We’ve mentioned before (HERE) about third world countries breaking drug patents in order to reproduce treatments at lower cost for delivery to their citizens. India and Brazil lead the way in these fields. Often, the large drug companies remonstrated claiming such practices attack the very processes that came up with the new treatments, namely, diverting funds from research & development. At the Womb, we’ve always firmly stood by countries who felt that their citizen’s need for widely available medication outweighed concerns of intellectual property and corporate greed.
Now, however, comes news that drug companies may be spending more than twice the amount of money on advertising and marketing than they do on R&D. In other words, they spend more on letting the customer know that Viagra might cause headaches, heavy breathing, sudden loss of blood pressure and anal leakage than they do developing a product which simply does what it’s supposed to and nothing else.
From the report:
In their analysis of data from two market research companies, IMS and CAM, Marc-André Gagnon and Joel Lexchin (York University, Toronto, Canada) found that US drug companies spent US$57.5 billion on promotional activities in 2004, the latest year for which figures were available.
In comparison, the National Science Foundation reported that in 2004 the amount of industrial pharmaceutical research and development (including public funds for industrial research and development) was US$31.5 billion in the United States. (emphasis added by editor)
For the last 50 years, say the authors, there has been an ongoing debate as to which image of the drug industry is most accurate. The industry promotes a vision of itself, say the authors, as “research-driven, innovative, and life-saving,” but the industry’s critics contend that the drug industry is based on “market-driven profiteering.”
How far does this “market-driven profiteering” go? Are they That’s not all of it. Consider the following:
Excluding direct-to-consumer advertising, CAM considers that around 80% of the remaining promotion is directed towards physicians, with 20% of this figure going to pharmacists. (IMS does not provide any comparable values.) With about 700,000 practicing physicians in the US in 2004, we estimate that with a total expenditure of US$57.5 billion, the industry spent around US$61,000 in promotion per physician. As a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion, promotion consumes 24.4% of the sales dollar versus 13.4% for R&D. (emphasis added by editor)
So, not only are drug companies spewing utter garbage when they go on about third world generic drug programs denting their bottom line, they’re also investing a huge amount of money to convince the consumer to take costly drugs for ailments that likely don’t exist. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were prescriptions available for the VED (Violent Exhalation Disease aka sneezing) and CEOCD (chronic eye open-close disease aka blinking).
AIDS R&D (and other mega-diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis) is as vital to people as clean water and readily available energy, i.e. it is a utility. It should be funded in large part by the government and subsidized for delivery to those in need. Finally, live healthy, naturally. That doesn’t mean you have to be Vegan or in a cult. Eat well, work well, play well, rest well.
You can see the original report HERE and get detailed information by reading On The Take by Dr. Jerome Kassifer (purchase from Amazon HERE).
Popularity: 37% [?]
Ummm….two different kinds of drug companies:
The ones trying to devlope cures for AIDS, cancers, etc, actually ARE investing lots of time and money into their research.
But there’s so many more drug companies that are simply marketing some bullshit.
It’s capitalism.
Not necessarily. AIDs and cancer research tends to draw a lot of attention in the media and citizenry and consequently is often well-funded by government grants and/or health policy. I suspect, as is often the case with government contracts and their huge pay-outs, there is just as much wasted resources and money in AIDs and cancer as in a “lesser” drug such as Viagra.
There is no doubt actual research is taking place in these fields (and those of erectile dysfunction for that matter). It could all be a lot cheaper, though, with an efficient budget. Capitalism should not be a catch-all excuse for the ails of business.
“Market-driven profiteering, oh that’s capitalism.” What? So capitalism fosters poor business practice and everyone is expected to maintain or support the status quo?
As they should be. Research which helps the general public should definitely be funded by the government. That’s not to say
Capitalism doesn’t foster poor business practice. Capitalism fosters what the market wants. Actually, a communist or monopolistic system would foster poor business practice as their customers have no other choice. It is because of capitalism that there is a huge influx of “green” and environmentally friendly corporations, why there are corporations doing very well even with higher prices because they spend some of their money to help third-world countries.
However, in the same line, there are always negative aspects of it as well, and in seedy markets, there will be shady business. As for ED/Happiness/etc pills, if someone is out there willing to pay for it, why not charge for it?
As for AIDS and cancer I’m on two thoughts about it. Yeah, it would be nice to be able to subsidize the cost for every person suffering from it, but those who discover it should be able to make a fair amount of money from it as well, or, in the future, they’ll go to the commercial markets where they can actually make a good living rather than trying to help mankind. (It’s like the saying: Those who can, do, the rest, teach. If teachers were paid more than they are, I’m sure there would be far better teachers out there than are currently.)
The real question here is how much is life worth? Does everybody have the right to live as long as possible while society bears the cost? When do we let nature take its course?
A good point. I like to think life is precious and consequently priceless. Society should bear whatever cost it is to protect life.
However, I also support the notion that the “natural way” should be allowed to play out, i.e. we should refrain from playing God(s). Nevertheless, an orthodox following of “survival of the fittest (a basic tenet of capitalism and social Darwinism) would see much of Africa relegated to poverty and death. Is that really acceptable as moral beings with a sense of community?
The market system is certainly driving corporations to move towards “greener” pastures as the consumer dictates. However, many “green” moves are misleading which could be construed as pandering to the consumer (and therefore evidence of poor business practice). Electric cars aren’t really green-tech since the electricity still comes from fossil-fuel powered plants. Apple’s move to less volimnous packaging might be offset by new production processes that produce more waste products (I don’t know, I’m just speculating).
Then again, that might be construed as the very essence of marketing, namely, “playing” the consumer. Erm, I’m not sure where I am going with all this… oh yeah, big corporations suck. And have no soul. And eat puppies.
I agree. Life is precious. However, to what point should society bear the cost?
Let’s take an example. Suppose some parent’s precious little snowflake, who we’ll call, oh I dunno, let’s say, Terry Schiavo, is in a coma and brain dead, with virtually no chance of recovery. Yet, of course, she’s the parent’s precious little snowflake and of course they don’t want to feel that she’s dead. Should society, or more rather, the citizens of the country, pay (via taxes) for her life support when she’s not going to get any better?
Let’s take another example. Suppose an unemployed meth addict who has extremely promiscuous unprotected sex and shares needles gets AIDS. Is it society’s duty, or rather, the average citizen’s, duty, to pay for his treatment and hospital care?
This is exactly what pure communism is. (For the record, I don’t believe that certain types of communism are bad. I recognize that Marxism and fascism are simply two extreme examples.) Back to the point, primitive (pure) communism is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. No society will work for an extended period of time in this manner.
Why should I, who am healthy and capable, have to work harder to pay for someone who has never contributed to society, by choice? What do I get out of it? Karma? Fuck karma. In that case, I would be better off being unemployed myself, collecting welfare, and working in the black market and making money without having to pay taxes.
Now … Capitalism has nothing to do with “survival of the fittest”. It has nothing to do with survival at all. Granted, with the rising costs of medicine, it is now affecting survival, but really, what’s happening is not that only the fit are surviving, but rather, those who are capable of paying for their survival are living longer, and the rest are going the natural way. If the government was helping everybody survive, the money (ability) to do this, would be coming from those who have it in the form of taxes, and we go into a form of socialism.
Not that the idea is bad. All forms of government are socialist to a point. When the government collects taxes from childless people to build schools, it is a form of socialism, but this is where cost and reward come into play. Is the cost worth the payout? In this case, yes it is. As for socialized medicine, again there’s different levels.
Should every child be capable of receiving free medical care? Yes. I believe so. Many states offer it. (I know Illinois does.) Should every adult be capable of receiving free medical care? I don’t think so. Do you want to let every single person who thinks he’s sick be allowed to go into a hospital and demand treatment? For everything I’ve heard, there is a massive backlog of medical service in England, to the point that those who actually need treatment either can’t get it, or pay out of their pocket.
Johns Hopkins Hospital (I believe that’s the one I’m thinking of) is located near the ghetto in Baltimore. As no one there can afford medical treatment, that offered it for free. Of course, the hospital was losing tons and tons of money. The solution? Anybody who wants treatment has to pay one dollar. The number of patients dropped by over 50% because if someone had a cold, they’d just as easily go buy some medicine for that dollar instead of tying up lines in the hospital. The end result? Those who needed treatment could actually get it.
Should every adult’s lives be lengthened as long as possible to the cost of society? Once again, to what point? If someone comes into the hospital with a gunshot wound, and all that needs to be done is the bullet removed and the wound cleaned, dressed up, yes society should bear that cost. If someone walks into the hospital with AIDS and is going to need treatment for the rest of his life, should society bear that cost? Until the treatment becomes cheap enough, No it shouldn’t.
Furthermore, letting someone die when nature has asked for it is not immoral. People think that life is sacred and everything should be kept alive as long as possible, and that’s just not the case. Enjoy the moment, and when the time has come, let go.
Isn’t it human nature to collectively meliorate all peoples? To mitigate the “natural way” and “survival of the fittest.” Isn’t that why caveman invented the house. Isn’t that why we came up with science in the first place? To bring our destiny into our own hands? We should pay for people AIDs treatment for their whole life (as well as educating them in prevention). Arguably, the high cost of AIDs treatments borne by the taxpayer might speed up the development of a cure (or at least cheaper treatments).
As a healthy, hard working individual I expect to shoulder the burden of those less fortunate than I, those unable to shoulder their own burden and to some degree those who simply choose not to shoulder any burden. I would never want to sit on my ass and claim from others, it’s just not in me. Just as it is not in some people to work to earn their keep. As long as the majority of people don’t suddenly become shiftless, lethargic individuals (which will never happen, there will always be balance) we’ll all be ok.
Consider the following analogy which I often use when discussing a similar topic with my elders: A family member asks for help with, say, filling out a tax form during a busy week for me. I find tax forms easy and assume everyone else does as well. Indeed, I assume it would take but 5 minutes to explain how to fill out the form. Upon trying to explain the form, I realize my family member either cannot figure it out (perhaps he/she is retarded) or refuses to put in the effort necessary. Some might simply leave the family member to fend for himself/herself, after all, it’s their problem and they need to know how to do it. Others might help them do it (as in go beyond a simple explanation) since it is relative easy from one’s own perspective. Now extend the concept of family to humanity and the tax form to any and all burdens. You see what I’m trying to explain (it works better when I can talk, wave my hands and shake my head)? Naturally, it may not be practical in all situations, but I try to think of all people as an extended family. It can sound idealistic and utopian, but the very nature of an idealist is to strive towards ideals in hope of one day reaching them (or at least drawing closer to them). Love and non-violence can conquer the world and all that hippie/Gandhian/MLK shit. I have a dream…
As often happens in our discussions, I tend to favor communal solutions while you, the opposite (recall the Cho Seung-Hui discussion). Truly both ends of the spectrum.
Further, we’ve strayed somewhat off the topic of big pharma and misdirected funding.
Communal solutions don’t work. They’re not more efficient. People don’t want to work hard for things just to give them away to others who haven’t put in any effort whatsoever. Read up on the hippie communes in the sixties and seventies.
They’ll say “Free love, share everything, etc, etc, etc” until someone actually tries to take their things. Suddenly it all fails.
As for your example, like I said before, Cost vs payout. The cost in spending five minutes to help a family member is nominal. The payout is simply helping somebody out.
Now, extend it. There was an 18 year old on Discovery Channel’s Intervention a few years ago. He was an alcoholic, and his family and girlfriend tried to intervene to help him. He walked out. Two years, the same kid was seen in Las Vegas, toothless, homeless, and begging for money.
Why should anybody help him? He is not less fortunate than anybody else? He has driven himself into his world, against the advice and the helping hands of those who loved him. Why should I, who have worked for everything I have, give him a single cent? I feel that, for me to give a dime to a bum would be a slap in my father’s face, as he sacrificed everything in his life to bring me to America and give me a good education. He worked seven days a week, twelve hours a day, for over twelve years, so that I would have a chance. What does some punk shithead who refuses to do anything in the world deserve? Because he his human? Not quite.
What about the kid who grows up in a tough neighborhood and fights everything he is taught to become a hardworking and productive member of society? Why should he have to pay into the welfare checks that his neighbor blows on drugs and alcohol?
MLK/Gandhi and hippies are not the same. Hippies’ belief in communal property and all this bullshit stems from not having had to do any serious work in their lives. (Most of ‘em right now come from upper-class families.)
I believed in it myself. Until I actually had to make a living. I could just as easily live off 5000 a year. I’d go down to Costa Rica, build a little shack, and spend my days on the beach, but instead, I’ve decided I want to live a little nicer, eat well, travel to different places. Unfortunately, I don’t have a trust fund or parents that feed me as much money as I want, and therefore, I work, far more than I would really like to, but I work.
I don’t work because I want to help the world. I work so I can help myself, and if, in the meantime, I can help the world, hell, that’s an added bonus. Now … I’m planning on going to grad school so I can learn thing with which I -can- help the world, but, after all I invest in it (time and money), I fully expect to get something out of it, especially if I am capable.
I’ll help the rest of the world as I feel fit, but it is NOT my duty to help some shitbag who is too fucking lazy to help himself.