blike

BTW, a 16% profit margin is a whopper for a Fortune 500-class company. An absolute whopper. If I'm not mistaken, only insurance and, recently, the oil companies do better.

Indeed. It's 2-3x the average.

Agreed, but they're also spending twice as much on marketing than on R&D, so that sort of takes the wind out of the sails on that particular argument.

 

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001

From this new estimate, it appears that pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D. These numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry's claim. While the amount spent on promotion is not in itself a confirmation of Kefauver's depiction of the pharmaceutical industry, it confirms the public image of a marketing-driven industry and provides an important argument to petition in favor of transforming the workings of the industry in the direction of more research and less promotion.

Good paper and good points. However, one can't make the assumption that a dollar saved by cutting promotions translates to a dollar that could be shifted to consumer savings or R&D. In other words, promotions isn't necessarily an expendable part of the process where dollars can simply be trimmed off and transferred to other places. It's an investment, just like R&D. Obviously if big pharma could increase their profits by trimming off promotional money they would have done it a long time ago. They've determined that a large promotional budget is just as essential to profitability as R&D. Once a drug gets to the market, it requires a huge amount of money to convince physicians and patients that the new expensive drug is better than the old cheap drug.

 

Also, as you can see by this figure, across multiple pharma companies, R&D is never more than ~17% of sales.

 

With the exception of the telecommunications industry since the late 1990s, that percentage is higher than almost any other industry (according to this paper).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Either way, to tie this back on topic, the point is that there are many areas for costs to go down, and the previous powerful lobbies of big pharma and their public perception are no reason to hold us back.

I agree that there are many areas for costs to go down. I just don't think that the government being involved in any way with the financial workings of a private company is the way to do it.

If they want to lower costs, why not start by stopping the monopoly american pharmaceuticals enjoy over the american people?

Pharma companies have to recoup R&D costs from someone. That isn't going to happen if people import drugs on the gray market.

The fact that they are still "kicking dirt" makes me think they are trying to distract the public from what they are actually doing. Considering the popularity of the bailouts, that doesn't seem too farfetched to me...and I'm not at all happy with some of the other things that they have done either.

 

FYI, I'm not a Republican...

Apparently the most pressing issue on the homepage of the democratic party is to kick dirt at Rush Limbaugh.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about the matter to have an opinion.

Because he's attracting way too much attention these days. Even the president has been getting in on the action.

 

http://www.democrats.org/index.html

 

Love him or hate him, he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Obama's first budget predicts the deficit for this year will soar to a whopping $1.75 trillion, according to administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity before the public unveiling of the budget Thursday.

 

As part of the effort to end the nation's financial crisis, the administration will propose boosting the budget deficit by an additional $250 billion this year - to the record $1.75 trillion - enough to support as much as $750 billion more in spending under the government's rescue program for financial institutions. That would more than double the $700 billion bailout effort passed by Congress last October.

He needs to spend more now to spend less in the long run, or something like that.

Arm-chair generals are generally hilarious when they analyze the technical aspects of what works and what doesn't in war, what should have been used and what shouldn't have in war, and of course, their expertise in analyzing alleged still photos and short videos of improper use of ordinances.

Shazbot.

What a great game.

wut

ydoaPs, this is the ship you'll be on, correct?

but i got my information from a PHD in microbiology

What makes him any more of an expert than you? Microbiologists are not endocrinologists. Get your information from authoritative textbooks or qualified people.

Also there is such a thing as adrenaline overdose....I was wondering if the body could overdose itself.

Mokele has done an exellent job with your questions, just want to point out pheochromocytomas as an example of an endogenous 'overdose' of adrenaline.

So it seem some people body burns more fat in-take than others .One person will burn the fat of hamburger and fries faster than the other person?

Sure. I was always the skinny type when I was young, but I could eat with the best of them.

 

I thought obesity was a genetic problem.

Your genes ultimately control how your body handles the fat.

From that diagram, would the Spinous process normally bump into the one of the protrusions on the vertebrae below it, preventing it from turning past that point? Ie, breaking someone's neck would require either breaking one of the bone protrusions, or separating two vertebrae?

The angle of the spinous process varies based on the segment of the spine you're looking at. In the case of the cervical vertebra, they protrude at a higher angle from the vertebral body. If you take a look at the image below, in the left pane, you can see the spinous processes protruding posteriously (the patient's back, i.e. posterior, is on the right). What that means is that at least some element of extension would have to be in place for the spinous process to play a huge role. What you're more likely to see is either disarticulation of the superior and inferior facets of adjacent vertebra, or a fracture of the facets resulting in the same thing. Either way, the end result is that the spinal cord could either be compressed, twisted, or even severed by protruding bone fragments. If this occurs at a high enough level (and with enough cord compromise), it would result in quadripeligia and would likely paralyze the diaphgram, arresting respirations and resulting in death.

 

Good job YT! That's awesome

I had mine going for quite some time, but school work and other interests finally caught up with me.

The solution is clear.

 

 

Quit school, work, and your other interests.

Whatever the ideal solution may be, the first step in uncovering it is to convene a scientific panel of zombie experts to put out a consensus statement regarding the exact mechanism by which zombies are animated.

 

We need qualified volunteers.

Interesting -- can you share some of your research with us?

congrave-my mothers maiden name

Just don't use that as your password security question

This thread exists for the sole purpose of calling out those who need to change their avatar for various reasons.

 

Dudde, my man, it's time. You've had that avatar for years.

(is this the part where I rig the vote like all good presidents do?)

What the hell inspired your name?

Good suggestion, thanks!

It's kind of funny when you come to the realization that all those hours you sunk into world of warcraft (or your favorite MMO) are simply to increase a number on your screen. Getting that next level is like trying to score your next crack hit -- you'll do anything to get there, and when you do it's not as good as you thought it was going to be, but the next will undoubtedly be better!