your research shows your ignorance. example: it is estimated that bill gates alone saves several million lives every year simply by vacinating childeren in poor countries. many of these diseases have been wiped out in developed countries by easily available drugs. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/ http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/philanthropy/2005/01/25/cz_ec_0125gates.html Fighting Diseases of the Developing World We support efforts to prevent and treat diseases and conditions that meet three criteria: (1) they cause widespread illness and death in developing countries; (2) they represent the greatest inequities in health between developed and developing countries; and (3) they receive inadequate attention and funding. To learn more about our priority diseases and conditions, please see the specific sections listed below. Acute Diarrheal Illness The foundation helps fund work aimed at preventing and treating infectious diarrhea, which contributes to the deaths of 2 million to 3 million young children each year. Acute Lower Respiratory Infections Respiratory illnesses like pneumonia kill about 2 million young children every year. The foundation aids efforts to improve diagnosis and develop better vaccines against these common infections. Malaria The foundationâs grantees are working in many areas to reduce the burden of malaria on the worldâs poorest countries. Their work includes the development of vaccines to prevent the disease and large-scale efforts to control malaria by making better use of existing tools. Tuberculosis The foundation supports work in the prevention and treatment of TB, including the search for improved vaccines, better tools for diagnosis, and new drugs to treat active TB. all of these diseases have been mostly eliminated in most developed countries by drugs. i know of a case in a family where 80 years ago a father died because he got a sliver in his finger and died from infection. back then they didnt have antibodics. we take all this for granted today.
The diseases you mention are caused by bacteria or viruses. Antibiotic and antiviral drugs are the most effective drugs. They have little to no side effects, they're mostly generics, and most of them have been developed by government or with the help of government funding. And they're not 'lifestyle' drugs like prosaq, viagra, probably vioxx too - you'll never hear of Gates trying to "help" the poor with these drugs - he'll go broke in one year.
As a Harvard Law School graduate, Cramer probably knows what he's talking about in this case, more so than the analysts.
So , What is the net thinking? One or two more down days to allow everyone out that did not bail already, then a nice bounce?
I make two distinctions: drugs that eradicate disease that are certain to cause death (malaria, bacterial infections, etc), and drugs that are peddled to consumers to alleviate non-deadly SYMPTOMS like pain, discomfort, lack of ability to maintain an erection, etc. While people die of malaria, few people die of pain, unless they choose to. While its probably inconvenient, few men die from an inability to obtain an erection. The consumers create the markets for these drugs of convenience. Very few people are aware of how their lifelong habits eventually contribute to chronic pain, and loss of functioning. While it may be sad, the pharm companies provide the service in terms of these drugs like Vioxx and others. The drug companies play on what human vanity thrives on in terms of these types of drugs: the quick fix. Even in advertising, the pharm companies are using repetition as a means to drown out dangers. Its so common to hear the list of horrid probably side effects of taking these drugs in TV ads, that I imagine most are becoming immune to the risks via familiarity. While I am sorry for that person's mother-in-law because she can't take Vioxx anymore, she won't die of pain. None of us will die from discomfort, unless we make it a burden to ourselves. Its quite easy, however, to die from Malaria, once you get it. Now, its seems it might also be possible to die from or sustain permanent damage from a drug induced 4+ hour erection. While I assert that the drug companies are definitely blameworthy in these actions, I put most of the responsibility on the lazy typical US consumer. In addition, what most drug companies would like to do is overcome plays that the genetic code has already scripted for most of us. Given the inherent complexity of the task, it is hard to realistically say that any improvement in one area will not be frought with nasty and potentially deadly trade-offs in other areas of the human body.
That's a good point. My father's diabetes medications harm his kidneys, and cancer drugs can harm various other organs, but on balance they prolong life, and generally the adverse effects are well-known and can be monitored because the patients are seeing a doctor every couple weeks anyway. But a pain reliever (or an MS or ED treatment) that can bring on sudden death or blindness in an otherwise healthy person is a whole other kettle of fish. There's been some really incendiary rhetoric about the Vioxx issue. Here's what Dr. David Graham, the anti-Vioxx FDA guy, said to Congress: Analysts are likening the result of this one judgment to the diet-pill lawsuits, in particular saying that the total amount won't be multiplicative across all pending lawsuits (there are shorties on the Yahoo message board, of course, doing the math and predicting MRK will be liable for $1 trillion.) My opinion: adverse rulings in Vioxx lawsuits probably won't impact its eventual return to the marketplace any more than billion-dollar judgments against MO affect cigarette sales. It will be a bumpy road for the stock price, but MRK won't go bankrupt.
Interesting points...I would think that a company like MRK that realizes the potential for litigation that their products possess would have umbrella insurance that would probably cover the lions share of any eventual liabilities.
vhehn is a bit confused. Proper use of drugs and vaccines is one where they are used in extreme conditions only. Vaccines were originally designed to help those with weakened immune systems due to malnutrition & bad health, other sickness, bad genetics, old & very young age, etc. Antibiotics are not supposed to be the answer every time, only in times where the natural immune system cannot handle it for similiar reasons. Antibiotics attack boththe bacteria and the immune system, acting like a wipeout bomb. Regular use of antibiotics destroys the natural immune system over time forcing the person to rely on these drugs to fight everyday bacteria. Vaccines develops an inadequate immune systems, since vaccines are just weakened viruses not the real ones. Great moneymaker ehh? Man made chemicals don't mix too well with our natural organic system. If you use these drugs regularly, you're doing damage to yourself. Half of USA is hooked on pills like junkies and then keep wondering about the health problems. The big pharmas just keep pumping them out and laughing all the way to the bank. MRK nets 4-5bn a year, even after Vioxx being pulled. They have 2 bil in cash on hand, another 7 bil in short term investments. They will have little problem paying even the estimated 18 bil in liabilities since it will be dragged out for years in the courts. Regardless, I would bet on the corporate lawyers rather than the US justice system. Watch the appeals. This is Altria all over again. Buy at $25.
And you're probably one of those people that isn't taking your prescribed happy-pill three times a day? Maturity? Point? Just can't see any trace of it in that post... Hey, Tom Cruise has done his "research" as well