Otezla

[Ricordo]

Perhaps you've seen the commercial. The one with the pretty lady with porcelain legs.

But look at the last five (5) seconds and read the fine print. It states, "The list price for a 30-day supply of Otezla is $3,398.00."

I wonder how much is the cost in Canada. I'm all for profits but despise that the American public is considered a cash cow to be milked at will.

It's outrageous. Even with the "research costs a lot" dribble when considered that that research was not solely paid for by the company, but also with government grants.

[janice6]

Beyond aiding a serious illness, vanity has no financial bounds.

I understand that it is not uncommon for  women to also seek prescriptions for Glaucoma eye drops, since they have a pronounced side effect of increasing the density, darkening the color, and encouraging growth, of eye lashes.

I found this as an advantage for me since with advancing age, my eyelids droop, and now my eyelashes are so profuse, they hold up my eye lids.  Bizarre, isn't it!

[Ricordo]

15 hours ago, janice6 said:

vanity has no financial bounds

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity."

[SigMan]

“Government grants” typically make up a negligible percentage, if any, of the costs to get a drug to market. And you can bet your ass that the government retains rights and gets its cut if at all possible. 

[Ricordo]

The term government grants includes corporate welfare. Small wonder that pharma is one of the biggest lobbying groups in DC. Add to that that Medicare cannot negotiate prices imposed by pharma.

As to research, government grants are roughly 33% of the costs. https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193

Fwiw, my father-in-law was a senior partner in a law firm that helped establish operations for pharma in different locales. Once, he asked a certain pharma executive how rapidly would they recuperate their investment if they established operations in a certain place. "One month", the executive claimed. Of course, I'm assuming that you, SigMan, knows what "establishing operations" means. If you don't, do a Google.

[SigMan]

17 minutes ago, Ricordo said:

The term government grants includes corporate welfare. Small wonder that pharma is one of the biggest lobbying groups in DC. Add to that that Medicare cannot negotiate prices imposed by pharma.

As to research, government grants are roughly 33% of the costs. https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193

Fwiw, my father-in-law was a senior partner in a law firm that helped establish operations for pharma in different locales. Once, he asked a certain pharma executive how rapidly would they recuperate their investment if they established operations in a certain place. "One month", the executive claimed. Of course, I'm assuming that you, SigMan, knows what "establishing operations" means. If you don't, do a Google.

I’m not sure why you are responding with such aggression to my comment, but we can play that way.  

First, “government grants” only includes corporate welfare, which is itself a vague term, in your imagination. If that’s what you intended to say you, should have said that. 

Second, despite all the knowledge that I’m sure you obtained by being your father’s son, I’ve forgotten more about the pharmaceutical industry and drug development than you will ever know. 

Because you think pharma companies make too much, can I safely assume that you will be voting for Bernie or maybe Warren?

Edited August 7, 2019 by SigMan

[Ricordo]

Sure...your deep knowledge comes shining through.

Off you go into my Ignore list.

[SigMan]

1 hour ago, Ricordo said:

Sure...your deep knowledge comes shining through.

Off you go into my Ignore list.

I disagreed, if you can even call it that, with what I thought was a relatively minor point in your rant. You responded with condescension and a nonsensical anecdote from your father-in-law. Some people aren’t interested in debate and actual facts. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by SigMan