Re: NATAP: US Senate call to scrap HIV drug patents

[Guest guest]

Money is not off the table with this proposal. To the contrary, what it

endeavors to do is reward those who make the discovery for that discovery. It

returns the issue of innovation and reward for innovation to researchers, many

of whom DO want to create new and better cures and treatments.

The BIG problem is that the drug companies then hold our lives RANSOM by

charging insane prices AFTER the discovery. They claim it is to cover

" development costs " but this is inflated and, frankly, very often just an

outright lie.

Indeed, this has gotten so out of hand that the thicket of patents from early to

late stages of discovery is actually INTERFERING with new drug discovery (let

alone for infectious diseases that aren't " lucrative " to the hostage holding

activities of big pharma).

So I support this kind of idea. But I feel 100% confident that the current,

broken destructive system that denies me access to treatment for Hepatitis C

will continue apace as this bill will no doubt die because greed wins and we get

fucked. And no cure for HIV will be found.

M.

On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Mark B wrote:

>

> Money is the biggest and often only

> motivation for people to do anything

> removing patents would only lead to

> the end of new medications

> Anyone thinking other wise is just

> naive.

> As unfair as the present system might be we are all enjoying the results of a

> free market economy and with out

> money motivation there would be no

> discovery or improvements of any

> kinds in any and all fields of science.

>

> Mark B

[Guest guest]

Money is not off the table with this proposal. To the contrary, what it

endeavors to do is reward those who make the discovery for that discovery. It

returns the issue of innovation and reward for innovation to researchers, many

of whom DO want to create new and better cures and treatments.

The BIG problem is that the drug companies then hold our lives RANSOM by

charging insane prices AFTER the discovery. They claim it is to cover

" development costs " but this is inflated and, frankly, very often just an

outright lie.

Indeed, this has gotten so out of hand that the thicket of patents from early to

late stages of discovery is actually INTERFERING with new drug discovery (let

alone for infectious diseases that aren't " lucrative " to the hostage holding

activities of big pharma).

So I support this kind of idea. But I feel 100% confident that the current,

broken destructive system that denies me access to treatment for Hepatitis C

will continue apace as this bill will no doubt die because greed wins and we get

fucked. And no cure for HIV will be found.

M.

On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Mark B wrote:

>

> Money is the biggest and often only

> motivation for people to do anything

> removing patents would only lead to

> the end of new medications

> Anyone thinking other wise is just

> naive.

> As unfair as the present system might be we are all enjoying the results of a

> free market economy and with out

> money motivation there would be no

> discovery or improvements of any

> kinds in any and all fields of science.

>

> Mark B

[Guest guest]

"Sorry, but I'll have to Strongly disagree! We haven't found a cure because of money and big pharmaceutical companies resistance because it would take away their cash cow HIV. I don't think I'm naive for disagreeing with u either however I won't insult u."How many people do you know currently taking Rescriptor? Crixivan? Zerit? DDC? DDI?All of these drugs have failed and or been replaced by better agents. We have not found a cure because the problem is complex.JB

[Guest guest]

Indeed--the VA DOES negotiate drug prices but Obama for the soon-to-be-eviscerated Affordable Care Act IMMEDIATELY assured pharma that no such provision would be present. While this may have indeed been ultimately a necessary political move to get the ACA passed without undue pharma interference, my gripe is he never used it even as a bargaining chip, just immediately rushing off and giving it up.As Wisconsin underscores, our nation is in the thrall of big money. And if you have it, you win.And if you don't, fuck you, drop dead you worthless parasite (or so "Fox-You News" and its Ayn Randian devotees would have it....a notion that covers the ill, infirm, elderly not to mention laborers, workers, teachers, police officers, firemen, construction workers, union members, women, gays, blacks, latinos, people of color in general and just about anybody not deluded enough to vote repugnican; the real parasites, of course, reside in places like Fox and Wall Street and the boards of directors of big pharma, etc....). M. On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Mark B wrote:A good way around this problem, would be what european nations with nationalhealth care systems do, basically each government negotiates with pharmas the priceof medications, of course that is impossible here because of private insurances.Then again if we took the middle man (aka the insurance company) health care cost woulddrop over night by a big %.I also agree with you, this bill doesn't have any hope to even reach the floor of the senate.Mark B