What is Digg?62 Comments
- jboitnott, on 11/14/2008, -2/+38We will never have a just health care system as long as drug companies and health care companies run the show.
- thepoliticalcat, on 11/14/2008, -3/+33Hardly surprising. The miserable bastards are ripping us off for everything we own, even as they push for research funds and taxpayer subsidies for their monumental mistakes. Research Gardasil or the new attempt to foist statins on all for some eye-opening information.
- Batfishy, on 11/15/2008, -2/+29And this is why some markets need to be closely monitored and regulated. I am sorry if that means bigger government, or socialized medicine. With some things, money simply cannot be a part of the equation because, apparently, greed is strong. Govern does mean something like oversee, so rather than overseeing my bedroom and my personal calls, lets oversee the medical industry. Sorry if the docs don't like it, nothing personal...
- scottknick, on 11/15/2008, -3/+20Not news. The enormous sums the Pharmaceutical industry spends to corrupt physicians, researchers and universities have been documented for decades. But nothing is done about it -- because they spend just as much to corrupt legislators and the media (just count the number of drug ads on the typical evening news program).
- Reclinatron, on 11/15/2008, -1/+8http://www.nih.gov/ this is where the blockbuster drugs come from.
Drug companies spend many times more money on advertising than they do on R&D. The research they do goes towards helping people regrow hair and get erections. - algaeturd, on 11/15/2008, -2/+7Nothing is sacred anymore where life has absolutely no value. Between war and lack of health care, fellow Americans couldn't give a ***** whether you live or die. And that goes double for those making money off of your death.
- Cthulusushi, on 11/15/2008, -3/+7I know I'm gonna get dugg down for this, but the article is generally biased, and not written by someone with a core understanding of the industry and current developments.
This article neglects to mention that the industry, as we speak, is currently reforming due to a lot of bad press and a very "anti big pharma" wave coming from the government and a lot of KOLs. People are starting to refuse the money and the work, and the government has put a huge amount of scrutiny into all aspects of the industry. Granted, big pharma can be, and has been VERY bad at times, but what industry hasn't? They're watching the water and they know a tsunami's coming, which is why they're shuffling things around and focusing on making good drugs that work well, with clear histories and no shady information. The people who do the research, make the drugs, and do further studies with drugs inside these companies, they aren't evil monsters. A lot really care about what they're doing, and want their product to help people.
They are also playing to the fact that even doctors, basic caregivers, can be greedy people. A good doctor will refuse the money and prescribe what he/she knows will be the best drug to treat the illness, as opposed to another doctor who takes the money and prescribes the drug because he/she is getting paid to do so.
I get the whole "corporations are evil" jibe that goes on a lot here, but some of the comments about drugs are truly stupid. Yes, we are overcharged in the US, and I suspect very soon that will change (the industry knows it too), BUT many of the drugs do help people in their daily lives, and many are life-saving/extending. Don't condemn the entire industry and the people who work in it for a few bad apples in the bunch. - oldgal, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4Most of the innovative cures and procedures come from our medical universities, funded by state, federal and private grants.
- poogy21, on 11/15/2008, -5/+9Not surprised at all.
LEGALIZE WEED INSTEAD!! - drunkenoaf, on 11/15/2008, -0/+4Actually, there are companies that will sell you that data...
- homestar2525, on 11/15/2008, -1/+5My friend's dad, who's a family doctor, gets tons of free stuff from drug companies, trying to get him to make his patients buy their overpriced drugs... he gets tickets to plays, tickets to NFL games and baseball games, paid vacations ect. I've always found it a bit wrong.
- redcolumbine, on 11/15/2008, -2/+6One step further in the supply/demand equation, we reach the profitability of addiction. Free market my pancreas.
- smacksaw, on 11/15/2008, -3/+6I've already seen the "that's why we need socialised medicine" comment...and I'm sure there will be more. But remember, socialised medicine creates guaranteed income for big pharma from the gov't.
Something to think about before blindly stating socialised medicine is the solution to big pharma. You can't complain about corporate welfare and then think that socialised medicine is any different as far as big pharma is concerned. - MarkusX, on 11/15/2008, -7/+10Pharmaceutical Industry is the biggest parasite on earth. Especially in the United States where the government allows them to charge whatever they want - completely unregulated - and therefore profiting from our diseases.
The sicker we get, the richer they get.
Do your really trust half of those medicationsto actually help you - I mean in the long run.
The corporations have a goal, and that is to keep you a good customer.
Somewhat like a drug dealer, wait... that's exactly what they are! - BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2008, -2/+5So what about Canada's low drug prices?
- drunkenoaf, on 11/15/2008, -1/+4Okay, first, you've got to bear in mind these comments are coming from a "disgruntled former employee" and are being promoted on a website with an agenda-- to put doubt in people's minds about... real medicine, and to try and push their own agenda of selling you "alternative" therapies.
Second. "Opinion leader" = "highly respected specialist doctor"-- really, the top doctors out there that know the most.
Third. This isn't news. No intrepid journalist has done anything special here-- investigation has gone as far as reading a journal and querying google.
So what are these opinion leaders being paid for?
1. Their time and expertise. There are things called "Advisory Boards". Drug companies need to know answers to the questions that they have. So they pay opinion leaders for their time.
2. To present data at conferences... kinda. These TOP DOCTORS are participating in clinical trials. These new drugs could save lots of lives, and these doctors are just participating in them. It's good for them to be in on this, as it keeps them at the bleeding edge of research.
What are these top doctors being paid?
Pretty much their expenses, plus what they would have earned, if they were back in the clinic. Regulations, codes of conduct, y'see, The doctors also get to be in on the latest research, and keep their profile up. But to smear people that devote their careers to saving lives is a bit low.
I'm not saying that pharma hasn't taken the piss a bit in the past (I hear d a story of Abbott taking doctors to a lapdancing bar back in the day...), but it's so tightly regulated and heavily scrutinised these days, they would never get away with anything dodgy. And they'd be fined/ sued for billions if they did. It's not in their interests. Smearing pharma, obviously is in the interests of certain people.
BTW, the alternative medicine market is worth billions, and is far less evidence-based and far less responsible for its own actions, compared with "real" medicine. - iancgi, on 11/15/2008, -2/+5yea, and its not just the drug companies that pay "opinion leaders"
- amoirae, on 11/15/2008, -1/+4Just a *bit* wrong?
- edwinjose, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2I think it wouldn't be a surprise if we find a some of us selected against by nature because they subscribed to quackery and post-modernism.
- jcaino, on 11/15/2008, -3/+5These are the pople that should be in jail.
- Sil369, on 11/15/2008, -2/+4ask your doctor next time which drugs theyr'e being paid for to sell !
wonder if they would give a list - cobracommander, on 11/15/2008, -1/+3What has Gardasil done? Aside from coming out with an HPV vaccine?
- scottknick, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2You are correct, I believe, regarding Medicaid; it's Medicare -- which affects far more people -- that now cannot negotiate on drug prices. And yes, the fact that such a law passed is a shameful indictment of of Congress.
I don't believe Big Pharma is evil, exactly. Corporations are structures set up to maximize profit for shareholders, and they will do so by any means necessary (and legal, assuming the laws are enforced). Corporations are effective tools, just like bulldozers are effective tools. But in both cases, if you start them up and relinquish external control over them, they can do an enormous amount of damage. The more vital the service to the population a corporation provides, the more necessary it is that the society keep a regulatory eye on it. - jgubbe, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2I witnessed this first hand as friends brought home a pharmaceutical rep. Her comments and rationalization were so perverse provocative and just down right evil that we ordered her a cab. She had claims that 80% of children needed A.D.D. medications and such. Nobody even cared about the lack of sexual activity at that point.
- fuckingusername, on 11/15/2008, -2/+4if I ever see that guy in them dumb Enzyme Male Enhancement commercial I will punch him in the face!
- kelmaster1, on 11/15/2008, -1/+3ya, it's kind of like the Fed. Looks like we're getting screwed from every angle.
- drunkenoaf, on 11/15/2008, -1/+3I do think that direct to the public advertising by drug companies is distasteful. But corrupting american legislators? It's not like you have comprehensive top-class healthcare for all, and as it turns out, medicaid are pretty bad-ass negotiators on drug price. Finally, these companies do have to make some money to research new drugs for the good of humankind. The big profits for shareholders might be distasteful, but the same goes for Coca-Cola and Microsoft. Capitalism isn't dead yet.
- newms32, on 11/15/2008, -1/+3Yes, I do trust many of the medications to help me because I work in (public) drug research and am educated about how most of them work. Believe it or not, there are valid, tested mechanisms of action behind the pharmaceuticals on the market. Sure, some people will react poorly to a drug and the pharmaceutical companies do try to hide bad news from time to time. But it's annoying when people say things like "pharmaceuticals just make you sicker" when it's obvious they don't have a clue about biology, neuroscience or drug theory. If you want to make a claim, back it up.
- MWeather, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2We already pay for it indirectly through taxes. The bill you're referring to also gave prescription drug coverage to people on medicare to the tune of several trillion dollars.
- scoottie, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2"Mr. Obama we have these new pills we would like to discuss"
- MarkusX, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Ah, what?
I didn't say anything about smoking and I don't smoke (anymore, 3 years now).
The reason why I complain, is the fact that the drug companies can charge you any price they want.
And that's an American specialty. That's also why it's illegal to import cheap drugs from Canada. It's not because they are unsafe, Canadian people have also managed to survive with their drugs, it's because the government gives the American pharmaceuticals too much freedom to risk our lives, not with the drugs they sell, but with the prices they charge, because many people cannot afford the drug they would need to get better. Thus it's the drug company's fault that a person gets worse.
And I'm not saying that in general, but I am saying it in cases where the drug in question is manufactured for a frction of a fraction of the price charged in retail.
Because of the patent-practice, they can charge any price, and when a patent runs out, they change a non-active ingredient and apply for a new patent. whoops and again Jackpot.
And we are left in the dirt.
Most other countries' governments limit the drug companies' profit or even better have fixed pricing for medication. In Germany for example you pay between $7 and $13, but not more than $13 (€10) for ANY ANY ANY ANY drug no matter how expensive it is. It's regulated by the government.
How relieved would senior citizens feel, if the had o pay only $50 for meds every month instead of $1000 ?? They would feel great. It probably will prolong their life, because they have less stress. - scamper22, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1yes, the medical industry is a free market. wow.
You mean a free market in that me in the consumer can just go to a store and buy any drug I want...?
Oh wait. You mean the 'free market' where the government regulates it so only doctors can prescribe drugs and then further regualtes it so only big companies can even make drugs... on and then when things go wrong... let's balme it on the 'free market'.... yes... that will teach them and their laissez faire... sounds french... a great thing to blame it on. - drunkenoaf, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Depressing, isn't it?
- drunkenoaf, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Opinion leaders = top doctors that other doctors respect
- bipolarruledout, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1If ANYTHING surprises you anymore then your just not paying attention.
- andreegal, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1whatch the union movie: The business behind getting high and spread it around http://blip.tv/file/1356143/
- newms32, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2The first decent post, thank you. People on here seem so detached from the reality of the situation; not everything boils down to "good or evil."
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2This is what you call unregulated free market.
- drunkenoaf, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1@scottknick
From my perspective in the UK, it looks like you need to kick the arses of your legislators. If that's true, that is (I don't know-- last I knew about anything like that (>1 yr ago now) was that medicaid in the USA had to have the cheapest prices in the country or else). Every mofo in a business suit tries to lobby politicians. It's part of the game. You're supposed to elect people with better character than that!
I also think because you don't have anything like the UKs NHS (universally admired, nobody dares copy it as it's too expensive-- the UK's No. 1 employer hints at how big it is). Free healthcare for all. So dodgy legislators and too little social conscience in the US (from the rich, mostly) is why people are dying.
The big reason for this debate, imho, is that big pharma are running out of new drugs. Nothing they do is better than before-- at least in the big diseases, e.g. no statin is really that much better than the last. They're all going generic. Oopsy!
The thing is though, people can be treated for most things, at 97% of the best standard of care with generic drugs.
So what they are having to do is develop drugs for smaller markets. But it still costs them the same to research, develop and trial them. So of course they sell for a higher price. Such is capitalism. Without capitalism, though, they'd never even try.
Now, the wailing in the UK is over cancer drugs-- that will extend the (fairly awful, at that stage) lives of patients with a certain type of cancer for 3 months-- at the cost of £many thousands per month. Cost vs benefit comes in, and people don't get the drug. And big pharma doesn't get a sale. Lose-lose situation, anyone?
Pharma isn't as pure as the driven snow, but on the whole, they're not evil. Well, not as evil as your legislators, it seems... - newms32, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2Uh yeah, I'm sure an article on "NaturalNews" is going to be unbiased about the pharmaceutical industry
- Bith8654, on 11/15/2008, -3/+4I don't think it's the socialization of medicine that has Canada's drug prices low, I think it's the fact that they can negotiate drug prices, something that isn't possible here because big pharma wrote up a law saying that their prices were non-negotiable with the government. So unless that law gets worked out, socializing medicine wouldn't mean lower drug prices, it just might mean you're paying for it indirectly through your taxes instead of out of your pocket.
- druranium, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Nothing to do with drug companies, but sure...he does seem like a douche and should be punched.
- nextekcarl, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1I wonder if he will still have that ***** eating grin on his face? ;^)
- nextekcarl, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1They should be required to notify patients about the potential conflict of interest. Not that I really consider it to be as sinister as some people think it is (it may be, but I'm not convinced it always is) but I think that should be required info.
- DestroyFascism, on 11/16/2008, -1/+1Don't they spend 50% of thier money on this? Get a grant from the gov for research and spend it on lobbying for more more grants...
- drunkenoaf, on 11/15/2008, -1/+1@Bith8654-- er, what law is this?
- druranium, on 11/16/2008, -1/+1Just another case of "a few bad apples"? Really?
- scottknick, on 11/16/2008, -1/+1People don't die because Coca-Cola and Windows are too expensive. That's the difference. The pharmaceutical companies are able to make so much money because there is an inelasticity of demand caused by the fact that people will die if they don't get their drugs. You combine that with anti-competitive patent extensions and you have a license to print money -- money that can be funneled into the campaign chests of legislators, who then vote for things like the medicare drug benefit, which forbids the government to bargain for better prices for seniors. That's corruption.
- gkiltz, on 11/16/2008, -0/+0Define "opinion leaders"
Opinions are like *****, EVERYBODY has one, are the ones with the most opinions the opinion leaders?
Let the drug companies waste money on them. putting money in the hands of the delusional will help the economy! :) -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is