Drug Company: What we've done for you lately.

RE:Hey, Doug! Taken any decongestants lately?

>See this interesting article in the LA Times about your

>buddies in the pharmaceutical industry!

Brilliant, Lucky, as always:

(1) The fact that there are some bad actors in Industry X does not mean that Industry X is corrupt. There are bad actors in every group. For instance, there are some gay men who molest children. Is this a reflection on gay men generally? Then why is the presence of some corruption by some pharmaceutical executives a reflection on the pharmaceutical industry generally?

(2) Every product has risks. Some airplanes crash. This is not a reason to ban airplanes. The fact that a certain cold medicine - which helps millions of individuals - causes a stroke in 1 out of every 2 million people who take it is not a reason to ban that medicine.

(3) Scientific causation is usually far from certain. You can find countless studies claiming to have found a link between Product X and Affliction Y which turned out to be completely wrong. The fact that drug companies don't immediately agree with every study which suggests some risk to the product hardly proves corruption. Sometimes these studies are quite wrong. Other times, they are correct but the drug companies believe in good faith that they were wrong. You have no idea which is true here.

(4) Even if this is evidence of corruption, and it very well may be, it does not in any way negate the great good that the pharmaceutical industry does for humanity. I am thankful that there are extremely talented scientists and researchers working day and night to find new treatments - and I am equally thankful that the executives of those companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the R&D to find those new treatments.

You can try to deny that you are thankful too, because as a liberal, you feel compelled to mindlessly attack corporations and to stupidly preach against profits. But actions speak louder than words, and your running to the drug store and scarfing down every pharmaceutical product you can find if your physical condition requires that is infinitely louder and more meaningful than the anti-drug-industry cliches you are puking up.

RE:Hey, Doug! Taken any decongestants lately?

"But actions speak louder than words, and your running to the drug store and scarfing down every pharmaceutical product you can find if your physical condition requires that is infinitely louder and more meaningful than the anti-drug-industry cliches you are puking up."

So that WAS you at the drugstore on Saturday? You're cuter than I thought.

But anyway, I didn't puke up this story. The LA Times did. People had strokes. People died. They didn't need to. But your buddies lied!

Why did they lie Doug?

Since this thread was started, GlaxoSmithKline is running two different PR spots. (At least on west coast TV.) No information. No real point. Just “We’re really good people.” kind of crap.

I hate to appear more dense than usual, but what connection am I missing? I thought the Medicare prescription coverage issue was settled for the year. Is this just election year BS or is there something pending before Congress? Are they in more hot water than usual?

>If the government negotiates the prices of drugs for medicare

>and medicare, veterans etc, it amounts to setting the price of

>the drugs, and once again will have the effect of discouraging

>or preventing research by limiting the funds available to the

>companies for that purpose.

I agree, many of the innovations in drug therapies have come from many US based companies or subsidiaries that do not have price controls. But there are others like GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Novartis AG, Aventis are from European countries that impose price controls in their countries and these are giant companies with BILLIONS in profits both here and abroad. If the US gov't i.e. taxpayers are subsidizing these large companies with early R&D work, tax credits, monopoly drug patents - why do they still have to pay full price for drugs even if they are the largest costumers? The drug companies already get a monopoly to sell their drugs, now you don't want their largest customers to negotiate pricing ... let the drug companies charge whatever they want? I would have less problems with the drug company if they poured most of their profits/revenues into R&D and not divert a lot of it into advertising and marketing.

The government does negotiate the

>price of vaccines and it has driven companies out of the

>business, so that we occasionally have shortages of vaccines.

threat of lawsuits from people are more likely the reason some companies have moved away from vaccines. Shortages like the flu vaccine was because of poor planning and because they picked the wrong strain.

>Importing the drugs back from Canada and Mexico, where prices

>are set by the government has the same effect of limiting the

>ability of companies to recover their investments.

CAPITALISM is another reason. The drug companies know they cannot sell their drugs at a higher price in Mexico because of the lower standard of living. Canada has price controls which they negotiated with the drug companies. It is not like the drug companies are hostages or unwilling partners. They accepted these deals and factored their profits when negotiating. They know the gov't can go to another company with a similar product profile if they cannot reach agreement.

Again, the mean is 18.5% return for the industry versus 3% from other S&P companies. These companies enjoy patents and drug exclusivity monopoly so the profits won't go away ... it's just a matter of how much profit.

Companies

>invest in advertising in an attempt to sell more drugs, and

>this has the effect of making it possible to sell the drugs at

>a lower price. When more units of a new drug are sold, the

>cost of research is spread over more units and the price can

>be lower.

bah. when is the last time drug prices went down? It "magically" happens when they lose their patents and generics pop up.

I wish the federal gov't would regulate advertising again.

These ads raise awareness but also increase confusion. People then go ask their doctors for something that may not be 1). medically necessary or 2). not appropriate for the problem.

I am always for people having more information but these 30sec ads are part of the problem in my opinion. A hidden side of the debate is the millions spent to "wine and dine" and educate doctors into prescribing a certain drug. That is a whole other can of worms.

Again, drug companies see profits in the chronic, lifestyle drugs. We get the cholesterol drugs but we also get the viagra clones. Multiple, 2 million dollar commercials for erectile dysfunction during the superbowl is IMO not a good use of the money.

Drug Company: What the hell are you trying to do for me?

Gosh I get into a tough stretch of school and I miss all kinds of things.. oh well I can come annoy people on here on my day off.

What I can't stand when I watch TV and see drug company commercials is that half the time they tell us how great a new drug is but leave no clue at all about what they are for. I remember a spot for vardenafil (levitra) where the only clue was that it helped you stay in the game. If you didn't already know what it was for how do you know if you need it? How many doctors had 16 year old boys that couldn't make a football team in their office right after the super bowl asking if levitra was right for them.

This happens so often it's become one of my pet peeves.

Also .. I'm very grateful for the advances that the drug industry seems to churn out time after time after time. I DO, however think that reform could help their image. As just one example, why not outlaw free food to doctors, drug lunches are more ubiquitous in health care then actual information about new drugs. I can't imagine too many groups of people besides doctors that have any less need for their food to be bought for them during the course of a work day, or who need to be brought to the best steakhouse in town to hear about how gloriously levofloxacin kills the nasties that cause pneumonia for the same amount of money in the long run that other standard therapies do. If this information is true a free filet mignon isn't going to make it any more true. I would be just kippy if all the money spent on food and gifts went toward researching more drugs that could make them more profits.

Gio in Denver

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"