Re: Pharma Co's profit outlook 2004...

[Guest guest]

Should we get the kleenex out -- for them

I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. GSK spent way more on advertising Paxil than they ever spent developing it. Maybe if that formula had been reversed they wouldn't be facing thousands of lawsuits right now over a dirty drug and having to allocate $300Million for the lawsuits. That's only a few days' profits for them, so it's no big deal to buy off a few thousand plaintiffs. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

Blind Reason

a novel of espionage and pharmaceutical intrigue

Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again.

[Guest guest]

It IS a very brutal business!

And even MORE brutal is their BAD DRUGS!!!!!!

Blind Reason

a novel of espionage and pharmaceutical intrigue

Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again.

[Guest guest]

Well they are right about one thing. It IS a very brutal business!

janet

..

..

An FYI. Should we get the kleenex out -- for them?? (lol)

En-JOY... Jan

=====================================

..

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_02/b3865615.htm

JANUARY 12, 2004

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK 2004 -- LIFE SCIENCES

Pharmaceuticals: For Drugmakers, There's No Panacea

>>Blockbusters are in store, but the cost of R & D, ads, and factory fixes

>>will eat profits

>>Pressure from insurers and government on prices will be a drag on

revenues

At first glance, it seems that GlaxoKline (GSK ) should be living

large

come the new year. Levitra, its impotence pill launched in the U.S. five

months ago, could hit $280 million in sales in 2004. Advair Diskus, an

asthma treatment released two years ago, is on track to reach more than

$4

billion in sales. GSK also plans to roll out Ariflo in 2004, a tablet for

so-called smoker's disease, and Vesicare for urinary incontinence.

But instead of celebrating, Glaxo will likely be wrestling with a host of

negatives. Since mid-2003, generic drugs have torpedoed two of its

megasellers in the U.S. -- antidepressant Paxil and antibiotic Augmentin

--

and Glaxo could soon lose patent protection on a third, Wellbutrin SR,

another antidepressant. As a result, the company's 2004 earnings will

inch

up only 1%, to $16.2 billion, excluding one-time items, say industry

analysts. " It's a very brutal business, " laments Chief Executive

Jean-Pierre

Garnier. " When a drug is pretty much at its peak, it just goes away

instantly, like switching off a light. "

So it goes for Big Pharma. Overall, the industry has a broad stream of

new

products expected to reach at least $1 billion each in annual sales. Eli

Lilly & Co. (LLY ) alone plans to introduce four promising drugs in 2004,

after launching three in 2003. Pfizer Inc. (PFE ) could be right behind,

with three.

New drugs, however, don't always mean new profits. Many of the new

compounds

will take away sales of existing drugs. Moreover, new drugs typically

lose

money in their first year or two while the cost of advertising blitzes

overwhelm initial sales. There isn't likely to be much relief on the

pricing

front, either, given that governments and insurers are rebelling against

price hikes as they struggle with double-digit increases in health-care

costs. Finally, regulators are forcing drugmakers to spend more to bring

their manufacturing plants up to snuff.

All of these factors will take their toll on industry profits in 2004. SG

Cowen analyst M. Scala forecasts that industry earnings will grow

only 9%, to $41.8 billion, vs. 10% in 2003. Sales are expected to climb

6%,

to $170.1 billion. Scala's forecasts could have been worse. He decided to

exclude Schering-Plough Corp. (SGP ), which he says will have a

" nightmarish " year following the end of patent protection for the allergy

drug Claritin and will lose $220 million. " For the next handful of years,

this industry will not be what it had been, " Scala cautions.

The pharmaceutical business has always been a high-stakes gamble. Lately,

though, the odds have lengthened. Over the past several months, Merck &

Co.

(MRK ) gave up on four potentially big drugs, including two in late-stage

testing, because of poor results or safety concerns. CEO V.

Gilmartin promises that Merck will still raise profits by 7% in 2004,

thanks

to double-digit sales increases of blockbusters such as Fosamax for

osteoporosis. But he concedes that Merck, the No. 3 drug company after

Pfizer and Glaxo, will be lucky to come out with two new drugs this year.

To increase profits, drugmakers are turning to other tricks. More and

more,

they are licensing products from biotech startups or foreign firms. Some

are

also resorting to workforce reductions: Abbott Laboratories (ABT ) cut

2,000

jobs in 2003, for instance, while Merck is eliminating 4,400 positions.

One thing they're not doing is big acquisitions. Mergers among giants

were

all the rage in this industry in the 1990s, but no more. Gilmartin

foreswears any dealmaking, despite investor pressure. " A large-scale

merger

would provide, at best, a short-term boost with an expensive long-term

cost, " he argues. " That's not an appropriate trade-off. "

Not that long ago, drugmakers defied the business cycle, selling more and

more drugs in good times and bad. They still boast outsize margins. But

in

2004, Big Pharma will look a lot more like any other subset of

manufacturing

companies.

================

================

..

..

[Guest guest]

Glitter wrote:

>>>Maybe if that formula had been reversed they wouldn't be facing

thousands of lawsuits right now over a dirty drug...<<<

E X A C T L Y

They [GSK] released a " dirty drug " and it's total B*LLSH*T!!!

Makes me sick that there is such big dollar in big pharma. Sick is

an understatement too. I can't seem think of a better term or word

right now.

Not to go off on a tangent, however, consider this:

They [whoever 'they' are] give you an AD, which messes up your Ummm,

downstairs region : ) ...basically, stops working the way it should

in the bedroom. Tell me, how is THAT supposed to make anyone not-

depressed???!!!???!!!

Ya know, heaven for bid one should take an AD pill [like Pax-hell]

because a person 'thinks' they're not feeling 'right' , then , to

have the pill [dirty drug] itself kick in, then the wicked side

effects kick in...then the withdrawls kick your a$$; over & over

etc...

It's a brutal scam, a never ending circle...

yeah, I'm a little bitter standing on the soapbox...so be it.

Keven