Lipitor - availability?

On 1 Feb 2006 05:17:38 -0800, the renowned "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:01:40 GMT, the renowned michael
wrote:

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

The advantages of cooperating with a passive royalty collection system
for the rich countries do seem a bit dubious for the poorest
countries. Particularly when lives are concerned.

That billion dollars a year could well have been spent developing a
drug to cure malaria or AIDS or other disease. So how do the lives lost
by not developing drugs square with that philosophy?

I think they are FAR better off not paying.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Tchiowa wrote:

That billion dollars a year could well have been spent developing a
drug to cure malaria or AIDS or other disease. So how do the lives lost
by not developing drugs square with that philosophy?

pardon me for saying so, but even YOU don't believe that... and if you
in fact do, then there's about as much point arguing with you as with a
born-again... you're not one of those too, are you?

michael

michael wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

That billion dollars a year could well have been spent developing a
drug to cure malaria or AIDS or other disease. So how do the lives lost
by not developing drugs square with that philosophy?

pardon me for saying so, but even YOU don't believe that... and if you
in fact do, then there's about as much point arguing with you as with a
born-again... you're not one of those too, are you?

You've made it obvious from those remarks that you are some sort of
pseudo-Leninist nut case, but I'll try to explain it to you anyway.

Where do you think the money comes from to develop drugs? Do you really
think that the hippies grow money on their little communes while saving
money by not bathing?

Malaria and AIDS are the 2 diseases that big pharma would *love* to
develop cures for. Millions upon millions of customers, billions of
dollars of profit. So they take the profit from other drugs and invest
it trying to develop new drugs. Every time an illegal copy of a drug is
made it takes money away from investing in developing new drugs. This,
in turn, delays that development and people die because of that delay.

Take another toke and think about that for a bit.

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 05:17:38 -0800, the renowned "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:01:40 GMT, the renowned michael
wrote:

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

The advantages of cooperating with a passive royalty collection system
for the rich countries do seem a bit dubious for the poorest
countries. Particularly when lives are concerned.

That billion dollars a year could well have been spent developing a
drug to cure malaria or AIDS or other disease. So how do the lives lost
by not developing drugs square with that philosophy?

I think they are FAR better off not paying.

Clearly they are. But what about those who can't buy the drug to treat
their ailment because it hasn't been developed yet because of the last
group of people who had that short-sighted view? They are a whole lot
worse off.

This type of fraud and thievery is worse than most because it kills
people. Lots of people. It kills people who buy the fake drugs (either
from failure to get appropriate treatment or from contamination of the
product) and it kills people who would benefit from the *next* drug
that will be delayed because of the loss of development capital.

On 3 Feb 2006 20:26:21 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 05:17:38 -0800, the renowned "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:01:40 GMT, the renowned michael
wrote:

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

The advantages of cooperating with a passive royalty collection system
for the rich countries do seem a bit dubious for the poorest
countries. Particularly when lives are concerned.

That billion dollars a year could well have been spent developing a
drug to cure malaria or AIDS or other disease. So how do the lives lost
by not developing drugs square with that philosophy?

I think they are FAR better off not paying.

Clearly they are. But what about those who can't buy the drug to treat
their ailment because it hasn't been developed yet because of the last
group of people who had that short-sighted view? They are a whole lot
worse off.

What do you expect people to do if they're not rich enough to buy the
genuine medicines needed to save their lives? They don't have the
luxury of being able to take a long-term view. Should they just lie
down and die?

Chris

Tchiowa wrote:

You've made it obvious from those remarks that you are some sort of
pseudo-Leninist nut case, but I'll try to explain it to you anyway.

hmmm... your inability to "think" in anything but the broadest
stereotypical terms and the articles of ideological faith make this a
waste of time, but, hey, i've got some to waste, so what the hell...
some of us are actually able to support and prefer capitalism without
having to pretend that it's perfect...

Where do you think the money comes from to develop drugs? Do you really
think that the hippies grow money on their little communes while saving
money by not bathing?

you do realize that the year is 2006, yes?

Malaria and AIDS are the 2 diseases that big pharma would *love* to
develop cures for. Millions upon millions of customers, billions of
dollars of profit. So they take the profit from other drugs and invest
it trying to develop new drugs. Every time an illegal copy of a drug is
made it takes money away from investing in developing new drugs. This,
in turn, delays that development and people die because of that delay.

uh-huh... think of the billions of dollars all those malaria victims in
the developed world would pour into the pharmaceuticals' pockets! and
sub-saharan africans would stop buying mercedes and divert all that
liquidity directly into aids cures for themselves if only people would
respect the government-led curtailment of competitive capitalism that
protects big pharma...

it is, of course, just coincidence that the two most profitable
drug-types in the canon are anti-depressants and erectile dysfunction
"cures"... the money spent on these "developments" is greater than the
budgets of most countries where malaria and aids are major problems...
so is the profit diverted into shareholder pockets from these drugs...
can you take all that in?

Take another toke and think about that for a bit.

if i thought you could think, i'd suggest trying it yourself... maybe
lay off the hooch for a month or two?


michael

Chris Blunt wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 20:26:21 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 05:17:38 -0800, the renowned "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:01:40 GMT, the renowned michael
wrote:

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

The advantages of cooperating with a passive royalty collection system
for the rich countries do seem a bit dubious for the poorest
countries. Particularly when lives are concerned.

That billion dollars a year could well have been spent developing a
drug to cure malaria or AIDS or other disease. So how do the lives lost
by not developing drugs square with that philosophy?

I think they are FAR better off not paying.

Clearly they are. But what about those who can't buy the drug to treat
their ailment because it hasn't been developed yet because of the last
group of people who had that short-sighted view? They are a whole lot
worse off.

What do you expect people to do if they're not rich enough to buy the
genuine medicines needed to save their lives? They don't have the
luxury of being able to take a long-term view. Should they just lie
down and die?

If enough people take that view then they won't have to worry about it
because the drug won't be developed so they get to die anyway.

You don't have to be "rich" to buy most drugs. And most drugs that are
being faked are not drugs that fall into either the "buy it or die" or
the "have to be rich to afford it" categories. They fall into the "easy
to fake and very popular so the counterfeiters can make enormous
profits" category.

The other answer to your question is that this is where governments
*do* have a responsibility to help. But that help should be provided by
purchasing the drugs and supplying them not by turning a blind eye to
thievery.

And while individuals may not be able to take the long term view, those
in charge should. I don't by into the argument that we should do what
we can to save 100 people today even though we know it will kill 10,000
people tomorrow.

Another example on a different line of thought might be the Ethiopia
famines. Western governments responded to the first big one by passing
out tons of food. Result? Thousands of lives were saved. Other result?
The market for wheat collapsed so farmers shifted to cotton. Can't eat
cotton plus it is very hard on the soil. A few years later this
resulted in an even bigger famine that killed millions.

So was passing out the food originally a good thing or a bad thing?

michael wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

You've made it obvious from those remarks that you are some sort of
pseudo-Leninist nut case, but I'll try to explain it to you anyway.

hmmm... your inability to "think" in anything but the broadest
stereotypical terms and the articles of ideological faith make this a
waste of time, but, hey, i've got some to waste, so what the hell...
some of us are actually able to support and prefer capitalism without
having to pretend that it's perfect...

You are the one who started the "stereotype" routine. If you don't like
the results, don't start in the first place.

Where do you think the money comes from to develop drugs? Do you really
think that the hippies grow money on their little communes while saving
money by not bathing?

you do realize that the year is 2006, yes?

I do. But your incredibly naive comments in your response indicate that
you don't.

Malaria and AIDS are the 2 diseases that big pharma would *love* to
develop cures for. Millions upon millions of customers, billions of
dollars of profit. So they take the profit from other drugs and invest
it trying to develop new drugs. Every time an illegal copy of a drug is
made it takes money away from investing in developing new drugs. This,
in turn, delays that development and people die because of that delay.

uh-huh... think of the billions of dollars all those malaria victims in
the developed world would pour into the pharmaceuticals' pockets! and
sub-saharan africans would stop buying mercedes and divert all that
liquidity directly into aids cures for themselves if only people would
respect the government-led curtailment of competitive capitalism that
protects big pharma...

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.

it is, of course, just coincidence that the two most profitable
drug-types in the canon are anti-depressants and erectile dysfunction
"cures"... the money spent on these "developments" is greater than the
budgets of most countries where malaria and aids are major problems...

Wrong on 2 counts. First, the money spent developing ED drugs was
exactly *ZERO*. Viagra was an accident. It was discovered as a
side-effect to a drug being developed for other purposes. Second, the
budgets of even the poorest African countries exceed the development
budgets of any major pharma corp.

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?

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

USA: 5274; Canada: 2931

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

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...

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?

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...


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?



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...


michael

"michael" wrote in message
news:W%qFf.561186$ki.453583@pd7tw2no...
get a clue, little fella...naivety is in the eye of the
beholder...


michael


******It's almost embarassing watching Tchiowa getting
his arse kicked again and again.........:-)

I have a sneaking suspicion he likes it deep
down.......Humiliation that is.
Takes all kinds to make a world huh?

;-)