I was being nice and agreeing with 70% of it I was focussing on value and service BTW.
Has Richer changed? I haven't used them since I left Leeds 13 years ago. They used to be known for charging more but having good advice, facilities to test and try products, and treating their staff well - one perk being the loan of a nice car for good performance, which probably had the ulterior motive of wanting to create a desire to own such a car and so work harder, sell more stuff and earn more money to be able to buy one.

Any with a patent on a particular drug.

Because big businesses arent the same as small ones.

What did their customers do before they developed that drug?


How? What? Why? Where? What's the differentiator? Are there medium businesses? Or is this just black and white?


Exactly, because that's his role.


Their careers do at least.

I am not sure what Scargill would make of all this.
Was he on drugs at the time he decided not to hold a national ballot?

Died.

Yes, there are small, medium and large businesses. Small Businesses are different to medium which are different to large. There is no need to pretend they are the same.

So considering my question [iis as valid as asking who would you trust to research and develop new medicines and i have given a valid and accepted answer. Can you answer my question?

My career is not as important as my life. My health is not a business. My life is not for profit. Frankly if you were to sell something not in that companies best interest to someone because it made you a little extra money, I would think you were a bit of a dick, but it would pale in to insignificance compared to a Drug company paying Dr’s to prescribe a drug, which didn’t best treat that patients symptoms, wasn’t cleared to be used for those symptoms, and was cleared for use for the symptoms it was used for using incomplete and cherry picked Data. People, literally and directly have died because of the behaviour of Big Pharma. Because of their chasing of profits, people who would otherwise be alive aren’t

So for them, the pharma industry has worked quite well. Much better than if it wasn't in place.



Why did you only answer one of seven questions in that paragraph?



Of course I would go to my GP for a prescription. I can't believe you really thought that was a question worth asking.



In an earlier post you were stressing how we should trust a doctor to prescribe us medicine. Now you want to stress that they're corruptible to the point that they prescribe drugs that didn’t best treat that patients symptoms, wasn’t cleared to be used for those symptoms, and was cleared for use for the symptoms it was used for using incomplete and cherry picked Data and people have died because of their willingness to accept (presumably illegal, bribery does tend to be illegal) payment from companies simply to earn more money. I wouldn't do that with IT infrastructure so I am disturbed to find doctors are so corruptable.
Perhaps I'll seek another alternative to a GP or a sales rep.

He was on drugs until he had them sequestrated.

Just been updating myself on poor old Roy Lynk who returned his well deserved OBE after feeling betrayed by the establishment who greased his palm with 30 pieces of silver.
Bless.

No, because as has been proven, Big Pharma aren’t responsible for the majority for medicinal breakthroughs. Jonas Salk cured Polio, he did so as a researcher in a university in a government funded programme. The fact people now don’t have polio isn’t down to Big Pharma, it is down to the academia and the US government. The fact Eli Lilly made lots and lots of money from Jonas Salk’s work and US government funding and orders, that’s down to Big Pharma. Im pretty glad I don’t have Polio. Im not really bothered that Eli Lilly made a lot of money.

Because that one answer covered them all. Im not discussing small business, I am completely neutral in this conversation regards them. The How, what, Where etc are irrelevant. We are discussing big business, Small business is separate and in this case pretty irrelevant.


Why would you do this? You GP works for the NHS, a government agency. You advised earlier that we should never trust them. So why would you trust your Dr a government worker? Why would you trust your Dr to provide you with the right drug, but not the state to develop the right drug?

Well actually no. What I was highlighting was the difference between the UK and the US, where in the US medicine is run for profit, where Dr’s will prescribe treatments that make them money. In the UK this is less possible. It is far less possible precisely because of State interference. The state you are advising we shouldn’t trust.

You are protected from these excesses of Big Pharma because we have an NHS. US Dr’s were more corruptible because they don’t. State interference you called against is what means you don’t need to go find another GP.

So if they're not responsible for the breakthrough, why are the gov giving them a patent on the medicine? Or is something else creating a single supplier monopoly?


No it didn't.
Where and how do you differentiate between small, medium and large businesses? Why do you think different sizes of business behave differently? After all, they're still just people running them. If you say we're discussing just big business and not small business and medium business, you really should show how you define the different sizes, and why you think they behave differently at different sizes, if they do behave differently.
BTW, I would be more inclined to trust a big business with shareholders and public perception to worry about, than a sole trader.


Can you show me a serious post I made where I said I wouldn't trust a doctor and didn't believe the state should have any role in drug development?


No, you were condemning millions of doctors and people throughout the world as if they would let you die to earn a few more pence. It's a poor view of people and humanity you have.

Conservative fiscal ideology.

You can trust who you like. Im neither arguing in favour nor against big business in relation to small businesses, Simply saying they are different and small business is not relevant here.

Considering your response to me saying that government should have the role of developing and prescribing drugs was that.

No I was describing a specific case, an actual and documented thing that happened. Where numerous times, even whilst knowingly being investigated for it, a Big Pharma company offered inducements to Doctors (in America) to prescribe a certain drug even if not the best, for off-label uses, that same company has been found to use misleading and cherry picked statistics. That company was fined $3Billion for its actions. In other cases it paid fines for not disclosing information it held regarding drugs which caused heart attacks. $1billion of this fine was not for any civil claim, but criminal culpability.

This isn’t unique to GSK. AStrazeneca, Eli Lilly, and Johnson and Johnson have all billions of dollars in fines for doing the same thing. It is estimated that $2billion dollars have been paid by Big Pharma to individual Dr’s to prescribe drugs for uses they aren’t valid for and just to the top 20 cases in the US have resulted in fines of $20billion. Yet these companies are still profitable.

At least argue a point here, if you've gone one.


But still not saying where the limits are or why you think one size behaves differently to another.


Was it? I've kind of lost track. Was this the thread where you claimed the world economy was zero sum?



Well what evil ers those GPs are. Prescribing the wrong resolution for payment. I wouldn't do it with an IT infrastructure, so to hear doctors are so uncaring is quite a shock.
Should GP practices be considers big or small business?

GPS practices in the US are part of some pretty Fsking huge businesses. Thankfully in the UK state control (in the main) has kept us largely from the evil the free market perpetuated in this industry

The Dr's are indeed wrong to do what they did. But if Microsoft for instance were to offer you $500'000 to recommend their product for a use it didn't advertise was part of its capability, but they promised you it was capable of this and provided reams of documentation to back it up would you do it?

Regardless, the Dr's part of the illegal kickback scheme had nothing to do with Merck for example, withholding their data on Vioxx for five years resulting in up to 140'000 cases of serious heart disease nor was it the Dr's who spent $1b fighting the action.

Let's look at that again just to make sure it sinks in. And just add none of this is now disputed. Big Pharma company Merck developed a drug called Rofecoxib (marketed as vioxx) for 5 years they knew that this drug caused serious heart disease. For 5 years they sold Vioxx knowing it caused serious heart problems. The made about $2.5billion per year from selling a drug they knew caused serious heart disease. Merck made, during that time, $12.5billion from selling a drug they knew caused heart disease. During this time up to 140'000 had a heart attack because of it. It is estimated up to 40% of those were fatal.
Merck has spent $1billion fighting wrongful death cases because it's behaviour. It has set aside $5billion for compensation for the up to 60'000 people who died. They had a list of Dr's who had voiced concern about vioxx they set out to discredit. Merck employees sent e-mails about those Dr's saying "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,"www.theaustralian.com.au/news/drug-company-drew-up-doctor-hit-list/story-e6frg6n6-1225693586492

How many more examples would you need to understand that the medicinal market just doesn't work and free market theory is simply not applicable to some industries?

For those on the pseudo-left who prefer to reinvent history and blame Arthur because they didn't have the bollox to stand up and be counted.

WE TOLD ARTHUR - NO SURRENDER

rlhttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paul-routledge-miners-can-stand-3006531rl

I can't do the fancy talk about the big pharma companies but I can comment on experience. I took part in a clinical trial for my RA at Chappell Allerton Hospital in Leeds for 5 years. I did it for a number of reasons, the main reason was because I had run out of drugs to try at Hull and the other important reason was I thought (and still think) that I gave the pharma company valuable information on how their drug works on me and my disease. Its a slow process, apparently it takes at least 15-20 years for a drug to be developed, tried, tested, approved and prescribed.

I was also on Vioxx from being diagnosed for quite a few years, apparently it was the drug of choice for rheumatology patients, but I was taken off it as soon as it became known in this country about the side effects which I didn't suffer any.

There is no known cure for RA but the therapies that have evolved since I was diagnosed is huge. I have tried 6 different drugs known as biologics and each different one has targeted a different area of the immune system and each one coming a step nearer to halting the disease in its tracks rather than treating the symptoms. I believe a cure will be found in my lifetime.

I see the comments by Americans that their Rheumatologist will only prescribe one drug and one drug only as they get a kickback from the pharma company and I just thank my lucky stars that we don't have the same system over here (or not one that gets so blatently banded about in front of the patient anyway).

What all this has to do with Arthur Scargill I have no idea, but just wanted to put my two penn'oth in