USING AFRICANS AS GUINEA PIGS

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Mike Manson

Still Livin'
Apr 16, 2005
9,015
19,439
113
44
#1
USING AFRICANS AS GUINEA PIGS

Nigeria Takes On Pfizer over 'Killer Drug'
By Hauke Goos

The Nigerian government is taking on Pfizer, the world's biggest pharmaceutical company. It accuses the company of using a meningitis epidemic to test an unapproved drug on Nigerian children. Eleven children who participated in the tests died and others were left with disabilities.

There are days when Babatunde Irukera feels like nothing can go wrong -- not with the evidence that he has gathered, the letters, reports, protocols and all the witnesses. On days like this he believes that, after 11 long years, justice can finally be served for the children of Kano, for his homeland Nigeria, and for Africa.

On a morning in early October, Irukera was sitting in his hotel eating breakfast when an old man walked in. Irukera knew him -- they met the day before in court. The man was clutching a plastic bag.

He pulled a crumpled pink card from the bag, the torn-off half of a file folder. Irukera read "Pfizer Meningitis Study" in the upper left-hand corner of what was once a white label, and under that he sees a number: "Pf 0001." Patient 0001.

Babatunde Irukera is a lawyer and he is representing the state of Nigeria in a lawsuit filed against the American pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer. In 1996, tens of thousands of Nigerians fell ill during an outbreak of meningitis. Pfizer allegedly used the epidemic to test a new, unapproved drug. Eleven children died as a result, others were left deaf, blind or mentally handicapped. The case is not being tried in the US, but in Kano and the Nigerian capital Abuja.

The old man, a former journalist, had searched for two years to locate the participants in the drug test, and he finally hit pay dirt in the slums of Kano, the capital of the northern Nigerian state of the same name, where the disease took its heavy toll.

The pink card belongs to a child who was five years old at the time, male, weighing 25 pounds. Only his initials are printed on the card: "A. M." On April 3, 1996, A. M. was admitted to a clinic; three follow-up appointments are marked with a black felt-tip pen on the card. On May 14, the boy was due to come to the hospital one last time for a final examination. Irukera stares at the card. Patient 0001 must be 16 years old now. He would like to know, says Irukera, if the boy is suffering from long-term side effects. Over €6 billion ($9 billion) is at stake in the lawsuit against Pfizer -- the lawyer has to think strategically.

At 39, Irukera is a young lawyer. The cases he has handled so far have dealt with immigration rights and workplace discrimination. Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, with 100,000 employees, €32.8 billion in annual sales -- more than half the gross national product of Nigeria.

There are a total of four lawsuits filed against Pfizer, two in Kano and two in Abuja, with a civil lawsuit and criminal lawsuit each. The challenge for Irukera and his team is to match names with the numbers of the Pfizer patients and to give the names faces and real lives. In the statement of claim filed by Irukera, he wrote that Pfizer treated the patients like guinea pigs.

Pfizer responded that the mission in Nigeria was a "humanitarian gesture" -- in other words, an act of compassion.

Perfectly Timed Epidemic

In early 1996, Nigeria was hit by the one of the worst meningitis epidemics in history. Government officials have placed the final death toll at over 11,000.

At the time, Pfizer had just developed a new antibiotic called Trovan to treat a variety of infections.

Such drugs are used primarily in hospitals, mainly to treat blood poisoning. Their severe side effects make these antibiotics unsuitable for children. The risks of causing joint disease, abnormal cartilage growth and liver damage are simply too great.

As a rule, such agents are injected directly into the veins because that is the only way that they can work reliably. Initial tests had raised hopes that Trovan could be effective if swallowed in tablet form. Apparently, Pfizer hoped that this innovation would allow it to outpace market leader Bayer. The company believed that Trovan had the potential to become a "blockbuster" drug.

But Pfizer had a problem: In order to secure certification from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US, it still needed to conduct a clinical trial. Pfizer evidently hoped that it could use the study in Africa to furnish proof that the new drug was also safe for children. The meningitis epidemic in Nigeria came at just the right moment.

Such tests are extremely difficult to conduct in industrialized countries, where very few parents are willing to allow their children to take part in clinical trials. Consequently, companies often turn to poor countries and regions, such as India and South America, Bangladesh and Thailand -- and Africa. Patients in these parts of the world are so poor they don't care if the drugs they receive have been approved or not. Within just a few years, developing countries have been transformed into an enormous test laboratory.

In the spring of 1996, Pfizer offered to help the Nigerian government deal with the outbreak. In late March, a medical team headed for Africa.

When they arrived in Kano, the Americans revealed that they were not on a humanitarian aid mission, but had been sent to administer medical tests. Physicians selected 200 sick children for the study. They had to be at least three months old and younger than 18, and they could not be HIV-positive or malnourished. It takes an enormous amount of money to pave the way for launching a drug like Trovan on the market -- on average €600 million. Pfizer didn't want to make any mistakes. Half the children were given Trovan, the other half received Rocephin, a competing product from Swiss manufacturer Hoffmann-La Roche.

When word got out about the study five years later, a controversy erupted over fundamental questions, for which the Nigerian lawyer and the US drug company have totally different answers: Is it permissible to test a drug during a deadly epidemic? Is it acceptable to test drugs in the developing world that will benefit the industrialized world, using people who will never be able to afford this treatment?

Clearly, drugs have to be tested on people before they can be put on the market, and this involves a certain amount of risk. No one disputes that. The central question, however, is who should take the risks and whose life should be put on the line during these tests.

It is a warm morning in early October and Irukera is standing at the window of his ninth-floor office in Lagos and gazing at the sea. He hears the honking of mopeds, taxis and buses, he sees trucks and hawkers walking among the vehicles, selling everything from bananas and pruning sheers to phone cards.

Irukera is wearing a light-blue shirt with an immaculate white collar, a matching tie and a dark suit. If Hollywood ever decides to make a movie about the case, Denzel Washington would be perfect for the role.

In two hours, he plans to fly to Kano, the center of the epidemic 11 years ago, for an important court date. He wants to expand the lawsuit against Pfizer. This is a tactical legal petition, a warning signal to Pfizer. "So they understand how big their problem is," he says.

Irukera left his home country Nigeria 11 years ago. He and his wife emigrated to the US, where she completed an MBA and he pursued his career in law. In 1996, he passed his bar examination and is now a partner in a Chicago law firm. In the taxi to the airport, he has a mobile phone in his left hand and a Blackberry in his right hand. It's 2:30 p.m. and the first e-mails are arriving from Chicago. Irukera has dual nationality. He is fighting for his old homeland and challenging his new one.

In 1996, Trovan had never been tested orally on children suffering from meningitis. Often, meningitis patients suffer from nausea, and there is a high risk that they will vomit up the drug before it has a chance to take effect. Doctors treating the patients have very little time to prevent brain damage; only injections can allow them to be sure that the drug works quickly. Why in the world would they give these children Trovan orally?, Irukera asked himself. He realized that this just might be the case of his career.

It would appear that the Pfizer team broke a number of fundamental rules. Patient 0069, for instance, a little girl, received 56 milligrams of Trovan on the first day of treatment. Although her condition rapidly deteriorated, the doctors maintained this dose. On the third day, the girl died. International guidelines for clinical studies specify that patients who do not react to a test drug should be immediately removed from the study -- particularly since Rocephin, a reliable medicine, was available.

Irukera says that he thought long and hard over what could be said in favor of Pfizer in this situation, adding after a short pause, "I couldn't think of anything."

'We Are Human Beings'

In early May 2007, Nigeria filed a lawsuit against Pfizer. The statement of claim contains 85 charges, including fraud and deceit, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to commit an actionable wrong. Irukera believes he hasn't left anything out. The trials are still in the preparatory phase; Pfizer appears to be doing everything that it can to stall for time.

The next morning, in front of the courthouse in Kano, a representative of the public prosecutor's office is waiting for Irukera. The public prosecutor has decided to amend the charges against Pfizer to include manslaughter. Irukera smiles.

He is wearing a robe, a stand-up collar and a wig. After he enters the courtroom, Irukera slips the Blackberry back into his pocket. While he is presenting the case, the Pfizer lawyer, who is sitting beside him, suddenly offers him a deal. If Irukera withdraws his petition, he whispers, Pfizer would withdraw its own petition, which is lying prepared on the table. Irukera pauses for a moment, leans over to his colleague, and the two men speak in hushed tones. Then Irukera stands up straight again and continues with his presentation, as if there had never been an interruption.

After the proceedings, as he emerges again from the courtroom, someone from the People's Salvation Party is busy talking to a group of journalists in front of the building. The man is wearing a cap and a loose-fitting, traditional African robe. "This trial will go on forever," he says in a booming voice, and notes that the Americans have an army of lawyers who know all the tricks. "We Africans have no chance." He goes on to say that American companies are ruthless, "they don't care if 20,000 people die, as long as the profits roll in."

Following the court appearance, the public prosecutor holds a short press conference. He says that they have succeeded in identifying some of the numbers and initials on the lists of patients. "We are not numbers," he says. "We are human beings."

The next morning, Irukera flies to the capital Abuja, a 40-minute flight from Kano. He has an appointment with Idris Mohammed, the man who may be his star witness. Mohammed, 65, is a professor of medicine -- a stocky, affable gentleman who coordinated the relief work for the government at the time. Aside from meningitis, aid workers were fighting measles and cholera. It was, says Mohammed with a thin smile, a less than ideal situation for testing a new drug. Mohammed was the official who demanded letters of authority from Pfizer, and when these could not be produced, he ordered that the testing be stopped.

Back then, the team from the US company moved into the Infectious Diseases Hospital in Kano, directly adjacent to Doctors Without Borders. The parents of the sick children evidently believed that the Pfizer staff were members of the aid organization. It was not until Doctors Without Borders threatened to leave that Pfizer moved to two rooms in a ward that was a bit farther away, a one-story wing of the building with barred windows. A wire-mesh door shielded the team from the patients, who were crowded into the courtyard. The Pfizer physicians also hung a screen in front of the door.

Mohammed says that he met with the head of the American team right at the start. He asked him for whom the drug was intended, and explained that virtually no one in Africa could afford it. The doctor responded that the drug had been developed for the US and rich countries in Europe.

Once, says Mohammed, he saw how a young Pfizer physician removed cerebrospinal fluid from a child roughly four years old. It takes three, four drops at the most to diagnose meningitis. But according to Mohammed, he observed the doctor take more than 50 drops.

Mohammed was afraid that the life of the child was in danger. Cerebrospinal fluid protects the brain from concussions; it works as a shock absorber. An adult has approximately 120 to 200 milliliters of the liquid; a child has significantly less. If too much is removed, there is a risk that the brain stem may be pushed into the opening of the spinal chord. This can damage vital centers in the brain stem, in the worst case leading to paralysis or death.

"How much brain fluid do you think a child like this has?" asked Mohammed.

"Plenty," said the doctor.

"How much is 'plenty,' in your opinion?"

"More than a liter."

An hour later the child died.

Pfizer ignored Mohammed's calls to discontinue the testing. It wasn't until mid-April, after the 200th child had been treated, that the team packed their bags and flew home, says Mohammed. "The 'humanitarian gesture' ended right at the height of the epidemic."

Back then, meningitis spread through slums on the outskirts of Kano. The journey there is through dusty roads with deep potholes, past fruit stands, mosques and people collecting refuse. Men doze in the shade of gaunt trees; goats graze at a filling station. On a billboard, a sports accessories company advertises with the slogan "Celebrate. Success."

Zaharadeen Abdullah lives nearby in a small, narrow street. He is 18 years old and was seven when he caught meningitis. Zaharadeen is the sixth of 10 children; his parents can neither read nor write.

Before they test a drug on children, pharmaceutical companies have to acquire the parents' consent, even in the developing world. They have to explain to the parents that this is a drug in the test phase, and that its safety and effectiveness have not yet been established. The parents must be made aware that there are alternative medicines available that have already been tried and tested. And they have to know that they have the right to exit the study at any time.

They heard on the radio about the white doctors offering help, says Zaharadeen's mother. What did the white doctors tell her? "Nothing," she says. "They wrote down Zaharadeen's name, and then they gave him a pill. Then we went home."

Right from the beginning, Zaharadeen suffered from symptoms of paralysis. The muscles in his legs felt hot, he said. Even today, the pain is sometimes so intense that he has to lie on a mattress for weeks on end.

Just one street down lives Safiya Sani Isa, whose son did not survive the test.

Did the doctors present themselves as Pfizer employees?

"No," she says. "We thought they came to help our children. We didn't know that we had a choice between them and Doctors Without Borders."

For a long time, Pfizer refused to comment on the allegations. In 2001, company employees assured a Nigerian committee of inquiry that the test "was totally devoid of any commercial undertone."

Over the past few years, Pfizer has become a household name worldwide thanks to its potency drug Viagra. Boosted by the amazing success story of this and other products, within just three years the company's market value soared from €45 billion to over €200 billion. It was not the time to answer awkward questions.

But now, with this trial about to open, Pfizer has changed its strategy. The Americans want to regain control of the situation.

All contact with the company's headquarters in New York is organized by a woman who only goes by her first name: Sharon. She asks what the caller wants, who he has met in Nigeria, and who he is going to meet. Two days later, Dr. Jack Watters from the New York headquarters calls back. He is the Vice President for International External Medical Affairs, responsible for "corporate responsibility" and "human rights."

Watters has a British accent and a pleasant voice. He promises that he will do his best to answer every question.

Of course, says Watters, the parents gave their consent, but orally. He says that an authorized nurse then signed the release form in their name.

And the side effects? The risks for bones, joints and liver, especially for children?

None of this was known at the time, says Watters. "We didn't find out about the side effects until Trovan came out on the market, two years after the clinical test."

Watters has been with Pfizer since 1994, so he should know better. He should be aware that the side effects of the drug group that Trovan belongs to were documented no later than 1992. What's more, the Pfizer employees wrote in their own test protocol in 1996 that there was a significantly higher rate of joint problems among the children who were treated with Trovan. Fifteen percent of the test patients complained of pain, noted the Pfizer researchers, three times the rate for the reference drug.

And patient 0069? The girl who was subjected to further experiments, although her condition had worsened? What was her cause of death?

Watters said that he was not familiar with the details of this particular case, sorry.

Even following specific questions submitted to the company, Pfizer refused to comment on individual cases.

Recently, Irukera met in London with lawyers from the opposing party. Afterwards, he had the feeling that they had little idea what the trial was about. "I asked them questions, and every answer that they gave to my questions made the next answer even more difficult for them," says Irukera.

Now he is waiting at the airport in Abuja. It is late in the afternoon, and he has missed one flight and the next one has been postponed due to a storm over Lagos. But Irukera is totally calm, almost elated. Everything is going according to plan.

"Pfizer treated the Nigerians in Kano as if the life of a black child was worth less than the life of a white child," says Irukera. When he moved to Chicago, he admired the US for its self-confidence, for its greatness. But the more he found out about the Trovan test, the smaller the country became in his eyes. "Suddenly the Americans realize that they are dealing with blacks in Nigeria who are intelligent -- niggers with brains," he says, and laughs.

"Why don't you do these kinds of tests on children from Manhattan?" he asked Pfizer officials.

Surviving the 'Humanitarian Gesture'

Pfizer denies all the allegations. The company says that it is totally unclear whether the children died because of the tests or the after-effects of the disease. It appears that the corporation would rather make an out-of-court settlement. It would probably amount to a legal sensation if a Nigerian court were to rule that an American company had to pay billions of dollars in compensation.

Perhaps all of this is a question of power, not law, and no lawyer can change that, no document and no victim who happened to survive.

Mohammed Mustapha's son Anas Mohammed lives in a mud hut in the heart of the Kano slums. He is 16 years old; the house has no electricity or running water. Anas shares this humble abode with his 12 brothers.

Anas Mohammed is A. M., Pfizer's patient 0001.

Eleven years ago, his father and mother carried him to the hospital. He was five years old and weighed only 25 pounds. Now father and son are sitting on a bench in the shade. There is not a cloud in the sky and it is scorching hot outside.

Mohammed Mustapha, at the time did the doctors at the hospital explain anything to you?

"No."

Did anyone explain anything?

"No."

Did you have to sign anything?

"No."

Did you know that the doctors were not from Doctors Without Borders but from Pfizer, a pharmaceuticals company?

"No," says Mohammed Mustapha, and gives an unsure smile.

He pushes aside a straw curtain and rummages around in a box behind his bed. He is looking for the folder where he has kept Anas' medical documents all these years. Then he reappears with a white binder in his hand; he has saved every official document that he has ever received.

He still has stiff knees, says Anas, his son. For a long time, he received treatment for the condition, and things have improved with time. He survived the "humanitarian gesture," but he will never be healthy again. When he walks relatively long distances, the pain immediately returns.

Anas goes into his bedroom and after a few minutes returns with a pink plastic syringe in his hand. At the top of the syringe is a wheel, and when the plunger is pushed in, the wheel is supposed to spin and make sparks.

The wheel broke a long time ago, but Anas has kept the toy; it is the only one he has. He says that the people from Pfizer gave it to him after the final examination, as a reward.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,517805,00.html
 
Sep 28, 2002
1,124
4
0
#2
These multinational drug companies care about mankinds well being about as much as their pesticide susidieries. They are out to make a buck and they use helpless people because they know no one cares its discusting. They are not set up to keep people well they are set up to earn cash and keep you on their patented meds. Why do you think they keep coming up with boner pills and not one is seriously working on vaccines? Somebody comes out with a med for something the next thing you know every other manufacturer has a me to med.

MOST MEDICINAL INOVATION OCCURS IN UNIVERSITIES AND SMALL BIOTECHNOLOGY FIRMS. DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU INTO BELIEVING THAT SUPER HIGH DRUG PRICES ARE JUSTIFIED!

side note wasn't this in that movie sahara or some shit?
 
Feb 7, 2006
6,794
229
0
37
#3
First of all this is nothing new. THey been testing shit on defenseless blacks (everywhere), and no, this subject was in that movie constant gardener, but that was in E. Africa.
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#4
yeah its nothing new, we will all keep buying their drugs and thereby fund their actions. none of us are coming up with cures. this weak ass argument above above is the same one people use against oil companies. its a business, its a successful business, and if you dont want their shit dont buy it. dont knock the pharm companies and oil companies, knock the legislature and congress for permitting these things to occur. getting mad at a BUSINESS for being successful and making money off of YOU is hilarious.
 
Sep 28, 2002
1,124
4
0
#5
What are the arguments weaknesses? Did you bother to look at the graph? I guess your in favor of monopolistic price fixing then. Again they are not the ones coming up with inovations thats universities and small biotech companies they are basically the marketing component. Your defense of tactics such as those employed in this article is what is weak. These corporations are the reason congress and your local legislature is unresponsive to your viewpoints they pour multimillions into lobbying. Yet they are not responsible for their actions because they are motivated by profit? That is an exceptionally ignorant and nonsensicle argument. In my opinion people are accountable for the actions of their money.
None of us are coming up with cures well they aren't either they are coming up with drugs that treat afflictions that are already managed (Nexium) and afflictions which dont exist (RLS) and boner pills.

Here are some examples of why they shouldn't be held accountable.

http://www.globaltreatmentaccess.org/content/camp/gsk/ghana.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#8
I've read similar articles and believe 20-Sixx posted one a while back where they tried to justify it by claiming that they needed it more. Such acts are a direct manifestation of taking for granted your self-induced superiority (culturally and racially). Obviously they aren't rounding up African Americans one by one because firstly, it is politically incorrect, and secondly, African Americans aren't that naive and desperate.

I see why so many foreigners in east Africa get killed (though of course, Nigeria is in west, but still). They don't play that kind of nonsense in Ethiopia and Somalia.
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#9
What are the arguments weaknesses? Did you bother to look at the graph? I guess your in favor of monopolistic price fixing then. Again they are not the ones coming up with inovations thats universities and small biotech companies they are basically the marketing component. Your defense of tactics such as those employed in this article is what is weak. These corporations are the reason congress and your local legislature is unresponsive to your viewpoints they pour multimillions into lobbying. Yet they are not responsible for their actions because they are motivated by profit? That is an exceptionally ignorant and nonsensicle argument. In my opinion people are accountable for the actions of their money.
None of us are coming up with cures well they aren't either they are coming up with drugs that treat afflictions that are already managed (Nexium) and afflictions which dont exist (RLS) and boner pills.

Here are some examples of why they shouldn't be held accountable.

http://www.globaltreatmentaccess.org/content/camp/gsk/ghana.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
yeah i looked at your graph, your graph means nothing, you are comparing the profits of one industry across the range of the fortune 500 as if they all have the same corpotate structure, margins, and costs.

im not in favor of monopolostic price fixing and even if i was, there is no monopoly going on here, we have competing pharmaceutical companies. your idea that universities and small biotech companies are the ones coming up with the innovations is beside the point. Are you basically blaming the univeristies and small biotechs for selling out to the megacorps? your argument is weak because you arent making any specific claims, it seems youre just angry that the world is unfair and that there are poor people so you scapegoat.

these semantics of resoponsibility are a joke. you say they are respinsible when in reality and within the law THEY ARENT. so you can say it as often as you like. and by your own admission you are funding there murder of africans because you say that people are acocuntable for the actions of their money and i guarantee you have put money in the pockets of these corporations whether directly or indirectly though insurance.

from your links, are you saying you reject inetllectual property rights? how much innovation is coming out of nations that DONT have intellectual property rights? this is basic, there is no incentive to innovate if it wont be protected. you are letting emotion cloud rationality like a woman (im assuming you are a man).

lets take your side, lets strip all intellectual property rights and give cheap generic drugs to everyone. great, only problem is no your univesrities and biotechs arent getting funding and grants because the $ motivator has been killed in the guise of humanitarianism. In the end you posisiton hurts more poeple than it helps, though in the short term it seems appealing. the people in the US arent inherently smarter than people in other countries, but why are all these innovations coming from here? because we pour so much money into it, and this is what motivates man. People suffer in the short term, long term we get medicine.

And finally "these companies" as if they are some sentient being. These companies are made up of people, and just like the AIDS stricken african taking poison in hopes of a remedy, these people in the corporations are doing whatever it takes to look out for THEMSELVES. lets not kid ourselves, aids is preventable.
 
Sep 28, 2002
1,124
4
0
#10
#1 Those are % returns on revenue. Do you understand what that means? Apparenly not. Let me explain that is how much money they are making on the money that they invest.
#2 a monopoly is an exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. This is exactly what is going on.
#3 The justification for this excessive pricing is that for every dollor spent on a marketed drug even more was spent on research of drugs that failed to pass through all 4 phases of fda approval. This is rediculus because.........MOST MEDICINAL INOVATION OCCURS IN UNIVERSITIES AND SMALL BIOTECHNOLOGY FIRMS. which is exactly the point.
#4 I have not by an means blamed these inovative entities I have stated the fact that they are the progenetors of a large percentage of the research which large pharmaceutical firms use as a justification for exorbitant pricing.
#5 These are all specific claims.
#6 The law in this area is unjust and manipulated by pharmaceutical special interests and lobbying groups.
#7 you misunderstand the brevity of responsability in a monitary transfer. I am only responsable for the actions which my money takes in a diliberate expenditure. Such as my responsability for the alleviation of a headache when I choose to buy bayer aspirin. On the other hand the pharmaceutical company pfizer is responsable for the actions of its money (which was at one time mine) when it funds trials in nigeria that result in harm or fund lobbying that circumvents the publics right to defend its self interest in a democratic manner.
#8 No i am not saying I reject intellectual property. I am saying that pharmaceutical companies are manipulative and uncaring and willing to do anything such as let millions die to protect exorbitant profit which you seem to think is a great thing!
#9 Questioning my manhood reveals you as insecure in your own. I can not see how such depravity could not insight a measure of envigorated distain in someone who is not a detached siccophant.
#10 you have created a faux view point and ascribed it to me in an effort to mask your own lack of understanding.
#11 No need to try to justify blood lust capitalism to me friend I will never get it.
#12 Those companies are made of of rich people who only want and have never suffered for need of anything. Again I will never understand the mentallity of total entitlement with zero accountability. They are in my opinion ignobal leeches.
#13 Its not supprising that you would choose "the AIDS stricken african" to riticule as he is the among the most helpless of your human brothers. While at the same time singing the praises of his oppressors.
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#11
#1 Those are % returns on revenue. Do you understand what that means? Apparenly not. Let me explain that is how much money they are making on the money that they invest.
yes coach i know what it means. and again, so what. so pharm is profitable. you make these huge leaps from profit to evil. your graph is also relatively constant, contrary to your sinister taking over the world mantra.


#2 a monopoly is an exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. This is exactly what is going on.
ehhhhhh wrong. you are capable of looking up the word monopoly. the presence of competition within the phram industry kills your point. heres a tip, if you want to make point, call it a CARTEL like opec, not this hyperbole monopoly talk. but good try.


#3 The justification for this excessive pricing is that for every dollor spent on a marketed drug even more was spent on research of drugs that failed to pass through all 4 phases of fda approval. This is rediculus because.........MOST MEDICINAL INOVATION OCCURS IN UNIVERSITIES AND SMALL BIOTECHNOLOGY FIRMS. which is exactly the point.

#4 I have not by an means blamed these inovative entities I have stated the fact that they are the progenetors of a large percentage of the research which large pharmaceutical firms use as a justification for exorbitant pricing.
Ok who uses this justification? your straw man? did you just make this up? can you please quote a major pharm company that has stated this? and you are implicitly blaming these entities, how else do the mega corps get a hold of these innovations?


#7 you misunderstand the brevity of responsability in a monitary transfer. I am only responsable for the actions which my money takes in a diliberate expenditure. Such as my responsability for the alleviation of a headache when I choose to buy bayer aspirin. On the other hand the pharmaceutical company pfizer is responsable for the actions of its money (which was at one time mine) when it funds trials in nigeria that result in harm or fund lobbying that circumvents the publics right to defend its self interest in a democratic manner.
HSAHAHAHAHA and this is dictated by you no doubt. Using your logic here pfizer should just use an intermediary and then they would be free of all blame from you? lol.

#8 No i am not saying I reject intellectual property. I am saying that pharmaceutical companies are manipulative and uncaring and willing to do anything such as let millions die to protect exorbitant profit which you seem to think is a great thing!
i see no problem with it. you are letting people die by not saving them yourself, and you sleep pretty well. "but the phrarms already have the drugs" you might say. Well, you already have the means to save lives, how many do you save? So its not a great or a bad thing, it is what it is.

#9 Questioning my manhood reveals you as insecure in your own. I can not see how such depravity could not insight a measure of envigorated distain in someone who is not a detached siccophant.
easy chuck, that got under you skin hahahahaha.
#10 you have created a faux view point and ascribed it to me in an effort to mask your own lack of understanding.
#11 No need to try to justify blood lust capitalism to me friend I will never get it.
and there you have it folks, at least he can admit his shortcomings.
#12 Those companies are made of of rich people who only want and have never suffered for need of anything. Again I will never understand the mentallity of total entitlement with zero accountability. They are in my opinion ignobal leeches.
goddamn son you make it so easy. i will just use this argument against you. what makes these supposed people that could be saved entitled to free resources with zero accountability. and nice generalizations. this is all straw man, you have convinced yourself of the boogie man so it makes your whining more acceptable. listen to yourself, you are making specific claims now about an entire industry made of thousands and thousands of people.


#13 Its not supprising that you would choose "the AIDS stricken african" to riticule as he is the among the most helpless of your human brothers. While at the same time singing the praises of his oppressors.
its not surprising you have no rebuttal here. walk away slowly.
 
Sep 28, 2002
1,124
4
0
#12
Are you retarded? Because your talking in circles.

Cartel, Evil, taking over the world????
Thats all coming from you.
Smitty

#1 Profit is evil never said it (thats you talking in my voice again)!
What is evil is making people choose between food and medicine because you want a 10,000 square foot house? Bankrupting the families of the terminally ill? But yeah by any means necessary as long as you collect your ends right. Thats your system.

& yep thats right tiger the graph is relatively constant isn't it sitting up there at 18.5 % far and away the most profitable of the profitable. Hmmmm............lets see if they will compromise profit for john smith oncology patient excelceor.

#2 As far as a monopoly is concerned I think I can help you figure it out without making you look to stupid. Tell me friend When a drug is patented how long does that patent last? During that time how many other drug manufacturers produce that drug?
Example varenicline a novel nicotinic receptor partial agonist. Completely seperate MOA from any other smoking cessetion med. So lets see here varenicline thats the commodity right? Then the market would be umm...like people who don't want to smoke no more and stuff. But wait where is the competition for varenicline....hmmmmm? I got it nicotine gum, but wait thats not really the same commodity because nicotine is not the same word as varenicline at least I dont think they are? It kind of seems like every new medication is a new commodity and the company who has it patented kind of has what do they call it exclusive control? I don't know that seems kind of hard to understand to me?

Also how can there be a cartel when there is no collusion? Honestly.

#3 & 4
On to your 1st perspective scarecrow.
Who makes this claim why large pharmaceutical companies do chief. I actually say this in the quote you quoted.


Don't take my word for it ask PhRMA

When Maine legislators were debating a tough law to curb drug prices, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) ran full-page ads in Maine newspapers showing an old lady looking frail and wistful. The headline: "She'll Just Have To Wait."

The ad continued: "If the government imposes cost controls on prescription medicine, pharmaceutical companies could be forced to make deep cuts in funding for drug research. Finding more effective treatments for Parkinson's [etc.] could take years longer-years of unnecessary suffering for patients."

In defending this argument, PhRMA says the United States leads the world in bringing out new drugs because the American free market rewards innovation. It says that research and development (R&D) is costly and high-risk, and high profits are needed to attract the level of investment that allows research to continue.

"We need to make sure that incentives for pharmaceutical innovation to remain strong," said PhRMA President Alan Holmer in a recent speech.

http://www.carlmcmillan.com/drug_profits_vs.htm
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf

& Who exactly is this PhRMA? & Who do they represent?

Again im not blaiming govt researchers or universities or small biotech companies because they have to sell there inovations in order to get them to market to help people. Its just a shame they have to sell them to the "buisness" class. You know the type MBA's, money hungry, too stupid to go into hard science. Right, johnny? ;)

#5&6???? you must agree

#7 And yes of course the things i say are dictated by me they are my opinion? You must at least understand the concept of having your own opinion right? Ummm...well maybe not. & No to your proposal of vindication becasue if there was an intent upon the subcontracting of the 3rd party that was confered. the conatracting party would retain the fault while also placeing the contracted party in a guilty position. Your logic must have just failed you there huh?

#8
blah blah blah more of your nick naylor bullshitting tactics. Im not in a position to save millions of lives....if I was i would with no hesitation, just like anyother moral person.

#9
who are you trying to convince? You must think everybody is just like you. Im sorry I just dont take internet message boards to heart. But if you mean under my skin like I was creeped out by some guy imagining me as a female for whatever homoerotic fantasy he has cooken than yeah...

#10 didn't address it and tryed the same shit again

#11
Do you imagine you are infront of some crowd roasting me or something? Thats some corney shit not just because you are using a chat board to inflate your ego but because your actually losing this debate.

#12
Generalizing...fuck yeah...& why wouldn't I...They don't get a pass its just like you said right using their method of argument against them..... As far as what makes the disenfranchised entitled to these resources, its the same thing that entitles your savior elitests to their FAIR share of resources. Not big into justice and equality are we?

#13
a rebuttle for what you just basically saying rich people are uncaring and self centered you said it just fine and I agree they are uncaring and self centered?
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#14
Are you retarded? Because your talking in circles.

Cartel, Evil, taking over the world????
Thats all coming from you.
Smitty
are you retarded? you dont even know what a monopoly is, you speak purely through passion. all this weak shit, oh they want a 10,000 square foot house with your boogie man arguments. you are the typical liberal pussy welfare state system advicate. you want a shift in wealth and even against your own words, you feel people are entitled to something because they dont wear a condom. your hyperbole is cute though. bakrupting terminally ill fmailies lmao, it right there in the stockholders agreement.

YOu still quibble over the the definition of a monopoly. that shit doesnt work here, just because you refuse to admit your were wrong you try to change the definition of an established word.

your shit is garbage son. you are thinking with your pussy instead of your head and like all the whiney bitches like you, you sit on the sidelines pointing fingers and dont do a fuckin thing about it. BIG PHARM applauds people like you, deal with it.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#15
The future is in molecular therapies, not in marketable small molecule drugs

This is still well ahead in the future, but it will happen, I only hope the technologies will not be owned again by the Big Pharma of today, because these technologies will come from small start-up biotech companies and Big Pharma has been damn quick to buy those
 
Sep 28, 2002
1,124
4
0
#16
are you retarded? you dont even know what a monopoly is, you speak purely through passion. all this weak shit, oh they want a 10,000 square foot house with your boogie man arguments. you are the typical liberal pussy welfare state system advicate. you want a shift in wealth and even against your own words, you feel people are entitled to something because they dont wear a condom. your hyperbole is cute though. bakrupting terminally ill fmailies lmao, it right there in the stockholders agreement.

YOu still quibble over the the definition of a monopoly. that shit doesnt work here, just because you refuse to admit your were wrong you try to change the definition of an established word.

your shit is garbage son. you are thinking with your pussy instead of your head and like all the whiney bitches like you, you sit on the sidelines pointing fingers and dont do a fuckin thing about it. BIG PHARM applauds people like you, deal with it.
^
Lost the argument and now resorts to personal attacks, a typical dumbfuck tactic. As far as me being a pussy, you don't know what im doing to change things because you dont know me bitch! BUT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SOME TUFF REDNECK RETARDLICAN RIGHT? How many motherfuckers have you knocked out in your 120lb little rich bitch life? 0.0

I speak out of knowledge of the subject, shit for brains thats why I've been able to back up what I have said you are the one speaking out of your ass (mangina) purely out of your passion for a system you don't even understand. You try to run this master of argument line of bullshit and it doesn't fly because your just not that witty. Just a dumb punk motherfucker sticking up for people who laugh at your dogged devotion to their will. Pathetic.

As far as a Monopoly i used a definition accepted by webster then illustrated how it applies its easy to understand if you look at it without bias. Which is impossible for somebody who is so far indoctrinated that they are willing to advocate for EVIL out of fear. and thats what you are afraid.

@ ThaG
Its true the future of medicine is in protiens.