We Made New Cancer Drug For Rich White People Not (Ick) Poor Indian People, Pharma Giant CEO Actuall

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).

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.

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

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.

Sound business practice is to develop and produce products that can be utilitied and afforded by a wide segment of the population. This is elitist Blankity Blank sucking up more dollars that would have been better spent on safe, effective, easy to administer drugs that would benefit more then a handfull of people.(a hand full in todays population being thousands).

When Mercedes first came out with the airbag (I'm not certain of the company or the details - but this is true) they opened the patent for all car manufacturers to use (not license to use for money) because it was 'the right thing to do'.

Altruism must be rewarded. Sadism must be punished.

Helping the sick should NOT be about profit!
Drug companies should all be brought under state control, that way the greedy shareholders and execs are removed from the cost of production meaning cheaper health care for EVERYONE!

reply to post by VoidHawk

As I asked FyreByrd, do you think that should only be true about medicines, or also food? Maybe textbooks which are needed to pull people out of poverty? No others come to mind right at the moment, do you have other products or industries in mind?

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.

They will sell it for far less than you ever could," what do you think their corporate response would be, or should be?

reply to post by charles1952


Although I agree with you in principal, imagine if it were you that needed the drug. Your insurance doesn't cover this drug therapy so you are forced to pay for it out of pocket....or die an agonizing death. 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.

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

VoidHawk
Helping the sick should NOT be about profit!
Drug companies should all be brought under state control, that way the greedy shareholders and execs are removed from the cost of production meaning cheaper health care for EVERYONE!

Yeah, because politicians who run those states aren't greedy at all. I bet they care about each and every one of their constituents, and would never do anything wrong.

charles1952
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

As I asked FyreByrd, do you think that should only be true about medicines, or also food? Maybe textbooks which are needed to pull people out of poverty? No others come to mind right at the moment, do you have other products or industries in mind?

Yes. Power (electric and gas). Water. Public transport. The entire health service!
All these were state owned in the uk for decades and it worked very nicely! Since its all been privatised costs have gone sky high leading to mass poverty, death of the elderly in winter, water supplies cut off, transport to expensive to use!

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.

reply to post by deadcalm

Dear deadcalm,

Thanks for your response. I might be mistaken, but you seem to be saying that in principle, I'm correct. But in practice, since everybody is somebody's child or parent, we must put principle aside and give the drugs to everyone. I think you might be saying that the taxpayers must pay any cost to keep everyone alive as long as medically possible. If not, the question of line drawing and abortion come into play, making it very messy, indeed.

Morally I find it reprehensible that we as a society

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?

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.

I'm confused. "We as a society" are concerned about the acquisition of profit? I think you mean that it is the duty of corporations to give away their products it will save someone's life. It may be the corporation's duty, but society doesn't think it's theirs. How many millions could we have saved in Africa with clean water and rehydration fluids. Starvation around the world is a huge problem. But we, as a society, won't give up money to save those lives. We simply insist that corporations give up theirs.

And that's where the thinking seems to stop. We can take money from corporations to save lives, but don't take it from us. Everyone is happy because the corporations are evil and should be punished. Fine, what then? How much can you take from corporations before investors say "I can get better returns without the government looking over my shoulder, I'm out of here?" Or before a scientist says, "The trials for this drug will take two years and $500 million," and he gets the reply "We just don't have the money?"

With respect,
Charles1952

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.

Already posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is exactly why health care for profit will always fail the common person.

I firmly believe that many types of cancer and diseases like diabetes and HIV can be cheaply cured but that information is withheld or discredited so a few elite companies can continue to make outrageous profits.

Healthcare for profit is failing our civilization, if we want to advance as a species then I believe we need to rethink the healthcare for profit 'business model.'

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.

Who profits if the research and development stop? No profits, no development and no new drugs which in effect harms far more people. This way after a time it does become available to everyone, rather than never being developed in the first place.

Sad as it is, if the governments take it over it will be even worse. We all have seen how incompetent the government is at product development and in the end, the way it is now will lead to more poor people being saved than if R & D were taken over by the governments.

This truly bothers me also, but we have to deal in reality in the real world.

reply to post by jrod

I'm left confused by your post. I may be misunderstanding your words, but this is what it sounds like.

Healthcare for profit is failing our civilization, if we want to advance as a species then I believe we need to rethink the healthcare for profit 'business model.'

Humanity is doomed if we don't have socialized health care throughout the world.

I firmly believe that many types of cancer and diseases like diabetes and HIV can be cheaply cured but that information is withheld or discredited so a few elite companies can continue to make outrageous profits.

Several drug companies have gotten together to hide the fact there are cheap solutions to many diseases. If one of those companies started to use that information, they would own the pharmaceutical world, but none do.

This is exactly why health care for profit will always fail the common person.

Always? Every generic is a huge blessing for the poor, in a health care for profit system.
Again, what other services or goods have to be supplied by the government in a non profit way? Obama phones? Rural internet? Food stamps? Or is medicine the only one?

reply to post by FyreByrd


Complete lie, they never mentioned white people, completely inflammatory.

You have no idea what it means to steal something and give it to people. Let's take shoes from Nike and steal them to give them to people. Let's steal TV's from Samsung and give them to poor people.

Anything people want we will steal it and give it to poor people, it's not fair they can't afford it.

How long do you think people will keep producing new items? Steal one drug today .. and 10 more will never be created tomorrow. Only shortsighted people agree with stealing things like this.

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.

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.

The wind farms are losing money that the taxpayer's keep propping up, meaning higher energy prices.

I'm not sure that socializing an industry lowers it's production costs by enough to make a difference, but it is now under government ownership. We have LOTS of experience of what happens when the government tries to run an industry.

With respect,
Charles1952