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

reply to post by Blaine91555


I have to disagree with you about without large profits drugs wouldn't be developed.

Scientists, universities and even unpaid students are developing the drugs and in most cases the people actually developing them are not reaping the rewards of the successful end products.

It is the shareholders and those that market them that are. I think very few become scientists planing to get rich. I think many do so more for altruistic reasons and there are many documented cases of such.

As I have stated before if we could simply change the system as far as R&D funding goes it would result in affordable medications, lower premiums, probably better medications even. I think the entire system would be better for it and the ripple effect throughout society would make everything a bit more prosperous. Well not the pharma executives but they would still be prosperous if they changed their business model.

If the U.S. funded the research the intellectual property would then belong to us and if one drug company wouldn't offer it at an affordable price their competition would. Right now they have what is akin to a monopoly in the form of patents some have gone as far as trying to monopolize human genes by patenting them. They have exploited the system to an unfathomable extent.

Grimpachi
reply to post by seabag

 

What I propose may be less regulation. It would require a rewrite of many regulation and repealing many regulations. I believe the system in place is completely screwed.

I am saying WE should fund the research into developing medicines for the betterment of mankind WE already fund research into the destruction of mankind AKA DARPA. The pharma companies use their research cost which are already heavily subsidised by you and I to justify exorbitant pricing. Such a change would eliminate their justification. Intelectual property of the chemical formulas would be owned by US and free market could still flourish in the form of competition of which company can manufacture said medication and distribute it to the nation and world the best way.

Why is it WE can fund death but not life?

I prefer the public funded research approach with we the people retaining patent rights.

beckybecky


Cancer misdiagnosis is big business.

While I tend to agree with you about misdiagnoises; it's really far off the topic.

ISN'T ANYONE OUTRAGED BY WHAT THE BAYER CEO SAID?

The only comments on that part, is that I'm a racist, for calling comment racist.

I can only cringe at what this man says in private. EEEEWWWWWW

FyreByrd

Grimpachi
reply to post by seabag

 

What I propose may be less regulation. It would require a rewrite of many regulation and repealing many regulations. I believe the system in place is completely screwed.

I am saying WE should fund the research into developing medicines for the betterment of mankind WE already fund research into the destruction of mankind AKA DARPA. The pharma companies use their research cost which are already heavily subsidised by you and I to justify exorbitant pricing. Such a change would eliminate their justification. Intelectual property of the chemical formulas would be owned by US and free market could still flourish in the form of competition of which company can manufacture said medication and distribute it to the nation and world the best way.

Why is it WE can fund death but not life?

I prefer the public funded research approach with we the people retaining patent rights.

Me too. I know what I propose would require a big change along with a lot of details to be worked out. Nothing worth doing is simple. There is a system already in place doing exactly what I propose though. DARPA works under those guidelines and you know no one can say the researchers or defense industry is hurting. So there is already a system that operates in such a way it would and it could be implemented to the medical field.

No communism needed.

Blaine91555
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.

You seem to have missed my point actually. The average cost for a drug is $325 million. However, yes many drugs fail so many fail infact that the average price of developing a successful drug and getting it to market is $5 billion. That $5 billion figure accounts for all the failed drugs. Furthermore, out of that $5 billion figure, half of that pricetag is subsidized by the taxpayers. This means the drug company is spending just as much money on developing their drug as we the citizens are but we pay hugely inflated prices and they make extremely high profits.

If we are paying for 50% of a drugs development why do they get a 2700% profit margin while we get drugs that are too expensive for the majority to afford?

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

I believe India contributed nothing, however that doesn't matter. Sovereign entities are above the law, what they did is 100% legal, and any nation can do the same. There may be consequences in the future such as Bayer lobbying governments to change the terms of trade treaties as punishments but India is free to not recognize any patent they wish, as is the US, China, Germany, or anyone else. Obviously it's not a good thing, because patents must exist for innovation to happen but in the grand scheme of things one poor country ignoring Bayer's patent doesn't harm anything. They weren't marketing the drug to India and as I've already shown they clearly did not need the money from selling in India to justify enough of an ROI to make the drug in the first place.

This is what disgusts me about the whole medical Industry. Well...I guess that's not entirely to blame now that I think about it. This is more a sign of imperialism and how it still persists to this day. Capitalism perpetuates it in beautiful way because those who stand to profit from the subjugation of another countries citizens can claim it's no moral fault of their own and simply justify it by reasoning that they couldn't afford to lose the profits and the rest of the western world will eat it up and forget about it in a weeks time.

reply to post by Aazadan
[more

If we are paying for 50% of a drugs development why do they get a 2700% profit margin while we get drugs that are too expensive for the majority to afford?

The time frame they can make a sole profit from the drug is extremely limited. 20 years total buthalf of that is spent doing clinical trials.

SO the company has to recoup it's 1 billion ish outlay plus shareholder satisfying profit in about a ten year time frame. Why is why the crazy high prices of new drugs.

Antigod
The time frame they can make a sole profit from the drug is extremely limited. 20 years total buthalf of that is spent doing clinical trials.

SO the company has to recoup it's 1 billion ish outlay plus shareholder satisfying profit in about a ten year time frame. Why is why the crazy high prices of new drugs.

My numbers assumed they had 7 years left of patent time not 20 years.

Few points

1.Indians cannot afford the drug anyway so Bayer did not really loose anything.... what is bugging them so much ?
2.Why is it that an Indian company can make the same medicine for 177$ and still make a profit while Bayer sell its for $93,000 ?
3.Why make the Medicine at all if 99% of the population is too poor to use it ?

Aazadan

Antigod
The time frame they can make a sole profit from the drug is extremely limited. 20 years total buthalf of that is spent doing clinical trials.

SO the company has to recoup it's 1 billion ish outlay plus shareholder satisfying profit in about a ten year time frame. Why is why the crazy high prices of new drugs.

My numbers assumed they had 7 years left of patent time not 20 years.

depends on how long the clinical trials drag on for I suppose.

maddy21
Few points
1.Indians cannot afford the drug anyway so Bayer did not really loose anything.... what is bugging them so much ?

Theft is generally frowned upon.

2.Why is it that an Indian company can make the same medicine for 177$ and still make a profit while Bayer sell its for $93,000 ?

No R&D costs.
No failed projects costs.
No future liabilities costs.

3.Why make the Medicine at all if 99% of the population is too poor to use it ?

So, don't bother doing anything at all?

maddy21
Few points

1.Indians cannot afford the drug anyway so Bayer did not really loose anything.... what is bugging them so much ?
2.Why is it that an Indian company can make the same medicine for 177$ and still make a profit while Bayer sell its for $93,000 ?
3.Why make the Medicine at all if 99% of the population is too poor to use it ?

For a profit. And 7-10 years after it gets approval it can be made WAY cheaper as a generic. So the drug company makes it's proift and covers its costs, and a few years later the world has a new medicine everyone can afford.

maddy21
Few points

1.Indians cannot afford the drug anyway so Bayer did not really loose anything.... what is bugging them so much ?
2.Why is it that an Indian company can make the same medicine for 177$ and still make a profit while Bayer sell its for $93,000 ?
3.Why make the Medicine at all if 99% of the population is too poor to use it ?

1. A company takes their research and produces and sells a drug (for profit too, mind you) is tantamount to theft. Wouldn't that bother you to work and spend money to develop something only to have someone else rip you off? Indian company makes medications based on their R&D and then sells it. Won't just be Indians but will go around the World. You see knock-off medications all over. I've encountered them on every continent.

2. See #1. The Indian company did not invest hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D and clinical trials. Since they did none of the development, if they just steal the formula, they can make a profit while charging much, much less.

3. Medications that are very expensive now, tend to become much less expensive later. Advancement of medicine and improving people's lives takes time and money.

If it saves millions of lives then its worth it ...

They still don't loose anything as they never lost their market which is the ultra super Rich folks...

Why bother at all if 99% of the people cannot afford it...Heck can 99.99% of the people afford a drug which costs 96,000$ ?.. having a cure for a disease or a health problem and not giving it out to the public for the sake of making money is really condemnable behavior...

Or do innocent people need to die just because a few Rich pharma bosses did not get their profits ? How can anyone justify a price tag of $96,000 .. Besides these drugs are also being exported to other Asian countries and Africa so we are saving lives there as well...

reply to post by Grimpachi


How would you deal with tort reform which is likely a huge factor in the cost of drugs? Those for socializing medicine and the pharmaceutical industry in some way, always seem to be opposed to tort reform. I think it's at the top of the list for reducing the costs.

Antigod

maddy21
Few points

1.Indians cannot afford the drug anyway so Bayer did not really loose anything.... what is bugging them so much ?
2.Why is it that an Indian company can make the same medicine for 177$ and still make a profit while Bayer sell its for $93,000 ?
3.Why make the Medicine at all if 99% of the population is too poor to use it ?

For a profit. And 7-10 years after it gets approval it can be made WAY cheaper as a generic. So the drug company makes it's proift and covers its costs, and a few years later the world has a new medicine everyone can afford.

No it does not... Pharma companies have a rotten disease of ever greening to keep their prices high .. besides..how much lower do you think a drug priced 93,000 can get ?

reply to post by Aazadan


India does matter. If other countries are in effect stealing, somebody has to make up the difference. India is starting to sound like China and is in fact the topic in the OP. We pay, India steals. We pay, China steals.

Blaine91555
reply to post by Aazadan

 

India does matter. If other countries are in effect stealing, somebody has to make up the difference. India is starting to sound like China and is in fact the topic in the OP. We pay, India steals. We pay, China steals.

Why does it matter if it saves lives ? we are talking about millions of lives , people with families here ... Isn't it worth it if lives are saved ? Can you just condemn them to their deaths just because the prices of the medicine i so obscenely high no body can afford it ...

Blaine91555
How would you deal with tort reform which is likely a huge factor in the cost of drugs? Those for socializing medicine and the pharmaceutical industry in some way, always seem to be opposed to tort reform. I think it's at the top of the list for reducing the costs.

Getting sued is also included in the $5 billion figure. They could charge $10,000 for this drug and still make huge profits. That would be much more reasonable, especially considering the taxpayers paid for half of the R&D in the first place.

Blaine91555
India does matter. If other countries are in effect stealing, somebody has to make up the difference. India is starting to sound like China and is in fact the topic in the OP. We pay, India steals. We pay, China steals.

The drug was not marketed to Indians and there was no plan to sell to India. Bayer is not losing money here. They may not like that their drug was stolen but it's not something that's going to have any long term impact for anyone other than the lives it prolongs in India.


The number of excuses people are coming up with for Bayer when presented with the financial facts are hysterical. Is it that difficult to believe a company would rip people off and get away with it?