Jump to content

Drug firms 'block' cheap medicine


Fop
 Share

Recommended Posts

Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?

 

 

Random.

 

Name those three drugs though since my question followed something you said and has a context.

 

Again flannel and won't address a crucial point. To be expected, but I had to illustrate it. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?

 

 

Random.

 

Name those three drugs though since my question followed something you said and has a context.

 

Again flannel and won't address a crucial point. To be expected, but I had to illustrate it. :o

 

Crucial point? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?

 

 

Random.

 

Name those three drugs though since my question followed something you said and has a context.

 

Again flannel and won't address a crucial point. To be expected, but I had to illustrate it. :o

 

Crucial point? :lol:

 

This?

 

'Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?'

 

What does that even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random:

 

 

Drug companies chasing profits, cheating patients

 

Bindu Shajan Perappadan

‘High-price Doxofylline being promoted as an alternative to low-price theophylline’

 

Doxofylline bulk drug is not a patented medicine and can be purchased in tons in China

 

NEW DELHI: Exploiting the ignorance of the common man, over half a dozen drug companies in the country have suddenly discovered the hidden virtues of an age-old, low-lying medicine called “doxofylline”, claim experts.

 

Before the aggressive promotion to sell the drug started last year, doctors were not even aware that such a molecule existed.

 

Explaining what he claims is the real reason for doxofylline’s entry into the country, the Editor of the medical journal, Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, Dr. C. M. Gulati, says: “The answer lies in the way drug prices are determined and controlled in the country. Doxofylline is being offered as a more profitable alternative to theophylline, prescribed to prevent and treat wheezing, shortness of breath, and difficulty breathing caused by asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and other lung diseases. It relaxes and opens air passages in the lungs, making it easier to breathe.”

 

“Theophylline and etofylline – molecules approved for sale in over 200 countries after having undergone rigorous post-marketing trials -- are scheduled drugs and subject to price control by the Government. By successive orders in 2006, all loopholes to sell theophylline products at high profit margins have been closed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), the body that monitors medicine prices in India. Therefore, nearly all companies selling theophylline formulations have been scouting for similar molecules outside the price control system irrespective of whether they are similar, better or even worse than their current brands” adds Dr. Gulati.

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random:

 

Why Do Drug Companies Fear This Man? Maybe because he's declared all-out war on cheats in the drug industry.

By John Simons

October 27, 2003

(FORTUNE Magazine) – Imagine Yankees skipper Joe Torre delivering the keynote speech at a gathering of rabid Red Sox fans. That's the kind of unfriendly skepticism Michael Loucks faced earlier this month as he stepped to the podium at the Pharmaceutical Marketing Congress in Philadelphia. In the audience were about 350 drug industry executives, Chez Given, sales reps, and consultants--in other words, the people Loucks spends his days investigating.

 

The crowd clapped politely, but they did not like what they heard. In his early-morning speech, Loucks, chief of the Justice Department's Boston-based health-care fraud unit, revealed himself as a man on the warpath, rattling off a litany of recent legal actions against drug companies: Since 2000, he noted, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and other drugmakers had coughed up more than $2.2 billion to settle such civil and criminal violations as kickbacks to doctors, overcharging, and marketing drugs for unapproved uses. Though none of that was news to the attendees, some of whom were obviously recovering from a night of convention revelry, Loucks hammered home his points with 37 PowerPoint slides. "No other sector of the health-care industry," he said, "has ever paid similar amounts in health-care fraud investigations in so short a time." The finger wagging did not stop there. "Frequently I hear the excuse that 'Everyone else is doing it.' I have two teenage daughters, and that's the first thing out of their mouths when they're doing something wrong. I don't accept that excuse from kids. And I'm not going to accept it from a defense lawyer."

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random:

 

 

Drug companies chasing profits, cheating patients

 

Bindu Shajan Perappadan

‘High-price Doxofylline being promoted as an alternative to low-price theophylline’

 

Doxofylline bulk drug is not a patented medicine and can be purchased in tons in China

 

NEW DELHI: Exploiting the ignorance of the common man, over half a dozen drug companies in the country have suddenly discovered the hidden virtues of an age-old, low-lying medicine called “doxofylline”, claim experts.

 

Before the aggressive promotion to sell the drug started last year, doctors were not even aware that such a molecule existed.

 

Explaining what he claims is the real reason for doxofylline’s entry into the country, the Editor of the medical journal, Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, Dr. C. M. Gulati, says: “The answer lies in the way drug prices are determined and controlled in the country. Doxofylline is being offered as a more profitable alternative to theophylline, prescribed to prevent and treat wheezing, shortness of breath, and difficulty breathing caused by asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and other lung diseases. It relaxes and opens air passages in the lungs, making it easier to breathe.”

 

“Theophylline and etofylline – molecules approved for sale in over 200 countries after having undergone rigorous post-marketing trials -- are scheduled drugs and subject to price control by the Government. By successive orders in 2006, all loopholes to sell theophylline products at high profit margins have been closed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), the body that monitors medicine prices in India. Therefore, nearly all companies selling theophylline formulations have been scouting for similar molecules outside the price control system irrespective of whether they are similar, better or even worse than their current brands” adds Dr. Gulati.

 

Mackems.gif tbh.

 

Thats about Generics companies taking old off patent medicines and exploiting them having never performed a clinical trial or invested a single penny in the clinical research. This important distinction is at the heart of the OP btw.

 

:lol:

Edited by ChezGiven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random:

 

 

Drug companies chasing profits, cheating patients

 

Bindu Shajan Perappadan

‘High-price Doxofylline being promoted as an alternative to low-price theophylline’

 

Doxofylline bulk drug is not a patented medicine and can be purchased in tons in China

 

NEW DELHI: Exploiting the ignorance of the common man, over half a dozen drug companies in the country have suddenly discovered the hidden virtues of an age-old, low-lying medicine called “doxofylline”, claim experts.

 

Before the aggressive promotion to sell the drug started last year, doctors were not even aware that such a molecule existed.

 

Explaining what he claims is the real reason for doxofylline’s entry into the country, the Editor of the medical journal, Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, Dr. C. M. Gulati, says: “The answer lies in the way drug prices are determined and controlled in the country. Doxofylline is being offered as a more profitable alternative to theophylline, prescribed to prevent and treat wheezing, shortness of breath, and difficulty breathing caused by asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and other lung diseases. It relaxes and opens air passages in the lungs, making it easier to breathe.”

 

“Theophylline and etofylline – molecules approved for sale in over 200 countries after having undergone rigorous post-marketing trials -- are scheduled drugs and subject to price control by the Government. By successive orders in 2006, all loopholes to sell theophylline products at high profit margins have been closed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), the body that monitors medicine prices in India. Therefore, nearly all companies selling theophylline formulations have been scouting for similar molecules outside the price control system irrespective of whether they are similar, better or even worse than their current brands” adds Dr. Gulati.

 

Mackems.gif tbh.

 

Thats about Generics companies taking old off patent medicines and exploiting them having never performed a clinical trial or invested a single penny in the clinical research. This important distinction is at the heart of the OP btw.

 

:lol:

 

 

Oh shit. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :o

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:lol:

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :o

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:lol:

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

 

Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform?

 

Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with.

 

Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :o

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:lol:

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

 

I've never said that 'things are as perfect as can be', and I doubt Chez has either. I would say it was satisfactory though, in my opinion, but there's always room for improvement.

 

You seem to be confusing the UK health system with the global pharmaceutical industry yet again in your post though, the fact that many of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies are based in the UK is really quite irrelevant (but at the same time something to be proud of). I'm therefore not sure what your point is about cures and 'cost effective' approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :o

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:lol:

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

 

Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform?

 

Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with.

 

Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point.

 

Sorry I'm slow to grasp stuff mate. I know I've not spent my life working in the field, but it interests me, and I never like to take someones word for it, I prefer to understand. And I still can't get my head around the inequity of private companies taking 100% of the profit on a cure they've invested 10% in researching.

 

Didn't the thread you started (privatise the NHS) call for less regulation? A move towards the American way, which apparently bats a lower average than the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :o

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:lol:

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

 

I've never said that 'things are as perfect as can be', and I doubt Chez has either. I would say it was satisfactory though, in my opinion, but there's always room for improvement.

 

You seem to be confusing the UK health system with the global pharmaceutical industry yet again in your post though, the fact that many of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies are based in the UK is really quite irrelevant (but at the same time something to be proud of). I'm therefore not sure what your point is about cures and 'cost effective' approaches.

 

How so? I can't see where I might be referring to the NHS.

 

Aren't they based in the UK for the funding? Aren't we spending less to cure more? Shouldn't that ensure a lower cost on drugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :o

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:lol:

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

 

Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform?

 

Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with.

 

Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point.

 

Sorry I'm slow to grasp stuff mate. I know I've not spent my life working in the field, but it interests me, and I never like to take someones word for it, I prefer to understand. And I still can't get my head around the inequity of private companies taking 100% of the profit on a cure they've invested 10% in researching.

 

Didn't the thread you started (privatise the NHS) call for less regulation? A move towards the American way, which apparently bats a lower average than the UK.

 

Called for a re-design of the system, whether it involves more or less regulation isnt an issue for me, if you do go for the social insurance model then you'd need plenty of regulation.

 

I'm interested in these product that are developed at 10% of cost and enable 100% of revenues. That latter part sounds like a poor deal for whoever sell the rights by the way.

 

Anyway can you point me in their direction and i'll cut you in on the $20m bonus that will certainly come my way from such a deal? I'll be fucking CEO by this time next year!

 

Also do you know why Blair and Brown were so keen to keep the drug companies in the UK and offered them money to stay? Because, like with all good decisions, the benefits to the UK were bigger than the costs. It also meant we still have a manufacturing sector. Just.

Edited by ChezGiven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :o

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:lol:

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

 

Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform?

 

Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with.

 

Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point.

 

Sorry I'm slow to grasp stuff mate. I know I've not spent my life working in the field, but it interests me, and I never like to take someones word for it, I prefer to understand. And I still can't get my head around the inequity of private companies taking 100% of the profit on a cure they've invested 10% in researching.

 

Didn't the thread you started (privatise the NHS) call for less regulation? A move towards the American way, which apparently bats a lower average than the UK.

 

Called for a re-design of the system, whether it involves more or less regulation isnt an issue for me, if you do go for the social insurance model then you'd need plenty of regulation.

 

I'm interested in these product that are developed at 10% of cost and enable 100% of revenues. That latter part sounds like a poor deal for whoever sell the rights by the way.

 

Anyway can you point me in their direction and i'll cut you in on the $20m bonus that will certainly come my way from such a deal? I'll be fucking CEO by this time next year!

 

Also do you know why Blair and Brown were so keen to keep the drug companies in the UK and offered them money to stay? Because, like with all good decisions, the benefits to the UK were bigger than the costs. It also meant we still have a manufacturing sector. Just.

 

 

I was harking back to the aids debate in your thread where I posted...

 

Of the $696M of research into a vaccine between 2000 and 2005, only $59 million has come from the pharma's and £9M from biotech.

 

Having invested less than 10% of the cost, do you think they should reap 100% of the benefit?

 

http://www.iavi.org/viewfile.cfm?fid=30892

 

Section 3.1

 

No doubt, they're excellent to have in the UK. I'm not denying that at all. But then so are plumbers, however, if you watch house of horrors, you'll see that a lot of plumbers take their time over a job to get into the second hour and jack up the price. Could you not conceive of pharma companies doing a similar thing?

 

When they're told they can charge whatever they want for whatever drugs they develop, and that private insurance companies will cover it for the wealthy, you don't think they'll clench their teeth together and inhale sharply before licking their pencil to give you an arse tightening price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :lol:

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:o

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

 

Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform?

 

Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with.

 

Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point.

 

Sorry I'm slow to grasp stuff mate. I know I've not spent my life working in the field, but it interests me, and I never like to take someones word for it, I prefer to understand. And I still can't get my head around the inequity of private companies taking 100% of the profit on a cure they've invested 10% in researching.

 

Didn't the thread you started (privatise the NHS) call for less regulation? A move towards the American way, which apparently bats a lower average than the UK.

 

Called for a re-design of the system, whether it involves more or less regulation isnt an issue for me, if you do go for the social insurance model then you'd need plenty of regulation.

 

I'm interested in these product that are developed at 10% of cost and enable 100% of revenues. That latter part sounds like a poor deal for whoever sell the rights by the way.

 

Anyway can you point me in their direction and i'll cut you in on the $20m bonus that will certainly come my way from such a deal? I'll be fucking CEO by this time next year!

 

Also do you know why Blair and Brown were so keen to keep the drug companies in the UK and offered them money to stay? Because, like with all good decisions, the benefits to the UK were bigger than the costs. It also meant we still have a manufacturing sector. Just.

 

 

I was harking back to the aids debate in your thread where I posted...

 

Of the $696M of research into a vaccine between 2000 and 2005, only $59 million has come from the pharma's and £9M from biotech.

 

Having invested less than 10% of the cost, do you think they should reap 100% of the benefit?

 

http://www.iavi.org/viewfile.cfm?fid=30892

 

Section 3.1

 

No doubt, they're excellent to have in the UK. I'm not denying that at all. But then so are plumbers, however, if you watch house of horrors, you'll see that a lot of plumbers take their time over a job to get into the second hour and jack up the price. Could you not conceive of pharma companies doing a similar thing?

 

When they're told they can charge whatever they want for whatever drugs they develop, and that private insurance companies will cover it for the wealthy, you don't think they'll clench their teeth together and inhale sharply before licking their pencil to give you an arse tightening price?

 

I'm not surprised there has been little investment in the AIDs vaccine by the private sector as it really is an object in futility; that's in my opinion before Fop starts. As for the rest, without wanting to be patronising HF it's a bit more complicated than that. I think the arguments have already been done though in the other thread.

 

And first the porn industry and now plumbers? Get some decent analogies. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

:o

 

He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable.

 

And you were having a pop, admit it. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find it. Care to be more specific?

The other recent health care thread, search back through my posts if you want too (I may charge you for the "service" though :lol: ).

 

Link or post number will suffice, tia.

£100 per link, paypal will do. :o

 

This basically sums Fop up these days. Theres a geuine pathos in everything he posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is. :icon_lol:

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

:o

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally.

 

I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two.

 

The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

 

Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform?

 

Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with.

 

Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point.

 

Sorry I'm slow to grasp stuff mate. I know I've not spent my life working in the field, but it interests me, and I never like to take someones word for it, I prefer to understand. And I still can't get my head around the inequity of private companies taking 100% of the profit on a cure they've invested 10% in researching.

 

Didn't the thread you started (privatise the NHS) call for less regulation? A move towards the American way, which apparently bats a lower average than the UK.

 

Called for a re-design of the system, whether it involves more or less regulation isnt an issue for me, if you do go for the social insurance model then you'd need plenty of regulation.

 

I'm interested in these product that are developed at 10% of cost and enable 100% of revenues. That latter part sounds like a poor deal for whoever sell the rights by the way.

 

Anyway can you point me in their direction and i'll cut you in on the $20m bonus that will certainly come my way from such a deal? I'll be fucking CEO by this time next year!

 

Also do you know why Blair and Brown were so keen to keep the drug companies in the UK and offered them money to stay? Because, like with all good decisions, the benefits to the UK were bigger than the costs. It also meant we still have a manufacturing sector. Just.

 

 

I was harking back to the aids debate in your thread where I posted...

 

Of the $696M of research into a vaccine between 2000 and 2005, only $59 million has come from the pharma's and £9M from biotech.

 

Having invested less than 10% of the cost, do you think they should reap 100% of the benefit?

 

http://www.iavi.org/viewfile.cfm?fid=30892

 

Section 3.1

 

No doubt, they're excellent to have in the UK. I'm not denying that at all. But then so are plumbers, however, if you watch house of horrors, you'll see that a lot of plumbers take their time over a job to get into the second hour and jack up the price. Could you not conceive of pharma companies doing a similar thing?

 

When they're told they can charge whatever they want for whatever drugs they develop, and that private insurance companies will cover it for the wealthy, you don't think they'll clench their teeth together and inhale sharply before licking their pencil to give you an arse tightening price?

 

I'm not surprised there has been little investment in the AIDs vaccine by the private sector as it really is an object in futility; that's in my opinion before Fop starts. As for the rest, without wanting to be patronising HF it's a bit more complicated than that. I think the arguments have already been done though in the other thread.

 

And first the porn industry and now plumbers? Get some decent analogies. :lol:

 

No, that wasn't patronising at all.

 

:lol:

 

And Fop gets stick for ignoring questions and harking back to old posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

:icon_lol:

 

He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable.

 

And you were having a pop, admit it. :o

 

I assumed you would :lol:

 

:lol:

 

How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is repetition though. And I'm sorry to sound patronising, but what I mean is it really is complicated, you'd have to be a professional to understand all the issues (and I am also not a professional in health economics btw).

 

How would you like to fix the prices of drugs out of interest though HF, especially considering we're living in a global market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

:icon_lol:

 

He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable.

 

And you were having a pop, admit it. :o

 

I assumed you would :lol:

 

:lol:

 

How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress?

 

The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is repetition though. And I'm sorry to sound patronising, but what I mean is it really is complicated, you'd have to be a professional to understand all the issues (and I am also not a professional in health economics btw).

 

How would you like to fix the prices of drugs out of interest though HF, especially considering we're living in a global market?

 

Based on NICE appraisals, or the SMC.

 

Keep asking questions and not answering though Fop.

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.