Re: GREED Drives Pharma

From: Robert (Robert_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/26/04 

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:09:39 -0700

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b1kqd0l9elt39njqlu13sln88ep1j9g8b2@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:35:48 -0700, "Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:dtvnd05pp5pa40uak78mn3ejjce33l11d4@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:04:45 -0700, "Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> snip
> >> >> Pharm co's identify markets where people have chronic diseases and
> >> >> wind up needing long term therapy, like cholesterol. Other
recognized
> >> >> diseases, like dengue, are ignored.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, you are right but you has not answered the question of why do you
> >need
> >> >THEIR product and not someone elses. There are alternate remedies and
> >other
> >> >products.
> >>
> >> Make up the question as you go along??? Well, dear, if a drug is on
> >> patent there IS no alternative but THAT DRUG. At whatever outrageous,
> >> insane cost the whim of the company has decided to charge.
> >>
> >> And that screws the public health system something serious, having a
> >> horrible impact on Medicaid, the VA (though they negotiate the best
> >> prices for drugs), etc.
> >
> >Wrong. It is rare that their is no drug that treats their condiiton.
>
> It depends on the condition so in some cases there are NOT other
> treatments. Schistosomiasis, leishmaniasis. Then there are also issues
> of multidrug resistance that render chloroquine for malaria obsolete
> in many places or many first- and second-line tuberculosis drugs
> useless.

These conditons have been around for hundreds of years and many drugs are
being used that are non patented. Pick up a book on medicine and see the
meds for those. These are parasities with cultural and economic issues and
not just treatment of disease. You need to treat the water and deal with the
mode of transmission.
As I have mentioned multi-drug resistence is because of non compliance and
again a cultural issue you need to deal with first.
Newer drugs are MORE toxic becaue the safety issues haven't been worked out
yet and that impacts on compliance. They won't take the drugs if they make
them sick. Why in the world do you think they develop resistence in the
first place and giving them newer drugs does not change the cycle but makes
it worse.

>
> What you describe below, however, is true for SOME conditions that
> various "me-too" drugs exist. However, very often many or most of them
> are ON patent and more costly.

You are too afixed to first world medicine and think you can take everything
to the third world and use it identically in the same way. You ignore the
entire society that it will be used in.
The living standards in the first world is different allowing monies to be
spent more on disease treatment. In the third world those monies are spent
on the living conditions in an effort to prevent disease.

>
> >It's
> >like the new blood pressure drugs. New ones are being brought into market
or
> >the statin drugs as new ones are being brought in. I should know. I was
put
> >on a statin that I could not tolerate so I was put on Bycol. Baycol was
> >taken off the market by the FDA for complications associated with it so I
> >was put on another new drug Altocor. Compared to Lipitor, Altocor is much
> >more expensive. One has a $5 copay and the other has a $35 dollar copay.
> >It is extremely rare that a new drug is put into market that their is no
> >other drug already being used for that disease especially one in which
> >involves many people which draws the drug industry attention.
>
> In the United States market for some diseases this is true. Others, it
> may be problematic. Histoplasmosis. Cancer treatments. Etc. And
> sometimes the patented drug is THE drug a person needs and no generic
> is available.

There are drugs for histoplasmosis and cancer that are not patented. The HIV
drugs are new because of the money incentives generated by HIV treatment
meds. Without those incentives then those drugs would not have been
developed. There will always be newer drugs that are better than some
replacements as that is the market place.

>
> snip
> >> That's nice advice but the drugs advertised are FDA approved--they
> >> couldn't advertise otherwise. So they have "proof" for some condition
> >> (e.g., cholesterol). The problem is that sometimes that is only
> >> "evidence" which has been seen recently may be lacking all the data
> >> that includes studies where outcomes weren't so good or there were
> >> greater toxicities (e.g., the case of Paxil use among adolescents).
> >
> >All new drugs are dangerous as they don't have a safety record proven
over
> >time with a large amount of people.
>
> That is true for the drugs that are not approved--and even to a
> certain extent to approved drugs, where approval is granted on the
> promies that Phave IV studies will be undertaking. Which generally
> they renege on.
>
> >> >> And again--greed is NOT good. People are overprescribed a lot of
> >> >> medications that are horrifically overpriced because of greed.
> snip...
>
> >> That is IF there IS a class of drugs like statins. And within that
> >> group, some have greater toxicity. Some work better for some than
> >> others. Other conditions--cancer, asthma, AIDS, hepatitis C--do not
> >> necessarily have a lot of choice. Or the choices are ALSO all under
> >> patent and outrageously priced and thus GREED MAIMS AND KILLS.
> >
> >Those conditions are chronic and the meds do not cure anything.
>
> Agreed. But they prevent people from dying sooner than need be in many
> cases.
>
> >Had a friend come down with lung cancer and placed on the newest drug out
> >there. He lived about a year longer then died. These newer drugs are in
fact
> >experimental and you are lucky if insurance pays for it.
>
> Experimental drugs should NOT be paid for. People are offering their
> lives in these experiments and taking huge risks. My brother had lung
> cancer and they tried an experimental drug. It failed. He died.

Just because they put it in the market does not mean it is safe nor
experimental. Many drug companies can cheat on the drug profile or safety
records in order to bring it to market and only be found out through
millions taking the drug.

>
> >As far as AIDS you have people who are paying more money to have sex
without
> >condoms. I saw that program on AIDS in India.
>
> Yes, some people are very foolish and they take advantage of others
> who are often in sex work because it is the only way they can earn an
> income. They take advantage of their vulnerability because society
> condemns the activity while many engage in it. If sex work were
> legalized and unionized, they'd have more clout in dealing with
> customers who want to behave stupidly.

You ignore the culture issue that it feels better without a condom. You need
to change or end transmission first as it is most cost effective to do that
first with the limited money that government has. People who do not feel
sick do not think they have HIV. They think that only dirty people get that.
Half of all the prostitutes in India have HIV and people are still paying
more money to have sex without a condom.
>
> >Some people don't even believe that it is caused by a virus like TC who
> >posts here. The side affects of drugs are so bad that it can make one
sick
> >as I should know as I was put on it for one month post exposure. Those
> >people would not stay on something so toxic.
>
> Darling, I work in HIV/AIDS. I have lost MANY friends to AIDS. HIV
> exists and causes AIDS. The drugs DO have many toxicities and we need
> better treatments. But they ALSO have helped keep many of my friends
> alive and do so to this day.
In the first world yes and as I have said it encourages people to be cynical
in that most feel they will get HIV and have ignored the old safe routines.
I saw in the news that one guy was filling criminal complaint on another man
who went on a cruise ship vacation together. The one man was HIV taking meds
but lied to his partner about him having HIV. The other guy discovered the
drugs and found out the truth and then tested positive himself several
months later.

>
> The fact that MANY other friends I have in developing nations cannot
> access them and die needlessly is a despicable crime against humanity.

Many people die of many conditions that could be treated effectively here in
the US. No MRI or CT or trauma care or intensive care. That goes all the way
down the line. Mothers die in child-birth. Lack of blood transfusions. You
are talking apples and oranges.

>
> >With hepatitis C the drugs are very expensive to produce and a lot of
> >testing is necessary including genotyping for the type of virus as not
all C
> >viruses are susceptible to that treatment. It has a poor cure rate in
those
> >people in general.
>
> Tell me about it. I'm living with hepatitis C, genotype 1A. It doesn't
> respond to treatment. I am managing the disease with "alternative"
> treatments. So far, it seems to be more successful while better
> therapy comes down the pike.
>
> >The health care system, social system and economic systems are different
in
> >third world countries that don't allow tons of money to be put in without
> >waste and corruption or the very least on education first.
>
> I agree with this.
>
> >>
> >> Actually, the statins are a class of drugs I think could be replaced
> >> with a combination therapy of less costly and less toxic compounds
> >> such as garlic, policosanols, possibly hawthorn, carnitine...
> >>
> >
> >And you can replace HIV drugs with condoms and education.
>
> No, you cannot. There is a well-established link between prevention
> and treatment. They are inextricably bound. People don't get tested if
> there is no reason to except be told you will die. If treatment is
> there, they get tested. Behaviors change more rapidly in such a case.
> BOTH are needed.
>
> >That is the only way to control HIV as drugs only allow one to live with
it
> >and spead it even more. You will not get compliance in third world
countries
> >and you will breed resistent strains. In gay communities now it's like
they
> >realize they are going to get infected anyway and it's no big deal since
> >they have drugs now to treat it and the infection rates are going up now
> >again. They are not practicing safe sex because of that. Tell the third
> >world that there is a drug to treat HIV and they will take full advantage
of
> >it by saying who cares if you get then. You encourage the spread.
>
> So millions should die because some part of the population, any
> populaton, may practice unsafe sex?? This is nonsense. And I happen to
> be gay. I know LOTS of people who practice safer sex and/or
> abstinence. I know MOST people are doing so. Indeed, there are some
> who do not but that is not a justification for actively preventing
> access to care and treatment.

In the third world it is not limited to gays so I am talking about cultural
issues that ARE PREVALENT as is the spread of the disease. To say that only
a few practice unsafe sex would result in only a few getting HIV. That is
not the case as many millions in the third world do not practice safe sex.
>
> >
> >You mention Bush being corrupt and guess what every government on this
earth
> >is corrupt. You can not justify the transfer of money from one country to
> >another and not have corruption involved.
>
> Corruption is indeed a serious issue!! No question. But there are
> indeed ways to circumvent it or simply bully countries into using it
> for their healthcare infrastructure. Instead, the US uses trade
> agreements to bully them into relinquishing their rights to use
> compulsory licenses.
>
> >The United Nations is involved in corruption with the food for oil
program
> >in Iraq. It is the largest corruption and money scammed the entire world
has
> >known.
>
> I am unaware of this so I can't comment. But Halliburton and other big
> companies seem to be the bigger problem in terms of corruption.
>
> >When ever you talk money then you speak corruption and greed.
>
> Yeah--well--and...do you see this as GOOD? Greed is NOT good for the
> very reasons you cite!!
>
> >You don't solve anything by throwing money at it. You have to study it
first
> >and then selectively use targeted money within the context of the social
> >structure. Look at Somalia where people were starving and the US brought
in
> >food. They were greeted with bullets.
>
> Look at Congo! Look at Nicaragua and El Salvador where the US
> supported far right wing regimes that are hideously corrupt in order
> to maintain corporate hegemony.
>
> I agree that money alone is not the solution to specific issues.
> Corruption arises because of Greed. I think, I hope you're coming to
> realize that greed has incredibly deleterious consequences??
>
> >You have a simplistic mind. Give everybody money and the ills of the
world
> >will be over. Well give everybody money and it instills greed and the
last
> >to get anything is the poor.
>
> I would argue that you are the one who began this interesting thread
> with the pernicious notion that greed is good. I think you are doing a
> fine job making the case for why it most certainly is not!

Greed as an incentive for drug companies is good. Giving money to someone
for nothing is unfruitful and only causes one to want more free money. Give
a person a fish and he eats for one day etc...........
>
> George M. Carter
>

Quantcast