Personal info stolen in Baltimore looting

[GMDino]

(06-04-2015, 05:00 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Where do you think the R&D money for those drugs, not to mention all their failed drugs, comes from?

(06-04-2015, 06:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Right .... Too many think these guys discover new medicines out of the goodness of their hearts to give it away.  

When you have the only 1 of something you protect that as long as you can....  

Of course!

Why should the good of your fellow man come over a profit?!?!

Pffft.

Especially in a "christian" nation!

[Devils Advocate]

I'd like to get in on some you's insurance.

I pay full price until a $2600 deductible is met, of which I'll never meet. My insurance is crap with a capital 'K'.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-04-2015, 10:57 PM)YIuDevils Advocate Wrote: I'd like to get in on some you's insurance.

I pay full price until a $2600 deductible is met, of which I'll never meet. My insurance is crap with a capital 'K'.

The new insurance is a joke.   Now I see where some states will see a 60% rise in premiums next year 

I want my old plan.  

[StLucieBengal]

(06-04-2015, 06:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Of course!

Why should the good of your fellow man come over a profit?!?!

Pffft.

Especially in a "christian" nation!

Sure when all the fellow men start chipping in for R&D then they can have a discount. Until then the ones who put up the cash should get to make what they can out of it

[StLucieBengal]

It amazes me That some of you think the world revolves around everyone equally.

Those who work harder, have more expertise, and refuse to give up deserve more than the ones who don't ...


Everyone has the same chance.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-04-2015, 11:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sure when all the fellow men start chipping in for R&D then they can have a discount.   Until then the ones who put up the cash should get to make what they can out of it

Since you don't believe in getting a flu shot would you ask your doctor for Tamiflu if you got the flu?  If yes, why?

[GMDino]

(06-04-2015, 11:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It amazes me That some of you think the world revolves around everyone equally.  

Those who work harder, have more expertise, and refuse to give up deserve more than the ones who don't ...


Everyone has the same chance.

Just as Jesus taught.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-04-2015, 11:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It amazes me That some of you think the world revolves around everyone equally.  

Those who work harder, have more expertise, and refuse to give up deserve more than the ones who don't ...


Everyone has the same chance.

Is that why you're not among the top 2%?

[mallorian69]

(06-04-2015, 11:04 PM)SetLucieBengal Wrote: Sure when all the fellow men start chipping in for R&D then they can have a discount.   Until then the ones who put up the cash should get to make what they can out of it

Actually tax payers do fund many new drugs. Big pharmacy companies use state sponsored schools for R&D. Not only does taxpayers money fund the school in general, the school then gets a grant to fund their research.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111216/Research-reveals-role-of-government-funding-in-pharmaceutical-RD.aspx

[JustWinBaby]

(06-04-2015, 06:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why should the good of your fellow man come over a profit?!?!

Maybe because, you know, it takes money for equipment and salaries to research stuff, and investors want a return on their capital?

There are charitable foundations and grants that also fund research.  Typically the universities that receive those funds and make advancements - wait for it - license or sell the patents.

Where exactly is money for all this stuff you believe should be non-profit "for the good of man" going to come from when you don't think anyone should make a profit?  If no one has any money, where is the money going to come from?    Ah ha!  The govt will just print it - worked out swell for the USSR.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-05-2015, 02:54 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Not only does taxpayers money fund the school in general, the school then gets a grant to fund their research.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111216/Research-reveals-role-of-government-funding-in-pharmaceutical-RD.aspx

Again, you realize those universities don't turn over their patents for free?  Often, the doctors/scientists involved retain a financial interest and make a killing, as does the university.  You know who doesn't get a piece of the pie - the taxpayer (except through taxes on the subsequent drug sales).

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-05-2015, 07:14 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Maybe because, you know, it takes money for equipment and salaries to research stuff, and investors want a return on their capital?

There are charitable foundations and grants that also fund research.  Typically the universities that receive those funds and make advancements - wait for it - license or sell the patents.

Where exactly is money for all this stuff you believe should be non-profit "for the good of man" going to come from when you don't think anyone should make a profit?  If no one has any money, where is the money going to come from?    Ah ha!  The govt will just print it - worked out swell for the USSR.

I'll ask you since StLucie didn't respond. Would you ask your doctor for Tamiflu if you got the flu?  If yes, why?

[JustWinBaby]

(06-05-2015, 09:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'll ask you since StLucie didn't respond. Would you ask your doctor for Tamiflu if you got the flu?  If yes, why?

Haven't had the flu in over 20 years, and wouldn't go to the doctor for it unless I was seriously ill.  Since I question the effectiveness of Tamiflu, and some seem to think it only works in the first few days of symptoms (if it works at all)...I'm pretty confident that, no, I would not ask my doctor for Tamiflu.

I'm not sure what the question has to do with the topic.  Not sure why you equate me with StLucie - I'm a believer in vaccines and flu shots.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-06-2015, 12:02 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Haven't had the flu in over 20 years, and wouldn't go to the doctor for it unless I was seriously ill.  Since I question the effectiveness of Tamiflu, and some seem to think it only works in the first few days of symptoms (if it works at all)...I'm pretty confident that, no, I would not ask my doctor for Tamiflu.

I'm not sure what the question has to do with the topic.  Not sure why you equate me with StLucie - I'm a believer in vaccines and flu shots.

StLucie believes in vaccines.  He just did a very poor job of using the anti-vaccination group's beliefs to defend their right to decline vaccinations.

Anyway, it has been suggested pharmaceutical companies should be able to make as much as the can because they paid for the R&D.  To an extent, I agree.  The "some" you refer to who believe Tamiflu only works if used in the first few days is the manufacturer.  The prescribing information comes from the manufacturer.  Very simply, the drug company conducts the R&D, gives the research to the FDA for review, the FDA issues the stamp of approval, the drug company sells the drug for as much as they can.  Problem is the drug companies aren't required to reveal all their research.  Just the research they want to release so they can get the drug approved.

The manufacturer claims Tamiflu can prevent complications (such as pneumonia and even death), hospitalizations, contracting the flu if taken prophylactically, and can shorten the average duration of the flu by 1.3 days.

Enter a group called the Cochrane Collaboration.  Basically, they are a nonprofit, volunteer watchdog that reviews things like drug company's R&D.  According to the Cochrane review, the makers of Tamiflu are full of shit!  There is no evidence to support the drug company's claim Tamiflu prevents complications, hospitalizations, or the spread of the flu.  Instead of shortening the flu by 1.3 days, it will actually reduce the average case of the flu from 7 days to 6.3 days (or 16.8 hours.)  So if you took Tamiflu for the flu it might help you get better less than a day sooner.

Do you know how much Tamiflu costs without insurance?  Over $200 dollars.  Over $200 dollars to get well less than a day sooner.  That's outrageous.  The US federal government (alone) spent over $1 billion stockpiling Tamiflu before the Cochrane review was published.  Why?  Because the drug company didn't release all their research.  Each year Roche sells hundreds of millions to in excess of one billion dollars per year worth of Tamiflu. . . for something which might help you get better less than a day sooner.  Do you really think they are entitled to that much money for selling a product which works that poorly considering they were less than forthcoming with their results?

We haven't even touched upon the blantant price gouging in the US compared to prices just across the Canadian border.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2015, 02:21 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you know how much Tamiflu costs without insurance?  Over $200 dollars.  Over $200 dollars to get well less than a day sooner.  That's outrageous. 

We haven't even touched upon the blantant price gouging in the US compared to prices just across the Canadian border.

It sounds like your run of the mill supplement.  Same basic thing.

As for prices being lower in Canada, that's because of single payer.  It's fairly common knowledge the US subsidizes global pharma R&D.  Once the US gets in the game to dictate profits, R&D nosedives....and then we'll be subsidizing more R&D, which is just another shell game where instead of paying the drug companies directly, you're paying them indirectly via more taxes funneled toward research.  And the only real winner in that scenario is the politicians.

I could cry about that subsidy, along with our world police subsidy...but when viewed in totality IMO the US is a net winner in the global subsidy game.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-08-2015, 05:19 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It sounds like your run of the mill supplement.  Same basic thing.

As for prices being lower in Canada, that's because of single payer.  It's fairly common knowledge the US subsidizes global pharma R&D.  Once the US gets in the game to dictate profits, R&D nosedives....and then we'll be subsidizing more R&D, which is just another shell game where instead of paying the drug companies directly, you're paying them indirectly via more taxes funneled toward research.  And the only real winner in that scenario is the politicians.

I could cry about that subsidy, along with our world police subsidy...but when viewed in totality IMO the US is a net winner in the global subsidy game.

It's not the same basic thing at all because supplements can't make claims they will reduce your chances of complications and hospitalizations, they don't require a prescription, and they don't have FDA approval.

Do you believe Roche should be able to make hundreds of millions of dollars each year selling a medicine, not a supplement, based upon claims unsupported by evidence?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-08-2015, 02:21 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: StLucie believes in vaccines.  He just did a very poor job of using the anti-vaccination group's beliefs to defend their right to decline vaccinations.

Anyway, it has been suggested pharmaceutical companies should be able to make as much as the can because they paid for the R&D.  To an extent, I agree.  The "some" you refer to who believe Tamiflu only works if used in the first few days is the manufacturer.  The prescribing information comes from the manufacturer.  Very simply, the drug company conducts the R&D, gives the research to the FDA for review, the FDA issues the stamp of approval, the drug company sells the drug for as much as they can.  Problem is the drug companies aren't required to reveal all their research.  Just the research they want to release so they can get the drug approved.

The manufacturer claims Tamiflu can prevent complications (such as pneumonia and even death), hospitalizations, contracting the flu if taken prophylactically, and can shorten the average duration of the flu by 1.3 days.

Enter a group called the Cochrane Collaboration.  Basically, they are a nonprofit, volunteer watchdog that reviews things like drug company's R&D.  According to the Cochrane review, the makers of Tamiflu are full of shit!  There is no evidence to support the drug company's claim Tamiflu prevents complications, hospitalizations, or the spread of the flu.  Instead of shortening the flu by 1.3 days, it will actually reduce the average case of the flu from 7 days to 6.3 days (or 16.8 hours.)  So if you took Tamiflu for the flu it might help you get better less than a day sooner.

Do you know how much Tamiflu costs without insurance?  Over $200 dollars.  Over $200 dollars to get well less than a day sooner.  That's outrageous.  The US federal government (alone) spent over $1 billion stockpiling Tamiflu before the Cochrane review was published.  Why?  Because the drug company didn't release all their research.  Each year Roche sells hundreds of millions to in excess of one billion dollars per year worth of Tamiflu. . . for something which might help you get better less than a day sooner.  Do you really think they are entitled to that much money for selling a product which works that poorly considering they were less than forthcoming with their results?

We haven't even touched upon the blantant price gouging in the US compared to prices just across the Canadian border.

The only argument for anyone denying vaccines is that they are free to choose what medicines they put in their body and what they refuse to put in their body. Has nothing to do with anything else.

As far as me buying medicine when I am sick. If my doctor prescribes something, and after I ask my questions.... I go and pay whatever I need to pay.

Do I worry about anyone else's medicines they choose .... Or whether they can pay for it.... No. My church helps members with costs from time to time. So I am sure they can see their own church.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-08-2015, 02:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only argument for anyone denying vaccines is that they are free to choose what medicines they put in their body and what they refuse to put in their body.   Has nothing to do with anything else.  

Then you should have stuck to defending their right to refuse rather the tact of repeating the reasons the anti-vaccination movement doesn't believe in vaccinations.  I acknowledged you believe in vaccines in my statement.  It is literally the first sentence in the post you quoted, "StLucie believes in vaccines."  You acknowledged no one is having their right to refuse taken away despite railing against a hypothetical situation which doesn't exist.

Quote:As far as me buying a medicine when I am sick.  If my doctor prescribes something, and after I ask my questions.... I go and pay whatever I need to pay.  

Tamiflu is a prescription medicine.  Tamiflu is more marketing hype than scientific fact.  You don't have a problem with a company making billions off a prescription that is mostly hype?  I do have a problem with the unethical marketing of a prescription which places the almighty dollar above the welfare of the patient.  It seems odd a person who complains about government spending so often apparently doesn't care a company charged the government over $1 billion in tax payer dollars to stock pile Tamiflu because companies should make as much as they can even when they are profiting off of bullshit.

Quote:Do I worry about anyone else's medicines they choose .... Or whether they can pay for it....   No.   My church helps members with costs from time to time.  So I am sure they can see their own church.

Since you seem to be motivated by purely selfish reasons, you should worry about what others pay because it affects what you pay.  It's a good thing for people like you who don't care about others that there are military veterans like me who believe in selfless service and care about more than just our own sorry asses.  You're welcome.  Now that I'm in the medical profession instead of the military, I'm still taking care of others.  Every week I deal with patients who have an inability to pay "whatever."  Many times I'm forced to choose the least shitty of two shitty options due to their inability to pay which affects their quality of care.  That is the type of crap which keeps me awake at night with worry.  These people aren't the lazy freeloaders you seem to imagine.  Most of them are the working poor; young families that work full time at a crappy job which doesn't provide any medical benefits because it is all about making a profit for the crappy companies offering crappy jobs with crappy pay and benefits.

I live in the heart of the Bible Belt.  Around here many people's lives revolve around going to church twice a week if not more.  Yet, every week I see the working poor or the elderly retirees who can't afford their medical care.  So I laugh at your suggestion people can see their their own church from "time to time" because clearly that isn't working.  Is that what your church teaches you?  Or did they teach you, "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away"?

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2015, 06:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's not the same basic thing at all because supplements can't make claims they will reduce your chances of complications and hospitalizations, they don't require a prescription, and they don't have FDA approval.

Do you believe Roche should be able to make hundreds of millions of dollars each year selling a medicine, not a supplement, based upon claims unsupported by evidence?

That's exactly what supplements do BECAUSE they are unregulated.

And Roche doesn't write a single prescription for their drug.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-08-2015, 06:21 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's exactly what supplements do BECAUSE they are unregulated.

False.  Legally supplements aren't permitted to make false claims. However, many do make false claims because the manufacturers are greedy and unethical and it takes a lawsuit and the Federal Trade Commission to force them to stop using false claims to boost sales.  See OTC supplement Airborne for more information.   Since Tamiflu is a prescription approved by the FDA it is held to an even higher standard.  Comparing Roche's unethical behavior to the unethical behavior of an OTC supplement manufacturer doesn't makes Roche's actions any less unethical.   Because prescription medications are held to a higher standard it makes their behavior worse.

Quote:And Roche doesn't write a single prescription for their drug.

This comment is laughable.  For 9 of the past 10 years I've written prescriptions for Tamiflu based upon misleading information supplied by the manufacturer because they deliberately withheld information that would affect the medical decision making process.  The most important reasons to prescribe Tamiflu may not be true. It isn't the prescribers fault they manufacturer withheld information. It is the manufacturer's fault.  You're unwillingness to assign any responsibility for the manufacturer's conduct to the manufacturer confirms the pursuit of the almighty dollar trumps everything.  Especially ethics and the welfare of the patient as long as the shareholders are getting a return on investment.  Who cares a prescription medication may not do what they claim it does?  Certainly not the businessmen who stand to profit from its sale.