MARTIN Shkreli aka ‘Pharma Bro’ has been jailed

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:56 am

First topic message reminder :

MARTIN Shkreli aka ‘Pharma Bro’ has been jailed over Facebook posts in which he offered $US5,000 in exchange for a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair.

The convicted fraudster was declared a “danger to society” by a US federal judge on Wednesday and jailed over the provocative social media posts.

Despite a grovelling letter from the 34-year-old former pharmaceutical chief executive, in which he claimed that the social media status was an “awkward attempt at humour or satire,” Brooklyn federal court judge Kiyo Matsumoto revoked his $US5 million bond and ordered him thrown behind bars.

Prosecutors asked the judge to lock up Shkreli following a since-deleted Facebook status in which he told followers he’d pay $US5,000 for a strand of Clinton’s locks.

The creepy joke, the climax of a series of other postings in which he seemed to suggest he intended to clone the former Secretary of State, was scrubbed from his account after Shkreli was contacted by the secret service.

“On HRC’s book tour, try and grab a hair from her,” he wrote on September 4. “I must confirm the sequences I have. Will pay $5,000 per hair obtained from Hillary Clinton.”
In a September 12 letter to the court, Shkreli apologised for the status, which he called an “awkward attempt at humour or satire,” and said he never intended to “threaten” HRC.

But the judge wasn’t buying it, and ordered the marshals to take him into custody.

Shkreli was convicted of defrauding hedge fund investors in early August, and faces up to 20 years behind bars when sentenced.

Ahead of the trial, he was so hated that the judge had to discharge more than 200 jurors, who admitted to despising him over his actions as chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals.

Shkreli made headlines around the world as the “most hated man in America” after buying the rights to a lifesaving cancer and AIDS drug and jacking up the price by 5000 per cent.

In the hours after jurors returned the mixed verdict, he announced on a Facebook lifestream that prison — which he called “Club Fed” — wouldn’t be that bad.

“I’ll play basketball and tennis and Xbox,” he mused.

Shkreli will now languish in “Club Fed” for an untold period of time, as a sentencing date has yet to be set.

”F — the government,” Shkreli wrote on Facebook after prosecutors filed a motion asking the judge to revoke his hefty bond.

“I will never kiss their ring or snitch. Come at me with your hardest because I haven’t seen anything impressive yet.”

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/pharma-bro-jailed-after-judge-declares-him-a-danger-to-society/news-story/c48012e09cd9b85530641d177afda657

MARTIN Shkreli aka ‘Pharma Bro’ has been jailed - Page 2 4007186462

by Original Quill Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The issue is not with the pharmaceutical end. It should be illegal do do such a frivolous thing as gambling (risk), with such an important thing as medicines and healthcare.

The stock market is a gaming house. Healthcare and pharmaceuticals are lifesaving endeavors. The stock market should not be allowed to truck and trade in lives.

In what way was he gambling with it? Most pharma companies have shares, so do you think they should be banned from having them? Where would they get their funding?

Socialism is not, technically, a government running business. Socialism is defined as allowing the worker (in this case, physicians and PhD's) to own their own tools. But when tooling requires substantial investment, in the post-industrial world, I suppose that government or some sort of Worker's Council (such as they had in Czechoslovakia in 1968) should fund the initial investment.

Shares? Market? Cheap, bawdy gambling houses! We should protect our precious infrastructure from the untoward influence of gaming. We tend to accept such things as stock markets as normal, yet we hold cock-fighting as wrong. However, they are both the same thing...put a product into the ring and bet on which will win.

We ought to care about our own health as much as we care about that rooster.

by Raggamuffin Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

In what way was he gambling with it? Most pharma companies have shares, so do you think they should be banned from having them? Where would they get their funding?

Socialism is not, technically, a government running business. Socialism is defined as allowing the worker (in this case, physicians and PhD's) to own their own tools. But when tooling requires substantial investment, in the post-industrial world, I suppose that government or some sort of Worker's Council (such as they had in Czechoslovakia in 1968) should fund the initial investment.

Shares? Market? Cheap, bawdy gambling houses! We should protect our precious infrastructure from the untoward influence of gaming. We tend to accept such things as stock markets as normal, yet we hold cock-fighting as wrong. However, they are both the same thing...put a product into the ring and bet on which will win.

We ought to care about our own health as much as we care about that rooster.

Where should pharma companies get their funding from then? They need money to discover new drugs and test them for years before they even close to marketing them. They often fail too. Who do you think should pay for all that?

by Original Quill Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Socialism is not, technically, a government running business. Socialism is defined as allowing the worker (in this case, physicians and PhD's) to own their own tools. But when tooling requires substantial investment, in the post-industrial world, I suppose that government or some sort of Worker's Council (such as they had in Czechoslovakia in 1968) should fund the initial investment.

Shares? Market? Cheap, bawdy gambling houses! We should protect our precious infrastructure from the untoward influence of gaming. We tend to accept such things as stock markets as normal, yet we hold cock-fighting as wrong. However, they are both the same thing...put a product into the ring and bet on which will win.

We ought to care about our own health as much as we care about that rooster.

Where should pharma companies get their funding from then? They need money to discover new drugs and test them for years before they even close to marketing them. They often fail too. Who do you think should pay for all that?

Well, of course that's the great dilemma of socialism. The problem comes about because of economies of scale associated with the onslaught of industrialism. Tools are no longer hammers and chisels, but factories and machinery. Hence, along comes capitalism to prey on the meat of the system, changed as it is.

One alternative is government. That's what Britain has done with it's NHS.

Another alternative is pooling, which was the communist alternative. Here is where we see that the Soviet Union was never a communist system, for when Czechoslovakia tried to replace government with worker councils in 1968, we saw the Soviets come in with tanks and guns, revealing that the Soviet Union was actually opposed to true communism. It was only a totalitarian system.

True socialism is a delicate balance. I favor initial government capitalization, thereafter leaving it to the practitioners to own their own tools. I like the idea of workers councils for collective ownership of a given industry.

by Raggamuffin Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Where should pharma companies get their funding from then? They need money to discover new drugs and test them for years before they even close to marketing them. They often fail too. Who do you think should pay for all that?

Well, of course that's the great dilemma of socialism. The problem comes about because of economies of scale associated with the onslaught of industrialism. Tools are no longer hammers and chisels, but factories and machinery. Hence, along comes capitalism to prey on the meat of the system, changed as it is.

One alternative is government. That's what Britain has done with it's NHS.

Another alternative is pooling, which was the communist alternative. Here is where we see that the Soviet Union was never a communist system, for when Czechoslovakia tried to replace government with worker councils in 1968, we saw the Soviets come in with tanks and guns, revealing that the Soviet Union was actually opposed to true communism. It was only a totalitarian system.

True socialism is a delicate balance. I favor initial government capitalization, thereafter leaving it to the practitioners to own their own tools. I like the idea of workers councils for collective ownership of a given industry.

Let's stick to the point. It can cost billions of dollars to bring a drug to market from start to finish. Do you think the tax payers should pay for that?

by veya_victaous Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:48 am

@rags
Yes, and the cost would be greatly reduced in doing so.
the idea that private companies make it more efficient is bullshit.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:04 am

veya_victaous wrote:@rags
Yes, and the cost would be greatly reduced in doing so.
the idea that private companies make it more efficient is bullshit.

Oh, I totally agree. That old spook tale that private industry is more efficient is absolute bullshite. Market economies seek profit, not efficiency. The bigger the profit, the more profligate they become. Hell, they're only human...

The idea that private industry is more efficient than government comes from the notion in Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, that in pure laissez-faire economies, everyone falls to the level of subsistence, and in order to eat they will be forced to thin out costs.

Adam Smith misunderstood human motivation. People will not strive to compete, but to monopolize. That's the basic flaw of free-market economy: competition breeds winners; winners wipe each other out; when there's one and only one left, there's monopoly. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. People look for the edge, and when they find it they will exploit it until they have it completely.

As far as bringing a drug to market is concerned, there is so much surplus profit being made at each level, that, it's why drugs are so expensive. Profit is not a function of labor...but of labor + surplus value. Surplus value is whatever the market will bear.

Indeed, the Pharmas will sell the customer on the idea that if he doesn't pay the price, he will die. Making the product more essential and life-giving, enhances the profit. They are literally holding you for ransom, and selling your own body back to you. That is why distributing healthcare and pharmaceuticals via the market is unconscionable.

by veya_victaous Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:48 am

have a green, well explained Wink

by 'Wolfie Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:51 pm

It must be remembered that scumbags like Shrkeli are not entrepreneurs, developers, scientists or innovators...

10, 15 or 20% might be considered a normal level of "profit" for many businesses -- however, a 5000% markup on a product that he had NO part in developing ??? Scum like him should be taken out the back and shot..

He is nothing more than a thieving, greedy, opportunistic, corporate stripping, job destroying, investor fleecing, market-manipulating, anti-social, grub's arsehole..

The sad fact that we will see that amoral nongs such as the likes of Raggs, Smelly', Deano, NITwit, Tommy and their fellow travellers actually look on such corporate crim's as somebody to champion and look up to ? That definetly speaks volumes about them..

by Original Quill Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:36 pm

Wolf wrote:The sad fact that we will see that amoral nongs such as the likes of Raggs, Smelly', Deano, NITwit, Tommy and their fellow travellers actually look on such corporate crim's as somebody to champion and look up to ? That definetly speaks volumes about them..

I have to defend them, somewhat...but it's only with faint praise. They are the victims...twice. They buy into the system; and they also buy the pharmaceuticals at rip-off prices.

This is what John Stuart Mill meant when he said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative." Many who support free market ideas abstractly, have no idea that, so far from supporting opportunity, they are supporting oligarchy. They know not what they vote for.

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:34 pm

veya_victaous wrote:@rags
Yes, and the cost would be greatly reduced in doing so.
the idea that private companies make it more efficient is bullshit.

The cost wouldn't necessarily be reduced because the Government would have to recoup the money spent somehow. They might also lose a lot of money for all the failed drugs trials, and then the public would be moaning about that.

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:37 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It must be remembered that scumbags like Shrkeli are not entrepreneurs, developers, scientists or innovators...

10, 15 or 20% might be considered a normal level of "profit" for many businesses -- however, a 5000% markup on a product that he had NO part in developing ??? Scum like him should be taken out the back and shot..

He is nothing more than a thieving, greedy, opportunistic, corporate stripping, job destroying, investor fleecing, market-manipulating, anti-social, grub's arsehole..

The sad fact that we will see that amoral nongs such as the likes of Raggs, Smelly', Deano, NITwit, Tommy and their fellow travellers actually look on such corporate crim's as somebody to champion and look up to ? That definetly speaks volumes about them..

Where are your morals Wolfboy? You sit here day after day trolling the forum, abusing members, and generally being a moron.

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Wolf wrote:The sad fact that we will see that amoral nongs such as the likes of Raggs, Smelly', Deano, NITwit, Tommy and their fellow travellers actually look on such corporate crim's as somebody to champion and look up to ? That definetly speaks volumes about them..

I have to defend them, somewhat...but it's only with faint praise. They are the victims...twice. They buy into the system; and they also buy the pharmaceuticals at rip-off prices.

This is what John Stuart Mill meant when he said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative." Many who support free market ideas abstractly, have no idea that, so far from supporting opportunity, they are supporting oligarchy. They know not what they vote for.

No I don't - I pay the prescription charge price. Actually, I pay less because I have a pre-payment card. Just remember where I live - it's not in the USA.

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:@rags
Yes, and the cost would be greatly reduced in doing so.
the idea that private companies make it more efficient is bullshit.

Oh, I totally agree. That old spook tale that private industry is more efficient is absolute bullshite. Market economies seek profit, not efficiency. The bigger the profit, the more profligate they become. Hell, they're only human...

The idea that private industry is more efficient than government comes from the notion in Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, that in pure laissez-faire economies, everyone falls to the level of subsistence, and in order to eat they will be forced to thin out costs.

Adam Smith misunderstood human motivation. People will not strive to compete, but to monopolize. That's the basic flaw of free-market economy: competition breeds winners; winners wipe each other out; when there's one and only one left, there's monopoly. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. People look for the edge, and when they find it they will exploit it until they have it completely.

As far as bringing a drug to market is concerned, there is so much surplus profit being made at each level, that, it's why drugs are so expensive. Profit is not a function of labor...but of labor + surplus value. Surplus value is whatever the market will bear.

Indeed, the Pharmas will sell the customer on the idea that if he doesn't pay the price, he will die. Making the product more essential and life-giving, enhances the profit. They are literally holding you for ransom, and selling your own body back to you. That is why distributing healthcare and pharmaceuticals via the market is unconscionable.

Drugs are expensive at first because they're patented. This allows the pharma company to recoup the money they spent developing the drug - they're not profiting from the development stage. If they weren't patented, no company would bother to develop them because they couldn't get back the money they spent. Any Government would have to make a new drug expensive too otherwise they'd make huge losses on the money they spent - the tax payers' money.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Oh, I totally agree. That old spook tale that private industry is more efficient is absolute bullshite. Market economies seek profit, not efficiency. The bigger the profit, the more profligate they become. Hell, they're only human...

The idea that private industry is more efficient than government comes from the notion in Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, that in pure laissez-faire economies, everyone falls to the level of subsistence, and in order to eat they will be forced to thin out costs.

Adam Smith misunderstood human motivation. People will not strive to compete, but to monopolize. That's the basic flaw of free-market economy: competition breeds winners; winners wipe each other out; when there's one and only one left, there's monopoly. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. People look for the edge, and when they find it they will exploit it until they have it completely.

As far as bringing a drug to market is concerned, there is so much surplus profit being made at each level, that, it's why drugs are so expensive. Profit is not a function of labor...but of labor + surplus value. Surplus value is whatever the market will bear.

Indeed, the Pharmas will sell the customer on the idea that if he doesn't pay the price, he will die. Making the product more essential and life-giving, enhances the profit. They are literally holding you for ransom, and selling your own body back to you. That is why distributing healthcare and pharmaceuticals via the market is unconscionable.

Drugs are expensive at first because they're patented.

I have several patents for books I have written. Patents cost $35.00, and a postage stamp to send the manuscript to the Patent Office.

Raggamuffin wrote: This allows the pharma company to recoup the money they spent developing the drug - they're not profiting from the development stage.

The Pharmas do not develop any drugs. They are developed mostly by university researchers, and occasionally by government offices (but, then there other patent issues when the government is involved). The Pharmas rush to get a share of the money, by buying into the product. The researcher gets a windfall of money and doesn't have to distribute the product, which is not his expertise.

Pharmas are basically money operations. They have cash. They allow the universities and Foundations to fund the research. Then they buy interests in the finished product. Then they force the product into profitable markets, then sit back and reap the money.

Raggamuffin wrote:If they weren't patented, no company would bother to develop them because they couldn't get back the money they spent. Any Government would have to make a new drug expensive too otherwise they'd make huge losses on the money they spent - the tax payers' money.

I have no quarrel with patent laws. I have quarrel only with the money transaction to force the product to go by way of the market exchange, and thereby withhold it for profit...which is essentially the role of Pharmas.

Socialized medicine would correct all that.

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Drugs are expensive at first because they're patented.

I have several patents for books I have written. Patents cost $35.00, and a postage stamp to send the manuscript to the Patent Office.

Raggamuffin wrote: This allows the pharma company to recoup the money they spent developing the drug - they're not profiting from the development stage.

The Pharmas do not develop any drugs. They are developed mostly by university researchers, and occasionally by government offices (but, then there other patent issues when the government is involved). The Pharmas rush to get a share of the money, by buying into the product. The researcher gets a windfall of money and doesn't have to distribute the product, which is not his expertise.

Pharmas are basically money operations. They have cash. They allow the universities and Foundations to fund the research. Then they buy interests in the finished product. Then they force the product into profitable markets, then sit back and reap the money.

Raggamuffin wrote:If they weren't patented, no company would bother to develop them because they couldn't get back the money they spent. Any Government would have to make a new drug expensive too otherwise they'd make huge losses on the money they spent - the tax payers' money.

I have no quarrel with patent laws. I have quarrel only with the money transaction to force the product to go by way of the market exchange, and thereby withhold it for profit...which is essentially the role of Pharmas.

Socialized medicine would correct all that.

You clearly don't understand the way it works. It's nothing to do with the cost of a patent, a patent is to protect the company which developed the drug so that others can't copy it and make a profit without the costs involved in development. The company which developed it spent billions doing so, so they need to be protected at first, until the drug becomes generic.

Pharma companies do develop drugs, and importantly, they pay for trials which can go on for years. A pharma company cannot rush in and buy into the product because it's patented by the company or organisation which developed it.

Do you think it's fair that anyone can sell a drug for a profit without incurring all the costs of developing it?

by Original Quill Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:49 pm

I can answer you in two words: you're wrong.

I can add, you're wrong on every point. Patents cost next to nothing...I know, I've paid for them.

The Pharmas spend very little on research...I know, my father was Director of Clinical Research Investigation of a major Pharma.

Finally, Pharmas do business by intercepting a drug after the process of developing, and paying relatively little to an underpaid university researcher for a piece of the action, and thereafter putting out propaganda, to Congress and the public, that it did it all by itself, and it cost them shit loads of money. All of it...lies.

You're swallowing the hole, and not the doughnut. Evil or Very Mad

by eddie Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:I can answer you in two words: you're wrong.

I can add, you're wrong on every point. Patents cost next to nothing...I know, I've paid for them.

The Pharmas spend very little on research...I know, my father was Director of Clinical Research Investigation of a major Pharma.

Finally, Pharmas do business by intercepting a drug after the process of developing, and paying relatively little to an underpaid university researcher for a piece of the action, and thereafter putting out propaganda, to Congress and the public, that it did it all by itself, and it cost them shit loads of money. All of it...lies.

You're swallowing the hole, and not the doughnut.

Quill is absolutely correct on this.

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:I can answer you in two words: you're wrong.

I can add, you're wrong on every point. Patents cost next to nothing...I know, I've paid for them.

The Pharmas spend very little on research...I know, my father was Director of Clinical Research Investigation of a major Pharma.

Finally, Pharmas do business by intercepting a drug after the process of developing, and paying relatively little to an underpaid university researcher for a piece of the action, and thereafter putting out propaganda, to Congress and the public, that it did it all by itself, and it cost them shit loads of money. All of it...lies.

You're swallowing the hole, and not the doughnut.

*sigh*

I'm not talking about the cost of a patent, I'm talking about a drug being patented so that nobody else can copy the drug for free. You're talking about something else entirely. A Pharma company has to wait for a drug to be off patent before they can "intercept" it. The Pharma companies spend loads of dosh. Who do you think pay for all the trials for a start? They can't just invent something and sell it - it has be rigorously tested and trialed, and it has to get through the FDA in the US.

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:09 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:I can answer you in two words: you're wrong.

I can add, you're wrong on every point. Patents cost next to nothing...I know, I've paid for them.

The Pharmas spend very little on research...I know, my father was Director of Clinical Research Investigation of a major Pharma.

Finally, Pharmas do business by intercepting a drug after the process of developing, and paying relatively little to an underpaid university researcher for a piece of the action, and thereafter putting out propaganda, to Congress and the public, that it did it all by itself, and it cost them shit loads of money. All of it...lies.

You're swallowing the hole, and not the doughnut.

Quill is absolutely correct on this.

He is not correct. Look up drug patents. Even if a company develops a drug after it's gone off patent, they have to show that it's bioequivalent and is safe. You shouldn't encourage him to talk rubbish.

by eddie Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:01 pm

I have a friend who's a microbiologist and has been for years. She has said exactly the same as what Quill has just said.
And don't claim I am "encouraging him to talk rubbish", that's just rude.

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:14 pm

eddie wrote:I have a friend who's a microbiologist and has been for years. She has said exactly the same as what Quill has just said.
And don't claim I am "encouraging him to talk rubbish", that's just rude.

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

by 'Wolfie Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:40 am

Raggamuffin herself often talks rubbish on business topics...
It's the only way she can 'defend the indefensible' in these matters..

The anti-flu jabs and anti-viral medications were developed by small research companies (some owned by universities; some are privately held companies working with universities; some are gov't departments (CSL -- the world's #1 anti-venene and vaccination producer -- began as an Australian gov't department, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, before they spun it off and floated it onto the stockmarket in the 1980s..)).

The same corporate ripoffs that we with Big Pharma' is also being repeated with Agribusiness corp's like Monsanto and Beyer, and with several technology, financial and property investment houses -- investing in select areas, taken out undeserved patents, bribing guvm't officials, running propaganda campaigns, and then suing innocent people all over..

Monsanto with GMO seeds and pesticides; big Pharma' buying up rights to essential medications, restricting supply and driving up prices; real estate speculators artificially driving up prices; oil and coal companies peddling anti-environment propaganda. Suspect

by 'Wolfie Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:56 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I have a friend who's a microbiologist and has been for years. She has said exactly the same as what Quill has just said.
And don't claim I am "encouraging him to talk rubbish", that's just rude.

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

More total bulldust from Raggs...

Shrkeli didn't 'develop' anything -- never has, never will..

He bought a pharma' corp'n who in turn had secured the rights to the medication in question.

He then jacked the price up by 5000%.

As Quill has rightfully pointed out, opportunistic and amoral money merchants like Shrkeli should not be allowed to buy the controlling rights to a drug or medication that they had no part in funding, developing, producing or marketing..

by Original Quill Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:05 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I have a friend who's a microbiologist and has been for years. She has said exactly the same as what Quill has just said.
And don't claim I am "encouraging him to talk rubbish", that's just rude.

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

You're being childish, Raggs. Childish and argumentative. You don't want to lose, I understand, but the facts speak for themselves.

You haven't looked at a patent. You don't know how much it costs. You haven't researched who discovered which drugs. You are just buying the company line.

Haven't you ever watched a TV commercial? Advertisers lie. They lie about money. They lie about their accomplishments. Finally, they lie about the results of their product.

True, the FDA prohibits the lies about technicalities of medicines. So, they lie about other things. They lie about how great the medicine is, how it is better than the next, how they did such great things to find and manufacture the medicine, how much money it cost, how much time they spent, and finally, most importantly, how they need to recover the profit to keep going. Doesn't that sound familiar? Or do you channel surf when the ads come on? Smile

by veya_victaous Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:42 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:@rags
Yes, and the cost would be greatly reduced in doing so.
the idea that private companies make it more efficient is bullshit.

The cost wouldn't necessarily be reduced because the Government would have to recoup the money spent somehow. They might also lose a lot of money for all the failed drugs trials, and then the public would be moaning about that.

nope it would be less because we have to run the gov't trials here anyway as you cant trust the companies

Plus same expense to the develop but Minus Profits taken a multiple levels, unless the is corruption it is almost impossible for it to be anything but cheaper.

Plus if you removed the copyright arrangements each lab could follow on with each others work making it faster and more efficient to develop, with out the restrictive copyrights that exist only to allow the profit of pharmaceutical companies

by veya_victaous Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:48 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I have a friend who's a microbiologist and has been for years. She has said exactly the same as what Quill has just said.
And don't claim I am "encouraging him to talk rubbish", that's just rude.

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

Most of the time they Don't, they take the more of universities and patent it. they don't develop it from scratch.

what quill and Eddie said is right. you're just believing the bullshit the pharmaceuticals use to try and justify their price gouging for profits.

and Shrkeli in particular has NEVER paid to develop anything he only buys existing patents and increases the price.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:34 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

More total bulldust from Raggs...

Shrkeli didn't 'develop' anything -- never has, never will..

He bought a pharma' corp'n who in turn had secured the rights to the medication in question.

He then jacked the price up by 5000%.

As Quill has rightfully pointed out, opportunistic and amoral money merchants like Shrkeli should not be allowed to buy the controlling rights to a drug or medication that they had no part in funding, developing, producing or marketing..

I never claimed that Shkreli developed anything, you fool. Quill and I were talking about the Phama business in general, which you'd know if you could pay attention for five minutes. That's the problem with you - you don't read anything properly because all you can think about is how to insult someone. Try debating properly for a change.

Shkreli bought the rights to market Daraprim, and he had no competition, so he could hike the price in the way he did. Ask yourself why he had no competition - Daraprim had been off patent for years.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

You're being childish, Raggs. Childish and argumentative. You don't want to lose, I understand, but the facts speak for themselves.

You haven't looked at a patent. You don't know how much it costs. You haven't researched who discovered which drugs. You are just buying the company line.

Haven't you ever watched a TV commercial? Advertisers lie. They lie about money. They lie about their accomplishments. Finally, they lie about the results of their product.

True, the FDA prohibits the lies about technicalities of medicines. So, they lie about other things. They lie about how great the medicine is, how it is better than the next, how they did such great things to find and manufacture the medicine, how much money it cost, how much time they spent, and finally, most importantly, how they need to recover the profit to keep going. Doesn't that sound familiar? Or do you channel surf when the ads come on?

I'm simply putting you straight on a subject you clearly know nothing about. I mean - banging on about paying for a patent shows you don't understand anything. It's not the cost of the patent which is the issue, it's the protection it provides to a company which has spend millions, if not billions, on developing a drug. This is the third time I've told you that so try to learn something for a change instead of pretending you know everything - you don't.

Anyone could discover a compound, but how do you think they're going to pay for all the research, the tests, the trials, the marketing, etc? What do you think happens when it turns out the drug is not that effective or has has safety issues - after they've spent all that money?

A pharma company has to prove that a drug is effective and safe - they can't just claim it.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:40 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

Most of the time they Don't, they take the more of universities and patent it. they don't develop it from scratch.

what quill and Eddie said is right. you're just believing the bullshit the pharmaceuticals use to try and justify their price gouging for profits.

and Shrkeli in particular has NEVER paid to develop anything he only buys existing patents and increases the price.

See my reply to Quill and tell me how a cash-strapped University is going to pay for all the research, the development, the tests, the trials, and the marketing.

You and Wolfman have not read my posts - we are not talking about Shkreli now, we're talking about the pharma business in general, particularly with regard to patented drugs.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:43 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

Most of the time they Don't, they take the more of universities and patent it. they don't develop it from scratch.

what quill and Eddie said is right. you're just believing the bullshit the pharmaceuticals use to try and justify their price gouging for profits.

and Shrkeli in particular has NEVER paid to develop anything he only buys existing patents and increases the price.

Of course the pharma companies spend a lot of money to develop a drug. Do you think that they just make some pills, flog them to a shop, and sit around collecting the profits?

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:11 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're being childish, Raggs. Childish and argumentative. You don't want to lose, I understand, but the facts speak for themselves.

You haven't looked at a patent. You don't know how much it costs. You haven't researched who discovered which drugs. You are just buying the company line.

Haven't you ever watched a TV commercial? Advertisers lie. They lie about money. They lie about their accomplishments. Finally, they lie about the results of their product.

True, the FDA prohibits the lies about technicalities of medicines. So, they lie about other things. They lie about how great the medicine is, how it is better than the next, how they did such great things to find and manufacture the medicine, how much money it cost, how much time they spent, and finally, most importantly, how they need to recover the profit to keep going. Doesn't that sound familiar? Or do you channel surf when the ads come on?

I'm simply putting you straight on a subject you clearly know nothing about. I mean - banging on about paying for a patent shows you don't understand anything. It's not the cost of the patent which is the issue, it's the protection it provides to a company which has spend millions, if not billions, on developing a drug. This is the third time I've told you that so try to learn something for a change instead of pretending you know everything - you don't.

Anyone could discover a compound, but how do you think they're going to pay for all the research, the tests, the trials, the marketing, etc? What do you think happens when it turns out the drug is not that effective or has has safety issues - after they've spent all that money?

A pharma company has to prove that a drug is effective and safe - they can't just claim it.

I'm afraid you are the one who is banging on, Raggs. You are banging on about this myth that Pharmas preach everyday in their advertisement. They claim they do the development. They claim they must invest in time and equipment. Yet they never provide proof, and once again you have none as well. Fact is, that is all done by the university or the research institution.

You bang on about how much money they spend on research, yet you have no proof of the same. I've been in a Paarma's labs--worked there one summer, in school--it was a production plant like any other factory. They even had fork-lift trucks. Fact is, they don't do the research...that is all done for them. They buy into a product when it's already developed by a university or research institution. They just make pills.

You bang on about a costly patent process, yet you have no idea and bring forth no evidence to prove that it is costly. The patent process is not at all expensive. If somebody challenges the patent, that's expensive in terms of legal fees. But that's true of any lawsuit, including your divorce. Lawsuits aside, it's just a bunch of paper-shuffling. It's office work, by a couple of clerks.

You're conflating the validation, or clinical investigation process, with the patent process. Passing the strict tests for approval by the FDA is not done by the Pharmas. The validation process for a drug is done by the researchers, doctors and institutions in the field that developed the product. Where else would it be done? The actual Pharma is a bunch of offices. The Pharma actual factory is a bunch of pill-stamping machines.

Testing is more of a process than a place. My father, as Director of Clinical Investigation, oversaw it at one time. It's a bunch of doctors, all over the country and Canada, in their offices and clinics, who participate along with their patients. Next time a doctor gives you a bottle of pills and says: this is brand new, and it's for conditions just like yours...I won't charge you, you are likely participating in a study. These doctors independently write up reports of their findings, and send them in. That's your study.

I don't know how to describe it in any more detail. I know the business top to bottom. Been there, done that. You have this mythical picture, that exists nowhere, but is precisely the corporate image that Pharmas want to project in order to justify their huge profits.

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:57 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you are. He keeps going on about paying for a patent, which is nothing to do with anything. Are you suggesting that a company which develops a drug for years spends hardly anything on that development? That's what Quill is saying.

Most of the time they Don't, they take the more of universities and patent it. they don't develop it from scratch.

what quill and Eddie said is right. you're just believing the bullshit the pharmaceuticals use to try and justify their price gouging for profits.

and Shrkeli in particular has NEVER paid to develop anything he only buys existing patents and increases the price.

See my reply to Quill and tell me how a cash-strapped University is going to pay for all the research, the development, the tests, the trials, and the marketing.

You and Wolfman have not read my posts - we are not talking about Shkreli now, we're talking about the pharma business in general, particularly with regard to patented drugs.

people do it as their thesis

the rest should just be gov't funded, marketing drugs should be illegal as it promotes misdiagnoses (predominantly is illegal here)

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:14 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm simply putting you straight on a subject you clearly know nothing about. I mean - banging on about paying for a patent shows you don't understand anything. It's not the cost of the patent which is the issue, it's the protection it provides to a company which has spend millions, if not billions, on developing a drug. This is the third time I've told you that so try to learn something for a change instead of pretending you know everything - you don't.

Anyone could discover a compound, but how do you think they're going to pay for all the research, the tests, the trials, the marketing, etc? What do you think happens when it turns out the drug is not that effective or has has safety issues - after they've spent all that money?

A pharma company has to prove that a drug is effective and safe - they can't just claim it.

I'm afraid you are the one who is banging on, Raggs. You are banging on about this myth that Pharmas preach everyday in their advertisement. They claim they do the development. They claim they must invest in time and equipment. Yet they never provide proof, and once again you have none as well. Fact is, that is all done by the university or the research institution.

You bang on about how much money they spend on research, yet you have no proof of the same. I've been in a Paarma's labs--worked there one summer, in school--it was a production plant like any other factory. They even had fork-lift trucks. Fact is, they don't do the research...that is all done for them. They buy into a product when it's already developed by a university or research institution. They just make pills.

You bang on about a costly patent process, yet you have no idea and bring forth no evidence to prove that it is costly. The patent process is not at all expensive. If somebody challenges the patent, that's expensive in terms of legal fees. But that's true of any lawsuit, including your divorce. Lawsuits aside, it's just a bunch of paper-shuffling. It's office work, by a couple of clerks.

You're conflating the validation, or clinical investigation process, with the patent process. Passing the strict tests for approval by the FDA is not done by the Pharmas. The validation process for a drug is done by the researchers, doctors and institutions in the field that developed the product. Where else would it be done? The actual Pharma is a bunch of offices. The Pharma actual factory is a bunch of pill-stamping machines.

Testing is more of a process than a place. My father, as Director of Clinical Investigation, oversaw it at one time. It's a bunch of doctors, all over the country and Canada, in their offices and clinics, who participate along with their patients. Next time a doctor gives you a bottle of pills and says: this is brand new, and it's for conditions just like yours...I won't charge you, you are likely participating in a study. These doctors independently write up reports of their findings, and send them in. That's your study.

I don't know how to describe it in any more detail. I know the business top to bottom. Been there, done that. You have this mythical picture, that exists nowhere, but is precisely the corporate image that Pharmas want to project in order to justify their huge profits.

This is the fourth time you've lied about what I've said, or "misunderstood" anyway. How many more times do I have to tell you that it's nothing to do with the cost of the patent process? Why do you keep introducing that particular straw man argument?

You have no idea what a large clinical trial consists of, and you have no idea how much is invested in development by pharma companies. To suggest that a doctor just hands out an unapproved drug is silly.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:57 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

See my reply to Quill and tell me how a cash-strapped University is going to pay for all the research, the development, the tests, the trials, and the marketing.

You and Wolfman have not read my posts - we are not talking about Shkreli now, we're talking about the pharma business in general, particularly with regard to patented drugs.

people do it as their thesis

the rest should just be gov't funded, marketing drugs should be illegal as it promotes misdiagnoses (predominantly is illegal here)

Governments do fund tests and trials, but not all of them, it depends on who the sponsor is. How do you suggest that drugs are brought to the market if marketing is not allowed?

by 'Wolfie Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:53 am

All of the outright lies that Raggs keeps on peddling on behalf of big Pharmaceutical companies...

Have to wonder whether she works in marketing/propaganda for one of them..

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This is the fourth time you've lied about what I've said, or "misunderstood" anyway. How many more times do I have to tell you that it's nothing to do with the cost of the patent process? Why do you keep introducing that particular straw man argument?

Once again, you have nothing to contribute except being argumentative and obstreperous. Debate is not about you telling anybody, anything. It's about substantiating your claims.

You have not even tied to offer substantiation. You have just replaced declarative statements with exclamatory statements. No content = no point.

Raggamuffin wrote:You have no idea what a large clinical trial consists of...

A large clinical trial is just like a small clinical trial, only larger. Lol. You don't enhance your case by using superlatives. Your arguments lack content because you have no idea what you are talking about. You have only the spiel that the Pharmas give you...and it's all corporate image.

Raggamuffin wrote: and you have no idea how much is invested in development by pharma companies.

Nor have you. You have this notion that because these matters are occult to you, they must be huge and massive, and golly, really, really expensive...whatever superlatives you might toss in. You sound like a Val-girl in LA. Yours is the malleable mind that advertisers love. They can lead you around by the ring in your nose.

Tsaggamuffin wrote:To suggest that a doctor just hands out an unapproved drug is silly.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Those are the treating physicians, you know. That's why they use them. They can be counted upon to have the patient's interest in mind above all else.

They don't just hand out pills to anyone, anytime. Their actions are determined by 4-years of university, 4-years of medical school, 2-years of internship, 2-5 years of residency, and numerous clinical exposures to patients. In addition, the treating physician has hands-on contact with the given patient, and is involved in a continuing dialogue with the clinical investigation staffs of both the Pharmas and the FDA. They are the only, and best source to conduct the appropriate tests.

Can you talk with any such detail? Do you know what is involved? I think not. You say things like: OMG...they must be expensive, and/or Gee, it costs billions... Again, you sound like a school girl.

You talk nonsense! You are talking in evasive generalities. Know what you're talking about and talk specifically and confidently about it.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:19 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

All of the outright lies that Raggs keeps on peddling on behalf of big Pharmaceutical companies...

Have to wonder whether she works in marketing/propaganda for one of them..

I haven't told any lies - I leave that sort of thing to you.

Do you work for the Trolling Society by any chance?

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:23 pm

Quill, if you think that doctors can just hand out trial drugs to anyone, you're more stupid than I thought you were. It's irrelevant how long they've been a doctor. A patient is enrolled in a trial, and they're closely followed with many tests at regular intervals. They might not even be taking the trial drug - it might be a placebo.

They don't just get a bottle of pills and told to get on with it. You're just lying and talking rubbish - as you've been doing all the way through this thread.

Now tell me how a pharma company can do a trial for nothing if they're funding it? Go on. I'd like to hear your "reasoning".

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, if you think that doctors can just hand out trial drugs to anyone, you're more stupid than I thought you were. It's irrelevant how long they've been a doctor. A patient is enrolled in a trial, and they're closely followed with many tests at regular intervals. They might not even be taking the trial drug - it might be a placebo.

They don't just get a bottle of pills and told to get on with it. You're just lying and talking rubbish - as you've been doing all the way through this thread.

Now tell me how a pharma company can do a trial for nothing if they're funding it? Go on. I'd like to hear your "reasoning".

You are repeating your arguments, just to slip in more superlatives, and a few red herrings, and lots of insults. Your style is beneath me.

Your arguments are devoid of content. I'll just take it as a win, and move on.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, if you think that doctors can just hand out trial drugs to anyone, you're more stupid than I thought you were. It's irrelevant how long they've been a doctor. A patient is enrolled in a trial, and they're closely followed with many tests at regular intervals. They might not even be taking the trial drug - it might be a placebo.

They don't just get a bottle of pills and told to get on with it. You're just lying and talking rubbish - as you've been doing all the way through this thread.

Now tell me how a pharma company can do a trial for nothing if they're funding it? Go on. I'd like to hear your "reasoning".

You are repeating your arguments, just to slip in more superlatives, and a few red herrings, and lots of insults. Your style is beneath me.

Your arguments are devoid of content. I'll just take it as a win, and move on.

Nothing and nobody is beneath you Quill. I really think you're a bit addled these days. You should just admit you know nothing about the subject and stop obsessing about "winning".

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Nothing and nobody is beneath you Quill. I really think you're a bit addled these days. You should just admit you know nothing about the subject and stop obsessing about "winning".

Yes, false representations and deceptive arguments, not to mention insults and diversions, are all beneath me. Not only that, but they don't interest me. I have better things to do.

At some point I can recognize intuitively that someone is playing to win, or save face...in any case, irrespective of truth or logic. At that point it's a waste of my time to continue.

I declare the win as a way of marking the spot where the adversary abandoned the subject. I then state I am leaving the discussion because I recognize that the player is playing...he/she has no more to give.

If that adversary does indeed bring up some new entailment, then I know where I left off...and where to continue on. But it's common sense that if the adversary has no more to deliver, then it's a waste of my time to wait around to receive it.

This comes up often, so I thought I'd explain that it's not arrogance or ego. It's just efficient use of time.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Nothing and nobody is beneath you Quill. I really think you're a bit addled these days. You should just admit you know nothing about the subject and stop obsessing about "winning".

Yes, false representations and deceptive arguments, not to mention insults and diversions, are all beneath me. Not only that, but they don't interest me. I have better things to do.

At some point I can recognize intuitively that someone is playing to win, or save face...in any case, irrespective of truth or logic. At that point it's a waste of my time to continue.

I declare the win as a way of marking the spot where the adversary abandoned the subject. I then state I am leaving the discussion because I recognize that the player is playing...he/she has no more to give.

If that adversary does indeed bring up some new entailment, then I know where I left off...and where to continue on. But it's common sense that if the adversary has no more to deliver, then it's a waste of my time to wait around to receive it.

This comes up often, so I thought I'd explain that it's not arrogance or ego. It's just efficient use of time.

You're the one obsessed with "winning", not me. I made some statements and you challenged me. You were wrong factually. It's you who has no more to give. I asked you to tell me how Pharma companies spend very little when they're funding a drug trial, and you declined to answer - thereby showing that you were just arguing for the sake of it.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:37 pm

I've already answered that. See what I mean about you repeating arguments?

The Pharmas spend so little by avoiding the heavy costs of research and development. They let the universities and institutions do all that. Then they buy into the product, by which I mean they give a huge cash infusion to the researcher who developed it, and then undertake all the patenting process.

A pharmaceutical product is usually not marketable until it has undergone FDA validation, The FDA speaks of "drug manufacturers", but generally they mean the applicant for approval. The application process is undertaken by the researcher, who hopes to interest the Pharma money men (think, start-up capitalists):

Registrar wrote:If a new drug does not comply with a monograph, it will require FDA approval. To get FDA approval, drug manufacturers must conduct lab, animal, and human clinical testing and submit their data to FDA. FDA will then review the data and may approve the drug if the agency determines that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks for the intended use. Marketing a new drug that does not conform to an OTC monograph without FDA approval is considered as marketing an unapproved new drug, which is a prohibited act under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

It's like any other investment, only the early stages are covered by universities and research institutions, who are interested in the fame and notoriety given to the founder. He or she is usually a tenured professor at their university or lab.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:I've already answered that. See what I mean about you repeating arguments?

The Pharmas spend so little by avoiding the heavy costs of research and development. They let the universities and institutions do all that. Then they buy into the product, by which I mean they give a huge cash infusion to the researcher who developed it, and then undertake all the patenting process.

A pharmaceutical product is usually not marketable until it has undergone FDA validation, The FDA speaks of "drug manufacturers", but generally they mean the applicant for approval. The application process is undertaken by the researcher, who hopes to interest the Pharma money men (think, start-up capitalists):

Registrar wrote:If a new drug does not comply with a monograph, it will require FDA approval. To get FDA approval, drug manufacturers must conduct lab, animal, and human clinical testing and submit their data to FDA. FDA will then review the data and may approve the drug if the agency determines that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks for the intended use. Marketing a new drug that does not conform to an OTC monograph without FDA approval is considered as marketing an unapproved new drug, which is a prohibited act under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

It's like any other investment, only the early stages are covered by universities and research institutions, who are interested in the fame and notoriety given to the founder. He or she is usually a tenured professor at their university or lab.

You admit that they have to undertake rigorous testing and trials then, and that a doctor doesn't just give patients a bottle of pills which have not been approved, as you claimed. Clinical trials can cost millions, and there are several phases to go through.

Why then did you say that they don't spend much money?

Pharma companies also research and develop their own drugs and compounds.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:You admit that they have to undertake rigorous testing and trials then,

I was the first to say that.

Raggamuffin wrote:...and that a doctor doesn't just give patients a bottle of pills which have not been approved, as you claimed. Clinical trials can cost millions, and there are several phases to go through.

Red herring alert! The doctors do more than just give pills, as I made clear. It's unseemly of you to twist words so. The doctors in question are highly skilled, and have hands-on with the patients they treat.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why then did you say that they don't spend much money?

Because it doesn't cost that much. Cost is relative. Pharmas want you to believe that they plow billions into R & D, because they want to justify the outrageous profits they reap. What they make is all out of proportion with what they spead.

Raggamuffin wrote:Pharma companies also research and develop their own drugs and compounds.

Usually some refinement of existing products. Beyer Aspirin may spend money on an additive that reduces dyspepsia in their product...something like that. But that's only because they have a vested interest in the core product.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

See my reply to Quill and tell me how a cash-strapped University is going to pay for all the research, the development, the tests, the trials, and the marketing.

You and Wolfman have not read my posts - we are not talking about Shkreli now, we're talking about the pharma business in general, particularly with regard to patented drugs.

people do it as their thesis

the rest should just be gov't funded, marketing drugs should be illegal as it promotes misdiagnoses (predominantly is illegal here)

Governments do fund tests and trials, but not all of them, it depends on who the sponsor is. How do you suggest that drugs are brought to the market if marketing is not allowed?

through professional medical channels (professional publications, industry boards and forums etc)

Drugs should not be marketed to the public directly

patients should NOT be going to the doctor requesting prescriptions for some drug they saw advertised

by Sponsored content