cumplidor 0 #1 March 10, 2008 Scathing article from Scotland on the pharmaceutical industry, which, as with most for profit 'industry' has learned if you can get the people that make the rules to answer to you, then you can make the rules... Click From the article Quote The allegation is simple: profiteering. Add to that the claim that the pharmaceutical industry is "disease-mongering", promoting minor conditions to the status of illnesses requiring drugs. Add again the fact that "marketing" expenditure - $67bn in the US in 2002 - is generally two-and-a-half times the amount spent on R&D. Marketing budget 2.5 times R&D?? That is a LOT of ink pens and clocks. oh and hottie drug reps to deliver them... Almost seems like they are in the disease 'management' industry... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #2 March 10, 2008 Quote Scathing article from Scotland on the pharmaceutical industry, which, as with most for profit 'industry' has learned if you can get the people that make the rules to answer to you, then you can make the rules... Click From the article Quote The allegation is simple: profiteering. Add to that the claim that the pharmaceutical industry is "disease-mongering", promoting minor conditions to the status of illnesses requiring drugs. Add again the fact that "marketing" expenditure - $67bn in the US in 2002 - is generally two-and-a-half times the amount spent on R&D. Marketing budget 2.5 times R&D?? That is a LOT of ink pens and clocks. oh and hottie drug reps to deliver them... Almost seems like they are in the disease 'management' industry... Same in the USA.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 March 10, 2008 Quote you can get the people that make the rules to answer to you, then you can make the rules... And for some reason, people don't see the government as the problem, but the solution, and call for more of it! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #4 March 10, 2008 Do you blame the pharmas for marketing or the witless consumers for buying in?My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #5 March 10, 2008 Quote Do you blame the pharmas for marketing or the witless consumers for buying in? Lame sheep consumers. Whiskey (actually good bourbon) and ibuprofen. And a good speedball now and then.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #6 March 10, 2008 I blame the lawmakers that in the 90s began allowing the pharmas to direct market to the consumer via the TV, thus being able to drive customers to the Dr to 'talk to your dr about' claritin for your stuffy nose. Or lunesta to sleep, or chantix to quit smoking, or fosomax to stop old ladies from getting osteoperosis, or vioxx, whatever. Add the fact that pharmas are notorious for omitting damaging data from their clinical trials, social engineering the doctors to get them to write more of their prescriptions, oh and the super viruses. They get to pay off their victims and admit no wrongdoing. They get virtual slaps on the wrist for 'mistakes' that cost lives. That stuff should be terribly alarming to folks I would think. I dunno, maybe not.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #7 March 10, 2008 I read reports about a study recently that showed expensive placebos were more effective than inexpensive ones. At least for pain medication at reducing the discomfort from electric shocks. Calls to mind a scene from ghostbusters At least some people benefit by paying more for sugar pills (likely incl people like you and me, by the numbers in the study), why not let them? Esp in the case of phony diseases. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 March 10, 2008 Quote Marketing budget 2.5 times R&D?? That is a LOT of ink pens and clocks. oh and hottie drug reps to deliver them... Almost seems like they are in the disease 'management' industry... Most of the growth in marketing expenses is TV ads. Ban those again and we'd be better off, spared ever hearing Viva Viagra ever again. In a free market such restraint of trade is hard to swallow, but health care is something quite apart from free trade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #9 March 11, 2008 The article you quoted is just embarassingly awful social science. The articcle makes the point that R&D is not as important as most people think for "big pharma" .They quoted the number for one company Pfizer;what terrible piece of journalism this is. You need to look at the industry as a whole not just one firm. Furthermore in order to establish the R&D is a small % of revenue for the drugs companies you need to compare it to something else. The PFizer example gives us a figure of 15.71% R&D expendutre as a proprtion of revunue. Yet there is no comparison for other industries.Basically the journalist is misleading you to paint a picture that makes a dramatic story , the evils of big pharma. What bullshit. The real numnbers paint a very different picture, these are from the government Dept of Trade and Indsutry: http://www.abpi.org.uk/statistics/section.asp?sect=3 Paste this into your browser , you'll see in the Uk phama R&D as % of sales is far higher than in any other industry. In 2005 it was 33.3 % compared to the next highest highest sector aerospace which was 22.2% Furthermore this number has grown to 33.3 form 15.8% in 1991. Just like those that like to exxagerate the evils of big pharma like to practice psuedo sceince with the frequent touting of nonsense alternative medicine, it seems they are also practicing pseudo social science as well. A basic industrial economics text book might help. Im not doubting that theres probably some curruption in the industry, this is probably true in every large industry and its probably also true in governments too, but that does not justify the alarmist nonsense I so often hear about "big pharma". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #10 March 11, 2008 Quote…Basically the journalist is misleading you to paint a picture that makes a dramatic story… Welcome to 21st century journalism. That technique has become the norm, regardless of the kind of picture the journalist is trying to paint. The problem with a state owned media is that you can't trust 'em. The problem with corporate owned media is that you can't trust 'em. On the other hand, the only problem with a media protected by freedom of the press is that you can't trust 'em.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ojibwe 0 #12 March 14, 2008 What do you think of the Rath Foundation Phil?MB 3864 Urantia Book and RUSH fan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #13 March 14, 2008 Crap....I thought this was gonna' be another joke about the traveling salesman and the Pharma's dawta'....bummer."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
