[Login / Register]

Menu

Forums

error

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Share on Google+

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 2/25/2017 5:15:49 PM
	Big pharma limiting access to drugs in developing world Published time: 23 Feb, 2017 16:25 © Siegfried Modola / Reuters Expensive medicines remain inaccessible for many. Lengthy patents prevent development or importation of cheaper generic drugs. The quest for profit trumps the needs of the developing world, violating the basic tenet of justice to provide healthcare to all. Great scientific and medical advances were made over the course of the 20th century, manifesting in the development of myriad medicines, sophisticated surgical techniques, and significant improvements in healthcare provision. Average life expectancy in the USA increased by almost three decades during this period, concomitant with a steep fall in infant mortality. In England and Wales, average lifespans rose from 49 (males) and 53 (females) in 1910 to 75 (males) and 80 (females) by the end of the century. The development of antibiotics, novel vaccinations, and an ever-widening array of medicines are some of the reasons behind the virtual eradication of infectious diseases such as measles, rubella, and TB in the developed world. Not everyone has equally benefitted from this scientific progress, however. The aforementioned diseases are still frighteningly prevalent across the developing world. The average life expectancy in some African nations is as low as the sixth decade of life, as millions succumb to diseases and die without access to vaccinations, medicines, or decent healthcare. Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере Читать RT America ✔@RT_America Drug resistant Malaria? Treatment fails to cure 4 UK patients in medical first http://on.rt.com/81zn 14:15 - 31 января 2017 19 Ретвитов 13 отметок «Нравится» There seems little to stop the pharmaceutical companies from charging steep prices for newly marketed drugs. A2016 Deloitte report measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation remarks that the industry is facing diminishing returns on its research and development investments. This is one argument used to justify the high cost of medicines. Nevertheless, Forbes reports that the pharmaceutical industry’s average profit margin is almost 20 percent, exceeding that of banks, the oil and gas industries, and the media. In 2013, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer attained a 42 percent profit margin. Johnson and Johnson alone reported earning $15.4 billion in profits in the year April 2015-2016. Despite the drug being around for decades, in 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of Daraprim, which treats the toxoplasmosis infection that can afflict AIDS and cancer patients, from $13.50 to $750 per pill. Read more ‘Gaming the system’: FDA approves old drug with new price – more than 7,000 percent higher! Earlier this year, Marathon increased the price of a medication used to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy by 7,000 percent after acquiring the exclusive right to sell the drug within the USA for the next seven years. In 1998, 39 pharmaceutical companies sued the South Africangovernment, closed factories, and withdrew investments in response to the nation importing and manufacturing cheaper (generic) medicines used in the treatment of HIV. The high cost of the drugs produced by Big Pharma had led many HIV sufferers to go without the treatment required to slow the virus’ progression. However, the medicine manufactures unconditionally dropped their case in 2001, following a mass public outcry. Generic medicines providing the same pharmacological effects as more expensive brand name drugs may cost less, but cannot be produced whilst a patent exists. The Trade-Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property (TRIPS) agreement, which applies to all World Trade Organization member states, ensures patents have a 20-year lifespan commencing from when they are first registered. During this time, the full cost of the more expensive brand name drugs must be paid. However, while the cost of branded medicines can be offset for individuals living in affluent countries where health systems provide universal coverage, such as those in the UK or Americans lucky enough to have health insurance, most citizens of poor countries do not have the same luxury, as neither they nor their rudimentary health services can afford newer branded medicines. To further extent a patent beyond its 20-year lifespan, pharmaceutical companies may also invoke a technique referred to as ‘product-line extension’, which can involve making only minor alterations to the chemical composition of a medicine or altering its route of administration. Despite the new formula being analogous to the old and still treating the same condition, the patent is extended, ensuring that prices remain high. Documents obtained by WikiLeaks also reveal how the pharmaceutical industry encourages American diplomats to lobby their host countries and discourage them from producing their own cheaper generic medicines, as well as pressure them to prolong existing patents so that drug companies can charge higher prices for longer. An issue affecting both poor and wealthy nations alike is insufficient R&D funding to develop medicines that provide low financial returns, but are still necessary to treat diseases. Antibiotics are one example. Treatments for serious infectious diseases are another. A 2016 UN report entitled Promoting Innovation and Access to Health Technologies states: “Experts warn that drug- resistant viruses, bacteria, parasites and fungi could cause 10 million deaths a year worldwide by 2050… Meanwhile, neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continue to receive inadequate funding for R&D and access to health technologies… The situation is driven by the relatively low purchasing power of people disproportionately affected by such conditions.” The report advocates striking a “new deal to close the health innovation and access gap,” while taking note of the contention between the “right to health on the one hand, and intellectual property and trade on the other.” Malebona Precious Matsoso, director general of the South African National Department of Health, states that “with no market incentives, there is an innovation gap in diseases that predominantly affect neglected populations, rare diseases and a crisis particularly with antimicrobial resistance, which poses a threat to humanity.” View image on Twitter Follow RT America ✔@RT_America Big Pharma spent $880mn on keeping opioids available – reporthttp://on.rt.com/7pxv 11:30 PM - 21 Sep 2016 104 Retweets 51 likes Christian Wagner-Ahlfs of the Federal Coordination of Internationalism (also known as BUKO), comprising 130 German campaign groups intent on scrutinizing the practices of the German pharmaceutical industry in developing nations, acknowledges that‘‘so-called neglected diseases are typical for poor countries… diseases that practically do not exist in Germany anymore and are thus of no interest to the commercially-oriented pharmaceutical industry… There has been practically no research in this field for the past decades.” It seems pharmaceutical giants are becoming more cognizant of the negative publicity surrounding their practices and are seeking to improve their image. The Access to Medicines Index ranks the top 20 drug companies according to how much they are doing to improve access to medicines in the developing world. It includes markers such as their willingness to offer pharmaceuticals at reduced prices or whether they are conducting research into diseases prevalent in these nations. However, it remains uncertain if “the price reductions are enough to meaningfully increase affordability.” Pharmaceutical giant GSK has revealed plans to cease filing patents for new drugs that are to be sold in poor nations, paving the way for cheaper generic brands to enter local markets without risk of litigation. It remains to be seen whether Big Pharma concedes that it is better to suffer some loss in profit, rather than prestige. If the imbalance between profits and providing treatment to the world’s poorest remains unaddressed, this will not only violate the basic tenet of justice to provide healthcare to all, but also bode ill for the future of the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tomasz Pierscionek for RT The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 2/25/2017 5:31:33 PM
	Trump Administration Unveils First Step In Building Border Wall February 25, 2017 at 9:16 am Written by Anti-Media News Desk (ZHE) In the first tangible step toward delivering on Trump’s campaign promise to halt unauthorized immigration from Mexico, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Friday released plans for picking vendors for President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall, issuing a preliminary request for proposals saying it plans to release a formal solicitation around March 6 “for the design and build of several prototype wall structures in the vicinity of the United States border with Mexico.” In a document on the federal government’s website for business opportunities, the CPB said it would release a request on or about March 6 asking companies for prototype ideas for a wall to be built near the U.S.-Mexican border. Vendors were asked to submit prototype concepts by March 10. After reviewing the ideas submitted by vendors, the agency will evaluate and select the best designs by March 20, then issue a request for proposals by March 24 in which vendors would be asked to price out the cost of building the proposed wall. A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection told Reuters the solicitation published on Friday had “everything to do” with the wall that Trump has proposed. The spokesman said the initial request for information was to give industry the opportunity to tell the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CBP, what is possible in constructing a border wall. “Once we get feedback from the vendors, we’ll look at the ones that are most feasible,” the spokesman said. That would be followed by the request for proposals to firm up exactly how much constructing the wall would cost. The document says multiple awards for the barrier are expected by mid-April as part of the process, an aggressive schedule for a government construction project. “It’s going to start soon. Way ahead of schedule, way ahead of schedule,” Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters this month indicated the border wall would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion to build and take more than three years to complete. The report’s estimated price tag is much higher than a $12 billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The plan laid out what it would take to seal the border in three phases of construction of fences and walls covering just over 1,250 miles (2,000 km) by the end of 2020. With 654 miles (1,046 km) of the border already fortified, the new construction would extend almost the length of the entire border. Last month, Trump signed an executive order to begin preliminary steps toward building the wall. No cost estimates were included, and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has said his plan is to “secure our southern border with effective physical barriers, advanced technology, and strategic deployment of law enforcement personnel.” According to Bloomberg, Konstantin Kakaes, an international security fellow with the New America Foundation, has estimated the cost of a 1,000-mile concrete wall 50 feet high, with 10 feet below ground, at $38 billion. Bloomberg also notes that construction companies that have done work for the federal government and may respond to the preliminary request for proposals include: Bechtel Group Inc., which builds airports and nuclear power plants and has done almost $3 billion in work for the U.S. since the beginning of fiscal 2013; BL Harbert International Inc. ($2 billion); and Caddell Construction Co. ($1.9 billion). Ironically, one of the biggest beneficiaries of Trump’s wall may be Mexico’s Cemex SAB, the largest cement maker in the Americas, Bloomberg News reported Jan. 25. It would be one of the best-positioned companies to profit because it has operations on both sides of the border. By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero Hedge / Report a typo
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 2/25/2017 5:55:06 PM
	Conditions deteriorate in west Mosul as Iraqi advances slow SUSANNAH GEORGE Associated PressFebruary 25, 2017 Displaced Iraqis flee their homes due to fighting between Iraqi special forces and Islamic State militants, on the western side of Mosul, Iraq, Saturday, Feb. 25. 2017. (AP Photo/ Khalid Mohammed) MOSUL, Iraq (AP) — The Iraqi advance into Mosul's western half slowed Saturday as combat turned to urban warfare and Iraqi forces met stiff resistance from the Islamic State group. Hundreds of civilians poured out of Mosul on foot following the advances, but the vast majority of 750,000 estimated to still be in the city's west remain trapped, and describe deteriorating humanitarian and security conditions. Special forces Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi said that his troops are "moving very slowly" and that IS fighters are responding with car bombs, snipers and dozens of armed drones. The drones have caused relatively few deaths, but have inflicted dozens of light injuries that have disrupted the pace of ground operations. Similar to the way operations inside eastern Mosul initially unfolded, in west Mosul, IS repeatedly brought Iraqi convoys to a halt Saturday with small teams of one or two men and a handful of car bombs. Al-Saadi said the Mamun neighborhood was particularly difficult because its streets are not organized in a grid. "The roads are random," he said, which makes it more difficult for his men to set up roadblocks to stop car bombs, a difficulty that foreshadows obstacles Iraqi forces expect to face in the narrow alleyways of western Mosul's historic district. But al-Saadi said he expects the pace to increase after Iraqi forces retake territory and infrastructure on Mosul's southwestern edge — which will allow them to shorten supply lines and link up with forces in the city's east. Along the road beside al-Saadi's base of operations, hundreds of civilians fleeing Mosul walked slowly past, many with sheep, cows and goats in tow. Nearly all of the hundreds who fled Saturday trekked more than five kilometers from the city's edge to a small village serving as a screening center. Dozens of families gathered against a crude cinderblock wall at the screening center south of Mosul. Intelligence officials at the site said after documents were checked families would either be moved into nearby abandoned houses or newly erected camps for the displaced. Many of those fleeing said they were from villages outside Mosul and had been forced to march to the city more than four months ago to serve as human shields. "We've been through terrible times," said Juri Fathi, a mother of six who was forced to live in a school in Mosul for three months. "I had to burn my children's clothing just for warmth." Fathi held her youngest child — a four month old boy — in her arms as she spoke. She said he was born in an abandoned home between her hometown of Hamam al-Alil and Mosul as she was being led on the forced march by IS. "I named him Mussab (or difficult)," she said, "for these tough days." Groups of men were screened at the site against a database of IS suspects and two prisoners were dragged past the crowd and into an abandoned building. "We brought them directly from inside Mosul," said an Iraqi special forces solider from inside the Humvee that delivered the detainees. He spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations. "They were shooting at us, I saw them with my own eyes," he said. Iraqi forces declared eastern Mosul "fully liberated" in January after officially launching the operation to retake the city in October. A former Iraqi army lieutenant colonel and specialist in land-attack missiles, who used the nickname Abu Karim fearing for the safety of his family, spoke to The Associated Press by phone, describing a "deteriorating security and humanitarian situation" inside western Mosul. "I'm hiding in my house, and my wife lives in constant fear of Daesh raiding our home," said Abu Karim, using the Arabic acronym for the extremist group. Abu Karim said IS fighters have been setting up checkpoints and storming homes to crack down on informants, meting out punishments for anyone carrying a mobile phone or found with an internet connection that include flogging, jail time, and fines. "(IS) tried to recruit me because of my expertise in missiles. But I told them I fought in the war against Iran and the Americans, and couldn't fight anymore. They took me before a judge and he let me go with a $500 dollar fine," said Abu Karim. He added that some IS fighters were fleeing to the north of Mosul, and that the city's residents would welcome the arrival of the counterterrorism force and the federal police. Also Saturday, a Kurdish journalist working for the Rudaw news organization, Shifa Gerdi, was killed covering the Mosul operation. A number of journalists have been since the operation began last year and in October an Iraqi television journalist was killed covering the battle. Meanwhile, the Saudi Foreign Minister was in Baghdad Saturday — the first high level visit of a Saudi official to the country since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion — to meet with his Iraqi counterpart, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. In a statement issued by the foreign ministry, al-Jaafari said the visit was to discuss cooperation in combating terrorism, adding, "The ties that bind are many, and the visit comes to restore bilateral relations to their correct course." The statement also called on Saudi Arabia to reiterate its position against Turkish ground troops in Iraq. Associated Press writer Qassim Abdul-Zahra in baghdad contributed. (Yahoo News)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 2/26/2017 9:17:58 AM
	Americans Are Split on Whether They Want President Trump Impeached — And More Revealing Polls Diana Pearl PeopleFebruary 24, 2017 What Does President Trump’s Rollback of Transgender Student Protections Mean for the States? No matter where Americans fall on the political spectrum, they are likely to have some strong opinions about President Donald Trump. Three weeks into Trump’s run as president, a poll was published by Public Policy Pollingthat illustrates the divide in the country: 46 percent of voters are in favor of impeaching Trump, and 46 percent are opposed. Trump’s overall approval rating varies by the source of the poll. A new national poll from Quinnipiac University has his approval rating at 38 percent, down from 42 percent just after his inauguration. His post-inauguration approval rating is a record low compared to his recent predecessors: After his inauguration, Barack Obama’s approval rating was at 76 percent, and George W. Bush’s was 57 percent, according to CNN. Ronald Reagan was the closest to Trump, at 51 percent. The lowest current numbers have Trump at 35 approval (Monmouth) and the highest at 52 percent (Rasmussen Reports). Looking at the statistics by race and gender, Trump’s highest approval rating comes from white men. According to a NBC/SurveyMonkey poll, 58 percent of white men approve of Trump, while just 14 percent of black women approve of him. On feelings about Trump Another McClatchy-Marist poll says that 58 percent of Americans are embarrassed by the Trump administration, while 33 percent say his activity in office makes them proud. Naturally, there’s a sharp contrast in Trump’s approval ratings between Democrats and Republicans. Though 85 percent of Republicans have a positive opinion of Trump, just 11 percent of Democrats do. This is a change from previous administrations, where the opposing party has had a higher approval rate of a president in the weeks after an inauguration. In the weeks after Obama’s inauguration, his approval rating was as high as 41 percent, according to Gallup. Thus far, 57 percent of people surveyed think Trump is attempting to do too much too quickly. But to that point, 75 percent do believe that Trump is staying true to the promises he made on the campaign trail. On policy As for Trump’s more controversial actions as president, 6 in 10 oppose the building of Trump’s much-talked about wall along the Mexican border, with 37 percent in support,according to a Quinnipiac poll. People are split a bit more evenly on healthcare, the same poll reports: 54 percent oppose repealing Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, and 43 support its repeal. One in three voters are either “very” or “somewhat” concerned about losing their healthcare if Congressional Republicans (and Trump) follow through on their vow to overturn Obamacare. About three-quarters of those surveyed do not want to lower taxes for the wealthy. In nearly every poll, a majority of respondents say the country is not heading in the right direction. In a Monmouth poll, just 27 percent of people support the way the country is headed — and 67 percent don’t approve of the direction the country is heading. Rasmussen Reports, a conservative-leaning poll group, according to Time, currently has 46 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval. On Trump’s controversial travel ban, which has since been blocked by a federal judge and later, an appellate court, 48 percent do consider it to be a “Muslim ban,” and 65 percent of people oppose it. 45 percent of respondents support Trump’s executive orders on immigration. However, among that 45 percent, 51 percent of them think the fictional Bowling Green Massacre is evidence for a need in Trump’s new immigration policy. 72 percent of people do not approve of Trump’s favorable comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin. It’s a near even split on how people view Trump is dealing with the economy: 45 percent approve, while 43 percent disapprove. RELATED VIDEO: Watch: Natasha Stoynoff Breaks Silence, Accuses Donald Trump of Sexual Attack On other topics and events Trump made headlines for his comments about Frederick Douglass a few weeks ago, and according to a Public Policy Polling poll, only 47 percent of Trump voters know who Douglass is. According to the same poll, 45 percent of Trump voters have a positive opinion of Black History Month — and 46 percent think there should be a White History Month. 28 percent of voters overall are in favor of a White History Month. Trump is no fan of the parodies of himself on Saturday Night Live, where he’s been portrayed by Alec Baldwin since last fall, as proven by his Twitter account. But the American people, however, are in favor. According to a Morning Consult poll, 52 percent of people have enjoyed the portrayals of Trump and his team (including Melissa McCarthyas White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Kate McKinnon as Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway). In addition, 33 percent of respondents said they’d like to see more of these impressions. Only 16 percent said they have not enjoyed the impersonations. In another poll, 48 percent of voters think SNL has more credibility than Trump. (Yahoo News)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 2/26/2017 10:05:20 AM
	US War On Islamic State Designed To Fail FEBRUARY 24, 2017 By Ulson Gunnar Any US general providing candid views on fighting and winning a war admit the impossibility of victory as long as the source of an enemy’s fighting capacity remains intact. In fact, as an excuse for why the US is still struggling in Afghanistan over a decade and a half after initially invading the Central Asian state in 2001, US General John Nicholson blamed outsiders including Pakistan, Iran and Russia for aiding, abetting and harboring anti-US forces. No amount of military might brought to bear on forces fighting the US within Afghanistan’s borders can disrupt finances, recruitment, training, weapon supplies, logistics and refitting taking place beyond Afghanistan’s borders and thus beyond the US military’s reach. The United States suffered a similar problem during its prolonged occupation of Vietnam. North Vietnam, China and neighboring states provided support and safe havens for fighters in the south facing off against US troops and their South Vietnamese counterparts. Despite killing up to 4 million people and dropping more ordnance on the region than had been dropped during the entirety of World War 2, the US ultimately failed to defeat North Vietnam or prevent the reunification and independence of the Vietnamese people. Despite both a historical and contemporary example of futile warfare fought out of reach of the source of an enemy’s fighting capacity, the US is presenting to the American public a “plan” to fight and defeat the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria completely ignoring the terrorist front’s state sponsors. The “Plan” To Defeat the Islamic State The plan includes a possible expansion of US troops already operating illegally and uninvited in Syria. In the Guardian‘s article, “US military will retain core strategy against Isis as Trump mulls escalation,” it states: [US General Joseph] Votel, speaking from Jordan on Wednesday, said that one option to speed up a long-signaled attack on Raqqa was to “take on a larger burden ourselves”. Shouldering more of the task would mean US forces, conventional as well as special operations, bringing more artillery and logistics options to the fight. Absent from US President Donald Trump’s “plan,” and from comments made by US commanders, is any mention of the source of the Islamic State’s fighting capacity. No mention is made as to where they are drawing their fighters from, who is paying for and overseeing their training, arming, outfitting and continuous supplying of when finally they reach the battlefield, or how they have managed to fight the summation of Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Lebanese and Russian forces for years now. Unlike in Vietnam and Afghanistan, two theaters the US desperately sought or seeks victory over indigenous resistance and had openly and repeatedly accused neighboring states of aiding and abetting that resistance, the US has been strangely quiet during both President Barack Obama’s and now President Trump’s administrations regarding neighboring states aiding and abetting the Islamic State. However, without addressing the very source of the Islamic State’s fighting capacity, defeating the terrorist front will be difficult if not impossible. A Pretext for US Occupation A plan to place large numbers of US troops in Syria, without the Syrian state’s consent and amid an intentionally unwinnable, open-ended war against the Islamic State will create a pretext for the long sought after de facto US occupation of Syria. It will also give the US the ability to carve out yet another “safe haven” within Syrian territory, complimenting NATO-member Turkey’s in the north. From these two locations, terrorist forces can and will be harbored, trained, armed, supplied and sent off deep within Syrian territory to further divide and destroy the Syrian state. Far from mere conspiracy theory, such plans have been repeatedly articulated by US policymakers since at least as early as 2012, including a Brookings Institution paper literally titled, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” (.pdf). In it, the document clearly advocates a possible full-scale US invasion and occupation of Syria, as well as the creation of what it calls “safe-havens and humanitarian corridors” that would be used not for any sort of actual humanitarian purpose but to further exert what the paper calls “coercive action.” The paper also specifically mentions Turkey’s role both in creating “safe-havens” and as serving as a base from which Syria is to be invaded and occupied. The paper, written in 2012 under the administration of President Obama, depicts a strategy being reintroduced and expanded under US President Trump. It represents not only a dangerous continuity of agenda, but a complete commitment by the special interests occupying Wall Street, Washington, London and Brussels to divide and destroy the Syrian state, a commitment that persists despite many setbacks. A real “war” on the Islamic State would involve first and foremost the exposure, condemnation, isolation and destruction of its state sponsors who US intelligence and political circles have repeatedly admitted include interests within their own nation, as well as among their allies including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Anything less indicates a rouse serving as nothing more than a pretext for an expanded US presence in Syria, not to fight and defeat the Islamic State, but to preserve it while attempting to further divide and destroy the Syrian state. Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”, where this article first appeared. (activistpost.com)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Like us on Facebook!