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

crazyewok

beckybecky

1/3 rd of cases are misdiagnosed as cancer and then given chemo which causes actual cancer.

Sources?

beckybecky
also this rubbish drug you are so excited has DEATH as a side effect.

Cancer misdiagnosis is big business.

sources.

a million sources.

Physicians Misdiagnose at an Alarming Rate

May 8, 2013

Misdiagnosis by physicians is a serious and common occurrence in the health industry. The repercussions of a misdiagnosis can damage a patient's health and cost money, or even a life. The prevalence of misdiagnosis is shocking, says Kaiser Health News.

An estimated 10 percent to 20 percent of cases are misdiagnosed, which exceeds drug errors and surgery on the wrong patient or body part, both of which receive considerably more attention.
One report found that 28 percent of 583 diagnostic mistakes were life threatening or had resulted in death or permanent disability.
Another study estimated that fatal diagnostic errors in U.S. intensive care units equal the number of breast cancer deaths each year -- 40,500.

According to doctors, misdiagnosis has occurred for quite some time. As far back as 1991, Harvard University found that misdiagnosis accounted for 14 percent of all adverse events and that 75 percent of these errors involved negligence.

While the first diagnosis may not be the correct diagnosis, hospitals could still earn performance incentives for the "correct" diagnosis of its patients.
The reality is that fixing diagnostic errors will be challenging given that arriving upon a medical diagnosis is a complicated and multifaceted procedure.
Many doctors who make a misdiagnosis are unaware that they have made a misdiagnosis because patients simply seek another opinion or do not find out until years later or are.....dead .DEAD... DEAD.

so at least anthor 10% on top of the above figures and you will see misdiagnosis is a HUGE MONEYSPINNER.

In fact doctors and hospitals get rewarded for it.more drugs,more treatments...

it all about the money,money,swimming pools and more palaces for the chief drug dealers.

by the way everyone crazywok accidentals let it slip he works for a drug company that is why he so rabid.

probably seeking to get promoted by batting for evil drug companies.



www.ncpa.org...

reply to post by beckybecky


Yeah im a big evil pharma shill that feds of the tears of dying orphans puppys and kittens.

Infact thats why i quit my last pharma job as they wernt evil enough for me.

Now im off to sell uranium to iran and nerve gasto assad

Mwhahaha

reply to post by FyreByrd


Racism, racism, racism!

Racism has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. As if only White people in the west are rich? Please.....

You know what it really is? It's the drug companies being greedy.

Of course they should make a profit, but what we have here is just another example of the machines greed. ~$heopleNation

Aazadan

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)

Yes, it IS a free market. NOTHING prevents YOU from starting your own company in direct competition with companies like Bayer. You can start a pharmaceutical company and do the research and develop new drugs for varying diseases. This is a free market. Nothing to stop you from doing just. You can set your own prices once your drugs hit the market however you please. What you cannot do is tell someone else what to do with their money and their product.

If you don't like the prices of medicine there are ALWAYS alternatives. I have CRPS Type 2. I take medicine everyday and will take medicine every single day for the rest of my life, without it, I cannot get out of bed.

I do NOT have insurance. I pay cash for all my meds. Whenever the doctor prescribes me a medicine that costs too much I tell her to please prescribe me something else that is more affordable.

And guess what? She DOES every single time!

You don't have to have that latest newest bestest medicine. Last time I had pneumonia they gave me a prescription for 5 pills that were antibiotics, those 5 pills cost over 200 dollars, so I simply asked for a different kind of antibiotic, and she gave me another kind.

Its easy... all you have to do is ask. You don't have to have anything they hand you, you can ask questions, ask for alternatives, and the fact is we will ALL die. There is nothing in this world going to keep us alive forever. Its not worth getting all tied up about the latest medicines when your dying anyway!

reply to post by Grimpachi


So basically you want a communist state where the government owns corporations.

Thanks but no thanks. I prefer a free market economy and keep the government out of big business. Democracy, not communism.

Communism is never the answer. I am not willing to live in China, perhaps you are, but I WILL not allow this country to turn into that.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

So basically you want a communist state where the government owns corporations.

NO I did not say that at all. Do you consider DARPA funding communist?

Thanks but no thanks. I prefer a free market economy and keep the government out of big business. Democracy, not communism.

Then you better start telling government to stop funding half the medical research or more as we already are. I do not think you have a clue as to what communism is.

Communism is never the answer. I am not willing to live in China, perhaps you are, but I WILL not allow this country to turn into that.

Perhaps you should first educate yourself as to what communism is. In fact this thread pertains to you. You seem to be the type that slings the word communist and socialist at ideas you disagree with or do not understand.

I think in this case you do not understand so you disagree with what I have proposed so you throw out words you probably do not fully comprehend.

reply to post by Grimpachi


The aim of the communist state is what? Eliminating social and economic differences among citizens.

You believe what? That certain companies make too much profit and this is wrong.

What are you asking for? The Americans through tax dollars to own corporations, ie: government owned corporations so that profit can be extinguished.

What does communism do? Has government owning corporations and business so those social and economic differences disappear.

hmmm... yes, you just suggested America become a communist state.

I simply say hell no.

United States President Grover Cleveland vetoed an expenditure of federal aid explaining,

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. .... Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood

reply to post by FyreByrd


yup, a new business model is needed.

Maybe 50% of the profits go to those who develop the drug?

This way, they still earn without incurring any costs.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

What are you asking for? The Americans through tax dollars to own corporations, ie: government owned corporations so that profit can be extinguished.

It is exactly as I thought. You did not comprehend what you read.

Not once have I said we should own the corporations.

If you can find where I said that I will admit my mistake and clarify.

I suggest you re-read what I have proposed in this thread. If you can quote the part you believe I said we should own the companies I will do my best to help you understand. I have written quite a bit on it so far so I am not sure what part you failed to comprehend.

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.

The logical conclusion is for the Indian government to pay for a perpetual license for the patent and then allow local producers to produce it locally, but of course they don't want to pay.

Grimpachi

Thank you for finding that. This is exactly why I say the system is broke, and we need a new system. In the eyes of pharmaceutical companies the system is working perfectly fine.

Why?

— A new report shows taxpayers often foot the bill to help develop new drugs, but it's private companies that reap the lion's share of profits.

Not to mention that if we had a true free market, Big Pharma and Insurance would be the biggest losers.
The tax payers are footing the bill for their insane profits and that is what happens when you have politicians on speed dial.

If the Median Income is around 50,000 dollars per household, then not many would be able to afford these prices if they had to pay for it out of pocket.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Look, if you want to start up your own business and see how many Americans you can get to invest (of their own freewill) then you start that business.

If you want the government to take our tax dollars and run a business in order for that business to run not for profit (or to determine what the profits should be and dole them out) then I am against it. Period.

You are talking about forcing people to invest in a business model ran by the government... over my dead body. You people take enough of our taxes, you don't need my money to run businesses. That is NOT what the government is for.

I WONT live in a communist country.

If you don't like the price of something then DO NOT BUY IT!

The reason why I live in this country, and MANY MANY others also, are because here we are FREE. You people are destroying this country and all that it stands for because of Your ENVY and GREED...YOURS... not someone elses.

OpinionatedB
Yes, it IS a free market. NOTHING prevents YOU from starting your own company in direct competition with companies like Bayer. You can start a pharmaceutical company and do the research and develop new drugs for varying diseases. This is a free market. Nothing to stop you from doing just. You can set your own prices once your drugs hit the market however you please. What you cannot do is tell someone else what to do with their money and their product.

It is not a free market. A free market lacks regulation and allows for monopolies. Furthermore a free market doesn't have collusion between government and the largest firms. We have a mostly free market, but a free market going by the definition of the term does not exist, and cannot exist because a completely free market will always devolve into a single monopoly.

If you don't like the prices of medicine there are ALWAYS alternatives. I have CRPS Type 2. I take medicine everyday and will take medicine every single day for the rest of my life, without it, I cannot get out of bed.

Sometimes there are alternative mediciations and sometimes there aren't. Sometimes a difference in medication is substantial. I have schitzophrenia, when I was diagnosed my medication options were one that had severe weight gain that I took briefly (as in, I gained 200 pounds in 4 weeks) and the other lead to liver failure within 5 years. Eventually a new one came out which had lesser side effects, but also happened to be more expensive. Fortunately I could have the new (at the time) medication because I was covered by my parents health insurance. Had I not been in that position should my options have been crippling obesity or certain death? My mom currently suffers from pulminory hypertension and takes a pretty large drug cocktail to control it. Her only insurance is Medicaid. They only pay for certain medications where the average lifespan taking them is pretty low (around 4 years) due to the cost of the better ones. There are better medications where the average lifespan taking them is 15 years. Does she deserve to die 11 years earlier just because she's poor?

OpinionatedB
The aim of the communist state is what? Eliminating social and economic differences among citizens.

You believe what? That certain companies make too much profit and this is wrong.

What are you asking for? The Americans through tax dollars to own corporations, ie: government owned corporations so that profit can be extinguished.

I have a bad habit of putting words in other peoples mouths so I'm going to answer this. The person isn't saying that they can't profit. They're saying that if their research and development is being heavily subsidized by the American tax payer (which it is, by about 50%) then the American taxpayer deserves to see a return on their investment in the form of drugs that are cheaper when they initially hit the market. The company can still make a profit, but when they only need to charge $7,400 for a year of treatment to break even and they're instead charging $96,000 to make profits off of someone elses investment, that something is very wrong.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Look, if you want to start up your own business and see how many Americans you can get to invest (of their own freewill) then you start that business.

If you want the government to take our tax dollars and run a business in order for that business to run not for profit then I am against it. Period.

You are talking about forcing people to invest in a business model ran by the government... over my dead body. You people take enough of our taxes, you don't need my money to run not for profit businesses.

I WONT live in a communist country.

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

Do you have the same problem with Private Health and Auto Insurance or is it only when the profits are not going to the fatcats?

With Big Government, they take a little out of everyones paycheck to subsidize the rest.
With Big Health Insurance, they take a little out of eveyones paycheck to subsidize the rest.

What would happen to Big Pharma and Big Health if we got rid of Private Insurance and Big Government?

You would see those prices come way down or those institutions would go Bankrupt.



You have it all backwards anyways.
It is not Big Government cramming this down our throats, it is Big Pharma and Big Insurance that paid off politicians to prop them up while everyone else's standard of living is declining.

They do not want to take a paycut and want everyone else to pay for it.

Nikola telsa came up with the blue prints to kill all diseases with his scalar wave tech, priore advanced it.
Just google priore healing machine, it uses scalar waves to time reverse cell to a healthy state.

Big pharma is nothing more than reptilian congregation to destroy the human race with "useless medicine".

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Look, if you want to start up your own business and see how many Americans you can get to invest (of their own freewill) then you start that business.

If you want the government to take our tax dollars and run a business in order for that business to run not for profit (or to determine what the profits should be and dole them out) then I am against it. Period.

Considering I never proposed such a thing and you will not say how you came to that conclusion you only ignorantly ranting as far as I am concerned. I would be happy to clarify for you whatever you interpreted to mean that. I cant really argue for a position I am not proposing.

You are talking about forcing people to invest in a business model ran by the government... over my dead body. You people take enough of our taxes, you don't need my money to run businesses. That is NOT what the government is for.

Again I have clearly stated that I never proposed that.

I WONT live in a communist country.

If you claim that my proposal would mean that this country became communist then I have news for you. The country has been communist for a very long time because the system I propose is already well established and ongoing.

If you don't like the price of something then DO NOT BUY IT!

The reason why I live in this country, and MANY MANY others also, are because here we are FREE. You people are destroying this country and all that it stands for because of Your ENVY and GREED...YOURS... not someone elses.

Willfully ignorant people are destroying this country far more. I have been trying to have a conversation with you but you seem to only want to throw accusations. You obviously have not comprehended what I have proposed nor will you say what made you think that. You came to your incorrect conclusion somehow and will not even explain how you did.

What is even worse is that you seem certain that you understand the issue. To that I say.

The illusion of knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance.

jimmyx

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...

"They [Bristol-Meyers Squibb] contributed a lot in funds," Rohrbaugh said. "We couldn't do it — neither one of us could do it alone. They contributed a lot of funds, lot of their effort; we did too."

The Institutes' defenders also say that when NIH negotiates a royalty with a pharmaceutical, it never knows which drug will fail and which will be a success. It is a risk for each side.

Taxol has succeeded in treating cancer patients beyond anyone's expectations. But the definition of success may be questioned in terms of the taxpayers' investment.

Putting aside the ideological arguments, people tend to not factor in that many drugs fail and never earn a dime but end in losses. It will always look lopsided in that case and it ignores that the drugs that do work out, need to make huge profits to make up for the ones they fund that do not.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I made that same point in this thread, no one wanted to talk about it.

Blaine91555
Putting aside the ideological arguments, people tend to not factor in that many drugs fail and never earn a dime but end in losses. It will always look lopsided in that case and it ignores that the drugs that do work out, need to make huge profits to make up for the ones they fund that do not.

No, that point was brought up earlier in the thread I should know because I brought it up and provided the numbers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's the link. In just the US there are 96,000 cases of cancer which this drug treats per year. To create a new drug it costs $5 billion, that's after taking into account all the money sunk into the approval process and the failure rate of drugs. Without the failure rate it is $325 million for a drug, but that's an unfair number to use.

Patents are good for 20 years, the approval process generally takes up about 13 of that, so a drug has 7 years of patent time on the market. Knowing how long it can be sold by the company and how many people will be treated (assuming it's just 1 year of treatment per person) we can establish with some simple division that the break even point on the drug is $7400/year. They are selling it for $96,000. That goes well beyond a reasonable profit margin, especially when they used public funds to create it.

Taxpayers invest in these drugs, taxpayers deserve a return on their investment. The company put in the work, and most people are fine with them making a profit but their $96,000 billing rate comes out to $65 billion in revenue on a $5 billion expenditure (of which half was paid for by by the people). They could cut the price to 1/10 of what it is currently ($9,600) and after the initial $5 billion is recouped they would still profit 1.5 billion dollars (in reality $4 billion because they were subsidized 2.5 billion in expenses). They could cut it to 1/5 of it's current price and they would profit 8 billion (10.5 billion). While they did that, their medication would be far more affordable. Doesn't that seem fair?

reply to post by Aazadan


You missed my point I think. Over the long term, many drugs result in losses and the few that succeed have to make large profits to make up for that. This one may result in large profits, while dozens of others result in large losses. Singling one drug or disease out would not paint an accurate or fair picture of what is fair and what is not.

I've not had time to read the whole thread. Has anyone found out how much India contributed to the development of this drug?

My concern is that without large profits, many drugs would never get developed and I think I'm right about that. Somehow the failed drugs must be paid for by someone.

Then we go back to the fact that a country chose to break the law and steal. I understand why they did it, but they harm their own people in the future and slow down the development of new drugs with that action.

Look at how the source describes itself also -

We share our readers’ progressive values

Biased sites are seldom reliable for accurate information or anything but highly biased opinions. I'm immediately skeptical whenever the source is from a single ideology and opinion is twisted and manipulated to fit an agenda. It does not matter to me what ideology, just that it is a biased source.

I'd wait to see the legal outcome and perhaps get both sides first.