|
VitalSigns posted:So you are telling me that all this hypothetical R&D on malaria and dengue fever that Kalman was touting that is unprofitable now because of the thieving poor only requires a 4% markup to be a sure-thing money-maker? It could easily be that, yes. Being as we're talking about raising costs of everything that pill company makes 4% would provide a lot of money, not the non-existent cure for random diseases, "einstein". I mean you can't possibly say the non-existent drugs have low prices that would be endangered by the deal? Because that would be insane.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really? The treaty has a grandfather clause that says "oh hey any patent violations you're already doing are totally cool and you don't have to pay any license fees"? That's not really relevant, since my argument wasn't predicated on Indian pharma ripping off new western drugs for local diseases. Instead, it explicitly was about them developing them themselves. And the reason I picked India, and Ranbaxy? Because I wasn't talking about TPP. I was talking about the actual outcome of India acceding to TRIPS, which forced them to introduce product patents, and how Ranbaxy started to move from being a pure generic maker to an original researcher, including working on an anti malarial that saw approval in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I mean you can't possibly say the non-existent drugs have low prices that would be endangered by the deal? Because that would be insane. The assertion is that pharma companies aren't researching new drugs because they'll just be ripped off, but you're claiming a 4% difference between what they could sell those new drugs for with IP protection and without is enough to make those drugs profitable after all and spur research. Kalman posted:That's not really relevant, since my argument wasn't predicated on Indian pharma ripping off new western drugs for local diseases. Instead, it explicitly was about them developing them themselves. Oh really quote:Arterolane was discovered by a collaborative drug discovery project funded by the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), a Swiss charity. Researchers from the US, UK, Switzerland and Australia, led by Jonathan Vennerstrom of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, US, discovered the intriguing molecule that features an adamantane and an ozonide in its structure. Hmm, it looks to me like a charity fronted $20 million for R&D and then gave away its license free of charge. That's weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The assertion is that pharma companies aren't researching new drugs because they'll just be ripped off, but you're claiming a 4% difference between what they could sell those new drugs for with IP protection and without is enough to make those drugs profitable after all and spur research. No, "Einstein", I'm saying that raising the price of all your drugs as little as 4% opens massive amounts of new profit that can be used to fund research. Please learn to read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, "Einstein", I'm saying that raising the price of all your drugs as little as 4% opens massive amounts of new profit that can be used to fund research. Please learn to read. The choice to research any particular area depends on those potential drugs being profitable. Otherwise that money will be used for something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The choice to research any particular area depends on those potential drugs being profitable. Otherwise that money will be used for something else. Pretty much all drugs are profitable if the research costs are paid up, "einstein moomjy". Unless the cure for dengue fever requires element 116 and liter of printer ink extract, that pill is going to be sold for a whole lot more than mere production cost. Plus you know that whole "if you have a cure, you have a captive audience" deal which is why conspiracy theories about drug companies hiding cures are bogus. About the only way for a drug to not be profitable is if there's only like 5 dudes in the world who need it, or if it doesn't actually work and thus is required to be recalled. And well, half a billion people each year sure sounds like a lot of people to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
So your argument is that a 4% markup over production is all that's required to recoup the research costs during the patent period? Sounds like we need some serious price controls then, because the difference between patened drugs and generic versions is totally out of whack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The assertion is that pharma companies aren't researching new drugs because they'll just be ripped off, but you're claiming a 4% difference between what they could sell those new drugs for with IP protection and without is enough to make those drugs profitable after all and spur research. The "charity" was functioning as an arm of Roche with respect to that medication, so it sounds like Roche gave up on it. They did early stage work in partnership, and Ranbaxy made a functional product out of it, which is actually the hard and expensive part. Kalman fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So your argument is that a 4% markup over production is all that's required to recoup the research costs during the patent period? Sounds like we need some serious price controls then, because the difference between patened drugs and generic versions is totally out of whack. No, man who cannot comprehend text. Just that 4% is an example of what you might raise on all your other medicines to have enough money to easily handle a different class of drugs. Because 4% boost in revenue for any big pharma corp can easily be hundreds of millions, perhaps even as much as billions depending on the company. Also generic drugs don't require much overhead at all, because the companies producing them rarely did any of the work to produce/test them. They're an entirely different business model, it's like asking why a new car costs $30,000 if a used version costs $5,000.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Why would a pharma company waste money developing drugs for an unprofitable market that they know will have to be subsidized by other drugs. Why wouldn't they invest that money in profitable markets rather than losing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why would a pharma company waste money developing drugs for an unprofitable market that they know will have to be subsidized by other drugs. Why wouldn't they invest that money in profitable markets rather than losing it. Pretty much no market is unprofitable when it comes to medicines, excepting such rare diseases that there's single digits of sufferers in the world. Your preferred topics of malaria and dengue hardly qualify. Or do you really think that 30 pills costs $10,000 because the materials and machinery to make them costs $9,999 per bottle of pills? That's the only way your "unprofitable market" hypothesis makes sense for a thing that millions of people would need to buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
If the market can't recoup the research costs then it was an unprofitable investment. What are you arguing here. Are you arguing that the thieving poor have the money to pay sticker price for new drugs but they won't unless we make them with IP law, or are you arguing that the markup in the patent period isn't actually that much and all these potential drugs that aren't being researched now but would with stricter IP enforcement are only a 4% markup away from showing a positive return on investment. Kalman posted:The "charity" was functioning as an arm of Roche with respect to that medication, so it sounds like Roche gave up on it. They did early stage work in partnership, and Ranbaxy made a functional product out of it, which is actually the hard and expensive part. Do you have any information about what the total cost to develop the drug was to show that the $20 million from MMV was insignificant and it was TRIPS that made this all possible?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the market can't recoup the research costs then it was an unprofitable investment. No, full stop. You're using it in a way that doesn't make sense for the pharmaceutical industry, especially where we're talking about drugs that will be sold for millions of patients on an ongoing basis. Not making it in a quarter doesn't make it unprofitable, you deluded little man. VitalSigns posted:What are you arguing here. I suggest you learn to read posts you're attempting, and failing to argue with. Instead of constructing a strawman factory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
I never said anything about "not making it in a quarter" I said during the patent period. How big is the markup on drugs sold during the patent period over what the generic version will sell for. You want to tell me it's 4%? That Indian peasants could fund the research on these antimalarials that Kalman is talking about if they would just stop thieving and pony up 4% more?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I never said anything about "not making it in a quarter" I said during the patent period. How big is the markup on drugs sold during the patent period over what the generic version will sell for. Utterly irrelevant to the fact that 4% on all their existing drugs means mondo cash to do research with, which is useful to all their projects going ahead faster, which should result in them getting to massively used drugs for diseases that have a combined total of over a billion cases a year. What exactly don't you get? What went wrong in your brain that you think this has ANY RELEVANCE AT ALL to the price of generics made by an entirely different company?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
They're only going to spend their mondo cash on drugs they expect to recoup their investment. If those billion cases a year are mostly the global poor who can't afford the sticker price then there's no incentive to spend money on researching it no matter how favorable the IP law. You're claiming they will be able to afford the sticker price because the patent version is only going to have a 4% markup to recoup the R&D costs, but how often are new name brand drugs sold for only 4% more than what a generic manufacturer who ripped off the formula charges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I never said anything about "not making it in a quarter" I said during the patent period. How big is the markup on drugs sold during the patent period over what the generic version will sell for. Indian pharma companies. Not Indian peasants. The markup in patent period is typically between 33-100% over generic (corresponding to a 25-50% price drop after expiration.) As the generic maker recoups their process investment, you typically wind up at 20-25% of original cost in the long term. Relationship doesn't hold for every drug but it's an okay rule of thumb. In particular, some of the more recent large molecule biologicals don't have as much of a patent markup because more of the cost is attributable to processing costs, so the relative recoupment vs. manufacture portions are closer to one another. I have no idea why you're stuck on this 4% number. E: you're also ignoring things like the relative difference in costs of research (India has cheaper labor, including PhDs) and manufacture (India typically has a cost of manufacture of roughly 50% compared to US manufacture, due to both cheaper labor and a long history of processing expertise). An Indian drug company, making drugs for Indian patients, can actually tolerate cheaper prices much more easily than a Western entity which can't take advantage of cheaper research labor as easily and which has to deal with the hassles of remote manufacturing if they wAnt the cheaper mfg costs. (Some pharma companies do. Others manufacture in Puerto Rico or other relatively low cost locations that don't require cross-world coordination.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They're only going to spend their mondo cash on drugs they expect to recoup their investment. Which malaria and dengue absolutely would, broheim. Again, unless the ingredients to cure those things are actually ludicrously expensive, which is very doubtful. VitalSigns posted:You're claiming they will be able to afford the sticker price because the patent version is only going to have a 4% markup to recoup the R&D costs, but how often are new name brand drugs sold for only 4% more than what a generic manufacturer who ripped off the formula charges. I have never claimed this once you strawmanning lunatic. We're talking 4% rise in prices on all their medicines, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with generics, which usually ain't even produced by the same company. Seriously, what's wrong with your reading comprehension? Did you think the proposal was to massively reduce the costs of drugs versus the generic version???
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Indian pharma companies. Not Indian peasants. The markup in patent period is typically between 33-100% over generic (corresponding to a 25-50% price drop after expiration.) As the generic maker recoups their process investment, you typically wind up at 20-25% of original cost in the long term. Relationship doesn't hold for every drug but it's an okay rule of thumb. In particular, some of the more recent large molecule biologicals don't have as much of a patent markup because more of the cost is attributable to processing costs, so the relative recoupment vs. manufacture portions are closer to one another. The money still comes from the people who have to buy the drug. If they can't afford it then there's not a market, unless the government is subsidizing the drug but then the government could just do the research directly and make the formula and process freely available. Kalman posted:E: you're also ignoring things like the relative difference in costs of research (India has cheaper labor, including PhDs) and manufacture (India typically has a cost of manufacture of roughly 50% compared to US manufacture, due to both cheaper labor and a long history of processing expertise). An Indian drug company, making drugs for Indian patients, can actually tolerate cheaper prices much more easily than a Western entity which can't take advantage of cheaper research labor as easily and which has to deal with the hassles of remote manufacturing if they wAnt the cheaper mfg costs. (Some pharma companies do. Others manufacture in Puerto Rico or other relatively low cost locations that don't require cross-world coordination.) That's maybe an incentive for the Indian government to give their local companies a monopoly, but not really a reason for them to respect Western patents and pay more for drugs than it would cost them to manufacture them locally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Good for you, it's still bullshit, because nothing in his argument leads to "quadrupled prices". If access to generic HIV drugs is threatened the price increase would be even larger than that. Are you saying that MSF and AMFAR and others are just fear mongering about nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If access to generic HIV drugs is threatened the price increase would be even larger than that. Are you saying that MSF and AMFAR and others are just fear mongering about nothing? Yes they are fearmongering about nothing, considering the time it will take to implement the treaty and its lack of applicability to nearly all countries that have "early generic" policies on HIV drugs
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If access to generic HIV drugs is threatened the price increase would be even larger than that. Are you saying that MSF and AMFAR and others are just fear mongering about nothing? They're making bad arguments, yes. (Fear mongering implies bad intent, and I think they're more in the boat of not actually understanding what's going on.) There isn't a retroactivity provision, so existing generics aren't affected, and a number of other important HIV drugs are scheduled to go off patent in the very near future. It will generate mean you won't have access to the absolute newest drugs, but the mainline treatments aren't far from genericity at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really? The treaty has a grandfather clause that says "oh hey any patent violations you're already doing are totally cool and you don't have to pay any license fees"? They're not patent violations; the drugs at issue aren't patented at all in India, nor could they be at this point, so it is, in fact, only for prospective drugs
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Bump. After delays in the past couple of days over biologic drugs, the deal has been finalised. Press Conference is tentatively expected to start in 45 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3KBpGE1VLs
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Got a non-paywalled article? I'm keen to know if Australians kiss goodbye the PBS, non-insane pharma patents, plain packaging for ciggies and so on edit: maybe not on the biologics patents, at least: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/how-robb-stared-down-the-us-on-big-pharma-20151005-gk1fgk (it's paywalled but you can read the articles if you block all scripts from analytics.fairfax.com.au and access.fairfaxapi.com.au) Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Got a non-paywalled article? I'm keen to know if Australians kiss goodbye the PBS, non-insane pharma patents, plain packaging for ciggies and so on My b, here's the Guardian. It's looking like the pharmaceutical trademark term will be around 5 years, like Australia was pushing for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
So when do we, the people about to be hosed over, get to see the contents of the deal? Even if you're one of the rubes who believe we can't comment on the deal or consider the leaked draft until the deal is made publically available, you must admit that its a huge red flag that they're touting this as an enormous global victory while dodging questions regarding anything in the deal or the leaked draft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Probably after it starts being implemented and after the main people in charge of shoving it through cash their checks and head off to nice consulting jobs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
They still haven't released it? It's the final draft!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
McDowell posted:They still haven't released it? It's the final draft! No, they've agreed on the contents. Now they can assemble the final draft from the various pieces that were being negotiated on back and forth. The final draft will be made public soon, most likely, and from the most recent reports looks nothing like the version people were scare-mongering about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Got a non-paywalled article? I'm keen to know if Australians kiss goodbye the PBS, non-insane pharma patents, plain packaging for ciggies and so on From what I understand the US caved on almost everything Australia wanted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:So when do we, the people about to be hosed over, get to see the contents of the deal? Why do you think it's going to gently caress you over? Also it's mandated to be released to the public about a month before it can be voted on in the US. No idea whether other countries have similar timelines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why do you think it's going to gently caress you over? Also it's mandated to be released to the public about a month before it can be voted on in the US. No idea whether other countries have similar timelines. Because nothing in the leaked draft is of value to the common citizen, and many additions are actively harmful. Until a version contrary to the draft available to us is publically readable this is the draft people in this thread intend to base their opinions on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Because nothing in the leaked draft is of value to the common citizen, and many additions are actively harmful. Until a version contrary to the draft available to us is publically readable this is the draft people in this thread intend to base their opinions on. Nothing in the "leaked draft" was verified at all ever, and it might as well be the protocols of the elders of zion for all we know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nothing in the "leaked draft" was verified at all ever, and it might as well be the protocols of the elders of zion for all we know. How often has Wikileaks revealed false leaks? Why should we blindly hope that a secretive deal we know little about is good? Would you be for TPP if a republican president had orchestrated it? What is the damage from basing our resistance off of our current knowledge about the deal? What about if we wait until a month before the vote to start campaigning against it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How often has Wikileaks revealed false leaks? Well, given that public info says that the leaked draft is totally wrong as to at least the provision which has had a bunch of public info today (biologicals exclusivity), the answers are: Frequently on this topic. We shouldn't, but we also shouldn't assume it's bad. Depends on what it winds up containing but probably. You look like an idiot resisting things that aren't in it, or you could look like someone whose campaign is factually based instead of based on pathetic fear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nothing in the "leaked draft" was verified at all ever, and it might as well be the protocols of the elders of zion for all we know. I'm just wondering, were the contents ever addressed/denied as false by anyone involved? I think that would be illuminating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How often has Wikileaks revealed false leaks? Pretty often? They consider their role primarily to put up leaks as fast as possible, and not to do too much investigation on veracity themselves. No one's asking that, just not to take it as true when someone says "hey I have a leak". I am neither for nor against it because we don't know anything of worth about it. The name sounds kinda neat, that's about the most substantive pro or con argument you can make about it. The damage is that it's completely ludicrous and makes you seem ignorant as all hell. You can't organize a working "resistance" against a thing that doesn't exist yet, much less if you send time organizing against something claiming to be it with no evidence. You're also kinda stupid if you think the campaign of people like you is gonna sway governments all around the Pacific but that's another thing all together. Lotka Volterra posted:I'm just wondering, were the contents ever addressed/denied as false by anyone involved? I think that would be illuminating. Nobody had any comment, because commenting on it would be tantamount to replying to every infowars post about the TPP. The only official responses were that the various diplomats were in intense negotiation and anything that existed would not bear much resemblance to what came out at the end. Which is true for every major treaty being negotiated based off a broad idea (like "expanded trade") between like a dozen very different countries. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
'people like you' Christ what an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Well, given that public info says that the leaked draft is totally wrong as to at least the provision which has had a bunch of public info today (biologicals exclusivity), the answers are: By frequently you mean "so far once with regards to a provision that had been renegotiated, but is still pretty bad in the overall scheme of the bill"? Why should we assume that a bill with the stated goal of removing regulation and tariffs which protect domestic workers from a global race to the bottom is good, irregardless of any other known provisions, is good? That question was specifically directed at fishmech. So the worst consequences of campaigning now is that you might look silly if everything in the draft has been renegotiated into puppies and rainbows. Meanwhile the worst consequence of waiting until the last month is that you are massively behind in a PR race against an abysmal bill, but I guess you get to maintain your potential personal dignity?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:48
|
|