I know the one you mean Amanda, and can I honestly say it was put up simply as a piece of childish humour, hopefully to raise a smile as much as to annoy you. I apologise if it did cross a line, as there was no intention to cause any real offence, certainly no more than what is usual on Sin Bin.

It didn't specifically annoy me – heat, kitchens etc – but it did cross a line for the reason I outlined earlier: ie, that's it's a familiar tactic on social media etc.

Apology accepted.


Let's [uall[/u try to use the new year as a chance to keep a tad calmer than on occasions.

Big Pharma is a massive showing of the failings of capitalism. It shows that money trumps progress and the benefits of R&D done through the state and academia. Capitalism makes things cheaper, there is clearly and obviously a place for it. It brings this to the masses and market efficiencies do work in some areas. However market efficiencies also fail in a lot of areas. It drives what is profitable not what is the best option, it drives what makes the most money, not what helps the most people. There is a need for the Eli Lilly company to mass produce cheaply and efficiently vaccines. But the fact is that it took government money and academic research, and the genius of an academic in Jonas Salk to create the vaccine.

In other areas too, for example Monsanto make a fortune and are hugely controversial, It needed the Mexican State, Charity, and Norman Borlaug to reject Du Ponts money to save billions of lives. Redirecting the money from the Monsanto’s and Eli Lillys to the Jonas Salk and Norman Borlaugs to research for the greater sum of human knowledge will not only push forward human progress and make all our lives better, give us better access to the unfettered truth rather than the lies and lies of omission companies often rely on to protect their market position (is there any Big Pharma company which hasn’t introduced a fairly damaging drug, then hidden behind biased research before being found out?) but also give the capitalists more doodahs and whatsits to make cheaply and sell on. A virtuous cycle if any ever existed.

Smokey - that's a tad OTT about big pharma.

The argument for big pharma has always been about their ability to fund speculative development. This is hugely expensive, especially when you consider we're not just talking about a few drugs, or just coming up with an idea but going through complex and expensive development and testing through to human trials and large-scale production for many drugs at the same time.

The current model is based on the funding of the above being in turn protected by the ability to earn abnormal profits from developed products for a period via patent protection.

I'm not arguing that the current model isn't flawed - it is. Genuine groundbreaking research nearly always comes from outside of big corporates, partly because they focus a lot of effort on developing new versions of existing drugs, or new drugs to treat the same disease. Corporates will also focus on diseases where the potential payoffs from a cure promise to be significant - i.e. they'll focus far more time on common ailments than uncommon ones.

But like many things, you can't "fix" the system that exists by tampering with just part of it - e.g. remove patent protection entirely and there's zero incentive for anyone to commercially develop any new drug. The problem then becomes who funds the research and how (and a lot of academics in R&D are directly or indirectly supported in part by big pharma).

My own experience of big Pharma centres around Astrazeneca. They have a huge R&D centre near Macclesfield - a site so big and developed it's almost a town in itself. Approx 2,000 R&D staff iirc - a huge expense to the company. Most of it is relocating to Cambridge in a few years, but that's another story.

They have several dozen key staff travelling internationally mainly to other AZ locations every week, and up until around 2010 they all travelled Business Class, no questions asked. They were buying so many seats most of the airlines they used offered corporate preferred deals to capture the maximum number of travellers possible and retain the business. This had been the status quo for many, many years, the reasoning being they wanted their staff fresh and ready to work when they arrived - many, many companies cite this reason for buying premium seats, and fair enough.

Then, around 2010, a (cancer?) drug they had spend many hundreds of millions and many years developing was denied certification in the States. All that money down the drain. Tens of thousands of salaried R&D hours wasted, leading directly and indirectly to several thousand AZ jobs being lost globally over the past few years.

Another consequence was that their international travel dipped drastically. Many staff stopped travelling, others travelled Economy Class. This may seem trivial but I know for a fact when the move to Cambridge happens and AZ stop flying out of Manchester, the revenue loss means at least one airline will almost certainly cut a route, which can mean the loss of jobs across a number of companies such as ground handlers, caterers, security, airline staff, etc.

Pharma drug pipelines are often years long and can cost hundreds of millions in R&D, testing, trials, etc, a huge investment and a huge risk. Despite the myths, they're not simply milking state and academia, they're making enormous investment and bearing enormous cost themselves. They do so because their competitors are racing them to get these drugs developed and to market where the profits need to cover that investment and then some.

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"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"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"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"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?