009 Bextra/Geodon/
Zyvox/Lyrica False Claims Act/FDCA
Abbott Laboratories[8] $1.5 billion Off-label promotion 2012 Depakote False Claims Act/FDCA
Eli Lilly[9] $1.4 billion Off-label promotion 2009 Zyprexa False Claims Act/FDCA
TAP Pharmaceutical Products[10] $875 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2001 Lupron False Claims Act/
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Amgen[11] $762 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2012 Aranesp False Claims Act/FDCA
GlaxoSmithKline[12] $750 million Poor manufacturing practices 2010 Kytril/Bactroban/
Paxil CR/Avandamet False Claims Act/FDCA
Serono[13] $704 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/monopoly practices 2005 Serostim False Claims Act
Merck[14] $650 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2008 Zocor/Vioxx/Pepsid False Claims Act/
Medicaid Rebate Statute
Purdue Pharma[15] $601 million Off-label promotion 2007 Oxycontin False Claims Act
Allergan[16] $600 million Off-label promotion 2010 Botox False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[17] $520 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Seroquel False Claims Act
Bristol-Myers Squibb[18] $515 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2007 Abilify/Serzone False Claims Act/FDCA
Schering-Plough[19] $500 million Poor manufacturing practices 2002 Claritin FDA Current
Good Manufacturing Practices
Schering-Plough[20] $435 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2006 Temodar/ Intron A/K-Dur/
Claritin RediTabs False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[21] $430 million Off-label promotion 2004 Neurontin False Claims Act/FDCA
Cephalon[22] $425 million Off-label promotion[23] 2008 Actiq/Gabitril/Provigil False Claims Act/FDCA
Novartis[24] $423 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks 2010 Trileptal False Claims Act/FDCA
AstraZeneca[25] $355 million Medicare fraud 2003 Zoladex Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Schering-Plough[26] $345 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks 2004 Claritin False Claims Act/
I know you don't know what "off label" is so please look it up for me.
No time to even look at the article? sigh.
Or the Dates? Another...sigh.
Or the "Expanding Immunity" as in gaining more ground.
I get it now.
Ok, carry on.
Peace
rickymouse
I tried to hack the drug, but I can't seem to find anything natural that is potent enough to do any good. They added some specialized chemistry to it so they could get rid of side effects and boost the active part. It appears to inhibit a few specialized nucleotides. I could only find about five pertinent articles on this. I know there some natural nucleotide inhibitors but I just couldn't find enough information to put anything together YET. Maybe more will slip out in the future. Inhibiting or antagonizing reactions to hasten healing on stuff like colds or flues isn't that hard, but this is a lot different. Without research to study I can't hack it. I'll have to try more tomorrow, with a fresh mind. Just ate a chicken dinner and it inhibited my thinking too much.edit on 12-4-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)
SaturnFX
Good news. the most elite of the rich can get cured of their hep c.
hooray for the top 5%. Good for you.
Meanwhile, back in reality...
The range of money spent is stunning. AstraZeneca has spent $12 billion in research money for every new drug approved, as much as the top-selling medicine ever generated in annual sales; Amgen spent just $3.7 billion. At $12 billion per drug, inventing medicines is a pretty unsustainable business. At $3.7 billion, you might just be able to make money (a new medicine can probably keep generating revenue for ten years; invent one a year at that rate and you’ll do well).
There are lots of expenses here. A single clinical trial can cost $100 million at the high end, and the combined cost of manufacturing and clinical testing for some drugs has added up to $1 billion. But the main expense is failure. AstraZeneca does badly by this measure because it has had so few new drugs hit the market. Eli Lilly spent roughly the same amount on R&D, but got twice as many new medicines approved over that 15 year period, and so spent just $4.5 billion per drug.
Why include failure in the cost? Right now, fewer than 1 in 10 medicines that start being tested in human clinical trials succeed. Some biotechnology companies do manage to make it to market without having to spend money on failed medicines – but only because other startups went bust trying to test other ideas.
How Common Is Hepatitis C?
The number of hepatitis C cases has been decreasing since its peak in the 1980s. Currently, there are fewer than 30,000 cases of hepatitis C diagnosed each year.
Krystian
The article blatantly states that the manufacturer is hoping to agree to a voluntary deal to sell its own drug and avoid rip offs.
The pro capitalism logic presented in this entire thread is wrong.
Based on the logic that R&D, lawyers ect mark up this drug to $1000 a pill, then literally EVERY new drug should be $1000 a pill. Every new drug has to pay the same ridiculous FDA fees, go through clinicals, ect - The reason this particular pill is $1000 a pill is because it "saves lives" so they are leveraging your life to charge $1000 vs say leveraging your hardon to charge $7/viagra.
NavyDoc
SaturnFX
Good news. the most elite of the rich can get cured of their hep c.
hooray for the top 5%. Good for you.
Meanwhile, back in reality...
...there would be no new drugs at all.
An estimated 3.2 million people in the United States are living with chronic hepatitis C infection, and most don't feel ill or know they are infected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
junglimogli
Don't worry .. you'll soon be able to travel to places in Asia and get it for like 10 Cents a pill .. and have a good time too while you're there ..
NavyDoc
rickymouse
I tried to hack the drug, but I can't seem to find anything natural that is potent enough to do any good. They added some specialized chemistry to it so they could get rid of side effects and boost the active part. It appears to inhibit a few specialized nucleotides. I could only find about five pertinent articles on this. I know there some natural nucleotide inhibitors but I just couldn't find enough information to put anything together YET. Maybe more will slip out in the future. Inhibiting or antagonizing reactions to hasten healing on stuff like colds or flues isn't that hard, but this is a lot different. Without research to study I can't hack it. I'll have to try more tomorrow, with a fresh mind. Just ate a chicken dinner and it inhibited my thinking too much.edit on 12-4-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)
Well, hopefully, with a clear head and a few hours on the Internet, you will be able to replicate years of study by dozens of dedicated scientists.