Big pharma's 'satanic' plot is genocide

[iLLuDeano]

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-01-16-motsoaledi-big-pharmas-satanic-plot-is-genocide

So let's get this subject rolling. i know very little about what is happening in the Pharma business. Although this article did raise my eyebrows and I would certainly like some insight as to why only now in South Africa of all countries is someone making a statement like this. It impacts more that just South Africans. To me this is a whistleblower's attempt to wake people up.

[adrianh]

I think that the government is being absurd as usual. So, if I develop a wonderful new pair of underpants that stops anybody from getting Aids then I must give up my IP so that the government can give it to the masses...I think not. The government seems to think that everybody must just hand things over because they want it aka Zim.

[AndyD]

I think the government is spot on.

In a framework for policy, the department notes and recommends, among other things, that:

* Provision should be made for the compulsory licensing of crucial drugs at the lower of two typical rates of payment. This would allow the state to assign the right to make a drug to a third party with only limited compensation to the owner;
* Provision should be made for the parallel importation of drugs. This denies drug companies the opportunity to charge more for a drug in South African than elsewhere in the world because it could be imported from the lower-price territory, whether the patent owner approved or not;
* Patents for drugs should be conditional on an examination to ensure that the drug is new or innovative, and should not be automatically granted;
* Generally, "patent flexibility" for medicine should be made a matter of law;
* The holders of intellectual property rights, such as drug companies, should be encouraged to protect their own rights rather than depending on state institutions, such as the police or customs, to do so; and
* South Africa should seek to influence the region, and the world, to move towards its vision of intellectual property protection.

The draft does not yet have any status as policy, and was open for public comment. To what extent those comments, including submissions from pharmaceutical companies, may sway the department is not yet known. The department was this week still processing responses.

But the local subsidiaries of drug companies are taking no chances on that score.

"Without a vigorous campaign, opponents of strong IP will prevail," wrote the American lobbyists hired to launch a countercampaign, "not just in South Africa, but eventually in much of the rest of the developing world."

I'm not surprised the drug cartels are up in arms about the governments proposed legislation. They've been abusing the copyrighting and IP system for decades by making minor alterations to drug formulations in order to artificially prevent expiry of copyrights, why should they stop now? Also there's nothing they'd hate worse than not having taxpayer funded resources at their beck and call such as the police and customs to protect their price rigging business model and artifically inflated prices determined on geographical basis.

[pmbguy]

Slightly off post, but I wish to include my personal experience and sentiment regarding the medical industry.

I studied psychology for many years with the intent of becoming a psychologist, after which one would naturally (if you clever), study pharmacology to prescribe scheduled drugs. I got my bachelors Cum Laude and I have 2 modules to complete for honours. I stopped to do business full time, but more importantly I stopped because of personal misgivings of the industry generally and doing it day to day personally.

We are fools to time.... in the same way as mercury and tobacco were advocated as beneficial in the past. My concern and ultimate rejection of mind altering drugs is exactly that: It alters one mind, all of it. Sure it may elevate or remove negative behaviour along the way, but at the same time it changes everything else. It should only be used in extreme cases. It should not be a normal legitimate solution and used as ubiquitously as it is.

Once we know more about the brain my position may change.

[pmbguy]

Psychoactive drugs is what I was referring to specifically in my post above.

[pmbguy]

Government might be spot on, but who will do the negotiation...? I am afraid that other states and their pharma-corps view us as an easy target. For an example of how we are perceived we only have to look back at Mantu Shabalala Msimang and her veg fiasco. Mvetu.... sweet patato shaya e aids, vuti e garlic. For fuck sakes.

In 1994 we gained freedom....which was a justifiable result in the book. If we had to ask Wouter Basson though... he might mention that the US (our former partner until the mid 80’s) recognises our weakness and calls us “friend” for obvious economic reasons. It’s a shame they allowed China to be our master though. In their minds they could push any new drug and make it work through “legitimate” means (In SA and everywhere else). Big pharma in the US has thousands of lobbyists working away, for bad and for worse. Thoughts of the product’s efficacy are superseded by potential price, a price they wish to kill us with (No pun intended)

But don t get too conspiralogical too fast. Apart from price the tec is mostly legit. It’s their capitalism against ours. Just wish we had more Aaron Motsoaledi’s to negotiate better terms.

[tec0]

There are billions of people on the face or the earth each with some type of medical need. So how can pharmaceutical companies not profit? Example my medication cost me R600 per month for 30 pills. That is 1 pill for each day...

Without these pills I die a painful agenizing death I will slowly suffocate while going into a blind panic and eventually lose consciousness while gasping for air then death.

There is no generic alternative and skipping on my pills is a massive dangerous gamble. Now according to the internet there is over half a million people suffering from the same dangerous illness so let’s consider that they make “give or take” over three billion six hundred million per year “how much of that is profit I don’t know” I feel that they can make the medication cheaper wouldn’t you agree?

But I mean nothing to them... If I die a slow painful scary death they don’t care because I am but one person out of a half a million other paying customers. Why would they care?

[adrianh]

I think its total rubbish. Pharmaceutical companies develop products to make money, for no other reason. They are not charities, they are not the salvation army, they spend huge amounts of money and time to develop their products, why should they not profit. Tec, if you lived 100 years ago you would have died from your terrible ailment, you are kept alive artificially because they developed the drugs, pay or die, that's the way of the world.

[pmbguy]

Holy Shit Adrian you harsh, but so is reality.


Psychoactive drugs

Although I was still far from becoming a psychologist, masters then pharmacology to prescribe, I feel the prescription of psychoactive drugs is fraught with bullshit. To rack up counselling hours I spent 1 day a week for 2 years as an assistant counsellor at UNISA. Our mandate was to counsel, but mostly we assisted with the practicalities of career choice and module selection. My superior at the time was a very wise man (Psychologist) he enlightened me on many of the false presumptions of medicine. Especially regarding clinical, which was my direction. To clarify: You get various types of psychologists, a counselling psychologist deals with people who are encountering normal adjustment issues (Normal problems), divorce, work etc. A clinical psychologist deals with pathology, the abnormal, the crazy. (The comments you read do not necessarily represent those of UNISA or any of their staff). I immersed myself in the literature. Literature that discussed chemical treatment (Meds) I found to be at the least inaccurate, at the worst plain dangerous. There is this system where drugs get cleared to “assist” a certain ailment...but some might even reduce cognitive ability by e.g. 20%. You may feel better, but you will never feel happy or sad. You live in limbo no more potential for catharsis. My scepticism grew. I no longer accepted the MO for many treatments. I wrote essays which reflected my scepticism. The responses from the lecturers were mixed. Despite their harsh analysis and often negative judgement of my text I got good marks, backing up my arguments. I felt then as I feel now. A drug might as a matter of course relieve a symptom, however it relieves that symptom by changing everything related and unrelated to the symptom. It’s like using an atomic bomb to help stop theft. Sure it will stop the shoplifting but it will also destroy the very infrastructure that makes legitimate shopping possible.

We know far too little about the brain. Using a drug to change the way a brain functions in order to assist in the subtraction of an unwanted behaviour is negligent and plain barbaric. At its least its inappropriate, at its worst it represents a chemical lobotomy.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

It's capitalism, people start business to make money. Pharmaceuticals cost big bucks to research and develop. Not every development gets to market.
Start limiting profit and companies will cut the costs by doing less testing, not a good situation. Or, if a line is not producing profit, I will can it, or limit it, using resources for higher profit lines. Again bad situation.
Government taking over? Yeah right, they can't even get standard medicine to the hospitals on time.
Perhaps, where there is really only one medicine, with absolutely no alternative, then perhaps, some interference may be plausible, although probably subsidising. However, reality, it's a bit like legal fees, you either can or you can't. A R500 medicine reduced to R300 will probably still be out of range of the exact same amount of people, or the percentile of people who would then be able purchase will probably not be much.


The IP needs tightening up, the parts where the company makes small change etc then registers new patent.

[pmbguy]

Look medicine can be free/cheap. Cuba is a good example, however in this specific example you have to take context into consideration. Everything is totally fct in Cuba, but the medical system.

To link in with Anthony, for meds to advance you need money, money to pay for that advancement. If its free somebody has to pay. Subsidising by government with regards to development, production and eventual free distribution will still come at a cost somewhere. This will also reduce the benefit of having pharma competing. The incentive for development would be lost.

[tec0]

I think its total rubbish. Pharmaceutical companies develop products to make money, for no other reason. They are not charities, they are not the salvation army, they spend huge amounts of money and time to develop their products, why should they not profit. Tec, if you lived 100 years ago you would have died from your terrible ailment, you are kept alive artificially because they developed the drugs, pay or die, that's the way of the world.

I don't think I will be viewing another post of you again...

[tec0]

Actually wanted to edit my post but found it edited for me.

I wish a few other post would get the same treatment but I suspect that it is only ok for some people to be harsh. That said I spoke to a friend of mine that lives in another country so I normally only get to chat to him at midnight or near morning hours.

He told me about a system they have in their lab. Basically it can identify every substance within a sample not only what the substance is but the amounts. This enable them to recreate a compound of almost any type.

So since it is all about money... Why not use such systems to duplicate medication and just sent the patent laws to the burner that way we get to produce the medication needed and the money stays within the country.

Simple truth if profit cannot respect life why must life respect profit? Screw that...

If people doesn't have a right to life then why must companies have a right to profit that is basically "there livelihood"

In short it is called mutual respect and if you can't apply that in business then your business will go down the drain. Simple truth if you cannot respect a person why must that person place a order with you? Customer walks find someone else...

And just sometimes the customer gets the stuff they need and start to manufacture thus cutting your business out and removing you from there needs completely...

[AndyD]

It's capitalism, people start business to make money. Pharmaceuticals cost big bucks to research and develop. Not every development gets to market.
Start limiting profit and companies will cut the costs by doing less testing, not a good situation. Or, if a line is not producing profit, I will can it, or limit it, using resources for higher profit lines.

I don't have a problem with the inventor of a product having a time-limited market advantage which allows him to recoup the R&D costs and set himself up in a position to monetize his product. Without this advantage r&d wouldn't be financially viable and invention would be stifled, this is what the copyright, patent and IP system should be doing.

The problem is what the copyright and IP laws have evolved into. The length of time has become way too long and the scope of protection has become way too broad which is now in itself stifling further innovation. It's giving companies who own the 'rights' to products so much protection they can hold the world to ransom for decades for their own excessive financial gain and allowng them to dictate where the product can and can't be used or applied and usually to the detriment of society as a whole. It also allows the perpetuation of outdated business models and monopolies due to the unfair advantage afforded to them.

This is all a result of continuous lobbying and mission creep. Many of these companies will spend far more on lobbying to extend their copyrights and patents on their existing products than they do on R&D of new products because gradually hacking away and getting the laws bent and eventually rewritten in their favour is far more profitable than innovating and brnging new products to market.

The IP needs tightening up, the parts where the company makes small change etc then registers new patent.

With the lobbyists given the amount of free reign they have to basically bribe their way to new laws and the blatant abuse of even the existing laws by the drug cartels going unchecked I don't see any tightening of these laws in the near future. Even enforcing the existing laws and checking the blatant abuse would be a step in the right direction at the moment.

[AndyD]

Actually wanted to edit my post but found it edited for me.

I wish a few other post would get the same treatment but I suspect that it is only ok for some people to be harsh.

I won't censor or any views on a topic that's being debated no matter how harsh they may seem or even how strongly I disagree with them. The only exception might be if there were laws against a particular view (such as preaching holocaust denial, racism, sexism etc) and even this would be sometimes be under duress.

On the other hand comments that are made about another member are removed as soon as their seen or reported. If other members make personal or defamatory comments about yourself the same will apply if they're seen or reported.

I know the issues being discussed are emotive but please address the opinions and not the people making them.