Big Pharma - Gambling with people's lives?

  • Thread starter KSaiyu
  • 36 comments
  • 1,410 views
KSaiyu

KSaiyu

(Banned)
2,822
AstraZeneca takeover: Cameron 'must intervene' in Pfizer's bid

Pfizer.jpg



The Independent Friday 16 May 2014

Pfizer's proposed takeover of AstraZeneca has stepped up recently. With the British firm's boss Pascal Soriot determined to retain independence appealing to the heart citing past R+D cost reductions and tax evasion motives, and the minds of investors promising a bright future trumpeting 'miracle' cancer drugs in the pipeline (MEDI4736), it's clear a lot is at stake. Does this include lives, and if so is government intervention required?

The Daily Mail focuses (predictably) on the money, diluting the discussion as an introduction for the majority of the British public. Soriot claims this is illogical, and to his credit he does seem to be resolute in his determination in keeping British jobs in a key front against medical disease.

I'm aware there's a lot of scientists, or at least members more keenly interested in science than the general public here. I'm wondering the opinion on this takeover - is it more than ethics (if involved at all)? Could it be seen as "standing up to corporate America"?
 
I love the thread title. Just last night I was attending a party at a nice Italian restaurant and a girl asked me, because of course I speak Italian, "How do you pronounce that?" I said, "Just call it a chicken parm."
 
It makes little difference in the end... Pfizer want to dilute their R&D into low-tax low-wage areas, there's a huge R&D workshare infrastructure from the UK to Mumbai, Delhi et al which is more easily managed by British projects. I presume that India and Britain's close history is the reason for us seeming (in my observed opinion) to be able to make sense of each other better. They'll get that somehow and will grow through acquisition to do it.

Pfizer want some of that AND to be able to trade in a country where tax dodges are so easy. AstraZeneca are big but not big enough to resist concerted efforts from companies like Pfizer or GSK. Eventually they'll be consumed like a headache tablet. Just before a meal would be best.
 
But should public interest have a say in such matters? A lot of people sit up and take notice when the big C is mentioned, especially when we're talking about breakthrough drugs. It'll be cold comfort for the clinician who has to tell Mrs Smith that she should have got cancer a couple of years later since a big merger hampered development of a life saving drug.
 
KSaiyu
But should public interest have a say in such matters? A lot of people sit up and take notice when the big C is mentioned, especially when we're talking about breakthrough drugs. It'll be cold comfort for the clinician who has to tell Mrs Smith that she should have got cancer a couple of years later since a big merger hampered development of a life saving drug.
Click to expand...

No it won't, unfortunately. That's always been the way to one extent or another.

And, while I take the point you're making, realistically (especially in the US) no clinician's going to ever say that, surely? :)
 
TenEightyOne
It makes little difference in the end... Pfizer want to dilute their R&D into low-tax low-wage areas, there's a huge R&D workshare infrastructure from the UK to Mumbai, Delhi et al which is more easily managed by British projects. I presume that India and Britain's close history is the reason for us seeming (in my observed opinion) to be able to make sense of each other better. They'll get that somehow and will grow through acquisition to do it.

Pfizer want some of that AND to be able to trade in a country where tax dodges are so easy. AstraZeneca are big but not big enough to resist concerted efforts from companies like Pfizer or GSK. Eventually they'll be consumed like a headache tablet. Just before a meal would be best.
Click to expand...

I wonder if tax relief on R & D spending in the UK versus America is also advantageous for them.
 
MatskiMonk
I wonder if tax relief on R & D spending in the UK versus America is also advantageous for them.
Click to expand...

Cynic, they're in this for the good of mankind.

And yes, of course :D

AZ's MD said in a webcast this morning that they would take no further offers from Pfizer. That may be the case but, as several of my colleagues observed, it doesn't remove the possibility of a "hostile" proposition to the shareholders.
 
KSaiyu
But should public interest have a say in such matters? A lot of people sit up and take notice when the big C is mentioned, especially when we're talking about breakthrough drugs. It'll be cold comfort for the clinician who has to tell Mrs Smith that she should have got cancer a couple of years later since a big merger hampered development of a life saving drug.
Click to expand...

Why are you assuming that a merger will hamper R&D of revenue sources? If anything, acquisitions and mergers often occur because one company is interested in bringing additional funding to particular R&D projects in hopes of bringing them to market faster, or to a wider market.

What's with the assumption that this is going to harm people? And what's with the assumption that somehow the public should be able to step an and force the hand of a company that may or may not be developing their own projects as fast as the public would like them to?

If they want to put a potential drug on hold while they do some business dealings, that's their prerogative. The "public" is not entitled to the fruits of that labor.
 
Danoff
What's with the assumption that this is going to harm people? And what's with the assumption that somehow the public should be able to step an and force the hand of a company that may or may not be developing their own projects as fast as the public would like them to?
Click to expand...

Ask all the people whose jobs will be lost. I know a good few of them and they're genuinely very nervous that a new offer will tabled.
 
TenEightyOne
Ask all the people whose jobs will be lost. I know a good few of them and they're genuinely very nervous that a new offer will tabled.
Click to expand...

...and this gives us a reason to interfere in the decisions of privately owned companies how exactly?

You imply that this is evidence of net harm, but I don't see it. If prices go down, couldn't the net result be positive for people overall? Also, keep in mind that, most likely, at least one person somewhere else will get a job for every job that is "lost". Outsourcing can result in more hires, and hires in places where people need the money a lot more, and a reduction in cost.
 
Danoff
...and this gives us a reason to interfere in the decisions of privately owned companies how exactly?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I quoted both your questions. You asked about the assumption that people would be harmed. I'll quote more precisely;

Danoff
What's with the assumption that this is going to harm people?
Click to expand...

They will if you call losing employment harmful. AZ use a number of contractors as well as staff, the contractor situation is tough in the UK and Scandinavia at the moment as things are. If AZ go (Pfizer say today they'll make no more offers but the staff I've spoken to don't seem so convinced) then there is a clear R&D consolidation plan using existing AZ labstructure. That involves definition reductions in worker numbers.

I don't think either company is privately owned but regardless I wouldn't say we have any reason to interfere.
 
TenEightyOne
They will if you call losing employment harmful. AZ use a number of contractors as well as staff, the contractor situation is tough in the UK and Scandinavia at the moment as things are. If AZ go (Pfizer say today they'll make no more offers but the staff I've spoken to don't seem so convinced) then there is a clear R&D consolidation plan using existing AZ labstructure. That involves definition reductions in worker numbers.
Click to expand...

Danoff
You imply that this is evidence of net harm, but I don't see it. If prices go down, couldn't the net result be positive for people overall? Also, keep in mind that, most likely, at least one person somewhere else will get a job for every job that is "lost". Outsourcing can result in more hires, and hires in places where people need the money a lot more, and a reduction in cost.
Click to expand...

TenEightyOne
I don't think either company is privately owned but regardless I wouldn't say we have any reason to interfere.
Click to expand...

You're distinguishing privately owned against publicly traded. I'm distinguishing against publicly owned (as in, government).
 
Danoff
You're distinguishing privately owned against publicly traded. I'm distinguishing against publicly owned (as in, government).
Click to expand...

Fair enough. The principle of interference is the same anyway, as you said the public have no right to demand a new drug from Pharma, they'll do what's right for them when it's right for them.

You're right that R&D consolidation brings hypothetical savings to companies in the long term.

With Pharma I'm not sure we'd see those price cuts passed down and I certainly feel that the long term benefits to society won't mean much to people who aren't paying for their house next month.
 
Danoff
Why are you assuming that a merger will hamper R&D of revenue sources? If anything, acquisitions and mergers often occur because one company is interested in bringing additional funding to particular R&D projects in hopes of bringing them to market faster, or to a wider market.
Click to expand...

History
 
Danoff
It's a very UK centric article focusing entirely on UK economic impacts and UK research. That's not a broad enough perspective.
Click to expand...

You think so much good will come of this in the States (for Pfizer) that the knock-on effect doesn't matter? That article gives a good balanced view (the Grauniad's not a bad rag overall) and if anything is rather understated.

I know AZ very well, they're a very big company and a lot of people (possibly tens of thousands) will lose their jobs in AZ and the many companies that support their operations (such as my own esteemed employer. I'm safe from this, fortunately for me, a lot aren't).

What would you present from the "wider perspective" (presumably meaning "America too") which balances that impact on local economies and real people?
 
Last edited:
Danoff
It's a very UK centric article focusing entirely on UK economic impacts and UK research. That's not a broad enough perspective.
Click to expand...

An ex Pfizer R&D president good enough?


TenEightyOne
You think so much good will come of this in the States (for Pfizer) that the knock-on effect doesn't matter? That article gives a good balanced view (the Grauniad's not a bad rag overall) and if anything is rather understated.

I know AZ very well, they're an very big company and a lot of people (possibly tens of thousands) will lose their jobs in AZ and the many companies that support their operations (such as my own esteemed employer. I'm safe from this, fortunately for me, a lot aren't).

What would you present from the "wider perspective" (presumably meaning "America too") which balances that impact on local economies and real peopl?
Click to expand...

Yep, it really isn't just the UK that is worried
 
Hey, maybe Pfizer is just an insane company that likes destroying product development and future income. That doesn't sound intelligent to me, but it's always possible for a company to just lose its mind at the top and go on a rampage destroying itself and everything it touches. Let's assume that's happening here...

Still not worth intervening.
 
Danoff
Hey, maybe Pfizer is just an insane company that likes destroying product development and future income. That doesn't sound intelligent to me, but it's always possible for a company to just lose its mind at the top and go on a rampage destroying itself and everything it touches. Let's assume that's happening here...

Still not worth intervening.
Click to expand...

No, Pfizer will amalgamate and overlay. They are the "consuming" party in the takeover, it isn't a merger remember. That's how business takeovers work. Again I can cite the example of my own employer that buys very large businesses, as much as possible is done to help "acquired" staff but ultimately consumption of their company is undertaken to facilitate our own company's growth and maintain its world standing.

Pfizer won't destroy any product development or future income, it's just that some things will never happen. Who knows what we don't know?
 
Danoff
Hey, maybe Pfizer is just an insane company that likes destroying product development and future income. That doesn't sound intelligent to me, but it's always possible for a company to just lose its mind at the top and go on a rampage destroying itself and everything it touches. Let's assume that's happening here...

Still not worth intervening.
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning Pfizer's intelligence. Pfizer would grow, AstraZeneca...meh maybe (doubtful).
 
KSaiyu
I'm not questioning Pfizer's intelligence. Pfizer would grow, AstraZeneca...meh maybe (doubtful).
Click to expand...

They'll simply go Norwegian Blue (despite being UK/Swedish). Eventually the brand will probably be removed too, it's beyond question that there'll be a contraction in R&D facilities development (with knockons for wider industry) as Pfizer have already stated that R&D amalgamation is one of their drivers.
 
I'll bet anyone most of the major shootings that took place in the US, people were on anti depressants but Comrade Obama has to defend them.
 
GTP_GTDOJO
I'll bet anyone most of the major shootings that took place in the US, people were on anti depressants but Comrade Obama has to defend them.
Click to expand...

Dude, I think its fair to say that there's a good likelihood that shooters could have been treated for a mental illness. But yeah, good spot.

Calling Rand Paul into it and trying to blame him somehow would be ludicrous and silly, as blaming Obama, the ants behind my fridge or purple.

Are you saying that anti-depressants are bad somehow and actually exacerbate the likelihood of mass shootings?
 
TenEightyOne
Are you saying that anti-depressants are bad somehow and actually exacerbate the likelihood of mass shootings?
Click to expand...

When you look into the published side effects of many anti-depressants, it is seen that suicidal ideation is listed.

Unfortunately depression is a fact in some people and must be treated, so anti-depressants can't be all bad, even though they are obviously associated with mass shootings.
 
Last edited:
While the psychotropic drugs causing mass violence theory lacks sufficient evidence for me to agree with it, there was, and often times still is, a trend in the US where physicians have taken the I'm a hammer and it's a nail mentality. Many people given these drugs were diagnosed and given the Rx by a general practitioner, not a healthcare professional.

The Medicaid and HMO system in this country is to blame as healthcare practice tends to follow the most common system. It was required to get referred to a mental health provider by a general practitioner in order for it to be covered. Either greed or hubris led these doctors to give treatment rather than a referral. They are not trained to treat these conditions and so it is not unreasonable to assume some patients were not properly treated.

Whether the drugs are to blame or not is unknown, but I'd say it is not unreasonable to consider the state of mental health treatment in this country as a key to the problem.
 

Latest Posts

Back