I saw this in the D Uk news section Victoza receives EU backing to treat cardiovascular risks in type 2 diabetes But also recall the safety concerns a few years back relating to increased risk of thyroid / pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20120420/consumer-group-to-fda-take-victoza-off-market#1
Drug companies spend thousands every year wining and dining doctors and other HCP's as well as sponsoring trials which are published so long as they support the drug company's product. They exist to make money for their shareholders not to benefit mankind ( unless that also benefits their shareholders).
So does Kerrygold. Any company that exists not to make money usually has a very short run. On the whole, a world without any medicines wouldn't be one I'd prefer to live in
Now I'm wondering if some of your own investments are in drugs companies lol ( not prying, just commenting )
Antibiotics, painkillers, anesthetic, vaccines, anitvirals, chemo therapy, insulin......... I would have no issue in investing in drug companies.
Before i retired I worked as a head of profession in childrens mental health services. You always knew when the drug reps had been to "meet" with the psychiatrists because all manner of food goodie ( mostly unhealthy carb fests) would suddenly appear at reception and the psychiatrists would have new "toys" on show on their desks ranging from things like laser pointers for computer presentations, mugs, post it holders, pens, etc etc covered in the drug companies name. I heard talk of rather more expensive goodies ( laptops, conference attendence pakages etc etc ) that werent on show Also they were funding catering venue hire etc for conferences the trust were puttng on, even after there was a directive to accept nothing from drug reps because of the conflict of interest issues they raised.
You should have been there when the builders came around to bid on the contract to build the place initially! You'd probably have driven away in a Jag to a holiday in the Seychelles.
That's not relevant, we still wouldn't have the benefit of them now if the drugs companies didn't continue to produce them.
Well, I guess you're bright enough to get your moldy bread out then? And while I really sincerely hope you never, ever need it, good luck on finding your own isotopes, or anti aids retro virals, and milking your herd of pigs for insulin, or chewing a willow tree when you have a headache. (Flush your aspirin now!) Then you can really stand by your " nobler than thou" principles. If you don't, no offense, but don't you think you'd be a complete sell out otherwise?
As usual you have attacked me rather than answered the question. I have no problems with Pharma companies making money. However they are not doing it for the greater good of the human race. They have made relatively few discoveries but have indeed developed the discoveries of others with great profits for their shareholders and large salaries for their CEO's. Insulin is a great example. So far as I know it was not patented by those who discovered its efficacy but instead Eli Lilley and Noro Nordisk took the discovery and tweaked it, mass produced it and made billions in profits from it. Was that really what Banting et al wanted?
No idea. What did he do to distribute insulin to the masses? Did he set up the labs, which "big pharma" did a torch and pitchfork job on?