Guest guest Posted February 23, 2000 Report Share Posted February 23, 2000 Tom and Bill, Great job on Fox. Don King is a tough act to follow with that hair! You both presented facts and truths. Tom, in your final five seconds you left a very good statement that you are " Protecting Future Service Members. " Thank you, New York Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 Will your child survive an infectious disease? <A HREF= " http://www.mothering.com/ubb/Forum20/HTML/000402.html " >Will your child survive an infectious disease? - Mothering Boards</A> A shame, but did this woman take the time to learn how to treat and not treat diseases? How about the role of nutrition in disease? Did the woman freak over a fever and constantly feed her kid fever reducers? Did the woman not know that viral diseases eat up all the Vitamin A, thus necessitating supplementation. Did the woman know that Vitamin C in large doses is both an anti-bacterial and an anti-viral? Did the woman know to not feed her kid if the kid wasn't hungry, thereby allowing the body to successfully use this mechanism to not waste time on digestion but on killing the " bugs " . Did this woman call up a classical homeopath for help with any symptoms that the child was stuck in? Oh my, I suppose I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Oh yeah, was this a woman who was also raising her child on a diet of white bread and colas? Good grief, it's a miracle more children don't die with the commoness of this type of diet. At any rate, remember it is not enough to make the decision to not vaccinate. You must then move on to treatment. And yes, this goes for you out there who are vaxxing. Remember, your child is just as likely to get a disease that he has been vaxxed against - only your youngin's immune system won't be as strong as the unvaxxed child's. Kathleen In a message dated 9/8/2001 2:50:04 PM Central Daylight Time, bluheron@... writes: > Just saw a segment on Fox News on the vaccinaton issue. > A mom of a child who died of chicken pox and how if he had > his chicken pox vaccination he may still be alive.... > > Then a doctor said " we have found no link of autism and the MMR > vaccine " and on and on. > > Very sad the child dies of complications of chicken pox but.... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 <<A shame, but did this woman take the time to learn how to treat and not treat diseases? How about the role of nutrition in disease? Did the woman freak over a fever and constantly feed her kid fever reducers? Did the woman not know that viral diseases eat up all the Vitamin A, thus necessitating supplementation. Did the woman know that Vitamin C in large doses is both an anti-bacterial and an anti-viral? Did the woman know to not feed her kid if the kid wasn't hungry, thereby allowing the body to successfully use this mechanism to not waste time on digestion but on killing the " bugs " . Did this woman call up a classical homeopath for help with any symptoms that the child was stuck in? Oh my, I suppose I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. >> I love this rant. However, I am a bit of a newbie to all this. Does anyone have any good links that I can learn more about this side of it? TIA, Goldmeer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 At 01:58 PM 09/08/2001 -0700, you wrote: > ><<A shame, but did this woman take the time to learn how to treat and not >treat >diseases? How about the role of nutrition in disease? Did the woman freak >over a fever and constantly feed her kid fever reducers? Did the woman not >know that viral diseases eat up all the Vitamin A, thus necessitating >supplementation. Did the woman know that Vitamin C in large doses is both >an >anti-bacterial and an anti-viral? Did the woman know to not feed her kid if > >the kid wasn't hungry, thereby allowing the body to successfully use this >mechanism to not waste time on digestion but on killing the " bugs " . Did >this >woman call up a classical homeopath for help with any symptoms that the >child >was stuck in? Oh my, I suppose I could go on, but I think everyone gets the > >idea. >> > >I love this rant. However, I am a bit of a newbie to all this. Does anyone >have any good links that I can learn more about this side of it? > >TIA, > Goldmeer > Hi , I've posted several articles on Vitamin C and homeopathy in the past as have others. Go to the website of the list and do a search and you will find them vaccinations Sheri -------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & UK 530-740-0561 Voicemail in US http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men ( & women) do nothing " ...Edmund Burke ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE. Well Within's Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin International Tours, Homestudy Courses, ANTHRAX & OTHER Vaccine Dangers Education, Homeopathic Education CEU's for nurses, Books & Multi-Pure Water Filters ---------- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 08/16/2001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 Kathleen, I respectfully disagree that your child is just as likely to get the disease if they were vaxxed than unvaxxed. If you look at outbreaks, virtually 100% of the unvaccinated will get the disease (who have not already had it), whereas a much smaller percentage of the vaccinated will. Perhaps over time, with waning immunity, that will turn out to be true, but it don't believe it is true yet. It is probably true, however, that most of those vaxxed who do not get the disease are having their vaccine-induced immunity boosted, making it appear as if the vaccine is working, when you are getting a subclinical or mild case. There are risks associated with getting a mild or subclinical case, however. The vaccines work to some extent to prevent disease - how much, and at what cost to overall health, are the questions, in my mind. Sandy ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER. Re: Fox News Will your child survive an infectious disease? <A HREF= " http://www.mothering.com/ubb/Forum20/HTML/000402.html " >Will your child survive an infectious disease? - Mothering Boards</A> A shame, but did this woman take the time to learn how to treat and not treat diseases? How about the role of nutrition in disease? Did the woman freak over a fever and constantly feed her kid fever reducers? Did the woman not know that viral diseases eat up all the Vitamin A, thus necessitating supplementation. Did the woman know that Vitamin C in large doses is both an anti-bacterial and an anti-viral? Did the woman know to not feed her kid if the kid wasn't hungry, thereby allowing the body to successfully use this mechanism to not waste time on digestion but on killing the " bugs " . Did this woman call up a classical homeopath for help with any symptoms that the child was stuck in? Oh my, I suppose I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Oh yeah, was this a woman who was also raising her child on a diet of white bread and colas? Good grief, it's a miracle more children don't die with the commoness of this type of diet. At any rate, remember it is not enough to make the decision to not vaccinate. You must then move on to treatment. And yes, this goes for you out there who are vaxxing. Remember, your child is just as likely to get a disease that he has been vaxxed against - only your youngin's immune system won't be as strong as the unvaxxed child's. Kathleen In a message dated 9/8/2001 2:50:04 PM Central Daylight Time, bluheron@... writes: > Just saw a segment on Fox News on the vaccinaton issue. > A mom of a child who died of chicken pox and how if he had > his chicken pox vaccination he may still be alive.... > > Then a doctor said " we have found no link of autism and the MMR > vaccine " and on and on. > > Very sad the child dies of complications of chicken pox but.... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Hi , have you read the " Will your child survive an infectious disease " link yet? Another excellent link to the use of Vitamin C is at http://www.mothering.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000678.html If you read the Vaccine Forum at www.mothering.com, you will read alot about disease treatment. Kathleen In a message dated 9/8/2001 4:00:19 PM Central Daylight Time, @... writes: > <treat > diseases? How about the role of nutrition in disease? Did the woman freak > over a fever and constantly feed her kid fever reducers? Did the woman not > know that viral diseases eat up all the Vitamin A, thus necessitating > supplementation. Did the woman know that Vitamin C in large doses is both > an > anti-bacterial and an anti-viral? Did the woman know to not feed her kid if > > the kid wasn't hungry, thereby allowing the body to successfully use this > mechanism to not waste time on digestion but on killing the " bugs " . Did > this > woman call up a classical homeopath for help with any symptoms that the > child > was stuck in? Oh my, I suppose I could go on, but I think everyone gets the > > idea. >> > > I love this rant. However, I am a bit of a newbie to all this. Does anyone > have any good links that I can learn more about this side of it? > > TIA, > Goldmeer > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 Oh really? And, who did you hear that from? It is not true... I thought you were just having some fun with me. Puts a twinkle in my eyes, anyway!!! The Avenging Angel >From: " F. Prior " <jprior@...> >Reply-jprior@... >Dawn Rider <israelswarrior@...> >Subject: Re: Fox News >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:51:33 -0800 (PST) > > >I was never suppose to be on, but I was told you were. what happened? > Dawn Rider <israelswarrior@...> wrote:Dear , > >I didn't see you either... how come??? > >From: " F. Prior " > >Reply-jprior@... > >Dawn Rider > >Subject: Fox News > >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:45:19 -0800 (PST) > > > >I watched for three days, but didn't see you. What happened? > > > > F. Prior, Rodney Yoder's Legal Defense Manager > >Rodney's website: www.RodneyYoder.com > >My email: jprior@... > >My Briefcase: http://briefcase./j_prior > >My Calendar: http://calendar./j_prior > >My Home/Office phone: 773-774-6696, Fax: 781-459-8592 > >My Cell Phone: 773-230-5825, Bible Question: 22:36 _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 Oh really? And, who did you hear that from? It is not true... I thought you were just having some fun with me. Puts a twinkle in my eyes, anyway!!! The Avenging Angel >From: " F. Prior " <jprior@...> >Reply-jprior@... >Dawn Rider <israelswarrior@...> >Subject: Re: Fox News >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:51:33 -0800 (PST) > > >I was never suppose to be on, but I was told you were. what happened? > Dawn Rider <israelswarrior@...> wrote:Dear , > >I didn't see you either... how come??? > >From: " F. Prior " > >Reply-jprior@... > >Dawn Rider > >Subject: Fox News > >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:45:19 -0800 (PST) > > > >I watched for three days, but didn't see you. What happened? > > > > F. Prior, Rodney Yoder's Legal Defense Manager > >Rodney's website: www.RodneyYoder.com > >My email: jprior@... > >My Briefcase: http://briefcase./j_prior > >My Calendar: http://calendar./j_prior > >My Home/Office phone: 773-774-6696, Fax: 781-459-8592 > >My Cell Phone: 773-230-5825, Bible Question: 22:36 _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 In a message dated 11/29/02 2:35:52 PM Mountain Standard Time, nirenbergl@... writes: > One day... we'll be seeing a special on the woman who exposed > Eli Lilly... DAWN Rider... > Dawn's the Brokavich of pharmaceuticals!!!!!! Glitter, author of <A HREF= " http://anxiety-panic.com/griffon " >Blind Reason</A> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 In a message dated 11/29/02 2:35:52 PM Mountain Standard Time, nirenbergl@... writes: > One day... we'll be seeing a special on the woman who exposed > Eli Lilly... DAWN Rider... > Dawn's the Brokavich of pharmaceuticals!!!!!! Glitter, author of <A HREF= " http://anxiety-panic.com/griffon " >Blind Reason</A> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 One day... we'll be seeing a special on the woman who exposed Eli Lilly... DAWN Rider... Dear , > > > >I didn't see you either... how come??? > > > > >From: " F. Prior " > > >Reply-jprior@w... > > >Dawn Rider > > >Subject: Fox News > > >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:45:19 -0800 (PST) > > > > > >I watched for three days, but didn't see you. What happened? > > > > > > F. Prior, Rodney Yoder's Legal Defense Manager > > >Rodney's website: www.RodneyYoder.com > > >My email: jprior@w... > > >My Briefcase: http://briefcase./j_prior > > >My Calendar: http://calendar./j_prior > > >My Home/Office phone: 773-774-6696, Fax: 781-459-8592 > > >My Cell Phone: 773-230-5825, Bible Question: 22:36 > > > __________________________________________________ _______________ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 One day... we'll be seeing a special on the woman who exposed Eli Lilly... DAWN Rider... Dear , > > > >I didn't see you either... how come??? > > > > >From: " F. Prior " > > >Reply-jprior@w... > > >Dawn Rider > > >Subject: Fox News > > >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:45:19 -0800 (PST) > > > > > >I watched for three days, but didn't see you. What happened? > > > > > > F. Prior, Rodney Yoder's Legal Defense Manager > > >Rodney's website: www.RodneyYoder.com > > >My email: jprior@w... > > >My Briefcase: http://briefcase./j_prior > > >My Calendar: http://calendar./j_prior > > >My Home/Office phone: 773-774-6696, Fax: 781-459-8592 > > >My Cell Phone: 773-230-5825, Bible Question: 22:36 > > > __________________________________________________ _______________ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 I wrote to fox...LiaSee what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Once an asshole, always an assholechristine <christine@...> wrote: I think I have to throw up...The ONLY good thing was putting the word Thimerosal on the screen.That whole segment was FULL of misinformation. Should have expected this from Fox. Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 My husband counted five lies in that segment. Pamela " Courage is doing what you're afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you're scared. " Eddie Rickenbacker, top US fighter ace, WWI From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of christine Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:45 PM EOHarm Subject: Fox news I think I have to throw up... The ONLY good thing was putting the word Thimerosal on the screen. That whole segment was FULL of misinformation. Should have expected this from Fox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Dear , Sorry I got your ire up, but I didn't write the article, I just posted it for everyone to make up their own minds. The statement that was most startling to me was: " If pharmaceutical companies don't accept the price that the Canadian government is willing to pay for a drug, they can't sell their drug there. " Can you tell me if this is true or something the author planted? " But, under World Trade Organization rules, if their drugs aren't sold in Canada within two years after they are sold in the U.S., the company loses its patent and Canadian companies can copy the drug -- leaving the company that created it with absolutely nothing. " It seems pretty clear to me that the company that developed a drug could lose their patent and it would be open season for any country who wanted to reproduce it. That's not the way it should work. Patent and copyright laws are supposed to protect the rights of the owner of the patent. I don't have the answers for the planet's woes, but I don't believe that this is fair. I listen to the news on several stations and there are a lot of things they ignore and maybe this is one of them. I don't understand how WTO can dictate to the biggest producer of modern drugs whether or not they will be allowed to keep their patent. What about the billions it costs to develop a drug. I am also against the obscene salaries the CEO's make, but the economy is driven by the free market system. I had nothing to do with the passing of that law, either. It just doesn't add up that the rules are so much different for the pharmaceutical companies than for vitamin companies. They are not under as much scrutiny, yet they can sell anything that is labeled pure, even if it is only 10% pure. Too much disparity in the markets. Now, are we still friends? LOL Hands & hearts, Lottie Duthu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Hi Lottie, First, let me say that I am sorry to give you the impression that I got worked up because of you. Of course we are still " friends " . To be able to speak or debate with passion about things of importance should never get in the way of caring and nurturing relationships. Honest debate between people with differing views is the best way to mutually arrive at the truth! My " ire " gets up when propaganda mills start spewing half-truths, and sometimes complete falsehoods, in language meant to scare people and inflame passions. This is not a simple case of passionate people getting carried away, it is a deliberate, planned, designed and co-ordinated effort to manipulate people by playing on their fears. There seems to be a lot of this going around today and, in my opinion, it has reached dangerous levels... levels I have not heard off since before the War Between the States (1861-1865). I cannot speak directly to some of the things you listed below without first doing some research. There are limits (GASP!) to my expertise... LOL For the purpose of this discussion I will assume every " fact " you have written is true. There are still some comments, observations and opinions which can and should be made. I am a retired Certified Public Accountant who has had clients among some very large, well known companies, including some health insurance carriers. Most of my opinions are based upon the inside knowledge I have based upon my career and, to a lesser degree based upon my experiences as an insured patient. I am very concerned about the level of influence that money can buy with our elected government, real reform of the lobbyist activity is long overdue and both major political parties share the blame equally. Business executives are not above buying legislation that will increase their personal wealth. Some are capable of doing much worse. I have personally witnessed attempts at extortion and threats of bodily harm. I have seen honest businessmen shaken and unnerved to the point of installing remote ignitions in their cars for fear of what might happen when the turn it on. That said, most businessmen I have known are honest and honorable people. It only takes a few bad apples, and when the dollars start reaching hundreds of millions, even billions, the consequences are huge. The question of right and wrong gets complicated and there are expectations to be answered. OK, let's take a look at the questions you raise. For the record they are excellent questions. As I see it there are two basic issues, the rights of the companies and the rights of the public. The companies claim that sense they own the patents, they have the right to charge anything they want for the product. Many of us, however, believe that with medications like Gleevec no company has an exclusive right to it's patent. If I invent the " perfect mouse trap " and patent it, I would be entitled to sell it for whatever price I get and dance all the way to the bank. However, if it took me ten years and I was financed by $20 million in a U.S. Government grant, the public should own a share in the profits and perhaps have a say in the pricing. If my rich uncle had provided the money he would most likely insist on a cut... but Uncle Sam does not do that! Why? Most of the funding for the development of Gleevec came from the U.S. Government and private charities (all the money really came from all of us) why should a company like Novartis get to set the price by itself and keep all the profit? For simplicity sake I will stick the the question of Gleevec. I have to take 800mg daily. The current retail price of that 800mg is over $8,000 per month in the U.S.. How can Novartis justify this outrageous price? They say to the patients' insurance companies, " pay the price or your patient dies. " These companies have no leverage with Novartis, it has a monopoly guaranteed by the government. Therefore, we all pay ever larger premiums for our insurance and Novartis makes $Billions. There are legislators in Congress who receive millions of dollars from Novartis, via a lobbying umbrella, for this privileged status. It is my conviction that, unless a company can demonstrate that it provided the funding for developing a medication it should not receive a patent! Period! Companies producing medications paid for by public funds should have their prices regulated by the Government and should have to justify any price they propose to charge. I hope you and the others realize that I am on your side. We are all being victimized by companies who are trying to claim that they are the victims. It is just not true! That attempt at deception just plain makes me MAD. Friends for life, Troxel CPA On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...> wrote: > > > Dear , > Sorry I got your ire up, but I didn't write the article, I just posted it > for everyone to make up their own minds. The statement that was most > startling to me was: " If pharmaceutical companies don't accept the price > that the Canadian government is willing to pay for a drug, they can't sell > their drug there. " Can you tell me if this is true or something the author > planted? > > " But, under World Trade Organization rules, if their drugs aren't sold in > Canada within two years after they are sold in the U.S., the company loses > its patent and Canadian companies can copy the drug -- leaving the company > that created it with absolutely nothing. " > > It seems pretty clear to me that the company that developed a drug could > lose their patent and it would be open season for any country who wanted to > reproduce it. That's not the way it should work. Patent and copyright laws > are supposed to protect the rights of the owner of the patent. I don't have > the answers for the planet's woes, but I don't believe that this is fair. I > listen to the news on several stations and there are a lot of things they > ignore and maybe this is one of them. > > I don't understand how WTO can dictate to the biggest producer of modern > drugs whether or not they will be allowed to keep their patent. What about > the billions it costs to develop a drug. I am also against the obscene > salaries the CEO's make, but the economy is driven by the free market > system. I had nothing to do with the passing of that law, either. It just > doesn't add up that the rules are so much different for the pharmaceutical > companies than for vitamin companies. They are not under as much scrutiny, > yet they can sell anything that is labeled pure, even if it is only 10% > pure. Too much disparity in the markets. > > Now, are we still friends? LOL > > Hands & hearts, > Lottie Duthu > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Hi , Whilst I'd agree with many of your points, I think the issue of whether the company provided all the research funding itself is something of a red herring here. The charity and governmental contributions aren't intended to be investments paying a commercial return, they are incentives to the wider research community, including the drug companies, to promote the discovery of cures. The real issue here is the age-old one that free-market economics (of which I am a very strong supporter) only work if combined with regulation to prevent abuse by monopolies / cabals such as anti trust laws. When a drug co has the only product to keep a patient alive, that is a perfect example of a monopoly and if unrestrained the potential for 'abuse' of this monopoly position is massive. Currently the only real protection out there is patent expiry - allowing the companies free reign, but for a limited period. Given the literally life and death nature of the issues involved, however, I cannot believe this is sufficient protection given the drug company directors have a legal duty to screw as much money out of the patients / healthcare providers as they can. There are no easy answers to this (there never are in regulating monopoly providers), but I believe there is a clear role for some governmental regulation of the market here. If I have to weigh up my sympathies between a poor old drug company forced to choose 'pay at our price or don't sell in our country' or a patient told by the drug company 'pay at OUR price or die' I'm not going to shed too many tears for the company - provided the regulated price still gives sufficient incentive to develop new cures. One thing that we can be absolutely clear on though is that allowing free importation of drugs from other countries should NOT be the way forward. If you do that the inevitable consequence is a fixed global price for the drugs which will be at a level much higher than developing countries can afford and instantly condemn patients in those countries to death. Phil (yet another accountant) > > > > > > > Dear , > > Sorry I got your ire up, but I didn't write the article, I just posted it > > for everyone to make up their own minds. The statement that was most > > startling to me was: " If pharmaceutical companies don't accept the price > > that the Canadian government is willing to pay for a drug, they can't sell > > their drug there. " Can you tell me if this is true or something the author > > planted? > > > > " But, under World Trade Organization rules, if their drugs aren't sold in > > Canada within two years after they are sold in the U.S., the company loses > > its patent and Canadian companies can copy the drug -- leaving the company > > that created it with absolutely nothing. " > > > > It seems pretty clear to me that the company that developed a drug could > > lose their patent and it would be open season for any country who wanted to > > reproduce it. That's not the way it should work. Patent and copyright laws > > are supposed to protect the rights of the owner of the patent. I don't have > > the answers for the planet's woes, but I don't believe that this is fair. I > > listen to the news on several stations and there are a lot of things they > > ignore and maybe this is one of them. > > > > I don't understand how WTO can dictate to the biggest producer of modern > > drugs whether or not they will be allowed to keep their patent. What about > > the billions it costs to develop a drug. I am also against the obscene > > salaries the CEO's make, but the economy is driven by the free market > > system. I had nothing to do with the passing of that law, either. It just > > doesn't add up that the rules are so much different for the pharmaceutical > > companies than for vitamin companies. They are not under as much scrutiny, > > yet they can sell anything that is labeled pure, even if it is only 10% > > pure. Too much disparity in the markets. > > > > Now, are we still friends? LOL > > > > Hands & hearts, > > Lottie Duthu > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 > > Hi , > Whilst I'd agree with many of your points, I think the issue of whether the company provided all the research funding itself is something of a red herring here. The charity and governmental contributions aren't intended to be investments paying a commercial return, they are incentives to the wider research community, including the drug companies, to promote the discovery of cures. _________________________ I don't think the issue of where the money came from is a red herring. The drug companies are constantly touting that they deserve big profits because of all the money they put into developing the drug. Look at Gleevec. Dr. Druker had 10 years of research (done at Harvard and then at OHSU/Portland, paid for with govt. grants, charities, etc.) before Nick Lydon provided him with some kinases to test in the lab. Novartis paid to run the trials. They are a partial investor in the development of this drug....they should not be reaping all the profits. Dr. Druker can even tell you what % of the research funds/support came from Novartis. The honest thing is to call such drug development a partnership....between the US govt (us taxpayers) and the drug company.....and limit the profits they can make on the drug. Phil, I think you are less aware of this because how many drugs are being developed or tested in the UK? I even saw a good news story (PBS) on health care around the world and Novartis admitted that it needed to charge more for the drug in the US because it could not charge it elsewhere and this is where they could make their profits. What are we...the suckers for the drug companies? We pay towards the research....then they gouge us on the drugs. C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 War Between the States? I remember you are a veteran but did not know which war. By the way - which side did you fight on? Also - regarding - money buying influence in the government? Happens everyday - just ask Harry Reid and the carpet bagger from Nebraska. Right or wrong it is engrained in our world. Never a good thing but sometimes it works for the side of the coin your on. Merry Christmas! (I only go back to the Spanish American War - I was with the Rough Riders on San Jaun hill). Sincerley Teddy Brewster (do you get the reference?) > > > > > > > Dear , > > Sorry I got your ire up, but I didn't write the > article, I just posted it > > for everyone to make up their own minds. The statement > that was most > > startling to me was: " If pharmaceutical companies > don't accept the price > > that the Canadian government is willing to pay for a > drug, they can't sell > > their drug there. " Can you tell me if this is true or > something the author > > planted? > > > > " But, under World Trade Organization rules, if their > drugs aren't sold in > > Canada within two years after they are sold in the > U.S., the company loses > > its patent and Canadian companies can copy the drug -- > leaving the company > > that created it with absolutely nothing. " > > > > It seems pretty clear to me that the company that > developed a drug could > > lose their patent and it would be open season for any > country who wanted to > > reproduce it. That's not the way it should work. > Patent and copyright laws > > are supposed to protect the rights of the owner of the > patent. I don't have > > the answers for the planet's woes, but I don't believe > that this is fair. I > > listen to the news on several stations and there are a > lot of things they > > ignore and maybe this is one of them. > > > > I don't understand how WTO can dictate to the biggest > producer of modern > > drugs whether or not they will be allowed to keep > their patent. What about > > the billions it costs to develop a drug. I am also > against the obscene > > salaries the CEO's make, but the economy is driven by > the free market > > system. I had nothing to do with the passing of that > law, either. It just > > doesn't add up that the rules are so much different > for the pharmaceutical > > companies than for vitamin companies. They are not > under as much scrutiny, > > yet they can sell anything that is labeled pure, even > if it is only 10% > > pure. Too much disparity in the markets. > > > > Now, are we still friends? LOL > > > > Hands & hearts, > > Lottie Duthu > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Teddy Brewster (do you get the reference?)   Arsenic and Old Lace? > > > > > > > Dear , > > Sorry I got your ire up, but I didn't write the > article, I just posted it > > for everyone to make up their own minds. The statement > that was most > > startling to me was: " If pharmaceutical companies > don't accept the price > > that the Canadian government is willing to pay for a > drug, they can't sell > > their drug there. " Can you tell me if this is true or > something the author > > planted? > > > > " But, under World Trade Organization rules, if their > drugs aren't sold in > > Canada within two years after they are sold in the > U.S., the company loses > > its patent and Canadian companies can copy the drug -- > leaving the company > > that created it with absolutely nothing. " > > > > It seems pretty clear to me that the company that > developed a drug could > > lose their patent and it would be open season for any > country who wanted to > > reproduce it. That's not the way it should work. > Patent and copyright laws > > are supposed to protect the rights of the owner of the > patent. I don't have > > the answers for the planet's woes, but I don't believe > that this is fair. I > > listen to the news on several stations and there are a > lot of things they > > ignore and maybe this is one of them. > > > > I don't understand how WTO can dictate to the biggest > producer of modern > > drugs whether or not they will be allowed to keep > their patent. What about > > the billions it costs to develop a drug. I am also > against the obscene > > salaries the CEO's make, but the economy is driven by > the free market > > system. I had nothing to do with the passing of that > law, either. It just > > doesn't add up that the rules are so much different > for the pharmaceutical > > companies than for vitamin companies. They are not > under as much scrutiny, > > yet they can sell anything that is labeled pure, even > if it is only 10% > > pure. Too much disparity in the markets. > > > > Now, are we still friends? LOL > > > > Hands & hearts, > > Lottie Duthu > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Hi , Although the US is the world's biggest single economy and hence spending the most on drug development I think you would be surprised by how much is happening in the rest of the developed world. Remember only 2 of the top 8 drug companies are American and there are huge governmental and charity funded programmes throughout the EU and elsewhere in the developed world. The ecoonomics of the drugs business and the global economy mean that for high tech drugs the developed world is the only place that can afford to pay the prices needed to support the process. You could say therefore that the developing world is getting a 'free ride', but as we are building the bus anyway it doesn't cost us anythinhg to allow them to build on a few extra seats sold at cost. Within the developed world costs are reasonably comparable and where US prices are higher than EU ones there are several additonal factors that have to be factored in rather than just 'they're richer so we'll charge them more' Key issues are 1)the fact that you are so much more litigious than anyone else so it's much more risky selling to you; and 2)you don't have universal healthcare (yet) so the drug companies have huge programmes to provide free or subsidised drugs to those who can't afford them - If you factor in this last issue the average price in the US is quite a bit lower than the published price - and a lot closer to the prices in other developed countries where the company never has to provide assistance programs because the state ensures everyone gets the drugs they need. Best Regards Phil > > > > Hi , > > Whilst I'd agree with many of your points, I think the issue of whether the company provided all the research funding itself is something of a red herring here. The charity and governmental contributions aren't intended to be investments paying a commercial return, they are incentives to the wider research community, including the drug companies, to promote the discovery of cures. > _________________________ > > I don't think the issue of where the money came from is a red herring. The drug companies are constantly touting that they deserve big profits because of all the money they put into developing the drug. > > Look at Gleevec. Dr. Druker had 10 years of research (done at Harvard and then at OHSU/Portland, paid for with govt. grants, charities, etc.) before Nick Lydon provided him with some kinases to test in the lab. Novartis paid to run the trials. They are a partial investor in the development of this drug....they should not be reaping all the profits. Dr. Druker can even tell you what % of the research funds/support came from Novartis. The honest thing is to call such drug development a partnership....between the US govt (us taxpayers) and the drug company.....and limit the profits they can make on the drug. Phil, I think you are less aware of this because how many drugs are being developed or tested in the UK? > > I even saw a good news story (PBS) on health care around the world and Novartis admitted that it needed to charge more for the drug in the US because it could not charge it elsewhere and this is where they could make their profits. What are we...the suckers for the drug companies? We pay towards the research....then they gouge us on the drugs. > > C. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!  Merry Christmas > > > > > > > Dear , > > Sorry I got your ire up, but I didn't write the > article, I just posted it > > for everyone to make up their own minds. The statement > that was most > > startling to me was: " If pharmaceutical companies > don't accept the price > > that the Canadian government is willing to pay for a > drug, they can't sell > > their drug there. " Can you tell me if this is true or > something the author > > planted? > > > > " But, under World Trade Organization rules, if their > drugs aren't sold in > > Canada within two years after they are sold in the > U.S., the company loses > > its patent and Canadian companies can copy the drug -- > leaving the company > > that created it with absolutely nothing. " > > > > It seems pretty clear to me that the company that > developed a drug could > > lose their patent and it would be open season for any > country who wanted to > > reproduce it. That's not the way it should work. > Patent and copyright laws > > are supposed to protect the rights of the owner of the > patent. I don't have > > the answers for the planet's woes, but I don't believe > that this is fair. I > > listen to the news on several stations and there are a > lot of things they > > ignore and maybe this is one of them. > > > > I don't understand how WTO can dictate to the biggest > producer of modern > > drugs whether or not they will be allowed to keep > their patent. What about > > the billions it costs to develop a drug. I am also > against the obscene > > salaries the CEO's make, but the economy is driven by > the free market > > system. I had nothing to do with the passing of that > law, either. It just > > doesn't add up that the rules are so much different > for the pharmaceutical > > companies than for vitamin companies. They are not > under as much scrutiny, > > yet they can sell anything that is labeled pure, even > if it is only 10% > > pure. Too much disparity in the markets. > > > > Now, are we still friends? LOL > > > > Hands & hearts, > > Lottie Duthu > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Hi Phil, Remember, old accountants never die... they just loose their balance! (inside joke for accountants) Actually, I don't think the funding issue is a red herring, it is the heart of the matter. I agree the Government and charities are not providing the funds in order to make a profit, rather to serve the public interest in finding new cures and therapies. It does not serve the public interest to allow just a few rich people to benefit from those discoveries which the public, as a whole, cannot afford. The issue is whether or not for-profit businesses should be allowed to take these windfalls and make *unreasonable*profits? I too believe in a free market economy. However, history has proved time and again that an unregulated free market does not work in the the case of public safety and virtual monopolies. No one would want just anyone flying passenger airliners, or repairing them! I believe that the medical services industry has a long and disreputable history of protecting public safety (health). Too often patients die because no one is willing to pay for needed medication or services, even if the patients have been members in good standing of the insurance companies! Why? Things cost too much because greedy people hold the keys to the cupboard! Sickness and injury pay no attention to class or wealth. They are problems which attack the community as a whole. I believe it is a community problem and the solution must come from the community. Not only is it a disgrace to America that anyone should be turned away and denied health care because they don't have enough money, it is a great injury to our country as a whole. Sick people infect healthy people. People desperate to help themselves or their children do desperate things. Unhealthy workers are unproductive (or under-productive) workers. People forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills generate huge losses for banks and other lenders... of course these losses get passed on to everyone else as higher interest rates and fees. Drug companies are entitled to reasonable profits. Their employees are entitled to make reasonable wages. The economic system we call " capitalism " recognizes the value and rewards that are owed to the people who willing to risk the capital to build a product or provide a service. The public too is entitled to be rewarded for it's investment by having those products and services available at reasonable prices. Self regulation alone has never worked, there must be strong and viable governmental oversight to protect the public's interests. Troxel On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:55 PM, phil130566 <pbeardsmore@...> wrote: > > > Hi , > Whilst I'd agree with many of your points, I think the issue of whether the > company provided all the research funding itself is something of a red > herring here. The charity and governmental contributions aren't intended to > be investments paying a commercial return, they are incentives to the wider > research community, including the drug companies, to promote the discovery > of cures. > > The real issue here is the age-old one that free-market economics (of which > I am a very strong supporter) only work if combined with regulation to > prevent abuse by monopolies / cabals such as anti trust laws. > > When a drug co has the only product to keep a patient alive, that is a > perfect example of a monopoly and if unrestrained the potential for 'abuse' > of this monopoly position is massive. Currently the only real protection out > there is patent expiry - allowing the companies free reign, but for a > limited period. Given the literally life and death nature of the issues > involved, however, I cannot believe this is sufficient protection given the > drug company directors have a legal duty to screw as much money out of the > patients / healthcare providers as they can. There are no easy answers to > this (there never are in regulating monopoly providers), but I believe there > is a clear role for some governmental regulation of the market here. If I > have to weigh up my sympathies between a poor old drug company forced to > choose 'pay at our price or don't sell in our country' or a patient told by > the drug company 'pay at OUR price or die' I'm not going to shed too many > tears for the company - provided the regulated price still gives sufficient > incentive to develop new cures. > > One thing that we can be absolutely clear on though is that allowing free > importation of drugs from other countries should NOT be the way forward. If > you do that the inevitable consequence is a fixed global price for the drugs > which will be at a level much higher than developing countries can afford > and instantly condemn patients in those countries to death. > > Phil (yet another accountant) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2009 Report Share Posted December 25, 2009 Ha! Ha! ROFL I was in the third infantry brigade, The Army of the Potomac. I was wounded twice at the first battle of Mananas, July 21, 1861... bet you didn't know I was that old, did ya? LOL I am an amateur history buff... my point is that in my 65+ years I have seldom seen emotions running so high. For this, I blame the spread (deliberate or otherwise) of misinformation and half truths... from *any*sources! Troxel On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Mr Stickel <stick924@...>wrote: > > > War Between the States? I remember you are a veteran but did not know which > war. By the way - which side did you fight on? > > Also - regarding - money buying influence in the government? Happens > everyday - just ask Harry Reid and the carpet bagger from Nebraska. Right or > wrong it is engrained in our world. Never a good thing but sometimes it > works for the side of the coin your on. > > Merry Christmas! > > (I only go back to the Spanish American War - I was with the Rough Riders > on San Jaun hill). > > Sincerley > > Teddy Brewster (do you get the reference?) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.