Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Aspire loss

Palo Alto Labs said:
From what Ive heard, most companies that own the patent manufacture the generic too. that way they own both sides of the distribution. Smaller margins on the generic, but its still profit for years to come, even after the patent runs out.

Found this... explains high prices:
Click to expand...

thanks dave! didnt know that.

I also agree with the generic thing they do often as well. For example Pzfer used to make zyrtec. As soon as their patent was expired they came out with OTC version which was MUCH cheaper and made by the same manufacturer to bring in income as well.
 
MacTech said:
Yes, it was a serious question.

You cannot buy AAS, or any Schedule III drugs as a research chemical.
Click to expand...

and your not really supposed to buy research chemincals. You think the rules dont apply for other perscription meds? Heck they sell Isotretinoin on research chem sites and that is WAY more dangerous in my opinion than AAS. Do you really think research chems are to be sold to labs? Labs buy research chems at retail generic prices? Heck real labs would get that stuff for WAY cheaper. So called research chems are another way they try to bypass the law. Its still illegal to buy.

Those research chem sites dont try to sell to labs. If they did IBE tech wouldnt own one of the research sites dude. Research chem sites are illegal and they are aimmed at people, they just use a pathetic excuse that labs are only supposed to buy that stuff in order to break the law and bypass the loopholes.

If you do buy from a chem site and the feds have confiscated the computers from the research sites do expect a letter saying that you just commited a felony.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
Most pharma companies operate off of a profit margin that is in the single to low double digit percentages. Just because their "products" have a high retail to cost ratio, doesn't mean that their profits are equally as high. They invest billions into research and development.

Many people love to make the point that drug "X" makes 1000% profit--while that, in itself, may seem very unreasonable and even cold-hearted of "evil pharma" its that 1000% profit on that drug that funds the development of future drugs and leads to an overall profit margin of about 10%. Without large profits on their products, we may not see much as far as development is concerned.

--------

Anyway, what's the deal with Aspire36 anyway? Why did it come off the market?
Click to expand...

On average the pharmaceutical companies in the USA spend 2x what they spend for R&D on marketing.
Invalid Link Removed
 
Well, that may be true, but how does that function as an argument against the "evil" pharmaceutical empire?

I doubt they are spending all that money on advertisements just so that they rape the consumers pocket. They need a large income, and that requires a large marketing strategy. Where is the problem?

The article you quoted, while entertaining, was short-sighted in many ways. I.e. "yes" its true that drug companies themselves may not be the innovators, and that the innovation itself lies in academic institutions much of the time, but without the pharmaceutical industry (which takes these discoveries and brings them to public via large buyouts) these discoveries would largely remain off the shelves of pharmacies, and just in the databases of PubMed.

Of course some reform is needed--anything can always be "bettered", but, its just maddening to think that so many people are absolutely convinced that there is this huge "Big Pharma" conspiracy to screw consumers into dependency and destitute--that's the government's job, not the private sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top