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

crazyewok
Guess dying poor people don't phase you. Guess dog eat dog capitalism's only good when one groups making the money.

And how many die if they stop research all together?

I don't have a couple hundred million ready to provide alternatives...do you? Didn't think so. And, keep in mind that that is just for facilities, equipment, and research teams...we haven't touched on failed projects costs let alone successful products.

At some point we have to accept big profits from big risks...or people will stop taking the risks.

crazyewok

beckybecky
none of you looked at the side effects including death.

Well that because of a certain side effect of untreated cancer.....CERTAIN AGONISING DEATH!

100% Certain death or a small chance of possible death? Hmmmm not a hard trade off.

beckybecky
i would rather try a 1/2teaspoon of bleach

I suggest a tablespoon in your case

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

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

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

did you not look at the side effects list?

why not?

i wonder why?

because you are worried about big pharma's profits?

what are the side effects...?

some people have swallowed a cupful of bleach and lived.

that is why i said i would rather swallow a 1/2 teaspoon of bleach rather than naxacrap because i am smart and know that 1/2 teaspoonful of bleach will be harmless to me.

i would NEVER take this naxacrap.EVER.

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...

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.

In one case, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — and it was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The medical community called it a promising new drug in the fight against ovarian and breast cancer.

Since then, Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide, according the the General Accounting Office report released today.

The National Institutes of Health have received just $35 million in royalties from Bristol-Myers, however.

Bristol did not discover the drug. The federal government did — with taxpayer dollars — and then negotiated a licensing agreement with the pharmaceutical giant.

WAH poor pharma company. BLAH

Antigod
I thought this might help people get some perspective onn costs.

www.fdareview.org...

An Overview of the Drug Development Process


Preclinical
Clinical
Approval
Market
Toxicology
Investigational New Drug Application
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
New Drug Application
Phase IV / Postmarket surveillance
safety
safety dosing efficacy
safety efficacy side effects

Expenses

$15.2 million
$23.4 million
$86.5 million
Time

21.6 months
25.7 months
30.5 months
1 to 6 years
6 to 11 years
0.6 to 2 years
11 to 14 years
Overall probability of success

30%
14%
9%
8%

Conditional probability of success

40%
75%
48%
64%
90%

Now add up the total and tell me have WE THE PEOPLE already paid for that? The drug in question that this thread is about WE paid half of 250 million. The example above WE paid much more.

reply to post by FyreByrd


I’m disgusted that anyone would have to pay $96,000 for cancer treatment. Life is supposed to be priceless but apparently some companies have managed to affix a monetary value.

To play devil’s advocate…why shouldn’t Bayer sue the hell out of them for stealing their intellectual property? If they stole McDonald’s French fry recipe they’d surely be sued…why not for medicine?

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.

And cancer causes certain death! If its a toss up between 100% certain death from cancer and 1% chance of death from the drug what you think the best choice? The 1%!

beckybecky
did you not look at the side effects list?

Yes, do you not know that untreated cancer causes certain death? This drug does not cause certain death. At most it will be a few percent chance and if thats the case it will be given only to those were past treatment has failed and its this or certain death anyway.

beckybecky
i am smart

debatable

beckybecky
that 1/2 teaspoonful of bleach will be harmless to me.

Kinda conflicts with the above statement

reply to post by crazyewok

Actual the legal framework in the USA and EU is.

Unless you are a big pharma company with billions and a team of crack lawyers its next to impossible.

It must be easy being you.

I mean…you always know right away exactly who the bad people are.

I wish I had a fall-back scapegoat! LOL

NavyDoc

No. You have proven that you cannot discuss things like a rational person, but rather resort to little girl hysterics. If you want to behave like a rational adult, come on back. If you cannot, I won't bother.

Only as last time got personal on both sides. I will happly discuss things as long as we dont start throwing assumptions at each other.

My issues is the fact of what happens to the indians? If the drug was not "meant" for them were they just supposed to just lay down and die?

Secoundly ok you want a 100% dog eat dog capatlist system. Well when it comes down to life and death you cant complain if a person or a whole country thats being excluded fight back and even steal. When it comes to life and death then things are going to get competative and people are going steal fight and kill.

What did you expect was going to happen? If Bayer was going to be anal and drive a hard bargan on a life and death issue then they are going to be stolen from or undercut. Next time before they think of overchargeing or excludeing countrys from a drug then they may think twice.

And yes I know what R&D costs and the legal I worked in R&D. And yes production is not cheap. I doubt they could get the prouct as cheap as the indian company that ripped them off. But Pharma companys do overcharge and do over price things cause they know there customers have no choice but to buy there product. Im sure they could have charged at least half of what they were trying to sell the product for and still make a good profit. And yes I think the FDA and the EU equivalent need a huge overhall because yes they have there useses but things are so petty now it drives costs up.

Yes at the end of the day a pharma companys is there to make money BUT its also about saving lifes. Human lives. And there needs to be a balance.

seabag
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Actual the legal framework in the USA and EU is.

Unless you are a big pharma company with billions and a team of crack lawyers its next to impossible.

It must be easy being you.

I mean…you always know right away exactly who the bad people are.

I wish I had a fall-back scapegoat! LOL

I worked in the pharma industry, the govement for once is the big bad guys as the regulation and legal costs drive prices up.

If there was some common sense reform you would see alot more competition and much lower costs.

charles1952
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

Who will be left to buy the drug if all the poorer people died of Cancer, and the absolute inability to afford the drug? The wealthy?

Who will work for the wealthy, keeping them wealthy enough to afford said Cancer drug? Robots? Further, who will act as consumer for robotic manufactured goods if you're dying from Cancer?

I'm not advocating for the violation and abuse of copyrights, but clearly there must be some common sense applied here. Dead people do not contribute much to the economy of a nation. Bayer may not be in the business for humanitarian reasons, but surely they must be able to recognize that the pyramid structure they stand upon needs a solid foundation or it will crumble. You're telling me they had the brains to create these wonder drugs but not the foresight to anticipate the pirating of their own medicine? It just seems to absurd to cry about profits in the face of a near-pandemic of Cancer cases.

Not all laws are just, and being able to tell the difference will define a person's character and their level of intelligence. If you can't or won't question the narrative, you're living under someone else's tyranny.

reply to post by crazyewok

I worked in the pharma industry, the govement for once is the big bad guys as the regulation and legal costs drive prices up.

For once?

If there was some common sense reform you would see alot more competition and much lower costs.

Surely…for the entire healthcare industry, not just Big Pharma.

The problem is that the “common sense reform” you speak of led America to Obamacare…and we’re not real happy about that. There is no “common sense” anymore because we don’t agree on a solution. What would your solution be to pharma? Would you enforce a certain limit on the amount that can be charged for new medicines? If so you’d quickly find the number of pharma labs dwindle away to nothing. If there is no money to be made, there will be no investment.

reply to post by seabag


Could you get behind this kind of reform?link and continue link an example link

Keep in mind in many cases WE the taxpayers already pay a huge portion of R&D sometime all just so the drug campanies can make exuberant profits.

seabag
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I’m disgusted that anyone would have to pay $96,000 for cancer treatment. Life is supposed to be priceless but apparently some companies have managed to affix a monetary value.

To play devil’s advocate…why shouldn’t Bayer sue the hell out of them for stealing their intellectual property? If they stole McDonald’s French fry recipe they’d surely be sued…why not for medicine?

Countries have the right to nationalize a patent, each country recognizes it's own patents, and not those of other countries unless they strike an agreement which they can always make an exception to. So the answer to your question is sovereignty. Whether it's the right thing to do or not is a completely different question. Nations are above the law however so they can ignore patent law when they want.

seabag

For once?

Bad pharseing. Like most of the time is a better fit.

seabag
The problem is that the “common sense reform” you speak of led America to Obamacare…

1) Im taking about legal framwork behind drug production.
2) I think Obama care is bloody alwfull. It just made your turd of a healcare system into even more of a turd.

seabag
What would your solution be to pharma? Would you enforce a certain limit on the amount that can be charged for new medicines?

Well for starter I would relax the legal framework. And give Pharma alot more protection againt legal lawsuits for drugs that have been properly tested. If you take a drug the you accept the risk IMO.

As for limit on what can be charged? Well thats dodgy road. But I would say for a urgent drug 25% profit should be a limit.
Though if you relax the legal framework and encouarge competativeness then you would likley not need that as competition between smaller pharma compnays would keep prices down.

##Attention##

Please remember to attack each other's points and avoid pejoratives and/or name-calling.

Play nice or find another thread.

seabag
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I worked in the pharma industry, the govement for once is the big bad guys as the regulation and legal costs drive prices up.

For once?

If there was some common sense reform you would see alot more competition and much lower costs.

Surely…for the entire healthcare industry, not just Big Pharma.

The problem is that the “common sense reform” you speak of led America to Obamacare…and we’re not real happy about that. There is no “common sense” anymore because we don’t agree on a solution. What would your solution be to pharma? Would you enforce a certain limit on the amount that can be charged for new medicines? If so you’d quickly find the number of pharma labs dwindle away to nothing. If there is no money to be made, there will be no investment.

And that's a point. Command economies, regardless the good or service, fail. The true drivers of cost, regulation, taxation, and litigation will always be with us because the same people who complain about evil pharma will never want to give up the chance to sue for millions or make sure everything is regulated by the government or tax those evil profits. Those types of people calling for intervention in this case called for intervention in previous cases that gave us the expense that they are complaining about now. Its very circular.

reply to post by Grimpachi

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.

First of all, there is a big distinction between the government “subsidizing” something versus actually “paying for it”.

Second, I don’t think our federal government should be any more involved than it already is. I especially don’t want more legislation. I don’t agree with the federal government regulating businesses, propping up companies, price setting, back scratching, etc. In certain circumstances, I don’t mind tax subsidies for programs that stand to benefit all Americans. However, let’s make all future beneficiaries of these subsidies agree to certain stipulations PRIOR to accepting the subsidy. If they fail to comply, they will have to pay it back. We can squeeze in some of the stipulations you want without more legislation, regulation, corruption, quid pro quo, etc.

Less is better…

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?