Now, this is a bit ironic...

[Busyman]

my conclusion, what I give is my business, and I could care less for whatever the rest of the world thinks of it

this is my feelings exactly ( thanks paul)
when something of this magnitude happens, to hell with the politics.... It sucks our countires try to make themselves look better ( or worse) by publishing contributions.

AGREED!!!!

[vidcc]

@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 ..."

[Everose]

First, this drug thing. Any pill you buy probably cost around 25 cents (US) to make. Many of these pills are sold for upwards of two dollars (US), for good reason. The real price of medicine is not manufacturing a pill, but rather developing it. Everose, that $3 pill cost about $500 million to develop, if not more. And, the cost is not just of that single pill: Pfizer made more than 5,000 compounds in 2002 alone, and only half a dozen of those compounds reached clinical trials. It is unlikely that any of those compounds will pass clinical trials and be approved by the FDA.
So, when you buy a pill, the great majority of the money you spend covers the debt that the drug company racked up over the 15 years (or more, but 15 is about average for Pfizer-type drugs) that separate identifying the harmful bacteria and the release of the drug.
You may notice that almost all drug research and development companies are in the US. This is because Canada, Britain, and the like will tell a drug company that they will pay 50 cents for a pill that costs 25 cents to manufacture. This more than covers the additional cost of transportation, but it does almost nothing to pay for research and development of that pill, much less of the medicines that the company is currently developing. The companies figure that it's better to make a bit of money, rather than none at all, and try to prevent counterfeit drugs that are made in China from finding a market (those counterfeits are no different than the name brand, but the counterfeiting company avoids all the research expenses).

Thus, the US citizen pays virtually all of the costs for medical research, and other countries are able to get those drugs at a severely lower cost.
If those research debts are not paid off, the drug company may go bankrupt and shut down, even though it is making profits from drug sales. In other words, there will be no more drugs, except counterfeits (which there aren't enough of if the real companies close), and no new medicines will be developed. That's why both the US and Canada strongly oppose the scheme of reimporting American-made drugs from Canada.
Rat Faced, it's not the drug companies that are getting rich and screwing their customers, it's the politicians who are screwing drug companies and American consumers. If your medical system wasn’t government-run, you would actually pay the real price for medicines, and Americans would pay far less.


Add a few billion to US international aid, on behalf of its citizens whom pay for the medicines that the world uses.

Now, the aid stuff. American donations to tsunami victims, both government and private (that includes corporate) topped 1 billion a while ago. That's actual aid, not pledges; pledges are quite worthless. Additionally, European donations often have certain restrictions that the money can only be used to buy products made in the nation that donated the money. Thus, many of those donations are little more than subsidized exports. Cut Europe's aid money in half, as the European governments will have half of that "aid money" in a year. European governments will probably get more than half of the money back, but I'm feeling generous today.

In response to the claim that the UN is actually doing something: wrong. The UN is holding conferences, meetings, councils, debates, discussions, and everything else that involves only talking. The only places that aren't crowded with UN bureaucrats are the areas actually effected by the tsunami. When the UN set up its "headquarters" in Indonesia, that headquarters was in a 5-star hotel, which the UN workers have rooms. What do you think was the first thing that the UN did? I'll give you a hint; it wasn't distribute food, water, medicine, or comfort. The priority was to arrange for 24-hour room service. This was before the UN had a fax machine, an inernet connection, or a telephone system worked out.

I'll grab a quote from the UN website (from about January 1st):
------------------------------------------
Mr. Egeland: Our main problems now are in northern Sumatra and Aceh. <...> In Aceh, today 50 trucks of relief supplies are arriving. <...> Tomorrow, we will have eight full airplanes arriving. I discussed today with Washington whether we can draw on some assets on their side, after consultations with the Indonesian Government, to set up what we call an “air-freight handling centre” in Aceh.

Tomorrow, we will have to set up a camp for relief workers – 90 of them – which is fully self-contained, with kitchen, food, lodging, everything, because they have nowhere to stay and we don't want them to be an additional burden on the people there.
------------------------------------------
One problem: the entire statement is a lie. The UN didn't have a single person in Aceh, and the camp there was set up and run by USAID, the US international aid service (as the name implies). Even a week after this quote, only the US and Australia were using airplanes to deliver relief supplies, and I don't think the UN has used an airplane to transport relief supplies yet (the UN bureaucrats arrive on 1st class seats, though). Additionally, US and Australian relief workers were sleeping on the ground and eating food that didn't need to be cooked. You don't need a luxury resort made out of tents to deliver relief supplies.
The UN's first priority was to set up a camp for relief workers. US and Australia decided that they should deliver aid to those on the verge of starving to death before anything else.

By the way, you do not want to sleep out in the open in Indonesia. That place can get really nasty, even without a tsunami.

But, the UN has delivered some supplies. Let me illustrate an example: about two weeks after the tsunami (more than long enough for people to die of hunger or thirst), the UN finally got a few flights of relief supplies, and I think they were delivered by US planes. The UN promised not to squander any of the aid, even though 65% of donations to the UN are diverted to cover "administration costs", compared to less than 2% for the Red Cross. A picture in the Post, or some similar newspaper, showed UN workers standing next to a pile of boxed food about 6 feet tall. The day before, the pile was 12 feet tall. The UN workers left the boxes out in the rain, because god forbid UN employees work overtime or in such horrid conditions as rain, and more than half of the boxes rotted. Thus, those supplies had to be thrown away.

That's about as efficient as the UN can get.

By the way, http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/ provides some great information about the UN.

Dad.... is that you? How did you find this board?

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

[j2k4]

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.

[vidcc]

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.

I hope you are not suggesting i am accusing him of anything.

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.

[cpt_azad]

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?).

[Skiz]

Nice post j2k4

[Rat Faced]

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...

[hobbes]

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.

[Skiz]

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.