Brexit again...

[Fosse69]

Talking of rants,I've just watched the Tottenham MP on the Marr show where he was effectively saying Brexiteers are worse than the Nazis.

You couldn't make it up.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't a member of the public arrested earlier in the year for allegedly calling MP Anna Soubry the very same.

What's the difference,it seems to be all one way?

What is frightening is that Heseltine agreed with him, the similarities with today and the 30s.

[ginge]

now this morning on the news their could be millions of refugees from Libya heading to Europe...

 

 

This type of scaremongering was used on the Syrian refugee poster unveiled by Farage. The poster is trying to stimulate racial hate. The UK is not part of the EU's common asylum policy which means none of those refugees on the poster had any right to come to the UK under EU law. And yes similar propaganda was used in 1930s.

[ginge]

Talking of rants,I've just watched the Tottenham MP on the Marr show where he was effectively saying Brexiteers are worse than the Nazis.

You couldn't make it up.

 

He wasn't saying all brexiteers are worse than the nazis. He was comparing the far right fascist language used by some members of the ERG.

[Paul6754]

The NHS is a sieve,not helped by drug companies charging what they want for their products ie AMD eye injections using LUCENTIS costing £1000 per injection, now the same company make Avastin initially I think for cancer treatment, but has been found as good or better than Lucentis and costs £10-30 per injection, but the drug company had a court case preventing the use of Avastin for anything but cancer and it lost, so NICE now has to approve its use...and charge non uk citizens has too many take the mick.

I think we originally joined the common market to help ourselves out of the post war austerity, the war had run down our infrastructure, we had rebuilding a plenty. Then the cm became the eu and we saw the butter mountains, wine lakes, Its a British trait that we don't like to be told to do things and spoken down too, especially by the French.

Immigration should be like Australia, Canada, a points system, headed by occupations and trades we need, and limited to immediate family, now this morning on the news their could be millions of refugees from Libya heading to Europe...

 

sorry for the long rant, just my view as a leave voter, and again if it comes to it...

 

DB, This is a very pertinent point viz Brexit in that people generally pay far more for drugs in the USA because the Health Insurance companies are relatively small and haven't the bargaining power of the NHS who represent 60 million people in the UK. People in Canada also generally pay less than people in the USA for the same reason and it leads to many people in the USA buying drugs from Canadian pharmacies and elsewhere on-line which can lead to fraud.

 

I don't know whether drugs are purchased by the EU as a whole or by each separate country in the EU but my point is this is an example of larger bargaining power usually results in cheaper prices.

 

Just as as aside, the two drugs you mention are both examples of a new class of drugs know as Biologics, they are Monoclonal Antibody Fragments and compared to small molecule drugs are more expensive to research, develop and manufacture, this whole class of drugs have only been around for the last 15 years or so. I am defending ethical pharmaceutical companies as the cost to bring a drug to market these days is over $1 billion/drug and for every drug discovery project that produces a drug most projects do not produce a marketable product and hence no return.

 

The reason Lucentis and Avastin can be used in cancer and in macular degeneration in the eye is that they both target the same protein involved in certain cancers and also thought to be involved in the cause of macular degeneration in the eye.

[Heatwave]

High drugs prices are largely because pharma companies want to reclaim their R & D costs as well as make a profit. The same companies have effectively stopped work on developing next generation antibiotics because it'll never pay.

 

Once governments paid for R & D but no longer. Until they get out of the mindset of privatising necessary functions like this the situation is going to continue.

[Davebrad]

DB, This is a very pertinent point viz Brexit in that people generally pay far more for drugs in the USA because the Health Insurance companies are relatively small and haven't the bargaining power of the NHS who represent 60 million people in the UK. People in Canada also generally pay less than people in the USA for the same reason and it leads to many people in the USA buying drugs from Canadian pharmacies and elsewhere on-line which can lead to fraud.

 

I don't know whether drugs are purchased by the EU as a whole or by each separate country in the EU but my point is this is an example of larger bargaining power usually results in cheaper prices.

 

Just as as aside, the two drugs you mention are both examples of a new class of drugs know as Biologics, they are Monoclonal Antibody Fragments and compared to small molecule drugs are more expensive to research, develop and manufacture, this whole class of drugs have only been around for the last 15 years or so. I am defending ethical pharmaceutical companies as the cost to bring a drug to market these days is over $1 billion/drug and for every drug discovery project that produces a drug most projects do not produce a marketable product and hence no return.

 

The reason Lucentis and Avastin can be used in cancer and in macular degeneration in the eye is that they both target the same protein involved in certain cancers and also thought to be involved in the cause of macular degeneration in the eye.

 

if I remember it right the company brought the case to stop the cheaper drug being used instead of the dearer one. Also I wonder how much is paid for drugs, and admin. because cutting nursing levels is always the solution when money is short...

Is there a costing of items being used, I remember in the aviation industry in the 70-80's where a toilet door lock cost £30 odd pounds!!!

[Paul6754]

if I remember it right the company brought the case to stop the cheaper drug being used instead of the dearer one. Also I wonder how much is paid for drugs, and admin. because cutting nursing levels is always the solution when money is short...

Is there a costing of items being used, I remember in the aviation industry in the 70-80's where a toilet door lock cost £30 odd pounds!!!

 

Dave, I'm not aware of all the costs to bring a drug to market but having worked in Research Depts of major Pharma the Research costs are astronomical. However, the largest costs are in the Development phase where the clinical trials take place, usually involving thousands of patients/healthy volunteers to prove the efficacy and safety of a new medicine, no one wants another thalidomide.

 

I agree the cost of new, patented drugs is too high and every avenue should be taken to reduce the costs, at least Pharma companies have generally stamped out unnecessary marketing jollies that were prevalent in the 80/90's. Generic, off patent drugs are usually affordable.

[Paul6754]

High drugs prices are largely because pharma companies want to reclaim their R & D costs as well as make a profit. The same companies have effectively stopped work on developing next generation antibiotics because it'll never pay.

 

Once governments paid for R & D but no longer. Until they get out of the mindset of privatising necessary functions like this the situation is going to continue.

 

Heatwave, Pharma have reduced the Research into finding new antibiotics for a few reasons, two being the lack of good biological targets to design drugs against and for the last 80 odd years there have been effective antibiotics to treat every strain of bacteria. However the emergence of new stains of drug resistant bacteria means efforts will and are being increased.

 

Governments have never paid for all R&D costs of Pharma Companies, the costs come out of company profits. However Governments do pay for most of the training for scientists and doctors and major UK Pharma companies spend millions on collaborations with Universities, the UK science sector would struggle without funding from Big Pharma.

 

However most Western Countries have some Government funded Research into life sciences, The National Institute of Health in the USA being by far the largest. Interestingly the UK has the Wellcome Foundation, founded by an American, which is a charity aimed at improving human and animal health and which funds much life science research in the UK.

 

To bring this back to Brexit, the R&D costs of developing new drugs is so high so companies wish to share the risk that collaborations are abundant between companies, companies and Universities in different countries etc and any threat to these interactions is a serious threat not only to the science sector of the UK but to the health of the world.

[whotobeakiller]

Heatwave, Pharma have reduced the Research into finding new antibiotics for a few reasons, two being the lack of good biological targets to design drugs against and for the last 80 odd years there have been effective antibiotics to treat every strain of bacteria. However the emergence of new stains of drug resistant bacteria means efforts will and are being increased.

 

Governments have never paid for all R&D costs of Pharma Companies, the costs come out of company profits. However Governments do pay for most of the training for scientists and doctors and major UK Pharma companies spend millions on collaborations with Universities, the UK science sector would struggle without funding from Big Pharma.

 

However most Western Countries have some Government funded Research into life sciences, The National Institute of Health in the USA being by far the largest. Interestingly the UK has the Wellcome Foundation, founded by an American, which is a charity aimed at improving human and animal health and which funds much life science research in the UK.

 

To bring this back to Brexit, the R&D costs of developing new drugs is so high so companies wish to share the risk that collaborations are abundant between companies, companies and Universities in different countries etc and any threat to these interactions is a serious threat not only to the science sector of the UK but to the health of the world.

 

There was substantive rumour that if the UK persisted to stay within the European Union that the EU would enter into TTIP and the major concern was that medical companies, among others, would dominate the markets and have rights to sue the government if they were undercut in any way and that Huge corporations would be freed of regulations and all manner of restrictions with a right to sue should companies experience otherwise

 

Let this be a warning to any remainder whom loves the traditions of the NHS but wants to stay in the EU...this could mean that Large companies dominate the marketplace to such an extent that the US way of health care would spread to the EU manmade superstate and therefore would mean Large medical corporations would want top rate prices paid for medicine and treatment...inevitably leading to a privatised system

 

I am sure medical savvy people such as Paul know this to be a fact which is why he advocates for staying in the EU even though he lives in the US!!

[Paul6754]

WTBK, I'm not medical savvy and have no such knowledge about medical or any other companies. As far as I know TTIP was/is a proposed trade agreement between the USA and the EU with the aim of promoting trade and growth and to compete with the growing influence of China and India on the world economic stage.

 

The UK needs collaborations especially with Europe, how else to better generate and maintain such collaborations by being a bona fide member of the EU. For example aircraft wings made by BAE for aircraft manufactured in Toulouse, if the UK wasn't a member of the EU back when do you think those wings would have been manufactured in the UK or somewhere else in Europe.

[Fosse69]

There was substantive rumour that if the UK persisted to stay within the European Union that the EU would enter into TTIP and the major concern was that medical companies, among others, would dominate the markets and have rights to sue the government if they were undercut in any way and that Huge corporations would be freed of regulations and all manner of restrictions with a right to sue should companies experience otherwise

 

Let this be a warning to any remainder whom loves the traditions of the NHS but wants to stay in the EU...this could mean that Large companies dominate the marketplace to such an extent that the US way of health care would spread to the EU manmade superstate and therefore would mean Large medical corporations would want top rate prices paid for medicine and treatment...inevitably leading to a privatised system

 

I am sure medical savvy people such as Paul know this to be a fact which is why he advocates for staying in the EU even though he lives in the US!!

Outside the EU, the US will insist on ISDS

[Jacko51]

Talking of rants,I've just watched the Tottenham MP on the Marr show where he was effectively saying Brexiteers are worse than the Nazis.

You couldn't make it up.

 

But you just have because he didn't say that.

[Heatwave]

Heatwave, Pharma have reduced the Research into finding new antibiotics for a few reasons, two being the lack of good biological targets to design drugs against and for the last 80 odd years there have been effective antibiotics to treat every strain of bacteria. However the emergence of new stains of drug resistant bacteria means efforts will and are being increased.

 

Governments have never paid for all R&D costs of Pharma Companies, the costs come out of company profits. However Governments do pay for most of the training for scientists and doctors and major UK Pharma companies spend millions on collaborations with Universities, the UK science sector would struggle without funding from Big Pharma.

 

However most Western Countries have some Government funded Research into life sciences, The National Institute of Health in the USA being by far the largest. Interestingly the UK has the Wellcome Foundation, founded by an American, which is a charity aimed at improving human and animal health and which funds much life science research in the UK.

 

To bring this back to Brexit, the R&D costs of developing new drugs is so high so companies wish to share the risk that collaborations are abundant between companies, companies and Universities in different countries etc and any threat to these interactions is a serious threat not only to the science sector of the UK but to the health of the world.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that in years gone by research was undertaken by universities, funded by government. I don't recall major involvement by the pharma companies in the significant discoveries of the first half of the 20th C.

 

Whether Brexit would have any influence on the policy though is a moot point.

[Paul6754]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that in years gone by research was undertaken by universities, funded by government. I don't recall major involvement by the pharma companies in the significant discoveries of the first half of the 20th C.

 

Whether Brexit would have any influence on the policy though is a moot point.

 

Research has always been carried out in Universities but more fundamental chemistry, pharmacology and biology rather then research to discover drugs although there are some exceptions. Pharma has and continues to fund all types of life Science research in Universities. Significant discoveries in the late 20th century by UK Pharma companies are first in class heart, asthma, anti-inflammatory and antibiotic drugs and much more.

 

Interestingly during the last ca 10 years the picture has changed a little with more of the early drug Research done by start up companies spun out of Universities with Big Pharma companies becoming more Development focused due to the cost and fast paced change. The areas around Oxford and Cambridge are a hot bed for start up Biotech companies.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Channel 4 News investigation reveals how Arron Banks' pro-Brexit group Leave EU faked a migrant-crossing video and appeared to have staged photos of migrants attacking women in London.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-how-leave-eu-faked-migrant-footage

 

 

The pro-Brexit campaign group, Leave.EU, faked a viral video and appear to have staged photos of “migrants”, shortly before the EU referendum.

 

An investigation by Channel 4 News found that images purporting to show “migrants” attacking young women in London seem to have been staged.

 

The group – backed by businessman Arron Banks – was also behind a fake video, claiming to show how easy it is for migrants to sneak into Britain. In reality, satellite data shows the men on board had not left UK waters.

 

The photographs and video both involved a former SAS soldier, Jonathan Pollen, who works for Banks’ corporate intelligence agency.

 

Although the photos were never used, the fake video went viral, garnering hundreds of thousands of views on Facebook.

 

Responding to the investigation Arron Banks accused Channel 4 News journalists of creating “fake news” themselves.

 

 

But Labour MP Jo Stevens, who sits on the Culture, Media and Sports Committee described the video and images to Channel 4 News as “fake news”.

 

“The video of the boat is very obviously fake and put together in a fake way. The photographs are a little bit more difficult to spot that, but clearly fake news with a deliberate intention of stoking hatred and anti-immigrant feeling and rhetoric.”

 

She added: “We have local government elections, we have potentially European Parliament elections, we might have a General Election, and we might have a second referendum – and we still have no regulation around digital campaigning and the sort of disinformation and fake news, which will play a part in all of those elections, unless some regulation is put in place.”

 

Just days before the EU referendum in 2016, Leave.EU published an “undercover investigation” on Facebook, purporting to show how easy it is to smuggle migrants across the Channel.

 

But satellite data, seen by Channel 4 News, shows the footage was filmed in reverse. The shots of “migrants” entering the UK were actually filmed before the boat had even left British waters.

 

Just days earlier, Leave.EU was also behind a series of seemingly-staged photographs that show a woman being violently attacked by a man wearing a hooded jacket. Another photo appeared to show a woman being grabbed from behind as she walks into a shop.

 

One of the attackers seen in the photos is wearing a distinctive grey denim jacket, with black leather sleeves and a white hood. A strikingly similar outfit is worn by one of the “migrants” seen in the Channel crossing video.

 

Leaked emails, seen by Channel 4 News, show the pictures were emailed by Mr Pollen to Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s head of communications and Arron Banks’ right hand man.

 

Mr Wigmore then forwarded them on to Leave.EU press team, saying: “Migrants beating up girl in Tottenham [on] Saturday… Can we get this ready to go as a press release.”

 

In a statement, Arron Banks told Channel 4 News: “Leave.eu is the biggest viral political campaign in the UK, with 3.7 million engagements last week on Facebook alone. Dwarfing political parties and other groups.”

 

“Channel 4 is packed with ex-Guardian journalists and left wing activists, who create Fake news for a living!

 

“The campaign must be doing something right to annoy all the right people consistently.”

 

Phil Campion, who fronted the Channel crossing video, firmly denied that he personally was involved in faking anything.

 

“I am not deceiving anybody. I didn’t cut the video. I didn’t cut the footage. I gave them the footage they asked me for, okay? I brought people back from France.”

 

Jonathan Pollen did not respond to our request to comment.

 

Looking forward to the usual S4Bs dismissing this as fake news.