Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:39 AM
Sat Nov 28
15 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
So I don't think Rep. Lee should be the new face of Democratic insensitivity. But I do think this fringe-produced complete frantic paranoia of the highest ridiculous fuckery has a way of draining people and causing the kind of inertia usually reserved for tired parents who are done listening to a whining toddler throwing a tantrum in Wal-mart. If only the birther/healthcare crazy-coup could be resolved with prune juice in a sippy cup.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Excuse me, but what's on Comedy Central?
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Btw, Rep Jackson's behavior was so rude, I don't think the written comments were necessary in this video. Jackson's disinterest speaks for itself.
08/12/09
08/12/09
Let's say she were a marketing manager for some sort of company, meeting with a potential client. Do you seriously think she would answer her phone during that meeting? Probably not.
Rep. Jackson Lee got caught looking like an idiot, and now she'll have to pay for that lack of professionalism, just like in any other job.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
That's the opposite of "lack of professionalism."
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Diet and exercise would probably help most people with high cholesterol, but in some cases it's inherited and there's nothing they can do about it, short of Lipitor.
08/12/09
To be honest, i'm way too young to have ever looked into drug rules, and what is and isn't covered. But from what I hear from my folks, and friends in the states, that's the medicine issue.
08/12/09
08/12/09
The difference is that some studies are showing certain other benefits of Lipitor that are not available in the other statins. Stuff like stopping plaque build-up in the arteries.
08/12/09
08/12/09
Drug companies are responsible for quality-of-life enhancing drugs, to keep impotent people fucking and fat people eating egg salad. But to be honest, the only people doing important medical research are government-funded institutes, universities and hospitals.
I think the world could survive if Pfizer failed to release Viagara 2: Hard on boogaloo.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
You need to make the distinction between the basic science research that is government funded (and I've gotten into some nasty, verbally abusive battles with certain knee-jerk right-wingers while I was defending the govt-financed research) and specific drug research that is privately funded and eventually becomes the drugs we use.
Viagra may not be a lifesaving drug (although it is a popular one), but Pfizer has also come up with stuff like Zoloft (which is now available as a generic) and other meds which can truly change lives.
08/12/09
Once you drill down a centimeter or two, though, you will find lots of PEOPLE within each of those types of organizations who truly love what they do. Some of them also love making money from it. But some do it purely because it's a calling.
08/12/09
There are always 10-20 (or more) medications in every drug company's pipeline at any given time. Most of them will fail somewhere along the way, whether in the early development stages or in the FDA approval stages. But it's the one or two drugs that make it through the process that recoup costs not only for their own development, but for all the ones that failed along the way.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
There are lots of shitty drug companies out there - I remember all the penny stocks in the 80s all too well. But there's a TREMENDOUS difference between them and the reputable companies with long track records of success.
08/12/09
What is this 70B deal? Is it for real, or just frenzied rumors? Even if it were true, there's no way that can be honored *and* control costs in a government-run healthcare system.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
[www.nytimes.com]
08/12/09
The production of eflornithine, the most effective drug to treat sleeping sickness, was stopped by Aventis (then Hoechst Marion Roussel) in 1995 because the drug, used to treat patients in Africa, was not making a profit.
that is a big problem to me.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
I never said otherwise. But my point is that those motives CAN have (unintended?) altruistic consequences, and I believe that should be encouraged.
08/12/09
I don't know if it's so much a matter of that as of the pharmaceutical industry hoping that if they make some compromises and take some losses, they will avoid the lawmakers' wrath and be spared further damage.
08/12/09
But where you and I may disagree (I don't know what you think should be done) is that I believe that the best way to encourage research and (hopefully) production of these drugs (like Aventis) might be to give tax breaks and/or other financial incentives to the first couple of drug companies that legitimately research, test and try to bring them to market. In other words, make it worth their while.
08/12/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
Also, the use of the phrase "freedom ain't free" is a dead giveaway, crypto-fascists!