March 19, 2016

Market Spiral Pricing of Cancer Drugs - Donald W. Light

http://www.pharmamyths.net/_market_spiral_pricing_of_cancer_drugs__120860.htm


ABSTRACT: (teaser paragraph)

Market Spiral Pricing of Cancer Drugs

Donald W . Light, PhD 1 ; and Hagop Kantarjian, MD 2

Every patient with cancer or another life-threatening disease wants the most effective treatment, but drug prices have
become staggering. Twelve of the 13 new cancer drugs approved last year were priced above $100,000 annually (Table 1),
and a 20% copayment makes them unaffordable, even for well-insured patients. 1

What determines the escalating prices of cancer drugs? Pharmaceutical experts often cite the high research costs and
the benefit or added value of the new cancer drug. We believe that neither argument is well-founded and that pharmaceu-
tical companies may be using a third strategy: constantly raising prices on last year’s drugs and then pricing new ones above
the new market price level; this is known as the Market Spiral Pricing Strategy.

The industry-sponsored estimate of average research costs to get a drug to market is $1.3 billion, including the cost
of failures. 2,3 Such estimates may be significantly inflated: 4

First, half of this industry estimate is not research costs, but a high estimate of profits that companies would have made
if they had not invested in research in the first place. There are good reasons for subtracting these “profits foregone” as
not real research costs, which brings the average down from $1.3 billion to $650 million.

Second, taxpayers subsidize about half of company research through various credits and deductions (though companies make
sure no one can get an accurate figure). This brings the average cost down to $325 million.

Third, this industry estimate was made on the most costly fifth of new drugs and then mis-attributed to all drugs. Correcting
for this brings the average down by 30%, to $230 million.

Fourth, a few costly projects always distort the average cost; therefore one should use the median, which is 26% less than
the average. The average is now down to $170 million.

Fifth, there is no accurate estimate of basic research to discover new drugs because it varies so much; so an unverifiable
high estimate was added that made up at least a third of the total. More than 84% of all basic research for discovering
new drugs comes from the public, who also bear all the high risk. 5 After deducting taxpayer subsidies, companies spend
only about 1.3% of revenues on basic research and the rest on developing minor variations or testing. 6 Removing that
basic-research inflator brings the net median corporate research costs down to just $125 million (plus the variable costs
of basic research).


Although such calculations are subject to unknown variables or factors that could alter the final estimates, the statement
that “it costs $1 billion to develop a drug to market,” which has been repeated so often that it is accepted as a solid truth, is
in fact a significant overestimate. Andrew Witty, chief executive officer of GlaxoSmithKline, stated in a recent health care
conference in London (March 2013) that the $1 billion cost to develop a drug is “one of the great myths of the industry.” 7
In the case of cancer drugs, most of the basic research and many clinical trials are paid by the National Cancer Insti-
tute and foundations, all free to companies. Further, clinical trials in cancer are smaller and shorter than trials for other dis-
eases, so trial costs should be smaller too. 8 In sum, there is no credible evidence that the net costs of the major companies
for cancer research are not lower than research costs for other drugs. Consequently, cancer drugs should be priced lower .
The added-value argument for unaffordable prices is not supported by objective data. Most new cancer drugs pro-
vide few or no clinical advantages over existing ones. Only one of the 12 new anticancer drugs approved in 2012 provides
survival gains that last more than 2 months (Table 1)

truncated- Full Paper is at: http://www.pharmamyths.net/_market_spiral_pricing_of_cancer_drugs__120860.htm

March 19, 2016

Discussions of Touch Screen voting machines and computer INsecurity -

"How I bought used voting machines on the Internet"

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/avc

https://citp.princeton.edu/research/voting/

https://citp.princeton.edu/research/votingsummary

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/

“In an age of electronic banking and online college degrees, why hasn’t the rest of the nation gone to voting on touchscreen computers? The reason is simple and resonates with the contentious debate that has yet to be resolved after at least 15 years of wrangling over the issue of electronic voting. No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered democratic institutions—in this case, electing a U.S. president—can be double checked for fraud, particularly when paperless e-voting systems are used.”
– Scientific American, Jan. 9, 2012

-------------


There is no substitute for the optically readable randomized, but numbered paper ballots and transparent locked ballot boxes and physical security.

Canada uses one simple optically based system for the entire country.

March 19, 2016

Plain Language Guide to Globalization of Services-WTO Negotiations-Disciplines onDomestic Regulation

Plain Language Guide- WTO GATS Negotiations on Domestic Regulation

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/clinical-programs/our-clinics/HIP/upload/Stumberg-Guide-to-GATS-Dom-Reg-5-19-10.pdf

March 19, 2016

TAFTA (TTIP) Trade Deal will make any NewDeal in the future IMPOSSIBLE by globalizing US subcontract

by mandating international bidding on all kinds of government procurement.

it will mean lots of new L1 and similar visas must be issued to the winning bids firms, so they can perform the work they won by being low bidders.

From https://www.citizen.org/documents/tafta-procurement-factsheet.pdf

EU Negotiators Want TAFTA to Ban “Buy Local” and Other U.S. Procurement Policies, Offshoring U.S.Tax Dollars and Undermining Jobs

The Buy Local policies that create jobs by recycling tax dollars in our communities. The energy and climate policies needed to save our planet. The safety standards on which we rely daily for our food, medicines and cars. The new financial regulations designed to prevent banks from gambling with our money and creating another crisis. These are policies that should be determined in open, democratic venues where we have a say. But a group of the largest U.S. and European corporations want to rewrite these safeguards behind closed doors. For over a decade, they have pushed for a new U.S. “trade” deal with Europe
–
the Trans
-
Atlantic Free Trade
Agreement (TAFTA)
, which corporate proponents have tried to rebrand as the
Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP)
–
a deal
that would roll back consumer protections on
both
side
s
of the Atlantic.
European Union (EU) and U.S. negotiators launched TAFTA negotiations in July 2013 and plan to finish the
sweeping deal
by
next year
.
A “trade” deal only in name, TAFTA (TAFTA is TTIP) would require the United States and EU to conform government
procurement
programs
, climate policies,
financial laws and regulations,
food and product safety standards, data
privacy protections and other no
n
-
trade policies to TAFTA rules. This could include obligations for products
and services that do not meet domestic standards to be allowed under processes called “equivalence” and
“mutual recognition,” or obligations to actually alter domestic U.S. and EU
policies to conform to existing
international standards or to new trans
-
Atlantic standards negotiated to be more convenient to business. These
constraints on policy space
would be
binding. Failure to comply with TAFTA rules could result in trade
sanctions
. The pact would also newl
y empower foreign
corporations
to directly challenge public interest policies
and demand taxpayer compensation in extrajudicial tribunals.
E
U
Negotiators’
Goal:
Gut
U.S.
Programs
Fostering
Local
Job Creation,
Reduced Carbon
Emissions
A leaked EU position paper on TAFTA makes clear that
the EU intends to
use the agreement to
roll back
popular
U.S.
government procurement
policies
that ensure that government
construction
projects
and purchases
,
funded by U.S. taxpayers
,
are used to create U.S. jobs.
These localization policies
can
a
lso help limit carbon
emissions
by promoting local sourcing.
The
European
paper states a
s a
goal
to
: “
[e]
nsure that rules
on...
domestic preferences such as, but
not limited to, Buy America(n)...
do not restrict procurement
opportunities between the EU and the U.S.”
The paper lists specific
U.S.
states and cities being targeted for the
elimination of
policies
that
reinvest
U.S. tax dollars at home.
Targets for Gutting U.S. Buy Local Policies
from Leaked EU Negotiating Document
TARGETED STATES
TARGETED CITIES
Alabama
Alaska
Austin
Baltimore
Charlotte
Columbus
Georgia
Indiana
Denver
El Paso
Fort
Worth
Houston
Nevada
New Jersey
Jacksonville
Los Angeles
Louisville
Memphis
New Mexico
North Carolina
Milwaukee
New York
Oklahoma City
Philadelphia
North Dakota
Ohio
Phoenix
Portland
San Diego
San Francisco
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
San
Jose
Seattle
Washington
Under this EU plan for TAFTA
,
U.S.
policies
that favor domestic companies
for government contracts
–
job
creating
programs
supported by 90 percent of U.S. Democrats, Republicans and independents
–
w
ould be
gutted
with a Europe
-
sized loophole.
If TAFTA
would mimic
th
e
past
“free trade” agreements on which it is
being modeled,
TAFTA’s
procurement chapter would require that all firms
operating
in any EU country
be
provided
the same access as
U.S.
firms to
U.S.
government procurement contracts over a certain dollar
threshold. To implement this “national treatment” requirement,
the U.S. federal government and the states
and cities listed
by
the EU
would agree to
not provide any
preference to locally
-
produced goods and services
and
to
treat
all corporations
doing business
in the EU
the same as local
businesses
.
Under
a
World Trade Organization (WTO)
pact
,
the United States has already waived
certain
federal
-
level
procurement policies for EU
corporations
.
European negotiators want the U
nited States
to expand that
waiver of the federal Buy American policy.
But
they are
also seeking much more:
t
he leaked E
uropean
position paper bluntly seeks to access
“
sub
-
central
” government
contracts by rollin
g back state and local
governments’ Buy Local policies
,
used to
prevent offshoring
,
stimulate local job creation
and promote local
sourcing
.
In fact, the EU explicitly names in the paper the 13 specific U.S. states and 23 U.S. cities it is
targeting for
th
e
dismantling
of Buy Local policies.
See if your city or state is targeted in the table above.
The EU
TAFTA
procurement demands could
also
label as “illegal barriers” the
environmental, human rights,
and fair labor conditions
that federal and state governments often place on procurement contracts.
Requirements for recycled content in paper and other goods, or
that
energy
come
from renewable sources,
could be exposed to chal
lenge. TAFTA procurement terms could also
restrict
state
and local
governments
’
ability to
disqualify companies from government contracts because of labor, safety or environmental records
or practices, or because of the human rights or labor rights records
of the countries in which they operate or
are based. Policies requiring companies to agree to pay prevailing or living wages could also be challenged
under TAFTA’s procurement rules.
Investor Privileges:
European
C
orporations Empowered to Attack
Buy
Local
Policies
U.S. and EU corporations and officials have called for TAFTA to
grant foreign firms
the power to skirt
domestic courts, drag the U.S. and EU governments before extrajudicial tribunals, and directly challenge
Buy Local, Buy Green and
other pr
ocurement
policies that they view as violations of TAFTA
-
created
foreign investor “rights.” The tribunals, comprised of three private attorneys, would be authorized to order
unlimited taxpayer compensation for
domestic
policies
perceived
as undermining
for
eign
corporations’
“expectations
.” Such
extreme “investor
-
state” rules
have already been included in a series of U.S. “free
trade” agreements, forcing taxpayers to
pay firms more
than $4
4
0 million for toxics bans, land
-
use rules,
regulatory permits, water and timber policies and more. Just under U.S. pacts, more than $
3
4 billion remains
pending in corporate claims against medicine p
atent policies, pollution clean
up
requirements
, c
limate and
energy laws, an
d other public interest polices
.
For more information,
visit
stop
-
tafta.org

March 19, 2016

Susan George Explains the Huge Global Wealth Transfer represented by Neoliberalism and Privatization

Extraction of resources and extraction of cash from countries people - how it works-

Fixed link!

Susan George works with TNI

http://TNI.org


She has a broad and interesting perspective.

"We continue to extract money - we have more control over the world now than we did under colonialism".

Debt is a big means of control.

March 19, 2016

Best explanation I have ever seen of what Neoliberalism is - is provided by Gérard Duménil in this v

Gérard Duménil is one of the authors of the recent best seller "the Crisis of Neoliberalism"

https://www.youtube.com/v/CTX5LfKef8M

"French economists Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy proceed from the somewhat heterodox proposition that ruling ideas arise not from their persuasive power or inner logic but from the interest of ruling groups… Duménil and Lévy move directly to the social and political history that led us to this turn, the underlying situation in which such intellectually bankrupt ideas could prevail. And what might become of a world that can no longer sustain such beliefs… Though elements of their analysis proceed (in their words) ‘à la Marx,’ the book is scarcely what one might thereby expect—that is, the opposite of [an] unreflective apologia for capitalism’s premises… The two argue…that neoliberalism is not a collection of theories meant to improve the economy. Instead, it should be understood as a class strategy designed to redistribute wealth upward toward an increasingly narrow fraction of folks. This transfer is undertaken, they argue, with near indifference to what happens below some platinum plateau—even as the failures and contradictions of the economic system inevitably drive the entire structure toward disaster. Duménil and Lévy offer two provocative and interlocking schemas. They decline the bluntest of Marxist oppositions, which supposes a world divided only between owners and workers. But they equally abjure the endless proliferation of categories and distinctions, the slippery slope of micro-differences that leads to the paradoxical homily of conventional American thought: that individuals are just that, and thereby classless—and that everybody is middle-class. One might well see in this the shadow of Thatcher’s other hyperbolic dictum of neoliberalism: ‘There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals and families.’”—Joshua Clover, The Nation

“Amid the torrent of books on the 2008 financial meltdown and the North Atlantic ‘great recession,’ this important new contribution from Paris stands out as an analytical beacon… Duménil and Lévy conclude with a comparison of the aftermaths of 1929 and 2008, an assessment of the significance of the crisis for U.S. hegemony and some sober prognoses on the social and economic order likely to emerge in its wake. The authors aspire to the kind of influence that Baran and Sweezy achieved with Monopoly Capital some forty years ago—and on this reading, they deserve it. Like Monopoly Capital, the analytical framework of Crisis of Neoliberalism uses some Marxian categories and language, but leavened with (often implicit) elements of Veblen, Chandler, Galbraith, Keynes and Polanyi. The result is a highly distinctive—and compellingly radical—approach, which demands serious attention… By any measure, The Crisis of Neoliberalism is a landmark intervention in the post-crisis debates… Young workers or students who have had the misfortune to enter the labor force during the Great Recession will require a far-reaching education in the history of capitalist crises if they are to begin to craft an alternative exit from the present one. This book should help.”—Thomas Michl, New Left Review

“The Crisis of Neoliberalism is an insightful account of the factors that have led to the economic downturn. As Duménil and Lévy make clear, the economy cannot just return to its pre-crisis path.”—Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research

“This original and rigorous political-economic discussion of neoliberal global capitalism shows how deep the roots of the current crisis are and how stubbornly resistant it will be to conventional policy remedies.”—Duncan K. Foley, author of Adam’s Fallacy

“An ambitious and original treatment of the ongoing global economic crisis. Duménil and Lévy provide both an in-depth statistical and historical narrative and an overarching analytical framework.”—Thomas R. Michl, author of Capitalists, Workers, and Fiscal Policy"

March 19, 2016

TiSA Is a Threat to Quality Education! : European Trade Union Committee for Education

http://www.csee-etuce.org/images/PressReleases/PressreleaseTiSA.pdf

March 19, 2016

There's No Place Like Home: The Right to Live in the Community for People with Disabilities, Under

Should there be a right to remain in one's own community for the disabled even if one's own community or country becomes too expensive for them? This is an important question because counties, towns, states, and even countries soon will be contracting out care of their disabled to companies from and likely in other countries.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109795

March 19, 2016

TTIP-ISDS Fracking Briefing

https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_ttip-isds-fracking-060314.pdf

March 19, 2016

Interesting tidbits in this video- Sanders would be a stronger candidate in the general election.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=15898

Sanders is more mainstream than Clinton on the issues


lots of Clinton's positions laid out in this video- Hillary's stands on issues explained.