You seem to think that all research of any note is conducted b academia - on that point we must agree to differ. The capitalists fund and engage in huge research projects. On transport you seem to discount all the work undertaken by the major car manufacturers, Rolls Royce - who have the most advanced jet engines around, I don't see many governments in the west building or designing ships, same goes for planes - I didn't realise Boeing or Northrop were government owned? .



There is a huge difference in finding something - discovering a way of turning that into a product that can benefit society as a whole is a different matter. Without the capitalist that simple would not happen.

On the other hand at least some of that research and design and construction is done purely with profit in mind - how can we build more, more quickly, at lower cost ?



The Rolls Royce issue is a case in point, we would not have the jet engines that we have now were it not for Government decrees that they should be quieter (not least decrees from the USA) and less poluting, accompanied by a different requirement to make them run more efficiently (cheaper).



Compare any new aircraft and the noise it makes upon take-off ( I live 1 mile away from an airport

) with any old video of a Boeing 707 taking off, when you sat inside one of those you knew that something dramatic and noisy was happening outside because it was dramatic and noisy INSIDE - also check out the exhaust output from one of those and you'll see how poluting they were - then bare in mind that the first solution to make those aircraft bigger was simply to add more of the same engines to them.

Many of which are conducted by the countries finest universities.

id agree with most of that. I wouldn’t simply remove patent protection but there needs to be a fundamental restructure of the relationship between the state, the public, academia and Big Pharma for numerous reasons, some which you mention, other such as the lies, lies of omission, and general bending of the truth which has become commonplace in medicine because there can be quite a big discrepancy between what is good for the patient and what is good for the drug company. Not to mention the uncomfortable relationship we should all see between doctors and Big Pharma and marketing and Big Pharma. Im also not keen on the duplication of research being done by competing big pharma companies. That seems 'inefficient' when it could be done more collaboratively in an academic setting.



As I said earlier, there is a place for drug companies, but for me the relationship should always be the Jonas Salk creating the thing, where it can be done through academia, where it can be peer reviewed, where all information is made public, where the aim is the truth and the answer, not the money, and the Eli Lilly manufacturing the thing.

The other problem with big pharma is they are less inclined to find cures for illnesses or conditions, preferring instead to find treatments. There's no real money in cures

If bigpharma1 invents a treatment that doesn't cure, and bigpharma2 invents a treatment that provides a permanent cure, who gets the business?

Whoever pays the biggest kickback to the state/doctor?

You can never trust the state. The one business with the most scope to create and abuse a monopoly.

Never trust big business. It exists solely and purely and unequivocally to take your money.



I have to ask who would you trust more to prescribe the best drug for you, to you. Your NHS GP, or your friendly local Glaxosmithkline sales rep?

Unlike the state, big business (why do you differentiate from small business here?) can't force you to hand over your money.



AFAIK, Glaxosmithkline produce drugs, rather than prescribe them.

Quote Richie="Richie"Unlike the state, big business (why do you differentiate from small business here?) can't force you to hand over your money. AFAIK, Glaxosmithkline produce drugs, rather than prescribe them.'" When talking about Big Pharma, they pretty much can. When death or Illness is the alternative. You are kind of over a barrel. www.phillipsandcohen.com/P-C-New ... ment.shtml Big Business, doing what big business does. I can only ask again, who would you trust to prescribe you the best drugs for you. Your local NHS GP, or friendly local GSK sales rep?

Quote Richie="Richie"Unlike the state, big business (why do you differentiate from small business here?) can't force you to hand over your money. AFAIK, Glaxosmithkline produce drugs, rather than prescribe them.'" When talking about Big Pharma, they pretty much can. When death or Illness is the alternative. You are kind of over a barrel. www.phillipsandcohen.com/P-C-New ... ment.shtml Big Business, doing what big business does. I can only ask again, who would you trust to prescribe you the best drugs for you. Your local NHS GP, or friendly local GSK sales rep?

It exists solely to MAKE money, it normally does this in exchange for goods or services, if people don't intrinsically trust a company it fails.



What has happened in the last decade is big business having failed to grow their market, are in a saturated market or a shrinking market have looked at way of growing the bottom line without expanding the business, this has meant squeezing wages of the majority of its work force, finding new and not always legal ways to evade tax and their social responsibilities.



This is by no mean all big businesses and many major companies have invested in the work force, treated them as valued employees and let them have a say in the direction of the company, John Lewis for instance, makes good gross profits, treats its employees fairly, pays them a fair wage all while still maintaining a good bottom line.



Most of us are not completely anti big business (I'm certainly not) and see its place in the world as one of bring benefits, however big business does need reminding of its responsibilities not only to shareholders but to its stakeholders too, its employees, suppliers and its customers.



We should be looking to the entrepreneurs of the past such as Lever, Roundtree and Cadbury to see how businesses can thrive and build huge brands while not being dicks.

Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"When talking about Big Pharma, they pretty much can. When death or Illness is the alternative. You are kind of over a barrel. www.phillipsandcohen.com/P-C-New ... ment.shtml Big Business, doing what big business does. I can only ask again, who would you trust to prescribe you the best drugs for you. Your local NHS GP, or friendly local GSK sales rep?'" Which single big pharma has it's customer over a barrel with a product unavailable from anywhere else? I'm still not clear why you differentiate according to the size of a business. Your question is as valid as asking who would you trust to research and develop new medicines: GSK or a local GP? Interesting though, I'm an IT sales rep. Part of my role is helping clients run their IT infrastructure and helping resellers understand IT infrastructure. Those clients and partners trust my expertese, despite me working for big business. Should they seek advice from the gov instead?

Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"When talking about Big Pharma, they pretty much can. When death or Illness is the alternative. You are kind of over a barrel. www.phillipsandcohen.com/P-C-New ... ment.shtml Big Business, doing what big business does. I can only ask again, who would you trust to prescribe you the best drugs for you. Your local NHS GP, or friendly local GSK sales rep?'" Which single big pharma has it's customer over a barrel with a product unavailable from anywhere else? I'm still not clear why you differentiate according to the size of a business. Your question is as valid as asking who would you trust to research and develop new medicines: GSK or a local GP? Interesting though, I'm an IT sales rep. Part of my role is helping clients run their IT infrastructure and helping resellers understand IT infrastructure. Those clients and partners trust my expertese, despite me working for big business. Should they seek advice from the gov instead?

I think there is space for a variety of approaches here. Whilst some customers like the behaviour of JLP and Richer Sounds and will pay a premium for it, there are others who prefer the likes of Aldi and Ryanair. Horses for courses etc,

Well done for completely ignoring 99% of my point and focusing solely on price, oh BTW Richer Sounds is a discounter not a premium retailer.

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.

Apologies then.







No they have always been a discounter, usually selling left over stock, end of lines, last years models and grey imports, what they don't do is sell the lower end stuff you'd find in most Tescos (apart maybe from a few models of TVs, they compete with your local specialist store selling high end equipment.



The staff are good because they employ good staff paying them a good wage and more importantly in retail treating them as valuable asset rather than an expense.

Any with a patent on a particular drug.



Because big businesses arent the same as small ones.



my Local GP, he already does this. HTH



Do their lives depend on buying the right version of Windows?

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: GSK or a local GP?[/i 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.