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

reply to post by Aazadan


In other words, you are looking at gross profit before taking out overhead aka the cost of doing business.

ketsuko
reply to post by Aazadan

 

In other words, you are looking at gross profit before taking out overhead aka the cost of doing business.

That's included in the 5 billion figure. Even if we assumed you were right though and there's additional overhead of 100% we're talking about $14k for a year of treatment to break even compared to the $96k they sell it for.

reply to post by stormcell


That's true.

Do you realize how many more regulations there are between you and any drug that could be used for you?

Every single one makes anything you use that much more expensive.

reply to post by Aazadan


And I explained why they seek to cushion. They have to take a very long view because there is no guarantee that they will have any new, successful medications coming out for possibly years. Breaking even isn't enough ... unless you want them to not be able to continue to invest in new research and new exploration into medications.

Grimpachi
Well from the information others have posted in this thread the cost of developing that drug was 250 million WE THE PEOPLE paid for half of that yet the company has made over 1 billion from it.

BTW WE THE PEOPLE were never paid back.

The system is broke as I have already said. WE THE PEOPLE should fund 100% of drug research and regulate the profits said companies can make from OUR investment.


It could be done with relative ease the only thing holding us back have been politicians in the pocket of said companies and GREED.

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

Price controls were instituted on the flu vaccine, and the very next year there was a shortage because all but two companies stopped making it.

The flu vaccine is a fiddly, difficult process involving whole chicken eggs and when you control the price it can be sold at, it's not worth making.

MysterX
I've said it before and i'll say it forever; NO PROFITS IN MEDICINE - EVER!

Immoral doesn't do it justice.

I hope every poor country on Earth rips off everything these vultures make, not to necessarily take a swipe at the vultures because they are miserable inhuman swine, but to save Human life which would otherwise suffer and die.

Frankly i would like to see the end to pharma corporations and bring all medicinal R&D in under Government control and remit, take the drive to make profit away completely and start actually putting Human beings before wealth for a change. Yes, there are details, and yes there would need to be serious thinking involved, but it is the right thing to do and more importantly, the Human thing to do.

It's long overdue IMO.

This unfortunately doesn't work. Profit has to exist as a motivator, in economic systems where profit doesn't exist we don't really see new innovation. We do see improvements to existing products which arise out of a necessity because supply lines degrade and efficiency is a priority but new advancements just don't happen. Where you get into a problem is when you start asking the question of how much profit is sufficient? Surely we can agree that it's a net gain if a drug comes out, and while it's high cost and exclusive 100,000 people die... but because it did come out it can later become generic and go on to save 1,000,000 who would have otherwise died.

What if there were only half as much profit however and that allowed for 80,000 of those initial 100,000 to live? Those are the types of questions that need to be asked and answered. Should Bayer be allowed to run a 13x markup over the cost of the drugs development? They would still produce new drugs for those profits if they only had a 4x markup or a 2x markup because the goal is a search for the best profits possible, and if 2x profits were the best available that's what they would work towards.

At what point do the diminishing returns take place between more lives saved and additional profits? No one seems to be able to answer this question yet.

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...

MysterX
reply to post by ketsuko

 

I've said it before and i'll say it forever; NO PROFITS IN MEDICINE - EVER!

Immoral doesn't do it justice.

I hope every poor country on Earth rips off everything these vultures make, not to necessarily take a swipe at the vultures because they are miserable inhuman swine, but to save Human life which would otherwise suffer and die.

Frankly i would like to see the end to pharma corporations and bring all medicinal R&D in under Government control and remit, take the drive to make profit away completely and start actually putting Human beings before wealth for a change. Yes, there are details, and yes there would need to be serious thinking involved, but it is the right thing to do and more importantly, the Human thing to do.

It's long overdue IMO.

Ah, well then, no one will work in medicine EVER!

Well, no one with any talent or intellect to speak of that is.

See, government bureaucrat.

Given the full context of big pharma, and their use of the FDA to squash natural cures and treatments, this isn't free markets it's a highly controlled racket. It's a racket with governmental protection pure and simple! You all can delude yourselves that this is capitalism at work, but it's ultimately a symptom of how corrupted you have become that you accept these kinds of business practices.

There are several prominent members that I know to be Christians that have weighed in here on the pro pharma side. Don't convolute the issue, just ask yourself one question....what would Jesus do?

ketsuko
And I explained why they seek to cushion. They have to take a very long view because there is no guarantee that they will have any new, successful medications coming out for possibly years. Breaking even isn't enough ... unless you want them to not be able to continue to invest in new research and new exploration into medications.

There's cushioning and there's price gouging. If a drug costs 5 billion to develop, seeking to earn a ROI of 10 billion or even 15 billion isn't out of line. That lets them reinvest another 5 billion to make another drug, have billions in reserve, and hold onto a bit as profit as well. We're talking about them spending 5 billion and then getting back 65 billion and doing so at the expense of a lot of people suffering because Bayer would rather withhold life changing medicine. That goes far beyond a simple cushion.

ketsuko
In other words, you are looking at gross profit before taking out overhead aka the cost of doing business.

No, the 5 billion includes all the over head for a succesful drug and 19 failed drugs.

The drug in the OP cost 275 Million but it is assumed that it also has to pay for whatever the company has in R&D that isn't turning a profit.

reply to post by charles1952


Come on down it would be fun.

As to the information I wasn't thinking to much about age so I agree that would be a factor however wouldn't you agree that in poorer nations diagnosis of things such as cancer would be under reported? Two years ago I was traveling through South America and one of the villages where I stayed briefly I had a conversation about the medical there. Most of the people didn't seek medical diagnosis unless they were gravely ill or for persisting problems. Sometimes when it got to that point it was already to late because they were in no shape to travel. Those people were not diagnosed, and if they died then burial customs were a local affair. Those were remote areas but even in cities it would be different. My only point is that the reported statistics for cancer globally does not account for the inability to gather accurate information for some regions.

Although I am sure you already understood that you should keep in mind when presenting such information that many here in the US invision the world as a reflection of our own society. I am sure you have encountered on these boards where the topic will be about some region of the world other than the US where people are in need of something basic and someone would make a comment along the line of "why don't they just get (insert item) at the store" or something along those lines. Some people think Walmart is everywhere. If you haven't encountered the misinformed on the boards you are lucky.

Those statistics more than likely do not accurately reflect the actual percentages of deaths due to cancer in underdeveloped or poorer nations but they do give us an idea but without the information on their medical system we do not have a complete picture.

ketsuko

Grimpachi
Well from the information others have posted in this thread the cost of developing that drug was 250 million WE THE PEOPLE paid for half of that yet the company has made over 1 billion from it.

BTW WE THE PEOPLE were never paid back.

The system is broke as I have already said. WE THE PEOPLE should fund 100% of drug research and regulate the profits said companies can make from OUR investment.


It could be done with relative ease the only thing holding us back have been politicians in the pocket of said companies and GREED.

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

Price controls were instituted on the flu vaccine, and the very next year there was a shortage because all but two companies stopped making it.

The flu vaccine is a fiddly, difficult process involving whole chicken eggs and when you control the price it can be sold at, it's not worth making.

If you look back in the thread you will see I had already said that pharmaceutical companies develop and produce most vaccines at a loss due to a social contract with the public. In return the public/government has passed favorable legislation for that industry where they have been able to make insane profits on other medications.

This in part as to why I say the system which medications are developed and sold is flawed if not broken.

I have taken a look at bayer stocks and reported earnings.

I have no problem with those companies making a profit, but what I propose is a different system. Our government/WE THE PEOPLE already subsidize the cost of developing new medications. What I propose is WE THE PEOPLE pay for the full amount of the development. Pharmaceutical companies would still manufacture those drugs and could still make a profit off those drugs, but legislation would need to be enacted to limit just how much they can inflate those prices from their cost of manufacturing. Their justification for insane markup has always been that they have to spend money to develop drugs, well the solution would be for us to pay for it. We already are at least partially which never gets paid back.

The result would be lower costs across the board in all the medical fields all the way to insurance premiums including availability of medications to more people. Such a change would actually cost the taxpayer less in the long run.

Another problem has been with the current system where a patent for a medication is about to expire so the pharmaceutical companies change the formula slightly and markets it as a new and improved. There have been documented cases where that new and improved medication was less affective or even had added side affects.

The current system is flawed if not broken in regards to society, but it is working exactly how the shareholders want it to. BTW I have stocks with bayer and they are not hurting in fact even with the recent upset in the market they are still performing better than most other stocks.

I am not saying it is as simple as what I just wrote because I believe if such a change were to be made that many regulations would need to be changed and protections afforded to developers. However I think that once profits are driven by manufacturing efforts and the ability to distribute to a world market instead of who can hold a patent then the people developing medications will do it trying to make the best medication possible at that time. ATM you can be sure they may hold back a better medication to make as much as possible on a current or lessor medication maybe even leaving room for improvement later on down the line.

It is a bad system for such a field.

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...

I didn't know that - thanks for another wonderful example of altruistic behavior.

Grimpachi

Well from the information others have posted in this thread the cost of developing that drug was 250 million WE THE PEOPLE paid for half of that yet the company has made over 1 billion from it.

BTW WE THE PEOPLE were never paid back.

The system is broke as I have already said. WE THE PEOPLE should fund 100% of drug research and regulate the profits said companies can make from OUR investment.

I like the idea of publically funded research. Research for use, rather then profit. The companies would compete to manufacture to specification much as aerospace did thirty years ago.

I think the public purse should fund many things and could turn a bit of profit for the public coffer as well - another thread there - free-fall-kitty man

reply to post by FyreByrd


It is amazing how people with the proper tech, skills and ability will dictate life and death all for the name of profit. I understand that developing new drugs is a costly multi-year process. I am not even denying the creators the ability to make money. By all means they should be able to do so.

Not with this. Cancer is a terrible disease that leads to certain death without treatment. No private entity should have the power to charge obscene amounts of money for the drug therapy treatment. I only see one way to cut through all the companies nonsense regarding their poor `wittle `pafits.

Every country should seize this particular intellectual property under their respective eminent domain laws. The benefits to the population of such a country should easily fall under such laws. Reimburse the company money totaling the cost of the entire research process along with a few years of sales. This ensures the company loses nothing and gains a little profit.

The life saving potential of a legitimate cure for cancer belongs to the people of the world. It does not, no, cannot, be monopolized by a group of people that most likely totals less than 100 individuals.

ketsuko
This is probably because after spending all the millions/billions it costs to develop the drug

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.....


You know what's wrong with that picture???

Working to save people's lives shouldn't be an extravagant money-making venture! It makes the whole medical system look like an elaborate money-extortion scheme! Or a eugenics war waged against the poor!

If only I have a PhD in medicine, I would have worked research even for a 35kusd/annum income! The advantage of it leads to dramatically cheaper medicines and an assurance that the medical industry only gets researchers who absolutely love their jobs and/or absolutely love to save people's lives over getting themselves rich! I'm absolutely sure those people will do far more creative and effective products than those who do it mostly for money!

I used to be an engineer as my job, and as an inventor so I actually know what I'm saying!

ahnggk

ketsuko
This is probably because after spending all the millions/billions it costs to develop the drug

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.....


You know what's wrong with that picture???

Working to save people's lives shouldn't be an extravagant money-making venture! It makes the whole medical system look like an elaborate money-extortion scheme! Or a eugenics war waged against the poor!

If only I have a PhD in medicine, I would have worked research even for a 35kusd/annum income! The advantage of it leads to dramatically cheaper medicines and an assurance that the medical industry only gets researchers who absolutely love their jobs and/or absolutely love to save people's lives over getting themselves rich! I'm absolutely sure those people will do far more creative and effective products than those who do it mostly for money!

I used to be an engineer as my job, and as an inventor so I actually know what I'm saying!

Years of chemists researching new compounds, then figuring our=t how to use it then a decade of medical trials. Yes, this adds up to millions.

My_Reality
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

It is amazing how people with the proper tech, skills and ability will dictate life and death all for the name of profit. I understand that developing new drugs is a costly multi-year process. I am not even denying the creators the ability to make money. By all means they should be able to do so.

Not with this. Cancer is a terrible disease that leads to certain death without treatment. No private entity should have the power to charge obscene amounts of money for the drug therapy treatment. I only see one way to cut through all the companies nonsense regarding their poor `wittle `pafits.

Every country should seize this particular intellectual property under their respective eminent domain laws. The benefits to the population of such a country should easily fall under such laws. Reimburse the company money totaling the cost of the entire research process along with a few years of sales. This ensures the company loses nothing and gains a little profit.

The life saving potential of a legitimate cure for cancer belongs to the people of the world. It does not, no, cannot, be monopolized by a group of people that most likely totals less than 100 individuals.

It's amazing how people will spend years gaining qualifications so they can earn a decent living.

IF YOU STEAL THE RIGHTS TO THE DRUGS THE COMPANIES WILL STOP RESEARCHING DRUGS.

Seriously, how hard is this for you people to grasp?

The money to fund new research comes from the profits made on the existing patents. Stop paying this and there will be no money to fund research.

If 'the people of the world' want these new drugs, they can start funding the research through taxes and not leave it up to private companies.

Antigod
Seriously, how hard is this for you people to grasp?

That doesn't happen. How hard is it to grasp that?