ChezGiven

No one has said they have it or are even close, just IF. One of those in the future type things again. Although I'm still wondering about vaccines and cervical cancer. Merck are coining it in with Gardasil and thats small-fry.

Yep, I already agreed with that above. But when they invest such a small proportion of funds into research, it's rotten to the core that they take all the profits. The tax payers subsidise discovery of a cure, at the expense of other social programs for the less well off, and when a cure is found neither of these groups have access to the cure that they sacrificed most to create. The only research that counts is productive research. Over the period covered by the IAVI doc, nothing was interesting, there was little worth testing. The people who make the money will be the people who own the patent. If that ends up being a pharma company, that will tell you a lot about the productivity of private research compared to public research. It might not be (although the only one in phase 3 is a phama company candidate). http://avac.org/trials_table.htm The money spent is higher now than it was 4 years ago but still is limited by the probability that the candidates will work at a high enough level. One of my mates from GSK now works at IAVI in NYC, i can ask him for his opinion on this.

Doesnt detract from the point, there's more money in a vaccine than a treatment. Between 2000 and 2004 there was very little to spend money on as science hadn't generated any targets to research.

There'd be no Bill Gates. It depends on the issue though as well, with certain things it is obviously not an easy, quick (or cheap) task to "cure", and so more hay than is needed is made while the sun shines (so long as there is no immediate risk of cloudy weather or someone else obscuring your sun). HIV apparently not being one of those cases I think it probably is no matter what he claims, a vaccine would give a decent short term boost, but there'd be a massive clamour for mass immunisation the like of which the world has never seen (and probably countries just plain ignoring company "patents" to do so). If you can get rid of it (or reduce it to a negligible level) there's no market, and so long as there's no one close to producing one there's no risk either. Merck, GSK, Boehringer, Pfizer and Sanofi are all investing billions per year in HIV vaccines (added up, not individually). Its a golden bullet that would transform the winner into the biggest pharma company overnight, the impact on the share price would be astronomical and therefore every single executive working within the company would be bonussed enormously. There is no disincentive anywhere in the system. Sure, you wouldnt sell so well in Africa. However, they could vaccinate everyone with the money they save from treating. Plus the cost in Europe/US would be nearer to $10,000 per shot not $100. That was just to keep the maths simple for you. Do you have a source that contradicts the one above? I'd like to know if I should discard the whole document as a point of reference. "Many private sector companies do not specifically track spending on HIV vaccines and hence do not have the relevant data readily available. In addition, many companies were reluctant to share financial information due to proprietary business concerns." Page 11. Its the pre-clinical investments that are large (and growing this year due to a breakthrough piece of science recently) and pre-clinical is not visible to the outside world.

There'd be no Bill Gates. It depends on the issue though as well, with certain things it is obviously not an easy, quick (or cheap) task to "cure", and so more hay than is needed is made while the sun shines (so long as there is no immediate risk of cloudy weather or someone else obscuring your sun). HIV apparently not being one of those cases I think it probably is no matter what he claims, a vaccine would give a decent short term boost, but there'd be a massive clamour for mass immunisation the like of which the world has never seen (and probably countries just plain ignoring company "patents" to do so). If you can get rid of it (or reduce it to a negligible level) there's no market, and so long as there's no one close to producing one there's no risk either. Merck, GSK, Boehringer, Pfizer and Sanofi are all investing billions per year in HIV vaccines (added up, not individually). Its a golden bullet that would transform the winner into the biggest pharma company overnight, the impact on the share price would be astronomical and therefore every single executive working within the company would be bonussed enormously. There is no disincentive anywhere in the system. Sure, you wouldnt sell so well in Africa. However, they could vaccinate everyone with the money they save from treating. Plus the cost in Europe/US would be nearer to $10,000 per shot not $100. That was just to keep the maths simple for you.

There'd be no Bill Gates. It depends on the issue though as well, with certain things it is obviously not an easy, quick (or cheap) task to "cure", and so more hay than is needed is made while the sun shines (so long as there is no immediate risk of cloudy weather or someone else obscuring your sun). And that, Gentlemen, says it all Fingers in the ears, as manc-mag said.

Gardasil just won the Prix Galien fopsy.

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines? Again, not really, because people don't die without Google. I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently. What creates the poverty that kills? Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford? Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries. More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine. As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something. Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal. I've never said I don't want a pharmaceutical industry. What I don't want is for them to be able to privately sell their wares at a price they dictate, based on maximum profit, rather than closer to a genuine profit that makes it cost effective. There'll never be an HIV vaccine man, you boys don't make vaccines any more, you make treatments to inspire brand loyalty. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal, and you think that inequity should be perpetuated by the wealthiest? No and you are also wrong about the vaccine, have a business lesson above.

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines? Again, not really, because people don't die without Google. I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently. What creates the poverty that kills? Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford? Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries. More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine. As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something. Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal. There's a lot more $$$'s in treating HIV than there is in curing it, at least for the foreseeable future. Wrong, the company that finds this vaccine will can expect to add around $200bn to its value overnight. You see my little inexperienced fopster, bless you, you have no business experience and therefore forget/dont realise that its not just Africa that is in the market for a vaccine, its 6 billion people across the globe. Like all vaccines, they work on the basis of universal coverage. Charge $100 a shot - thats $600bn in potential revenue.

So now you want to subsidise GSK to ensure they retain their staff? Dont put anyone with your views in charge of anything!!

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines? Again, not really, because people don't die without Google. I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently. What creates the poverty that kills? Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford? Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries. More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine. As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something. Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

Capitalism just means that there is not one person in charge of ensuring that you get your coffee, tea, milk, sugar, paper, cigarettes, porn mag, pizza, sandwich, cinema ticket, beer, petrol, whore (typical day). Saying it doesnt exist anymore is just crazy.

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines? You seem to think that these drugs are available and therefore could be distributed free of charge. They only exist because the company devotes billions in researching them. No one would invest any money in research if there was no profit. The profit margin is average for a corporation. GSK donated a drug to the third world for 11 years and the upshot was it has virtually eradicated lymphatic fliarisis. http://www.gsk.com/filariasis/ It is able to do that by making profits elsewhere. It also distributes HIV medicines at the cost of production in participating African countries. The conditions for this is that they dont end up in hospitals in London as corruption means they are exported by unscrupulous actors in the African healthcare system. If they can guarantee that Africans with HIV receive the drug, then its supplied at cost. They also go beyond that http://www.gsk.com/community/positiveactio...yprogrammes.htm The mindset change over the last 5 years is that it appears to be that the companies with the resources to do something about the problems that exist are part of the solution, not part of the problem. Making money for 'the man' and being actively involved in selling widgets or IT services is far less impactful on global health problems than working within the sector. Ultimately, its all about 10 years exclusivity. After the patent expiry, everyone can come in and sell them at whatever price they want. Its funny that many of the worlds HIV drugs have been off-patent for years now and yet the HIV problem still exists. Actually, its not funny and neither are narrow-minded anti-corporationist views that are best left on campus and not in the real world. Poverty kills poor people not pharma companies.

Rents, more than happy to help mate, anytime. I'll be at the Wigan game if you are around, can have a chat then.

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe? Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though. The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion. I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right? I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq. I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable. With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest? Doesn't sound very wise to me. If we're willing to say to a pharmaceutical company "the drugs that you price too highly, you can sell at that non-cost effective price privately", what kind of incentive is that for them to produce the drugs at the lowest price possible? Every innovation would be initially priced to cater only to the private market. Don't believe the hype that private firms go out on a limb altruistically pushing to cure diseases at huge cost to themselves and their shareholders and so deserve a return on that investment. US drug companies spend more than twice as much marketing their products as they do researching and developing them*. My alternative? Keep assessing the cost effectiveness and refuse to bow to the pressure. * https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP55.pdf (page 10) The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc. Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees. Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit. The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins. The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years. Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

Yes. You are disqualified from commenting on the issue then as you refuse to say what you do for a living.

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe? Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though. The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion. I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right? I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq. I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable. With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest? I have some very scary slides about EU demogrpahics and healthcare. Its only going to get worse too.

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe? Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though. The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion. I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right? I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq. I know mate, i was just continuing the debate. A bit melodramatic about Iraq anyway. I dont push the 'privatisation' agenda either, i said we should do this as this is how it works in France / Gemrany etc. 14% of France's healthcare budget comes from privately paid mutuelles, which essentially makes the system two-tier. However, the added efficiencies from this sector is used to help financially lift up the wholly publicy funded sector. That's an economist's point of view. Why should where i work be relevant? Does that mean you should not be able to comment on ID cards or NHS patient record systems since EDS specialises in delivering IT services for governments?

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe? Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though. The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7714039.stm I did say this was going to happen. Paul Lynes, of Standard Life, said: "The products that could be developed will be a lot cheaper than comprehensive medical insurance so we are likely to see many more people take them up."

Harsh words from him but then there are a few who have harsh words about him, in particular the people who work or contribute to Public Citizen, the organisation he founded;

So was it harder for Obama to enter the Whitehouse than for other Democrats because he is black?

Was she linked to 60's terrorists groups too?

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight. He just had to not lose after Hilary. How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity? Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to. Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid. Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread. Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer. I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year. You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you. I wasnt arguing that, perhaps if you slowed down with the trying too hard quippery you might read a post or two and reflect on the point. Obama's funds were measured at the end of the process, months after Clinton was out of the race, reflecting his campaigning (i.e fund-raising as this is obviously lost on you) in republican counties. I'm saying he needed to raise that as thats what it took to win. Fair enough though, got a clear opinion, you think it was easier for Obama than it would have been for Clinton. I disagree but thats not a problem. I do think that the effort the Democratic strategists put into fund-raising (which essentially pays for people to go into areas to drum up support and things like the massive Florida campaign 4 weeks ago) shows that the best judges of that question thought it was a way from being in the bag right to the end. I'll derive my opinion from the Democratic strategists. If Obama beat Hilary how would it have been easier for Hilary to beat McCain? Hilary is a divisive figure in herself. Obama beat Hilary on the funding stakes too didn't he? Although she raised a massive amount and the total amount spent this year has gone through the roof, $1.5b or something. And I still don't understand why you think McCain was the front runner? He clearly wasn't. At best he had to run a perfect campaign with no mistakes and a couple of big hammer blows for a tight victory. Hilary is white. I never said he was a front-runner, i said america is the most socially conservative democracy on the planet. There, answered yours, where are the answers to my questions (bolded above)?

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight. He just had to not lose after Hilary. How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity? Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to. Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid. Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread. Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer. I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year. You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you. I wasnt arguing that, perhaps if you slowed down with the trying too hard quippery you might read a post or two and reflect on the point. Obama's funds were measured at the end of the process, months after Clinton was out of the race, reflecting his campaigning (i.e fund-raising as this is obviously lost on you) in republican counties. I'm saying he needed to raise that as thats what it took to win. Fair enough though, got a clear opinion, you think it was easier for Obama than it would have been for Clinton. I disagree but thats not a problem. I do think that the effort the Democratic strategists put into fund-raising (which essentially pays for people to go into areas to drum up support and things like the massive Florida campaign 4 weeks ago) shows that the best judges of that question thought it was a way from being in the bag right to the end. I'll derive my opinion from the Democratic strategists.