Not sure what it was about my message that triggered your outburst. I was challenging druginfodude's assertion that generic Paxil is "not chemically equivalent" to the original. If it were not equivalent, it could not be approved for sale in the US by the FDA, which in fact it has. Thus, I was, in fact, supporting your position regarding generics. I am not as rabid about attacking big pharma profits as you are, because I believe that profits in this area are necessary if drug discovery is to continue. So, I suggest that in the future you slow down a bit, read the entire message, and think about the contents before pulling the trigger on your e-mail. And for your health and safety, I urge you to stop buying non-approved "drugs." Without strict controls on content, storage and manufacturing processes, you will eventually receive something that is useless at best and harmful at worst.
Iamarep, please refer to my last posted message. In reference to the entitlemnet question I do not think that patented drugs are an entitlement. You can get an ace inhibitor, a beta blocker, asthma meds, anti depressants, now statins, at generic prices. Is it the pharma companies fault that they can drive demand and the docs, government, employers or pts can not say no. The public, including many of the docs, are sheep. You are just a dope.
Come on lets hear your rebuttal to the MAG Report??????
Take it page by page, paragraph by paragraph and quote sentence by sentence ... rip it apart!!!
GSK shills where are youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu??????????
Come on mar88, don't be selfish. Please tell us who and what your sources for these incredible "facts" that you post. While you're at it can you tell us if there are any more open positions in your department at the National Enquirer?
That deal is not going away anytime soon. For it to go away and for prices to be lowered would effect many economies on a large scale. Countries have socialized medicine for the most part. The countries that have fixxed prices on their drugs, which is every country except for the USA, will not just allow drug companies to raise their prices any time they wish to. That means that the USA will pay the bill for all other countries. Thats the way it is now and that is the way it will always be because the drug companies are making sure of this in their lobbying efforts and fund raisers. Soon all states will be getting their drugs for their states from Canada. Dont think for one minute that drug companies dont want you to get your drugs from Canada. They still make a lot of money by ALLOWING you to get them from Canada. That is right, I said the drug companies are allowing you to get them from Canada. Its a big fake going on out there folks. We are led to believe that drug companies are pissed off that people are getting their drugs from Canada. This is not the case. The fact is that most drug companies want you to get your drugs any way you can. They realize that you need them and you will get them anywhere you have to. If they really wanted to stop the Canada companies from selling to you on the Internet or through one of thosse store fronts popping up all over they could do it in a heart beat. Other countries as well as USA are controlled by big pharma too. They get a sweet deal from these drug companies and they are willing to do whatever big pharma says to make sure that we keep the system the way it is. The reason it isn't changed and its all talk is because the drug companies like it this way. They want you to get your drugs from them and they dont care what country you get them in.
You can compare their levels of investment in R&D and their returns on those investments irrespective of what the products are.
It just shows that investors will put money in companies that spend more on R&D than Big Pharma even though the returns are much smaller.
Big Pharma has the best deal around...oligarchic and monopolistic pricing enforced by the police power of the state.
But guess what? That deal's going away because the country simply can not AFFORD it any more.
So lets say HP develops a new printer technology, spends maybe $10-20 million developing it, and they're granted a patent on the new printer technology. They hit it the first time around - maybe even the 10th time - but not the once in 100 tries like a pharmaceutical product. How quickly do they get it to market? Pretty quick, right? They don't have to do extensive clinical studies and win FDA approval do they? So, how much of the 17 year patent life do the get to enjoy before someone can legally copy their product? Pretty close to all 17 years right? Then can they sell that printer in most of the free world without waiting for each country to approve it as safe? Sure they can, right? Let's also not forget about the trial attorneys circling either. Will HP get sued to because their product didn't work 100% perfectly every time or if the user doesn't follow the instructions? Not likely is it? So with all this, how can one compare a technology company in the IT industry to pharmaceutical industry? The risks of each of these businesses are as different as the products they manufacture. Comparing apples to oranges proves nothing.
HP is simply a company I'm familiar with that relies on research and development. If you looked at most technology companies in the IT industry you would see similar results.
It just points up that you do not lose investment or innovation at far lower profitability levels. This is the main defense of Big Pharma and it is bullshit.
<<Do you know how much a company like GSK spends on R&D?" -- Industry average of the ten largest pharma companies is 12.5% of revenue. Pretax net income of the ten largest pharma companies is 26%...in otherwords they could have spent three times as much on R&D and still made a profit. (Average pretax net income of Fortune 500 - 3%.>>
So now they're being slammed for spending too little on R & D? That's after all the support given to generics who spend zip? And who decided they needed to make the average pretax? That 3% includes huge losers and profitable, well run companies. Are you suggesting all companies seek the lowest common denominator? Being compared to HP's 3% return is not exactly a complement, what makes them the gold standard of companies?
You ackowledge the difficulty in discovering and developing drugs (1 out of 100 make it). Let the market dictate their pricing, but give them the very short period of patent protection needed to recover their risk with a return worth the risk