Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? It couldn't be patented,
so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests required to bring it
to market. Now one has figured out how to strip out some of the parts
and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market at an undoubtedly
exorbitant price. 75-80 years later!
How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit in
poividing relief?
It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial companies :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Apr 17, 1:04=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
> known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? =A0It couldn't be patented=
,
> so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests required to bring it
> to market. =A0Now one has figured out how to strip out some of the parts
> and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market at an undoubtedly
> exorbitant price. =A075-80 years later!
>
> How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit in
> poividing relief? =A0
>
> It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial companies :-)=
.
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
It seems to me that such a thing would be a good project for a
Government funded project conducted through a University. Help PhD
candidates along with their education along with other support staff,
gain a social benefit of global proportions.
Do you have a link to the article?
-Nathan
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I didn't see anyone claim that the drug companies don't develop
> life-saving drugs, of course they do, I have prescriptions for several of
> them. Unfortunately they also do things like conceal studies that show
> unpleasant side effects,
I see the side effects included with every single prescription drug I have.
You don't?
> use patients as unwitting test subjects,
Do you mean after they perform all of those clinical trials?
> dump expired or banned drugs in poor nations,
I don't know that these expired drugs are not still perfectly safe and
useable - do you? As for banned drugs - just because they are banned in the
US does not make them banned everywhere. There are scores of drugs,
therapies and treatments that are widely accepted around the world that our
beloved, snail's pace FDA refuses to act on here.
> make insignificant changes in formulas to extend their patents,
Got proof? As far as I know, and insignificant change does not qualify for
a patent or an extension.
> spend more on marketing than they do on research
Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the process is to
develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
MikeWhy wrote:
>> Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to
>> the motives of those who merely make observations about the
>> industry's often unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the
>> game around, exactly what is it *you* get out of this process, why
>> are the pharmaceutical makers your personal sacred cow?
>
> You have that entirely backwards. I'm not defending an industry. I'm
> simply offended by your socialist bleating.
Oh lordy, now that's funny.
> That first quoted
> paragraph above is yours. I wouldn't know what Esomeprazole (Nexium)
> is or does, and doubt the details are germane. Your entire complaint
> is that they're making money on their patent. Here's a solution:
> don't spend your $5.7B on the emperor's new clothes when the old
> clothes are doing just fine. See how simple? The system doesn't need
> adjustment. Just don't buy it if doesn't offer value.
Once again you've conspicuously sidestepped your own previous posts and my
responses. You asked for evidence to support my position that the drug
companies sometimes do things not merely greedy, but unethical and illegal
as well, things that even kill their customers and lead to civil and
criminal prosecutions. I did just that, and your response is to accuse me
of being a socialist (my business associates and employees would howl at
that) while conveniently ignoring the news stories of concealed studies
showing lethal side-effects, unauthorized testing on unwitting patients,
deliberate overcharging, price manipulation, fraudulent claims of efficacy,
and on and on and on.
Help me out, how is pointing out that drug companies do things like hide
studies showing dangerous side effects "socialist bleating"? How is
pointing out they have broken the law by overcharging the taxpayer
"socialist bleating"? How does pointing out they have been known to
fabricate data, do illegal testing, rig prices etc. qualify as "socialist
bleating"?
And to switch from the drug companies to your own conduct, how is claiming
that my "entire complaint is that they're making money on their patent" when
anyone with a room-temperature IQ can follow the thread and note that I have
not only complained about a great deal more than that but provided backup
for my views while you have merely indulged in ad hominem sniping not pretty
good evidence that your participation in this thread has been disingenuous
and petulant?
I like making money. I like it when other people make money too, as the
goods and services they produce are often useful to me, as it is when their
employees or stockholders make money and use it to buy the goods and
services I offer. IMO free enterprise, with a little prudent regulation
around the edges, has brought more happiness to more people than anything
else we've tried. "Socialist"? You don't have a friggin' clue, sport.
And while I wouldn't wish it on you or anyone, if you ever find yourself
taking a drug with dangerous side effects concealed from your doctor by a
drug company driven purely by greed with little concern for the harm they
do, I hope you'll forgive me a "Told you so." However somehow I'm sure
you'll find a way to interpret that as "socialist bleating."
On Apr 17, 1:04=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
> known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? =A0It couldn't be patented=
,
> so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests required to bring it
> to market. =A0Now one has figured out how to strip out some of the parts
> and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market at an undoubtedly
> exorbitant price. =A075-80 years later!
Hey Larry,
Would you be able to cite this article so I could read it? I'd like
to see what chemical(s) they are looking at. Thanks,
=20
Marc
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:12:51 -0700, marc rosen wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:04Â pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
>> known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s?
> Hey Larry,
> Would you be able to cite this article so I could read it? I'd like to
> see what chemical(s) they are looking at. Thanks,
>
It was from our local paper, copied from the LA Times. My memory was
faulty, it's a parathyroid hormone, not an amino acid. Here's the
reference:
<http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/apr/15/osteoporosis-treatment-
speeds-healing-study-finds/>
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Mike Marlow wrote:
>> I didn't see anyone claim that the drug companies don't develop
>> life-saving drugs, of course they do, I have prescriptions for
>> several of them. Unfortunately they also do things like conceal
>> studies that show unpleasant side effects,
>
> I see the side effects included with every single prescription drug I
> have. You don't?
>
>> use patients as unwitting test subjects,
>
> Do you mean after they perform all of those clinical trials?
>
>> dump expired or banned drugs in poor nations,
>
> I don't know that these expired drugs are not still perfectly safe and
> useable - do you? As for banned drugs - just because they are banned
> in the US does not make them banned everywhere. There are scores of
> drugs, therapies and treatments that are widely accepted around the
> world that our beloved, snail's pace FDA refuses to act on here.
>
>
>> make insignificant changes in formulas to extend their patents,
>
> Got proof? As far as I know, and insignificant change does not
> qualify for a patent or an extension.
>
>> spend more on marketing than they do on research
>
> Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the process
> is to develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.
When you've finished practicing being smug (entirely without justification)
you might look up examples like GlaxoSmithKline's antics with Paxil, i.e.
failing to inform physicians that not only had studies shown the drug was
ineffective in adolescents but appeared linked to increased rates of suicide
in those patients. There was also the small matter of them claiming
(falsely) that Paxil wasn't habit-forming despite it in fact being highly
addictive, resulting in the Pharma Mfg. Assoc. announcing GSK had misled the
public and violated the association's code of practices. Golly, hard to
figure why a company would do that, unless maybe it was because this one
drug was responsible for a tenth of the company's profits, hmmmmm? Oh sure,
GSK would settle on the consumer fraud issue since their internal documents
showing they withheld information so as not to damage the drug's
profitability, but what's a $2.5million fine when the drug was bringing in
$2.7billion a year?
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/5/783
"An internal document advised staff at the international drug giant
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to withhold clinical trial findings in 1998 that
indicated the antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil in North America and Seroxat
in the UK) had no beneficial effect in treating adolescents....Given that
the clinical trials results were, according to the document, "insufficiently
robust" to support an application to regulatory authorities for a label
change approving Seroxat for use in pediatric depression, CMAt recommended
the firm "effectively manage the dissemination of these data in order to
minimize any potential negative commercial impact....It would be
commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been
demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of paroxetine."
"Minimize any potential negative commercial impact," that's a nice way to
describe hushing up bad test data so they could keep selling an ineffective
and dangerous drug, huh?
When you're done there go read about Merck continuing to sell Vioxx for five
years after it sorta looked like maybe it was causing a few folks (like
139,000, 40% fatal) to suffer heart attacks and strokes, but at least they
pulled it after enough studies piled up showing the danger. Hmmm, wonder
why they left it on the market so long, do you suppose revenues of
$2.5billion dollars a year had anything to do with that? Oh yeah, there was
also that part about the doctor who did studies pumping up the claimed
efficacy of Vioxx admitting they'd fabricated data, and the New England
Journal of Medicine discovering that some data about the increased heart
attack risk had been withheld from them, but why get upset over minor issues
like that, right?
And then there's pricing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/business/31drug.html
How Schering Manipulated Drug Prices and Medicaid
By REED ABELSON
Published: Saturday, July 31, 2004
A$345.5 million settlement by Schering-Plough yesterday to resolve a
government Medicaid investigation provides a detailed glimpse into how drug
companies can manipulate prices to overcharge state and federal programs.
Government officials have taken a keen interest in how drug makers price and
market their drugs in recent years, and the settlement is the latest in a
series reached with large drug makers over accusations that they have
overcharged Medicaid. Last year, Bayer paid $257 million and GlaxoSmithKline
paid $86.7 million to settle similar allegations.
During the late 1990's, Claritin, a popular allergy medicine, generated
billions of dollars in sales for Schering-Plough, and the company poured
tens of millions of dollars into consumer advertising, using the celebrity
Joan Lunden to endorse it.
But two of its large customers, the insurers Cigna and PacifiCare Health
Systems , were threatening to steer their members to a much cheaper
competitor, Allegra, unless Schering-Plough lowered Claritin's price.
Schering refused. But it offered both insurers deals that prosecutors say
resulted in Cigna's and PacifiCare's effectively paying less than the drug
maker demanded from Medicaid, the federal and state health program for the
poor. Federal law requires drug makers to offer their lowest prices to
Medicaid. [snip]
Gosh, here's some more:
http://nutritionalconcepts.com/Articles/docdrugs.htm
GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of hepatitis vaccines, was sent a warning letter
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 6, 2004 for printing false
and misleading information for the flu vaccines administration on their
hepatitis vaccine labels. The live influenza vaccine is not intended for
pregnant women with medical conditions or for children between ages six
months and five years old. GlaxoSmithKlines literature stated exactly the
opposite; which according to the FDA, "creates a serious health public
concern because it could lead to incorrect administration" of the flu
vaccine. The wrong information was of particular concern because it was
distributed during the height of the flu season. Glaxo was also reprimanded
for failure to list critical safety warnings regarding their hepatitis
vaccines.
Janssen Pharmaceutica Products LP, the makers of the popular medicine
Risperdal®, was forced by the FDA to notify doctors that they had minimized
potentially fatal safety risks in their promotional materials. In
particular, the FDA claimed that Janssen minimized the risk of strokes,
diabetes, and other fatal complications. Several boys also developed
lactating breasts after taking Risperdal®. The drug is prescribed to more
than 10 million people worldwide, and totals $2.1 billion in annual sales.
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and other consumer health
groups blasted new, stricter cholesterol guidelines as being tainted by the
statin drug industry when it was proven that all but one of the nine authors
of the new guidelines have financial ties to the statin drug industry.
In August 2003, the FDA gave its stamp of approval to Crestor®
(rosuvastatin), the newest cholesterol-lowering drug. Yet, even before this
drug was marketed, safety concerns arose. In less than six months after its
approval, cases of severe muscle damage, kidney failure, and death emerged.
These alarming side effects prompted the U.S. Public Citizen consumer health
group to petition the FDA to ban Crestor®.
But at least they're helping folks in the Third World. Well, sometimes they
maybe don't do all the paperwork just right:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FDAinDrugTrial.php
Two children suffered serious allergic reactions after being used as guinea
pigs by the California-based company Ventria Bioscience in Lima, Peru [1].
The children were part of a clinical trial of a genetically modified (GM)
rice serum containing two synthetic human proteins lactoferrin and lysozyme
(normally found in human milk and other bodily fluids), not yet approved for
testing in the US or anywhere else in the world....
The Washington Post revealed recently that d rug giant Pfizer
Pharmaceuticals was accused of conducting unethical clinical trials on
children in Nigeria in 1996 [11]. This accusation was made in a Nigerian
government report instigated by a whistleblower.
Its a real life story echoing the sentiments of the recent hit film The
Constant Gardener (SiS 30)[12] that highlights the exploitation of African
patients enrolled on drugs trials, often without informed consent.
An experimental antibiotic, Trovan, was given to the children in a field
hospital in Kano where they were treated for a meningitis epidemic. The
parents were not told of the drugs unapproved status and they only gave
verbal consent to the nurses for its use on the understanding that it would
help their children.
The report, which lay buried for five years, revealed that five children
died after being given Trovan. Six other children also died while taking the
comparison drug. The pharmaceutical company later concocted and backdated a
letter of approval from a Nigerian Ethics Committee....
The FDA is also implicated in a controversial story involving drugs giant
Bayer Corporation, brought to light by the New York Times [19]. It is
alleged that Factor VIII, a drug for treating mostly child haemophiliac
patients was contaminated with the HIV virus during the 1980s. When American
haemophiliacs contracted HIV after using the injected, blood-clotting drug
made from unheated blood concentrates, the FDA recommended that Bayer dump
their surplus on Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Argentina. That
way the company could still reap profits from sales, despite it being pulled
from the US market.
In Hong Kong and Taiwan alone it is estimated that over one hundred
haemophiliac patients, including a two-year old child, contracted HIV after
using the tainted medicine.
New stocks of the drug were made using heat-treated blood concentrates
(which kills the virus) for the American market while the remainder of the
old stock went off to France and Spain. Two French officials were later
imprisoned for approving the use of the contaminated, unheated Factor VIII.
The FDA was neither subject to investigation no r indictment and wanted the
problem quietly solved without alerting Congress, the medical community and
the public. Bayer maintains that it behaved responsibly and ethically.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673608601191/fulltext
Despite several scandals in recent years, ranging from the death of 11
children in Nigeria to allegations of coverups in the USA resulting in
billion-dollar lawsuits, the procedures for monitoring clinical trials by
the drug industry remain wanting. Samuel Loewenberg reports.
Last month, three executives from Pfizer were served with arrest warrants in
relation to a 1996 clinical trial in which 11 Nigerian children died and
scores more suffered debilitating injuries. The warrants are the latest de
...
But that's just The Lancet, one of the world's premier medical journals.
Here's some food for thought:
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/showthread.php?p=328980
"The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9
billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put
together ($33.7 billion) [in 2002]. Over the past two decades the
pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of
discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing
machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and
power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the
US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession
itself."
-- Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of
Medicine
But what the hell, it's just the NEJM, they're probably part of that liberal
media who are always lying to us about stuff. Don't you let any of this
bother you, you're dead certain the pharma companies are honest,
law-abiding, hard-working companies who wouldn't knowingly overcharge anyone
or sell a product more dangerous than it should be, so you don't let any of
the massive mountain of evidence that they can and will cheat and lie their
way to multi-billion-dollar profits upset you in the slightest. Hey, some
people are happier not knowing.
MikeWhy wrote:
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>>> Larry, I have a $100 a day drug habit. If it weren't for ambitious
>>> little pharmaceutical chemists and greedy pharmaceutical companies,
>>> I'd be dead already after a slow and uncomfortable death. I believe
>>> in the power of capitalism and the appeal of the dollar. Socialism
>>> and other models haven't worked out so well. Maybe after we've
>>> solved all the world's problems, we can afford to sit back and
>>> marvel at ourselves.
>>
>> I didn't see anyone claim that the drug companies don't develop
>> life-saving drugs, of course they do, I have prescriptions for
>> several of them. Unfortunately they also do things like conceal
>> studies that show unpleasant side effects, use patients as unwitting
>> test subjects, dump expired or banned drugs in poor nations, make
>> insignificant changes in formulas to extend their patents, spend
>> more on marketing than they do on research and so on. It isn't a
>> choice between capitalism and socialism, it's a matter of imposing
>> reasonable restrictions on corporations so they aren't tempted to
>> screw us over six ways from Sunday and risk our well-being as they
>> do so. I have no problem with regulated capitalism, but
>> unrestrained capitalism leads to Times Beach and I bet neither of us
>> would choose to live there.
>
> Obviously you have your own unrelated bone to pick with how they
> operate. I'm speaking only to incentive and effectiveness. Unless you
> have stats to the contrary, I'll hold to my opinion that innovation
> flourishes in the US of A more so than anywhere else for the best and
> worst of reasons: personal enrichment.
Again, I didn't claim otherwise, you have quite the knack for attacking
positionss that other people didn't express.
> As for your other thoughts, you're talking out the side of your face
> if you benefit at all from the products and technologies from those
> same evil companies. Moral high ground is always a fiction.
What an educational experience this is turning out to be, I've just learned
that if a company does something slimy, perhaps even illegal, it's unethical
to comment on it if I've ever used a product or service that company
provides.
Man, unclench a little, you'll do yourself an injury.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
> known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? It couldn't be
> patented, so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests
> required to bring it to market. Now one has figured out how to strip
> out some of the parts and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market
> at an undoubtedly exorbitant price. 75-80 years later!
>
> How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit
> in poividing relief?
>
> It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial companies
> :-).
Just last week the FDA mandated that ten analgesics be taken off the market
because they had never undergone clinical trials for their efficacy,
alternatives were available, and the targeted medicines had a propensity for
abuse.
There was a HUGE uproar over one, liquid Morphine, and the FDA relented on
that one.
So far as I know, aspirin has never undergone clinical trials either (except
for the one sponsored by the AMA regarding low-dose aspirin and heart
attacks - and even it was stopped early).
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:00:53 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> spend more on marketing than they do on research
>
> Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the process is
> to develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.
And do you know how much all those legions of drug pushers visiting
doctors and hospitals cost? Add that to media advertising costs.
And those copycat drugs? Here's a quote I found online, based on FDA
statistics:
From 1989 to 2000, 1,035 drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those, only
35% were classified as a "new molecular entity," or a drug that contains
a new active ingredient. And only 15% were drugs that both used new
active ingredients and offered significant benefits over existing drugs.
These drugs included Lipitor, Viagra, and Fosamax.
More than two-thirds of the drugs approved by the FDA contained active
ingredients that were already available in existing products. Most of the
drugs were recast with minor improvements in dosing form, how the drugs
are administered. Some drugs had merely combined existing active
ingredients.
Eleven percent of the approved drugs were identical to products already
available on the market.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Han wrote:
> The average Joe does not know what is the better medication. The
> hoopla about Nexium is overblown to an extent. It is a slight
> variation and may be somewhat better than the previous iteration of
> (I think) their proton pump inhibitor. The proton pump is what makes
> your stomach acid, and too much acid is bad, heart burn and worse -
> Barrett's esophagus (Dad had it) and esophageal cancer (Dad didn't
> have this) aren't fun, though chances are fairly low.
>
> Sometimes "me too" drugs are good - there are good and better and much
> better statins (although ask your doctors' unbiased opinion, if they
> are unbiased). Sometimes, in cases like Nexium (IMNSHO) researchq
> money could be better spent.
I don't recall saying the drug makers should be prevented from coming up
with slightly different formulas to get new patents, I merely noted that's
what they do, causing brother Mike's underwear to get into a sweaty twist.
However I would be upset if my doctor prescribed the new (much more
expensive) version in the absence of clinical evidence that it worked any
better than the old version.
Concealing studies that the new drug is dangerous, or testing it illegally,
or price-fixing, or overcharging the taxpayer for it--those are very
different issues, ones some folks are curiously reluctant to discuss. It
would seem that price-fixing or overcharging the taxpayer is just business,
mentioning it identifies one as a raving socialist.
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the
>>>> process is to develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.
>>>
>>> And do you know how much all those legions of drug pushers visiting
>>> doctors and hospitals cost? Add that to media advertising costs.
>>>
>>> And those copycat drugs? Here's a quote I found online, based on
>>> FDA statistics:
>>>
>>> From 1989 to 2000, 1,035 drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those,
>>> only 35% were classified as a "new molecular entity," or a drug that
>>> contains a new active ingredient. And only 15% were drugs that both
>>> used new active ingredients and offered significant benefits over
>>> existing drugs. These drugs included Lipitor, Viagra, and Fosamax.
>>>
>>> More than two-thirds of the drugs approved by the FDA contained
>>> active ingredients that were already available in existing products.
>>> Most of the drugs were recast with minor improvements in dosing
>>> form, how the drugs are administered. Some drugs had merely combined
>>> existing active ingredients.
>>>
>>> Eleven percent of the approved drugs were identical to products
>>> already available on the market.
>>
>> Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly
>> profitable, and then the patent expired which allowed for generic
>> versions which cut into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came
>> up with Esomeprazole (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay
>> better than the old version despite them having some difficulty
>> showing convincing evidence of that. But the new drug is covered by a
>> new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh,
>> hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just enough to get a new
>> patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising, isn't it.
>
> Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting
> time here chattering when you can be out cashing in on those
> opportunities. What exactly is the problem from your point of view? Is
> it that they're profiting while you are not? That you foreswore the
> easy money on moral grounds (which morals?) while they get fat by
> exploiting those same? Or is it simple outrage that they fleeced
> unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their doctors, out of $5.7B
> for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising hype? Which of
> these misapprehensions apply to you personally?
>
This just shows the power of the bean counters and regulators. Rather
than research better medications for heart disease, go tweak a patent!!!
There is an urgent need for finding therapies for heart and vascular
disease, since they are still the number 1 cause of mortality and
especially morbidity (tongue firmly in cheek: stroke victims often live,
but is it a life?). Current medications help some, but aspirin and blood
pressure medication don't help everyone.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>>> Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly
>>> profitable, and then the patent expired which allowed for generic
>>> versions which cut into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came
>>> up with Esomeprazole (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay
>>> better than the old version despite them having some difficulty
>>> showing convincing evidence of that. But the new drug is covered by
>>> a new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh,
>>> hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just enough to get a
>>> new patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising, isn't it.
>>
>> Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting
>> time here chattering when you can be out cashing in on those
>> opportunities. What exactly is the problem from your point of view?
>> Is it that they're profiting while you are not? That you foreswore
>> the easy money on moral grounds (which morals?) while they get fat by
>> exploiting those same? Or is it simple outrage that they fleeced
>> unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their doctors, out of $5.7B
>> for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising hype? Which of
>> these misapprehensions apply to you personally?
>
> Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to the
> motives of those who merely make observations about the industry's
> often unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the game around,
> exactly what is it *you* get out of this process, why are the
> pharmaceutical makers your personal sacred cow? I know a guy who runs
> a research lab for a pharmaceutical company and while he certainly
> doesn't blab about internal company matters like drugs they're working
> on he isn't shy about discussing the industry's sometimes
> discreditable antics. He wouldn't pretend that their pursuit of
> profit sometimes leads such companies to do things that are not in the
> public's interest the same as pretty much every other industry. You,
> on the other hand, appear to take it personally when someone notes
> well-documented cases of the drug companies doing things they should
> be ashamed of, although I can't help but notice you shy away when
> evidence of such is laid on the table. What's up with that, got a lot
> of pharmaceutical stocks in your portfolio?
Take up your complaints with your congress critters. They rewrote the
patent laws not too long ago. Companies need to show a profit for their
stock holders. You (and I) need to push congress (note lower case) to
make laws in the public interest.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> You have that entirely backwards. I'm not defending an industry. I'm
> simply offended by your socialist bleating. That first quoted
> paragraph above is yours. I wouldn't know what Esomeprazole (Nexium)
> is or does, and doubt the details are germane. Your entire complaint
> is that they're making money on their patent. Here's a solution: don't
> spend your $5.7B on the emperor's new clothes when the old clothes are
> doing just fine. See how simple? The system doesn't need adjustment.
> Just don't buy it if doesn't offer value.
The average Joe does not know what is the better medication. The hoopla
about Nexium is overblown to an extent. It is a slight variation and may
be somewhat better than the previous iteration of (I think) their proton
pump inhibitor. The proton pump is what makes your stomach acid, and too
much acid is bad, heart burn and worse - Barrett's esophagus (Dad had it)
and esophageal cancer (Dad didn't have this) aren't fun, though chances
are fairly low.
Sometimes "me too" drugs are good - there are good and better and much
better statins (although ask your doctors' unbiased opinion, if they are
unbiased). Sometimes, in cases like Nexium (IMNSHO) research money could
be better spent.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> Take up your complaints with your congress critters. They rewrote
>> the patent laws not too long ago. Companies need to show a profit
>> for their stock holders. You (and I) need to push congress (note
>> lower case) to make laws in the public interest.
>
> What makes you think I haven't? It's a conversation, somebody offers
> their opinion, I respond with mine, they have a hissy-fit--I don't see
> where Congress enters into it. It's Usenet, if there weren't people
> foaming at the mouth over a differing opinion a significant portion of
> the entertainment value would disappear.
Sorry, defect in English. I meant you should as in "one should", or
everyone should.
Also, this is usenet, don't get so upset so easily, PLEASE!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han wrote:
> Take up your complaints with your congress critters. They rewrote the
> patent laws not too long ago. Companies need to show a profit for
> their stock holders. You (and I) need to push congress (note lower
> case) to make laws in the public interest.
What makes you think I haven't? It's a conversation, somebody offers their
opinion, I respond with mine, they have a hissy-fit--I don't see where
Congress enters into it. It's Usenet, if there weren't people foaming at
the mouth over a differing opinion a significant portion of the
entertainment value would disappear.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the process
>> is to develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.
>
> And do you know how much all those legions of drug pushers visiting
> doctors and hospitals cost? Add that to media advertising costs.
>
> And those copycat drugs? Here's a quote I found online, based on FDA
> statistics:
>
> From 1989 to 2000, 1,035 drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those,
> only 35% were classified as a "new molecular entity," or a drug that
> contains a new active ingredient. And only 15% were drugs that both
> used new active ingredients and offered significant benefits over
> existing drugs. These drugs included Lipitor, Viagra, and Fosamax.
>
> More than two-thirds of the drugs approved by the FDA contained active
> ingredients that were already available in existing products. Most of
> the drugs were recast with minor improvements in dosing form, how the
> drugs are administered. Some drugs had merely combined existing active
> ingredients.
>
> Eleven percent of the approved drugs were identical to products
> already available on the market.
Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly profitable,
and then the patent expired which allowed for generic versions which cut
into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came up with Esomeprazole
(Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay better than the old version
despite them having some difficulty showing convincing evidence of that.
But the new drug is covered by a new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted
to $5.7billion. Gosh, hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just
enough to get a new patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising,
isn't it.
MikeWhy wrote:
> Larry, I have a $100 a day drug habit. If it weren't for ambitious
> little pharmaceutical chemists and greedy pharmaceutical companies,
> I'd be dead already after a slow and uncomfortable death. I believe
> in the power of capitalism and the appeal of the dollar. Socialism
> and other models haven't worked out so well. Maybe after we've solved
> all the world's problems, we can afford to sit back and marvel at
> ourselves.
I didn't see anyone claim that the drug companies don't develop life-saving
drugs, of course they do, I have prescriptions for several of them.
Unfortunately they also do things like conceal studies that show unpleasant
side effects, use patients as unwitting test subjects, dump expired or
banned drugs in poor nations, make insignificant changes in formulas to
extend their patents, spend more on marketing than they do on research and
so on. It isn't a choice between capitalism and socialism, it's a matter of
imposing reasonable restrictions on corporations so they aren't tempted to
screw us over six ways from Sunday and risk our well-being as they do so. I
have no problem with regulated capitalism, but unrestrained capitalism leads
to Times Beach and I bet neither of us would choose to live there.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
> known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? It couldn't be patented,
> so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests required to bring it
> to market. Now one has figured out how to strip out some of the parts
> and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market at an undoubtedly
> exorbitant price. 75-80 years later!
>
> How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit in
> poividing relief?
>
> It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial companies :-).
Larry, I have a $100 a day drug habit. If it weren't for ambitious little
pharmaceutical chemists and greedy pharmaceutical companies, I'd be dead
already after a slow and uncomfortable death. I believe in the power of
capitalism and the appeal of the dollar. Socialism and other models haven't
worked out so well. Maybe after we've solved all the world's problems, we
can afford to sit back and marvel at ourselves.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>>> Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the process
>>> is to develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.
>>
>> And do you know how much all those legions of drug pushers visiting
>> doctors and hospitals cost? Add that to media advertising costs.
>>
>> And those copycat drugs? Here's a quote I found online, based on FDA
>> statistics:
>>
>> From 1989 to 2000, 1,035 drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those,
>> only 35% were classified as a "new molecular entity," or a drug that
>> contains a new active ingredient. And only 15% were drugs that both
>> used new active ingredients and offered significant benefits over
>> existing drugs. These drugs included Lipitor, Viagra, and Fosamax.
>>
>> More than two-thirds of the drugs approved by the FDA contained active
>> ingredients that were already available in existing products. Most of
>> the drugs were recast with minor improvements in dosing form, how the
>> drugs are administered. Some drugs had merely combined existing active
>> ingredients.
>>
>> Eleven percent of the approved drugs were identical to products
>> already available on the market.
>
> Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly profitable,
> and then the patent expired which allowed for generic versions which cut
> into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came up with Esomeprazole
> (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay better than the old version
> despite them having some difficulty showing convincing evidence of that.
> But the new drug is covered by a new patent, so their sales in 2005
> amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh, hard to imagine why they tweaked the
> formula just enough to get a new patent and then did saturation-bombing
> advertising, isn't it.
Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting time here
chattering when you can be out cashing in on those opportunities. What
exactly is the problem from your point of view? Is it that they're profiting
while you are not? That you foreswore the easy money on moral grounds (which
morals?) while they get fat by exploiting those same? Or is it simple
outrage that they fleeced unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their
doctors, out of $5.7B for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising
hype? Which of these misapprehensions apply to you personally?
MikeWhy wrote:
>> Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly
>> profitable, and then the patent expired which allowed for generic
>> versions which cut into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came
>> up with Esomeprazole (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay
>> better than the old version despite them having some difficulty
>> showing convincing evidence of that. But the new drug is covered by
>> a new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh,
>> hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just enough to get a
>> new patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising, isn't it.
>
> Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting
> time here chattering when you can be out cashing in on those
> opportunities. What exactly is the problem from your point of view?
> Is it that they're profiting while you are not? That you foreswore
> the easy money on moral grounds (which morals?) while they get fat by
> exploiting those same? Or is it simple outrage that they fleeced
> unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their doctors, out of $5.7B
> for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising hype? Which of
> these misapprehensions apply to you personally?
Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to the
motives of those who merely make observations about the industry's often
unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the game around, exactly what
is it *you* get out of this process, why are the pharmaceutical makers your
personal sacred cow? I know a guy who runs a research lab for a
pharmaceutical company and while he certainly doesn't blab about internal
company matters like drugs they're working on he isn't shy about discussing
the industry's sometimes discreditable antics. He wouldn't pretend that
their pursuit of profit sometimes leads such companies to do things that are
not in the public's interest the same as pretty much every other industry.
You, on the other hand, appear to take it personally when someone notes
well-documented cases of the drug companies doing things they should be
ashamed of, although I can't help but notice you shy away when evidence of
such is laid on the table. What's up with that, got a lot of pharmaceutical
stocks in your portfolio?
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>>> Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to
>>> the motives of those who merely make observations about the
>>> industry's often unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the
>>> game around, exactly what is it *you* get out of this process, why
>>> are the pharmaceutical makers your personal sacred cow?
>>
>> You have that entirely backwards. I'm not defending an industry. I'm
>> simply offended by your socialist bleating.
>
> Oh lordy, now that's funny.
>
>> That first quoted
>> paragraph above is yours. I wouldn't know what Esomeprazole (Nexium)
>> is or does, and doubt the details are germane. Your entire complaint
>> is that they're making money on their patent. Here's a solution:
>> don't spend your $5.7B on the emperor's new clothes when the old
>> clothes are doing just fine. See how simple? The system doesn't need
>> adjustment. Just don't buy it if doesn't offer value.
>
> Once again you've conspicuously sidestepped your own previous posts and my
> responses. You asked for evidence to support my position that the drug
> companies sometimes do things not merely greedy, but unethical and illegal
> as well, things that even kill their customers and lead to civil and
> criminal prosecutions. I did just that, and your response is to accuse me
> of being a socialist (my business associates and employees would howl at
> that) while conveniently ignoring the news stories of concealed studies
> showing lethal side-effects, unauthorized testing on unwitting patients,
> deliberate overcharging, price manipulation, fraudulent claims of
> efficacy, and on and on and on.
>
> Help me out, how is pointing out that drug companies do things like hide
> studies showing dangerous side effects "socialist bleating"?
You're asking the wrong person. My sole position has been that patent
protections and intellectual property rights fuel innovation and development
of life saving inventions. Everything else you're dragging in is your own
twist. Have fun arguing them. We're done here.
On Apr 17, 3:38=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
> > known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? =A0It couldn't be
> > patented, so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests
> > required to bring it to market. =A0Now one has figured out how to strip
> > out some of the parts and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market
> > at an undoubtedly exorbitant price. =A075-80 years later!
>
> > How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit
> > in poividing relief?
>
> > It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial companies
> > :-).
>
> Companies like Monsanto get patents on plants that man has been harvestin=
g
> for thousands of years, or sue farmers when Monsanto's GMO seeds are carr=
ied
> by the wind onto a farmer's land and grow there mixed with the crop the
> farmer planted. =A0I believe in free enterprise, but it seems lately thin=
gs
> are a little out of balance.
Monsanto... now you're talking REAL bastards:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101
J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has
>>> been known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? It couldn't be
>>> patented, so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests
>>> required to bring it to market. Now one has figured out how to
>>> strip out some of the parts and patent it, so it'll soon be on the
>>> market at an undoubtedly exorbitant price. 75-80 years later!
>>>
>>> How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit
>>> in poividing relief?
>>>
>>> It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial
>>> companies :-).
>>
>> Just last week the FDA mandated that ten analgesics be taken off the
>> market because they had never undergone clinical trials for their
>> efficacy, alternatives were available, and the targeted medicines had
>> a propensity for abuse.
>>
>> There was a HUGE uproar over one, liquid Morphine, and the FDA
>> relented on that one.
>
> It was 14 and it wasn't that they had not undergone clinical trials,
> it was that they had never been FDA-approved in any manner at all.
Okay, they hadn't undergone FDA-approved clinical trials, then.
>
>> So far as I know, aspirin has never undergone clinical trials either
>> (except for the one sponsored by the AMA regarding low-dose aspirin
>> and heart attacks - and even it was stopped early).
>
> Bayer alone lists 9 clinical trials of aspirin currently in progress.
> The one that was stopped early was stopped because the results
> obtained by that time were conclusive--that was the Physicians Health
> Study I, which I believe was sponsored by Harvard and Brigham &
> Women's Hospital, not by the AMA.
Well, the facts may have been wrong but the narrative was right.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
> known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? It couldn't be
> patented, so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests
> required to bring it to market. Now one has figured out how to strip
> out some of the parts and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market
> at an undoubtedly exorbitant price. 75-80 years later!
If you're talking about Prostaglandin E2, then you've only gotten some
anti-business loon's side of it. Prostaglandin E2 has been on the market
for decades, but it has not been approved for use in assisting bone-knitting
because in trials for that purpose it caused severe heart and kidney damage
in a high percentage of patients.
The new med attempts to maintain the bone-knitting capability without the
side effects.
> How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit
> in poividing relief?
Uh, why don't you tell us.
> It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial companies
> :-).
If you're going to talk about 'unsocial companies' at least find a better
example.
HeyBub wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has
>> been known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? It couldn't be
>> patented, so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests
>> required to bring it to market. Now one has figured out how to strip
>> out some of the parts and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market
>> at an undoubtedly exorbitant price. 75-80 years later!
>>
>> How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit
>> in poividing relief?
>>
>> It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial companies
>> :-).
>
> Just last week the FDA mandated that ten analgesics be taken off the
> market because they had never undergone clinical trials for their
> efficacy, alternatives were available, and the targeted medicines had
> a propensity for abuse.
>
> There was a HUGE uproar over one, liquid Morphine, and the FDA
> relented on that one.
It was 14 and it wasn't that they had not undergone clinical trials, it was
that they had never been FDA-approved in any manner at all.
> So far as I know, aspirin has never undergone clinical trials either
> (except for the one sponsored by the AMA regarding low-dose aspirin
> and heart attacks - and even it was stopped early).
Bayer alone lists 9 clinical trials of aspirin currently in progress. The
one that was stopped early was stopped because the results obtained by that
time were conclusive--that was the Physicians Health Study I, which I
believe was sponsored by Harvard and Brigham & Women's Hospital, not by the
AMA.
DGDevin wrote:
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry, I have a $100 a day drug habit. If it weren't for ambitious
>>>> little pharmaceutical chemists and greedy pharmaceutical companies,
>>>> I'd be dead already after a slow and uncomfortable death. I believe
>>>> in the power of capitalism and the appeal of the dollar. Socialism
>>>> and other models haven't worked out so well. Maybe after we've
>>>> solved all the world's problems, we can afford to sit back and
>>>> marvel at ourselves.
>>> I didn't see anyone claim that the drug companies don't develop
>>> life-saving drugs, of course they do, I have prescriptions for
>>> several of them. Unfortunately they also do things like conceal
>>> studies that show unpleasant side effects, use patients as unwitting
>>> test subjects, dump expired or banned drugs in poor nations, make
>>> insignificant changes in formulas to extend their patents, spend
>>> more on marketing than they do on research and so on. It isn't a
>>> choice between capitalism and socialism, it's a matter of imposing
>>> reasonable restrictions on corporations so they aren't tempted to
>>> screw us over six ways from Sunday and risk our well-being as they
>>> do so. I have no problem with regulated capitalism, but
>>> unrestrained capitalism leads to Times Beach and I bet neither of us
>>> would choose to live there.
>> Obviously you have your own unrelated bone to pick with how they
>> operate. I'm speaking only to incentive and effectiveness. Unless you
>> have stats to the contrary, I'll hold to my opinion that innovation
>> flourishes in the US of A more so than anywhere else for the best and
>> worst of reasons: personal enrichment.
>
> Again, I didn't claim otherwise, you have quite the knack for attacking
> positionss that other people didn't express.
>
>> As for your other thoughts, you're talking out the side of your face
>> if you benefit at all from the products and technologies from those
>> same evil companies. Moral high ground is always a fiction.
>
> What an educational experience this is turning out to be, I've just learned
> that if a company does something slimy, perhaps even illegal, it's unethical
> to comment on it if I've ever used a product or service that company
> provides.
>
> Man, unclench a little, you'll do yourself an injury.
>
>
Not only that, but if capitalism is so much better than socialism, then
why, in this health care argument, are our health care expenditures up
to twice as much per person as other industrialized nations, and our
general health and life expectancies lower?
And I can't accept the whining from the pharmaceutical industry about
how much research and development costs until their R&D costs exceed
their advertising costs, which they don't by a long shot.
"scritch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DGDevin wrote:
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Larry, I have a $100 a day drug habit. If it weren't for ambitious
>>>>> little pharmaceutical chemists and greedy pharmaceutical companies,
>>>>> I'd be dead already after a slow and uncomfortable death. I believe
>>>>> in the power of capitalism and the appeal of the dollar. Socialism
>>>>> and other models haven't worked out so well. Maybe after we've
>>>>> solved all the world's problems, we can afford to sit back and
>>>>> marvel at ourselves.
>>>> I didn't see anyone claim that the drug companies don't develop
>>>> life-saving drugs, of course they do, I have prescriptions for
>>>> several of them. Unfortunately they also do things like conceal
>>>> studies that show unpleasant side effects, use patients as unwitting
>>>> test subjects, dump expired or banned drugs in poor nations, make
>>>> insignificant changes in formulas to extend their patents, spend
>>>> more on marketing than they do on research and so on. It isn't a
>>>> choice between capitalism and socialism, it's a matter of imposing
>>>> reasonable restrictions on corporations so they aren't tempted to
>>>> screw us over six ways from Sunday and risk our well-being as they
>>>> do so. I have no problem with regulated capitalism, but
>>>> unrestrained capitalism leads to Times Beach and I bet neither of us
>>>> would choose to live there.
>>> Obviously you have your own unrelated bone to pick with how they
>>> operate. I'm speaking only to incentive and effectiveness. Unless you
>>> have stats to the contrary, I'll hold to my opinion that innovation
>>> flourishes in the US of A more so than anywhere else for the best and
>>> worst of reasons: personal enrichment.
>>
>> Again, I didn't claim otherwise, you have quite the knack for attacking
>> positionss that other people didn't express.
>>
>>> As for your other thoughts, you're talking out the side of your face
>>> if you benefit at all from the products and technologies from those
>>> same evil companies. Moral high ground is always a fiction.
>>
>> What an educational experience this is turning out to be, I've just
>> learned that if a company does something slimy, perhaps even illegal,
>> it's unethical to comment on it if I've ever used a product or service
>> that company provides.
>>
>> Man, unclench a little, you'll do yourself an injury.
> Not only that, but if capitalism is so much better than socialism, then
> why, in this health care argument, are our health care expenditures up to
> twice as much per person as other industrialized nations, and our general
> health and life expectancies lower?
>
> And I can't accept the whining from the pharmaceutical industry about how
> much research and development costs until their R&D costs exceed their
> advertising costs, which they don't by a long shot.
I'm having a difficult time finding Canadian innovations and inventions.
Searching for Canadian pharmaceutical patents, I find a lot of political
talk about relaxing patent protections to third world regions, and also
listings for Canadian Pharmacy. Seems to me, the US health care costs go at
least in part to subsidize life saving drugs in socialist regimes. You bunch
of bleeding heart ingrates.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Did you all see the article about the amino acid (IIRC), that has been
> known to aid in bone knitting since the 1930s? It couldn't be
> patented, so no drug company would pay for the clinical tests
> required to bring it to market. Now one has figured out how to strip
> out some of the parts and patent it, so it'll soon be on the market
> at an undoubtedly exorbitant price. 75-80 years later!
>
> How many people have suffered needlessly because there was no profit
> in poividing relief?
>
> It's not socialized medicine that bothers me, it's unsocial companies
> :-).
Companies like Monsanto get patents on plants that man has been harvesting
for thousands of years, or sue farmers when Monsanto's GMO seeds are carried
by the wind onto a farmer's land and grow there mixed with the crop the
farmer planted. I believe in free enterprise, but it seems lately things
are a little out of balance.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>>> Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly
>>> profitable, and then the patent expired which allowed for generic
>>> versions which cut into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came
>>> up with Esomeprazole (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay
>>> better than the old version despite them having some difficulty
>>> showing convincing evidence of that. But the new drug is covered by
>>> a new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh,
>>> hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just enough to get a
>>> new patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising, isn't it.
>>
>> Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting
>> time here chattering when you can be out cashing in on those
>> opportunities. What exactly is the problem from your point of view?
>> Is it that they're profiting while you are not? That you foreswore
>> the easy money on moral grounds (which morals?) while they get fat by
>> exploiting those same? Or is it simple outrage that they fleeced
>> unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their doctors, out of $5.7B
>> for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising hype? Which of
>> these misapprehensions apply to you personally?
>
> Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to the
> motives of those who merely make observations about the industry's often
> unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the game around, exactly
> what is it *you* get out of this process, why are the pharmaceutical
> makers your personal sacred cow?
You have that entirely backwards. I'm not defending an industry. I'm simply
offended by your socialist bleating. That first quoted paragraph above is
yours. I wouldn't know what Esomeprazole (Nexium) is or does, and doubt the
details are germane. Your entire complaint is that they're making money on
their patent. Here's a solution: don't spend your $5.7B on the emperor's new
clothes when the old clothes are doing just fine. See how simple? The system
doesn't need adjustment. Just don't buy it if doesn't offer value.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>> Larry, I have a $100 a day drug habit. If it weren't for ambitious
>> little pharmaceutical chemists and greedy pharmaceutical companies,
>> I'd be dead already after a slow and uncomfortable death. I believe
>> in the power of capitalism and the appeal of the dollar. Socialism
>> and other models haven't worked out so well. Maybe after we've solved
>> all the world's problems, we can afford to sit back and marvel at
>> ourselves.
>
> I didn't see anyone claim that the drug companies don't develop
> life-saving drugs, of course they do, I have prescriptions for several of
> them. Unfortunately they also do things like conceal studies that show
> unpleasant side effects, use patients as unwitting test subjects, dump
> expired or banned drugs in poor nations, make insignificant changes in
> formulas to extend their patents, spend more on marketing than they do on
> research and so on. It isn't a choice between capitalism and socialism,
> it's a matter of imposing reasonable restrictions on corporations so they
> aren't tempted to screw us over six ways from Sunday and risk our
> well-being as they do so. I have no problem with regulated capitalism,
> but unrestrained capitalism leads to Times Beach and I bet neither of us
> would choose to live there.
Obviously you have your own unrelated bone to pick with how they operate.
I'm speaking only to incentive and effectiveness. Unless you have stats to
the contrary, I'll hold to my opinion that innovation flourishes in the US
of A more so than anywhere else for the best and worst of reasons: personal
enrichment.
As for your other thoughts, you're talking out the side of your face if you
benefit at all from the products and technologies from those same evil
companies. Moral high ground is always a fiction.