RE: Re: Fw: Health News: [Sprycel]

[Guest guest]

Hi, I am also glad we have these new drugs, and thankful for the pharm, that

produce them. BUT, about trials, I have a question.  I have been in 6 trials in

10 years.  You all know that means , in the beginning a bma/bmb monthly, if

things go the way they should, that goes to quarterly.  As long as I can

remember, I  get labs done every single week. To say nothing of a zillion ekgs,

echo cardiograms, meds to take care of side effects, etc, etc., etc.,  The drug

companies involved have not paid one dime of these expenses, it is all paid for

by medicare and AARP. Nor have I paid one dime.  That is, except for a bit over

325 a month that I pay into medicare and AARP, which doesn't even come close to

covering these expenses.

I would think, as grateful as I am to these companies for their " free " drugs,

that they should at least pick up some of the expenses.  It is their drug they

are trying to get approval of, it is the patients, us, that  offer up our

bodies, and it would seem , in the end , we are paying an enormous amount of

money for the privalege.  Then when they get approval we are REALLY paying

through the nose!

I have a copy of my Feb. 2010 invoice, for a bmb/bma:

bone marrow biopsy supplies:  $389.00

aspiration supplies: $270.00

that is $659.00 for 2 needles, alcohol, lydocaine and a bandaid.  And the

expertise of the PA who is indeed painless and well worth the supply costs......

I know this is the hospital billing, but it is for the trial.  And Medicare and

AARP pick up the bill.  The total cost was:  $6,578.00

The least expensive item on any of my bills is for $67.00 and it's for my office

visit with Dr. Talpaz!!!

I am just surprised that these bills are covered, in full, by Medicare and AARP,

and I don't know why the drug companies are not expected to pay their share?

a ( Bobby ) Doyle, dob 12/17/29

DX 5/1995

Interferon 9 weeks/Hydroxyurea 5 years

02/2000 to 06/2002 Gleevec trial, OHSU

06/2002 Gleevec/Trisenox Trial, OHSU

06/2003 Gleevec/Zarnestra Trial, OHSU

04/2004 Sprycel Trial, MDACC, CCR in 10 months

04/2008 XL228 Trial, U of Mich.

01/2009 PCR 5.69

04/2009 Ariad Trial AP24534

09/2009 PCR 0.01

11/2009 PCR 0.034

02/2010 PCRU

#840 Zavie's Zero Club

From: hey00nanc <ncogan@...>

Subject: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Date: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 2:33 PM

 

>

> I for one are glad we have these drugs...and recognize that further

> research requires the companies who make them to make a profit. Does anyone

want

> to go back 15 years and deal with the death watch we would all be on

> without them?

> Tom in KY

________________________

Hi Tom,

The problem is that the drug company did not pay for MUCH of the

research......the federal govt did with grants, etc. Also the L & L Society and

some Universities. If the drug companies HAD to pay back the govt. for the

grants if a successful drug was developed, that would make this arrangement more

fair.

You only have to look at the profits these companies are making and the salaries

and bonuses of their CEOs to see that the price is a rip off. There has been

much in writing about the amount that the drug companies are spending on

advertising vs research....and they are spending MUCH more on advertising! If

you have the only drug in town (or one of 3) that can treat a fatal disease and

have a patent, you pretty much can charge whatever you can get away with.

C.

[Guest guest]

Exactly. Most of the research is done on government and LLS dime, but the

drug company gets the patent and the profits; which is why big-pharma is one

of the most lucrative businesses out there. So, Novartis and Bristol-Myers

Squibb get government sanctioned monopolies and can charge twice the average

American income for the medication.

[ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

--- In <mailto:%40> , TedBDD@...

wrote:

>

> I for one are glad we have these drugs...and recognize that further

> research requires the companies who make them to make a profit. Does

anyone want

> to go back 15 years and deal with the death watch we would all be on

> without them?

> Tom in KY

________________________

Hi Tom,

The problem is that the drug company did not pay for MUCH of the

research......the federal govt did with grants, etc. Also the L & L Society

and some Universities. If the drug companies HAD to pay back the govt. for

the grants if a successful drug was developed, that would make this

arrangement more fair.

You only have to look at the profits these companies are making and the

salaries and bonuses of their CEOs to see that the price is a rip off. There

has been much in writing about the amount that the drug companies are

spending on advertising vs research....and they are spending MUCH more on

advertising! If you have the only drug in town (or one of 3) that can treat

a fatal disease and have a patent, you pretty much can charge whatever you

can get away with.

C.

[Guest guest]

It's worse than that.  Private companies (including doctors and hospitals) get

government monies and support, which means society bears the cost, and then they

get to privatize the profits.  Sweet.  And then the idea is fostered wide and

far how the government has no place in private sector affairs and, anyway, can't

do anything right and should be thwarted in every possible manner whenever it

tries.  That's America's system, America's mindset.

From: Neal <nwatson@...>

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 11:37 AM

 

Exactly. Most of the research is done on government and LLS dime, but the

drug company gets the patent and the profits; which is why big-pharma is one

of the most lucrative businesses out there. So, Novartis and Bristol-Myers

Squibb get government sanctioned monopolies and can charge twice the average

American income for the medication.

[ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

--- In <mailto:%40> , TedBDD@...

wrote:

>

> I for one are glad we have these drugs...and recognize that further

> research requires the companies who make them to make a profit. Does

anyone want

> to go back 15 years and deal with the death watch we would all be on

> without them?

> Tom in KY

________________________

Hi Tom,

The problem is that the drug company did not pay for MUCH of the

research......the federal govt did with grants, etc. Also the L & L Society

and some Universities. If the drug companies HAD to pay back the govt. for

the grants if a successful drug was developed, that would make this

arrangement more fair.

You only have to look at the profits these companies are making and the

salaries and bonuses of their CEOs to see that the price is a rip off. There

has been much in writing about the amount that the drug companies are

spending on advertising vs research....and they are spending MUCH more on

advertising! If you have the only drug in town (or one of 3) that can treat

a fatal disease and have a patent, you pretty much can charge whatever you

can get away with.

C.

[Guest guest]

Hi, Neal:

Boy, you hit the nail right on the head.

Years ago, venerable list member Anjana who runs the Asian

CML list from Singapore, reported that Novartis Pharmaceuticals contributed

only about 10% of the research cost of Gleevec. And she was

citing an interview with the legendary CML pioneer Dr.

Druker, one of the main developers of Gleevec.

My problem with Novartis and the other big pharmaceutical

companies is that the primary reason they give for gouging

patients on drug costs is the cost of r & d. This is pure BS.

If you scrutinize Novartis' 2009 Annual Report you will see that marketing and

sales expenditures are nearly double r & d expenditures. For

some reason, Novartis touts r & d costs at the very beginning

of the 200+ page report and buries the marketing costs at the

end. (http://ir2.flife.de/data/novartis2009/igb_html/pdf/Novartis_A

nnual_Report_2009_EN.pdf)

So when you see those well coiffed pharma sales reps swarming

your local doctors' offices bring gifts and lunches to doctors

and their staffs, you call readily observe how much Big

Pharma's money goes into the care and feeding of these huge

revenue sources. Not to mention the " seminars " that pharma

funds for the doctors usually in such serene academic

settings like Aspen or Innsbruck.

So my beef is not with Big Pharma making profits, it is with

Big Pharma making OBSCENE profits.

BTW, in Switzerland which has a privatized, yet well

regulated, health insurance system with key elements similar

to President Obama's health insurance reform plan, drug

prices are actually regulated by the government and Novartis,

which is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, does not seem to

suffer from a profit standpoint be affected by this reality.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html)

While the Swiss seem to fare quite well under a well regulated privatized health

insurance system, all I want in the U.S. is the freedom to choose between a

government sponsored Medicare for All type plan and a " privatized " health

insurance plan.

We on these CML lists are hopefully advocating for ALL CML patients rich and

poor, but as the story referenced below indicates, some may die for lack of

being able to afforded their Gleevec, Tasigna, or Sprycel. For any society,

this is a moral failing of the worst sort.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39315634#39315634)

A votre sante,

Carl

________________________________

From: Neal <nwatson@...>

Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 9:37:21 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Exactly. Most of the research is done on government and LLS dime, but the

drug company gets the patent and the profits; which is why big-pharma is one

of the most lucrative businesses out there. So, Novartis and Bristol-Myers

Squibb get government sanctioned monopolies and can charge twice the average

American income for the medication.

[ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

--- In <mailto:%40> , TedBDD@...

wrote:

>

> I for one are glad we have these drugs...and recognize that further

> research requires the companies who make them to make a profit. Does

anyone want

> to go back 15 years and deal with the death watch we would all be on

> without them?

> Tom in KY

________________________

Hi Tom,

The problem is that the drug company did not pay for MUCH of the

research......the federal govt did with grants, etc. Also the L & L Society

and some Universities. If the drug companies HAD to pay back the govt. for

the grants if a successful drug was developed, that would make this

arrangement more fair.

You only have to look at the profits these companies are making and the

salaries and bonuses of their CEOs to see that the price is a rip off. There

has been much in writing about the amount that the drug companies are

spending on advertising vs research....and they are spending MUCH more on

advertising! If you have the only drug in town (or one of 3) that can treat

a fatal disease and have a patent, you pretty much can charge whatever you

can get away with.

C.

[Guest guest]

I have not noticed this at OHSU, or MDACC or U of Mich, but at the Cleveland

Clinic I see TV sets with Novartis on the front of them, and blankets with

Procrit printed on them.  Sort of ticks me off, being denied Procrit or Aranesp

unless I pay $1,700.00 a shot, knowing that money is paying more for advertising

then the medicine itself.

a ( Bobby ) Doyle, dob 12/17/29

DX 5/1995

Interferon 9 weeks/Hydroxyurea 5 years

02/2000 to 06/2002 Gleevec trial, OHSU

06/2002 Gleevec/Trisenox Trial, OHSU

06/2003 Gleevec/Zarnestra Trial, OHSU

04/2004 Sprycel Trial, MDACC, CCR in 10 months

04/2008 XL228 Trial, U of Mich.

01/2009 PCR 5.69

04/2009 Ariad Trial AP24534

09/2009 PCR 0.01

11/2009 PCR 0.034

02/2010 PCRU

#840 Zavie's Zero Club

From: Carl Davies <ctdavies2003@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 1:50 PM

 

Hi, Neal:

Boy, you hit the nail right on the head.

Years ago, venerable list member Anjana who runs the Asian

CML list from Singapore, reported that Novartis Pharmaceuticals contributed

only about 10% of the research cost of Gleevec. And she was

citing an interview with the legendary CML pioneer Dr.

Druker, one of the main developers of Gleevec.

My problem with Novartis and the other big pharmaceutical

companies is that the primary reason they give for gouging

patients on drug costs is the cost of r & d. This is pure BS.

If you scrutinize Novartis' 2009 Annual Report you will see that marketing and

sales expenditures are nearly double r & d expenditures. For

some reason, Novartis touts r & d costs at the very beginning

of the 200+ page report and buries the marketing costs at the

end. (http://ir2.flife.de/data/novartis2009/igb_html/pdf/Novartis_A

nnual_Report_2009_EN.pdf)

So when you see those well coiffed pharma sales reps swarming

your local doctors' offices bring gifts and lunches to doctors

and their staffs, you call readily observe how much Big

Pharma's money goes into the care and feeding of these huge

revenue sources. Not to mention the " seminars " that pharma

funds for the doctors usually in such serene academic

settings like Aspen or Innsbruck.

So my beef is not with Big Pharma making profits, it is with

Big Pharma making OBSCENE profits.

BTW, in Switzerland which has a privatized, yet well

regulated, health insurance system with key elements similar

to President Obama's health insurance reform plan, drug

prices are actually regulated by the government and Novartis,

which is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, does not seem to

suffer from a profit standpoint be affected by this reality.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html)

While the Swiss seem to fare quite well under a well regulated privatized health

insurance system, all I want in the U.S. is the freedom to choose between a

government sponsored Medicare for All type plan and a " privatized " health

insurance plan.

We on these CML lists are hopefully advocating for ALL CML patients rich and

poor, but as the story referenced below indicates, some may die for lack of

being able to afforded their Gleevec, Tasigna, or Sprycel. For any society,

this is a moral failing of the worst sort.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39315634#39315634)

A votre sante,

Carl

________________________________

From: Neal <nwatson@...>

Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 9:37:21 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Exactly. Most of the research is done on government and LLS dime, but the

drug company gets the patent and the profits; which is why big-pharma is one

of the most lucrative businesses out there. So, Novartis and Bristol-Myers

Squibb get government sanctioned monopolies and can charge twice the average

American income for the medication.

[ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

--- In <mailto:%40> , TedBDD@...

wrote:

>

> I for one are glad we have these drugs...and recognize that further

> research requires the companies who make them to make a profit. Does

anyone want

> to go back 15 years and deal with the death watch we would all be on

> without them?

> Tom in KY

________________________

Hi Tom,

The problem is that the drug company did not pay for MUCH of the

research......the federal govt did with grants, etc. Also the L & L Society

and some Universities. If the drug companies HAD to pay back the govt. for

the grants if a successful drug was developed, that would make this

arrangement more fair.

You only have to look at the profits these companies are making and the

salaries and bonuses of their CEOs to see that the price is a rip off. There

has been much in writing about the amount that the drug companies are

spending on advertising vs research....and they are spending MUCH more on

advertising! If you have the only drug in town (or one of 3) that can treat

a fatal disease and have a patent, you pretty much can charge whatever you

can get away with.

C.

[Guest guest]

I mentioned today  to one of the nurses  about the drug companies not picking

up all the expenses.  She said they pay for " a lot " of the expenses.  Well, my

invoices are always billed to Medicare and AARP and that is who pays them.  If

the drug companies are paying is it for the room we are in?  is it for wages? 

And when the drug gets FDA approval, does the hospital get a part of those

profits?

I am not complaining, and I am ever so thankful for all the trials I have been

in, especially Ariad which is doing so well for me.  I am curious though about

the money, the expense, and who pays what, and who the hell would ever ask their

doctor for Procrit, just because they saw it advertised on a blanket ??? LOL

a ( Bobby ) Doyle, dob 12/17/29

DX 5/1995

Interferon 9 weeks/Hydroxyurea 5 years

02/2000 to 06/2002 Gleevec trial, OHSU

06/2002 Gleevec/Trisenox Trial, OHSU

06/2003 Gleevec/Zarnestra Trial, OHSU

04/2004 Sprycel Trial, MDACC, CCR in 10 months

04/2008 XL228 Trial, U of Mich.

01/2009 PCR 5.69

04/2009 Ariad Trial AP24534

09/2009 PCR 0.01

11/2009 PCR 0.034

02/2010 PCRU

#840 Zavie's Zero Club

From: hey00nanc <ncogan@...>

Subject: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 12:32 PM

 

>

> Hi, I am also glad we have these new drugs, and thankful for the pharm, that

produce them. BUT, about trials, I have a question.  I have been in 6 trials

in 10 years.  You all know that means , in the beginning a bma/bmb monthly,

if things go the way they should, that goes to quarterly.  As long as I can

remember, I  get labs done every single week. To say nothing of a zillion

ekgs, echo cardiograms, meds to take care of side effects, etc, etc., etc., 

The drug companies involved have not paid one dime of these expenses, it is all

paid for by medicare and AARP. Nor have I paid one dime.

_______________________________

Hi Bobby,

I definitely know what you mean. The drug company, when you are in a trial, says

that they don't pay for 'normal' parts of cml care.....but without being in a

trial, NO ONE whould have a bmb/bma every 3 months!! that is not standard care.

These days, unless you are newly dx, you might have a bmb once a year or less.

I think a different way to look at it is.....if the drug company did not think

they had a chance to make buco bucks from a new drug, then they would not

bother. That is there big incentive?

It is a quite a bit different, when a scientist like Dr. Druker (or Dr. Talpaz

in his research) is developing a drug in the lab, often with samples from a drug

company......it is the University or research hospital that is paying for a lot

of the development of the drug, and financial gain is NOT the primary incentive.

Dr. Druker is not in his lab (now working on targeted drugs for other leukemias)

because he is going to get rich by doing it. But if a new drug is developed,

some drug company will make some big profits.

C.

[Guest guest]

Hi Carl,

Novartis did nothing to develop Gleevec. It was already developed by Sandoz.

Novartis was created by a merger of Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy.

Novartis still had to sponsor the clinical trials in order to bring the drug to

market. They were reluctant to do it and it was only through the pushing by Dr.

Druker that they agreed. Dr. Druker deserves most of the credit for us having

Gleevec today.

Zavie

The following is interesting, especially for someone like me. I never knew how

they created the name Novartis. I suppose if I took Latin in school I could have

figured it out.

Langreth and Banks

Forbes Magazine

At a frenetic factory outside the village of Ringaskiddy, Ireland, workers have

spent the past year laboring in 12-hour shifts around the clock, seven days a

week, turning out 10 tons of a plain looking white powder with extraordinary

qualities.

The complex molecule is unusually difficult to synthesize. It started with 30

tons of raw materials and 500 tons of solvent. The process requires a dozen

separate chemical steps and usually would take more than two years.

The factory has done it in half that time and is about to start the next huge

batch.

There's good reason to rush: The white powder is an experimental drug called

Glivec, and it may be the most potent weapon ever aimed at a common form of

leukemia. Novartis is spending $100 million on this 10-ton rush job, yielding

enough powder to treat 30,000 patients for a year.

vasella Vasella, chairman and chief executive of Novartis, is credited for

putting the considerable weight of the huge drug company behind Glivec. He took

that gamble somewhat brashly, after seeing astonishing early results in only 31

patients. Glivec was given to patients who weren't helped by existing therapy or

couldn't tolerate it; remarkably, the new drug worked in all of them.

With patients clamoring for the drug, he told managers to ignore costs and crank

up production fast. Clinical trials executives met with factory managers to

explain the task's urgency.

Taking a huge risk as additional trials ensued, Novartis boosted production a

hundredfold, going from making merely kilograms to producing metric tons.

" If it didn't work, we'd have had to go back to square zero, " says s

Rummelt, Novartis' manufacturing chief.

The typical drug takes five years or more of clinical testing to win regulatory

approval. Novartis hopes to apply for approval in March, barely two and a half

years after trials began. It would be one of the fastest tracks any drug has

ever taken.

" The pace this has gone is nothing short of spectacular, " says Oregon Health

Sciences University oncologist Dr. Druker, who led the first trial.

In current trials the drug is going to people with a less advanced form of the

disease, too. It is testing the new drug against gastrointestinal stromal

tumors, lung cancer and prostate cancer, as well. Novartis now has 3,500

patients trying Glivec. Some patients may be cured.

Such blazing speed is testimony to the big changes that Chairman and Chief

Executive Vasella has put in place at Novartis. Born in Fribourg,

Switzerland, Vasella had experience with medicine all too early. When he was 8,

he had tuberculosis and spent a year convalescing in an Alpine sanatorium. When

he was 13 his father died of complications from routine surgery. An older sister

died of lymphoma, and his other sister died in a car crash. Vasella grew up to

become a doctor, taking a hospital post in Bern, but by his mid-30s he was

restless.

Vasella came to realize that he enjoyed his management responsibilities more

than his medical duties. When Sandoz, the big Swiss pharmaceutical outfit,

offered him a job as a technical salesperson, he grabbed it.

" I loved medicine, helping patients and working in a team. But I was also

fascinated by business and wanted to try something new, " he explains.

He joined Sandoz in 1987. Eight years later he was chief executive officer. A

meteoric rise, even by U.S. standards.

Vasella helped create Novartis in the 1996, merging Sandoz with another huge

Swiss company, Ciba-Geigy. He even suggested the new company's name; novae artis

in Latin means " new skills. "

Working quietly but urgently, Vasella has injected a distinctly American style

of capitalism into Novartis. He expanded the bonus pool, created a stockoption

plan and goaded Swiss unions into accepting performance-based incentives even

for entry-level workers. Vasella also replaced complacent managers (15 of the

top 21 posts turned over) and cut 12,500 jobs in two years, lifting the

operating profit margin five points to 24 percent.

Today, Novartis has 10 other drugs in human trials involving cancers of the

breast, colon, brain, ovaries and pancreas. In the next two years Novartis will

unleash a flood of new drugs for an array of other deadly or debilitating

illnesses—asthma, diabetes, schizophrenia, organ failure, arthritis, skin

disorders and eye disease.

It's enough, Vasella vows, to produce double-digit growth in coming years. " We

have 24 drugs in late stages of testing,†he says. “By all standards it is

an extraordinarily high number. "

Yet Vasella is still very much at home in the science of medicine. In 1999, the

Wall Street Journal reported that Vasella spends evenings poring over research

reports and meeting summaries, and he peppers his scientists with e-mails. He

once caused the entire company network to crash because he copied too many

people on a single file.

— Editor’s note: A much longer version of this story is available on

Forbes’ Web site, http://www.forbes.com/ forbes/2001/0205/022.html

Zavie (age 72)

67 Shoreham Avenue

Ottawa, Canada, K2G 3X3

dxd AUG/99

INF OCT/99 to FEB/00, CHF

No meds FEB/00 to JAN/01

Gleevec since MAR/27/01 (400 mg)

CCR SEP/01. #102 in Zero Club

2.8 log reduction Sep/05

3.0 log reduction Jan/06

2.9 log reduction Feb/07

3.6 log reduction Apr/08

3.6 log reduction Sep/08

3.7 log reduction Jan/09

3.8 log reduction May/09

3.8 log reduction Aug/09

4.0 log reduction Dec/09

4.4 log reduction Apr/10

e-mail: <mailto:zmiller@...> zmiller@...

Tel: 613-726-1117

Fax: 613-482-4801

Cell: 613-282-0204

ID: zaviem

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Carl

Davies

Sent: September-27-10 1:51 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Hi, Neal:

Boy, you hit the nail right on the head.

Years ago, venerable list member Anjana who runs the Asian

CML list from Singapore, reported that Novartis Pharmaceuticals contributed

only about 10% of the research cost of Gleevec. And she was

citing an interview with the legendary CML pioneer Dr.

Druker, one of the main developers of Gleevec.

My problem with Novartis and the other big pharmaceutical

companies is that the primary reason they give for gouging

patients on drug costs is the cost of r & d. This is pure BS.

If you scrutinize Novartis' 2009 Annual Report you will see that marketing and

sales expenditures are nearly double r & d expenditures. For

some reason, Novartis touts r & d costs at the very beginning

of the 200+ page report and buries the marketing costs at the

end. (http://ir2.flife.de/data/novartis2009/igb_html/pdf/Novartis_A

nnual_Report_2009_EN.pdf)

So when you see those well coiffed pharma sales reps swarming

your local doctors' offices bring gifts and lunches to doctors

and their staffs, you call readily observe how much Big

Pharma's money goes into the care and feeding of these huge

revenue sources. Not to mention the " seminars " that pharma

funds for the doctors usually in such serene academic

settings like Aspen or Innsbruck.

So my beef is not with Big Pharma making profits, it is with

Big Pharma making OBSCENE profits.

BTW, in Switzerland which has a privatized, yet well

regulated, health insurance system with key elements similar

to President Obama's health insurance reform plan, drug

prices are actually regulated by the government and Novartis,

which is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, does not seem to

suffer from a profit standpoint be affected by this reality.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html)

While the Swiss seem to fare quite well under a well regulated privatized health

insurance system, all I want in the U.S. is the freedom to choose between a

government sponsored Medicare for All type plan and a " privatized " health

insurance plan.

We on these CML lists are hopefully advocating for ALL CML patients rich and

poor, but as the story referenced below indicates, some may die for lack of

being able to afforded their Gleevec, Tasigna, or Sprycel. For any society,

this is a moral failing of the worst sort.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39315634#39315634)

A votre sante,

Carl

________________________________

From: Neal <nwatson@...

<mailto:nwatson%40kriegerandstewart.com> >

<mailto:%40>

Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 9:37:21 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Exactly. Most of the research is done on government and LLS dime, but the

drug company gets the patent and the profits; which is why big-pharma is one

of the most lucrative businesses out there. So, Novartis and Bristol-Myers

Squibb get government sanctioned monopolies and can charge twice the average

American income for the medication.

[ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

--- In <mailto:%40>

<mailto:%40> , TedBDD@...

wrote:

>

> I for one are glad we have these drugs...and recognize that further

> research requires the companies who make them to make a profit. Does

anyone want

> to go back 15 years and deal with the death watch we would all be on

> without them?

> Tom in KY

________________________

Hi Tom,

The problem is that the drug company did not pay for MUCH of the

research......the federal govt did with grants, etc. Also the L & L Society

and some Universities. If the drug companies HAD to pay back the govt. for

the grants if a successful drug was developed, that would make this

arrangement more fair.

You only have to look at the profits these companies are making and the

salaries and bonuses of their CEOs to see that the price is a rip off. There

has been much in writing about the amount that the drug companies are

spending on advertising vs research....and they are spending MUCH more on

advertising! If you have the only drug in town (or one of 3) that can treat

a fatal disease and have a patent, you pretty much can charge whatever you

can get away with.

C.

[Guest guest]

Does the alleged 10% related to the clinical trial costs? Was I wrong in

stating that profits are obscene? Is it necessary for a pharma company to be

allowed to charge whatever they want in order for them to develop new drugs?

Just wondering..........

________________________________

From: Zavie <zmiller@...>

Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 2:53:07 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Hi Carl,

Novartis did nothing to develop Gleevec. It was already developed by Sandoz.

Novartis was created by a merger of Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy.

Novartis still had to sponsor the clinical trials in order to bring the drug to

market. They were reluctant to do it and it was only through the pushing by Dr.

Druker that they agreed. Dr. Druker deserves most of the credit for us having

Gleevec today.

Zavie

The following is interesting, especially for someone like me. I never knew how

they created the name Novartis. I suppose if I took Latin in school I could have

figured it out.

Langreth and Banks

Forbes Magazine

At a frenetic factory outside the village of Ringaskiddy, Ireland, workers have

spent the past year laboring in 12-hour shifts around the clock, seven days a

week, turning out 10 tons of a plain looking white powder with extraordinary

qualities.

The complex molecule is unusually difficult to synthesize. It started with 30

tons of raw materials and 500 tons of solvent. The process requires a dozen

separate chemical steps and usually would take more than two years.

The factory has done it in half that time and is about to start the next huge

batch.

There's good reason to rush: The white powder is an experimental drug called

Glivec, and it may be the most potent weapon ever aimed at a common form of

leukemia. Novartis is spending $100 million on this 10-ton rush job, yielding

enough powder to treat 30,000 patients for a year.

vasella Vasella, chairman and chief executive of Novartis, is credited for

putting the considerable weight of the huge drug company behind Glivec. He took

that gamble somewhat brashly, after seeing astonishing early results in only 31

patients. Glivec was given to patients who weren't helped by existing therapy or

couldn't tolerate it; remarkably, the new drug worked in all of them.

With patients clamoring for the drug, he told managers to ignore costs and crank

up production fast. Clinical trials executives met with factory managers to

explain the task's urgency.

Taking a huge risk as additional trials ensued, Novartis boosted production a

hundredfold, going from making merely kilograms to producing metric tons.

" If it didn't work, we'd have had to go back to square zero, " says s

Rummelt, Novartis' manufacturing chief.

The typical drug takes five years or more of clinical testing to win regulatory

approval. Novartis hopes to apply for approval in March, barely two and a half

years after trials began. It would be one of the fastest tracks any drug has

ever taken.

" The pace this has gone is nothing short of spectacular, " says Oregon Health

Sciences University oncologist Dr. Druker, who led the first trial.

In current trials the drug is going to people with a less advanced form of the

disease, too. It is testing the new drug against gastrointestinal stromal

tumors, lung cancer and prostate cancer, as well. Novartis now has 3,500

patients trying Glivec. Some patients may be cured.

Such blazing speed is testimony to the big changes that Chairman and Chief

Executive Vasella has put in place at Novartis. Born in Fribourg,

Switzerland, Vasella had experience with medicine all too early. When he was 8,

he had tuberculosis and spent a year convalescing in an Alpine sanatorium. When

he was 13 his father died of complications from routine surgery. An older sister

died of lymphoma, and his other sister died in a car crash. Vasella grew up to

become a doctor, taking a hospital post in Bern, but by his mid-30s he was

restless.

Vasella came to realize that he enjoyed his management responsibilities more

than his medical duties. When Sandoz, the big Swiss pharmaceutical outfit,

offered him a job as a technical salesperson, he grabbed it.

" I loved medicine, helping patients and working in a team. But I was also

fascinated by business and wanted to try something new, " he explains.

He joined Sandoz in 1987. Eight years later he was chief executive officer. A

meteoric rise, even by U.S. standards.

Vasella helped create Novartis in the 1996, merging Sandoz with another huge

Swiss company, Ciba-Geigy. He even suggested the new company's name; novae artis

in Latin means " new skills. "

Working quietly but urgently, Vasella has injected a distinctly American style

of capitalism into Novartis. He expanded the bonus pool, created a stockoption

plan and goaded Swiss unions into accepting performance-based incentives even

for entry-level workers. Vasella also replaced complacent managers (15 of the

top 21 posts turned over) and cut 12,500 jobs in two years, lifting the

operating profit margin five points to 24 percent.

Today, Novartis has 10 other drugs in human trials involving cancers of the

breast, colon, brain, ovaries and pancreas. In the next two years Novartis will

unleash a flood of new drugs for an array of other deadly or debilitating

illnesses—asthma, diabetes, schizophrenia, organ failure, arthritis, skin

disorders and eye disease.

It's enough, Vasella vows, to produce double-digit growth in coming years. " We

have 24 drugs in late stages of testing,†he says. “By all standards it is

an

extraordinarily high number. "

Yet Vasella is still very much at home in the science of medicine. In 1999, the

Wall Street Journal reported that Vasella spends evenings poring over research

reports and meeting summaries, and he peppers his scientists with e-mails. He

once caused the entire company network to crash because he copied too many

people on a single file.

— Editor’s note: A much longer version of this story is available on

Forbes’ Web

site, http://www.forbes.com/ forbes/2001/0205/022.html

Zavie (age 72)

67 Shoreham Avenue

Ottawa, Canada, K2G 3X3

dxd AUG/99

INF OCT/99 to FEB/00, CHF

No meds FEB/00 to JAN/01

Gleevec since MAR/27/01 (400 mg)

CCR SEP/01. #102 in Zero Club

2.8 log reduction Sep/05

3.0 log reduction Jan/06

2.9 log reduction Feb/07

3.6 log reduction Apr/08

3.6 log reduction Sep/08

3.7 log reduction Jan/09

3.8 log reduction May/09

3.8 log reduction Aug/09

4.0 log reduction Dec/09

4.4 log reduction Apr/10

e-mail: <mailto:zmiller@...> zmiller@...

Tel: 613-726-1117

Fax: 613-482-4801

Cell: 613-282-0204

ID: zaviem

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Carl

Davies

Sent: September-27-10 1:51 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Hi, Neal:

Boy, you hit the nail right on the head.

Years ago, venerable list member Anjana who runs the Asian

CML list from Singapore, reported that Novartis Pharmaceuticals contributed

only about 10% of the research cost of Gleevec. And she was

citing an interview with the legendary CML pioneer Dr.

Druker, one of the main developers of Gleevec.

My problem with Novartis and the other big pharmaceutical

companies is that the primary reason they give for gouging

patients on drug costs is the cost of r & d. This is pure BS.

If you scrutinize Novartis' 2009 Annual Report you will see that marketing and

sales expenditures are nearly double r & d expenditures. For

some reason, Novartis touts r & d costs at the very beginning

of the 200+ page report and buries the marketing costs at the

end. (http://ir2.flife.de/data/novartis2009/igb_html/pdf/Novartis_A

nnual_Report_2009_EN.pdf)

So when you see those well coiffed pharma sales reps swarming

your local doctors' offices bring gifts and lunches to doctors

and their staffs, you call readily observe how much Big

Pharma's money goes into the care and feeding of these huge

revenue sources. Not to mention the " seminars " that pharma

funds for the doctors usually in such serene academic

settings like Aspen or Innsbruck.

So my beef is not with Big Pharma making profits, it is with

Big Pharma making OBSCENE profits.

BTW, in Switzerland which has a privatized, yet well

regulated, health insurance system with key elements similar

to President Obama's health insurance reform plan, drug

prices are actually regulated by the government and Novartis,

which is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, does not seem to

suffer from a profit standpoint be affected by this reality.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html)

While the Swiss seem to fare quite well under a well regulated privatized health

insurance system, all I want in the U.S. is the freedom to choose between a

government sponsored Medicare for All type plan and a " privatized " health

insurance plan.

We on these CML lists are hopefully advocating for ALL CML patients rich and

poor, but as the story referenced below indicates, some may die for lack of

being able to afforded their Gleevec, Tasigna, or Sprycel. For any society,

this is a moral failing of the worst sort.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39315634#39315634)

A votre sante,

Carl

________________________________

From: Neal <nwatson@...

<mailto:nwatson%40kriegerandstewart.com> >

<mailto:%40>

Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 9:37:21 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

Exactly. Most of the research is done on government and LLS dime, but the

drug company gets the patent and the profits; which is why big-pharma is one

of the most lucrative businesses out there. So, Novartis and Bristol-Myers

Squibb get government sanctioned monopolies and can charge twice the average

American income for the medication.

[ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

--- In <mailto:%40>

<mailto:%40> , TedBDD@...

wrote:

>

> I for one are glad we have these drugs...and recognize that further

> research requires the companies who make them to make a profit. Does

anyone want

> to go back 15 years and deal with the death watch we would all be on

> without them?

> Tom in KY

________________________

Hi Tom,

The problem is that the drug company did not pay for MUCH of the

research......the federal govt did with grants, etc. Also the L & L Society

and some Universities. If the drug companies HAD to pay back the govt. for

the grants if a successful drug was developed, that would make this

arrangement more fair.

You only have to look at the profits these companies are making and the

salaries and bonuses of their CEOs to see that the price is a rip off. There

has been much in writing about the amount that the drug companies are

spending on advertising vs research....and they are spending MUCH more on

advertising! If you have the only drug in town (or one of 3) that can treat

a fatal disease and have a patent, you pretty much can charge whatever you

can get away with.

C.

[Guest guest]

" .Novartis is spending $100 million on this 10-ton rush job, yielding enough

powder to treat 30,000 patients for a year. "

That works out to $3,333.33 per patient per year, under rushed experimental

conditions. So why do they charge $50k per person per year?

[ ] Re: Fw: Health News: [sprycel]

--- In <mailto:%40>

<mailto:%40>

<mailto:%40> , TedBDD@...

wrote:

>

> I for one are glad we have these drugs...and recognize that further

> research requires the companies who make them to make a profit. Does

anyone want

> to go back 15 years and deal with the death watch we would all be on

> without them?

> Tom in KY

________________________

Hi Tom,

The problem is that the drug company did not pay for MUCH of the

research......the federal govt did with grants, etc. Also the L & L Society

and some Universities. If the drug companies HAD to pay back the govt. for

the grants if a successful drug was developed, that would make this

arrangement more fair.

You only have to look at the profits these companies are making and the

salaries and bonuses of their CEOs to see that the price is a rip off. There

has been much in writing about the amount that the drug companies are

spending on advertising vs research....and they are spending MUCH more on

advertising! If you have the only drug in town (or one of 3) that can treat

a fatal disease and have a patent, you pretty much can charge whatever you

can get away with.

C.