independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 21st Sep 2014 9:13pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Bayer Pharma CEO: Cancer drug only ‘for western patients who can afford it!’
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 01/26/14 2:45pm

noimageatall

avatar

Bayer Pharma CEO: Cancer drug only ‘for western patients who can afford it!’

Wow... eek What an asshole. But you know...free market and all. rolleyes


I'm boycotting so many products and companies now I'm saving tons of money! thumbs up!

Developed cancer drug for 'western patients' who could afford, not 'for Indians': Bayer's CEO

AFP Jan 25, 2014, 09.17PM



Global medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres slammed on Friday a statement by Bayer's chief executive that the giant German firm only developed its cancer drug Nexavar for people who could afford the medicine, not "for Indians".

India's controller general of patents angered Bayer in March 2012 when he authorized a local drugmaker to produce a generic copy of Nexavar, saying the German company charged a price that was too costly for most Indians.

"We did not develop this medicine (Nexavar) for Indians," Marijn Dekkers said at a little reported pharmaceutical forum last month, according to the January 21st edition of Businessweek.

"We developed it for western patients who can afford it," Dekkers said, and called the Indian regulator's action "essentially theft".



Bayer said the statements attributed to Dekkers were accurate and forwarded written comments made later by the German chief executive seeking to explain his remarks.

Dekkers said the comment had been a "quick response" at the industry forum to the Nexavar issue and added Bayer wants "all people to share the fruits of medical progress regardless of their origins or income". (uh-huh) rolleyes


But Dekkers added in the written comments he had been "particularly frustrated" by the Indian regulator's decision, which marked the first time a so-called compulsory licence of a patented drug had been awarded in India.

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said on Friday that the Bayer chief's remarks summed up "everything that is wrong" with the multinational pharmaceutical industry.



"Bayer is effectively admitting the drugs they develop are deliberately going to be rationed to the wealthiest patients," Manica Balasegaram, executive director of MSF's Access Campaign, said.

The medical charity said big pharmaceutical companies believe "research and development (R&D) can only be rewarded by a patent and through high prices to recoup the R&D costs. "Those who can't afford to pay are basically cut out of the system," Balasegaram said.



The Indian government gave local pharmaceutical house Natco Pharma a licence to produce a copy of Nexavar, used to treat liver and kidney cancer, at a 97% discount to the original selling price of the Bayer product in India. clapping



Global drugmakers say India's powerhouse generics industry and strict patent filtering reduce commercial incentives to produce cutting-edge medicines.



link edit... http://articles.economict...kers-bayer

[Edited 1/26/14 14:46pm]

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 01/26/14 2:49pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

advances cost money. Like ANY new technology (and YES medicine is technology) the cost will come down in time.



By the same logic we should ban 4K 120" TVs because so few can afford them!

I would not have put it they way they allegdily did but the fact is that is how it ALWAYS works. But you know I guess some people think other people should pay for their stuff.

FYI: there are some Orgers I ignore. So when I do not reply to them... that is why.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 01/26/14 2:57pm

noimageatall

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

advances cost money. Like ANY new technology (and YES medicine is technology) the cost will come down in time.



By the same logic we should ban 4K 120" TVs because so few can afford them!

I would not have put it they way they allegdily did but the fact is that is how it ALWAYS works. But you know I guess some people think other people should pay for their stuff.



You're an idiot. Comparing stupid TVs to life-saving medicine? So logical. rolleyes




And funny how "The Indian government gave local pharmaceutical house Natco Pharma a licence to produce a copy of Nexavar, used to treat liver and kidney cancer, at a 97% discount to the original selling price of the Bayer product in India" but here it costs billions??? hmmm




That will be my last comment to you on this matter. Such a waste of time. confused

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 01/26/14 3:06pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

noimageatall said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

advances cost money. Like ANY new technology (and YES medicine is technology) the cost will come down in time.



By the same logic we should ban 4K 120" TVs because so few can afford them!

I would not have put it they way they allegdily did but the fact is that is how it ALWAYS works. But you know I guess some people think other people should pay for their stuff.



You're an idiot. Comparing stupid TVs to life-saving medicine? So logical. rolleyes




And funny how "The Indian government gave local pharmaceutical house Natco Pharma a licence to produce a copy of Nexavar, used to treat liver and kidney cancer, at a 97% discount to the original selling price of the Bayer product in India" but here it costs billions??? hmmm




That will be my last comment to you on this matter. Such a waste of time. confused

the comparison is valid! As they both cost more money to develop and more to make and thus they cost more.

Bayer has a right to make money off its work. To single out drug companies as not being allowed to make money cause any new advanced to slow way down. That is what I am assuming the writer of the article missed.

FYI: there are some Orgers I ignore. So when I do not reply to them... that is why.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 01/26/14 6:09pm

lazycrockett

avatar

noimageatall said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

advances cost money. Like ANY new technology (and YES medicine is technology) the cost will come down in time.



By the same logic we should ban 4K 120" TVs because so few can afford them!

I would not have put it they way they allegdily did but the fact is that is how it ALWAYS works. But you know I guess some people think other people should pay for their stuff.



You're an idiot. Comparing stupid TVs to life-saving medicine? So logical. rolleyes




And funny how "The Indian government gave local pharmaceutical house Natco Pharma a licence to produce a copy of Nexavar, used to treat liver and kidney cancer, at a 97% discount to the original selling price of the Bayer product in India" but here it costs billions??? hmmm




That will be my last comment to you on this matter. Such a waste of time. confused

clapping clapping clapping clapping clapping clapping clapping clapping clapping clapping clapping clapping

The Most Important Thing In Life Is Sincerity....Once You Can Fake That, You Can Fake Anything.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 01/27/14 2:24pm

noimageatall

avatar

Well this is certainly fair. confused My great-nephew had a rare form of cancerous brain tumor and if not for his college helping him he'd be dead right now. disbelief




Overall, cancer drug prices are skyrocketing. Of the 12 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for various cancer conditions in 2012, 11 were priced above $100,000 for a year of treatment. Writing in an op-ed in the New York Times in October 2012, three physicians at New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center noted that “the typical new cancer drug coming on the market a decade ago cost $4,500 per month (in 2012 dollars); since 2010 the median price has been around $10,000.”




These and other injustices led an international group of doctors to band together and call for lowering the cost of chemotherapy drugs. In the medical journal Blood the physicians—all of whom specialize in treating a form of leukemia, or cancer of the blood—wrote that cancer drug costs are “too high, unsustainable, may compromise access of needy patients to highly effective therapy, and are harmful to the sustainability of our national healthcare systems.”




The doctors went so far as to say that charging high prices for drugs that are needed to save lives or improve health is a form of profiteering, like jacking up the price of necessities like food and water after a natural disaster. Thanks, too, to a puzzling price-fixing equation used by pharmaceutical companies, the longer that a given chemotherapeutic treatment prolongs life, the more it costs. Certain forms of a treatment for leukemia can cost each patient as much as $138,000 per year—and that’s not uncommon for drugs to get rid of cancer and keep it away.


...research is not even the biggest expense. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4 percent of each dollar of sales on promoting the drug, as compared to 13.4 percent spent on research and development, according to a 2008 study in PLOS Medicine by York University researchers who collected data from the pharmaceutical industry and physicians.



...Even accounting for the research and marketing costs spent to develop and promote cancer drugs doesn’t explain the astronomical drug prices, say the physicians writing in Blood. “Once a company sells about a billion dollars of a drug, most of the rest is profit,” they wrote in their article. For one such leukemia drug released in 2001, that benchmark was passed in 2003, leaving nearly a decade—and counting—of pure profit for its manufacturer. “Prices get jacked up when the need is great,” says Couzens. “It’s a much-needed industry. It’s the business to be in, unfortunately.”

http://www.takepart.com/a...emotherapy

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 01/27/14 2:35pm

Stymie

noimageatall said:

Well this is certainly fair. confused My great-nephew had a rare form of cancerous brain tumor and if not for his college helping him he'd be dead right now. disbelief




Overall, cancer drug prices are skyrocketing. Of the 12 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for various cancer conditions in 2012, 11 were priced above $100,000 for a year of treatment. Writing in an op-ed in the New York Times in October 2012, three physicians at New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center noted that “the typical new cancer drug coming on the market a decade ago cost $4,500 per month (in 2012 dollars); since 2010 the median price has been around $10,000.”




These and other injustices led an international group of doctors to band together and call for lowering the cost of chemotherapy drugs. In the medical journal Blood the physicians—all of whom specialize in treating a form of leukemia, or cancer of the blood—wrote that cancer drug costs are “too high, unsustainable, may compromise access of needy patients to highly effective therapy, and are harmful to the sustainability of our national healthcare systems.”




The doctors went so far as to say that charging high prices for drugs that are needed to save lives or improve health is a form of profiteering, like jacking up the price of necessities like food and water after a natural disaster. Thanks, too, to a puzzling price-fixing equation used by pharmaceutical companies, the longer that a given chemotherapeutic treatment prolongs life, the more it costs. Certain forms of a treatment for leukemia can cost each patient as much as $138,000 per year—and that’s not uncommon for drugs to get rid of cancer and keep it away.


...research is not even the biggest expense. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4 percent of each dollar of sales on promoting the drug, as compared to 13.4 percent spent on research and development, according to a 2008 study in PLOS Medicine by York University researchers who collected data from the pharmaceutical industry and physicians.



...Even accounting for the research and marketing costs spent to develop and promote cancer drugs doesn’t explain the astronomical drug prices, say the physicians writing in Blood. “Once a company sells about a billion dollars of a drug, most of the rest is profit,” they wrote in their article. For one such leukemia drug released in 2001, that benchmark was passed in 2003, leaving nearly a decade—and counting—of pure profit for its manufacturer. “Prices get jacked up when the need is great,” says Couzens. “It’s a much-needed industry. It’s the business to be in, unfortunately.”

http://www.takepart.com/a...emotherapy

But, but, but Only said the price would come down. sad

Idiot.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 01/27/14 2:47pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Irony: I just picked up a daily medication and what used to be $31 a month is now $140! It should have cost $6 bucks but it was $28 (with a 20% copay). The lady said it was obamacare.

FYI: there are some Orgers I ignore. So when I do not reply to them... that is why.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 01/27/14 2:52pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Stymie said:

noimageatall said:

Well this is certainly fair. confused My great-nephew had a rare form of cancerous brain tumor and if not for his college helping him he'd be dead right now. disbelief



http://www.takepart.com/a...emotherapy

But, but, but Only said the price would come down. sad

Idiot.

How friendly: just because I do not just accept what someone said without question?

FYI: there are some Orgers I ignore. So when I do not reply to them... that is why.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 01/27/14 2:58pm

noimageatall

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Stymie said:

But, but, but Only said the price would come down. sad

Idiot.

How friendly: just because I do not just accept what someone said without question?

lol lol lol nuts

OnlyNDaUsa said: Irony: I just picked up a daily medication and what used to be $31 a month is now $140! It should have cost $6 bucks but it was $28 (with a 20% copay). The lady said it was obamacare.

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 01/27/14 3:07pm

Stymie

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Stymie said:

But, but, but Only said the price would come down. sad

Idiot.

How friendly: just because I do not just accept what someone said without question?

You're the one who said the price would come down. neutral

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 01/27/14 3:07pm

Stymie

falloff

spit

noimageatall said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

lol lol lol nuts

OnlyNDaUsa said: Irony: I just picked up a daily medication and what used to be $31 a month is now $140! It should have cost $6 bucks but it was $28 (with a 20% copay). The lady said it was obamacare.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 01/27/14 3:32pm

bobzilla77

That's a pretty heartless sounding response from the Pharma CEO.

But the truth is, corporations exist in order to make profits. It's in their nature.

It would be great if the research required to develop, test and approve these new medicines were publicly funded, and the drugs that came out of the process could be in the public domain, sold for slightly more than the manufacturing costs.

But because we have decided that drug research is not something worth spending significant public money on, it is left to corporations to do the research and drive new therapies. They're going to act in their own interests, and their shareholders' interests.

Eventually they will lose copyright protection and the drugs can be produced generically; I think there is a 10 year window for the company that invented it to profit from it.

That's not ideal, especially for poor people who need those drugs now. But I don't know what the alternative is. If we are unwilling to raise our taxes (by many billions of dollars) to test new drugs publicly, and we do not want drug companies to make profits, and refuse to support their greedy activities, then I think we have to go back to only using the drugs approved by 1999 which are all in the public domain now. That would be "fair" and put us on equal footing with the poorer countries of the world, and we wouldn;t have to feel so guilty for being able to afford it.

Look I don't want to be seen as shilling for the pharma world, the most hated industry in America, but I think a lot of people have decided they are the enemy, without stopping to think about what is really driving these new treatments.

It is not surprising that from conception to market most compounds face an uphill battle to become an approved drug. For approximately every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds that enter preclinical testing, only one is approved for marketing.[8] A 1993 report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimated the cost of developing a new drug to be $359 million.[9] Newer figures place the cost at more than $500 million.[10]

http://www.medscape.com/v...e/405869_4

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 01/27/14 4:04pm

13cjk13

avatar

Stymie said:

falloff

spit

noimageatall said:

The lady, in Texas, said it was Obamacare. Corrected. Well now, that makes sense. lol

"I do not provide links because I do not get my information in that manner."
I have not said all of them never are.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 01/27/14 4:08pm

noimageatall

avatar

bobzilla77 said:

That's a pretty heartless sounding response from the Pharma CEO.

But the truth is, corporations exist in order to make profits. It's in their nature.

It would be great if the research required to develop, test and approve these new medicines were publicly funded, and the drugs that came out of the process could be in the public domain, sold for slightly more than the manufacturing costs.

But because we have decided that drug research is not something worth spending significant public money on, it is left to corporations to do the research and drive new therapies. They're going to act in their own interests, and their shareholders' interests.

Eventually they will lose copyright protection and the drugs can be produced generically; I think there is a 10 year window for the company that invented it to profit from it.

That's not ideal, especially for poor people who need those drugs now. But I don't know what the alternative is. If we are unwilling to raise our taxes (by many billions of dollars) to test new drugs publicly, and we do not want drug companies to make profits, and refuse to support their greedy activities, then I think we have to go back to only using the drugs approved by 1999 which are all in the public domain now. That would be "fair" and put us on equal footing with the poorer countries of the world, and we wouldn;t have to feel so guilty for being able to afford it.

Look I don't want to be seen as shilling for the pharma world, the most hated industry in America, but I think a lot of people have decided they are the enemy, without stopping to think about what is really driving these new treatments.

It is not surprising that from conception to market most compounds face an uphill battle to become an approved drug. For approximately every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds that enter preclinical testing, only one is approved for marketing.[8] A 1993 report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimated the cost of developing a new drug to be $359 million.[9] Newer figures place the cost at more than $500 million.[10]

http://www.medscape.com/v...e/405869_4




It's my understanding from what I've read (and I researched a lot when my great-nephew was diagnosed with cancer last year) that much of the money for research and developement comes from grants and outside sources. Which makes it even more horrible that they charge these outrageous prices. neutral


Fire in the Blood is a very good documentary about the pharma industry and should be watched by everyone.

...drug companies actually do very little basic research for drug discovery. "84% of drug discovery research is funded by government and public sources," says Gray, citing the landmark work of Professor Donald Light, “Pharmaceutical companies fund just 12% of such research, while the lion’s share of their spending goes into marketing and administration.” These facts will come as little surprise to those familiar with the industry, but many have never really contemplated the repercussions of pricing essential medicines at levels only a tiny sliver of the world’s population can afford.


http://www.globalhealthch...rg/?p=1381

[Edited 1/27/14 16:10pm]

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 01/27/14 4:19pm

noimageatall

avatar

I just don't understand and it truly hurts my heart...how people can justify millions of people dying just to make a profit. sad



If this doesn't make you feel sick and piss you off then you have no heart. Of course, it's just African people dying...no biggie. mad That Bayer CEO is what's wrong with this world now.


"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 01/27/14 4:30pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

13cjk13 said:

Stymie said:

falloff

spit

The lady, in Texas, said it was Obamacare. Corrected. Well now, that makes sense. lol

Who is this Lady whose statements go without question? She MUST have al lthe answers! biggrin

Consider the rights of others before your own feelings, and the feelings of others before your own rights.
~ John Wooden
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 01/27/14 4:52pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

13cjk13 said:

The lady, in Texas, said it was Obamacare. Corrected. Well now, that makes sense. lol

Who is this Lady whose statements go without question? She MUST have al lthe answers! biggrin

I did not say say I believe her becasue she said it...

FYI: there are some Orgers I ignore. So when I do not reply to them... that is why.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 01/27/14 5:10pm

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

noimageatall said:

I just don't understand and it truly hurts my heart...how people can justify millions of people dying just to make a profit. sad





If this doesn't make you feel sick and piss you off then you have no heart. Of course, it's just African people dying...no biggie. mad That Bayer CEO is what's wrong with this world now.








But if a company makes a profit, won't investors be more willing to invest more money into a company (purchase more shares) meaning that company will have more money for r and d? Leading to more discovery which in turn could make more profit attracting more investors?
The fed and the bankers own all the politicians.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 01/27/14 7:05pm

Red

I boycot Bayer. There is plenty of evidence that Bayer IS responsible for the ongoing death of billions of bees. Bayer produces nicotine-based pesticides call neonicotinoids. And yes, these neonicotinoids are also in your honey.

[Edited 1/27/14 19:05pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Bayer Pharma CEO: Cancer drug only ‘for western patients who can afford it!’