Park Life 71 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The world's second biggest pharmaceutical company is to radically shift its attitude to providing cheap drugs to millions of people in the developing world. In a major change of strategy, the new head of GlaxoSmithKline, Andrew Witty, has told the Guardian he will slash prices on all medicines in the poorest countries, give back profits to be spent on hospitals and clinics and – most ground-breaking of all – share knowledge about potential drugs that are currently protected by patents. Witty says he believes drug companies have an obligation to help the poor get treatment. He challenges other pharmaceutical giants to follow his lead. Pressure on the industry has been growing over the past decade, triggered by the Aids catastrophe. Drug companies have been repeatedly criticised for failing to drop their prices for HIV drugs while millions died in Africa and Asia. Since then, campaigners have targeted them for defending the patents, which keep their prices high, while attempting to crush competition from generic manufacturers, who undercut them dramatically in countries where patents do not apply. The reputation of the industry suffered a further damaging blow with the publication and film of John le Carré's book The Constant Gardener, which depicted drug companies as uncaring and corrupt. Fantastic stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Andrew is that cool we nicknamed him 'witty cent'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 Andrew is that cool we nicknamed him 'witty cent'. I like him. I noticed the sharing knowledge bit. What does it mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Andrew is that cool we nicknamed him 'witty cent'. I like him. I noticed the sharing knowledge bit. What does it mean? Put any chemicals or processes over which GSK has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a "patent pool", so they can be explored by other researchers. This may help innovation in diseases which tend to be only found in the poorest countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. You mean fop fuming now that there is concrete evidence that pharma companies are part of the solution (as i've maintained) rather than part of the problem (as you've maintained). Basically, this is the final nail in the coffin or your naive arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. Are you Glenn Roeder btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. You mean fop fuming now that there is concrete evidence that pharma companies are part of the solution (as i've maintained) rather than part of the problem (as you've maintained). Basically, this is the final nail in the coffin or your naive arguments. They've come around to Fop's way of thinking, everyone does in the end, even if they hate themselves for it (and they also know where the money is long-term). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. Are you Glenn Roeder btw? Is Glenn Roeder, Glenn Roeder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. You mean fop fuming now that there is concrete evidence that pharma companies are part of the solution (as i've maintained) rather than part of the problem (as you've maintained). Basically, this is the final nail in the coffin or your naive arguments. They've come around to Fop's way of thinking, everyone does in the end, even if they hate themselves for it (and they also know where the money is long-term). Its not about money, its about partnership and solving the reputational issue to clear the way for more useful discussions on global access. No, you're way of thinking would have meant no pharma company to invest even this small amount, as your philosophy was to use public money to fund drug research, not private - remember that. To even claim you've even touched this debate in a meaningful manner just shows your age, whether that be mental or actual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. Are you Glenn Roeder btw? Is Glenn Roeder, Glenn Roeder? He asks himself that all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. You mean fop fuming now that there is concrete evidence that pharma companies are part of the solution (as i've maintained) rather than part of the problem (as you've maintained). Basically, this is the final nail in the coffin or your naive arguments. They've come around to Fop's way of thinking, everyone does in the end, even if they hate themselves for it (and they also know where the money is long-term). Its not about money, its about partnership and solving the reputational issue to clear the way for more useful discussions on global access. No, you're way of thinking would have meant no pharma company to invest even this small amount, as your philosophy was to use public money to fund drug research, not private - remember that. To even claim you've even touched this debate in a meaningful manner just shows your age, whether that be mental or actual. Nice try. Fortunately Fop knows best, as this clearly shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. You mean fop fuming now that there is concrete evidence that pharma companies are part of the solution (as i've maintained) rather than part of the problem (as you've maintained). Basically, this is the final nail in the coffin or your naive arguments. They've come around to Fop's way of thinking, everyone does in the end, even if they hate themselves for it (and they also know where the money is long-term). Its not about money, its about partnership and solving the reputational issue to clear the way for more useful discussions on global access. No, you're way of thinking would have meant no pharma company to invest even this small amount, as your philosophy was to use public money to fund drug research, not private - remember that. To even claim you've even touched this debate in a meaningful manner just shows your age, whether that be mental or actual. Nice try. Fortunately Fop knows best, as this clearly shows. Less than 1% of the company's income with no commercial upside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. You mean fop fuming now that there is concrete evidence that pharma companies are part of the solution (as i've maintained) rather than part of the problem (as you've maintained). Basically, this is the final nail in the coffin or your naive arguments. They've come around to Fop's way of thinking, everyone does in the end, even if they hate themselves for it (and they also know where the money is long-term). Its not about money, its about partnership and solving the reputational issue to clear the way for more useful discussions on global access. No, you're way of thinking would have meant no pharma company to invest even this small amount, as your philosophy was to use public money to fund drug research, not private - remember that. To even claim you've even touched this debate in a meaningful manner just shows your age, whether that be mental or actual. Nice try. Fortunately Fop knows best, as this clearly shows. Less than 1% of the company's income with no commercial upside? I'm not sure if you're just very good, or you actually believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. You mean fop fuming now that there is concrete evidence that pharma companies are part of the solution (as i've maintained) rather than part of the problem (as you've maintained). Basically, this is the final nail in the coffin or your naive arguments. They've come around to Fop's way of thinking, everyone does in the end, even if they hate themselves for it (and they also know where the money is long-term). Its not about money, its about partnership and solving the reputational issue to clear the way for more useful discussions on global access. No, you're way of thinking would have meant no pharma company to invest even this small amount, as your philosophy was to use public money to fund drug research, not private - remember that. To even claim you've even touched this debate in a meaningful manner just shows your age, whether that be mental or actual. Nice try. Fortunately Fop knows best, as this clearly shows. Less than 1% of the company's income with no commercial upside? I'm not sure if you're just very good, or you actually believe that. Both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23159 Chezzy fuming. You mean fop fuming now that there is concrete evidence that pharma companies are part of the solution (as i've maintained) rather than part of the problem (as you've maintained). Basically, this is the final nail in the coffin or your naive arguments. They've come around to Fop's way of thinking, everyone does in the end, even if they hate themselves for it (and they also know where the money is long-term). Its not about money, its about partnership and solving the reputational issue to clear the way for more useful discussions on global access. No, you're way of thinking would have meant no pharma company to invest even this small amount, as your philosophy was to use public money to fund drug research, not private - remember that. To even claim you've even touched this debate in a meaningful manner just shows your age, whether that be mental or actual. Nice try. Fortunately Fop knows best, as this clearly shows. Less than 1% of the company's income with no commercial upside? I'm not sure if you're just very good, or you actually believe that. Both. That would make you very good at lying and stupid...... so that could be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now