Lipitor - availability?

"michael" wrote in message
newsZKDf.391210$2k.153492@pd7tw1no...
RAK wrote:

Fake medicines rob legitimate companies of around $1 billion a year.

ahhhh.... poor pharmaceuticals industry.... how can they survive being
"robbed" of a whole billion every year? bad india! bad!


michael

I did not see your reply until today, sorry.
I would like to point out that I, RAK, did not write the above, I quoted it
it from the BBC, and tried to make that clear in my posting. My posting was
mostly about the useless and dangerous type of fake drugs, but you have only
quoted one sentence which is not represenatative of what I wrote or quoted.
Unfortunately that was probably not clear to the people who replied to the
above.

And I am inclined to agree with you on the issue if they are making
effective generics in breach of patent, but not if they make non-working
drug, whether under fake labels or not.

michael wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

Not billions. Tens of billions. And, yes, that kind of money exists in
Africa. As someone who has lived in sub-Saharan Africa for close to a
decade (roughly half of my time over the last 2 decades in Nigeria, DR
Congo, Angola, Congo, Benin) I can tell you that there is already a
multi-billion dollar market for drugs to alleviate the symptoms of
malaria and that the governments already spend tens of billions of
dollars a year treating malaria and that they would just *love* to
spend half of that preventing it.

Per Capita Total Expenditure on Health:

Nigeria: 43; DR Congo 14; Angola 92; Congo: 25; Benin 44

Now add up the populations of those countries, and don't forget to
include the rest of the countries in Africa and that comes to tens of
billions of dollars. Nigeria has close to 150 million people itself.

Then add in what the WHO and other agencies spend.

Of course let's not forget that malaria is not just an African disease,
so include what Asia spends.

Tens of billions? Easy!

USA: 5274; Canada: 2931

There are times when I read something that someone posted and wonder if
I'm in the right thread? What does this have to do with any of the
topics being discussed????

do the math...these governments spend "tens of billions of dollars a
year treating malaria"? not on this planet...

I did. You clearly didn't.

i'm sure big pharma is just dyin' to exploit these markets where you've
lived... Angola, the one with the highest per capita expenditure on
health, has an annual budget of $9 billion... total annual sales of
SSRIs come in at around 5 or 6 billion, erection drugs do around 3
billion, Lipitor breaks 10... around 50% of big pharma's sales are in
the NA market...

Again, add up all of the countries. Not just a couple, all.

when i said "money spent", i meant sales... i didn't phrase that
clearly... i also didn't know that big pharma's big money was in drugs
for the fat these days... another reason for them to lust after the
african market in your delusional system?

Profit. Pure and simple.

your suggestion that losses incurred due to "illegal" generics are
keeping big pharma from developing malaria and aids drugs for sub-sharan
africa is absurd on the face of it...

Where do you think the money comes from to develop new drugs? I asked
that before but you didn't respond. Let me help you. It comes from the
profits on existing drugs. Profits that are reduced by the illegal
fakes. Reduced in 2 ways. 1: Loss of sales due to people buying fakes
thinking that they are real. 2: Loss of sales due to loss of patients
confidence in the product when the fakes (that they think are real)
don't perform.

And I did *not* say that it was keeping malaria drugs from being
invented. But it is unquestionably delaying development of malaria
drugs. And malaria is just one example. This kind of theft delays *all*
development of *all* drugs.


so is the profit diverted into shareholder pockets from these drugs...
can you take all that in?


Do you realize how naive that statement is?

Once again, I am trying to figure out what you are reading. I state
that counterfeiting is sapping money from development. You make a
comment about profit being *diverted* into shareholder's pockets.
That's an absurd statement on its face. First because that is the
purpose of profit. Second because most profit is pumped back into R&D.

Or are you still thinking that hippies are growing money in People's
Park in Berkeley?

But then you post an article that says that during the 2001 stock
market downturnwhen the tech bubble burst big pharma didn't suffer as
much as other areas.

And the relevance of that to what was being discussed is..........?????

Does it prove that profit is not being damaged by counterfeiting? No.
Does is prove that profits are going to shareholders pockets rather
than R&D? No. Does it have any relevance to either of those issues in
any way, shape, or form? No.

Why didn't you post a movie review of "Narnia" while you were at it? It
bears just about as much relevance.

Daily Health Policy Report
Prescription Drugs | Pharmaceutical Industry Ranks as 'Most Profitable'
in 'Fortune 500'
[Apr 20, 2001]

The pharmaceutical industry has proved "largely immune to the
economic gyrations" that shook several other industries this year,
making the industry "more profitable than any other," according to the
new "Fortune 500" rankings. Fortune reports that the introduction of new
pharmaceuticals and increased sales of patented "blockbuster" drugs
helped create "a steady stream of revenues" for drug makers. The drug
industry was the most profitable sector in 2000, posting an 18.6% return
on revenues and a 17.7% return on assets. The pharmaceutical industry
was ranked second in return on shareholders' equity, with a 29.4% profit
rate. Merck & Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb both ranked among the
magazine's 20 most profitable companies. Merck took 11th place with $6.8
billion in profits and Bristol-Myers Squibb finished 19th with profits
of $4.7 billion. Pfizer, which saw its revenues rise 82.5% last year,
ranked fourth in overall market value with $243.2 billion. Amgen, Eli
Lilly, Schering-Plough and Bristol-Myers Squibb all ranked among the top
20 companies producing the largest return on revenues. Within the drug
industry, Merck posted the largest total revenue with $40.3 billion,
followed by Pfizer with $29.5 billion, Johnson & Johnson with $29.1
billion, Bristol-Myers Squibb with $21.3 billion and Pharmacia with
$18.1 billion.

get a clue, little fella...naivety is in the eye of the beholder...

So is whatever fantasy is driving you.

The pharmas had an 18.6% return on revenues? Yeah. So?

Here's some basic math for you. If the pharmas had an 18.6% return on
revenues but revenues were down, say, 5 billions because of fakes then
that's nearly a billion dollars a year diverted from R&D for malaria,
AIDS, cancer, heart disease and every other kind of drug research (good
and bad) and into the hands of a criminal element.

There aren't very many people who would think that is a good thing.
Other than you, obviously.

Unless you can answer the question above (and from a previous post) as
to where the money is coming for development of new drugs (if it's not
coming from pharma profits) then you are stuck admitting that the point
I made is clear and simple: theft from counterfeiting delays drugs
development and therefore kills people.

Tchiowa wrote:

Now add up the populations of those countries, and don't forget to
include the rest of the countries in Africa and that comes to tens of
billions of dollars. Nigeria has close to 150 million people itself.

those figures were for *Total* expenditure on health, not just for
drugs, and not just for malaria treatment... 150,000,000 X 43 = 6.45
billion... sorry Dr. Math, we are not going to reach "tens of billions
of dollars a year treating malaria"...

Then add in what the WHO and other agencies spend.

Of course let's not forget that malaria is not just an African disease,
so include what Asia spends.

yeah, let's... asia-africa-australasia (minus japan) represents 8% of
big pharma's sales... i can tell from your "response" that you don't
see the relevance of this or comparative figures of any kind...
fortunately for stockholders in big pharma, you are not directing their
research (the search for profit is)...

you have a better day now, and try to forget that hippie that made you
feel so bad back in the day...


michael

michael wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

Now add up the populations of those countries, and don't forget to
include the rest of the countries in Africa and that comes to tens of
billions of dollars. Nigeria has close to 150 million people itself.

those figures were for *Total* expenditure on health, not just for
drugs, and not just for malaria treatment... 150,000,000 X 43 = 6.45
billion... sorry Dr. Math, we are not going to reach "tens of billions
of dollars a year treating malaria"...

Did I say tens of billions in Nigeria? No. I said tens of billions,
period. And in response to your question pointed out that there is big
money in Africa. If you take the Nigeria number and then include *ALL*
of Africa (which I pointed out and you conveniently snipped) then it is
tens of billions. And (as I also pointed out) you add what the WHO
spends and what gets spent on the same diseases in Asia then tens of
billions is reached easily.

Then add in what the WHO and other agencies spend.

Of course let's not forget that malaria is not just an African disease,
so include what Asia spends.

yeah, let's... asia-africa-australasia (minus japan) represents 8% of
big pharma's sales... i can tell from your "response" that you don't
see the relevance of this or comparative figures of any kind...
fortunately for stockholders in big pharma, you are not directing their
research (the search for profit is)...

Yes, they are searching for profit. That's what keeps them going. They
make profit by developing drugs. Do you find that difficult to accept?

you have a better day now, and try to forget that hippie that made you
feel so bad back in the day...

There were a lot of hippies "back in the day". Most of us grew up. Some
still hold on to their immature view of life. Some of them don't even
understand that you need money to develop drugs. Some of them can't
cope with the fact that if you steal money from those who are
developing drugs it takes them longer to develop them. A few can't
grasp the fact that if you delay development of life-saving drugs you
are killing people.

Sound like anyone we know?

I've asked you twice and you've snipped twice. Maybe third time's a
charm. Where do you suppose the drug companies get the money to develop
drugs?

I think the reason that you snip this and never respond is that you
realize that if you acknowledge that the money for development comes
from revenue from existing drugs then you are forced to acknowledge
that stripping revenue by counterfeiting slows down drug development
and thus proves my point.

So do you think you'll actually answer? Or maybe just accept that you
jumped into a thread without thinking about it first and maybe you
should have let your keyboard rest.