Texas mom dies from flu because the Meds have Ridiculously inflated prices in the USA

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:49 am

Texas mother of two died Sunday from flu complications after reportedly deciding that the $116 medication to treat the virus was too costly.

Heather Holland, a second-grade teacher at Ikard Elementary School in Weatherford, Texas, died following complications of flu, leaving behind her husband Frank Holland and two children, a daughter, 10, and a son, 7.

She reportedly started to feel sick a week ago and was going to pick up flu medication. Her husband said she decided not to purchase the medication because she thought the $116 price tag was too high, according to the Weatherford Democrat.

“She wouldn't go get medicine because she's a mama. Mamas are tough. She just kept going. She had a job; she had kids," Holland's pastor, Clark Bosher, told Fox 4. "I think any mom does that. I don't think she is being irresponsible. I don't think she thought she was that sick. It happened so quick."

The husband picked up the drugs himself on Thursday after finding out she skipped on them, but it was too late and she ended up in the intensive care unit at a hospital on Friday.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/texas-mom-dies-from-flu-after-skipping-on-meds-deemed-too-costly-report/ar-BBJ37Hy?li=AAgfLCP&ocid=ientp

“Friday night, things escalated and she ended up in the ICU,” he told the outlet. "The doctors got the blood cultures back and they had to put her on dialysis early Saturday.”

She died Sunday morning. “I have to be strong for the kids but it’s still surreal, it hasn’t all set in,” Frank Holland said. “We’ve been together a long time, over half my life. She’s my best friend, my soulmate, my everything.”

He described her as a passionate teacher who “loved helping people, helping the kids, and the kids loved her.” On the school’s website page, Heather Holland wrote: “I am really enjoying my kiddos. We are working hard on reading, writing and learning to quickly compose and decompose numbers.”

This season’s deadly flu season has reportedly taken the lives of hundreds of Americans across the country.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acting Director Dr. Anne Schuchat said the center has seen “increased influenza-like activity, more hospitalizations and tragically, more flu-associated deaths in children and adults.”

Over 60 children have died from the virus this season and there are no signs the spread of the flu will soon to cease. The state of Louisiana, is on track to having some 1,000 flu-related deaths this season, according to medical officials.

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:53 am

that is just disgusting that an otherwise healthy woman dies of easily treatable illness because of exploitive profiteering of the health industry in the USA.

here the same sort of drugs cost $8 to $12.

Let alone the fact that there are literally thousands of people dying the same way because of the same thing in the USA. just Crazy

by 'Wolfie Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:22 am

Texas mom dies from flu because the Meds have Ridiculously inflated prices in the USA 1399249160

The American corporate mentality...

Money before people; profits before compassion and humanity..

When the USA goes off to war, the Pentagon works out how many thousands upon thousands of casualties among their servicemen are acceptable in achieving their initial aims.

When their allies go in beside them, their leaders are declaring that we don't want to lose anyone, that no casualties are acceptable -- that's one reason that the Aussies and Kiwis returned from Vietnam with the best kill rates and some of the best survival rates among the allied troops.. The US Marines are the closest that the US military comes to the Aussie ethos, with their "we leave nobody behind" mantra...

Since WWII we see those US multinational corporates with their "profits before all else !/"take no prisoners !" using their self-righteousness to screw everyone else over..

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:35 am

Tamiflu? Would it have made a difference anyway?

by HoratioTarr Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:24 am

So what exactly did she die of? Sepsis? And what medication is it that she refused?

by eddie Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:29 am

HoratioTarr wrote:So what exactly did she die of? Sepsis? And what medication is it that she refused?

That’s what I wanna know. Healthy people don’t die of the flu.

by eddie Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:37 am

She died from septic shock

http://time.com/5135455/weatherford-teacher-dies-from-flu/

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:50 am

So did she take Tamiflu or not?

by eddie Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:59 am

Raggamuffin wrote:So did she take Tamiflu or not?

It’s a very sketchy story. Healthy people simply don’t die of the flu so I am dubious as always, about these stories.

Have you ever noticed people who say they have the flu and yet they’re still walking around? The flu wipes you out for pretty much two weeks and you should be bedridden that’s how awful you feel - you couldn’t care less or even argue about what a medication costs.

Just saying.

Some people confuse the flu with a really bad cold.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:04 pm

Yes, I'm not sure that the blame can be laid on the cost of the drug. It sounds like she didn't rest at all. In any case, I'm sure that most people who catch flu don't take Tamiflu, and they recover.

by HoratioTarr Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:16 pm

eddie wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:So what exactly did she die of? Sepsis? And what medication is it that she refused?

That’s what I wanna know. Healthy people don’t die of the flu.

But they do.

by HoratioTarr Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:22 pm

eddie wrote:She died from septic shock

http://time.com/5135455/weatherford-teacher-dies-from-flu/

When you get flu your immune system is compromised. Harmful bacteria already in your body, or which enters while your immune system is fighting the flu, can then multiply unchecked. The young and healthy do die from flu mostly because they haven't lived long enough to build up some immunity protection.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:41 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
eddie wrote:She died from septic shock

http://time.com/5135455/weatherford-teacher-dies-from-flu/

When you get flu your immune system is compromised. Harmful bacteria already in your body, or which enters while your immune system is fighting the flu, can then multiply unchecked. The young and healthy do die from flu mostly because they haven't lived long enough to build up some immunity protection.

Which is why you should stay away from people if you have flu - firstly, to avoid giving them flu, and secondly, to minimise the chance of getting a secondary infection.

I'm not sure the Tamiflu would have made much difference. There's a lot of debate as to its efficacy and usefulness in preventing complications.

by nicko Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:47 pm

I notice the Japanese wear face masks if they have a cold, perhaps we should also.

by HoratioTarr Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:19 pm

nicko wrote:I notice the Japanese wear face masks if they have a cold, perhaps we should also.

Absolutely and I can see that coming. I buy and use an antiviral hand gel from Boots. I use it every time I come out of the supermarket or other public places.

by HoratioTarr Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

When you get flu your immune system is compromised. Harmful bacteria already in your body, or which enters while your immune system is fighting the flu, can then multiply unchecked. The young and healthy do die from flu mostly because they haven't lived long enough to build up some immunity protection.

Which is why you should stay away from people if you have flu - firstly, to avoid giving them flu, and secondly, to minimise the chance of getting a secondary infection.

I'm not sure the Tamiflu would have made much difference. There's a lot of debate as to its efficacy and usefulness in preventing complications.

The problem we have is that people are expected to go to work whether they have a cold/flu or not. You see people sneezing and sniffling in the workplace, spreading that shit around. I get that this can be abused, but perhaps a doctor's note if you have any kind of infection should keep you out of the workplace. I thank God I'm self employed and don't have to go work in a bloody office anymore.
If a client comes to my treatment room with a cold or flu, they're out the door.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:29 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Which is why you should stay away from people if you have flu - firstly, to avoid giving them flu, and secondly, to minimise the chance of getting a secondary infection.

I'm not sure the Tamiflu would have made much difference. There's a lot of debate as to its efficacy and usefulness in preventing complications.

The problem we have is that people are expected to go to work whether they have a cold/flu or not. You see people sneezing and sniffling in the workplace, spreading that shit around. I get that this can be abused, but perhaps a doctor's note if you have any kind of infection should keep you out of the workplace. I thank God I'm self employed and don't have to go work in a bloody office anymore.
If a client comes to my treatment room with a cold or flu, they're out the door.

A lot of people don't get paid if they don't go to work, but I don't if it's the case with this lady - she seemed to want to carry on herself.

If you work in a place with customers, they come in with colds and all sorts - they should stay at home.

by nicko Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:58 pm

Sit in a crowded Doctors Surgery, you could be signing your own death warrant !

by HoratioTarr Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:19 pm

nicko wrote:Sit in a crowded Doctors Surgery, you could be signing your own death warrant !

Very true.

by 'Wolfie Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Yes, I'm not sure that the blame can be laid on the cost of the drug. It sounds like she didn't rest at all. In any case, I'm sure that most people who catch flu don't take Tamiflu, and they recover.

And, of course, when a small minority lf people do die with the flu, it's (a)
usually not so quick, and (b) it's often a complication (such as pneumonia) that eventually kills them...

Newspaper stories, especially online versions like this, that precede an autopsy and a followup analysis/enquiry, are always unreliable..

Where having a flu medication, or even a prior vaccination, may have had no effect on the eventual outcome.

Any reason's a good reason to knock America's virtually non-existent healthcare system and the greedy big Pharma's though -- especially whenever their pollies are lying on about how they're the best in the world, world's best practice, another round of golf, blah, blah, blah..

by eddie Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:08 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
nicko wrote:I notice the Japanese wear face masks if they have a cold, perhaps we should also.

Absolutely and I can see that coming. I buy and use an antiviral hand gel from Boots. I use it every time I come out of the supermarket or other public places.

Really? Jesus. I’d hate to live like that. I don’t get colds or bugs and I’ve never had the flu. I wouldn’t say I was a consistently healthy eater either.

I know so many people who say they have the flu and all they have is a bad cold.

I can’t live so scared of bugs and illness. That seems OTT.

by Maddog Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:26 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:So what exactly did she die of? Sepsis? And what medication is it that she refused?

She didn't take Tamiflu. It may have a different name there. It's only effective in the first 24 hours which is why loads of people who get the flu don't take it. It's 100 bucks, has side effects and won't help if you have had the flu for more than 24 hours.

This woman was a teacher. Her husband was a principal. They had the money but she decided that the Tamiflu was a waste of money by the time they got prescription.

by Cass Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:30 pm

I’ve had the flu this year twice. Yes flu. Not a bad cold.

First one caught from mother, second from customers coming in. And then I keep on getting infections because they keep comomg in and reinfecting me. I have hand sanitizer on the desk, I took time off to recover and when back at work when I go home I do nothing but rest.

There are no laws to make them stay home.

People don’t die of flu, they die from complications of flu. There are many strains going around this year. The CDC has confirmed it’s a pandemic. So far about 80 people have died, mostly children. The flu and it’s complications do kill. There was the outbreak of Spanish Flu just after WW1 which killed an estimated 20 million people worldwide.

Some people here can not afford the medication. The tamiflu for this lady was going to cost her $116 as her portion. Some people do not have health insurance let alone money for medication.

Also many people do not get sick time. Arizona made a law as of last July that employers must now offer 1 hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. That helps nobody. Some people have no choice but to go into work sick as they literally need the money to survive. It’s a catch 22 situation.

by 'Wolfie Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:30 pm

The reasoning behind so many Asians, especially in Tokyo and Hong Kong, wearing those masks is to help prevent those people who already have flus and colds from infecting other people and spreading the germs even further, (i.e. not to prevent thew wearer actually catching the infection..)..

This is largely due to both their high population densities; and a cultural idea of "soldiering on..", still going out when they should be staying home..

by Original Quill Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

When you get flu your immune system is compromised. Harmful bacteria already in your body, or which enters while your immune system is fighting the flu, can then multiply unchecked. The young and healthy do die from flu mostly because they haven't lived long enough to build up some immunity protection.

Which is why you should stay away from people if you have flu - firstly, to avoid giving them flu, and secondly, to minimise the chance of getting a secondary infection.

I'm not sure the Tamiflu would have made much difference. There's a lot of debate as to its efficacy and usefulness in preventing complications.

A lot of good that does to a mother with three children, or a father with two jobs.

Bad luck...but don't do anything about it if it affects my profit-making pharmaceuticals.

All markets, in the wild, reduce to monopoly. The Pharmas have a unique grip on their particular monopoly through use of the patent laws. It is deemed more appropriate for profit to flow, than for life itself to continue.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Which is why you should stay away from people if you have flu - firstly, to avoid giving them flu, and secondly, to minimise the chance of getting a secondary infection.

I'm not sure the Tamiflu would have made much difference. There's a lot of debate as to its efficacy and usefulness in preventing complications.

A lot of good that does to a mother with three children, or a father with two jobs.

Bad luck...but don't do anything about it if it affects my profit-making pharmaceuticals.

All markets, in the wild, reduce to monopoly. The Pharmas have a unique grip on their particular monopoly through use of the patent laws. It is deemed more appropriate for profit to flow, than for life itself to continue.

Even mothers of three can stay away from other people if they need to. It's no use blaming the lack of the drug for her death - it could have been caused by a number of factors. It seems that she did go to the doctor, and she did eventually take the drug but she still ended up in hospital. Some would say that she took the drug too late, but look up Tamiflu - it's quite a controversial drug anyway.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:15 pm

Cass wrote:I’ve had the flu this year twice. Yes flu. Not a bad cold.

First one caught from mother, second from customers coming in. And then I keep on getting infections because they keep comomg in and reinfecting me. I have hand sanitizer on the desk, I took time off to recover and when back at work when I go home I do nothing but rest.

There are no laws to make them stay home.

People don’t die of flu, they die from complications of flu. There are many strains going around this year. The CDC has confirmed it’s a pandemic. So far about 80 people have died, mostly children. The flu and it’s complications do kill. There was the outbreak of Spanish Flu just after WW1 which killed an estimated 20 million people worldwide.

Some people here can not afford the medication. The tamiflu for this lady was going to cost her $116 as her portion. Some people do not have health insurance let alone money for medication.

Also many people do not get sick time. Arizona made a law as of last July that employers must now offer 1 hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. That helps nobody. Some people have no choice but to go into work sick as they literally need the money to survive. It’s a catch 22 situation.

Flu infection can induce a cytokine storm, which can kill. That's what happened to people with the Spanish flu. It's their immune system reacting to the virus which was the problem. Sepsis is the result of the immune system acting against an infection.

by Original Quill Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:56 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

A lot of good that does to a mother with three children, or a father with two jobs.

Bad luck...but don't do anything about it if it affects my profit-making pharmaceuticals.

All markets, in the wild, reduce to monopoly. The Pharmas have a unique grip on their particular monopoly through use of the patent laws. It is deemed more appropriate for profit to flow, than for life itself to continue.

Even mothers of three can stay away from other people if they need to.

Sure, quit their job. Go to bed. Bring in help. All the things that the wealthy can do. In short Raggs, Let them eat cake. But what if she isn't wealthy? Neo-capitalists live in such a dream world.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's no use blaming the lack of the drug for her death - it could have been caused by a number of factors. It seems that she did go to the doctor, and she did eventually take the drug but she still ended up in hospital. Some would say that she took the drug too late, but look up Tamiflu - it's quite a controversial drug anyway.

The efficacy of the drug is another matter.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Even mothers of three can stay away from other people if they need to.

Sure, quit their job. Go to bed. Bring in help. All the things that the wealthy can do. In short Raggs, Let them eat cake. But what if she isn't wealthy? Neo-capitalists live in such a dream world.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's no use blaming the lack of the drug for her death - it could have been caused by a number of factors. It seems that she did go to the doctor, and she did eventually take the drug but she still ended up in hospital. Some would say that she took the drug too late, but look up Tamiflu - it's quite a controversial drug anyway.

The efficacy of the drug is another matter.

You don't need to quit your job if you have flu - you ring in sick. Her husband did buy the drug, so they could afford it. I suppose she just thought it was a lot for a drug.

Others who took it still died, and some don't want to take it because of side effects. The efficacy of the drug is important because her death is being attributed to not taking Tamiflu, and that's not necessarily true.

by Original Quill Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Sure, quit their job. Go to bed. Bring in help. All the things that the wealthy can do. In short Raggs, Let them eat cake. But what if she isn't wealthy? Neo-capitalists live in such a dream world.

The efficacy of the drug is another matter.

You don't need to quit your job if you have flu - you ring in sick.

And wait for them to fire you. You're evading the point: she's got obligations.

raggamuffin wrote:Her husband did buy the drug, so they could afford it. I suppose she just thought it was a lot for a drug.

You're arguing the circumstances of the example. Fact is, some can't afford $185/bottle.

Raggamuffin wrote:Others who took it still died, and some don't want to take it because of side effects. The efficacy of the drug is important because her death is being attributed to not taking Tamiflu, and that's not necessarily true.

It's not a guarantee. What medication is? But wouldn't you rather have the choice? Fact is, they are making money off of a threat of death. Typical capitalist...any route to a monopoly.

by Maddog Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Even mothers of three can stay away from other people if they need to.

Sure, quit their job. Go to bed. Bring in help. All the things that the wealthy can do. In short Raggs, Let them eat cake. But what if she isn't wealthy? Neo-capitalists live in such a dream world.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's no use blaming the lack of the drug for her death - it could have been caused by a number of factors. It seems that she did go to the doctor, and she did eventually take the drug but she still ended up in hospital. Some would say that she took the drug too late, but look up Tamiflu - it's quite a controversial drug anyway.

The efficacy of the drug is another matter.

She is a teacher, she could take off work for being sick. Her husband is a principal. Between the two of them they have plenty of income to buy Tamiflu. Some folks just won't spend money when they think it's for something like the flu. Other's won't even go to the doctor, even if it's free.

This story has been floating around a few days, and it just now became international as some statists want to exploit the poor woman for their political ideology.

by Original Quill Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:17 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Sure, quit their job. Go to bed. Bring in help. All the things that the wealthy can do. In short Raggs, Let them eat cake. But what if she isn't wealthy? Neo-capitalists live in such a dream world.

The efficacy of the drug is another matter.

She is a teacher, she could take off work for being sick. Her husband is a principal. Between the two of them they have plenty of income to buy Tamiflu. Some folks just won't spend money when they think it's for something like the flu. Other's won't even go to the doctor, even if it's free.

You're arguing the example again. It's served its purpose; now argue the point.

Pharmas are creating monopolies by trucking in lives, so as to enhance profits.

by Maddog Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

She is a teacher, she could take off work for being sick. Her husband is a principal. Between the two of them they have plenty of income to buy Tamiflu. Some folks just won't spend money when they think it's for something like the flu. Other's won't even go to the doctor, even if it's free.

You're arguing the example again. It's served its purpose; now argue the point.

Pharmas are creating monopolies by trucking in lives, so as to enhance profits.

And they create the cures that save lives. This woman chose not to purchase that cure for whatever reason.

by Original Quill Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:55 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're arguing the example again. It's served its purpose; now argue the point.

Pharmas are creating monopolies by trucking in lives, so as to enhance profits.

And they create the cures that save lives. This woman chose not to purchase that cure for whatever reason.

No they don't. Don't be yet another dupe. The pharmaceuticals are developed in university and military/civic labs, by underpaid professors and military clinicians who are the developers.

The Parmas are venture capitalists. After the underpaid professors and clinicians finish the product, and undertake tests, the Pharmas swoop in and offer them a contract and lots of money for the rights to produce their medicines. It is a total myth that the Pharmas do any research themselves. That part of the costs is borne by the universities and laboratories, who pay (underpay?) the researchers.

After the Pharmas have sealed the deal with the developers, they ship the recipe off to Malaysia or the Philippines for actual fabrication. The calculation of what to charge is made on the basis of what the market will bear. That essentially means: how important is it to your life or serious illness, the patent office guaranteeing a monopoly?

by Maddog Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:10 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

And they create the cures that save lives. This woman chose not to purchase that cure for whatever reason.

No they don't. Don't be yet another dupe. The pharmaceuticals are developed in university and military/civic labs, by underpaid professors and military clinicians who are the developers.

The Parmas are venture capitalists. After the underpaid professors and clinicians finish the product, and undertake tests, the Pharmas swoop in and offer them a contract and lots of money for the rights to produce their medicines. It is a total myth that the Pharmas do any research themselves. That part of the costs is borne by the universities and laboratories, who pay (underpay?) the researchers.

After the Pharmas have sealed the deal with the developers, they ship the recipe off to Malaysia or the Philippines for actual fabrication. The calculation of what to charge is made on the basis of what the market will bear. That essentially means: how important is it to your life or serious illness, the patent office guaranteeing a monopoly?

They create something someone wants.

Have you ever wondered why the US is the leader in creating theses drugs?

by 'Wolfie Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:14 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're arguing the example again. It's served its purpose; now argue the point.

Pharmas are creating monopolies by trucking in lives, so as to enhance profits.

And they create the cures that save lives. This woman chose not to purchase that cure for whatever reason.

Big Pharma' don't "create cures"...

Never have, never will...

'Big Pharma'' are basically large investment houses trading in cures and suffering; buying those cures from universities and biotech' companies and then reselling them for as high a profit as they can find, sometimes as much as 500% or more on some medications; and with more money being spent on their advertising and legal divisions, than goes into sponsoring actual R&D efforts.

Fluvax was developed by a Melbourne-based company; under contract to one of the big Euro' based multinational Pharmaceuticals. Another Aussie company, CSL, is the leading producer of vaccines under contract to those various multinationals and foreign guvm'nts.

"Big Pharma" actually costs the world more in preventable deaths through their single aim of ever-increasing profits, than they ever manage to save. Much more likely it will be various governments and charities such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and CCF, that step in to supply vaccines and medications..

by Maddog Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:18 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

And they create the cures that save lives. This woman chose not to purchase that cure for whatever reason.

Big Pharma' don't "create cures"...

Never have, never will...

'Big Pharma'' are basically large investment houses trading in cures and suffering; buying those cures from universities and biotech' companies and then reselling them for as high a profit as they can find, sometimes as much as 500% or more on some medications; and with more money being spent on their advertising and legal divisions, than goes into sponsoring actual R&D efforts.

Fluvax was developed by a Melbourne-based company; under contract to one of the big Euro' based multinational Pharmaceuticals. Another Aussie company, CSL, is the leading producer of vaccines under contract to those various multinationals and foreign guvm'nts.

"Big Pharma" actually costs the world more in preventable deaths through their single aim of ever-increasing profits, than they ever manage to save. Much more likely it will be various governments and charities such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and CCF, that step in to supply vaccines and medications..

Pharma creates drugs. Take Tamiflu. It was created in California.

by 'Wolfie Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:21 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No they don't. Don't be yet another dupe. The pharmaceuticals are developed in university and military/civic labs, by underpaid professors and military clinicians who are the developers.

The Parmas are venture capitalists. After the underpaid professors and clinicians finish the product, and undertake tests, the Pharmas swoop in and offer them a contract and lots of money for the rights to produce their medicines. It is a total myth that the Pharmas do any research themselves. That part of the costs is borne by the universities and laboratories, who pay (underpay?) the researchers.

After the Pharmas have sealed the deal with the developers, they ship the recipe off to Malaysia or the Philippines for actual fabrication. The calculation of what to charge is made on the basis of what the market will bear. That essentially means: how important is it to your life or serious illness, the patent office guaranteeing a monopoly?

They create something someone wants.

Have you ever wondered why the US is the leader in creating theses drugs?

Since when has the USA been the leader ???

The so-called "leader" in sponsoring R&D efforts these days is an international consortium of the 5 biggest pharmaceutical companies, including ones from Germany, Switzerland, Britain..

While the actual research is just as likely to be carried out in Australia, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, South Africa, or half a dozen other places under contracts, as well as in America.

Maybe 20 or 30 years ago the US could claim to be #1, but no longer.. Those days are long gone...

by 'Wolfie Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:26 am

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Big Pharma' don't "create cures"...

Never have, never will...

'Big Pharma'' are basically large investment houses trading in cures and suffering; buying those cures from universities and biotech' companies and then reselling them for as high a profit as they can find, sometimes as much as 500% or more on some medications; and with more money being spent on their advertising and legal divisions, than goes into sponsoring actual R&D efforts.

Fluvax was developed by a Melbourne-based company; under contract to one of the big Euro' based multinational Pharmaceuticals. Another Aussie company, CSL, is the leading producer of vaccines under contract to those various multinationals and foreign guvm'nts.

"Big Pharma" actually costs the world more in preventable deaths through their single aim of ever-increasing profits, than they ever manage to save. Much more likely it will be various governments and charities such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and CCF, that step in to supply vaccines and medications..

Pharma creates drugs. Take Tamiflu. It was created in California.

Bullshit...

Big Pharma' pays for the research; but the actual R&D will have been in one of the California universities, or maybe a small biotech company..

And then the company that owns the patent on the drug will be selling it for five times as much as that R&D contract or grant costs them.

Rampnant greed all the way.. "The American Dream" in action...

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:44 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't need to quit your job if you have flu - you ring in sick.

And wait for them to fire you. You're evading the point: she's got obligations.

raggamuffin wrote:Her husband did buy the drug, so they could afford it. I suppose she just thought it was a lot for a drug.

You're arguing the circumstances of the example. Fact is, some can't afford $185/bottle.

Raggamuffin wrote:Others who took it still died, and some don't want to take it because of side effects. The efficacy of the drug is important because her death is being attributed to not taking Tamiflu, and that's not necessarily true.

It's not a guarantee. What medication is? But wouldn't you rather have the choice? Fact is, they are making money off of a threat of death. Typical capitalist...any route to a monopoly.

You get fired for being off sick with the flu over there?

The thread title is misleading. We don't know that she died because she took Tamiflu a day later than she would otherwise have done if she had bought it.

When did $116 become $185?

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:56 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

And they create the cures that save lives. This woman chose not to purchase that cure for whatever reason.

No they don't. Don't be yet another dupe. The pharmaceuticals are developed in university and military/civic labs, by underpaid professors and military clinicians who are the developers.

The Parmas are venture capitalists. After the underpaid professors and clinicians finish the product, and undertake tests, the Pharmas swoop in and offer them a contract and lots of money for the rights to produce their medicines. It is a total myth that the Pharmas do any research themselves. That part of the costs is borne by the universities and laboratories, who pay (underpay?) the researchers.

After the Pharmas have sealed the deal with the developers, they ship the recipe off to Malaysia or the Philippines for actual fabrication. The calculation of what to charge is made on the basis of what the market will bear. That essentially means: how important is it to your life or serious illness, the patent office guaranteeing a monopoly?

Not true. Pharma companies spend millions or billions to test a drug before they can bring it to market. If someone else discovered the drug, they are free to spend that kind of money - if they have it. They also need to be willing to lose that money if the drug fails the test or fails to get approval from the FDA.

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) was discovered by scentists working at Gilead, and it was then licensed to Roche. Who do you think spent the money to develop the drug?

by HoratioTarr Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:53 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't need to quit your job if you have flu - you ring in sick.

And wait for them to fire you. You're evading the point: she's got obligations.

raggamuffin wrote:Her husband did buy the drug, so they could afford it. I suppose she just thought it was a lot for a drug.

You're arguing the circumstances of the example. Fact is, some can't afford $185/bottle.

Raggamuffin wrote:Others who took it still died, and some don't want to take it because of side effects. The efficacy of the drug is important because her death is being attributed to not taking Tamiflu, and that's not necessarily true.

It's not a guarantee. What medication is? But wouldn't you rather have the choice? Fact is, they are making money off of a threat of death. Typical capitalist...any route to a monopoly.

UK working law won't allow you to be sacked for being ill.

by Cass Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:51 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And wait for them to fire you. You're evading the point: she's got obligations.

You're arguing the circumstances of the example. Fact is, some can't afford $185/bottle.

It's not a guarantee. What medication is? But wouldn't you rather have the choice? Fact is, they are making money off of a threat of death. Typical capitalist...any route to a monopoly.

UK working law won't allow you to be sacked for being ill.

People are not given sick time off over here as a matter of course. Especially anyone who is part time. As I mentioned above my state just passed a law which gives 1 hour paid sick time for every 30 worked. That will take some time to build up to anything worth while. We are also a At Will state which means you can be fired at any time without warning. Taking sick days off would most certainly fall under this and has happened. People can not afford to take off sick time unpaid and would probably get fired too. Also most jobs have either a 3 month or 6 month “probation “ period before you can use any sick or vacation time. Neither federal nor Arizona law requires employers to provide lunch breaks or other rest periods to their employees. That is true whether the employee is paid a salary or by the hour.

by Maddog Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No they don't. Don't be yet another dupe. The pharmaceuticals are developed in university and military/civic labs, by underpaid professors and military clinicians who are the developers.

The Parmas are venture capitalists. After the underpaid professors and clinicians finish the product, and undertake tests, the Pharmas swoop in and offer them a contract and lots of money for the rights to produce their medicines. It is a total myth that the Pharmas do any research themselves. That part of the costs is borne by the universities and laboratories, who pay (underpay?) the researchers.

After the Pharmas have sealed the deal with the developers, they ship the recipe off to Malaysia or the Philippines for actual fabrication. The calculation of what to charge is made on the basis of what the market will bear. That essentially means: how important is it to your life or serious illness, the patent office guaranteeing a monopoly?

Not true. Pharma companies spend millions or billions to test a drug before they can bring it to market. If someone else discovered the drug, they are free to spend that kind of money - if they have it. They also need to be willing to lose that money if the drug fails the test or fails to get approval from the FDA.

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) was discovered by scentists working at Gilead, and it was then licensed to Roche. Who do you think spent the money to develop the drug?

It came from the money tree.

I don't think Quill understands how much money it costs to get a drug approved by the FDA. That money has to be recouped somehow. The dirty little secret around the globe is it's often on the back of the American consumer because other countries negotiate the price down and the pharmaceuticals just transfer the cost to us.

by Maddog Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:03 pm

Cass wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

UK working law won't allow you to be sacked for being ill.

People are not given sick time off over here as a matter of course. Especially anyone who is part time. As I mentioned above my state just passed a law which gives 1 hour paid sick time for every 30 worked. That will take some time to build up to anything worth while. We are also a At Will state which means you can be fired at any time without warning. Taking sick days off would most certainly fall under this and has happened. People can not afford to take off sick time unpaid and would probably get fired too. Also most jobs have either a 3 month or 6 month “probation “ period before you can use any sick or vacation time. Neither federal nor Arizona law requires employers to provide lunch breaks or other rest periods to their employees. That is true whether the employee is paid a salary or by the hour.

Sick time is negotiated. I'm 54 years old and have never had a job where I couldn't take off if I were sick. Granted, the government never mandated that. My employer and I did.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:09 pm

Cass wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

UK working law won't allow you to be sacked for being ill.

People are not given sick time off over here as a matter of course. Especially anyone who is part time. As I mentioned above my state just passed a law which gives 1 hour paid sick time for every 30 worked. That will take some time to build up to anything worth while. We are also a At Will state which means you can be fired at any time without warning. Taking sick days off would most certainly fall under this and has happened. People can not afford to take off sick time unpaid and would probably get fired too. Also most jobs have either a 3 month or 6 month “probation “ period before you can use any sick or vacation time. Neither federal nor Arizona law requires employers to provide lunch breaks or other rest periods to their employees. That is true whether the employee is paid a salary or by the hour.

Over here, employers don't have to pay employees for time they take off sick. They can get statutory sick pay after three days though. An employer could also theoretically sack someone for being off sick, depending on the circumstance. An employee could sue for unfair dismissal, although in order to do so they must have worked for the company for either one or two years, depending on when they started working for the company.

Employees over the age of 18 have the right to 20 minutes' break if they work over six hours. In reality, I would think that most companies include an hour off for lunch for a full time job. These breaks don't have to be paid for by the employer.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:14 pm

Maddog wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Not true. Pharma companies spend millions or billions to test a drug before they can bring it to market. If someone else discovered the drug, they are free to spend that kind of money - if they have it. They also need to be willing to lose that money if the drug fails the test or fails to get approval from the FDA.

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) was discovered by scentists working at Gilead, and it was then licensed to Roche. Who do you think spent the money to develop the drug?

It came from the money tree.

I don't think Quill understands how much money it costs to get a drug approved by the FDA. That money has to be recouped somehow. The dirty little secret around the globe is it's often on the back of the American consumer because other countries negotiate the price down and the pharmaceuticals just transfer the cost to us.

It takes a huge amount of money, what with all the tests and trials. Roche sponsored dozens of trials for Tamiflu.

I'm not saying that pharma companies don't make a profit - they are businesses after all - but they also spend huge amounts on drug development. A lot of drugs fail the tests and trials generally.

by eddie Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:27 pm

Just for the record, alot of people in the UK don’t get paid for being off sick. I don’t.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:04 pm

eddie wrote:Just for the record, alot of people in the UK don’t get paid for being off sick. I don’t.

Yes, I said that in my post. I don't either.

by Original Quill Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:21 pm

Maddog wrote:I don't think Quill understands how much money it costs to get a drug approved by the FDA. That money has to be recouped somehow. The dirty little secret around the globe is it's often on the back of the American consumer because other countries negotiate the price down and the pharmaceuticals just transfer the cost to us.

The cost of qualification of a drug is negligible compared to the profits made. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) of the FDA is responsible for certification of new drugs as safe and effective. To certify a new drug, a new drug application (NDA) is submitted. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/03/the-drug-development-process-9-steps-from-the-labo.aspx The tests for safety and effectiveness are as varied as the human body meant to be treated, multiplied by periodic table. The costs can be in the millions.

The main expense is failure. The reality is that the pharmaceutical business is in the grip of rising failure rates and rising costs. Each failure sends the designer back to the drawing board, adding to the expense. So many, if not most of those tests are borne by the universities and institutions developing them.

The Pharmas wait for more promising results. But because the Pharmas ‘buy into’ the product, they inherit the numbers spent to develop a drug, including the cost of failures, when they create the partnership; after all, one of the partners spent money on all those failures, just not the Pharma. Thus they inflate the amount that is spent to bring the drug to market.

A venture capitalist has economic principles of his own. When to invest, how much to invest and how to divvy the return are all elements in the art form. A Pharma has developed the PR to a fine point: stand tall on the outgoing, hunch down on the incoming. Play up the great humanitarian service you are performing; use the numbers invested by the institutions to inflate the cost of R&D; sell the product at an astronomical figure; shrug your shoulders if they don’t buy.

With a normal product, the logic works…people will not buy, or they will purchase a substitute product as an alternative. But with pharmaceuticals, the options narrow: the only alternative is sickness or death, as we see in the OP article. It’s a ghastly form of monopoly. That's why I say it's unconscionable to include medicine and healthcare in the capitalist game.

by Sponsored content