Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
AGREED!!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
AGREED!!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
@maxtor2
Partly because of extraordinarily generous tax breaks but mostly because of high prices guaranteed by Congress, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, year in and year out, ranks as the country's richest. Pfizer, which for 2002 reported profits of $9.1 billion on revenue of $32.4 billion, earned a return on revenue of 28%, a rate more than twice that of General Electric, nine times that of Wal-Mart and 31 times that of General Motors.
To be sure, the pharmaceutical industry insists it needs the higher prices to pay its hefty research and development tab. (The industry spends tens of millions on marketing and advertising as well but does not make an issue of that.) An academic study in 2001, partly funded by the drug industry, estimated that it costs an average of $802 million to bring a single new drug to market, though that number is disputed by consumer advocates.
Says Alan F. Holmer, president of PhRMA: "Developing new medicines requires cutting-edge science, enormous investment of time and money, and willingness to commit those resources in the face of expensive failure after failure. None of this is compatible with price controls."
But no one really knows how the money is spent. Indeed, the industry has refused to open its books to government auditors and once waged a nine-year legal battle with the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress's investigative arm, to keep the information secret. Congress could subpoena the information but has refused to do so, in no small part because of the power of the pharmaceutical industry lobby.
While the industry is quick to claim how much it must spend to come up with new drugs, it is slow to acknowledge the contributions of the Federal Government and American taxpayers.
Universities, foundations, researchers and congressional committees have concluded for years that many major drugs owe their origins to research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute and other public agencies.
A report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress in 2000, then headed by Republican Senator Connie Mack of Florida, summed it up: "The Federal Government, mainly through the NIH, funds about 36% of all U.S. medical research ... Of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992, 15 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research."
A GAO report last year on Taxol, which had worldwide sales of $6.2 billion from 1998 to 2002, noted, "Through a collaboration with NIH, [Bristol-Myers Squibb] benefitted from substantial investments in research conducted or funded by NIH." The collaboration "provided the company with research results that enabled [Taxol] to be quickly commercialized ..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxtor2
Dad.... is that you? How did you find this board? :blushing:
On a serious note, Maxtor2, please post here more.
I do understand that in order to continue developing drugs the drug companies must have a return on their research and development. And I think you understand the frustration of the American Citizen who has to pay these prices... ... ...thank you for taking the time to explain a few things I was unaware of. I was not aware we Americans are, in effect, subsidizing the world with the price we pay for our drugs.
What do you see as the answer here, Maxtor2, to even things up a bit?
Do the American Drug Companies have any programs here in the United States to see that people that really need drugs but cannot afford to get them .. get them? I am aware they give the Dr's a lot of samples, and they in turn give them to their patients free of charge. I have assumed this was done purely in the drug companies own interests, such as generating scripts of their drug being written. I have to hope those samples go first to people in dire financial need, but have no way of knowing that.
Thank you for what you have written here about the UN's participation and priorities in giving tsunami aid. It was an eye opener. Thanks also for the link. I plan on using it.
Everose
Maxtor2 stands to be accused of working for one of the drug companies, or, at the very least, being a conservative by virtue of his use of logic.
I hereby reiterate my offer to him/her a spot on my team, unless he/she commits to a leading role here, in which case I would be willing to sit humbly on his/her bench. :D
I hope you are not suggesting i am accusing him of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Yes drug companies need to research, they are however profiteering IMO and the use of the "American market" as an excuse for cost to bolster the drug research for the rest of the world is quite frankly IMO thin.
Listen and listen closely. The "muslim" world (the countries, not the actual citizens/ppl) don't give a rat's ass about their "brothers" and "sisters" half way across the world or for that matter right in their own home. As long as they can profit somehow and keep their rich royal families going they're happy. Do you really think Israel would still be there if Saudia Arabia (or any other Muslim country for that matter) decided to help their "Brothers"? Same with what's going on with the tsunami relief effort. It's really disgraceful and sickening. And don't bring up the Yom Kippur War, it was Israel that launched a surprise attack not the other way around (Israel decided to bomb some airfields, and what the hell were Egypt and Syria to do? Sit back and take it with a smile?).
Nice post j2k4 ;)
Maxtor,
How come the European companies make a profit then?
You quote the figures, but neglect to say where the money for research comes from..
The vast majority of that money comes from the Governemnt either directly (via Research Grants or the Governments own Research passed on to the companies, or jointly funded ventures) or indirectly (through University Research).
The fact that the Drugs are a lot cheaper here, and yet the Drugs Companies and Pharmacies both appear to make a profit (and a large one) says much.
The reason that most companies are in the USA is simple... thats where they can make the most PROFIT.. any companies favourite word.
About the UN in Indonesia...
If it was a 5 Star Hotel, they wouldnt have had to "arrange" 24 hour Room Service, its already there... :P
As a partial answer, the FDA much more stringent here than in other countries. In fact, many drugs we are using as "new", have been in common use in Europe for years. The reason is that FDA would not approve it for use.
Eventually they say, "Well, it hasn't killed them yet, so I guess you guys can market it, but only by prescription."
So it takes much longer to develop a drug in the US.
In Mexico, you can get human growth hormone which is felt to reverse the effects of aging. Nobody knows if it is safe or not, but money talks South of the Border. If it works out, maybe we will use it here in 15 years.
Distribution is also held in check, even after the FDA approves it. Remember Pepsid? That was the first big breakthrough in peptic ulcer disease since the invention of antiacids. For so many years only a doctor could write you a 'script for it. Finally, it is over-the-counter and cheap as dirt. Just think how much more money they could have made putting it directly on the shelves.
A final thought is that drug companies get 5 or so years of exclusive rights to a new drug. So they need to make up they money while they can. After 5 years, all the generic brands enter the market and prices drop drastically.
Pfizer has done well as it hit a homerun with Viagra a few years back and probably would not be here if the FDA had not approved it. But now with all the competition and blackmarket Viagra, they are starting to slip.
pfizer stock
Drug companies are big risk/big reward ventures. And when you hit it, you have to seize the day before the generic brands hit the market.
A friend of mine has invested in a company that is attempting to make artifical hemoglobin (the stuff in blood that carries oxygen). These people have either spent the last 10 years developing the next revolution, or something that will just not work at all.
Well worth the read, and sorry to say, absolutely true. All the UN has become is a mechanism to redistribute the world's wealth. Read this as taking from the "have" nations and giving to the "have not" nations. This is sadly the same strategy that keeps the Democrats in power: the "entitlements" programs.