NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050923/ap_on_he_me/flu_drug_dispute;_ylt=Ajs3Y3LMGBLEHrUmNSXgW3Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3czJjNGZoBHNlYwM3NTE-

Developing nations are threatening to ignore U.S. patents and manufacture generic versions to sate their need, especially amid the threat of a bird flu epidemic.
Oh no, countries might actually tell the US drug industry to go screw themselves and make badly needed medicine! Call the protect-bloated-business police!

Tamiflu also is the only drug approved in the United States to prevent the spread of human flu strains in people,
Despite knowing nothing other than this, I can blame the FDA.

These sicko's want to make money off people and dont really care if they get better or not.
Then if something goes wrong they try and buy people out.
Damn Corporates.

If you can't afford to pay for the drug, then as far as you're concerned it's as if the drug never existed in the first place. Nobody's taking anything away from you, therefore nobody's "screwing you over."

It is not, at present, screwing me over.

If you can't afford to pay for the drug, then as far as you're concerned it's as if the drug never existed in the first place. Nobody's taking anything away from you, therefore nobody's "screwing you over."
You must've missed where it said countries were threatening to ignore US patents and make medicines generically so they could afford them instead of using the US's pro-drug industry plan.

If you can't afford to pay for the drug, then as far as you're concerned it's as if the drug never existed in the first place. Nobody's taking anything away from you, therefore nobody's "screwing you over."

In my opinion, everyone has the right to adequate and afordable healthcare. Won't happen anytime soon unfortunately...

You must've missed where it said countries were threatening to ignore US patents and make medicines generically so they could afford them instead of using the US's pro-drug industry plan.

I didn't miss it. I was responding more to the title of the post. Now that you mention it, though, I also oppose theft of intellectual property.

I didn't miss it. I was responding more to the title of the post. Now that you mention it, though, I also oppose theft of intellectual property.
Yes because the right of the drug companies to make money is obviously more important than the some poor peoples right to life.

In my opinion, everyone has the right to adequate and afordable healthcare. Won't happen anytime soon unfortunately...

At whose expense, sir? Do you just assume that somebody will pay for it? Perhaps 'somebody' will invent new medicines for free, too. What if a doctor doesn't want to practice at an 'affordable' rate? Will you force him to do so?

What's 'adequate?' Is it just enough to keep you alive, or is it cutting-edge medical technology? Is birth control part of adequate health care? Healthy meals? Protien shakes? Anti-depressants? If I'm depressed because I'm ugly, do I have the right to free plastic surgery? Who decides?

Yes because the right of the drug companies to make money is obviously more important than the some poor peoples right to life.

As I said, if you can't afford it, as far as you're concerned it doesn't exist. So you'd die anyway. People love to beat up on these companies, but without their efforts, you wouldn't have medicines. At least then you wouldn't bitch about the prices.

As I said, if you can't afford it, as far as you're concerned it doesn't exist. So you'd die anyway. People love to beat up on these companies, but without their efforts, you wouldn't have medicines. At least then you wouldn't bitch about the prices.When they start spending more on research than they spend on advertising and administration, you may have a point.

When they prioritize their research spending on life saving drugs (such as will cure pandemic flu) rather than profiteering drugs (such as a drug that means old farts can simply take a pill to get a hardon rather than engage in some simple exercises and maintainance of their body) you may have a point.

Whey they start doing the basic research themselves, rather than leeching of the research done by Universities and the NIH at public expense, you may have a point.

Most importantly, when they become institutions devoted to curing diseases rather than profiting from them.. then.. and only then.. you may have a point.

Let's be honest here. The pharmacomps have no interest in curing anything. Like any share-holder industry, they're interested in profit first. And we're putting our health in the hands of these people. Realize that they make no money from a healthy population. They make money from a sick population that needs their products to handle the symptoms.

How do US Patents affect other countries?the us cant pass laws that affect other citizens outside its borders surely

I didn't miss it. I was responding more to the title of the post. Now that you mention it, though, I also oppose theft of intellectual property.
I oppose enforcement of one country's standards and practices over any one's health and welfare.

As I said, if you can't afford it, as far as you're concerned it doesn't exist. So you'd die anyway. People love to beat up on these companies, but without their efforts, you wouldn't have medicines.
They can't afford it due to prices and patents enforced by the US drug companies which prevent local, or other, drug companies from creating generic versions of the drug.

With their efforts, we wouldn't have medicine.

The problem is why Drugs are so expensive in America.

Every Drug Company has massive amounts of law-suits breathing down their neck, with huge trade regulations, making trading and producing much-needed medicine.

If we had Tort Reform, Elimination of International Tariffs, and more Pro-Business Policies, Drugs and Medicine would be cheaper for everyone, basically helping everyone,

When they start spending more on research than they spend on advertising and administration, you may have a point.

When they prioritize their research spending on life saving drugs (such as will cure pandemic flu) rather than profiteering drugs (such as a drug that means old farts can simply take a pill to get a hardon rather than engage in some simple exercises and maintainance of their body) you may have a point.

Whey they start doing the basic research themselves, rather than leeching of the research done by Universities and the NIH at public expense, you may have a point.

Most importantly, when they become institutions devoted to curing diseases rather than profiting from them.. then.. and only then.. you may have a point.

Let's be honest here. The pharmacomps have no interest in curing anything. Like any share-holder industry, they're interested in profit first. And we're putting our health in the hands of these people. Realize that they make no money from a healthy population. They make money from a sick population that needs their products to handle the symptoms.


On your third point, I'll agree... to a point.

On the rest... what's your point? You say their financial priorities are screwed up, and if so, they'll fail as a business. Net damage to you: 0.

You say their research priorities are wrong. If so, people won't buy their products, and they'll fail as a business. If not, they won't develop other products, and as I said before, you can't miss something that never existed. Net damage to you: 0.

You say they make no money from healthy people. True statement. If only disease didn't exist... then those evil drug companies couldn't make any money at all! Oh, but wait, disease has been around longer than written communication and will probably outlast the human race, so not much luck there.

What's so wrong with profit, anyway? If someone produces something that benefits others, why should the people who benefit from it not pay him for it? It takes a lot to create innovative products:
Someone with the mental ability to think of it.
Someone (maybe the same person) to do the mental labor to develop it.
Someone (maybe many people) with the right mix of foresight, guts, and money to back it.
Someone (probably many people) to produce it on a large scale.
All these people deserve a reward for their labor, be it mental or physical. The day we decide to act otherwise will mark the decline of humanity.

The problem is why Drugs are so expensive in America.

Every Drug Company has massive amounts of law-suits breathing down their neck, with huge trade regulations, making trading and producing much-needed medicine.

If we had Tort Reform, Elimination of International Tariffs, and more Pro-Business Policies, Drugs and Medicine would be cheaper for everyone, basically helping everyone,That may be true in areas of consumer goods, where competition reigns. Not so in the pharmaceutical industry where IP reigns and demand is inelastic. All those things would do would be to increase the profits of the pharmacomps.

the us cant pass laws that affect other citizens outside its borders surely
Don't worry. They'll fume and fume as you keep pissing them off, then they'll have a temper tantrum and just invade your country. That's how we do things in the War on Terror®©™!

That may be true in areas of consumer goods, where competition reigns. Not so in the pharmaceutical industry where IP reigns and demand is inelastic. All those things would do would be to increase the profits of the pharmacomps.

The Pharmacomps aren't stupid.

The most basic basic basic tenet of economics, is to sell a better product, for a cheaper price.

On the rest... what's your point? You say their financial priorities are screwed up, and if so, they'll fail as a business. Net damage to you: 0.

Actually, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Their financial priorities are fine. It's their health priorities that are screwed up. Net damage to me? Immeasurable.

You say their research priorities are wrong. If so, people won't buy their products, and they'll fail as a business. If not, they won't develop other products, and as I said before, you can't miss something that never existed. Net damage to you: 0.Their research priorities are exactly right to ensure profitability. Unfortunately, you seem to be blissfully unaware that profitability != health. Remember that we as a society grant the right of corporations to exist, and we do so in order that they may benefit society, not simply to make the shareholders rich.

You say they make no money from healthy people. True statement. If only disease didn't exist... then those evil drug companies couldn't make any money at all! Oh, but wait, disease has been around longer than written communication and will probably outlast the human race, so not much luck there.
Absolutely. And murder will be around until the end of time too. Does that mean we should just sit back and let it go, or should we actually try to make the world a bit better for us and our kids?

What's so wrong with profit, anyway? If someone produces something that benefits others, why should the people who benefit from it not pay him for it? It takes a lot to create innovative products:Nothing's wrong with profit, but it should not trump the health and well-being of living people. If it does, we may as well return to the days of Bonnie and Clyde.

I oppose enforcement of one country's standards and practices over any one's health and welfare.


They can't afford it due to prices and patents enforced by the US drug companies which prevent local, or other, drug companies from creating generic versions of the drug.

With their efforts, we wouldn't have medicine.

Okay, let me try and explain this by analogy:

I want to build a house. I hire you to design it for me. You do so, and you come back with plans and tell me it will cost me $200,000, which includes $50,000 for your fee. All I have is $150,000, so I tell you I can't do it and you don't get any money. However, while you weren't looking, I make a copy of your plans and after you've gone away, I build the house according to your plans for that $150,000 I have.

What I've done is stolen the product of your mental effort (the plans) from you. You deserved compensation for those efforts since I exploited them. If someone uses a patented formula to manufacture and sell identical drugs at a cheaper rate, they are stealing, plain and simple. Generic drugs made this way are cheap for the same reason stolen goods are cheap: when your operating costs are next to zero, you can afford to charge less.

Okay, let me try and explain this by analogy:

I want to build a house. I hire you to design it for me. You do so, and you come back with plans and tell me it will cost me $200,000, which includes $50,000 for your fee. All I have is $150,000, so I tell you I can't do it and you don't get any money. However, while you weren't looking, I make a copy of your plans and after you've gone away, I build the house according to your plans for that $150,000 I have.

What I've done is stolen the product of your mental effort (the plans) from you. You deserved compensation for those efforts since I exploited them. If someone uses a patented formula to manufacture and sell identical drugs at a cheaper rate, they are stealing, plain and simple. Generic drugs made this way are cheap for the same reason stolen goods are cheap: when your operating costs are next to zero, you can afford to charge less.
Lets use what actually happens, I'm dying and you have a drug that could save my life, however I only have $100 and you want $200. So you tell me to fuck off and leave, I then die.

Lets use what actually happens, I'm dying and you have a drug that could save my life, however I only have $100 and you want $200. So you tell me to fuck off and leave, I then die.

I wonder what Loans are. >_<

The Pharmacomps aren't stupid.

The most basic basic basic tenet of economics, is to sell a better product, for a cheaper price.I don't know what economics you're talking about, but the most basic tenet of economics is that individual actors seek to maximize profit.

As I said, when there is competition then what you suggest (better quality, cheaper price) happens. When there is not (IP law, inelastic demand) it does not.

Okay, let me try and explain this by analogy:

I want to build a house. I hire you to design it for me. You do so, and you come back with plans and tell me it will cost me $200,000, which includes $50,000 for your fee. All I have is $150,000, so I tell you I can't do it and you don't get any money. However, while you weren't looking, I make a copy of your plans and after you've gone away, I build the house according to your plans for that $150,000 I have.

What I've done is stolen the product of your mental effort (the plans) from you. You deserved compensation for those efforts since I exploited them. If someone uses a patented formula to manufacture and sell identical drugs at a cheaper rate, they are stealing, plain and simple. Generic drugs made this way are cheap for the same reason stolen goods are cheap: when your operating costs are next to zero, you can afford to charge less.

Maybe that would be a good analogy if the house would from dying a slow painful death but otherwise, no.

Tell me 01923, if you were living in a poor african country, with a disease incurable and fatal with the limited drugs you had available, and unable to afford the exorbitant prices of the coporations, would you

a) steal the patent for the drugs that can help you live and manufacture them.

b) die.

I want to build a house. I hire you to design it for me. You do so, and you come back with plans and tell me it will cost me $200,000, which includes $50,000 for your fee. All I have is $150,000, so I tell you I can't do it and you don't get any money. However, while you weren't looking, I make a copy of your plans and after you've gone away, I build the house according to your plans for that $150,000 I have.
Are houses required for you to be a healthy individual?

All intellectual property should not be under the same umbrella. Why prevent local companies from making essential drugs, generic versions - do not carry brandname, for diseases which are killing off people? The drugs can be made that will save the people for prices the sick people can afford, but they shouldn't because that infringes on the rights of some corporation who probably bought the rights to it in the first place?

Actually, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Their financial priorities are fine. It's their health priorities that are screwed up. Net damage to me? Immeasurable.

...

Absolutely. And murder will be around until the end of time too. Does that mean we should just sit back and let it go, or should we actually try to make the world a bit better for us and our kids?


:headbang: If I don't develop a cure for cancer, am I responsible for all the people who die from cancer? Of course not. So if a drug company doesn't develop a cure for whatever disease, are they to be held responsible for deaths? As I've said several times already, you can't miss something that never existed.

Murder is completely different from disease. In a murder, a moral agent is doing something to harm someone. If I shoot you in the head, I am responsible for your death, but if I do nothing while someone else shoots you in the head, I am not. In the same way, if I give someone AIDS, I am responsible for the harm done him. If I don't cure his AIDS, I am not.

I wonder what Loans are. >_<
Hm now were can I as a "hypothetical since these are the people we are talking about" lower class farmer/laborer in sub sahara africa who is unemployed, I'm dieing remember, going to find someone willing to give me a lone?

:headbang: If I don't develop a cure for cancer, am I responsible for all the people who die from cancer? Of course not. So if a drug company doesn't develop a cure for whatever disease, are they to be held responsible for deaths? As I've said several times already, you can't miss something that never existed.

Murder is completely different from disease. In a murder, a moral agent is doing something to harm someone. If I shoot you in the head, I am responsible for your death, but if I do nothing while someone else shoots you in the head, I am not. In the same way, if I give someone AIDS, I am responsible for the harm done him. If I don't cure his AIDS, I am not.
No not developing a cure to a deadly disease isn't murder, withholding medicine that could cure a deadly disease resulting in the deaths of thousands, is.

Lets use what actually happens, I'm dying and you have a drug that could save my life, however I only have $100 and you want $200. So you tell me to fuck off and leave, I then die.

I have that right. But then nobody benefits. So maybe instead I try to work with you to some sort of middle ground. A lot of the major drug companies do just that. Part of the reason prices go so high is the fact that governments subsidize drug purchases. After all, if my price will be paid no matter what, why not charge more?

No not developing a cure to a deadly disease isn't murder, withholding medicine that could cure a deadly disease resulting in the deaths of thousands, is.

Inaction is not causation. Unless you want to say that terminally ill patients are killed when they're taken off life support. They are not; they merely die. There is a difference.

If I don't develop a cure for cancer, am I responsible for all the people who die from cancer? Of course not. So if a drug company doesn't develop a cure for whatever disease, are they to be held responsible for deaths? As I've said several times already, you can't miss something that never existed.
Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to sit quiet when those with the resources to combat it do nothing.

You can stand and watch somebody drown and not be responsible for it. Does that make you any less of a bad person when you do so?

Hold no sympathy for the pharmaceutical companies, because I can assure you, they hold none for us.

Are houses required for you to be a healthy individual?

All intellectual property should not be under the same umbrella. Why prevent local companies from making essential drugs, generic versions - do not carry brandname, for diseases which are killing off people? The drugs can be made that will save the people for prices the sick people can afford, but they shouldn't because that infringes on the rights of some corporation who probably bought the rights to it in the first place?

Some would say yes.

You never answered my questions, Hero: If we have a right to adequate medical care, who pays for it? Who decides what is adequate? How is demand satisfied? Who is held responsible if that right is violated?

Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to sit quiet when those with the resources to combat it do nothing.

You can stand and watch somebody drown and not be responsible for it. Does that make you any less of a bad person when you do so?

Hold no sympathy for the pharmaceutical companies, because I can assure you, they hold none for us.

I don't have any "sympathy" for them or for any company; I just want the same rights for them that I demand for myself: the right to the payment I ask for the service or product I offer.

At whose expense, sir? Do you just assume that somebody will pay for it? Perhaps 'somebody' will invent new medicines for free, too. What if a doctor doesn't want to practice at an 'affordable' rate? Will you force him to do so?

What's 'adequate?' Is it just enough to keep you alive, or is it cutting-edge medical technology? Is birth control part of adequate health care? Healthy meals? Protien shakes? Anti-depressants? If I'm depressed because I'm ugly, do I have the right to free plastic surgery? Who decides?


We as a human race have the capacity to provide "cutting edge medical technology" to every member of the species. We have the technonogy to cure most diseases and other forms of life-threatining occurances (medicine, health care). We also have the technonogy to produce above stated technonogy (factories that produce the drugs, universities that produce the health care professionals). Unfortunatly, no-one has the money.

If the human race was one cooperative group, we could practically eliminate every medical threat to the species. Since the human race is largely constrained to a "every-man-for-himself" financal system, this goal is only obtainable to the richest fraction of the species. Now, with rising costs and so on, this fraction is growing ever more selective. Simplified: we're too greedy.

This is the "big picture" root of the problem. If anyone has any ideas for a solution, they will either be heralded as a peer of Solon, Franklin and the like, or branded a fool and ostrichsized, depending on who gets to them first.

Oh well. :p

I don't have any "sympathy" for them or for any company; I just want the same rights for them that I demand for myself: the right to the payment I ask for the service or product I offer.The service they offer (at the best of times) is standing at the edge of the river with a rope while you drown. I take it you believe they should have the right to charge any amount they like to throw the rope in and pull you out?

The service they offer (at the best of times) is standing at the edge of the river with a rope while you drown. I take it you believe they should have the right to charge any amount they like to throw the rope in and pull you out?

I think it's pretty clear that I do. I'd do it for free, but it's not me on the high ground.

Besides, if you've ever gone swimming in a pool with a lifeguard, you're doing exactly that. It's just that you've already paid the guy on the riverbank.

We as a human race have the capacity to provide "cutting edge medical technology" to every member of the species. We have the technonogy to cure most diseases and other forms of life-threatining occurances (medicine, health care). We also have the technonogy to produce above stated technonogy (factories that produce the drugs, universities that produce the health care professionals). Unfortunatly, no-one has the money.

If the human race was one cooperative group, we could practically eliminate every medical threat to the species. Since the human race is largely constrained to a "every-man-for-himself" financal system, this goal is only obtainable to the richest fraction of the species. Now, with rising costs and so on, this fraction is growing ever more selective. Simplified: we're too greedy.

This is the "big picture" root of the problem. If anyone has any ideas for a solution, they will either be heralded as a peer of Solon, Franklin and the like, or branded a fool and ostrichsized, depending on who gets to them first.

Oh well. :p

I see you quoted me, but you didn't answer any of my questions. Hey, I'm with you, if someone out there wants to take it upon himself to provide excellent health care for free, sign me up. I just don't want to pay for it, nor do I want to force anyone else to.

I think it's pretty clear that I do. I'd do it for free, but it's not me on the high ground.

Besides, if you've ever gone swimming in a pool with a lifeguard, you're doing exactly that. It's just that you've already paid the guy on the riverbank.
Actualy since a pool that dosen't overtly foreswear responability for those using its facilities without a lifeguard, can be held accountable for any deaths that occure, hence the reason pools hire lifeguards, that actualy supports our point.

Some would say yes.

You never answered my questions, Hero: If we have a right to adequate medical care, who pays for it? Who decides what is adequate? How is demand satisfied? Who is held responsible if that right is violated?
For one, you never asked those questions.

Two, you didn't address my point.

Actualy since a pool that dosen't overtly foreswear responability for those using its facilities without a lifeguard, can be held accountable for any deaths that occure, hence the reason pools hire lifeguards, that actualy supports our point.

Not really; this is a byproduct of the same legal system that orders homeowners to compensate thieves for the injuries they suffer while breaking into their houses. One lawyer even argued that it was the victim's fault because he left a ladder on the side of his house and the thief fell off it while using it to break in. I've seen many pools that say 'swim at your own risk,' and I do just that - or I don't swim. I'm not that strong a swimmer.

Not really; this is a byproduct of the same legal system that orders homeowners to compensate thieves for the injuries they suffer while breaking into their houses. One lawyer even argued that it was the victim's fault because he left a ladder on the side of his house and the thief fell off it while using it to break in. I've seen many pools that say 'swim at your own risk,' and I do just that - or I don't swim. I'm not that strong a swimmer.
That meets what I said about them needing a overt warning.

Tell me 01923, if you were living in a poor african country, with a disease incurable and fatal with the limited drugs you had available, and unable to afford the exorbitant prices of the coporations, would you

a) steal the patent for the drugs that can help you live and manufacture them.

b) die.

c'mon 01923, what do you do in this situation?

For one, you never asked those questions.

Two, you didn't address my point.

My bad, those were at Bolol. I apologize. :)

As to your point, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Property rights are linked firmly with rights to life and liberty. What you propose seems to be sort of the opposite of a monoply: opening up trade secrets if there's a high demand. If I write a book or a song it belongs to me. Yes, you have the power to copy it and make money from it, but that is stealing. Yes, the government has the real power to take the formulae from drug companies and distribute them to everyone. It also has the real power to forego payment althogether and force them at gunpoint to produce new drugs (Faster! Do it now!). These acts, respectively, are theft and slavery, and they are equally despicable. Some means cannot be justified by any ends.

c'mon 01923, what do you do in this situation?

I think you know the answer to this already, if you've been reading me. There are things that are worse than death.

There are things that are worse than death.

Profit loss?

I have that right. But then nobody benefits. So maybe instead I try to work with you to some sort of middle ground. A lot of the major drug companies do just that. Part of the reason prices go so high is the fact that governments subsidize drug purchases. After all, if my price will be paid no matter what, why not charge more?
But that's the trick isn't it? There's no pressure to find any middle ground at all. Noone else can undercut you in price. If you start selling drugs at reduced prices to the developing world, you'll destroy the market in the developed world who are able to pay you the prices you want. Anyway you'll still be able to sell the drugs to charities at full whack.

But that's the trick isn't it? There's no pressure to find any middle ground at all. Noone else can undercut you in price. If you start selling drugs at reduced prices to the developing world, you'll destroy the market in the developed world who are able to pay you the prices you want. Anyway you'll still be able to sell the drugs to charities at full whack.

Of course nobody could undercut my price on my product. That, as I've said, is called stealing. (Harry Potter books too expensive? Try my "Henry Porter" series... you won't notice a difference! ;) )

Besides, what is to stop me from changing the price from client to client as I see fit? Country doctors will do that, accepting whatever the patient can pay. If my price is too high, I won't sell anything, then I'll starve, so I'll have to bring my price down. But if you get someone to pay, I can do what I want - I can even raise the price.

Profit loss?

That's needlessly snarky, don't you think? I'm talking about what you do to yourself when you steal. It's such a violation of my own integrity... I would die from it - not physically, but I would cease to be the same person. There are other such things; read the quote in my sig and you'll get an idea

Profit loss... jeez.

Does anyone here actually realize the millions of dollars it takes to develop a single drug and start its push through the FDA and then when they get passed all the animal testing and the other entry level testing costing them hundreds of thousands of more dollars just to be told that the drug that may possibly cure cancer is too dangerous for a person to take?

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd120301b.html Here's a link for you people. So what if they spend 10 million to advertise a drug when they easily drop 500 million for each new drug.

I think you know the answer to this already, if you've been reading me. There are things that are worse than death.

Well I've somehow managed to not pick it up. So your answer is to die is it?

I'm talking about what you do to yourself when you steal. It's such a violation of my own integrity... I would die from it - not physically, but I would cease to be the same person.

Unfortunatly, this draws the conclusion that these people in this situation are all going to die in some way because of it. We can't know their own moral beliefs, but we have the power to heal their medical problems.

Unfortunatly, this draws the conclusion that these people in this situation are all going to die in some way because of it. We can't know their own moral beliefs, but we have the power to heal their medical problems.

Who's 'we?'

Before I go on, let me offer the disclaimer that I don't know your opinions on these things, so forgive me for painting you with this brush wrongly if I do. I am amazed at the number of people who (rightly) abhor government intervention in private matters like drug use and sex. Their rallying cry is "Don't force your morality on me!" Many of these people will turn around and assert that the government (or society, or the rich) has a moral obligation to help the poor. Well, I'm going to tear a page from their book and say "Don't force your morality on me." If I want to help someone (my own charity is not particularly relevant to this discussion, although I assure you I am not stingy there), let it be my choice.

So when I ask you "Who's we?" I want to know who you've included in this group and what power exactly you refer to. I'm sure that if you assemble enough people you can take the drugs and give them to the poor - is that your power? Because unless the drug companies are part of your coalition, you have no legitimate power to help the sick poor.

Well I've somehow managed to not pick it up. So your answer is to die is it?

Yes, stealing would be one of those things I consider "worse than death."

The "we" I used was the same we from my original rant-post on this thread. Humans as a race have the technology. Which humans, we are forced to ask? Unfortunatly, I don't know how to make an AIDs coctail. I don't even know how to make acetisalicillic acid. (I can't spell it either. Thats asprin). This is the technological abillity of the drug companies. It goes full circle, doesn't it.

PS. I think that drug (the bad kind, this time) use is bad and should be banned by the government.

I have to go now. Just so you don't think I'm avoiding any responses you may make, 01923.

The "we" I used was the same we from my original rant-post on this thread. Humans as a race have the technology. Which humans, we are forced to ask? Unfortunatly, I don't know how to make an AIDs coctail. I don't even know how to make acetisalicillic acid. (I can't spell it either. Thats asprin). This is the technological abillity of the drug companies. It goes full circle, doesn't it.

PS. I think that drug (the bad kind, this time) use is bad and should be banned by the government.

1. I had a feeling. It's always easy to be generous with other people's money, time, effort, etc. You can pretend that we are all tied together but the reality is that we are all individuals. We may band together, but ultimately each man has the right to be an island.

PS. Fair enough. But I'm sure you know the kind I'm talking about.

Does anyone here actually realize the millions of dollars it takes to develop a single drug and start its push through the FDA and then when they get passed all the animal testing and the other entry level testing costing them hundreds of thousands of more dollars just to be told that the drug that may possibly cure cancer is too dangerous for a person to take?

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd120301b.html Here's a link for you people. So what if they spend 10 million to advertise a drug when they easily drop 500 million for each new drug.

Do more research. Pharmacomps don't spend 10 million advertising a drug. They spend as much or more on advertising and administration as they do on researching.

Incidentally, their figure of 500 million is likely wrong, as pointed out in this (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=954) article. In short, it notes that the author's study included only drugs that the pharmaceutical companies had not received any governmental support for, nearly doubled the amount actually spent because the author of the report was counting "opportunity costs" if the money had been spent elsewhere, is the pre-tax figure whereas money spent on R&D allows for a 34% tax deduction, and has about 70% of the R&D cost coming from clinical trials while the pharmaceutical's industries own figures show that clinical trials account for about 29% of R&D costs.

In other words, the report comes from a researcher who picked the exceptional cases (not governmentally supported, very expensive clinical trials), used misleading figures (pre-tax), and added unsupported amounts (opportunity costs) and then generalized all of this to say it applies to all new drugs.

This should come as no surprise however if you or the WSJ had done more research into Tuft's Centre for the Study of Drug Development, which is where their data comes from. Specifically, their sponsorship (http://csdd.tufts.edu/About/Sponsorship.asp) page points out that there isn't a single public dollar going to them. They're a research group supported by, and for, the pharmaceutical industry.

Instead, you might try linking to something that actually looks at the global costs (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:RqIu2-fc4BkJ:www.accessmed-msf.org/documents/bioethicslexchin2004.pdf+global+costs+of+pharmaceutical+R%26D&hl=en) of R&D and shows that drug companies can and do make a profit researching and selling drugs domestically in Canada and in the UK, the places that have the price controls that seem so worrying to you people concerned about the drug companies profits.

They're not screwing themselves in the short-term. The long-term, however, is doubtful.