 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / June 2004GREED Drives Pharma
The reason for the gross failure and irresponsibilility of drug manufacturers is GREED. Pharmaceutical companies loathe and despise simple compounds, even if they are the most effective for treating disease and illness. The reason is: because they can not patent it and hold the franchise for MAKING MONEY on it. Instead, when a simple herbal treatment is found (or "rediscovered") that has been used for many centuries to treat illness, the big drug firms seek to chemically and synthetically produce the harsh chemical equivalent of the essence of that herb. Worse, they often knowingly seek to slightly alter (thus denaturing and actually poisoning) the original chemical component of the herb. The reason for doing this is that they now have a "singular" or slightly different drug that they can now patent. And, this gives them a virtual license to print money. So, with the big drug companies as they are, and with their incestuous tie-in to doctors who virtually push their pills for them, we will never have a medical community that actually works for the good of the patient and the consumer. Instead, we will constantly be saddled with super-greedy drug manufacturers who knowingly produce defective and even toxic products --and charging more than 100 times what the cost of them should actually be. This means that "modern science" is an utter and total failure as far as delivering medical care is concerned. > The reason for the gross failure and irresponsibilility of drug manufacturers > is GREED. Pharmaceutical companies loathe and despise simple compounds, even if > they are the most effective for treating disease and illness. The reason is: > because they can not patent it and hold the franchise for MAKING MONEY on it. Greed is good. It is a strong motitivator that has caused many good inventions. There has never been one invention that did not involve greed in terms of money or personal benefits. > Instead, when a simple herbal treatment is found (or "rediscovered") that has > been used for many centuries to treat illness, the big drug firms seek to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to doctors who virtually push their pills for them, we will never have a > medical community that actually works for the good of the patient and the The medical community doesn't work for the good of the patient? > consumer. Instead, we will constantly be saddled with super-greedy drug > manufacturers who knowingly produce defective and even toxic products --and > charging more than 100 times what the cost of them should actually be. This > means that "modern science" is an utter and total failure as far as delivering > medical care is concerned. Now it's modern science that is a total failure. So what is the answer to all these observations? Go to witch doctors and never go to anybody who uses modern science because they are all corrupt. You clowns are the first to use pseudoscience in trying to sale your own herbal remedies. > > The reason for the gross failure and irresponsibilility of drug > manufacturers [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > inventions. There has never been one invention that did not involve greed in > terms of money or personal benefits. Greed is good when balanced with a social conscience. When left completely unfettered it follows a scorched-earth policy that is un-sustainable and in this case is sickening and killing millions. > > Instead, when a simple herbal treatment is found (or "rediscovered") that > has [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The medical community doesn't work for the good of the patient? Nope. Certainly not every medical practitioner. A few maybe, and I feel I'm being generous to them by saying that. > > consumer. Instead, we will constantly be saddled with super-greedy drug > > manufacturers who knowingly produce defective and even toxic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You clowns are the first to use pseudoscience in trying to sale your own > herbal remedies. Modern nutritional and medical science is a joke and a failure as an actual science. They are worse than witch doctors because they will treat you in a way that will profit their bottom-line with little regard to actually dealing and curing the condition. What we do here is ferret out the truth in medicine and health. We are as qualified to do that as any biased, pharma-paid-university-trained doctor practicing today. The biggest pseudo-science today is in the food and health fields and these pseudo-scientists are raking in millions from these industries. It is truly tragic. You want to leave your and your families health up to these clowns in the employ of the food and pharma industries, go for it, knock yorself out, join the lemmings. I, myself, belive that we need to be a bit more cynical about their motives and carefully research things first so we can make informed decisions about the food we eat and the medicines we take. TC "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Greed is good when balanced with a social conscience. When left > completely unfettered it follows a scorched-earth policy that is > un-sustainable and in this case is sickening and killing millions. There is good greed and you mention the bad form of greed but greed is part of human nature and you can't eliminate it simply because you don't like it. > > The medical community doesn't work for the good of the patient? > > Nope. Certainly not every medical practitioner. A few maybe, and I > feel I'm being generous to them by saying that. Then why go to one and why are you so concerned about them? > Modern nutritional and medical science is a joke and a failure as an > actual science. They are worse than witch doctors because they will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > health fields and these pseudo-scientists are raking in millions from > these industries. It is truly tragic. People are adults and can do what they wish to and go see who the want to see. They can go anywhere they want to as it is a free country. Supply and demand says that if you have a better system and it is cheap then they will go. Build it and they will come. So what system are you saying they should go to instead of the conventional health systems. You have good arguements about how rotten the present system is so what is your alternative the people are running to? > You want to leave your and your families health up to these clowns in > the employ of the food and pharma industries, go for it, knock yorself [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > TC There is no such thing as an impartial researcher or neutral unbiased observer. All research is biased so exactly what are you researching. You don't need research to follow your own prejudice. You can have two conflicting research articles and follow anyone you want to. You can't live up to your own standards as absolute truth does not exist, only temporary relative truths that are time dependent. >"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Greed is good when >balanced with a social conscience. When left [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >There is good greed and you mention the bad form of greed but greed is part >of human nature and you can't eliminate it simply because you don't like it. This is just a lie that's been foisted on us. There is a BIG difference between greed -- outright avarice, use of money as a tool of power, etc. -- and the desire to have housing, shelter, food, health care. Even buddhist teaching embraces this, suggesting a middle way between the privation of an ascetic and the hoarding piggishness of people like Bush. Muslims have a saying that I hope I don't too much injustice to that goes something like we should have enough to walk through the day. There are balances. Greed is NOT good. Greed is aberration that causes suffering. Doing good -- discovering a new drug--or simply WORKING on such discovery is not greed. Being rewarded adequately for such a discovery is not greed. Taking excessive advantage of anti-competitive patent law to squeeze the last dime out of people who need the product to stay alive or let them suffer and die if they cannot afford it IS greed. Explain to me how that is good? George M. Carter > >"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Greed is good when > >balanced with a social conscience. When left [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > way between the privation of an ascetic and the hoarding piggishness > of people like Bush. You mention the buddhist, did you know that you must give food offering to the monks for them to eat. In so doing you yourself benefit from it. It is a form of greed in the giving and in the taking. You give so you will directly benefit. Money is a tool that is exchanged and with it comes power. Give money to the poor and they receive the power. Give money to a homeless person and he buys a bottle of rum. Giver a house or more power and he buys more drugs. A homeless person will kill another over his park bench. Greed is part of human nature and it has been institutionalized. You went to school so you could make more money and success is pure greed. > Muslims have a saying that I hope I don't too much injustice to that > goes something like we should have enough to walk through the day. > > There are balances. Greed is NOT good. Greed is aberration that causes > suffering. You don't understand greed then as it is the intentiional act of concentrating power. If you better yourself in any way then it is a greedful act. If you apply for a job in which there are a thousand applicants and you get the job then it is a greedful act to accept it. > Doing good -- discovering a new drug--or simply WORKING on such > discovery is not greed. Being rewarded adequately for such a discovery [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > George M. Carter You are spending money trying to discover a new drug when you could give it to the poor is greed. You call it a reward but in fact it is greed. Taking a look at patent laws and using money to be spent on better drugs is greed indeed but is good. If a person is harmed by these new drugs and they get a lawyer and win millions of money then that is pure greed. If the company is bankrupted by the loss then they can no longer find new drugs. Competing forms of greed. 9/11 terrorist act in New York city, family member win billions of dollars in the settlement over airlines. The money won't bring their love ones back so they can live happier with millions now. Pure greed. >> >"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Greed is good when >> >balanced with a social conscience. When left [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >the monks for them to eat. In so doing you yourself benefit from it. It is a >form of greed in the giving and in the taking. Ah--no. It is not greed. That's a distortion of the meaning of the term. If a monk demands fees and wants to live lavishly, which of course has happened, THAT is greed. >You give so you will directly >benefit. Yes. But you GIVE. We all must give. We all receive. If your intent is to receive more and more and more for very little giving, you get into the dire pathology of greed. >Money is a tool that is exchanged and with it comes power. Give >money to the poor and they receive the power. Give money to a homeless >person and he buys a bottle of rum. LOL. You are a bigot. SOME homeless people will buy rum. OTHERS will not. And I would RATHER give to a homeless person or a person in need rather than support the golden parachute of some incompetent CEO of a pharmaceutical company who takes drugs like Erbitux and charges so much, most people will never be able to afford them. The rich are TAKING more and more--thanks to people like Bush and his cadre of repugnicans "tax break for the rich, spend on the military and corporations" boys. >Giver a house or more power and he buys >more drugs. A homeless person will kill another over his park bench. Greed >is part of human nature and it has been institutionalized. You went to >school so you could make more money and success is pure greed. LOL...no. I did not go to school to make more money. That's YOUR psychosis, not mine. There is more to learning and education than just the relentless pursuit of cash. >> Muslims have a saying that I hope I don't too much injustice to that >> goes something like we should have enough to walk through the day. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >You are spending money trying to discover a new drug when you could give it >to the poor is greed. You call it a reward but in fact it is greed. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Your world view is so dark, ugly and cynical that I can only hope you will find some light and healing. There is a BIG difference between basic needs of the body and spirit and the pathology of greed. Your examples do nothing to clarify that distinction but rather seek to muddy it to justify bad behavior. George M. Carter > >You mention the buddhist, did you know that you must give food offering to > >the monks for them to eat. In so doing you yourself benefit from it. It is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > term. If a monk demands fees and wants to live lavishly, which of > course has happened, THAT is greed. The religious norm makes it a demand and worse if you don't then bad karma is implied as thus it is an implied demand. > >You give so you will directly > >benefit. > > Yes. But you GIVE. We all must give. We all receive. If your intent is > to receive more and more and more for very little giving, you get into > the dire pathology of greed. To give with the expectations for something in return is greed. It is no longer a gift but a payment for a power transfer. > >Money is a tool that is exchanged and with it comes power. Give > >money to the poor and they receive the power. Give money to a homeless [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pharmaceutical company who takes drugs like Erbitux and charges so > much, most people will never be able to afford them. I see no difference in either case as I have mentioned both suffer to the same extent of greed. It is not quantity dependent. > The rich are TAKING more and more--thanks to people like Bush and his > cadre of repugnicans "tax break for the rich, spend on the military > and corporations" boys. They learned that when they were poor. > >Giver a house or more power and he buys > >more drugs. A homeless person will kill another over his park bench. Greed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > psychosis, not mine. There is more to learning and education than just > the relentless pursuit of cash. Education costs money and it creates monetary opportunities. Only one who could not afford the education, economically and socially knows that. > >You are spending money trying to discover a new drug when you could give it > >to the poor is greed. You call it a reward but in fact it is greed. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > George M. Carter There is no noble distinction that comes into play. I do not justify it but only reflect on it on balance. On balance more people would be dead without drugs than without them. Basic psychology applies to everyone. The poor are not noble because they are poor and the rich are not evil for the same reason. snip... >The religious norm makes it a demand and worse if you don't then bad karma >is implied as thus it is an implied demand. Wait...are you talking about the church? >> >You give so you will directly >> >benefit. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >To give with the expectations for something in return is greed. Expectations can cause suffering but they are not the same as greed! That's a silly definition. The fact you think you have to justify capitalism by saying "greed is good" is the weakness of that system and sows the seeds of its eventual destruction. By contrast, taking RESPONSBILITY--corporate or individual--is a necessary part of good business practice. Capitalism thus may THRIVE in such an environment where integrity and honor are key elements of the system. Webster's defines it thus: Noun 1. greed - excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2. greed - reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) Synonyms: avarice, avaritia, rapacity, covetousness >It is no longer a gift but a payment for a power transfer. This is simple-minded. snip >> The rich are TAKING more and more--thanks to people like Bush and his >> cadre of repugnicans "tax break for the rich, spend on the military >> and corporations" boys. > >They learned that when they were poor. LOL. I see. George W. Bush was poor. Hahahahahahaha!! f.ck. You're an idiot. snip >There is no noble distinction that comes into play. I do not justify it but >only reflect on it on balance. On balance more people would be dead without >drugs than without them. To the CONTRARY. The drugs for AIDS exist yet MILLIONS are dying. A very tiny FRACTION of HIV-infected indivduals have access. Greed is part of the primary reasons that access does not occur. George M. Carter > snip... > >The religious norm makes it a demand and worse if you don't then bad karma > >is implied as thus it is an implied demand. > > Wait...are you talking about the church? Any religious order and they all have it. > >> >You give so you will directly > >> >benefit. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > business practice. Capitalism thus may THRIVE in such an environment > where integrity and honor are key elements of the system. I don't justify capitalism as society has done that. It is the social norm. I did not say that all greed is good. I said that greed is a strong motivator that we have all benefited in without a doubt. With too much greed you indeed cause destruction. There is a balance and it is incorporated into the business practice. If you raise prices in a competitive setting you will lose. Prices for medication are high in the US but lower in Canada so people want to buy in Canada. > Webster's defines it thus: > > Noun 1. greed - excessive desire to acquire or possess more > (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves > 2. greed - reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for > wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) Notice how they do not mention any desired amount only the "excessive desire" in obtaining. You don't measure the amount of gold obtained but the amount of desire to obtain it. All rich people are greedy then because they all have more money than one needs or deserves and all those people playing the lotto also are greedy as they want to obtain millions. I have expanded it in terms of the D.L. definitions of material and spiritual wealth. > Synonyms: avarice, avaritia, rapacity, covetousness > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > LOL. I see. George W. Bush was poor. Hahahahahahaha!! f.ck. You're an > idiot. OK then his wealth was inherited and thus deserved and because he was already wealthy and accustomed to that wealth any more wealth obtained is not greed by your definition. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > George M. Carter You say to the contrary but you agree that more people would be dead without the drugs. How can you save anything if you are going to give it all away? Patent rights don't exist forever and when the patent runs out then it will be cheap for everyone. They need the money to develop new drugs. Without it they can't develop new drugs. snip >> Wait...are you talking about the church? >Any religious order and they all have it. We agree there. Like any human institution, they're prone to corruption. snip >I don't justify capitalism as society has done that. It is the social norm. Incarcerating Jews, gypsies, gays and lesbians, etc., was the social norm in Germany in the 40s. Killing Tutsi's became a social norm for several months... >I did not say that all greed is good. LOL....bullshit. You said "greed is good." And to pretend you can qualify some greed as good and some as bad with a miserably useless definition is no defense, my dear! >I said that greed is a strong >motivator that we have all benefited in without a doubt. With too much greed >you indeed cause destruction. There is a balance and it is incorporated into >the business practice. Actually, it is often not or at best only in writing. What keeps businesses from becoming corrupt is the public law. Just as with individuals. >If you raise prices in a competitive setting you will >lose. Prices for medication are high in the US but lower in Canada so people >want to buy in Canada. Ah--patents place an anti-competitive restriction on the ability of OTHER companies to make the same product to sell at different prices. Don't you get that? >> Webster's defines it thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >desire" in obtaining. You don't measure the amount of gold obtained but the >amount of desire to obtain it. Not true. Note it says "more...than one needs" which is the critical point. What does a human need? Most humans on this planet barely have access to those simple elements: water, shelter, food, clothing, healthcare... >All rich people are greedy then because they all have more money than one >needs or deserves and all those people playing the lotto also are greedy as >they want to obtain millions. Yes. In the first case, much depends on what they do with the wealth. >I have expanded it in terms of the D.L. definitions of material and >spiritual wealth. In a remarkably silly way. >> Synonyms: avarice, avaritia, rapacity, covetousness >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >already wealthy and accustomed to that wealth any more wealth obtained is >not greed by your definition. LOL...you ARE an idiot, my dear. His inheritance is not what he needs to live as a human. It is a privilege, not a right. A privilege this particular rich individual abuses in the most horrendous ways, driving a country to war based on deceptions and lies, causing enormous suffering and death, creating global animosity toward Americans, creating a jihad, and all to get vengeance for daddy (while also showing daddy he can do what daddy wouldn't) and a lot of oil money for Cheney's Halliburton playpen. The results of greed. Greed is NOT good. snip >> To the CONTRARY. The drugs for AIDS exist yet MILLIONS are dying. A >> very tiny FRACTION of HIV-infected indivduals have access. Greed is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the drugs. >How can you save anything if you are going to give it all away? Easy! giving it away, where appropriate, will save MILLIONS of lives of men, women and children, prevent economies from collapsing and help preserve world peace while creating an enormous sense of good will in the world. Reduced prices will help stabilize healthcare systems rather than gut them. Reasonable pricing conditions and price controls make it possible for Canada to sell drugs less expensively than the exorbitant ripoff US citizens face. >Patent rights don't exist forever and when the patent runs out then it will >be cheap for everyone. They need the money to develop new drugs. Without it >they can't develop new drugs. This is partially true, but the industry exaggerates the cost of development. Patents last 20 years--plenty of time for millions to die. Much of that so-called R&D cost is marketing and the batteries of lawyers employed to sue for every patent infringement. Indeed, the dense thicket of patents have resulted in so many licensing fees for research from up- to downstream applications that drug development is IMPEDED. So patent law needs reformed seriously. Price controls are desperately needed as the industry is out of control. And greater public sector investment in drug discovery and development is critical. Indeed, the pharm cos benefit significantly from tax breaks and taxpayer funded research then turn around and screw the world. Incentives, I agree CAN be good. However, some types of incentives can lead to greed. And greed is bad. Both for the individual and our species and the planet. George M. Carter > snip > >> Wait...are you talking about the church? > >Any religious order and they all have it. > > We agree there. Like any human institution, they're prone to > corruption. Corruption is not a human emotion so it can not be used as motivator. It can be the end result of greed unless it is hidden in accepted forms of greed in which case it would not be corruption. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > norm in Germany in the 40s. Killing Tutsi's became a social norm for > several months... I do not justify that but it was the social norm at that time and the society at that time did in fact justify it. If they had won the war then they would have spread that justification world wide. Where is my statement wrong. The US dropped a nuclear bombs on men, women and children in Japan. The US justified that action as has the society here. If the US had lost the war then many here would have been on trial for war crimes and their society would have justified that. > >I did not say that all greed is good. > > LOL....bullshit. You said "greed is good." And to pretend you can > qualify some greed as good and some as bad with a miserably useless > definition is no defense, my dear! Greed my friend is a human emotion. One of the seven deadly. You can not separate it from humans. It is like anger and the opposite of humility. You can hide it in societies norm and have it accepted in which case it no longer is called greed. You can call it what ever you wish. I said greed is a good motivator for invention and it is good in that context. I have problems saying any human emotion is entirely good or bad. Is being happy bad? If you hit someone with your car and are happy about it do you still consider being happy as good. If a hawk swoops down on a sparwl and eats it. Is that good or bad? > >I said that greed is a strong > >motivator that we have all benefited in without a doubt. With too much greed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > businesses from becoming corrupt is the public law. Just as with > individuals. Public law is enforced or it is not enforced. It is the people in charge of the law that decides when and who. Commerce has been going on for thousands of years and they have played that game just as long. If you ever had your own business you would know that it is hard to stay aflout. There is a balance between the public and the business. The laws protect the companies as do politicians. > >If you raise prices in a competitive setting you will > >lose. Prices for medication are high in the US but lower in Canada so people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OTHER companies to make the same product to sell at different prices. > Don't you get that? Companies set the prices world wide don't you get that? You can pay $30 dollares for one patented med in the US and pay $15 in Canada for the same drug. Why the difference and not have the same price world wide? Because of competition in competing countries. The same commerce model. You don't want to price yourself out in sales. > >> Webster's defines it thus: > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > access to those simple elements: water, shelter, food, clothing, > healthcare... Those are all needs and you are absolutely right about that. OK you have a right to 5 glasses of water a day, a park bench for shelter, one loof of bread a day, two shirts and one pants and an aspirin a day. If you ask for anything more than you are greedy. Monks live that way for that very purpose. Does that meet your definition now? > >All rich people are greedy then because they all have more money than one > >needs or deserves and all those people playing the lotto also are greedy as > >they want to obtain millions. > > Yes. In the first case, much depends on what they do with the wealth. So you definition of greed now depends on what they do with the money and not the motivation to have it in the first place. The first step to legitimize your greed. Bill Gates is not greedy then because he gives money to charity. > >I have expanded it in terms of the D.L. definitions of material and > >spiritual wealth. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > LOL...you ARE an idiot, my dear. His inheritance is not what he needs "excessive desire to acquire or possess more", it doesn't meet the definition if it was inherited. You have to look at what he himself actually gained on his own. The Hilton girl is not greedy because she has tons of money from her father. Her father is greedy but she isn't. > to live as a human. It is a privilege, not a right. A privilege this > particular rich individual abuses in the most horrendous ways, driving [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > showing daddy he can do what daddy wouldn't) and a lot of oil money > for Cheney's Halliburton playpen. The results of greed. If I thought attacking Bush would actually change things you are wrong. America is not liked by others because of the culture here that allows all the above. You are using Bush as an excuse by saying it is only one president that is doing that. > Greed is NOT good. Lack of context. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > preserve world peace while creating an enormous sense of good will in > the world. Bill Gates is doing that. Has donated monies for that very same thing. You can do that and have the company go under. Short term solution to a long term problem. You want to punish a sucessful company in finding success. HIV research would stop in a second. Is'nt the role of government suppose to respond to the needs of the public? You pay the government to find new drugs and give them away. > Reduced prices will help stabilize healthcare systems rather than gut > them. Reasonable pricing conditions and price controls make it > possible for Canada to sell drugs less expensively than the exorbitant > ripoff US citizens face. It's called shifting the costs. We pay for everything here in the US so in effect we subsidize Canada for their cheaper costs. > >Patent rights don't exist forever and when the patent runs out then it will > >be cheap for everyone. They need the money to develop new drugs. Without it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > development. Patents last 20 years--plenty of time for millions to > die. Don't forget to add the ones that die from drug reactions involving an unkown new drug and don't forget to add the ones that die where there is no drug available. One thing that is certain is that we all die. > Much of that so-called R&D cost is marketing and the batteries of > lawyers employed to sue for every patent infringement. Indeed, the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > breaks and taxpayer funded research then turn around and screw the > world. And your point is that the taxpayers didn't know that? It is that way for that very reason in allowing money come into the companies. > Incentives, I agree CAN be good. However, some types of incentives can > lead to greed. And greed is bad. Seriously George, look at that statement above and now mention the corporate world. Are you an elementary teacher talking to your classroom. Yeah, Wallstreet is motivated by incentives and not greed. Ok, change my word from greed to "incentives". Incentives are a human motivator. People want to justify greed anyway they can including calling it incentives. > Both for the individual and our species and the planet. > George M. Carter snip.,, >Corruption is not a human emotion so it can not be used as motivator. It can >be the end result of greed unless it is hidden in accepted forms of greed in >which case it would not be corruption. Well, we will not get very far because you have a corrupted definition of the term greed, in my view! It tries to capture noble activity and confer upon it "greed" because a person gets something out of it, whether a ticket to heaven or a good feeling. That is an infantile notion of what greed is! >> snip >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >they would have spread that justification world wide. Where is my statement >wrong. Then you can see that what society justifies at any one time, albeit a "norm" does not mean it is extrinsically justified. >The US dropped a nuclear bombs on men, women and children in Japan. The US >justified that action as has the society here. If the US had lost the war >then many here would have been on trial for war crimes and their society >would have justified that. I think many US citizens SHOULD be on trial for war crimes currently. And indeed, what Truman did was an outrageous crime as far as I am concerned. >> >I did not say that all greed is good. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >can hide it in societies norm and have it accepted in which case it no >longer is called greed. You can call it what ever you wish. That's intellectually dishonest. It is a convenient lie to justify bad behavior. As to greed being a human emotion--I'd prefer "condition" or "trait" rather than emotion--it is indeed one of the seven deadly...ah...what. Sins? Well, that suggests greed is not good. Because it is an emotion, does that mean we need to indulge in it? Or allow its manifestation when it is to the detriment of so many (as our example below)? >I said greed is a good motivator for invention and it is good in that >context. I have problems saying any human emotion is entirely good or bad. >Is being happy bad? If you hit someone with your car and are happy about it >do you still consider being happy as good. I said that greed is NOT good. It is not a good motivator because it messes with the invention's integrity. No better case of this than the recent suit against Glaxo SmithKline who were so greedy about their invention, they distorted data, misrepresented, lied and hid information that could help practitioners treat depression in young people. So people got an antidepressant that in extreme cases caused people to commit suicide and overall had very little or no benefit with other harms. But greed motivated them--and this happens time and time again in the industry. Greed has destroyed the legitimacy, dignity and honor of good science. Greed is NOT a good motivator. Wanting to help people overcome suffering and illness, wanting to learn more about our world. THOSE are good motivators. And earning a decent income while doing so is not greed, it is simple survival. One can live with honor and dignity without having to justify one's existence under the bill of the holy dollar! As to your commentary on emotions having variable contextual ethical value, I don't have any particular argument, but it is non sequitur. >If a hawk swoops down on a sparwl and eats it. Is that good or bad? I presume you mean "sparrow." From the sparrow's perspective, bad. From the hawk's good. Humans are neither of these and may exert some small amount of free will. As Crowley said, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the way." One must take care about what one wills and understand karmic kickbacks (favorable or unfavorable). >> >I said that greed is a strong >> >motivator that we have all benefited in without a doubt. With too much [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Public law is enforced or it is not enforced. It is the people in charge of >the law that decides when and who. This is so vague as to be meaningless. >Commerce has been going on for thousands of years and they have played that >game just as long. If you ever had your own business you would know that it >is hard to stay aflout. There is a balance between the public and the >business. The laws protect the companies as do politicians. Again, vague. In the US, I agree that big business has been lavishly provided "corporate welfare" and politics has aided that in disreputable ways. That doesn't support your contention that "greed is good" -- to the contrary. >> >If you raise prices in a competitive setting you will >> >lose. Prices for medication are high in the US but lower in Canada so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Don't you get that? >Companies set the prices world wide don't you get that? Companies NEGOTIATE the price and set it as high as possible. However, GOVERNMENT set prices too. You don't really understand how it works, I see. >You can pay $30 dollares for one patented med in the US and pay $15 in >Canada for the same drug. Why the difference and not have the same price >world wide? Because of competition in competing countries. The same commerce >model. You don't want to price yourself out in sales. Incorrect. One reason is because the Canadian government sets caps on prices--it's called price controls. >> >> Webster's defines it thus: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >anything more than you are greedy. Monks live that way for that very >purpose. LOL...the arbiter of what defines greed! Well, there you are. Perhaps that is a life path you would consider following? >Does that meet your definition now? Not in the slightest! >> >All rich people are greedy then because they all have more money than one >> >needs or deserves and all those people playing the lotto also are greedy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >legitimize your greed. Bill Gates is not greedy then because he gives money >to charity. LOL...silly. I never said that motivation was not important. Indeed, it very much is! Intention must be the basis and must be reviewed on an ongoing basis. One could look at biblical teachings or global economics, perhaps, to define charity's minimums. I think tithing in the bible is some established percent? 10? I forget. On the national level, I believe the figure is around 5-6% of GDP? So one could identify how much Gates gives of his MDP--Microsoft Domestic Product....but is he greedy? I'd say so. >> >I have expanded it in terms of the D.L. definitions of material and >> >spiritual wealth. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >gained on his own. The Hilton girl is not greedy because she has tons of >money from her father. Her father is greedy but she isn't. Whether the "Hilton girl" is greedy or not depends on her motivations and her actions in this world! It is a short, marvelous opportunity to make it better. Or it is a short marvelous opportunity to be utterly selfish and indifferent to the suffering of others and wallow in sybaritic pleasures that quickly stale, fade and leave one empty, I think. I am not arguing for or against inheritance here. >> to live as a human. It is a privilege, not a right. A privilege this >> particular rich individual abuses in the most horrendous ways, driving [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the above. You are using Bush as an excuse by saying it is only one >president that is doing that. Getting rid of Bush and his crew is the most important thing for the planet right now. He has exacerbated the global situation through his inept handling of Iraq, the economy, etc. which were rooted in their intentions (e.g., the insanity of Wolfowitz's pre-emptive war philosophy, their oil hungry greed, etc.) I'm not using Bush as an "excuse" but as an excellent example of how greed destroys and why it is most certainly NOT a good thing. >> Greed is NOT good. > >Lack of context. Nope. A general statement that is broadly applicable in my view. >> snip >> >> >> To the CONTRARY. The drugs for AIDS exist yet MILLIONS are dying. A >> >> very tiny FRACTION of HIV-infected indivduals have access. Greed is >> >> part of the primary reasons that access does not occur. >> >You say to the contrary but you agree that more people would be dead >without [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >respond to the needs of the public? You pay the government to find new drugs >and give them away. I really have no idea what points you are making here. I'm not punishing Gates. I respect that Gates HAS done some good things in the world and specifically with regard to HIV/AIDS (though very little with regard to treatment because he doesn't want to help countries get MUCH lower cost generics). But the overall amount of his giving as a percentage of his wealth is NOT going to put him out of business. We DO pay the US government here for a LOT of drug discovery which winds up in the hands of pharmaceutical companies who then charge what they want--and indeed, successfully squelched ANY programs to limit that pricing (e.g., CRADA agreements) where public investment helped bring the drug to market. >> Reduced prices will help stabilize healthcare systems rather than gut >> them. Reasonable pricing conditions and price controls make it >> possible for Canada to sell drugs less expensively than the exorbitant >> ripoff US citizens face. >It's called shifting the costs. We pay for everything here in the US so in >effect we subsidize Canada for their cheaper costs. Those costs are grossly inflated. Here the example is again why greed is NOT good. Its ramifications in this particular context result in the deaths of millions. >> >Patent rights don't exist forever and when the patent runs out then it >will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >unkown new drug and don't forget to add the ones that die where there is no >drug available. Absolutely on both counts!! Indeed, MANY die of infectious diseases that get NO research because they are diseases uncommon to the markets where companies sell their drugs. Leishmaniasis and dengue fever spring to mind at once! Again--greed is NOT good. >One thing that is certain is that we all die. Indeed! How do you want to live this life? >> Much of that so-called R&D cost is marketing and the batteries of >> lawyers employed to sue for every patent infringement. Indeed, the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >It is that way for that very reason in allowing money come into the >companies. Why not allow money to come into areas of poverty to lessen suffering and illness? Just corporations are entitled to welfare? >> Incentives, I agree CAN be good. However, some types of incentives can >> lead to greed. And greed is bad. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Wallstreet is motivated by incentives and not greed. Ok, change my word from >greed to "incentives". Disagree. Wall Street is MOSTLY motivated by greed, where the incentive is acquisition of more and more wealth. And most of the parasites there produce nothing, but just shove money around and skim off the top. Lucrative but of little productive value. Incentives, a broader term, can be more noble and are every bit as legitimate in human nature. To abandon them for some simplistic, worm-like notion that all you need is to wind up the machine and let it run on its own inexhaustible hunger, like some hungry ghost, is pathetic. >Incentives are a human motivator. People want to justify greed anyway they >can including calling it incentives. That seems to be what YOU wish to do. Is that true? Again, just because that is the current approach here does not justify it. And I oppose its more vile ramifications. Capitalism that is driven only by greed has the same effect as ANY autocratic system, reducing power to the hands of a very ffew wealthy people and screwing the rest in horrific ways. George M. Carter > snip.,, > >Corruption is not a human emotion so it can not be used as motivator. It can > >be the end result of greed unless it is hidden in accepted forms of greed in > >which case it would not be corruption. George, we are going in circles here. I accept your examples of bad greed. what I am saying is that you see it as pure black and white and that never has existed. I am up front about using the term greed and you want to use the term incentives or more noble terms in it's place. OK if you don't like that term than let me say then that they are not greedy. Drug companies are in the business to rid disease and death. It is a noble profession. Here is my trump card. Business principle number one is to maximize profits. You don't want to call that greed and I do. Most of these companies offer stock for you and I to buy and they are responsible to their stock holders to maximize profits. You have retired people with stock who are dependent on that profit margin for their income. That profit is transferred to the stock holders so it no longer becomes greed at the lower levels of distribution. Here's my other trump card. How much is a human life worth? Put a price on it. If you say it is priceless than if one single new drug saves one single life than that priceless amount should be allowed as profit. It then does not become greed when it is seen as profit but a price paid for that life saved. Have a good day snip >George, we are going in circles here. I accept your examples of bad greed. >what I am saying is that you see it as pure black and white and that never >has existed. You have failed to provide believable examples of how greed is good, the way it is defined. >I am up front about using the term greed and you want to use the term >incentives or more noble terms in it's place. OK if you don't like that term >than let me say then that they are not greedy. Drug companies are in the >business to rid disease and death. It is a noble profession. There is an intrinsic potential for nobility in the pharmaceutical business and some people in it try to live up to that. I am NOT using the term "incentives" to replace greed. And I AM distinguishing between acts of kindness (for which there may be some type of reward and which you thus then lumped in under the category of greed). >Here is my trump card. Business principle number one is to maximize profits. >You don't want to call that greed and I do. Incorrect!! LOL...indeed, it is that very principle of business that is being taken to SUCH extremes that it can be downright genocidal. Yes, that is most definitely greed and so here it appears we agree. >Most of these companies offer stock for you and I to buy and they are >responsible to their stock holders to maximize profits. >You have retired people with stock who are dependent on that profit margin >for their income. That profit is transferred to the stock holders so it no >longer becomes greed at the lower levels of distribution. Sounds positively Marxist! >Here's my other trump card. How much is a human life worth? Put a price on >it. If you say it is priceless than if one single new drug saves one single >life than that priceless amount should be allowed as profit. It then does >not become greed when it is seen as profit but a price paid for that life >saved. You have lovely little twisties in your head. Put it this way. If you are sick and cannot afford a drug the price of which is inflated beyond all reason and are told, sorry, no payee, then die...what price do you put on that? Or someone you love? And then it's not just because you can't get the medication but an opportunity to get it at less than 10% of the cost is forcibly removed from you by the industry because they feel that profits are first and intellectual property rights trump human life. I think human life is WORTH the cost of medication, housing, healthcare, all of which are extremely reasonable costs in many places where they are currently lacking. We CAN afford it--we can afford to help MUCH more than we do. And alleviate enormous suffering, dire poverty, etc. The US health system is another example. In healthcare, were it single payer in a pool of 300 million, we could easily absorb the costs of care. If we put controls on those costs in a system of patented medicines, very often, we could further reduce the public debt burden. It's called taking care of each other. And that principle in MY book trumps your first business principle of greed. When business forgets that it ALSO has duties and responsibilities to produce good products about which they should be honest and held accountable, then business becomes fraudulent and they do themselves--and where they exist--their shareholders a terrible disservice. (Not all businesses are publicly held, of course.) Enron? Among other egregious examples. George M. Carter Topic was greed in the drug company industry and yes it is justified. Let me put it this way. It is not in the best interest to be put on newer expensive drugs. They are dangerous as they do not have a track record in terms of risks. Most doctors do not like to use newer drugs for that very reason. Another reason is that they are expensive and some insurance companies do not pay for some of those. Doctors are limited as to what the insurance will pay for. There are many generic drugs with proven track records and are cheap. No one has a right to newer drugs. Insurance pays for most if not all drugs so I don't really understand your position that we should pay for every human need that a person might have but in fact we still do have Welfare and Medicare and many programs here. To say that companies are greedy because they don't give away all their products for free or cheap is Eutopic on your part and doesn't comform to realilty. You are too materialistic on your part and need to rely more on spiritual matters. As the D.L. stated if all you seek is freebies than you need to look inward and not outward. There are generic cheap competitive drugs and you seek expensive cutting edge ones. You want satellite TV for the poor just because it exists and you feel everyone has a "right" to anything simply because it does exists. There are many expensive machines and techniques that can keep a person alive for many years but simply because they can use them does not mean that they should blindly use them. >Topic was greed in the drug company industry and yes it is justified. Well, I say no it is not. And I feel that you have failed to make the argument that "greed is good." It is not. >Let me put it this way. It is not in the best interest to be put on newer >expensive drugs. They are dangerous as they do not have a track record in >terms of risks. Most doctors do not like to use newer drugs for that very >reason. You really have not the first inkling of how drugs come to market, do you? They have to undergo clinical testing. The costs of discovery are not small, but it is strongly disputed that to bring a drug to market, including FDA approval, that it costs $800 million. This is nonsense. Indeed, much of what drug companies put out is after work undertaken in the public sector. >Another reason is that they are expensive and some insurance >companies do not pay for some of those. Doctors are limited as to what the >insurance will pay for. Why are they expensive? Because drug companies are out of control and charge whatever they want. Because they are greedy. So the effect is that it destabilizes healthcare in the United States -- and indeed, results in insurance, medicaid and other formularies to contract. >There are many generic drugs with proven track records and are cheap. No one >has a right to newer drugs. Yes, mein fuhrer! You have spoken!! Look, if a generic alternative is available at a lower cost, then this is fine. But there are NO drugs to treat HIV (and only one for hepatitis C) that HAVE a generic alternative. So people that can't afford a newer drug have no right to it? Therefore they should suffer and die? >Insurance pays for most if not all drugs so I don't really understand your >position that we should pay for every human need that a person might have >but in fact we still do have Welfare and Medicare and many programs here. Your ignorance is truly profound. >To say that companies are greedy because they don't give away all their >products for free or cheap is Eutopic on your part and doesn't comform to >realilty. I never suggested they should give away all drugs. However, cheap is another matter. Drug prices are negotiated in the most arcane and peculiar ways, capriciously, usually with the result that uninsured people pay the highest prices. And the full prices of drugs are anything BUT covered. Why do you think so many people--that can afford to--go to Canada? I do believe they are making life hell for patients globally and indeed actually SLOWING drug discovery. Greed is NOT good. And again, none of your vague statements, that reflect an incredible level of ignorance of how things work here, have done one little bit to make your bizarre case that "greed is good." It is not. It is evil and it results in enormous and unnecessary suffering and death to the point of genocide. >You are too materialistic on your part and need to rely more on spiritual >matters. As the D.L. stated if all you seek is freebies than you need to >look inward and not outward. LOL. You are indeed quixotic dear. Where did the DL state anything of the sort? You are making things up! There is nothing wrong with inward looking. Indeed, I heartily recommend it for you as well. But in any event, it is not seeking freebies for everyone but for those in dire need. Indeed, in spiritual matters, engagement and helping to ease suffering of others is a central tenet. You seem to side with a notion that justifies the "greed is good" notion and wave away the incredible suffering it causes. >There are generic cheap competitive drugs and you seek expensive cutting >edge ones. What are you talking about? For what condition? HIV? >You want satellite TV for the poor just because it exists and you feel >everyone has a "right" to anything simply because it does exists. LOL. You're an ambulance chasing attorney? Where did I say I want satellite TV for the poor? Do you know what poverty is like? >There are many expensive machines and techniques that can keep a person >alive for many years but simply because they can use them does not mean that >they should blindly use them. Another non-sequitur! Best of luck in your inward journey, my dear. I hope you find some peace and enlightenment!! George M. Carter > >Topic was greed in the drug company industry and yes it is justified. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > not small, but it is strongly disputed that to bring a drug to market, > including FDA approval, that it costs $800 million. This is nonsense. You don't know how they are brought to market. They create their own market. They adverstize to create a need. They are so good at that and it costs money for that which adds to the cost of the product. They want you to feel as though you can not go without it. You must have it at all costs. You fall for that marketing ploy which is typical business and legal. > Indeed, much of what drug companies put out is after work undertaken > in the public sector. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why are they expensive? Because drug companies are out of control and > charge whatever they want. Because they are greedy. Then use another product and why not boycott that product and the price will fall according to the laws of commerce. Use alternative health and supplements. We are talking about new expensive drugs and not generic. Either insurance will pay for it or you don't use it. That is simple so your argument has no basis. So the effect is > that it destabilizes healthcare in the United States -- and indeed, > results in insurance, medicaid and other formularies to contract. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is fine. But there are NO drugs to treat HIV (and only one for > hepatitis C) that HAVE a generic alternative. Insurance companies here pay for HIV so I don't know what you are talking about unless you are talking about the third world countries. There are cultural socical and economic differences that you are totally ignoring and you have never been involved with heatlh care. We have homeless people here transmitting resistent TB because they don't take their meds so the bug becomes resistant. The drug is free, they just don't want to take for months. Leprosy and TB is the same in those countries people will not take drugs for months. As soon as they feel better or good they will stop the drugs. Most of these drugs are very toxic and have to be monitored. Look at the statins as they have to monitor liver enzymes and muscle enzymes in the blood. Third world countries don't have the money to monitor anybody. The people taking the HIV drugs will only take them sporadically and you will have a whoping spread of resistant HIV spread like wildfire. People will die from complications of taking the drug. > So people that can't afford a newer drug have no right to it? > Therefore they should suffer and die? Do you have a right to the money in the bank if you don't have any money? Do you have a right to steal food because you don't have any money? > >Insurance pays for most if not all drugs so I don't really understand your > >position that we should pay for every human need that a person might have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > anything BUT covered. Why do you think so many people--that can afford > to--go to Canada? They go to Canada because the prices are cheaper and they are cheaper because the US market is paying for that cheaper price. > I do believe they are making life hell for patients globally and > indeed actually SLOWING drug discovery. Greed is NOT good. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > LOL. You are indeed quixotic dear. Where did the DL state anything of > the sort? You are making things up! He was saying that people in his country look to the West and seak materialistic goods and forget about their inner self. He said materialism can does not bring about peace of mind. The companies market the goods in these countries making the people believe they must have those goods in order to survive. He was talking about you. > There is nothing wrong with inward looking. Indeed, I heartily > recommend it for you as well. But in any event, it is not seeking [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > LOL. You're an ambulance chasing attorney? Where did I say I want > satellite TV for the poor? Do you know what poverty is like? It is an economic state of being and doesn't automatically confer nobility on those who are. t > >There are many expensive machines and techniques that can keep a person > >alive for many years but simply because they can use them does not mean that > >they should blindly use them. > > Another non-sequitur! There are CAT scans MRI and many more things available here. I guess they have a right to that too in Africa, right? Whose going to pay for that? You have no idea on world health matters. > Best of luck in your inward journey, my dear. I hope you find some > peace and enlightenment!! > > George M. Carter >> >Topic was greed in the drug company industry and yes it is justified. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >You don't know how they are brought to market. They create their own market. Pharm co's identify markets where people have chronic diseases and wind up needing long term therapy, like cholesterol. Other recognized diseases, like dengue, are ignored. >They adverstize to create a need. They are so good at that and it costs >money for that which adds to the cost of the product. They want you to feel >as though you can not go without it. You must have it at all costs. You fall >for that marketing ploy which is typical business and legal. Many people fall for it and until recently, such ads were not permitted. But now they are everywhere, like branding for some garbage soft drink. And yes, I agree, they spend LOTS on this. Because they want to make money, not necessarily help people become well or stay well. And again--greed is NOT good. People are overprescribed a lot of medications that are horrifically overpriced because of greed. >> Indeed, much of what drug companies put out is after work undertaken >> in the public sector. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >fall according to the laws of commerce. Use alternative health and >supplements. We are talking about new expensive drugs and not generic. Darling honeybunches of silly synapses, a new expensive drug does NOT have generic competition in the U.S. market because the drug is on patent. Now, some people could get say antiviral drugs from India or Brazil MUCH less expensively because they CAN manufacture their own drugs. People should not have to resort to such desperate measures. Personally, I *do* use complementary and alternative medicine. It is also a cost borne out-of-pocket. Many people do not have that option. >Either insurance will pay for it or you don't use it. That is simple so your >argument has no basis. Right. So if you don't use it, suffer from illness and die this is a good thing? This is a ramification of greed. Greed is not good. snip >> Look, if a generic alternative is available at a lower cost, then this >> is fine. But there are NO drugs to treat HIV (and only one for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cultural socical and economic differences that you are totally ignoring and >you have never been involved with heatlh care. LOL. Aren't you the brilliant one. Honey, you don't know jack. In the U.S., AIDS meds are covered by insurance programs--to a point. That point is the cap. Then they have to pay more. People have to also pay sometimes exorbitant co-pays. State-run AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) are NOW resorting to waiting lists. People have already DIED on the waiting lists. The reason for that is the COST OF THE DRUGS. Globally, the pharma industry has been instrumental in blocking access to generics, which is perfectly legal for countries to do under TRIPS and/or via the use of a compulsory license (a mechanism the US uses routinely). >We have homeless people here transmitting resistent TB because they don't >take their meds so the bug becomes resistant. Wouldn't it be nifty if they just let those homeless people die? Thank heavens, though, it's only homeless people with TB. >The drug is free, they just >don't want to take for months. Leprosy and TB is the same in those countries >people will not take drugs for months. As soon as they feel better or good >they will stop the drugs. That happens in many places. Directly observed therapy programs can very successfully cure TB if the drugs are there to treat it. >Most of these drugs are very toxic and have to be monitored. Look at the >statins as they have to monitor liver enzymes and muscle enzymes in the >blood. Third world countries don't have the money to monitor anybody. The >people taking the HIV drugs will only take them sporadically and you will >have a whoping spread of resistant HIV spread like wildfire. People will die >from complications of taking the drug. There are ample data to show that adherence rates in Africa are VERY high for the few that do have access to antiviral therapy. Please look up the data before you just talk out your a.s. >> So people that can't afford a newer drug have no right to it? >> Therefore they should suffer and die? > >Do you have a right to the money in the bank if you don't have any money? Do >you have a right to steal food because you don't have any money? Yes. In this world, at this point, I think the answer is yes to both. However, YOU are the one framing it as theft. I am talking about how a world can move forward with systems of CARING for each other. Novel thought, there, ain't it? Such care doesn't have to mean dependency. Most people want to work and indeed--DO. EXTREMELY hard. Harder than you could EVER imagine, I should think. For virtually nothing in terms of recompense. Your Himmler-esque attempt to castigate poor people as all thieves demanding a handout is the kind despicable sh.t they did about Jews and gypsies, etc. So I recommend you don't go there for the sake of your own spirit. Get to know people in situations of poverty before you start trotting out the ugly propaganda. >> >Insurance pays for most if not all drugs so I don't really understand >your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >They go to Canada because the prices are cheaper and they are cheaper >because the US market is paying for that cheaper price. LOL. Please do explain what you mean by this! I look forward to it. >> I do believe they are making life hell for patients globally and >> indeed actually SLOWING drug discovery. Greed is NOT good. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >these countries making the people believe they must have those goods in >order to survive. You completely misunderstood the quote. And indeed, the distinction I am making. Satellite TV is not food necessary to sustain life, shelter or a medication to treat disease. This is where your mind gets lost in the blur of Ayn Randism... >He was talking about you. And you! I recommend you re-read the post. He was talking about clinging to materialism excessively. Siddhartha was a pampered rich boy who never saw suffering or death as a youngster. Then he did and he freaked out. He became an extreme ascetic, living on nothing. Part of the enlightenment that he attained allowed him to see that these extreme ends of existence were neither so hot. There is a Middle Way. And that involves also compassion for other human beings. Which I have for you to. Which is why I take the time to respond to you! >> There is nothing wrong with inward looking. Indeed, I heartily >> recommend it for you as well. But in any event, it is not seeking [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >It is an economic state of being and doesn't automatically confer nobility >on those who are. Never said it did! But that is a woefully inadequte definition. And smug, it seems. >> >There are many expensive machines and techniques that can keep a person >> >alive for many years but simply because they can use them does not mean [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There are CAT scans MRI and many more things available here. I guess they >have a right to that too in Africa, right? Sure! Why not? Indeed, they already do in some places. >Whose going to pay for that? Many people in Africa can afford them. The majority cannot but the cost of extra machines can be brought down, etc. and eventually more and more people will have access. >You have no idea on world health matters. <little bow> >> Best of luck in your inward journey, my dear. I hope you find some >> peace and enlightenment!! George M. Carter > >> >Topic was greed in the drug company industry and yes it is justified. > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > wind up needing long term therapy, like cholesterol. Other recognized > diseases, like dengue, are ignored. Yes, you are right but you has not answered the question of why do you need THEIR product and not someone elses. There are alternate remedies and other products. > >They adverstize to create a need. They are so good at that and it costs > >money for that which adds to the cost of the product. They want you to feel [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > want to make money, not necessarily help people become well or stay > well. Don't fall for the Hollywood marketing ads. You do not need medicine that is unproven. > And again--greed is NOT good. People are overprescribed a lot of > medications that are horrifically overpriced because of greed. They are not. If they can not afford it they are given cheaper alternatives. In the long run these drugs have a known track record on safety. > >> Indeed, much of what drug companies put out is after work undertaken > >> in the public sector. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Brazil MUCH less expensively because they CAN manufacture their own > drugs. People should not have to resort to such desperate measures. Again no one needs to have expensive new drugs just hitting the market. Most of these conditions have been aroung for many years and many alternative drugs can be used. If you react badly to these drugs like statins then you must use some other drug. > Personally, I *do* use complementary and alternative medicine. It is > also a cost borne out-of-pocket. Many people do not have that option. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Right. So if you don't use it, suffer from illness and die this is a > good thing? This is a ramification of greed. People will die with or without medicine. You are not God. > Greed is not good. > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > high for the few that do have access to antiviral therapy. Please look > up the data before you just talk out your a.s. Oh, really!!! Let me simplifiy it even more than and make it even cheaper to solve. HIV is transmitted through sex you know. Why don't they use condoms? How expensive is it to buy a condom versus one pill for HIV that they will have to take for the rest of their lives? Who is going to pay to check for viral mutations on these individuals? The meds don't work on mutated virus so you will be treating these people for years when in fact it did nothing. Who will pay for CD4 levels or liver enzymes? There is non compliance of HIV meds because of side affects like nausea and diarrhea. People with HIV often refuse to continue to take the drugs because it makes them sick. You don't know anything about HIV. They refuse to wear condoms. It is shear conincidence that these drugs are being developed by Greedy drug companies in the US? It is no coincidence. Let the countries of African governments develop non patent drugs or sell them cheap. > >> So people that can't afford a newer drug have no right to it? > >> Therefore they should suffer and die? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > world can move forward with systems of CARING for each other. Novel > thought, there, ain't it? You now think it is moral to steal. You have no morality. You want to gain money at all costs and that makes you very greedy. The means is everything and the ends do not justify the means. You are a twisted individual. You equate poverty with nobility and place materialism over morality. > Such care doesn't have to mean dependency. Most people want to work > and indeed--DO. EXTREMELY hard. Harder than you could EVER imagine, I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > your own spirit. Get to know people in situations of poverty before > you start trotting out the ugly propaganda. You are one mentioning stealing and making it justifiable in the poor not me. One poor person looks at his neigbor and doesn't feel poor because they are the same. It is clowns like you who bring in MTV and tells them how poor they are without it. The poverty is an economic state and they do things accordingly for their means. > >> >Insurance pays for most if not all drugs so I don't really understand > >your [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > LOL. Please do explain what you mean by this! I look forward to it. Do I really need to explain commerce to you. Maximize profits is number one. They can charge in the US higher prices because of the market forces. In Canada they have caps so in order to be compititive up there, the drug companies sell the drug cheaper there and just about everywhere else. Many countries can not afford expensive drugs and so they go for the cheaper ones. They need to make their drugs competitive in the market place. It is whatever the market forces allow. If you were to boycott the newer drugs and not fall for their ads then you would see a drop in prices in the US. They are not idiots. They have to recover costs from non viable research, ineffective drugs or dangerous complicatons from those drugs for every single winner they come up with. It is an expensive venture which is why the poorer countries don't have the money to do it. snip >> Pharm co's identify markets where people have chronic diseases and >> wind up needing long term therapy, like cholesterol. Other recognized [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >THEIR product and not someone elses. There are alternate remedies and other >products. Make up the question as you go along??? Well, dear, if a drug is on patent there IS no alternative but THAT DRUG. At whatever outrageous, insane cost the whim of the company has decided to charge. And that screws the public health system something serious, having a horrible impact on Medicaid, the VA (though they negotiate the best prices for drugs), etc. >> >They adverstize to create a need. They are so good at that and it costs >> >money for that which adds to the cost of the product. They want you to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Don't fall for the Hollywood marketing ads. You do not need medicine that is >unproven. That's nice advice but the drugs advertised are FDA approved--they couldn't advertise otherwise. So they have "proof" for some condition (e.g., cholesterol). The problem is that sometimes that is only "evidence" which has been seen recently may be lacking all the data that includes studies where outcomes weren't so good or there were greater toxicities (e.g., the case of Paxil use among adolescents). >> And again--greed is NOT good. People are overprescribed a lot of >> medications that are horrifically overpriced because of greed. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >of these conditions have been aroung for many years and many alternative >drugs can be used. Not always. And even then, sometimes the prices of generics are ridiculously high. This happened even with old second-line tuberculosis drugs. >If you react badly to these drugs like statins then you must use some other >drug. That is IF there IS a class of drugs like statins. And within that group, some have greater toxicity. Some work better for some than others. Other conditions--cancer, asthma, AIDS, hepatitis C--do not necessarily have a lot of choice. Or the choices are ALSO all under patent and outrageously priced and thus GREED MAIMS AND KILLS. Actually, the statins are a class of drugs I think could be replaced with a combination therapy of less costly and less toxic compounds such as garlic, policosanols, possibly hawthorn, carnitine... >> Personally, I *do* use complementary and alternative medicine. It is >> also a cost borne out-of-pocket. Many people do not have that option. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >People will die with or without medicine. You are not God. But if they can be treated and survive, they do not have to die so soon. Like age 6. OR 26. Maybe I am god and so are you?? >> Greed is not good. >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >to solve. HIV is transmitted through sex you know. Why don't they use >condoms? Excellent question. Ask that jackass Bush with his vicious "abstinence only" policy he is foisting on the world. Reality is, men often go out, have sex and then give it to their wives. One method. I wish it were as simple as just condoms! It ain't. You need more. But YES, this is a very good idea to limit the spread of HIV disease. >How expensive is it to buy a condom versus one pill for HIV that >they will have to take for the rest of their lives? Who is going to pay to >check for viral mutations on these individuals? The meds don't work on >mutated virus so you will be treating these people for years when in fact it >did nothing. Agreed on all counts. Good sex education should be a part of ending the spread. Assuring access to condoms all over the place is VERY inexpensive. Training, messages in the media, and leadership can work. >Who will pay for CD4 levels or liver enzymes? These can be done very inexpensively! Flow cytometers can cost $30,000 and require a high level of skill--but there are about 6 different technologies, e.g., Dynabeads, that can be undertaken MUCH more cheaply. This could be paid for as part of health infrastructure improvement programs, funded in part through cancellation of the usurious debt being paid to the World Banks and other American banks for programs long since paid for that generally had a deleterious impact (e.g., Structural Adjustment Programs). There is PLENTY of money in the world ot pay for these tests. Plenty. Bush just wanted to give $10 BILLION to ONE COMPANY whose parent is off in tax-free Bermuda for so-called Homeland Security. Theft! Pure and simple. When Kofi Annan has identified that amount as the amount needed to address the global pandemic! A DROP in the financial bucket but we've got to spend money on wars rooted in lies and deception at enormous cost in suffering, deaths and resources. >There is non compliance of HIV meds because of side affects like nausea and >diarrhea. People with HIV often refuse to continue to take the drugs because >it makes them sick. You don't know anything about HIV. LOL. I know quite a deal, my little friend. >They refuse to wear condoms. Some people do, it's true. >It is shear conincidence that these drugs are being developed by Greedy drug >companies in the US? It is no coincidence. Ah--most of the first line of drugs were developed by the NIH and universities and then handed over to pharma. >Let the countries of African governments develop non patent drugs or sell >them cheap. Hey, I'm with you there! >> >> So people that can't afford a newer drug have no right to it? >> >> Therefore they should suffer and die? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >You now think it is moral to steal. You have no morality. You want to gain >money at all costs and that makes you very greedy. When poor people have had EVERYTHING stolen from them by beknighted US funded policies? I don't think so. In any case, I don't think there is any need to push people to stealing. We have resources to make it unnecessary. But the BIGGEST thieves are the corporations and governments. I don't want money beyond that which I earn and is what I need to live. OF COURSE I am sometimes greedy. I see it as part of my human nature. And I resist it when it arises. >The means is everything and the ends do not justify the means. >You are a twisted individual. You equate poverty with nobility and place >materialism over morality. LOL. That's your perverted interpretation. >> Such care doesn't have to mean dependency. Most people want to work >> and indeed--DO. EXTREMELY hard. Harder than you could EVER imagine, I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You are one mentioning stealing and making it justifiable in the poor not >me. You justify the theft by the pharm cos and then say greed is good! Aren't we both just so dreadfully naughty? I do not condone stealing. But if it is stealing to get enough to feed a baby? Or simply survive? I cannot blame someone for doing that. Interestingly, the vast majority of very poor people don't do that. >One poor person looks at his neigbor and doesn't feel poor because they are >the same. It is clowns like you who bring in MTV and tells them how poor >they are without it. The poverty is an economic state and they do things >accordingly for their means. How old are you? I'm sorry. I thought I was conversing with an adult. Perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh. >> >> >Insurance pays for most if not all drugs so I don't really understand >> >your [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> LOL. Please do explain what you mean by this! I look forward to it. >Do I really need to explain commerce to you. Maximize profits is number one. Yes--this is your Greed is Good premise. I disagree. Number one should be having integrity, honesty and good products for a business. >They can charge in the US higher prices because of the market forces. Untrue. They charge what they want because they have a PATENT and no controls on what they can charge. Market forces are when you have a choice of buying these sneakers or those sneakers. So you have failed to convince me of your statement. >In >Canada they have caps so in order to be compititive up there, the drug >companies sell the drug cheaper there and just about everywhere else. Because the government has price controls. > Many >countries can not afford expensive drugs and so they go for the cheaper [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >single winner they come up with. It is an expensive venture which is why the >poorer countries don't have the money to do it. I'm not calling for boycotts. I'm calling for price controls. I'm calling for some honor and dignity. I'm calling for business to abandon the notion that a central tenet of their existence is this pernicious, idiotic notion that "greed is good." It is not...especially in the context of an industry that exists with 20-year monopolies on their products that directly impact health. And I'm calling for increased funding in the public health sector. It is an INVESTMENT in our future. It is humane. It is economically viable. It will support the system, not tear it down. It is part and parcel of caring for each other, caring for our planet so kids and grandkids HAVE something here. It is part of growing up as a species, rather than making perverted justifications for greed. George M. Carter > snip > >> Pharm co's identify markets where people have chronic diseases and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > horrible impact on Medicaid, the VA (though they negotiate the best > prices for drugs), etc. Wrong. It is rare that their is no drug that treats their condiiton. It's like the new blood pressure drugs. New ones are being brought into market or the statin drugs as new ones are being brought in. I should know. I was put on a statin that I could not tolerate so I was put on Bycol. Baycol was taken off the market by the FDA for complications associated with it so I was put on another new drug Altocor. Compared to Lipitor, Altocor is much more expensive. One has a $5 copay and the other has a $35 dollar copay. It is extremely rare that a new drug is put into market that their is no other drug already being used for that disease especially one in which involves many people which draws the drug industry attention. > >> >They adverstize to create a need. They are so good at that and it costs > >> >money for that which adds to the cost of the product. They want you to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that includes studies where outcomes weren't so good or there were > greater toxicities (e.g., the case of Paxil use among adolescents). All new drugs are dangerous as they don't have a safety record proven over time with a large amount of people. > >> And again--greed is NOT good. People are overprescribed a lot of > >> medications that are horrifically overpriced because of greed. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > necessarily have a lot of choice. Or the choices are ALSO all under > patent and outrageously priced and thus GREED MAIMS AND KILLS. Those conditions are chronic and the meds do not cure anything. Had a friend come down with lung cancer and placed on the newest drug out there. He lived about a year longer then died. These newer drugs are in fact experimental and you are lucky if insurance pays for it. As far as AIDS you have people who are paying more money to have sex without condoms. I saw that program on AIDS in India. Some people don't even believe that it is caused by a virus like TC who posts here. The side affects of drugs are so bad that it can make one sick as I should know as I was put on it for one month post exposure. Those people would not stay on something so toxic. With hepatitis C the drugs are very expensive to produce and a lot of testing is necessary including genotyping for the type of virus as not all C viruses are susceptible to that treatment. It has a poor cure rate in those people in general. The health care system, social system and economic systems are different in third world countries that don't allow tons of money to be put in without waste and corruption or the very least on education first. > Actually, the statins are a class of drugs I think could be replaced > with a combination therapy of less costly and less toxic compounds > such as garlic, policosanols, possibly hawthorn, carnitine... And you can replace HIV drugs with condoms and education. That is the only way to control HIV as drugs only allow one to live with it and spead it even more. You will not get compliance in third world countries and you will breed resistent strains. In gay communities now it's like they realize they are going to get infected anyway and it's no big deal since they have drugs now to treat it and the infection rates are going up now again. They are not practicing safe sex because of that. Tell the third world that there is a drug to treat HIV and they will take full advantage of it by saying who cares if you get then. You encourage the spread. You mention Bush being corrupt and guess what every government on this earth is corrupt. You can not justify the transfer of money from one country to another and not have corruption involved. The United Nations is involved in corruption with the food for oil program in Iraq. It is the largest corruption and money scammed the entire world has known. When ever you talk money then you speak corruption and greed. You don't solve anything by throwing money at it. You have to study it first and then selectively use targeted money within the context of the social structure. Look at Somalia where people were starving and the US brought in food. They were greeted with bullets. You have a simplistic mind. Give everybody money and the ills of the world will be over. Well give everybody money and it instills greed and the last to get anything is the poor. >> snip >> >> Pharm co's identify markets where people have chronic diseases and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Wrong. It is rare that their is no drug that treats their condiiton. It depends on the condition so in some cases there are NOT other treatments. Schistosomiasis, leishmaniasis. Then there are also issues of multidrug resistance that render chloroquine for malaria obsolete in many places or many first- and second-line tuberculosis drugs useless. What you describe below, however, is true for SOME conditions that various "me-too" drugs exist. However, very often many or most of them are ON patent and more costly. >It's >like the new blood pressure drugs. New ones are being brought into market or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >other drug already being used for that disease especially one in which >involves many people which draws the drug industry attention. In the United States market for some diseases this is true. Others, it may be problematic. Histoplasmosis. Cancer treatments. Etc. And sometimes the patented drug is THE drug a person needs and no generic is available. snip >> That's nice advice but the drugs advertised are FDA approved--they >> couldn't advertise otherwise. So they have "proof" for some condition [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >All new drugs are dangerous as they don't have a safety record proven over >time with a large amount of people. That is true for the drugs that are not approved--and even to a certain extent to approved drugs, where approval is granted on the promies that Phave IV studies will be undertaking. Which generally they renege on. >> >> And again--greed is NOT good. People are overprescribed a lot of >> >> medications that are horrifically overpriced because of greed. snip... >> That is IF there IS a class of drugs like statins. And within that >> group, some have greater toxicity. Some work better for some than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Those conditions are chronic and the meds do not cure anything. Agreed. But they prevent people from dying sooner than need be in many cases. >Had a friend come down with lung cancer and placed on the newest drug out >there. He lived about a year longer then died. These newer drugs are in fact >experimental and you are lucky if insurance pays for it. Experimental drugs should NOT be paid for. People are offering their lives in these experiments and taking huge risks. My brother had lung cancer and they tried an experimental drug. It failed. He died. >As far as AIDS you have people who are paying more money to have sex without >condoms. I saw that program on AIDS in India. Yes, some people are very foolish and they take advantage of others who are often in sex work because it is the only way they can earn an income. They take advantage of their vulnerability because society condemns the activity while many engage in it. If sex work were legalized and unionized, they'd have more clout in dealing with customers who want to behave stupidly. >Some people don't even believe that it is caused by a virus like TC who >posts here. The side affects of drugs are so bad that it can make one sick >as I should know as I was put on it for one month post exposure. Those >people would not stay on something so toxic. Darling, I work in HIV/AIDS. I have lost MANY friends to AIDS. HIV exists and causes AIDS. The drugs DO have many toxicities and we need better treatments. But they ALSO have helped keep many of my friends alive and do so to this day. The fact that MANY other friends I have in developing nations cannot access them and die needlessly is a despicable crime against humanity. >With hepatitis C the drugs are very expensive to produce and a lot of >testing is necessary including genotyping for the type of virus as not all C >viruses are susceptible to that treatment. It has a poor cure rate in those >people in general. Tell me about it. I'm living with hepatitis C, genotype 1A. It doesn't respond to treatment. I am managing the disease with "alternative" treatments. So far, it seems to be more successful while better therapy comes down the pike. >The health care system, social system and economic systems are different in >third world countries that don't allow tons of money to be put in without >waste and corruption or the very least on education first. I agree with this. >> Actually, the statins are a class of drugs I think could be replaced >> with a combination therapy of less costly and less toxic compounds >> such as garlic, policosanols, possibly hawthorn, carnitine... > >And you can replace HIV drugs with condoms and education. No, you cannot. There is a well-established link between prevention and treatment. They are inextricably bound. People don't get tested if there is no reason to except be told you will die. If treatment is there, they get tested. Behaviors change more rapidly in such a case. BOTH are needed. >That is the only way to control HIV as drugs only allow one to live with it >and spead it even more. You will not get compliance in third world countries [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >world that there is a drug to treat HIV and they will take full advantage of >it by saying who cares if you get then. You encourage the spread. So millions should die because some part of the population, any populaton, may practice unsafe sex?? This is nonsense. And I happen to be gay. I know LOTS of people who practice safer sex and/or abstinence. I know MOST people are doing so. Indeed, there are some who do not but that is not a justification for actively preventing access to care and treatment. >You mention Bush being corrupt and guess what every government on this earth >is corrupt. You can not justify the transfer of money from one country to >another and not have corruption involved. Corruption is indeed a serious issue!! No question. But there are indeed ways to circumvent it or simply bully countries into using it for their healthcare infrastructure. Instead, the US uses trade agreements to bully them into relinquishing their rights to use compulsory licenses. >The United Nations is involved in corruption with the food for oil program >in Iraq. It is the largest corruption and money scammed the entire world has >known. I am unaware of this so I can't comment. But Halliburton and other big companies seem to be the bigger problem in terms of corruption. >When ever you talk money then you speak corruption and greed. Yeah--well--and...do you see this as GOOD? Greed is NOT good for the very reasons you cite!! >You don't solve anything by throwing money at it. You have to study it first >and then selectively use targeted money within the context of the social >structure. Look at Somalia where people were starving and the US brought in >food. They were greeted with bullets. Look at Congo! Look at Nicaragua and El Salvador wh |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message