Forum Replies Created
-
Chester wrote:
Oh for heaven’s sake. You have gotta be a troll.
Are you kidding?
I’m a troll because I complain that a thread seems to have been deleted? I’ll take my words back if there’s a logical explanation I have missed, but according to the internet etiquette I’m familiar with, deleting threads is a serious business.
It is a very odd phenomenon of recent years that certain communities have become critical of free speaking, or at least very tolerant of censorship. I’m hoping that this site, with its willingness to ruffle feathers in order to do good, still maintains a basic regard for freedom of discussion.
Like I said, if there’s a simple technical explanation, I’ll reconsider my comment. But if I’m a troll, then they have certainly become a very polite and non-intrusive species (and I’ll have to find another name for the critters here who can’t tolerate my extremely minor deviations from the party line.)
Wayne wrote:I thought someone else developed the medication then Gilead purchased it. then preceded to try and rip everyone off.
Maybe that is a bit harshNo, that is the simplistic story which certain personas wish to promulgate, likely as they need someone to hate and Gilead is a convenient target.
The actual story of Sofosbuvir’s development and patenting is extremely complex, and unfortunately, people prefer a satisfying fairy tale of good and evil. Gilead certainly bought into Sovaldi and have made a lot of money, but if you have been looking at the documents, they have also been doing a lot of research along the way, much of which is referenced on this site.
That they tried to rip everyone off? Well, as I’ve mentioned before, outrageous drug prices are not a rare thing in the US, and Gilead only differs in that it has a larger market. In it’s greed, it is so far following the rules of the game as it is played in the US.
As another poster here mentioned, it was George Bush’s policies that in part allowed such price gouging to become a legal and acceptable practice. It has always puzzled me how well Americans have been brainwashed into voting against their own interests, but I probably shouldn’t speak too fast as Australians seem to be catching up in this race to the bottom.
Chester wrote:Hi Everybody,
I’ve had a couple of conversations with a woman from BMS. They are looking for people (ideally one from each state) who will talk to the media about their Hep C story in the lead up to the PBS launch. Initially, she thought it would be OK to do it anonymously, in which case I was prepared to do so. But after further consultation, she said the media want to be able to put a face to a name and I am not prepared to go there.
This is the deal:
– you need to be Australian
– you need to have treated or be looking to treat when the drugs become available on the PBS
– they do not care if you have treated with generics including if you’ve used sof/led rather than Sof/Daclatsivir (to which my response was “oh you guys don’t fight dirty enough”
). Or, as I said, you can be someone looking to treat.……
I have actually been pretty impressed by them. They seem refreshingly non-greed oriented in their approach. OTOH as noted above, maybe that’s part of the reason they’re being screwed over by Gilead just like everybody else.
I do urge you to consider all the implications before going public. After all, you can never go back. I know they are specifically looking for people from NSW and the ACT. As emilio’s already “out” I’ll PM him if he hasn’t replied to this thread in a day or two. But please register your interest even if you are from other states.
….
I will second Chester’s suggestion to remain anonymous. The producers get all of the glory in their world and pay nothing for your public naming, while you can never ever reconceal yourself.
There is nothing to gain by identifying yourself, and I suggest it would be better to exercise your sense of cynicism and self preservation when dealing with any kind of media than to be seduced by their idea that, in being named, you are somehow doing yourself and the world a favour.
There is no room for naivety when dealing with these types.
(Who is BMS anyway?)
Wayne wrote:All AL posts are negative obviously is on a different agenda to the rest of us.
Sorry, you are wrong on both counts.
For one, I have exactly the same fundamental agenda as the rest of us here (apart from Tyler and Marla), which is to get better, share points of view, and support the people who run this site.
Secondly, there is very little negative in my posts – unless you consider that anything which doesn’t 100% agree with your views to be negative. We are all essentially on the same side, but that doesn’t mean we have to sing exactly the same song.
sabrecat wrote:Hello A.L.
maybe it is time we did move on – at least for us in AUS that now have the PBS issue settled. But, there are those in other countries part of me cannot ignore, and hence the sideswipe at Gilead….
But now there is to be affordable treatment here in AUS, we seem to be sharing more and more about improvements in LFT’s, VL=UND!!, life in general and sharing experiences about life, before and now, and what the ‘new future’ may hold.
I would’ve bought from Gilead, but chose generics on price considerations. My choice and all good!
I think having HCV for many years can leave people, me at least, a bit opinionated, but most of the time I look at my signature below on this forum, again ALL GOOD.
I hope you can share yours here too.
Yours
J.
Thanks, J. Yes, I also hope I can post a success story, also being a benefactor of the low prices that FixHepC has organised. I’ve said most of what I intended and don’t need to add much more (for now
)But if I can add one tiny parting point, the generics are also produced under licence from Gilead, just in countries whose governments knew how to argue and apply pressure effectively. The big question is why are the Hep C sufferers being given such lousy choices in the USA in particular? It’s obscene, but all legal.
Who is more guilty here, the greedy company, or the national political culture that allows them completely uninhibited expression of that greed? (In another post I note that plenty of other companies are exhibiting the same kind of behaviour.)
(It’s like having a fat dog. Some kinds of dog will just eat and eat if you let them, and so become very fat. Who is to blame – the dog, or its owner and leader?)
Looking to a better future,
A.L.
