Drug Lobby Wins Again in Washington...

Except that it would seem that the best cure (as opposed to lifelong treatment) available for type 1 (a very different disease than type 2) at the moment is this islet transplant procedure, which is a surgical procedure having nothing to do with the drug industry (except in terms of the immunosuppressive therapies required pre-surgery).

So small pharma's not in the loop on type 1 at all. But Big Pharma's got a vested interest in making sure this kid is hooked on their insulin products for life. And they'll expend a multi-million-dollar M&A campaign on peddling their new "delivery system" (i.e. yet another disposable measured-dose injection pen with a slightly smaller-bore needle which, hypothetically, hurts a little less when administering the injection) while the product inside the pen remains the same.

And the kid spends the rest of his life injecting himself four times a day, being hospitalized for opportunistic infections, worrying about every bit of food he puts in his mouth, and at greater risk of heart disease, blindness, and circulatory problems up to and including loss of limbs than his peers.

Does this islet transplant require a lifetime regimen of anti-rejection drugs?

Your answer is in bold bellow.

^Well, I was trying not to be too cynical.

And, O2C, I don't know whether or not these kids would need lifelong immunosuppression. I'll have to look into that. My gut feeling, though, is that if they did, Big Pharma would be encouraging these surgeries, since they gots Da Drugs.

Er... okay, but I didn't ask the question.

Funny how EVERY SINGLE ONE of your suppositions falls that way when there's a gap in the known facts.

You should be cynical. Like all other corporations, the drug companies will do what is best for their long term interest. That means charging as much for as much product as they can. I really don't have an issue with that -- it is what I would do if I owned such a company. My issue is with the companies giving preferential treatment to customers in Canada at the expense of customers in the U.S. Let's fix that, then we can talk about whether the business model is really designed to cure disease or whether it has some other goal in mind.

I'm now gonna give O2C something to really explode about. The best way to fund curative research is NIH.

If the element of government interferance could be removed, why should they not be free to give preferential treatment wherever the hell they want?

Cuz fuck 'em, that's why.

They should be free. They currently are not because prices in Canada are set by government. This point was covered in the first several pages.

Since I said "if the government interferance could be removed," my question still stands. You said companies giving preferential treatment.

Make funding the of the NIH completely voluntary, and I'm onboard.

It doesn't. They wouldn't be giving preferential treatment if it wasn't for the price controls.

First, you can't possibly fucking know that.

Second, how goddamn hard is it to commit to a "what if" answer?

Would you be selling at a loss if the government wasn't forcing you to?

Why would they choose selling at a loss over not selling at all? Could it possibly be that there are more interactions at work than you are acknowledging?

Your question is fairly meaningless. Have you read this thread?

This is likely true. The price in Canada is greater than the cost of manufacturing. The price in the U.S. is the manufacturing cost + amortized R&D + profit margin. As long as Canada pays manufacturing or better, and the U.S. willfully picks up the rest, they are not selling at a loss. However, the R&D amortization + profit portion should be allocated to all customers, not just customers in the U.S.

No, I have not committed this entire fucking eleven pages to memory. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that you were still talking about it. Not up for a reading exercise on a bunch of . By all means, continue with your regularly-scheduled circle jerk.

Look, shit for brains, there is no fucking justification for it! If it were simply that the drug company wanted to do it that way, fine, but that's not the case. Again, read up on the issue a bit before wading into a thread that has a lot of informative posts. Why should we answer a bullshit question that proves you don't have a clue what your talking about in the first place?

You mean "not willing to prove your worthiness by wading through eleven pages of tedious schlock before joining the conversaton".

You've already spent more energy than the simple fucking reply would have required. Eat a dick.

Your question doesn't apply to the topic, so eat one yourself. There is a reality of a distorted market, something you usually oppose. Do you support the Canadian practice?

One more thing, dickhead. I did answer the question. Did you neg the wrong person? I even fucking agreed with you that the drug company wasn't obligated to charge a fair price. So again, what's with your bullshit anger? Could it be that as usual, you aren't bothering to read, just jumping to conclusions about what is said based on who said it?

You know damn well how I'd answer that, so I think I'll skip the fucking song and dance. I can actually commit to a consistent point of view without jerking people around with pointless, dissembling non-answers.

In this case, the song and dance is the topic. So if you wish to skip it, again, get the fuck out of the thread jackass.

Clearly, the topic is what gul declares it to be.

Yes, he can, because unlike you he's not too lazy to read the thread.

The information is there, but it interferes with your Monday morning need to come here and shit on everything to reestablish what you perceive as some sort of dominance.

Really? There is factual insight into a state of affairs that doesn't exist in reality? Wow.

But as long as you've got consumers like Listy who WANT to spend more for their drugs, whattaya gonna do?

Quit the bully act, Albert. Give some meaningful input or get the hell out. What's wrong, is the Mrs. holding out on you? Go jerk off in the bathroom, then.