Gordon said:

Of course, you could counter that by saying that in terms of product revenue and return, it’s actually to their advantage to have us live long lives that are reasonably healthy but require anti blood-clotters and cholesterol drugs and that kind of thing. The drugs for a non-acute condition.

For the pharmaceutical industry, the ideal customer is someone who is between the ages of 50 and 80, is in relatively descent health – meaning they don’t have any acute critical problems, but suffers from a number of chronic conditions of mild to moderate severity that can be controlled to some degree by medication. Basically someone who’s has slightly high blood pressure, high cholesterol, seasonal allergies, moderate arthritis – stuff like that.

(You could argue that high blood pressure and cholesterol are critical, because they can kill you – however, not over night. They’re a long term thing.)

That’s the ideal customer because it’s someone who is likely to provide steady, continuous, consumption of drugs for maybe 30 years. Business wise, that’s perfect. Cancer drugs may be expensive, and so per dose they may give some good returns, but the market is limited and the people who take them either die or recover and then stop taking them.

The demographic where drug companies make the most money is in the 50 to 80 age range – the time in one’s life where persistent non-critical health issues begin to become a major issue. Of course, younger consumers with allergies, depression, anxiety or any other condition that needs continuous therapeutic pharmaceuticals are great too.

It actually benefits the pharmaceutical companies for people to live as long as possible. The older one gets the more money the drug companies tend to make from their various health issues that come with age.

I’m not going to say that they don’t make money on specialty and drugs, cancer drugs, short-term things and so on. They do, and a lot of their profits do come down to the fact that all their products do add up and contribute to the bottom line. But the BIG BIG BIG money, the ones that can make a drug company rich are ones like cholesterol drugs, allergy drugs, antidepressants.

The most profitable drugs are:

Lipitor (cholesterol), Plavix (anti-clotting, for high risk of stroke and heart attack), Nexium (acid blocker – treats persistent heartburn and acid reflux), Seretide/Advair (asthma), Zocor (cholesteral), Norvasc (blood pressure), Zyprexa (anti-psychotic and bi-polar), Risperdal (anti-psychotic and bi-polar), Prevacid (acid blocker), Effexor (anti-depressant)

Of course, pharmaceutical companies will sell any product they develop that has a market and will generate a return. Sometimes they end up stumbling onto something or discovering something through the general-purpose research being conducted. Viagra, for example (erectile dysfunction drugs are another highly lucrative area) was originally intended as a heart medication, they were researching compounds that would stimulate blood vessels to increase local blood flow. It turned out to have an unexpected effect.

        Magic Donuts said:

Well the whole thing is bullocks to begin with.

I have nothing to add to this. Crazy nuts, conspriacies, quacks, it’s all been said. Just one small point – it’s not bullocks, as in cattle, it’s bollocks. As in testicles.

Of course, you could counter that by saying that in terms of product revenue and return, it’s actually to their advantage to have us live long lives that are reasonably healthy but require anti blood-clotters and cholesterol drugs and that kind of thing. The drugs for a non-acute condition.

But then there are some who are believe vaccines don’t even prevent illness. It takes all kinds.

        Magic Donuts said:

Well the whole thing is bullocks to begin with, but to add to that, as I understand it, drug companies do, of course, make some money on vaccines, but they’re not the most lucrative cash cows they sell, because you only get one or two doses per person which is not a lot of product pushing.

Well, yes and no… it depends on the company and the vaccine being sold. If it’s something that has a lot of competitors or is specialized, that cuts down on how much they make. It should be noted that some drug companies focus more on one sector than another. Also, a big thing is whether it’s new or not. As a general rule, once the patents run out and a drug goes generic, it;s no longer a huge money maker. It continues to make a respectable amount, but not the huge returns it can have when it’s exclusive.

Many vaccines are high volume, low profit per unit – they generate a steady income but nothing spectacular.

Merk sells about a billion dollars to a billion and a half of the HPV vaccine each year. From that they probably make a couple hundred million in profit.

It is sizable, but not enormous, not when you compare it to the major money makers: antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs. That is where the BIG BIG BIG bucks are.

But one must keep in mind, a lot of these drug companies are enormously profitable because they have many products that each make a few tens of millions – not because they have any one that makes it all.

Still, I mean, do vaccines generate enough income to buy every politician, MD and scientist on the face of the earth? Absolutely not.

        drbuzz0 said:

Drug companies spending countless billions to buy off every major scientific organization, national government regulatory agency, court and judge in order to make millions?

Yeah, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

However, there are people who will believe it.

Well the whole thing is bullocks to begin with, but to add to that, as I understand it, drug companies do, of course, make some money on vaccines, but they’re not the most lucrative cash cows they sell, because you only get one or two doses per person which is not a lot of product pushing.

I mean, if you believe anti-vaxers, the drug companies are going to extreme lengths to buy off people and spent until millions or billions on a vast conspiracy and probably losing money on the equation. If a vaccine makes one hundred million dollars a year and it costs 200 million to buy off every major government, court and doctor on the face of the earth (and it probably costs more) then you lose out by 100 million. Doesn’t make much buisiness sense.

        Rusty said:

That basally is saying that the entirety of government up to the highest levels is involved in an autism conspiracy. Think anyone would really believe that?

Drug companies spending countless billions to buy off every major scientific organization, national government regulatory agency, court and judge in order to make millions? Yeah, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

However, there are people who will believe it.

        Rusty said:

That basally is saying that the entirety of government up to the highest levels is involved in an autism conspiracy. Think anyone would really believe that?

We’re not talking about anyone here, we’re talking about antivaccers…

        DV82XL said:

So what you’re saying then is that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Special Sessions, has been bought out by Big Phama.

(I thought I’d get it in first before the crazes show up, foaming at the mouth)

That is what some would say. Although it seems a little more crazy every time it is said.

This is the 4th time that a US Federal Court has made this kind of ruling and all in all this is like the seventh or eighth time a federal court has ruled on vaccine safety/autism (counting other cases like suits against the FDA and attempts to get injunctions).

What was pointed out in an editorial (New York Times I think, but I might be wrong) is that all the courts have been unanimous and if you total that all up it comes out to almost 20 different federal judges, all generally respected ruling the same on this. These judges being appointed by Bush, Clinton, Bush 1, Regan and Carter and all of them with excellent judicial records.

Seems a bit suspect that the entire court system of a big country could be bought top to bottom, even given how profitable drug companies are.

It was noted that this will be appealed and if the appeals court hears it there’s the possibility it could go all the way to the supreme court. Actually, if the supreme court decides not to hear it and thereby confirms the lower court or if the supreme court does decide to hear it and rules against it (I’m sure they would, they’re pretty smart up there) then it amounts to the same. That basally is saying that the entirety of government up to the highest levels is involved in an autism conspiracy. Think anyone would really believe that?

(I thought I’d get it in first before the crazes show up, foaming at the mouth)