You certainly do not get how the system works...sometimes (often) your wonderdrug that makes you see more clearly, or even (insert your condition here) causes your rectum to swell and make you full of shit...or what ever other problem the cure to the first problem was to begin with...thank god for the FDA eh?

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

I think a drug company would have to be nuts to risk hundreds of millions of dollars on an AIDS vaccine that is just going to get expropriated once it is created.

Hillary did a great job 10 plus years ago passing legisltion that has been instrumental in the near destruction of America's existing vaccine manufacturers. They can't even cover manufacturing and litigation costs, much less development with the government intrusive plan she created.

How much of your money have you invested in vaccine development?

I don't believe I mentioned any party affiliation. I only described a failed immunization program and its author. If you want to dispute that characterization, go ahead. It should be fun to see you explain why there is always lots of botox available, but often no flu vaccines, and why about 90% of the domestic vaccine manufactures have gone out of the business.

I don't blather about what is wrong with America. That is your job. I ocassionally blather about what is right with America. I plead guilty to that one.

I am still waiting for a description of all the money you have invested in an AIDS vaccine. I am guessing that investment is zero. You won't invest there. You just demand others throw their money down a sink hole.

Apparently you have no real information or background about the medical field. Art is correct about Hilary's contribution to the medical manufacturing landscape in the early 1990's. I was with a medical device manufacturing company then. If your company was staying even, you were doing extremely well. Most companies were laying off people right and left. One of the first things to go is usually R&D.

Even in the best of times, most R&D units are looked on as a financial drain by other departments in the company. We spend a lot of money, with no immediate return on investment. It can be hard to blame them sometimes, as a significant number of research projects never see completion, let alone actual success.

You paint ethical and moral responsibility like it is pure black and white. Have you been in the Triathlon forum lately? People have difficulty in determining if they are drafting or not in a non-critical race, done for fun. Well, these same people work for drug companies, and they are just as motivated to demonstrate and convince other people that their project is the next best thing. Loss of objectivity is the other side of the fence to the high self confidence and motivation needed to drive through dead ends, set backs and other obstacles encountered on a daily basis. That is just one minor source that greys the ethical responsibility. You can extend this to major issues like financial decisions.

Before you lump me with the Bush loving right wing fanatics, understand that I do not have any great love for the drug companies either. I don't understand why the same drugs are so much cheaper next door in Canada. But, perhaps you can explain why so much health care profit ends up in the hands of lawyers in this country. Maybe a good place to start would be the disappearance of Gyn/Obs in states like Florida. Isn't that an incredible lack of moral and ethical responsibility for doctors not to be available to deliver babies when needed?

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

Spending a billion on worthless research is REALLY bad for stock prices...then Pfizer and the rest can go broke, your 401 would crash and we can send the exec's to prison right? Dont forget, we all got to die of something...and if we do cure cancer...how in the hell are we going to feed and house the "survivors"? Tough question sure - but, death and yes untimely death are all a part of population control.

The #1 thing to work on now...diebetics...all these fat fuckers running around are going to need LOTS of stuff to keep on eating. I am going to buy stock on insulin companies and cattle ranches.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Apparently you are having difficulty with the concept of investment. Investment means putting money into a concept with the expectation of creating value and receiving a positive return on your investment.

To that end, I have invested lots of money over the years in faster CPUs, and have done that socially productive thing called making a profit.

The other items on your list, maybe a little as part of a portfolio at different times. I don't understand your point though since I am not whining that others should lose money investing in these things the way you are whining about drug companies.

Yes, you can answer my question specifically. The answer is zero. You have invested zero of your own money by choice in such investments. You are a total hypocrite demanding others make such investments you would not consider yourself.

You are a further hypocrite when you support the policies of the government, including litigation policies, that have destroyed our vaccine industry and thus insure that even a successful product in this field will be a likely loser.

Why does the evil Merck have a duty to pursue cures when you do not? Doesn't that make you much more evil than Merck?

While you are ragging on Merck, how many millions of lives have their medications saved and how many more millions have had their lives improved markedly by their products? You might want to compare their track record to your own before you formulate your value judgments.

This is exactly my point:

---
[reply]Why does the evil Merck have a duty to pursue cures when you do not? Doesn't that make you much more evil than Merck?[/reply]

Are you really asking this question? Because I never started a company under the guise of creating a product for the betterment of the public's health.

---

You don't invest in this area or financially back those who do because you choose not to invest there, while you simultaneously invest your money elsewhere and carp at those that do invest in this area.

Still waiting for your estimates of how many lives were saved by Merck over the years. I forget whether it was Merck or Pfizer that got their big start during WWII producing malaria treatments. My father got malaria during WWII, so make sure you count him.

You laugh at those who point out the direct consequences of your prefered government policies regarding vaccines because you can not respond intellectually, only emotionally.

Who claimed that the drug company's moral obligation to their customer base was the most important aspect of their business? Certainly not me. I thought the most important part of their business was developing and marketing drugs that people choose to buy because of the products' benefits.

I have great news for you, astrotri. It took less than a minute with Google and such, but here is the perfect investment for you. TGEN, a company trying to develop an AIDS vaccine. From a recent press release:

---

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Targeted Genetics Corp. (TGEN) said Monday that it has started a Phase II trial in South Africa to test the safety and immunogenicity of tgAAC09, a preventive HIV vaccine candidate. The Seattle-based biotechnology company is working with the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, a global nonprofit organization, on the trial. The vaccine candidate is based on HIV subtype C, the subtype of the virus most prevalent in southern and eastern Africa, the company said. The trial should take about 18 months to complete and will enroll 78 volunteers in total.

---

Even better, their stock is dropping like a stone, so this is the time to put your money behind your ideals and get a great deal while you are at it.

You will really like this company because they don't make a dime from the evil marketplace, just from panhandling various government giveaway programs.

A few hundred grand would really give their stock price a boost, so go for it, and then you can let us know how pure as the wind driven snow your philosophy toward drug development is without risk of being called a hypocrite.

Astrotri, I have checked the trading this morning on TGEN and the volume has been very light indicating you didn't jump on this opportunity this morning. I hope you get on this horse soon.

It is now trading at about $.02 on the dollar to what it sold for years ago. It has lost, and reliably promises to continue to lose about $25,000,000 per year, so this is just the vehicle for you.

I think you should take credit for your entire future loss on this one. We will ignore whatever savings you get for the tax loss. That will be our secret.

I made the choice not to invest in drug companies based on their duplictous actions involving research. I wouldn't recommend anyone to invest in drug companies. You think Merck is the only company that has peddled drugs to market they knew to be under-studied and incomplete? It's only a matter of time before every drug company has a day in court like Merck. But, you're obviously a conscienceless investor, and a profit is more important than who you're investing with.


You really do have all the answers. Ok, so I'll ask.

How would you conduct a drug company?

How would you conduct new drug research? How many avenues of approach would you initiate in identifying a suitable vaccine or a drug based cure? How far would you carry each viable vaccine or drug approach?

How much of your company income would you use to fund research? Assume you have income from existing drugs (cash cows) for at least the next five years.

How much staff would you hire and dedicate to this project? Would you pay for the top talent and approve any additional personnel requests to expedite the research?

How long (years) would you be willing to pursue a vaccine or cure? Or, in other words, how much money are you willing to lose?

How would you insure drug safety, meaning no serious side affects for otherwise healthy individuals, no adverse drug interactions, or at least only those that can be reasonably managed.

How would you ensure non-toxicity for cancer patients, no complicating issues for individuals with cardiac disease, high blood pressure, immunodeficiencies (besides HIV+ or AIDS), liver disease, kidney disease, diabetics, etc.

How would you define efficacy? 90%?, 75%?, 50%? Will your vaccine be effective against all strains of HIV? What about new mutations? Will it work for all non-healthy individuals as listed above for instance?

What is an acceptable cost to produce the vaccine?

What is an acceptable price to sell the vaccine?

What is your acceptable profit margin?

Would you discount your product to third world countries that can't afford the list cost? Would you donate product to poor countries? How would you pay for the donated or discounted product?

How much money would you stockpile for the inevitable lawsuits? Would you keep in-house council or hire out?

I trust you would patent your vaccine, assuming it has novelty. What will you do for income in 10-12 years when the patent has expired?

What is your fall back position if, say after five years, you develop and market an acceptable vaccine or cure, but a competitor releases an agent with better efficacy for the same or less price?



For the record, I am a firm believer in publishing results from all clinical trials, and not just the ones coonducted that shows favorable results for your product. So, I would hold you to that requirement. Also, be aware, that the results form one unfavorable trial could wipe out your capital in a day.

Mr. Drug Company President, the world awaits your answers with baited breath.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

I never said altruistic in the same breath or in any breath. They make products to make a profit. People buy them because the products improve or even save their lives.

Apparently you aren't going to be buying into the TGEN rathole. Why not? If Merck has an obligation to pour money into products that will be commercial failures, why don't you? You hold yourself up as far more moral and self righteous.

TGEN is already at the stage of doing Phase II testing on humans. That is a big deal. It means they only need a couple hundred million or so to prove for certain that their vaccine is worthless. Prove your morality. Write them a check, or stop lecturing others.

Apparently you aren't going to do this because you operate with no moral or ethical compass and value your hard earned money above compassion and altruism. Since there is no profit in sight, you are rejecting that alternative.

Explain to me who is the hypocrite.

Just checking in, it's been three days. How are those answers coming along? Need a little more time?

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

The big point you've missed, which is my main and only point, is that unlike every other industry on the planet (except the energy industry), drug companies are allowed to skate on their moral and ethical obligation to the consumer base. The auto industry doesn't have to spend so much money on building safer cars, they could easily get away with meeting minimum standards and making a huge profit, but they have an obligation to the well-being of their consumers to provide the safest vehicles possible. The government agrees and enforces/encourages safety in the auto industry.

Did you write this with a straight face? People choose to buy safer cars so there is a demand for them, hence the auto industry catering to that demand. If GM made shitty cars that didn't protect you in a crash would you buy one? I wouldn't and I bet you wouldn't either which means that GM may be able to make a huge profit on a per vehicle basis it follows that they wouldn't sell to many of them. Your auto industry example is laughable. What about the exploding gas tanks in the Fords (I think)? Or the rollovers of the Ford Explorers. I'm guessing they weren't too concerned with their "moral and ethical obligation to the consumer base" and where did that come from anyways? A company's obligation is first to their owners, stockholder or otherwise, and then to other groups. They aren't beholden to their consumer base.

I guess I'm missing the wonders for manking from the Tobacco Industry, the Food Industry, and on and on. From the tobacco industry, I get a product that kills me everytime I use it. From the Food Industry I get sugar laden crap with no nutritional value that makes me obese and more prone to death.

What planet are you from anyways?

companies don't answer to their consumer base... what a stupid statement... where does the majority of profit come from for consumer based industry

Companies are all about convincing their consumer base that what the company is selling is what the consumer should be buying. How does it "serve the consumer base" to buy a pair of Nikes over a pair of Reeboks? A company answers to their shareholders/owners and regulatory powers and they peddle their wares to their consumer base with the hopes of selling more widgets at a higher price than they did last year. It's really pretty simple.

I made no comment on drug research or the like. You are correct in that drug companies and academic institutions (through grants) are the only entities able to perform the required research. However, in the post that I was responding to you said that the drug company was the only industry "skating by on their moral and ethical obligations". I merely pointed out many other industries that were doing the same thing and refuted your argument that the auto industry worked to provide safe vehicles (beyond gov't standards) based upon some altruistic reason.

But, this does nothing to aleve the industry of their responsibility to do the dirty work which no one else is equipped to do.

For something this important shouldn't our gov't also be funding the academic institutions to perform this research? I think the past is littered with examples of companies who do not nor are required to "do the dirty work which no one else is equipped to do".

"drug makers are the only entities which possess the resources to explore vaccines and cures."

This statement is simply not true except in a pedantic sense. Anybody, yourself included, can form a company, raise money, and do research in any area they like, subject to government regulations.

TGEN is doing exactly that. You can too, except you chose not to risk either your effort or your money on such a venture. That is an entirely rational choice, yet you castigate those who make the same choice as you.

That evil company Merck that you like to slime, this year completed early testing on a new vaccine that seems to be 100% effective in prevent cervical cancer. A few questions:

By what possible logic could you have contempt for such an organization?

Do you support the essential expropriation of this vaccine the way all other vaccines have essentially been expropriated by Hillary Clinton's program that essentially makes the government the only buyer?

If the vaccine saves ten of thousands, but winds up killing a few dozen with adverse reactions, should the US legal system be allowed to essentially dismember the company via the legal lottery?

Those disagreeing with my opinion on this thread have completely missed the point and aren't even addressing my original statement. <snip>

I'm disgusted that anyone could defend the manner in which drug companies conduct business. Arguing that they are not minimally obligated to pursue the betterment of public health through research of vaccines/cures is a character flaw.

This thread is dead to me.

I don't think any one has missed your point. In five words let me summarize: All drug companies are scum. You don't differentiate between U.S. and international companies, so I took the liberty in saying all.

My response to you, the Golden One with the superior ethics, is how would you counduct a drug company by your standards. You are clearly convinced that you know what they should be doing, but aren't, and that they lack ethical standards which you don't, so tell us how you would do it differently. I provided you a simple shopping list of some of the questions you need to cover. They are not highly technical, no advanced pharmaceutical chemistry degrees needed, just a simple business plan proposal, with all the ethical and financial answers left blank for you to fill in. Back up your pompous attitude with some concrete proposals.

As far as touting other industries such as the auto manufacturing business, I am dumbfounded. Ford and the other majors have conducted business for years based on the bottom line. Auto manufacturers have been historically reluctant to incorporate safety features as safety doesn't sell. However, fancy gizmos are added at the drop of a hat with much less concern about cost. Furthermore, for years, the Big 3 determined redesign and recalls of known deadly defects by weighing the cost of recall and repair versus the statistically derived number of accidents and deaths, and the costs of the resulting lawsuits. Yet, the drug companies are the ones that disgust you? Get a grip.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)