TOPIC:

follow up to last weeks BMJ, incomprehensible apologists from Gilead respond:

www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/08/03/gi...-back-report-pricing

Government.....
That is the subject I teach.
Yet, I've been reminded this is not the place to share my personal feelings in that arena....
They (governments) could solve this issue, but WE CAN't EVEN GET BASIC ZIKA FUNDS THROUGH OUR TOTALLY FUCKED UP CONGRESS!
pardon my language.
m

Thanks Hazel. Interesting article with Gilead trying to defend the indefensible. I'm not sure how they can use the risk factor of the initial investment and lack of government funding as justification for their current and ongoing outrageous pricing model. I understand Gilead's need to fund research and be a profitable business but not with such an obscene profit margin at the expense of so many lives.

In the case of lack of government funding they just lie.

[UPDATE: We should note Appendix 2 on page 24 of this report lists National Institutes of Health grants to Pharmassset and its former chief executive before the sale to Gilead].

Edit: can't seem to create a linky in a quote so 'this report' is freepdfhosting.com/e8476beb4e.pdf

The corporations have gone wild with unbridled greed, I place blame with the political finance laws. They can legally bribe the politicians, so of course our government says nothing to reign them in. In USA we are totally screwed, there are almost no regulations on business anymore.

Very surprised my comment survived moderation on that article. Earlier there were only ones supporting the price.

Greedfighter wrote: In USA we are totally screwed, there are almost no regulations on business anymore.

You obviously didn't get the memo, it's not called regulation anymore it's red tape and should be removed according to many politicians ! The USA isn't the only country suffering from this condition.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

- George Santayana

Across the course of history there have been some bad things happen. People in power, and alive at the time have put in place "red tape" to try to prevent future generations having the same issues. Over time memory fades and the voices for change gather momentum.

Take BREXIT for example. As imperfect as the European Union might be the 70 year period of relative peace and prosperity that follows WWII has no parallel in history. Prior to that European countries were routinely at war with each other.

Take Donald Trump as another example, his nationalism and plan for a wall to keep Mexicans out - the parallels to Hitler pre WWII should be evident to any student of history.

Take the whys and wherefores of the US housing meltdown: www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/d...he-fina_b_82639.html

Here's a great article from the Harvard Business Review: hbr.org/2009/07/shareholders-first-not-so-fast

In the 1950s and 1960s, the stakeholder was king. CEOs saw their role as one of balancing the interests of the various groups that touched their companies—customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders, and the community at large. This reflected the executives’ sophisticated understanding not only of their role as stewards of the valuable resources entrusted to them but also of their own enlightened self-interest: Each of these groups was essential for organizational success. What was true then is even more so today, in an age of knowledge work, outsourcing, global supply chains, and activist interest groups.

These days it's not about the stakeholder at all.
It's about that small gentleman's club (and the occasional token lady.... still!) getting their obscene bonuses.
Bastards.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the stakeholder was king. CEOs saw their role as one of balancing the interests of the various groups that touched their companies—customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders, and the community at large.

Another interesting comparison is the monetary rewards of then versus now. I wonder if their performance has increased commensurately?

The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased 1,000 percent since 1950, according to data from Bloomberg. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found. The ratio is up from 120-to-1 in 2000, 42-to-1 in 1980 and 20-to-1 in 1950.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/ceo-to...ratio_n_3184623.html

James-Freeman-facebook wrote:
Take the whys and wherefores of the US housing meltdown

If one gets the chance, see the movie "The Big Short"....a great flick.

And yet, many of us here have bought drugs legitimately, from companies with licences tied to Gilead, for much lower prices than the Western RRP.

Why are people only criticising from one side when we have done so well with Gilead's own cut-price drugs? I've mentioned this many times, but no-one seems able to accept that they got very good deals from the company they are attacking.

Yes, they are greedy, but they also allow this wide open back door that anyone with half a brain, thanks to the work of this site, has been able to make use of.

So please keep your arguments balanced, especially when you start praising other companies that pirate the drugs and have made relatively little investment into research apart from getting the manufacture right. They are the real bottom-feeders (but all the same, I have some respect for their criminal professionalism in delivering even cheaper drugs to the market.)

It's a complex issue that doesn't yield much to the logic of dedicated witch hunters and other overly idealistic commentators.

The 'housing' meltdown in the US started when it became apparent that the biggest mortgage insurer (MBIA) couldn't possibly cover its bets. This ultimately sent investors running for the exits, and the entire house of cards, and the economy along with it came crashing down.

Something similar is happening now with insurers underpinning the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). They are literally running for the exits. Whatever happens from here forward is likely not going to be pretty.

Hi A.L.,

Of course the problem with your argument is that it is not "Gilead's own cut price drugs" that people here are using but mostly Indian and a few Bangladeshi manufactured drugs enabled by the fact that India didn't and Bangladesh isn't required to recognise a Gilead patent.

Gilead only provided a licence to some of the manufacturers after it realised it was unlikely to achieve the patent control it had applied for in an attempt to harvest some income from the situation. The fact that they have subsequently acquired patent in India is irrelevant to why we can access these medications.

And they certainly don't "allow this wide open back door" as you state. In fact they attempted to apply rules of supply such as "bottle return before prescription refill" to their licencees to prevent this occurring. Thankfully they have not been very successful in doing that.

Nor have Gilead invested a great deal into research in this case, instead they took a gamble on other's investments in that area. How much that was truly a gamble can probably be gauged by the 11 billion they overpaid for an asset that the market valued at 7 billion at the time. You could possibly call it an astute or more correctly clever investment but it is one which they have used to price gouge the sick around the world ever since.

By the way, your use of belittlements such as "dedicated witch hunters" in what appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to inflame participants of this discussion does nothing to inform your argument or your audience.

Anything, ANYTHING the government does, they do poorly, and with great inefficiency.