Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / May 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"Abbott Labs: 'Getting fat on AIDS'"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Baby Peanut - 06 May 2004 01:50 GMT
Abbott AIDS drug price hike hit by suit, protest
Reuters, 04.19.04, 4:05 PM ET

CHICAGO, April 19 (Reuters) - Abbott Laboratories Inc.  (nyse: ABT -
news - people) was hit with a federal antitrust lawsuit on Monday by
patients charging the company with illegally jacking up the price of a
popular AIDS drug by 400 percent.

The pharmaceutical company made a decision last December to raise the
price of Norvir, a key component of many AIDS-fighting cocktails.
Since then, doctors have urged a boycott and the nation's largest AIDS
organization sued the company in protest. In the latest wrinkle, two
patients filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Northern
California, seeking damages and an injunction to halt the higher
prices.

Abbott spokeswoman Jennifer Smoter said the company has not violated
any laws, but couldn't comment on the suit, having not seen it yet.

The company previously said the price hike was long overdue, and even
with it the medication still would be the cheapest in its class.

A court must certify that the plaintiffs are similar enough to
represent a class.

The complaint could be the first targeting Norvir to seek class-action
status, according to the lawyer representing the patients, Joseph
Tabacco.

Norvir, generically called ritonavir, helps subdue the HIV virus that
causes AIDS. It is unique in that it can boost effectiveness of other
AIDS drugs.

A group of protesters organized by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and
others, on Monday morning launched a 34-hour vigil in front of an
Abbott Labs location in South Pasadena, California. Demonstrators at
the Southern California vigil carried signs that read "Abbott Labs:
'Getting fat on AIDS'"
tweeked out twinkie - 10 May 2004 22:48 GMT
"Baby Peanut" <baby_p_nut2@yahoo.com> wrote...
> Abbott AIDS drug price hike hit by suit, protest
> Reuters, 04.19.04, 4:05 PM ET
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Abbott spokeswoman Jennifer Smoter said the company has not violated
> any laws, but couldn't comment on the suit, having not seen it yet.

I ranted on this a few months ago.  What infuriated me was that Abbot
increased the price for Americans by 400%, while leaving the price
unchanged for Canadians and Europeans, and "giving" the drug away for
free to Africans.  For their generous "donation" of Norvir to Africa,
Abbot got gawd knows how many billions of dollars in tax write-offs.

I am so sick of this racket!  Why do we Americans have to subsidize
the pharmaceutical costs for foreigners?  I imagine that the EU price
for Norvir was probably half the U.S. price, so now Americans are
paying 8x as much as Europeans for this drug.  One could argue about
the merits of the "donated" drugs to Africa, but why should filthy
rich Europeans be getting a huge discount, a discount subsidized by
8x-greater cost to Americans?

Solution: let the drug companies charge ANY price they want for their
products.  The drugs are their intellectual property and did cost
billions of dollars to develop.  But then also allow Americans to buy
their drugs from anywhere in the world without restrictions.  The
result will be either American prices being lowered, foreign prices
being raised, or most likely both, until an equilibrium is reached
where Americans and Europeans pay the same prices for the same drugs.


> A group of protesters organized by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and
> others, on Monday morning launched a 34-hour vigil in front of an
> Abbott Labs location in South Pasadena, California. Demonstrators at
> the Southern California vigil carried signs that read "Abbott Labs:
> 'Getting fat on AIDS'"

But just to defend Abbot for a moment...if the radical leftist activists
don't like the price Abbot and other pharmaceutical companies charge
for their life-saving HIV drugs, then why don't the leftists go and
INVENT their own HIV drugs and give them away for free?  But maybe that's
because it takes more than communist propaganda slogans to invent a
state of the art molecular drug.
Baby Peanut - 11 May 2004 13:34 GMT
> "Baby Peanut" <baby_p_nut2@yahoo.com> wrote...
> > Abbott AIDS drug price hike hit by suit, protest
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> free to Africans.  For their generous "donation" of Norvir to Africa,
> Abbot got gawd knows how many billions of dollars in tax write-offs.

But it wasn't just write-offs.  Abbott got paid by the U.S. gubment to
research Ritonavir.  Compound that with the fact that it's been on the
market for years and the sudden price increase is criminal.

> I am so sick of this racket!  Why do we Americans have to subsidize
> the pharmaceutical costs for foreigners?  I imagine that the EU price
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> products.  The drugs are their intellectual property and did cost
> billions of dollars to develop.

Millions of tax dollars in this case.

>  But then also allow Americans to buy
> their drugs from anywhere in the world without restrictions.  The
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> because it takes more than communist propaganda slogans to invent a
> state of the art molecular drug.

Why didn't Abbot make Ritonavir using Abbots money instead of U.S. tax
dollars?
tweeked out twinkie - 13 May 2004 00:43 GMT
"Baby Peanut" <baby_p_nut2@yahoo.com> wrote...
> Why didn't Abbot make Ritonavir using Abbots money instead of U.S. tax
> dollars?

Maybe because the radical leftist activists demanded that the
GOVERNMENT spend money on AIDS drug research?  But the
government can't do its own research, as breakthrough
medical discoveries don't come out of government committees.
So it simply contracted it out to a private company, as it
does in so many cases.  I would rather let the market do it,
but the political reality is that the government is forced
to fund AIDS research.  Furthermore, the best and brightest
scientists are going to choose the far-higher salaries they
will receive working for the private pharmaceutical companies
over the much-lower salaries offered by any government-run
entity; you would see the usual ethnic quotas being used to
fill the research positions rather than bona fide academic
qualifications.  I really don't see any scientific
breakthroughs coming from that kind of setup.
GMCarter - 13 May 2004 09:01 GMT
>"Baby Peanut" <baby_p_nut2@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> Why didn't Abbot make Ritonavir using Abbots money instead of U.S. tax
>> dollars?
>
>Maybe because the radical leftist activists demanded that the
>GOVERNMENT spend money on AIDS drug research?  

And some moderate leftists and some centrists and conservatives...LOTS
of people demanded the government spend money on AIDS research! And
I'd say we've made some great progress overall getting the NIH budget
increased for research into ALL diseases. And I'd say, given the
BILLIONS we're wasting on Iraq, we could spend more on ALL diseases!

And we could spend a bit more energy, resources and time on making
sure that conflicts of interest are ELIMINATED from NIH, universities,
hospitals, etc. So that we can rely more confidently on the data that
are derived from these studies, without the pernicious influence of an
out-of-control pharmaceutical industry.

Get back to the best of what science is about and leave the childish,
grasping and voracious greed to the goosestepping psychos of Ayn
Rand's ilk that think greed is good.

Finally, the market is making a mess of research. Gilead DROPPED a
drug for HCV because they didn't want to have to pay all the up- and
downstream licensing fees from a patent system that has completely
lost all meaning in the haze of inchoate greed that grips this nation.

        George M. Carter
tweeked out twinkie - 14 May 2004 01:11 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
> Get back to the best of what science is about and leave the childish,
> grasping and voracious greed to the goosestepping psychos of Ayn
> Rand's ilk that think greed is good.

I've heard of Ayn Rand but never read her books.  But I am a free
market capitalist, though I am not adverse to some government
involvement in such things as scientific research.

But greed is good.  Like it or not, every HIV drug that has been
invented so far has been invented because of the profit incentive.
People are inherently greedy and simply do not work for the good
of the collective unless it benefits them personally.  Like the
Communists, you think this is bad and that people should be
completely selfless, but they aren't and that is the reality of
the situation.  Please name a single scientific breakthrough
that ever came out of the Soviet Union.  Most of Soviet
technology was stolen from the West, and the few discoveries
they did made were made by scientists who were given "privileges"
despite the official assertion of "equality" for all workers.
For all the glorious universal coverage of the Soviet health
care system, I can't think of a single significant drug or medical
procedure that came out of it.
GMCarter - 14 May 2004 11:20 GMT
snip
>But greed is good.  Like it or not, every HIV drug that has been
>invented so far has been invented because of the profit incentive.

LOL. No, greed is not good. Greed is a perverted aberration that
results in a great deal of suffering.

>People are inherently greedy and simply do not work for the good
>of the collective unless it benefits them personally.  Like the
>Communists, you think this is bad and that people should be
>completely selfless, but they aren't and that is the reality of
>the situation.  

I recently heard an Islamic saying that a person should take from the
day as much as he needs to walk upright. Thus, enough food, care and
shelter. This is reasonable.

Of course people do things that benefit them personally. It benefits
me personally when there are breakthroughs in HIV research because it
helps my friends and loved ones stay alive and well. Which helps our
community stay well in toto.

Of course people should undertake those research efforts for
compensation. I am no "like the communists" in the way you define them
above.

The problem is when people want more than they could ever need and
then commit heinous acts to keep that or gather more. This is greed.
This is damaging both to the individual who is suffering from this
locked in, brutal way of looking at the world as it does as a result
of the ripples of their negative activity spreads around them,
increasing suffering.

>Please name a single scientific breakthrough
>that ever came out of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was a communist state in name only. From the time of
Stalin, it was just a dictatorship. As to their advances, they had
some pretty brilliant physicists--but I don't know enough about
history there to comment intelligently. Though it is an interesting
area to look at their history rather than just wallow in your bigotry!
I recommend you check it out and open your mind a bit.

Communism per se holds many interesting elements and ideas. As does
socialism. I think there needs to be a way of balancing the needs of
the many against the needs of the very few who have gathered a great
deal of wealth and power. Such a system can be rooted in democratic
principles of fairness that seek to sustain a base of care for the
citizenry: good schools, good public health, good roads and
infrastructure, care for the environment. Businesses and entrepreneurs
that wish to compete in a marketplace--well there is plenty of room.

However, our discussion was rooted in the pharmaceutical industry. Two
issues to consider. One is that their products influence life and
health. I think it is not necessary to eliminate that industry--but
when they fail to provide care, there needs to be alternative
mechanisms (e.g., acquisition of generics--although see issue two).
And when they fail to undertake the R&D for many diseases (TB,
antibiotic therapy in general, leishmaniasis, dengue, etc.), there
needs to be a globally increased public sector involvement.

And that brings me to Issue Two. I find it odd that you use a defense
of free market capitalism to make your argument in favor of pharma.
Yet they utilize a DIRECTLY anti-competitive tool to monopolize their
discoveries and completely ELIMINATE competition: the patent. And
indeed, the "corporation" as a quasi-communist organization is what
gets the benefit of that patent, not an individual discoverer for the
most part. Patent law was designed to help encourage individuals to
make discoveries--not conglomerates.

Yet that sanctified law is used by pharma to demand their "right" to
charge whatever they want in the United States. Such that the new
"medicare" bill was crafted in a way that eliminated the right of the
government to NEGOTIATE for a price. How anti-free market is that?
Part of any trade or deal is the ability for the two sides to
negotiate a price: this has been abandoned.

So what we wind up with is the archipelagos of Soviet-style fiefdoms,
run with brutal efficiency to be profit-generating centers. Truth be
damned and let 'em die if they can't afford the drug. The mission of
discovery is abandoned more and more, while the remaining focus of
narrowing R&D pipelines is on the chronic disease that assures a
lifelong need for their product.

Does that sound like a free market to you?

        George M. Carter
tweeked out twinkie - 21 May 2004 21:26 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
> And that brings me to Issue Two. I find it odd that you use a defense
> of free market capitalism to make your argument in favor of pharma.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> most part. Patent law was designed to help encourage individuals to
> make discoveries--not conglomerates.

I believe in patents, in fact the Founding Fathers felt that protection
of intellectual property was so important to the advancement of science
and arts that they wrote patents and copyrights into the Constitution.

I'm sorry you feel that conglomerates shouldn't be afforded patent
protections.  Modern scientific research is a team effort.  Very few
things are invented by individuals anymore.  The scientists turning
out the latest drugs for AIDS and other diseases are using equipment
worth millions or even billions of dollars to carry out their research.
No individual has the resources to afford this stuff.  Only large
corporations, universities, and government agencies can afford it.
Furthermore, the research is so complex that no single person can
do all of it and it requires a team effort.  So it is only fair that
the organization that provided the research equipment to develop
these new drugs gets part of the patent and the royalties that come
with it.


> Yet that sanctified law is used by pharma to demand their "right" to
> charge whatever they want in the United States. Such that the new
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Does that sound like a free market to you?

The free market has been grossly distorted in this case.  And I
previously ranted something about how the government is partly
responsible for the outrageously high prices of pharms because it
is willing to pay ANY price the drug companies demand for their
products.  That is NOT free market capitalism.  The problem is
that despite these problems, excellent new drugs ARE being invented
and brought to market, even if you feel the prices being charged
for them are unfairly high.  The truth is that while everybody is
complaining about the current system, no one dares to touch it for
fear of ruining the incredible medical advances being made.  You
are your leftist cohorts might succeed in imposing price controls
on the existing drugs, but then you will ensure that no new drugs
are ever developed.  In my opinion this was the problem with Soviet
Communism.  In the Marxist world view technology and industry were
a static thing, something to be taken over in their present state
and operated by the proletariat without change for the rest of
eternity.  You and your modern-day Marxists might take over the
pharmaceutical industry and would be able to manufacture the entire
array of drugs that have already been invented, but you would NEVER
be able to invent a single new drug.  Medical progress would
instantly grind to a halt.
GMCarter - 22 May 2004 11:46 GMT
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
>> And that brings me to Issue Two. I find it odd that you use a defense
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>of intellectual property was so important to the advancement of science
>and arts that they wrote patents and copyrights into the Constitution.

Yep. And I agree with that original intent. I'm sorry if you failed to
understand that is my point of view.

>I'm sorry you feel that conglomerates shouldn't be afforded patent
>protections.  Modern scientific research is a team effort.  

I think that corporations have misused patent law and utterly
distorted it. Henry Ford, prick though he was in many ways, had
patents on cars: they didn't cost a lot once economies of scale ramped
up. Soft drink vendors have trademark recipes, though why anyone would
care--but the garbage they sell is inexpensive.

Pharma uses its power and the threat of ending research to jack up
prices higher and higher, while hiding behind patent law in a gross
distortion of its original intent. A prime example is Abbott's recent
breathtakingly murderous increase in the price of ritonavir for no
legitimate reason than sheer greed and to force people to use Kaletra.

>Very few
>things are invented by individuals anymore.  The scientists turning
>out the latest drugs for AIDS and other diseases are using equipment
>worth millions or even billions of dollars to carry out their research.

Billions??? LOL...horseshit. You just make this crap up to support
your trollery!

Anyway,  yes, it often IS a team effort. One that is NOT just coming
from companies per se, but often from university labs. You should
check out the history--and litigation--around the discovery of
stavudine as a lovely case in point. Very often, pharma expends little
in the way of R&D.

And to the extent they bother too, they then slap patents on every
little process, discovery, diagnostic, tool and so forth to the point
where the dense thicket of patents is actually INHIBITING research as
ever-increasing licensing fees are sought for every aspect of
research.

>Furthermore, the research is so complex that no single person can
>do all of it and it requires a team effort.  So it is only fair that
>the organization that provided the research equipment to develop
>these new drugs gets part of the patent and the royalties that come
>with it.

LOL...a team effort! Wow! Sounds like neo-Marxism!!

The idea of paying back on the research is also belied by your naive
and utterly unnuanced view of drug development. Another excellent
resource is K. Greider's The Big Fix: How The Pharmaceutical Industry
Rips off American Consumers. This underscores how they vastly inflate
costs of trials in order to lamely justify killer pricing schemes that
are having an affect on the "team" of U.S. citizens by horribly
destabilizing the pathwork,miserable mess they call "healthcare" which
results in vastly increased premiums, FEWER new inventions (while they
also wait for patents to expire before changing the formula to extend
the patent life), increased co-pays and more people rushing off to
Canada to get drugs that the big companies are beginning to shut off.

What we should HAVE is a control on the industry that is out of
control in the form of PRICE CONTROLS.

>> Yet that sanctified law is used by pharma to demand their "right" to
>> charge whatever they want in the United States. Such that the new
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>The free market has been grossly distorted in this case.

Bravo!

> And I
>previously ranted something about how the government is partly
>responsible for the outrageously high prices of pharms because it
>is willing to pay ANY price the drug companies demand for their
>products.  That is NOT free market capitalism.  

Damn right, dude. Indeed, check out your lovely Bush administration
Medicare act--golly, based on lies to boot.

>The problem is
>that despite these problems, excellent new drugs ARE being invented
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>be able to invent a single new drug.  Medical progress would
>instantly grind to a halt.

Well, this is so full of sh.t that it hardly bears comment. Waving
around the threat of "Marxism" is remarkably lame and utterly
irrelevant. What many of us are suggesting is that there are many ways
to address the distortions in the market place created by pharma (and
its purchase of government votes).

First, the pernicious notion and "colonization of the mind" that you
reflect here is the hostage mentality that pharma has successfully
foisted on people globally. It goes something like this:

"If you don't pay our prices, we'll not be able to 'afford' the
research. If you argue with our prices, we will stop making the drugs
available. If you interfere with our profits, you will die."

And that simple, ugly message of the hostage takers has completely
warped the PRIMARY reason I think most folks go into healthcare. To
find ways to ease other people's suffering. THIS is the motivation
that should be fostered and encouraged. THIS motivation allows more
open and honest SCIENCE to be conducted, not sullied by data dredging
maniacs that turn clinical science into a vile marketing tool.

And guess what? That primary motivation of helping others can be amply
rewarded. The amounts that pharma is generating is at the cost of
millions of lives the world over. Where diseases remain
uninvestigated, access to generics is blocked.

What is needed is a comprehensive solution that reins in these worst
excesses. I'm not like a knee-jerk repugnican that says, gee if a
social net has a tear, let's throw it out. I believe that these extant
systems can be corrected. But there has to be the political will to do
so. Which I know full well won't come from the likes of people like
you! That's fine. It's supposedly still a plurality in the United
States.

See below for another resource.

        George M. Carter

***

"Me Too!", a chapter from the new book _The $800 Million Pill: The
Truth behind the Cost of New Drugs_, by Merrill Goozner, is online at

http://go.ucpress.edu/metoo

"This book does for drugs what _Fast Food Nation_ did for fast food,
peeling back the layers of science, clever accounting, and hype to
expose the dark side of the nation's most profitable industry."-<I>The
Washington Monthly</I>.

To read the chapter or view more information about the book, visit
http://go.ucpress.edu/metoo

--
Baby Peanut - 15 May 2004 04:35 GMT
> Please name a single scientific breakthrough
> that ever came out of the Soviet Union.

Characteristics
Yield    100 Megatons
Weight    approx. 27 tonnes (24.5 to 27.5 tonnes) [Janes Defense Weekly
1992]
Length    8 meters
Diameter (body)    2 meters
Delivery Method    Modified Tu-95 strategic bomber, parachute retarded
airburst (ground burst capability?)
Number Manufactured    ?

Design Features

   * Three stage radiation implosion system
   * Tertiary (and secondary?) stages tested with non-fissionable
lead tampers
   * 50% fusion, 50% fission at full yield
Gary Stein - 17 May 2004 19:38 GMT
Not to mention the little known fact that the USSR was the first nation to
produce a thermonuclear bomb (fusion bomb) that was small enough to actually
be usable as a weapon. What the US tested in it's first fusion bomb test in
the Pacific was a device that was the size of a small home and which weighed
50 tons.

Gary Stein

> > Please name a single scientific breakthrough
> > that ever came out of the Soviet Union.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> lead tampers
>     * 50% fusion, 50% fission at full yield
Brian Mailman - 18 May 2004 00:09 GMT
> Not to mention the little known fact that the USSR was the first nation to
> produce a thermonuclear bomb (fusion bomb) that was small enough to actually
> be usable as a weapon. What the US tested in it's first fusion bomb test in
> the Pacific was a device that was the size of a small home and which weighed
> 50 tons.

Americans have never been known for finesse.

B/
Baby Peanut - 18 May 2004 19:29 GMT
> Not to mention the little known fact that the USSR was the first nation to
> produce a thermonuclear bomb (fusion bomb) that was small enough to actually
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Gary Stein

Yeah, and Americans top-post like total re-dorks too.

More to the pointless, off-topic point.

Operation Ivy

Ivy King
Test:    King
Time:    23:30 15 November 1952 (GMT)
.       11:30 16 November 1952 (local)
Location: Runit ("Yvonne") Island, Enewetak Atoll
Test Height and Type: 1480 Foot Airburst
Yield:    500 kt

The device detonated in the King ("k" for "kiloton") test was dropped
by a B-36H bomber flying out of Kwajalein Island. The detonation
occured 20 feet lower than planned, with a circular bombing error of
570 feet +/- 35 feet. While perhaps not the largest deliverable
fission bomb possible at the time, it was certainly pushing close to
the practical limit.

--------------------------------------------------

See Ivy Mike was the H-bomb while just in case it didn't work Ivy King
was being developed as the ultimate A-bomb.

Just for the hell of it, I'll put in some on-topic news:

Senators ask FTC official to testify at Norvir hearing

Eight Democratic senators this week wrote to National Institutes of
Health director Elias Zerhouni to ask the Federal Trade Commission to
send a representative to an upcoming hearing on the possible
production of a generic version of the HIV protease inhibitor Norvir,
The Wall Street Journal reports. In December Abbott Laboratories
raised the price of Norvir by more than 400%, from about $54 per month
to $265 per month. Norvir is commonly used to boost the effects of
other protease inhibitors and is one of the most commonly prescribed
anti-HIV medications. Essential Innovations, a nonprofit consumer
advocacy group, is requesting a license to produce a generic version
of patented Norvir because the organization claims Norvir is subject
to a law that allows drugmakers to make generic copies of patented
drugs that were developed wholly or partially with taxpayer dollars.
The letter calls for an FTC representative to discuss "competitive
issues" raised by Norvir's price increase. FTC officials declined to
comment on the request. Three state attorneys general are
investigating the price increase, and Abbott is facing several
lawsuits in state and federal courts over the price increase.

--------------------------------------------

AHF Applauds Bill Lockyer for Actions Against Abbott, Others on
Prescription Drug Pricing
Monday May 10, 3:39 pm ET
Nation's Largest AIDS Group Salutes California AG's Legal Efforts to
Increase the Availability of Affordable, Safe Medicines in the U.S.

# LOS ANGELES, May 10 /PRNewswire/ -- AIDS Healthcare Foundation
(AHF), the US' largest AIDS organization with clinics in the US,
Africa and Central America, today applauded California Attorney
General Bill Lockyer for his ongoing efforts to try and reign in
runaway prescription drug pricing in California and the US. In an
op-ed piece by Lockyer in today's San Francisco Chronicle, the
attorney general reiterated his intentions to "work with legislators
to achieve our common goal: increasing the availability of affordable,
safe medicine.

"Over the past several years, Mr. Lockyer has shown real leadership on
the issue of prescription drug pricing and availability here in the
US," said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
"Last week, he joined together with 19 other attorneys general to
press Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to take
immediate and specific steps to allow the 'safe importation of
prescription drugs.' He recently opened an investigation into Abbott
over its recent 400% price hike on the AIDS drug Norvir, and he has
joined a multistate investigation of possible collusion by drug
companies to limit the supply of drugs to Canada. As drug prices
continue an out-of-control spiral upward, we salute Lockyer for being
unafraid to use the power of his office and speak out against
wrongdoing by the powerful pharmaceutical industry."

Lockyer's office sued Abbott Laboratories and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
for defrauding California's Medi-Cal program of millions of dollars on
drug purchases. He has also been vigilant in pursuit of price-fixing
and other anti-competitive behavior by pharmaceutical companies, and
has vowed to work with California lawmakers who are considering a
group of bills that would legalize and streamline the importation of
prescription drugs from Canada.
Baby Peanut - 15 May 2004 04:39 GMT
> Please name a single scientific breakthrough
> that ever came out of the Soviet Union.

http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_DigitalImages.htm
GMCarter - 15 May 2004 09:43 GMT
>> Please name a single scientific breakthrough
>> that ever came out of the Soviet Union.
>
>http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_DigitalImages.htm

Wow--cool! Thanks for the reminder!!
GMCarter - 15 May 2004 10:22 GMT
>> Please name a single scientific breakthrough
>> that ever came out of the Soviet Union.
>
>http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_DigitalImages.htm

oh totally off-topic, but here's an interesting one:
http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler/sovietunion.html
Baby Peanut - 17 May 2004 13:35 GMT
> >> Please name a single scientific breakthrough
> >> that ever came out of the Soviet Union.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> oh totally off-topic, but here's an interesting one:
> http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler/sovietunion.html

neat, lots of answers to Dia-blow's question.

First artificial satellite of the Earth (Sputnik 1, 1957)

First animal in space (Sputnik 2, 1957)

First spacecraft to escape Earth's gravity (Luna 1, 1959)

First artificial planet of the Sun (Luna 1, 1959)

First spacecraft to impact another world (Luna 2, 1959)

First spacecraft to photograph the far side on the Moon (Luna 3, 1959)

First human in space (Vostok 1, 1961)

First human to orbit the Earth (Vostok 1, 1961)

First spacecraft to fly to other planets (Venera 1, 1961, Mars 1, 1962)

First woman in space (Vostok 6, 1963)

First multiperson space mission (Voskhod 1, 1964)

First spacewalk (Voskhod 2, 1965)

First entry into the atmosphere of another planet (Venera 3, 1966)

First spacecraft to orbit another world (Luna 9, 1966)

First robotic mission to return a sample from another world (Luna 16, 1970)

First roving vehicle on another world (Luna 17, 1970)

First soft landing on another planet (Mars 3, 1971)

First scientifically successful landing on another planet (Venera 15, 1983)

Then longest duration spaceflight, three cosmonauts for 237 days (Salyut 7, 1984)

First balloon payload to another world (Vega 1, 1985)

First cometary encounter (Vega 1, 1986)

First permanently inhabited spacestation (Mir, 1986)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.