Comments on: Gilead Unfairly Controls AIDS Ingredients http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/02/gilead_unfairly_controls_aids/ News, Comment and Conversation Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:24:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Melody http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/02/gilead_unfairly_controls_aids/#comment-2646 Melody Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:13:06 +0000 http://plt.starledger.webfactional.com/2007/02/gilead_unfairly_controls_aids/#comment-2646 In his book "Too Profitable to Cure" the author addresses another such AIDS debacle, together with his complaint about insulin: Increase the price! Here is a parallel example of this deluded corporate mindset, whereby patients of another chronic disease are manipulated for profit. In a news release dated 2004, the AIDS Foundation filed an antitrust and restraint of trade lawsuit against the pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories. Novir, the “old” AIDS drug, underwent a five-fold increase (from $50/month to $250/month). Abbott’s “new” drug, which had Novir as a significant component, remained unchanged in price. Novir was considered the better product for some AIDS patients. Because of the cost increase, these patients were forced to the cheaper, diluted Novir product called Kaletra. Abbott’s price increase for Novir crippled competing pharmaceuticals who were using Novir as a part of their proprietary formulation. Would you call this restraint of trade? Or would you call it criminal malfeasance?5 This same kind of manipulation occurred for insulin users once rDNA genetically engineered human insulin received approval from the FDA. After being on the market for 10 years, rDNA insulin had captured only about 50% of the market. A marketing ploy (manipulation) was needed to propel human insulin to “stardom.” So, major insulin manufacturers set about increasing the price of animal-based insulins (beef, pork and beef/pork) while the price of rDNA insulin remained stable. When managed health care organizations, including the U.S. Veterans Administration, began endorsing rDNA insulin because of price advantage, the “popularity” of animal insulins began to decline. As sales declined, the pharmaceuticals could point to a waning market to excuse or justify their gradual withdrawal of animal insulins from the marketplace. They did this WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that some diabetic patients could not take human insulin. How this can be considered anything but criminal behavior? If I slip a cyanide pill into your dish of ice cream, knowing full well that cyanide is poisonous, is there little doubt that I will be charged with murder when you die? In his book “Too Profitable to Cure” the author addresses another such AIDS debacle, together with his complaint about insulin:

Increase the price!
Here is a parallel example of this deluded corporate mindset, whereby patients of another chronic disease are manipulated for profit. In a news release dated 2004, the AIDS Foundation filed an antitrust and restraint of trade lawsuit against the pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories. Novir, the “old” AIDS drug, underwent a five-fold increase (from $50/month to $250/month). Abbott’s “new” drug, which had Novir as a significant component, remained unchanged in price. Novir was considered the better product for some AIDS patients. Because of the cost increase, these patients were forced to the cheaper, diluted Novir product called Kaletra. Abbott’s price increase for Novir crippled competing pharmaceuticals who were using Novir as a part of their proprietary formulation. Would you call this restraint of trade? Or would you call it criminal malfeasance?5
This same kind of manipulation occurred for insulin users once rDNA genetically engineered human insulin received approval from the FDA. After being on the market for 10 years, rDNA insulin had captured only about 50% of the market. A marketing ploy (manipulation) was needed to propel human insulin to “stardom.” So, major insulin manufacturers set about increasing the price of animal-based insulins (beef, pork and beef/pork) while the price of rDNA insulin remained stable. When managed health care organizations, including the U.S. Veterans Administration, began endorsing rDNA insulin because of price advantage, the “popularity” of animal insulins began to decline. As sales declined, the pharmaceuticals could point to a waning market to excuse or justify their gradual withdrawal of animal insulins from the marketplace. They did this WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that some diabetic patients could not take human insulin. How this can be considered anything but criminal behavior? If I slip a cyanide pill into your dish of ice cream, knowing full well that cyanide is poisonous, is there little doubt that I will be charged with murder when you die?

]]>