Jump to content
Barry Fish

General News Discussion

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

i'd say that's a very high stakes game to be playing.

These are international companies. The world is their oyster.

& the NHS will be amongst their largest customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Profiteering, by over pricing,

a less than 5% return on investment doesn't look like much in the way of profiteering to me.

Pricing is related to development costs, and how many patients there are from which to re-coup those development costs. With much of the more-common ailments already covered with treatments, most new developments are for the lesser-use stuff.

Most new drugs supposedly cost £1Bn upwards to get to market - plus there's the costs of all the drugs that never make it to market.

Quote

by unreasonably extending patents,

that one doesn't really stand up. Patents can't be extended.

They can make new developments to existing drugs and get a new patient for the new drug, but the existing patent for the old drug expires when it expires and the old drug is then able to be manufactured in generic form.

 

Quote

by spending more on marketing than R&D,

that's not the case in all instances, and there's some stretching for what is 'marketing'.

 

Quote

the big companies outsourcing the risk of R&D by buying up successful smaller companies

An old friend of mine started a biotech company 20-ish years ago, with something that fell within "the cure for cancer" (I don't know details). It was an extension of the uni studies of him and some others - where the govt had paid some of that uni research. 

The new start-up raised £10M in private investment in a blink of an eye. After all, it might have the cure for cancer.

Ten minutes later a more established company came along and bought it for loads more. After all, it might have the cure for cancer.

Not long after that the established company was bought up by a Big Pharma company. After all, that established company might have the cure for cancer in the research my mate started.

Did it have the cure for cancer? I've no idea, and nor did he, and nor did any of the companies that bought it. But it might - and if it did there was mega-mega money to be made.

At the same time the same buy-up process was happening with all of the new start-ups doing similar things. And the next year. And the next year.

I've no idea what happened with the company my mate started in the end (he moved to Oz on the money he'd made), but I do know that only a tiny number of those buy-ups end up making any money for Big Pharma. Most projects end up going nowhere, and it's (essentially) money down the drain for Big Pharma.

There's taxes paid on the profits people like my mate made along the way tho. 

(some of those profits were invested in the first version of efestivals, as it happens).

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Do you not think that healthcare shouldn't be open to rampant profiteering at the expense of patients lives. These principles are absolutely fine if you are innovating in the world of fancy TVs as people will not pay if you over charge them, if you have a potentially life saving drug the is upper limit on what someone will pay is anything they can. This is the sort of thing we have Government for to step in and stop.

Who says what is a fair return? Why the government of course.

Do they - if the investors don't agree, then why continue.  Per Neil's post earlier the divi yields aren't massive.

OK, have a national drug company to develop some new pharma........do you know how expensive that would be.....I don't think the tax payer would agree that it's a good use of money. 

Also the government do step in if a drug is too expensive....that what NICE is for.  I know it has its limitations, but it's better than this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LJS said:

& the NHS will be amongst their largest customers.

only because it's one buyer for a whole country, unlike the more fragmented buyers elsewhere. There's a whole country to buy any drug in all countries; the UK is no different in that respect.

And because this is patented stuff, there's no other supplier the NHS can go to - so it's impossible for the NHS to have a drug company by the short and curlies by threatening to stop buying from them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

only because it's one buyer for a whole country, unlike the more fragmented buyers elsewhere. There's a whole country to buy any drug in all countries; the UK is no different in that respect.

And because this is patented stuff, there's no other supplier the NHS can go to - so it's impossible for the NHS to have a drug company by the short and curlies by threatening to stop buying from them.

 

You can imagine the conversation -

 

Big Pharma - want to buy some pills

Jez - no thanks, tell us how you make them so we can.

Big Pharma - no, why would we do that, we'll make no money.

Jez - I know. 

Big Pharma - want to buy some pills

Jez - no, I have you over a barrel.

Big Pharma - oh, no money for us again.

Jez - we need some pills please.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

OK, have a national drug company to develop some new pharma........do you know how expensive that would be.....I don't think the tax payer would agree that it's a good use of money.

Yep, I agree. It'd probably cost billions and many years before the first drug got to market, and even then it might be bettered by a Big Pharma drug ten minutes later.

When practical politics is about prioritising stuff (cos you can't do it all at once) and the returns are uncertain and any benefits a long way off, I reckon there'd always be more-worthwhile things for govt to spend its time on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Do you not think that healthcare shouldn't be open to rampant profiteering at the expense of patients lives. 

What is an acceptable profit for the companies to make? Would you support the government bringing pharmaceutical into the public sector? Would taxpayers accept wasting money on the drugs that don't work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Is this bad for trump? Seems bad

just read it all. Yes @Lad, some of us do. 

The doc itself is essentially all hearsay, but matey makes the claim of multiple sources for his info over many months, and names names for some witnesses to some of it.

He also provides info on things which happened (such as making the call transcript top secret, and ending aid to Ukraine on Trump's direct order with no reason given) which will be easy enough to check.

It's bad. Very bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Ha! Another lost parliamentary vote by Bojo

😀

 

I can only see this working in the Tories favour.  Labour and Libdems get their conferences, but not the Tories.  Other parties stopping them getting their message out, while they all get plenty of coverage.  It'll further harden their vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I can only see this working in the Tories favour.  Labour and Libdems get their conferences, but not the Tories.  Other parties stopping them getting their message out, while they all get plenty of coverage.  It'll further harden their vote.

 

can't really see how that complaint can stand up with anyone of sense, it's not like the SNP get parliament suspended for their conference.

Plus it was Johnson who brought about the lack of goodwill, and took away parliamentary days that would have been a substitute for having days off for their conference.

The tories being treated 'unfairly' might madden some people, but those people would have never voted anything but tory anyway - so i don't think it matters in the bigger scheme of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

can't really see how that complaint can stand up with anyone of sense, it's not like the SNP get parliament suspended for their conference.

Plus it was Johnson who brought about the lack of goodwill, and took away parliamentary days that would have been a substitute for having days off for their conference.

The tories being treated 'unfairly' might madden some people, but those people would have never voted anything but tory anyway - so i don't think it matters in the bigger scheme of things.

' we illegally suspended parliament for 5 weeks. We aren't apologising'....

' can we have 3 days off for our own benefit  now?'....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

just read it all. Yes @Lad, some of us do. 

The doc itself is essentially all hearsay, but matey makes the claim of multiple sources for his info over many months, and names names for some witnesses to some of it.

He also provides info on things which happened (such as making the call transcript top secret, and ending aid to Ukraine on Trump's direct order with no reason given) which will be easy enough to check.

It's bad. Very bad.

Oh god you see this? This completely fucks him

IMG_20190926_142433.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, zahidf said:

' we illegally suspended parliament for 5 weeks. We aren't apologising'....

' can we have 3 days off for our own benefit  now?'....

 

I don't agree with the proroguing, but wasn't the reality that parliament would have been in recess for the majority of that period anyway for conference season. 

Personally I'm glad we don't have it clogging up the news, but would pain me to see him using it to his advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Going badly...

 

 

Boris is acting like a bully acts when they don't get their own way. Shame on the Tory MPs and members installing this horrible man as PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I don't agree with the proroguing, but wasn't the reality that parliament would have been in recess for the majority of that period anyway for conference season. 

Personally I'm glad we don't have it clogging up the news, but would pain me to see him using it to his advantage.

Well that would have been voted on.

And Boris acting like a tosser last night made them lose votes. So it's the Tories own fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I don't agree with the proroguing, but wasn't the reality that parliament would have been in recess for the majority of that period anyway for conference season. 

yup - but proroguing lost (I think) 5 days, so getting three of them back via the tories who prorogued is sort-of natural justice.

20 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Personally I'm glad we don't have it clogging up the news, but would pain me to see him using it to his advantage.

yup, that's why the tories are pissed off - they wanted to use it for election campaigning.

Personally I can't see why the taxpayer is giving time off to attend private functions - particularly when they get the opportunity to take off huge amounts of time anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

Boris is acting like a bully acts when they don't get their own way. Shame on the Tory MPs and members installing this horrible man as PM.

I might not always agree with her, but I like Jess a lot. She's got balls. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I might not always agree with her, but I like Jess a lot. She's got balls. :) 

Wonder if BJ feels guilty?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, while it was satisfying to see Boris facing the wrath of parliament, has anything actually been achieved that was worth the Supreme Court ruling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 8:24 PM, zahidf said:

Devils in the details. NHS is a BIG market though so I don't think they'd just walk away.

 

Here's a quick summary of his speech.

 

 

If you add a fleet of electric cars and private schools my biggest criticism of the manifesto is it looks like (which is what it is) something written by a load of middle class leftie men. 

Most of these issues are not ones I hear on the doorstep when I meet working class and more vulnerable people as part of my job.

What I would have liked to hear ( and it may have been announced with less fanfare was more about housing, benefits for people with health problem, support for carers, job's for young people etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Ok, while it was satisfying to see Boris facing the wrath of parliament, has anything actually been achieved that was worth the Supreme Court ruling?

It's been a day and half...

The domestic abuse bill will probably move forward into law. And the committee can follow up on their questions to BJ and the govt. And if Cummings tries any other bullshit, parliament can move quickly to stop him.

And the principle is important! PM's can't suspend parliament as it stands for personal and political gain . 

Edited by zahidf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

If you add a fleet of electric cars and private schools my biggest criticism of the manifesto is it looks like (which is what it is) something written by a load of middle class leftie men. 

Most of these issues are not ones I hear on the doorstep when I meet working class and more vulnerable people as part of my job.

What I would have liked to hear ( and it may have been announced with less fanfare was more about housing, benefits for people with health problem, support for carers, job's for young people etc.

Bus services in remote areas not a doorstep issue??? Personal care and free subscriptions? Sorry, but I disagree those are middle class concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...