Posted on 12/08/2023 10:54:31 AM PST by MrRelevant
Read the details. This only can be done if taxpayer funds were used to research and develop the drugs to begin with… under that criteria I got no problem with this.
Tax money used to develop the drugs but then private company profits from it?
No problem with government saying no in these situations
Ain’t Communism great???
I read it. My question is valid, maybe reread my statement. The govt invests a lot in R and D in private companies, no? ... they should be able to steal one companies work and give it to others bs the govt decides to much profit is being made? Please.... thats a terrible precedent.
Its a slippry slope.... but maybe thats just me.
Biden Administration nationalizes oil companies in an effort to halt climate change and end fossil fuel use once an for all.
Sorry to hear that.
What are you on blood thinners *for*, if you don’t mind me asking?
“general welfare clause”
I thought that was the ‘Good and Plenty Clause’.
Going full on commie.
Protecting property rights is a cornerstone of our system of government. This administration doesn’t give a schiff about property rights.
And generics will be made by Biden’s buddies in China and he gets his 10%.
You take government money don’t whine when there a strings attached
Your drug “discovery” is not yours if you used public funds.
Got zero problem telling these companies that milk the system, if the drug we paid for pans out you can’t gouge for it, if you do you lose it.
There are no limits to tyranny...
There is no end in sight!
So, as their primary response to our communist masters, the American serfs continue to:
Bow down!... Obey!... Snitch!..
The winning team recommended that the research be done by a subsidiary set up in Switzerland. There reasons were that R&D tax benefits were greater there than in the US, that intellectual patent rights were stronger with a Swiss patent, and that there would not be the same level of consumer protection litigation.
If the US is fighting with China over China steeling US company intellectual property rights and then the US goes steeling pharma intellectual property rights, China will just laugh at us.
Slash high drug prices and promote more pharmaceutical competition.
China must want more areas they already supply most of our drugs they are our supply line.
Pharmaceuticals just the first step of what is to come hello 1984.
Insulin would be about a buck a shot were it not for all the “new and improved”versions that come out, thereby getting new patents.
That in itself is not bad, but thanks to government collusion, the latest and greatest is the only one allowed to be used. If the gov would take its hand out, the older stuff could be used and would be cheap.
Our overlords just keep taking and taking and taking.
We used to be their overlords...
Pharma exec say most drugs don’t work on most people; The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people. Dr. Allen Roses, worldwide vice president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (2003); stated that most prescription drugs don’t work on most people.
SHARYL ATTKISSON & Dr. Paul Alexander
The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people. Dr. Allen Roses, worldwide vice president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (2003)
It seemed like a seminal moment.
A top executive with Great Britain’s biggest drug company at the time, GlaxoSmithKline, stated that most prescription drugs don’t work on most people.
The admission was made by Dr. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, at a scientific conference in 2003 and not intended for a consumer audience. But the frank statement made its way into popular news and grabbed headlines.
According to one news article, “It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public.”
Considering the trillions upon trillions that governments and individuals spend on prescription medicine, it’s a remarkable fact. It means most of the money we spend on drugs is utterly wasted while patients are needlessly exposed to side effects. In other words, most aren’t helped by the medicine they take, but stand to be hurt by it.
At the scientific conference in 2003, Roses cited data on the effectiveness of classes of drugs in real patients. The data showed “drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients.” The numbers were even worse for cancer drugs. They worked in only one in four patients.
Most drugs work in fewer than half of patients “mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine,” said Roses, an academic geneticist at Duke University.
“Way to kill research and development.”
Totally disagree with that statement. Some companies use the law to extend their outrageous pricing after their original patent has run out. They go into court and get the protection extended for more years of raping the American public.
This is what Pfizer did with their blood thinning drug Eliquis, the patent ran out in Feb. of 2023 and they went into court and got it extended for 3-4 more years. Now in this country there can be no generic for this drug.
Many drug companies do this to maximize profits here in America by stifling competition. This why drugs are so much cheaper outside of the USA and generics are usually available for drugs like Eliquis. Example: Eliquis in Canada 60 tabs = $63.60 while in the USA the same dosage (5mg) is 60 tabs = $600.
If the drug companies were STUPID ENOUGH to take federal money to develop drugs, they DESERVE what they get.
blood clot in knee, I actually got lucky, only about 40% get a pain in their leg and make it to the doctor, the other 60% just up and die from a pulmonary embolism or stroke out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.