View Full Version : Photo contradicts Pelosi's statement about not meeting Kislyak
ducks
03-03-2017, 04:53 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/nancy-pelosi-sergey-kislyak-meeting-235653
Chris
03-03-2017, 05:04 PM
It's time for Skeletor to retire.
clambake
03-03-2017, 05:25 PM
trump president, not pelosi
hater
03-03-2017, 05:27 PM
:lmao
Democrats still parading this cadaver :lol
Blake
03-03-2017, 05:53 PM
"Pelosi’s answer to the question today was clearly about private, one-on-one meetings, which she has never had with Ambassador Kislyak," Hammill said. "The Ambassador was incidental to the 2010 meeting between then-Russian President Medvedev and then-Speaker Pelosi. Clearly, one needs to remind Politico that Attorney General Sessions lied under oath about a secret meeting amidst Russia’s hacking of our election, which he also didn’t disclose in a written questionnaire.”
Sad worthless mud slinging
hater
03-03-2017, 05:55 PM
Pelosi lied not Sessions
djohn2oo8
03-03-2017, 06:01 PM
837776774691979270
:lmao Damn Nancy with the ether
Fail of a thread.
This is just like the Schumer one where Trump got nuked over.
Blake
03-03-2017, 06:15 PM
Pelosi lied not Sessions
Slurp
Thread
03-03-2017, 06:27 PM
Pelosi lied not Sessions
The sheeple thinking Sessions got ousted when all that happened was he escaped responsibility for any outcome of the campaign investigation. Some of you need to learn how to play chess.
Th'Pusher
03-03-2017, 09:06 PM
The sheeple thinking Sessions got ousted when all that happened was he escaped responsibility for any outcome of the campaign investigation. Some of you need to learn how to play chess.
Sounds like you're implying the outcome of the investigation will be punitive. If not, why the need to "escape responsibility"? I hardly see how any punitive outcome would be beneficial for the administration, which includes AG Sessions.
Sounds like you're implying the outcome of the investigation will be punitive. If not, why the need to "escape responsibility"? I hardly see how any punitive outcome would be beneficial for the administration, which includes AG Sessions.
Well you're not very bright so it doesn't surprise me you don't see the obvious.
It doesn't need to be punitive. Just being tied up with an investigation as an AG could put Sessions against the POTUS, but if you think the DOJ won't have any say in anything, lol... and Sessions is still the AG.
mavsfan1000
03-03-2017, 10:55 PM
Pelosi lied not Sessions
Thread
03-03-2017, 11:08 PM
Pelosi lied not Sessions
Th'Pusher
03-03-2017, 11:10 PM
Well you're not very bright so it doesn't surprise me you don't see the obvious.
I see this is your new schtick. It's cute, but you and I both know you've lost every argument we've ever engaged in. Let me know if you want me to go into details.
It doesn't need to be punitive. Just being tied up with an investigation as an AG could put Sessions against the POTUS
Provide a historical example of the point you're trying to convey.
I see this is your new schtick. It's cute, but you and I both know you've lost every argument we've ever engaged in. Let me know if you want me to go into details.
Provide a historical example of the point you're trying to convey.
:lol you quit half the time and somehow that's a win for you
As for "hold my hand". You figure it out. Let me know when that little dimly lit LED in your head goes into conduction so I'll know you get the "save my own ass" angle.
Don't try to play in the big leagues yet, boy. You're just a wee lad.
Th'Pusher
03-04-2017, 09:16 AM
:lol you quit half the time and somehow that's a win for you
not true. since you started playing around in the political forum as an election year tourist you've unsuccessfully argued:
for a national policy of no forced wealth transfer
that CHL is unconstitutional
that the profit motive is an effective driver of innovation in the current pharmacutical industry
Those are just with me off the top of my head. I frequently see you fail to effectively argue positions on merit with others too.
As for "hold my hand". You figure it out. Let me know when that little dimly lit LED in your head goes into conduction so I'll know you get the "save my own ass" angle.
i understand your argument. I don't think that it carries any weight, specifically if the investigation leads to nothing punitive. This being the case, I've asked you to provide a historical example of an AG at odds with a president over an investigation that amounted to nothing. Otherwise, it's hypothetical bullshit.
Don't try to play in the big leagues yet, boy. You're just a wee lad.
You overestimate your ability. While you're quick to argue, you usually stake out an untenable position and your arguments devolve into pedantic nit picking while fighting for meaningless points of fact when it's clear you've surrendered your initial position.
not true. since you started playing around in the political forum as an election year tourist you've unsuccessfully argued:
for a national policy of no forced wealth transfer
Prove it
that CHL is unconstitutional
Wrong. I pointed out that using CHL for open carry is unconstitutional since it infringes upon a right to bear arms. You're a gun and gun law ignorant liberal so it's not surprising that you ignore the difference.
that the profit motive is an effective driver of innovation in the current pharmacutical industry
Since it's a private industry with publicly traded stocks, meaning they have to have a profit/loss statements, I maintain that claim.
Those are just with me off the top of my head. I frequently see you fail to effectively argue positions on merit with others too.
No you don't.
i understand your argument. I don't think that it carries any weight, specifically if the investigation leads to nothing punitive. This being the case, I've asked you to provide a historical example of an AG at odds with a president over an investigation that amounted to nothing. Otherwise, it's hypothetical bullshit.
You think everything must have historical precedent else it cannot happen. That's because you lack capacity for abstract thought. It's why you don't see the long game, you only do scripted outcomes.
You overestimate your ability. While you're quick to argue, you usually stake out an untenable position and your arguments devolve into pedantic nit picking while fighting for meaningless points of fact when it's clear you've surrendered your initial position.
Once I make my point I don't feel the need to watch you finger paint in your own shit as you try to deflect or just quit the discussion. When I encounter someone who has a salient point I will generally reach an agreement and might learn something. You have a long history here of being basically a shitty alt of another faggot who tries too hard to make people think he's more than he is.
Th'Pusher
03-04-2017, 08:44 PM
Prove it
You argued for a welfare free state, condemning all forced transfer of wealth. This is an example of you staking out an extreme position that's basically indefensible. I asked you to provide empirical data to support your claim. You couldn't. I asked you to make your argument without empirical data. You stopped responding.
Wrong. I pointed out that using CHL for open carry is unconstitutional since it infringes upon a right to bear arms. You're a gun and gun law ignorant liberal so it's not surprising that you ignore the difference.
Your initial claim was that CHL is unconstitutional. It then evolved into - CHL is not unconstitutional but the the unique way Texas has chosen to implement CHL is. In any event, SCOTUS has relegated the regulation of concealed carry to the states and they have allowed states latitude to implement as they please. Your argument wouldn't hold up in court and you aren't willing to take it to court despite the fact that you have standing.
Since it's a private industry with publicly traded stocks, meaning they have to have a profit/loss statements, I maintain that claim.
Because pharmaceutical companies have to make a profit that means the profit motive is an effective driver of innovation? That's not even an argument. It's lazy garbage. As I explained, the profit motive is actually a deterrent to innovation as companies are incentivized to evergreen existing patented drugs whereas new ideas are risky and expensive to get approved.
No you don't.
Sure I do. Here's an example of ElNono making quick work of your naive healthcare argument: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264577
You think everything must have historical precedent else it cannot happen. That's because you lack capacity for abstract thought. It's why you don't see the long game, you only do scripted outcomes.
It has nothing to do with a lack of capacity for abstract thought. That's an appeal to ridicule. I simply don't buy the argument that Sessions recused himself as a strategic move so as not to put him in a position at odds with the president. It's quite frankly a stupid argument and, if true, would be a dereliction duty by the Attorney General.
Once I make my point I don't feel the need to watch you finger paint in your own shit as you try to deflect or just quit the discussion. When I encounter someone who has a salient point I will generally reach an agreement and might learn something. You have a long history here of being basically a shitty alt of another faggot who tries too hard to make people think he's more than he is.
:madrun
You argued for a welfare free state, condemning all forced transfer of wealth. This is an example of you staking out an extreme position that's basically indefensible. I asked you to provide empirical data to support your claim. You couldn't. I asked you to make your argument without empirical data. You stopped responding.
Proof by assertion?
Your initial claim was that CHL is unconstitutional. It then evolved into - CHL is not unconstitutional but the the unique way Texas has chosen to implement CHL is. In any event, SCOTUS has relegated the regulation of concealed carry to the states and they have allowed states latitude to implement as they please. Your argument wouldn't hold up in court and you aren't willing to take it to court despite the fact that you have standing.
I knew the facts when the question was asked, you didn't. So the answer was the same, you just had to be hand held.
Because pharmaceutical companies have to make a profit that means the profit motive is an effective driver of innovation? That's not even an argument. It's lazy garbage. As I explained, the profit motive is actually a deterrent to innovation as companies are incentivized to evergreen existing patented drugs whereas new ideas are risky and expensive to get approved.
More proof by assertion. Pharma doesn't make money by not doing anything. Regardless how long they make money off of product X, at some point product X was created. The subsequent profits are not coincidental.
Sure I do. Here's an example of ElNono making quick work of your naive healthcare argument: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264577
No it's not :lol
You see what you want to see, but you're ignorant so it's normal that you don't see the truth.
It has nothing to do with a lack of capacity for abstract thought. That's an appeal to ridicule. I simply don't buy the argument that Sessions recused himself as a strategic move so as not to put him in a position at odds with the president. It's quite frankly a stupid argument and, if true, would be a dereliction duty by the Attorney General.
You don't need to buy it. According to you everything must have a precedent or it cannot happen, ergo nothing happens for the 1st time, or you expect me to hand hold you again through the maze of strategies.
:madrun
You even had to edit that stupid, half assed response. :lol
Th'Pusher
03-04-2017, 11:16 PM
Proof by assertion?
Not at all. You made a claim, your burden of proof which you failed meet.
I knew the facts when the question was asked, you didn't. So the answer was the same, you just had to be hand held.. It took you three pages of back and forth to establish the CHL you believed unconstitutional was the method Texas chose to implement. There was no hand holding, you just don't know how to effectively craft an argument.
More proof by assertion. Pharma doesn't make money by not doing anything. Ruegardless how long they make money off of product X, at some point product X was created. The subsequent profits are not coincidental.
this is a poor argument for the profit motive being an effective driver of innovation.
No it's not :lol
You see what you want to see, but you're ignorant so it's normal that you don't see the truth.
:lol the truth. Your position was clumsy and incompetent. It was quite obvious you knew nothing of the complexities of the subject matter and you were arguing from an emotional and ideological position. But everyone can read for themselves.
You don't need to buy it. According to you everything must have a precedent or it cannot happen, ergo nothing happens for the 1st time, or you expect me to hand hold you again through the maze of strategies.
You took a stupid position as was made evident by the reports today that Donald was furious with Sessions recusing himself. :lol chess.
You even had to edit that stupid, half assed response. :lol
Don't concern yourself with what I choose to edit.
v :lol
^ Sloppy Floyd
Of course Donald took issue with it, dumbass. Sessions did it to save himself, not to help Donald.
ElNono
03-05-2017, 03:45 AM
I hated Pelosi when she was majority leader, tbh... it's part of the cadre of politicos that need to move on... maybe sponsor some guy, but move on...
Th'Pusher
03-05-2017, 08:40 AM
^ Sloppy Floyd
Of course Donald took issue with it, dumbass. Sessions did it to save himself, not to help Donald.
So by recusing himself, he put himself at odds with the president, the thing he was trying to avoid by recusing himself in the first place? You call me sloppy, that logic is bordering on retardation.
Your capitulation on the other points is duly noted.
So by recusing himself, he put himself at odds with the president, the thing he was trying to avoid by recusing himself in the first place? You call me sloppy, that logic is bordering on retardation.
Your capitulation on the other points is duly noted.
Goddamn you're dumb. By recusing himself he removed himself from the firing line. Having Trump upset that you recused yourself is much better than having him fire you because you're running an investigation into his campaign.
Note this: You haven't won a single point. I just refuse to contribute without receiving anything in return. You ask questions but you never seem to answer any. All of your comments ITT are about what I claimed, nothing about what you claimed.
Now you're fagging up the thread. Move on.
Th'Pusher
03-05-2017, 01:00 PM
Goddamn you're dumb. By recusing himself he removed himself from the firing line. Having Trump upset that you recused yourself is much better than having him fire you because you're running an investigation into his campaign.
:lol chess. Your understanding of politics is shit. The optics of Donald firing his AG for running an investigation into his campaign would be fucking disastrous.
Note this: You haven't won a single point.
I have. Your position on the profit motive driving innovation in modern pharmaceuticals is laughably stupid.
I just refuse to contribute without receiving anything in return. You ask questions but you never seem to answer any. All of your comments ITT are about what I claimed, nothing about what you claimed.
This is demonstrably false. What questions have I not answered? You refuse to contribute when you have exhausted all of your ignorant lines of reasoning.
Now you're fagging up the thread.
OP was a shitpost. This diversion was an improvement.
Move on.
You wish.
:lol chess. Your understanding of politics is shit. The optics of Donald firing his AG for running an investigation into his campaign would be fucking disastrous.
All this noise from you is just baseless assertion. Presidents have the right to fire cabinet positions. They do it all the time. Trump already fired the previous AG for refusing to honor his wishes. Since you like precedent so much, Nixon fired his AG because he refused to fire someone who was investigating the Watergate affair.
I have. Your position on the profit motive driving innovation in modern pharmaceuticals is laughably stupid.
So then your position (that you've avoided actually stating) is that the pharmaceutical industry just accidentally happened upon the huge profits they rake in? So then they set out in philanthropic efforts that, for some odd reason, keep making money for them. All this talk about how free prescription meds have become, how easy it is to afford them especially if you're elderly and have a rare illness. Yeah, there's no profit motive in that industry. Surely you cannot be that fucking stupid.
"The top-prospect school of R&D thinking--a rejection of a discredited effort at industrializing innovation--has taken firm hold of the entire industry. That was clear as Merck's new R&D chief Roger Perlmutter quickly seized on their cancer immunotherapy program for MK-3475, carefully setting it up for a star role as the company sets out to engineer big changes in its research group.
A single major blockbuster can go a long way to finding forgiveness among investors for a hundred smaller sins of execution. And the emphasis now is finding those stars and devoting substantial resources and special teams to hustle them along"
http://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/post-restructuring-pfizer-r-d-focused-on-its-top-blockbuster-prospects
This is demonstrably false. What questions have I not answered? You refuse to contribute when you have exhausted all of your ignorant lines of reasoning.
You are too ignorant of anything useful for anyone to actually ask your opinion, so you basically post like of of a hundred other shitty alts on this forum who spend their forum time playing 1000 questions, ala Chumpdumper... "be specific".
OP was a shitpost. This diversion was an improvement.
Not to me, I've never learned anything from you I couldn't glean from watching any retard eating boogers.
You wish.
I wouldn't expect you to. Somehow you think I legitimize you because I talk to you.
Th'Pusher
03-08-2017, 09:17 PM
All this noise from you is just baseless assertion. Presidents have the right to fire cabinet positions. They do it all the time. Trump already fired the previous AG for refusing to honor his wishes. Since you like precedent so much, Nixon fired his AG because he refused to fire someone who was investigating the Watergate affair.
Obviously there is no way to prove AG Sessions' intentions. You go on believing him choosing to recuse himself was a genius chess tactic to prevent him from having to investigate Trump and I'll believe he chose to recuse himself under mounting pressure stemming from the revelation that he had not disclosed his contacts with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearing. Anyone reading can decide which of the two arguments is more convincing. I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
So then your position (that you've avoided actually stating) is that the pharmaceutical industry just accidentally happened upon the huge profits they rake in? So then they set out in philanthropic efforts that, for some odd reason, keep making money for them. All this talk about how free prescription meds have become, how easy it is to afford them especially if you're elderly and have a rare illness. Yeah, there's no profit motive in that industry. Surely you cannot be that fucking stupid.
That's not my argument and I have stated my position. I summarized it in post 20 in this thread and went into more detail in the thread where we had this initial debate. You either have really poor reading comprehension or you're being intentionally dishonest. I tend to believe the latter.
"The top-prospect school of R&D thinking--a rejection of a discredited effort at industrializing innovation--has taken firm hold of the entire industry. That was clear as Merck's new R&D chief Roger Perlmutter quickly seized on their cancer immunotherapy program for MK-3475, carefully setting it up for a star role as the company sets out to engineer big changes in its research group.
A single major blockbuster can go a long way to finding forgiveness among investors for a hundred smaller sins of execution. And the emphasis now is finding those stars and devoting substantial resources and special teams to hustle them along"
http://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/post-restructuring-pfizer-r-d-focused-on-its-top-blockbuster-prospects
Congratulations on your first compelling rebuttal. I present a counterpoint
...
The protease inhibitors were among the last of the truly revolutionary classes of medications to come from the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, almost all new medications have been variations of old medications with a slight improvement (if even that) or a new indication. Few new classes of medications, almost no medical miracles (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-belk/hepatitis-c-and-the-mirac_b_9769212.html), nothing that has significantly changed the way we practice medicine has come from the pharmaceutical industry since the late nineties.
So how is it that an industry that gave us so many revolutionary, life saving wonder drugs in decades past is now reduced to peddling gimmicks and repeatedly recycling old ideas?
The “golden age of the pharmaceutical industry” was drawing to a close as early as 1990 when the pharmaceutical companies began to tire of new ideas. New ideas are always expensive and risky. Even the most brilliant sounding ideas often go nowhere when tested clinically.
This innovation fatigue had become so serious by the early 1990’s that Herceptin, the monoclonal antibody that first cured metastatic breast cancer, almost didn’t even get tested. In his book “The Emperor of All Maladies,” Siddhartha Mukherjee describes the difficulty Genentech scientists had convincing their executives to fund the testing of Herceptin after it had already been developed in 1990:
“… but Genentech was worried that pouring money into the development of another drug that failed would cripple the company’s finances. Chastened by the experience of others–”allergic to cancer” as one Genentech researcher described it– Genentech pulled funding away from most of its cancer projects.” (Page 418)
Herceptin had already been developed, but Genentech executives didn’t care. Testing to see if it worked risked wasting money and these executives were becoming very risk averse. Genentech executives weren’t alone in their risk aversion either. From 1995-1997 Novartis executives tried equally hard to kill Gleevec– another miracle drug that suppresses a deadly form of leukemia indefinitely–because they feared that the trials needed to clear Gleevec would cost too much (Page 436).
Fortunately, both Gleevec and Herceptin got the funding they needed and are now providing billions of dollars in revenue to the pharmaceutical companies that tried to kill them. They were among the last new ideas to get funding from the drug companies though. By the time Gleevec came on the market in 2000 the door had mostly shut on novel pharmaceutical research.
By 1990 the pharmaceutical industry knew they already had a lot of very effective products that were making them lots of money each year. They had patents that were generating billions of dollars a year and would continue to do so for many years to come. They also knew they could probably find a number of new uses for the classes of medications they already had. The most profitable course they saw at that point was to just coast; put no more funding into new foundational research (http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/can-pharma-rd-satisfy-the-new-healthcare-market/science-technology) and just keep pushing what was already working for them. That’s exactly what they did, and it worked!
The profits made by the pharmaceutical companies exploded over the last decade without them putting out any new products that were even remotely innovative. But that strategy can only work for a little while. Two decades after they shut the door on actual innovation the revenue from the old ideas is starting to run dry (http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmunos/2013/03/22/how-fresh-is-big-pharmas-freshness-index/).
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NewPharmaSates.png (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NewPharmaSates.png)
Figure 4: (From linked article above.) New medications released each successive year since 2001 by the pharmaceutical companies have been increasingly less popular.
So, we in the US continue to overpay for brand name prescription medications, but the pharmaceutical industry has given us almost no new important therapies in more than 15 years. A somewhat unexpected result of this is that, total pharmaceutical revenue has been nearly flat since 2010.
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/PharmaAnnualRevenue.png (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/PharmaAnnualRevenue.png)
Figure 5: Total annual revenue for the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies since 2003.
You can see from the above graph that the total revenue from the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies has barely increased at all since 2010. It has actually dropped slightly since 2011 despite a more than 50% increase (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/brand-name-medication-prices/) in the cost of brand name prescription drugs in the US since 2012.
What changed? A flood of Generic drugs came on the market.
Because there really is a market for generic drugs, we don’t pay any more for most generics (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/medication-table/) than people in other countries. In 2003, most of the medications prescribed were still under patent. Today, the opposite is true. The effect is easy to see in the following graph, which shows the dramatic loss of revenue when the patent Bristol-Myers Squibb owned on Plavix expired.
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/downloads.png
Figure 6: Bristol-Myers Squibb (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/pdffiles/Bristol-Myers_Squibb_Graphs.154205854.pdf) lost their patent for Plavix in 2011 and, as you can see, that cost them over $6 billion a year in lost revenue from just the US.
Profit Without Innovation
The pharmaceutical companies haven’t been taking all of these patent losses lying down. They’ve instituted a number of measures to help offset the amount they’ve been losing to lost patent protection:
1) They’ve fought very hard, and in every way they can, to delay the expiration of drug exclusivity whenever possible. This process is called “evergreening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening)” a patent. For example, they can apply for a new indication for an old drug just prior to it’s patent expiration. They can change the delivery system for, say, an inhaler. They can alter the recommended doses of a drug by a small amount– they have a lot of tricks for maintaining exclusivity and these tricks can often delay generic competition for several years.
2) In 2013 the pharmaceutical companies got the US Supreme Court to allow them to pay generic drug makers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Actavis,_Inc.) to delay the release of generic equivalents of medications for a time after the patent for a medication expires.
3) They’ve raised the prices (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/brand-name-medication-prices/) of the few patented medications left in the US substantially in the last few years. The following table clearly shows this pattern:
Medication and Dose
Indication
October 2012 Price
June 2016 Price
Price Increase
Abilify 20 mg
Depression
$26.35 per pill
$40.51 per pill
54%
Advair 250/50
Asthma
$3.97 per inhalation
$5.48 per inhalation
38%
Benicar 40 mg
Blood Pressure
$4.26 per pill
$7.10 per pill
67%
Byetta 10 mcg
Diabetes
$128.58 per dose pen
$232.59 per dose pen
81%
Cialis 20 mg
Antique
Bathtub Sex
$23.64 per pill
$49.79 per pill
111%
Crestor 20 mg
Cholesterol
$4.99 per pill
$8.09 per pill
62%
Diovan 160 mg
Blood Pressure
$3.43 per pill
$5.89 per pill
72%
Effient 10 mg
Heart Disease
$6.80 per pill
$12.59 per pill
85%
Geodon 40 mg
Psychosis
$8.16 per capsule
$14.13 per capsule
73%
Gleevec 400 mg
Leukemia
$189.91 per pill
$324.46 per pill
71%
Januvia 50 mg
Diabetes
$7.30 per pill
$11.75 per pill
61%
Lyrica 50 mg
Pain
$3.00 per capsule
$5.57 per capsule
86%
Pristiq ER 50 mg
Depression
$4.84 per pill
$9.42 per pill
95%
Vytorin 10/40
Cholesterol
$4.70 per pill
$8.24 per pill
75%
Xarelto 20 mg
Atrial Fibrillation
$7.59 per pill
$11.60 per pill
53%
Table 3 shows the average (NADAC (http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Benefits/Prescription-Drugs/Pharmacy-Pricing.html)) price pharmacies paid for 15 medications. It shows the average cost for these medications in October 2012 (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NADAC20121011CSV.172142813.csv) compared to the average cost for the same medications in June 2016 (https://data.medicaid.gov/Drug-Prices/NADAC-as-of-2016-06-15/qa3k-dfs8). In just 3 1/2 years most of the listed medications rose at least 60-90% in price.
This rapid escalation in medication prices has managed to offset some of the losses to the pharmaceutical companies but it hasn’t significantly increased the total amount we in the US have paid for our drugs. That’s an important point: The overall cost of pharmaceuticals in the US hasn’t been going up and, in fact, outside of a few select medications, most drugs are now a lot cheaper.
These techniques the pharmaceutical companies are using to cut their losses generally provide no new therapeutic benefit—they just renew their ability to demand very high prices (at least in the US).
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/the_pharmaceutical_industry/
You are too ignorant of anything useful for anyone to actually ask your opinion, so you basically post like of of a hundred other shitty alts on this forum who spend their forum time playing 1000 questions, ala Chumpdumper... "be specific".
Not to me, I've never learned anything from you I couldn't glean from watching any retard eating boogers.
I wouldn't expect you to. Somehow you think I legitimize you because I talk to you.
All ad hominem. An indication of a man at the end of his rope.
AaronY
03-08-2017, 09:25 PM
How does everyone forget seeing this face tho
http://www.kvnonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/B76I4616-Tim-Fitzgerald.jpg
The chin alone ill never forget
Obviously there is no way to prove AG Sessions' intentions. You go on believing him choosing to recuse himself was a genius chess tactic to prevent him from having to investigate Trump and I'll believe he chose to recuse himself under mounting pressure stemming from the revelation that he had not disclosed his contacts with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearing. Anyone reading can decide which of the two arguments is more convincing. I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
That's not my argument and I have stated my position. I summarized it in post 20 in this thread and went into more detail in the thread where we had this initial debate. You either have really poor reading comprehension or you're being intentionally dishonest. I tend to believe the latter.
Congratulations on your first compelling rebuttal. I present a counterpoint
...
The protease inhibitors were among the last of the truly revolutionary classes of medications to come from the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, almost all new medications have been variations of old medications with a slight improvement (if even that) or a new indication. Few new classes of medications, almost no medical miracles (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-belk/hepatitis-c-and-the-mirac_b_9769212.html), nothing that has significantly changed the way we practice medicine has come from the pharmaceutical industry since the late nineties.
So how is it that an industry that gave us so many revolutionary, life saving wonder drugs in decades past is now reduced to peddling gimmicks and repeatedly recycling old ideas?
The “golden age of the pharmaceutical industry” was drawing to a close as early as 1990 when the pharmaceutical companies began to tire of new ideas. New ideas are always expensive and risky. Even the most brilliant sounding ideas often go nowhere when tested clinically.
This innovation fatigue had become so serious by the early 1990’s that Herceptin, the monoclonal antibody that first cured metastatic breast cancer, almost didn’t even get tested. In his book “The Emperor of All Maladies,” Siddhartha Mukherjee describes the difficulty Genentech scientists had convincing their executives to fund the testing of Herceptin after it had already been developed in 1990:
“… but Genentech was worried that pouring money into the development of another drug that failed would cripple the company’s finances. Chastened by the experience of others–”allergic to cancer” as one Genentech researcher described it– Genentech pulled funding away from most of its cancer projects.” (Page 418)
Herceptin had already been developed, but Genentech executives didn’t care. Testing to see if it worked risked wasting money and these executives were becoming very risk averse. Genentech executives weren’t alone in their risk aversion either. From 1995-1997 Novartis executives tried equally hard to kill Gleevec– another miracle drug that suppresses a deadly form of leukemia indefinitely–because they feared that the trials needed to clear Gleevec would cost too much (Page 436).
Fortunately, both Gleevec and Herceptin got the funding they needed and are now providing billions of dollars in revenue to the pharmaceutical companies that tried to kill them. They were among the last new ideas to get funding from the drug companies though. By the time Gleevec came on the market in 2000 the door had mostly shut on novel pharmaceutical research.
By 1990 the pharmaceutical industry knew they already had a lot of very effective products that were making them lots of money each year. They had patents that were generating billions of dollars a year and would continue to do so for many years to come. They also knew they could probably find a number of new uses for the classes of medications they already had. The most profitable course they saw at that point was to just coast; put no more funding into new foundational research (http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/can-pharma-rd-satisfy-the-new-healthcare-market/science-technology) and just keep pushing what was already working for them. That’s exactly what they did, and it worked!
The profits made by the pharmaceutical companies exploded over the last decade without them putting out any new products that were even remotely innovative. But that strategy can only work for a little while. Two decades after they shut the door on actual innovation the revenue from the old ideas is starting to run dry (http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmunos/2013/03/22/how-fresh-is-big-pharmas-freshness-index/).
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NewPharmaSates.png (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NewPharmaSates.png)
Figure 4: (From linked article above.) New medications released each successive year since 2001 by the pharmaceutical companies have been increasingly less popular.
So, we in the US continue to overpay for brand name prescription medications, but the pharmaceutical industry has given us almost no new important therapies in more than 15 years. A somewhat unexpected result of this is that, total pharmaceutical revenue has been nearly flat since 2010.
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/PharmaAnnualRevenue.png (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/PharmaAnnualRevenue.png)
Figure 5: Total annual revenue for the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies since 2003.
You can see from the above graph that the total revenue from the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies has barely increased at all since 2010. It has actually dropped slightly since 2011 despite a more than 50% increase (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/brand-name-medication-prices/) in the cost of brand name prescription drugs in the US since 2012.
What changed? A flood of Generic drugs came on the market.
Because there really is a market for generic drugs, we don’t pay any more for most generics (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/medication-table/) than people in other countries. In 2003, most of the medications prescribed were still under patent. Today, the opposite is true. The effect is easy to see in the following graph, which shows the dramatic loss of revenue when the patent Bristol-Myers Squibb owned on Plavix expired.
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/downloads.png
Figure 6: Bristol-Myers Squibb (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/pdffiles/Bristol-Myers_Squibb_Graphs.154205854.pdf) lost their patent for Plavix in 2011 and, as you can see, that cost them over $6 billion a year in lost revenue from just the US.
Profit Without Innovation
The pharmaceutical companies haven’t been taking all of these patent losses lying down. They’ve instituted a number of measures to help offset the amount they’ve been losing to lost patent protection:
1) They’ve fought very hard, and in every way they can, to delay the expiration of drug exclusivity whenever possible. This process is called “evergreening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening)” a patent. For example, they can apply for a new indication for an old drug just prior to it’s patent expiration. They can change the delivery system for, say, an inhaler. They can alter the recommended doses of a drug by a small amount– they have a lot of tricks for maintaining exclusivity and these tricks can often delay generic competition for several years.
2) In 2013 the pharmaceutical companies got the US Supreme Court to allow them to pay generic drug makers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Actavis,_Inc.) to delay the release of generic equivalents of medications for a time after the patent for a medication expires.
3) They’ve raised the prices (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/brand-name-medication-prices/) of the few patented medications left in the US substantially in the last few years. The following table clearly shows this pattern:
Medication and Dose
Indication
October 2012 Price
June 2016 Price
Price Increase
Abilify 20 mg
Depression
$26.35 per pill
$40.51 per pill
54%
Advair 250/50
Asthma
$3.97 per inhalation
$5.48 per inhalation
38%
Benicar 40 mg
Blood Pressure
$4.26 per pill
$7.10 per pill
67%
Byetta 10 mcg
Diabetes
$128.58 per dose pen
$232.59 per dose pen
81%
Cialis 20 mg
Antique
Bathtub Sex
$23.64 per pill
$49.79 per pill
111%
Crestor 20 mg
Cholesterol
$4.99 per pill
$8.09 per pill
62%
Diovan 160 mg
Blood Pressure
$3.43 per pill
$5.89 per pill
72%
Effient 10 mg
Heart Disease
$6.80 per pill
$12.59 per pill
85%
Geodon 40 mg
Psychosis
$8.16 per capsule
$14.13 per capsule
73%
Gleevec 400 mg
Leukemia
$189.91 per pill
$324.46 per pill
71%
Januvia 50 mg
Diabetes
$7.30 per pill
$11.75 per pill
61%
Lyrica 50 mg
Pain
$3.00 per capsule
$5.57 per capsule
86%
Pristiq ER 50 mg
Depression
$4.84 per pill
$9.42 per pill
95%
Vytorin 10/40
Cholesterol
$4.70 per pill
$8.24 per pill
75%
Xarelto 20 mg
Atrial Fibrillation
$7.59 per pill
$11.60 per pill
53%
Table 3 shows the average (NADAC (http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Benefits/Prescription-Drugs/Pharmacy-Pricing.html)) price pharmacies paid for 15 medications. It shows the average cost for these medications in October 2012 (http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NADAC20121011CSV.172142813.csv) compared to the average cost for the same medications in June 2016 (https://data.medicaid.gov/Drug-Prices/NADAC-as-of-2016-06-15/qa3k-dfs8). In just 3 1/2 years most of the listed medications rose at least 60-90% in price.
This rapid escalation in medication prices has managed to offset some of the losses to the pharmaceutical companies but it hasn’t significantly increased the total amount we in the US have paid for our drugs. That’s an important point: The overall cost of pharmaceuticals in the US hasn’t been going up and, in fact, outside of a few select medications, most drugs are now a lot cheaper.
These techniques the pharmaceutical companies are using to cut their losses generally provide no new therapeutic benefit—they just renew their ability to demand very high prices (at least in the US).
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/the_pharmaceutical_industry/
All ad hominem. An indication of a man at the end of his rope.
I'm not reading all that shit. That's just argument by wall of text.
Pharmaceutical companies exist to make profit for their shareholders. That's job number fucking 1 for them. When they develop drugs, they do it in hopes of making profits. It doesn't mean that they will, but they aren't charities and they aren't philanthropist organizations. They are profit driven businesses and only a fucking idiot would argue that their product development isn't driven by profit/loss motive. So unless you think they just stumbled upon these drugs that they keep resubmitting with slight variances, you don't have a leg to stand on. Not to worry though, there are companies who make prosthetics that can fit you with one, and they are also profit driven.
Also, I never called Sessions' decision "genius". Stop putting words in my mouth. Argue against what I said, not what you wish I would have said.
In each of the arguments you've cited, you don't even understand the argument. You're so far out in left field jousting the strawmen you've built that you've lost your way.
1. CHL used for open carry is unconstitutional but then so are many gun laws. I don't need to win a case against the feds for that to be true.
2. Pharmaceutical industry profits are what drives research and development. No profit, no R&D and eventually no company. Your argument is that it's not an effective motive since they evergreen (for profit) instead of developing new drugs. I didn't say it was more effective than evergreening existing products, so you're just fighting another strawman here. You need to officially stake out the position then that evergreening is more profitable than new development, and I'll likely agree. It's not an argument I have disagreed with, but you're going down that road.
3. Sessions' recused himself against Trump's will. He was pretty quick to do so. Trump isn't your run of the mill POTUS. He could very easily fire Sessions for being part of an investigation into the Russia thing. Since Sessions recused, he's free and clear of any noise surrounding it unless he's directly implicated (recusing doesn't mean he's immune from prosecution).
Try to keep up.
So do you have any other misconceptions of arguments you think you've won? I'd be happy to relieve you of them.
Th'Pusher
03-08-2017, 11:41 PM
I'm not reading all that shit. That's just argument by wall of text.
Pharmaceutical companies exist to make profit for their shareholders. That's job number fucking 1 for them. When they develop drugs, they do it in hopes of making profits. It doesn't mean that they will, but they aren't charities and they aren't philanthropist organizations. They are profit driven businesses and only a fucking idiot would argue that their product development isn't driven by profit/loss motive.
That was never my argument. You keep throwing out the same strawman. The debate was whether or not the profit motive was an effective driver of innovation in the modern pharmaceutical industry.
I appreciate you being honest enough to admit you're too lazy to read an opposing opinion.
So unless you think they just stumbled upon these drugs that they keep resubmitting with slight variances, you don't have a leg to stand on. Not to worry though, there are companies who make prosthetics that can fit you with one, and they are also profit driven.
Again, my position was never that profit was never an innovation driver. The argument was that over time, as opposed to taking risk and spending money on R&D for new innovative drugs, the profit motive encouraged companies to spend money on extending existing drug patents to maintain market share which ended up coming at the expense of innovation.
At this point, I know you're not unintelligent so I have to assume you're mendacious.
A always, it's been fun...
Th'Pusher
03-08-2017, 11:47 PM
In each of the arguments you've cited, you don't even understand the argument. You're so far out in left field jousting the strawmen you've built that you've lost your way.
1. CHL used for open carry is unconstitutional but then so are many gun laws. I don't need to win a case against the feds for that to be true.
2. Pharmaceutical industry profits are what drives research and development. No profit, no R&D and eventually no company. Your argument is that it's not an effective motive since they evergreen (for profit) instead of developing new drugs. I didn't say it was more effective than evergreening existing products, so you're just fighting another strawman here. You need to officially stake out the position then that evergreening is more profitable than new development, and I'll likely agree. It's not an argument I have disagreed with, but you're going down that road.
3. Sessions' recused himself against Trump's will. He was pretty quick to do so. Trump isn't your run of the mill POTUS. He could very easily fire Sessions for being part of an investigation into the Russia thing. Since Sessions recused, he's free and clear of any noise surrounding it unless he's directly implicated (recusing doesn't mean he's immune from prosecution).
Try to keep up.
So do you have any other misconceptions of arguments you think you've won? I'd be happy to relieve you of them.
Look, we've established you're not arguing from an honest position on pretty much anything. I'm not interested. Maybe you'll pique my interest on another topic.
That was never my argument. You keep throwing out the same strawman. The debate was whether or not the profit motive was an effective driver of innovation in the modern pharmaceutical industry.
I appreciate you being honest enough to admit you're too lazy to read an opposing opinion.
That's not your opinion, it's just an article that talks about evergreening. Profit is the only driver for innovation in the private sector. That doesn't mean innovation is blowing and going, but what other motive exists in the private sector for innovation?
The term "effective" is subjective. You're simply comparing profit from innovation to profit from evergreening and calling innovation profit an "ineffective motivator". That's like saying Ford hasn't created anything since the automobile, they've only modified the existing one and reissued it. Their innovation is still profit driven. Innovation isn't just paradigm shifting drugs or flying vehicles from automobiles. It's also drugs with fewer side effects, and cars that park themselves.
Again, my position was never that profit was never an innovation driver. The argument was that over time, as opposed to taking risk and spending money on R&D for new innovative drugs, the profit motive encouraged companies to spend money on extending existing drug patents to maintain market share which ended up coming at the expense of innovation.
We've been down the diminishing returns road already. Maybe you were too busying congratulating yourself in the mirror for something you didn't win to understand the point that was being made. Whether new products are flying out of their ass like monkeys or they are leaking out slowly like colon bacterium, they are still new products and so those are the only things you have to measure. What drove the production of those? What motivated the company to spend money on the R&D? Was it love for humanity? Was it some socialism endeavor? No, it was profit pure and simple.
Do you realize you're talking about one thing but using something else when you try to prove it? So companies make more profit from existing products, it's smart to do that. It's a viable alternative to losing your ass because your product was made generic and sold at Walmart for 5 dollars for 100 pills. Still, when the company innovates, why does it do so?
At this point, I know you're not unintelligent so I have to assume you're mendacious.
A always, it's been fun...
You're good at assuming.
Look, we've established you're not arguing from an honest position on pretty much anything. I'm not interested. Maybe you'll pique my interest on another topic.
Quitting again? Mark this down as another win for you then.
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 12:15 AM
That's not your opinion, it's just an article that talks about evergreening. Profit is the only driver for innovation in the private sector. That doesn't mean innovation is blowing and going, but what other motive exists in the private sector for innovation?
Well, it's by no means an article about evergreening, but if that's what you get out of it, there's nothing I can do to help you comprehend.
The bolded above has been your argument from the beginning - the profit motive is what we have, so regardless of whether or not it's effective, we should continue down this path. This is an ideological, and quite frankly lazy, position. I disagree. There are options to shift the paradigm. This "wall of text" is is relatively short...
http://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2014/02/promoting-innovation-in-drug-development
Well, it's by no means an article about evergreening, but if that's what you get out of it, there's nothing I can do to help you comprehend.
The bolded above has been your argument from the beginning - the profit motive is what we have, so regardless of whether or not it's effective, we should continue down this path. This is an ideological, and quite frankly lazy, position. I disagree. There are options to shift the paradigm. This "wall of text" is is relatively short...
http://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2014/02/promoting-innovation-in-drug-development
People will do anything for money. This is true in all sectors. Why do you think it's not true in pharmaceuticals? You're suggesting a different motive. Name it.
By the way, I read the article.
They are going the long way around suggesting a consortium that is funded magically by the federal government:
"National Institutes for Health committed $119 million over five years to the Accelerating Medicines Partnership, a consortium of 10 drug companies and several non-profit organizations who agreed to share scientific data about drugs in early development in four disease areas."
Under this plan the American taxpayer would be funding the research of private companies for drugs they'll be charged for once approved. If you think the private sector is slow to produce effective drugs, just wait until Uncle Sam gets a crack at it. Wait until the funding comes up before committee and gets rerouted to another project.
Where's the motive though? I see funding and consortium and private companies still getting paid to do R&D, but instead of using their own money they use ours. I don't see more motive to create new drugs. I see more motive to do R&D for government funding. That's happening now at universities across the nation. How's that going?
No thanks.
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 07:04 AM
People will do anything for money. This is true in all sectors. Why do you think it's not true in pharmaceuticals? You're suggesting a different motive. Name it.
This is the last time I am going to state my position. The profit motive actually disincentivizes innovation of new products, an expensive and risky endeavor, by incentivizing evergreening which we both agree is more profitable.
This is the last time I am going to state my position. The profit motive actually disincentivizes innovation of new products, an expensive and risky endeavor, by incentivizing evergreening which we both agree is more profitable.
Changing the motive doesn't reduce the risk. The filter is the same regardless of the motive. Until you downgrade the filtration rate, the price of new drug development will remain. You're just proposing that taxpayers foot the bill instead of industry.
The answer lies in technology, informatics, chemical diversity and bioengineering. It doesn't lie in who's funding it, which is all you're looking at. Those things I just mentioned also come from profit driven industries. Evergreening allows companies to stay profitable, and these companies are the ones with infrastructure and expertise (and libraries). The fact that they are even brought in on the 119 million dollar endeavor is an indicator of that.
So no, evergreening doesn't dissuade new drug development. If anything, it gives it financial assistance. The endeavor is expensive regardless the motive. Profit motive will be what eventually breaks new ground, as expensive technology is developed to do things we currently are unable to do.
Sportcamper
03-09-2017, 01:55 PM
Nancy Pelosi At age 76 raises a lot of money for the Democratic Party. She is still a force to be reckoned with…A hottie when she was young...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6e/93/4b/6e934beb98c34066fab6951f05296209.jpg
Blake
03-09-2017, 01:59 PM
Nancy Pelosi At age 76 raises a lot of money for the Democratic Party. She is still a force to be reckoned with…A hottie when she was young...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6e/93/4b/6e934beb98c34066fab6951f05296209.jpg
Sounds like at trading card. I'll give you three AL Gore rookie cards for a prime Nancy
Sportcamper
03-09-2017, 02:03 PM
Can't stand AlGore...Kind of a monster name if you ask me...At least one can have a conversation with Nancy if you can be civil...
spurraider21
03-09-2017, 02:39 PM
How does everyone forget seeing this face tho
http://www.kvnonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/B76I4616-Tim-Fitzgerald.jpg
The chin alone ill never forgetwhich chin, specifically?
AaronY
03-09-2017, 05:42 PM
Lmao.
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 08:56 PM
By the way, I read the article.
They are going the long way around suggesting a consortium that is funded magically by the federal government:
"National Institutes for Health committed $119 million over five years to the Accelerating Medicines Partnership, a consortium of 10 drug companies and several non-profit organizations who agreed to share scientific data about drugs in early development in four disease areas."
Under this plan the American taxpayer would be funding the research of private companies for drugs they'll be charged for once approved. If you think the private sector is slow to produce effective drugs, just wait until Uncle Sam gets a crack at it. Wait until the funding comes up before committee and gets rerouted to another project.
Where's the motive though? I see funding and consortium and private companies still getting paid to do R&D, but instead of using their own money they use ours. I don't see more motive to create new drugs. I see more motive to do R&D for government funding. That's happening now at universities across the nation. How's that going?
No thanks.
The point is to mitigate technical risk, not to have the taxpayer funding R&D. It's $25M a year to demonstrate risk can be shared across companies who agree to share data about drugs under development.
Also from the article:
Innovative therapeutics are, on average, more commercially successful (http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v12/n6/full/nrd4035.html?WT.ec_id=NRD-201306)than those that follow in their footsteps. Given the fairly steady rate of innovative drug introductions (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23918488)over the past 25 years, it seems that drug makers discount this source of value. This may be because, despite significant improvements in financing mechanisms in the past few decades, drug makers still bear a huge amount of individual financial risk. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on the development of a new drug, but when a drug fails in clinical trials, drug makers generally absorb the development costs. The traditional insurance market cannot really be applied to the drug development process, chiefly due to the difficulty of accurately measuring technical risk. However, the lack of traditional insurance does not mean that the risk of the drug development process cannot be shared. Many approaches to hedging R&D risk (http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/health_systems_and_services/new_frontiers_in_pharma_r_and_38d_investment)have been proposed; however, they have not been systematically adopted. Some have even suggested that the drug development process be securitized, (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v30/n10/abs/nbt.2374.html) an approach that would more effectively distribute the risk to a willing pool of investors. Drug makers, investors, and bankers must work together to improve and adopt new project financing and hedging tools that effectively spread the financial risk inherent in the drug development process.
All of this would be 100% privately funded. This has nothing to do with shifting the cost of R&D from companies to taxpayers but that was the only thing you gleaned from the article. This indicates to me you didn't understand the crux of article. Maybe it is an issue with your reading comprehension, but I don't think so. You cling to the public spend because it fit's into your Reagan era worldview that government is the problem.
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 09:06 PM
Changing the motive doesn't reduce the risk. The filter is the same regardless of the motive. Until you downgrade the filtration rate, the price of new drug development will remain. You're just proposing that taxpayers foot the bill instead of industry.
No I'm not. You just didn't understand what you read. See above.
The answer lies in technology, informatics, chemical diversity and bioengineering. It doesn't lie in who's funding it, which is all you're looking at.
This all costs money. Again it has nothing to do with funding, it has to do with mitigating/spreading technical risk.
Those things I just mentioned also come from profit driven industries. Evergreening allows companies to stay profitable, and these companies are the ones with infrastructure and expertise (and libraries). The fact that they are even brought in on the 119 million dollar endeavor is an indicator of that.
So no, evergreening doesn't dissuade new drug development. If anything, it gives it financial assistance. The endeavor is expensive regardless the motive. Profit motive will be what eventually breaks new ground, as expensive technology is developed to do things we currently are unable to do.
This opinion isn't borne out in the numbers, not when 60% of new drug approvals over the past 25 years work through pre-existing approaches.
The point is to mitigate technical risk, not to have the taxpayer funding R&D. It's $25M a year to demonstrate risk can be shared across companies who agree to share data about drugs under development.
Also from the article:
Innovative therapeutics are, on average, more commercially successful (http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v12/n6/full/nrd4035.html?WT.ec_id=NRD-201306)than those that follow in their footsteps. Given the fairly steady rate of innovative drug introductions (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23918488)over the past 25 years, it seems that drug makers discount this source of value. This may be because, despite significant improvements in financing mechanisms in the past few decades, drug makers still bear a huge amount of individual financial risk. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on the development of a new drug, but when a drug fails in clinical trials, drug makers generally absorb the development costs. The traditional insurance market cannot really be applied to the drug development process, chiefly due to the difficulty of accurately measuring technical risk. However, the lack of traditional insurance does not mean that the risk of the drug development process cannot be shared. Many approaches to hedging R&D risk (http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/health_systems_and_services/new_frontiers_in_pharma_r_and_38d_investment)have been proposed; however, they have not been systematically adopted. Some have even suggested that the drug development process be securitized, (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v30/n10/abs/nbt.2374.html) an approach that would more effectively distribute the risk to a willing pool of investors. Drug makers, investors, and bankers must work together to improve and adopt new project financing and hedging tools that effectively spread the financial risk inherent in the drug development process.
All of this would be 100% privately funded. This has nothing to do with shifting the cost of R&D from companies to taxpayers but that was the only thing you gleaned from the article. This indicates to me you didn't understand the crux of article. Maybe it is an issue with your reading comprehension, but I don't think so. You cling to the public spend because it fit's into your Reagan era worldview that government is the problem.
"National Institutes for Health committed $119 million over five years to the Accelerating Medicines Partnership"
Then where did the money come from? Where will it come from in the future under that plan? What is the underlying motive for private industry to embark in these ventures, smaller profits but smaller risks? If so, that's still a profit motive.
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 09:51 PM
"National Institutes for Health committed $119 million over five years to the Accelerating Medicines Partnership"
Then where did the money come from?
It's called using government money to spur innovation. In this case, spurring innovative ways to mitigate technical risk in new drug development.
Where will it come from in the future under that plan?
If it works, it would be in the private sectors' best interest to continue to spread the cost of technical risk. The market will play it's role allowing the profit motive to return as a true driver of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
What is the underlying motive for private industry to embark in these ventures, smaller profits but smaller risks? If so, that's still a profit motive.
That's the goal.
$119M represents less than 1% the cost of the proposed wall on the Southern border which you don't seem to take an issue with.
A much better investment imo.
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 10:09 PM
"National Institutes for Health committed $119 million over five years to the Accelerating Medicines Partnership"
Then where did the money come from? Where will it come from in the future under that plan? What is the underlying motive for private industry to embark in these ventures, smaller profits but smaller risks? If so, that's still a profit motive.
And it was the paragraph that was "also from the article" that was privately funded. I wasn't disputing the NIH was funding one idea. Multiple ideas were presented, but you honed in on the publicly funded one and disregarded the others missing the overall point of the article. Again, because it fits your preconceived notion that Government is the problem.
It's called using government money to spur innovation. In this case, spurring innovative ways to mitigate technical risk in new drug development.
There's no such as government money. It's taxpayer money. So make up your mind, is it privately funded or not?
If it works, it would be in the private sectors' best interest to continue to spread the cost of technical risk. The market will play it's role allowing the profit motive to return as a true driver of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
Why would it be in their best interest? Oh because of profits! So profit motive is the best driver for innovation after all, regardless how they go about getting there.
That's the goal.
$119M represents less than 1% the cost of the proposed wall on the Southern border which you don't seem to take an issue with.
A much better investment imo.
So the goal/motive is profit. What the fuck are you arguing against again?
And it was the paragraph that was "also from the article" that was privately funded. I wasn't disputing the NIH was funding one idea. Multiple ideas were presented, but you honed in on the publicly funded one and disregarded the others missing the overall point of the article. Again, because it fits your preconceived notion that Government is the problem.
"This is the last time I am going to state my position. The profit motive actually disincentivizes innovation of new products" - You
"If it works, it would be in the private sectors' best interest to continue to spread the cost of technical risk. The market will play it's role allowing the profit motive to return as a true driver of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry" -You again
Do you not get it that the entire endeavor is profit driven? Profit now, profit later... still profit. Where's the other motives I asked you about?
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 11:23 PM
There's no such as government money. It's taxpayer money. So make up your mind, is it privately funded or not?
One of the ideas in the article posted was publicly funded. Others were privately funded. You chose to focus on the one that was publicly funded, but the point of the article was to discuss ideas to mitigate technical risk. The article also touched on the the FDA's relatively new fast-tracking process for new innovative drugs.
Why would it be in their best interest? Oh because of profits! So profit motive is the best driver for innovation after all, regardless how they go about getting there.
So the goal/motive is profit. What the fuck are you arguing against again?
The point is that the profit motive has not become a driver of innovation because money is spent on evergreening exiting drugs which has a better ROI as in borne out in the percentage of me-too drugs vs new drug development. At this point, I am starting to think I have given you too much credit.
FuzzyLumpkins
03-09-2017, 11:38 PM
One of the ideas in the article posted was publicly funded. Others were privately funded. You chose to focus on the one that was publicly funded, but the point of the article was to discuss ideas to mitigate technical risk. The article also touched on the the FDA's relatively new fast-tracking process for new innovative drugs.
The point is that the profit motive has not become a driver of innovation because money is spent on evergreening exiting drugs which has a better ROI. At this point, I am starting to think I have given you too much credit as in borne out in the percentage of me-too drugs vs new drug development.
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. -Bert Russell
Of course he fixated on the simpler topic of derp S0C14l1SM! DMC likes to play the polymath but is the most pseudo-intellectual individual on this board.
If you try to shove his nose in a particular issue which is obvious he bungled he will change the subject typically with ad hominems about you. It's a waste of time arguing with him he only argues honorably when he thinks he can win.
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 11:39 PM
"This is the last time I am going to state my position. The profit motive actually disincentivizes innovation of new products" - You
You've edited out the crux of my argument. You're being intentionally deceitful or you're dense. At this point, I honestly don't know which one.
"If it works, it would be in the private sectors' best interest to continue to spread the cost of technical risk. The market will play it's role allowing the profit motive to return as a true driver of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry" -You again
I've edited to highlight the important word in my statement. I've haven't argued the profit motive can't be effective.
Do you not get it that the entire endeavor is profit driven? Profit now, profit later... still profit. Where's the other motives I asked you about?
I understand companies primary responsibility is to generate profit. And as you've already conceded, evergreening existing patented drugs is more profitable than developing new drugs. The pharmaceutical industry has become so risk averse that the profit motive no longer drives enough innovation to create new drugs. Mitigating technical risk is a way we can potentially return the profit motive as a driver of innovation.
If you don't get it by now, I will just consider you too dense to understand the argument.
Th'Pusher
03-09-2017, 11:46 PM
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. -Bert Russell
Of course he fixated on the simpler topic of derp S0C14l1SM! DMC likes to play the polymath but is the most pseudo-intellectual individual on this board.
If you try to shove his nose in a particular issue which is obvious he bungled he will change the subject typically with ad hominems about you. It's a waste of time arguing with him he only argues honorably when he thinks he can win.
Before this exchange, I suspected, but wasn't sure I agreed with this assessment. After this exchange, it's pretty clear you're correct.
You've edited out the crux of my argument. You're being intentionally deceitful or you're dense. At this point, I honestly don't know which one.
I've edited to highlight the important word in my statement. I've haven't argued the profit motive can't be effective.
I understand companies primary responsibility is to generate profit. And as you've already conceded, evergreening existing patented drugs is more profitable than developing new drugs. The pharmaceutical industry has become so risk averse that the profit motive no longer drives enough innovation to create new drugs. Mitigating technical risk is a way we can potentially return the profit motive as a driver of innovation.
If you don't get it by now, I will just consider you too dense to understand the argument.
Everything you've suggested is still motivated by profit.
I'm still waiting for you to offer an alternative motive.
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. -Bert Russell
Of course he fixated on the simpler topic of derp S0C14l1SM! DMC likes to play the polymath but is the most pseudo-intellectual individual on this board.
If you try to shove his nose in a particular issue which is obvious he bungled he will change the subject typically with ad hominems about you. It's a waste of time arguing with him he only argues honorably when he thinks he can win.
rent free
Th'Pusher
03-10-2017, 10:43 AM
Everything you've suggested is still motivated by profit.
I'm still waiting for you to offer an alternative motive.
There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine. It's just skewing too heavily toward evergreening existing drug patents because of the risk involved in new product development. My argument has always been that the profit motive has not been effective for new product innovation.
There is nothing more I can do. You are too dense to understand a relatively simple concept.
Look on the bright side. You've come a long way since posting a chart of new chemical entities by country for an argument :lol
There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine. It's just skewing too heavily toward evergreening existing drug patents because of the risk involved in new product development. My argument has always been that the profit motive has not been effective for new product innovation.
There is nothing more I can do. You are too dense to understand a relatively simple concept.
Look on the bright side. You've come a long way since posting a chart of new chemical entities by country for an argument :lol
"Your position on the profit motive driving innovation in modern pharmaceuticals is laughably stupid."- you
If profit motive is the only motive, why is it stupid to suggest that?
You've been back peddling for quite some time on this.
Btw, this is where you started:
I use these words as qualifiers because I am recalling information I have read and I do not have the time, nor the desire to go look up specifics. You can call it lazy. That's fine. Still, you have posted zero evidence to convince anyone (other than maybe WC) that the profit motive drives innovation in the current pharmaceutical industry. Your new chemical entity chart by country was pathetic.
This is where you are now: "There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine"
My original comment was that, if you remove the profit motive, you basically will have no innovation. I think I said "slow to a crawl" and you somehow tried to quantify that, ignoring the fact that the term is generally used with another reference in mind. In this case, we were discussing current levels. Now you say there is no other motive (or you've again avoided actually saying it, you're implying it because you're a chickenshit).
Like the rest of the arm-chair socialists here, you don't have a plan, just a complaint.
Th'Pusher
03-10-2017, 06:03 PM
"Your position on the profit motive driving innovation in modern pharmaceuticals is laughably stupid."- you
If profit motive is the only motive, why is it stupid to suggest that?
You've been back peddling for quite some time on this.
You're too dense.
Th'Pusher
03-10-2017, 06:04 PM
Btw, this is where you started:
This is where you are now: "There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine"
My original comment was that, if you remove the profit motive, you basically will have no innovation. I think I said "slow to a crawl" and you somehow tried to quantify that, ignoring the fact that the term is generally used with another reference in mind. In this case, we were discussing current levels. Now you say there is no other motive (or you've again avoided actually saying it, you're implying it because you're a chickenshit).
Like the rest of the arm-chair socialists here, you don't have a plan, just a complaint.
You're too dense.
Btw, this is where you started:
This is where you are now: "There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine"
My original comment was that, if you remove the profit motive, you basically will have no innovation. I think I said "slow to a crawl" and you somehow tried to quantify that, ignoring the fact that the term is generally used with another reference in mind. In this case, we were discussing current levels. Now you say there is no other motive (or you've again avoided actually saying it, you're implying it because you're a chickenshit).
Like the rest of the arm-chair socialists here, you don't have a plan, just a complaint.
The problem isn't profit. Competition is good. Profitting off fixing people's bodies even, has its place.
Charging hundreds, even thousands of times as much in the USA compared to other countries isn't competition, though - it's blatant unethical price gouging, not to mention the cause the untold pain and suffering and death. Likewise, conducting "research" into 'new' medicines that are a hair different from existing ones so that a cutthroat industry's corruption is sustainable constitutes nothing less than fraud. Even Trump pays lip service to these realities. There's a lot of dead and dying and suffering patients who wouldn't mind exchanging slower innovation for their quality of life, or simply, their life. Ultimately, that's the elephant in the room.
The problem isn't profit. Competition is good. Profitting off fixing people's bodies even, has its place.
Charging hundreds, even thousands of times as much in the USA compared to other countries isn't competition, though - it's blatant unethical price gouging, not to mention the cause the untold pain and suffering and death. Likewise, conducting "research" into 'new' medicines that are a hair different from existing ones so that a cutthroat industry's corruption is sustainable constitutes nothing less than fraud. Even Trump pays lip service to these realities. There's a lot of dead and dying and suffering patients who wouldn't mind exchanging slower innovation for their quality of life, or simply, their life. Ultimately, that's the elephant in the room.
That's a different argument than saying profit motive isn't what drives innovation.
Th'Pusher
03-10-2017, 09:53 PM
That's a different argument than saying profit motive isn't what drives innovation.
And that's a different argument than saying the profit motive isn't an effective driver of new product innovation.
You're too dense to make that differentiation.
That's a different argument than saying profit motive isn't what drives innovation.
I'd say that love of profit is hurting innovation in many cases, then. Like the saying goes, for profit healthcare is in the business of creating (customers) wealth, just like any other for profit endeavor.
And that's a different argument than saying the profit motive isn't an effective driver of new product innovation.
You're too dense to make that differentiation.
You're too stupid to realize the term "effective" is A) subjective and B) a red herring since I never said it was effective. I've established it's the only motive, and so compared to the other non-existent motives, it's 100% effective.
I'd say that love of profit is hurting innovation in many cases, then. Like the saying goes, for profit healthcare is in the business of creating (customers) wealth, just like any other for profit endeavor.
That would be fine if some other motive was helping it, so the cause vs correlation aspect could more easily be dismissed.
The market is driven by demand. Stop buying the shit they produce. If people are going to buy it anyhow, then the profit motive is doing just fine.
Or
When a not-for-profit entity produces ground breaking results in medicine, then big Pharma will have to take notice because the market will reflect it.
By the way, it's the FDA that prevents Americans from buying drugs from other countries (maybe the DEA as well but that's different). People pretend for-profit industries are fucking the American people but the federal government holds the key to true free market pharmacy.
Th'Pusher
03-11-2017, 08:33 AM
You're too stupid to realize the term "effective" is A) subjective and B) a red herring since I never said it was effective. I've established it's the only motive, and so compared to the other non-existent motives, it's 100% effective.
Sure it's subjective. But I've provided a baseline - currently 60% of new drugs that are FDA approved are me-too drugs which, imo, means profit is not effectively driving innovative new products.
We agree evergreening existing drugs is more profitable than developing new ones. Pharmaceutical companies have a finite amount of money they are going to invest in R&D. The profit motive ensures that the development of me-too drugs comes at the expense of developing new more innovative drugs.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.