When Katie Porter brings out the whiteboard...

[Bodakane]

Cool. Who sets the "international standard?" Who enforces it? Also...voiding the patent doesn't do what you think it does. Pharma companies with enough resources can and will pay other, smaller companies with competing products/patents to sell their manufacturing rights off to the larger company, which circumvents the revocation of a patent. And anti-trust (even if it were ever enforced, which it never is) wouldn't apply to that since it's not a direct buyout of the smaller company--it's indirect horizontal integration, not vertical integration. This is nowhere near as simple as you think it is.

hmmmm...."Pharma companies with enough resources", you say? I wonder how they get those "enough resources" if they are not part of the over charging problem........

[Shadowferal]

Was the polio vaccine made for the sake of profit? Government subsidized that...and if pharms can't be happy with what profits they can garner today, then government will have to go back to getting the job done. Something pharmaceuticals don't want.

[Endus]

Cool. Who sets the "international standard?" Who enforces it? Also...voiding the patent doesn't do what you think it does. Pharma companies with enough resources can and will pay other, smaller companies with competing products/patents to sell their manufacturing rights off to the larger company, which circumvents the revocation of a patent. And anti-trust (even if it were ever enforced, which it never is) wouldn't apply to that since it's not a direct buyout of the smaller company--it's indirect horizontal integration, not vertical integration. This is nowhere near as simple as you think it is.

You realize intellectual property laws are already the kind of international standard I'm talking about, right?

[Endus]

You're not talking about intellectual property laws (and btw, those are a PERFECT example of international laws that go largely unenforced in places like China and Russia). You're talking about mandatory profit caps and international regulation on how much a drug is allowed to sell for. Which will create an economic shitstorm and multi-tiered political backlash of truly epic proportions, not to mention being, again, largely unenforceable since individual nations can and will choose not to participate if less regulation benefits the people running said countries (particularly the two I named, and India would fall under that umbrella too).

I was specifically talking about patent law. International patent law is the only thing that stops me, a Canadian, from hypothetically buying a pharma production facility, working out how to make Viagra, and manufacturing my own off-brand Viagra that is chemically identical to the original in every way. Or any other medication.

And patent law is intellectual property law.

So, swing and a miss, buddy.

Also, I could not possibly give less of a shit about tantrums committed by pharmacorps and the like.

[Mihalik]

Oh, so you've done internal auditing for a major Pharmeceutical company?

I too, in fact, am a cosmonaut.

Because I have, and I know for a fact that the majority of surplus funds not earmarked for shareholder payouts or executive bonuses goes directly towards R&D and overhead costs for less marketable (but still life-saving) drug production.

First you just moved the goal post and went to the whole "after shareholder payouts, stock buybacks, CEO bonuses etc".

Even then you are lying. Because this is publicly available information. No, they spend more on marketing and sales then they do on R&D.

You know, that's why most of the rest of the civilized world has either completely banned advertising pharmaceuticals or only allows advertising over the counter pharmaceuticals alone.

https://www.pharmacychecker.com/askp...h-development/

Everything you say is an obvious lie that can be fact checked in like 10 seconds. You haven't even managed to get in the general proximity of anything factual so far.

- - - Updated - - -

So, swing and a miss, buddy.

Every single fucking thing he said this far has been a swing and miss. He's just regurgitating random talking points and moving goal posts.

[Iliena]

Oh, so you've done internal auditing for a major Pharmeceutical company? Because I have, and I know for a fact that the majority of surplus funds not earmarked for shareholder payouts or executive bonuses goes directly towards R&D and overhead costs for less marketable (but still life-saving) drug production.

Can you audit how exactly one of my medications is 10x more expensive to the end user in the US than the NHS pay for it here in the UK? without going over what a complex issue it is again and how we couldn't possibly understand it attitude, because it just looks like plain and simple greed to me, but please do try to break it down into simpler terms for us little people to understand.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Ok, sure. Limit pricing and markup. Guess what happens then? Those companies no longer invest in R&D for less profitable drugs--many of which are critical for treating rare but dangerous conditions/diseases. As I mentioned in an earlier post, markup helps to subsidize drugs that would otherwise never be produced due to their R&D generating a net profit loss for pharmeceutical companies (a result of their much smaller demand).

The company she was lambasting spent 2.45 billion on R&D, 4.71 billion on marketing+advertising, and 50 billion on the stock buybacks and dividends. Please show me a pharmaceutical company that actually operates with an R&D budget that is at least 2x that of their marketing budget, cause nothing I've seen indicates your claims to be anything other than the same lies that have been sold by pharmaceutical lobbyists.

They're not spending on R&D now, and it isn't because they're too poor to do so. That is just the main lie propagated by pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists.

[Endus]

The company she was lambasting spent 2.45 billion on R&D, 4.71 billion on marketing+advertising, and 50 billion on the stock buybacks and dividends. Please show me a pharmaceutical company that actually operates with an R&D budget that is at least 2x that of their marketing budget, cause nothing I've seen indicates your claims to be anything other than the same lies that have been sold by pharmaceutical lobbyists.

They're not spending on R&D now, and it isn't because they're too poor to do so. That is just the main lie propagated by pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists.

Not to mention, telling pharmacorps to cut that $50b in buybacks and dividends down to, say, $50m, that still leaves the company completely in the black and profitable, without any reduction in R&D.

Profits are irrelevant to the viability of a company in terms of productive and research capacities. They only matter to shareholders seeking to inflate prices and skim off the top. Capitalist ownership is, fundamentally, a form of grift, just one that's been inculcated as the norm that people should expect.

[Mihalik]

Note how @Lobosan forgot to come back with a reply after his last debunked claim.

Probably ran out of talking points from his script.

[Azadina]

Note how @Lobosan forgot to come back with a reply after his last debunked claim.

Probably ran out of talking points from his script.

I mean, I couldn't help but to notice there was one singular theme and a point in the posts: "it's complicated". What about the rest of the paragraphs of text? Just random stuff strung together to make a two word message seem longer.

Shouldn't be hard to make more word salad around the same theme, so I doubt it's due to lack of talking points.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

I wonder why @Lobosan is casting stones from a glass house regarding propaganda now.

Why do we tolerate Russian propaganda agents on this forum? Mods, kick em outta here

When several of us have asked them to substantiate the claims they made here regarding how pharmaceutical companies invest money.