Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:04 am
I think what people are losing sight of is that pharmaceuticals are an industry- and like all industries, they will respond to the markets.
There are good drugs out there- I personally do not believe CRABS are good drugs, and no- they did not work for me. Before anyone types a response to that statement, let me reiterate: the CRABS did not work for ME. That is my experience and not up for debate.
That said, a simple perusal of the publicly available financial reports of any of these companies highlight a clear dependence on the profit margins and continued sales of the particular drugs. That is not something you need to infer from those reports- it is in black and white and in their own words. That, too, is not up for debate.
If someone discovered the cure for cancer, do you not believe that that individual would come under as much, if not more, scrutiny than Zamboni and his team have? Of course. Not only because of the interests of a large medical community that are tied to the maintenance and care of terminal patients, but also from (what I believe to be) a bit of professional jealousy. And believe me, if such a scenario would play out, the financial reports of every pharma that manufacturers chemo or related cancer maintenance drugs would forecast a downturn in revenue associated with the drop in market demand.
What people need to understand is that the pharmas cannot do otherwise- they are public companies and are required- by SEC regulations- to accurately report financial performance and risks in the quarterly and annual reports. Without those updates, investors would be taking a blind risk investing in the company, which is not allowed.
So how can we discount the blatant dependence on future revenue from this captive patient community when the pharmas state that they are dependent upon that revenue themselves?
How can we deny that studies have been funded and participated in by various neuros for additional drug options when the financials show that continued "education" and "trials" are critical to sales strategies?
How can we even speculate that pharmas are not concerned with CCSVI and liberation when their own reports (see Biogen's report for a nice example) that ANYTHING in the market that is cheaper or provides a better efficacy rate will prove to be detrimental to the company's financial performance?
I wish that the pharmas would work with us on this theory- I do believe that the right type of research and development may come up with a pharma solution to help get the excess iron out of our brain, prevent restenosis, etc. But we can't have those discussions when we are threatening a very big slice of profit for these companies- again, just look at the financials and see for yourself.
There are good drugs out there- I personally do not believe CRABS are good drugs, and no- they did not work for me. Before anyone types a response to that statement, let me reiterate: the CRABS did not work for ME. That is my experience and not up for debate.
That said, a simple perusal of the publicly available financial reports of any of these companies highlight a clear dependence on the profit margins and continued sales of the particular drugs. That is not something you need to infer from those reports- it is in black and white and in their own words. That, too, is not up for debate.
If someone discovered the cure for cancer, do you not believe that that individual would come under as much, if not more, scrutiny than Zamboni and his team have? Of course. Not only because of the interests of a large medical community that are tied to the maintenance and care of terminal patients, but also from (what I believe to be) a bit of professional jealousy. And believe me, if such a scenario would play out, the financial reports of every pharma that manufacturers chemo or related cancer maintenance drugs would forecast a downturn in revenue associated with the drop in market demand.
What people need to understand is that the pharmas cannot do otherwise- they are public companies and are required- by SEC regulations- to accurately report financial performance and risks in the quarterly and annual reports. Without those updates, investors would be taking a blind risk investing in the company, which is not allowed.
So how can we discount the blatant dependence on future revenue from this captive patient community when the pharmas state that they are dependent upon that revenue themselves?
How can we deny that studies have been funded and participated in by various neuros for additional drug options when the financials show that continued "education" and "trials" are critical to sales strategies?
How can we even speculate that pharmas are not concerned with CCSVI and liberation when their own reports (see Biogen's report for a nice example) that ANYTHING in the market that is cheaper or provides a better efficacy rate will prove to be detrimental to the company's financial performance?
I wish that the pharmas would work with us on this theory- I do believe that the right type of research and development may come up with a pharma solution to help get the excess iron out of our brain, prevent restenosis, etc. But we can't have those discussions when we are threatening a very big slice of profit for these companies- again, just look at the financials and see for yourself.