Bernie responds to Eli Lily & Twitter. Damn!

[AntivaxHunters]

Hot damn!!!!

[republianmushroom]

1. I like it

[Wicked Blue]

2. K&R nt

[a kennedy]

3. Bernie has ALWAYS been for us little guys/gals

[area51]

12. +1 n/t

[Old Crow]

27. +1 (N/T)

[rurallib]

4. Bernie NAILS it! Thanks for posting!

Who ever posted that fake tweet really exposed Lilly!

[dchill]

5. Let's be clear: THAT'S why I like Bernie!

[pansypoo53219]

6. george washington carver also wasn't greedy.

[panader0]

7. Boom! Tell it Bernie!

[pansypoo53219]

8. george washington carver also wasn't greedy.

[calimary]

13. Yes indeed.

[aggiesal]

9. Can I hear an AMEN! n/t

[Murphyb849]

10. And the world's biggest expert on insulin chimes in

Link to tweet

?t=DvIVuVB2ClS8NoulnHn_Gw&s=19

[luvtheGWN]

16. You mised the point, Musk.

Drs. Banting and Best they knew their hard work (thousands of hours) was resulting in saving lives. They didn't do it to make money. They "sold" their discovery to Connaught Labs at University of Toronto for one whole dollar.

I did some research several years ago on pharmaceuticals. They all claim their "research" is the cause of their outrageous prices, when in actual fact a good 80% of their budgets is spent on advertising.

[KS Toronado]

42. It's my understanding that in Germany

it's illegal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products on TV,
be nice if we could do that over here.

[EarlG]

51. Believe it or not there are only two countries in the world

where it’s legal for pharma companies to directly advertise prescription drugs to the public — the US and New Zealand.

[ShazzieB]

29. Oh, shut up, Muskratfucker!

Just SHUT UP. No one cares what your spoiled brat billionaire ass thinks about the price of anything!

[IbogaProject]

44. Ok Aweful Musk

Uh Humalog was patented before 1996, it is long supposed to be out of patent. But the industry now imposes real hurdles to generic insulin and other biotech drugs nearing patent expiry. And no the new formulas aren't some very different thing, Humalog just have two amino acids reversed, same process to make. The time release ones are a little more complicated but not 12 times more complicated, they again just hang a few different amino acids at the end. Those different endings either grab a water molecule or an albumen molecule to give the insulin a time released effect. We need single payer insurance. And if your read the details about insulin price gouging Medicare patients without additional coverage are the hardest hit. The Medical and pharmaceutical industries disallow providing any discounts to medicare patients.

[MLAA]

11. Right on, Bernie!

[RestoreAmerica2020]

14. Class action law suit..make the industry pay the consumer back for price gouging ..apologies

..yes, that's a start. Glad the price is under control!

Yet, If only we had an agency with over 110,000 employees, approximate budget of 40 Billion ..that's with a B to go after these companies. oh wait we do..he's busy pondering the questions --should I , should I not?

Can't recall what happened to Joe Manchin's daughter and her Epi Pen price gouging hearings and how that ended..some golden parachute when she left company. [ will have to refresh my memory. ]

So proud that Pres. Biden, VP Harris, Speaker Pelosi and our many other stellar democratic leaders stand, protect all Americans.

[NJCher]

33. That's really interesting

Ah, the things one learns on DU.

[IbogaProject]

45. Melatonin?

Did you start Melatonin that upregulates the insulin receptors? Or maybe your diet got better and you reduced your body's oxidative stress.

[JoeOtterbein]

17. K n R ! Thanks for posting! nt

[Ms. Toad]

18. The current insulin is not covered by the patent which was sold for $1.

I wish people would stop conflating all insulin into a a single thing connected to the early patentf, and creating inflammatory stories which connect the current cost of a very different insulin to the original patent, as if the current cost of insulin should be tied to the previously donated patent for a different product.

It like comparing the current cost of automobiles to the price of a horse and buggy and getting outraged by the price increase. Both are means of transportation (just like all varieties of insulin help control diabetes), and both have wheels (just like all insulin I'm aware of is injected). But beyond that they are very different things, with different price drivers.

(I'm not suggesting that our medical system - including the cost of insulin - isn't in dramatic need of an overhaul to more closely connect the cost of medicine to the cost of production + reasonable drug development costs. Merely that the outrage about the patent is misplaced. And Sanders is smart enough to know that.)

[AntivaxHunters]

19. It shouldn't cost anything

And the fact that it does only illustrates how our healthcare system is based in exploitative predatory Capitalism that's seen as a goods & services scam instead of a human right.

It's time we fight back against the abuse.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=9ETYIeARY-GfWmhlQIJXVw

[Ms. Toad]

21. That is a different issue than I was addressing.

I was addressing Sanders' manipulation of facts.

Facts matter. Without agreement on facts, there isn't really any point in discussing the policy which would best address those facts.

[AntivaxHunters]

22. Humanity matters

Our healthcare system in this country is an absolute disgrace & a mess.
The only manipulation done is by big healthcare & big pharma with their greed against those who rely on life saving insulin.
People are literally dying in this country because they can't afford it. That's immoral & just gross.

And yes it's corporate greed & Capitalism that's responsible. And it's uniquely an American problem.




https://www.marketplace.org/2022/01/28/insulin-began-saving-lives-a-century-ago-why-is-it-still-so-unaffordable/

[Ms. Toad]

26. That still has nothing to do with the issue I was addressing -

which is the misrepresentation of facts to win an argument.

There are convincing arguments to be made, without resorting to alternative facts.

[pnwmom]

31. Isn't the problem that the drug companies are refusing to produce a generic insulin,

which would be cheap, in favor of their versions that are still on patent?

So the solution may be for the government to produce contract with a producer of insulin.

[Ms. Toad]

32. The issue I was addressing is the repeated inflammatory (and false) rhetoric

by Sanders and others connecting the original patent to the current, unrelated, insulins in use today. It is important to have real discussions about drug pricing (not just insulin) - referencing an unrelated patent donated to the public derails those conversations by misleading people into believing Eli Lilly has somehow taken a basically free pratent and is making exorbitant profits from it (it's not - the patent (1) does not cover today's insulin and (2) expired decades ago, and by focusing on insulin alone (even though it is far from the most expensive drug care out there)

As to insulin, specifically, the issue isn't as straightforward as you suggest.

Cheap, generic insulins are available. No one is refusing to make them, in favor of ones still covered by patents. You can purchase at least one version of the older, off-patent, insulin from Walmart for $25/vial. 2-3 vials generally cover a month of treatment ($50-$75/month). Very few people want to use the older, off-patent versions of insulin because they are more complicated to use and don't keep the blood glucose as steady as is possible with the newer version.

In addition, Walmart also offers a newer version of insulin - at $73/vial (so around $246-$219/month).

As to medicine, patents are more complex because there are not only patent restrictions but FDA bio-equivalent restrictions. To gain approval as a generic, the manufacturer must prove the drug is bio-equivalent to the patented and FDA approved product. The newest versions of insulin are classed as biologics. There are no bioequivalents to biologics. There is a different, much more complex, process for establishing biosimilarity for biologics. So it is much harder to gain approval by the government (i.e. it is not a manufacturer decision) for generic biologics.

The bigger problem is we need to stop throwing narrowly tailored solutions at a single manifestation of a universal problem.

We did it with breast cancer - by legislative decree cosmetic breast surgery on both breasts is now deemed medically necessary, even if all that is done is a small lump removed from one breast. Fantastic if what you have is breast cancer and you don't like the shape of your body. I could have have had breast enlargment, a breast lift, or whatever other cosmetic surgery I wanted on both breasts to make my breasts look perfect in my mind after a walnut-sized clump of tissue was removed from one. Not so fantastic if you have any other type of cancer which is disfiguring in a way that can't be hidden - like repairing the 2.5" diameter x .5" deep divot removed from my arm and covered by a Frankenstein-like patch. That is purely cosmetic, and I'll have to pay for it out-of-pocket if I want to be able to wear short sleeves without everyone staring at my arm.

We are doing a repeat with diabetes/insulin. Yes drug prices are high and irrational - but it is an across the board problem - it is not limited to insulin. But insulin has a sexy (but false) narrative behind it. So we have now declared that diabetes and insulin are somehow special and capped expenses for that diagnosis, and that particular treatment (just like we did with breast cancer) - leaving others with crippling drug costs (like my daughters $200,000/year costs) out in the cold.

It has been a quarter of a century since breast cancer was declared special - leaving all other people with disfiguring cancer to scrabble for crumbs. Now that insulin has been declared special, the rest of us with equally or more significant drug expenses may be left for another quarter of a century of crippling drug costs.

If the problem is universal, we need a universal solution - not one which picks and chooses among everyone impacted by the universal problem. Because once they appease the loudest voice, the rest of us don't have enough volume to make anyone care.

[Lucky Luciano]

24. Is it a fact that it costs $10 to manufacture? That is sufficient to say $275 is gouging.

[Ms. Toad]

25. I wasn't addressing that issue.

I was addressing the pereptual misrepresentation of facts by Sanders and others regarding the insulin patent.

[NJCher]

34. If I could make a suggestion

That in your communication, you refrain from attributing the cause to stupidity on the part of Sanders. It does nothing to enhance your argument and quite possibly alienates some readers.

That is if your point is to convince. Maybe that’s not your point.

[questionseverything]

49. Yes it's supposed to be against the rules to disparage, mock and belittle members of our democratic

Coalition

[yardwork]

38. And no politician ever conflated similar facts to make a point.

It's my observation that this kind of hair splitting and ultra purism in political messaging is why Democrats struggle to win, even in the face of absolute insanity on the part of the opposing party.

Nothing Sanders said is incorrect. Yes, he conflated some things to make a stronger political point. That's good. I'm glad he's making a strong point. That's good politics.

Let Eli Lilly explain why they've recently jacked the price of insulin to ridiculous heights for no good reason.

[mountain grammy]

41. Yes indeed, very good politics!

[kcr]

43. I would rec this if I could

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. Yes. This kind of relentless attacking our messengers with a fine tooth comb does no good

Of course some don't consider Sanders as "ours". That is probably the crux of that issue in this case.

But I agree, as a whole, Democrats have to stop picking at the i's dots and the t crosses.
It should be more about getting the general message out. In this case "Eli Lily overcharges for insulin simply because they can. That is why we need a public health system that controls the price of drugs"

We need more simple powerful messaging. Emphasizing the worst that could happen under Republican rule....even if there are some moderates left in the GOP that would never go down that road. The MO of business as usual of praising Republicans for "working together" while many of them are still screaming "Communists!" back at them. Hoping that still being nice we can ignore the abuse, and find a few R reps to vote with us on bills as long as we gut it sufficiently. Problem is there are no "moderate" Republicans left.

Explaining all the nuances and options and tangents, the pros and the cons too, is tempting because it makes us look smart, and competent, etc... I like that. But we have to separate what WE like to hear, from what works on the public in general.

[Ms. Toad]

54. It's not hair splitting - people actually believe this crap.

Read some of the other responses in this thread.

Had the inventors of the patent sold their patent for millions of dollars, and retired as greedy millionaires the result would be exactly the same, minus the inflammatory rhetoric. The patent expired - at the latest - in 1943. Anyone in the world would be permitted to make insulin in the way taught by the patent (making money off it, or giving it away for free) without paying anyone anything for it.

The insulins in use today have almost zero to do with the original patent, so whether the patent for the original insulin was donated or sold at a massive profit is completely irrelevant to the price of insulin today - yet it is being used to somehow prove that Eli LIly is perverting the intent of the donors (of an irrelevant patent).

[IbogaProject]

46. don't take the conservative bait

The issue of the original insulin and the current issue ignores that the now out of patent Humalog and Lantus are still priced 12 times higher than when they were initially approved. Insulin producing technology hasn't changed since the early 1980s. All they did was invent some better forms in the 1990s. Our constitution allows for patents and copyrights of a "limited time".

The United States Constitution gave the power to Congress to create laws pertaining to patents. Under Article I, section 8, it reads, “Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

https://patent.laws.com/patent-history/united-states-constitution

[Ms. Toad]

53. I am a patent attorney.

It's not conservative bait - it is misleading (likely deliberately) for the purpose of inflaming emotions rather than make arguments based on actual facts. It is then quoted by others based on Sanders' name as gospel truth - when it is no better than the fake news generated by Republicans.

The insulin patent which is being used in a misleading way was issued in 1923. Without calculating the expiration date it could habve expired AT THE LATEST in 1943, nearly 4 decades before the 1980s. EVEN if the inventors had not essentially donated the patent, the patent had been dead for decades and could have been used by anyone - EVEN if the inventors had sold it for a million dollars. The patent used to inflame emotions, as an abuse of the donative intent of the inventors, has close to zero to do with the current price of a very different form of insulin.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

58. Thank you for your reality-based posts.

I realize it takes courage.

[druidity33]

35. and Sanders doesn't say that it does...

he's grandstanding, sure, and conflating/implying, yeah, but he doesn't actually say it's the same insulin. See?

"The inventors of insulin sold their patents in 1923 for $1 to save lives, not to make Eli Lily's CEO obscenely rich."

Why is the outrage misplaced? Diabetes can still be deadly, Insulin still saves lives, the original inventors sold it for nothing to benefit society, what's wrong with admonishing the company for profiting heavily off of sick people? TBH Ms. Toad, i don't really care if it's the same insulin as it was in 1923... the point has been made. Insulin should be low-cost or free in this country. Period. The original inventors knew that and so should Eli Lily.

[Ms. Toad]

55. Then why mention it?

He is deliberately implying that Eli Lily is perverting the intent of the people who invented the product that it is selling today - which is nonsense,. The patent (1) doesn't cover the insulin prodsucts available today and (2) has been dead since 1943, at the absolute latest. Anyone, anywhere can do whatever they want wtih the patent - make and sell the insulin for massive profits, give it away for free, etc. That's the nature of patents. You trade the limited monopoly for teaching the world how to make your invention - so at the expiration of he patent period the public owns all rights to the invention.

[druidity33]

56. Because it's notable...

and because insulin is still insulin to people with diabetes regardless of how it's made or by what process it was discovered. The fact that the original insulin is different from the current insulin matters mostly only to nitpickers and.... wait for it.... patent attorneys. The fact is a patent for insulin was sold in the past for $1 in order to help society. Society still needs the help. And i don't think Sen Sanders pressuring Eli Lily is a bad thing, actually i approve. As far as i can tell, you are the ONLY one bothered by this "conflation".

[Ms. Toad]

57. If you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it.

The fact that I am the only one who is bothered by the lie (or even realizes it is one) is precisely the problem, and the reason I call it out every time I see it used.

But it is not true that to people with diabetes insulin is insulin. If that were the case, they would ask buy the insulin sold at Walmart for $25 a vial (about $50 - $75 a month, depending on the amount needed), rather than complaining about the unaffordable price of a different product.

The reality is that they know it is different, and doesn't control diabetes as well, or as easily - which is precisely why they want the vastly more costly insulin which has almost zero relationship to the patent. In other words, Eli Lilly could give the insulin covered by the original patent away for free (or even pay people to use it), meeting the intent of the inventors, and it would do nothing to address the price of insulin that people actually use.

Just to complete the explanation of why using the origin tale is irrelevant and inappropriate, even the insulin sold for $25 at Walmart is a completely different product than the one covered by the patent. The insulin covered by the patent is animal-sourced insulin - primarily from pigs and cattle. It is rarely used today, is manufactured by a single company (not Eli Lilly), and generally only used by those who are unable to use today's synthetic products to control their diabetes. If anyone in the US wanted to use the insulin covered by the original patent, they would have to find a source willing to sell it to them, and then petition and obtain special consent from the FDA to import it.

[druidity33]

59. I will continue...

to disagree with you. But i wish you well. At this point it's not worth continuing our discussion.

good luck!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

20. Greed devours conscience.

Our Federal taxes should be so high for the Uber wealthy that it is simply impossible to become a billionaire. Hunger still a problem? Eat the rich!

[spanone]

23. K&R

[diva77]

28. K&R!!!!!

[CaptainTruth]

30. Apologizing will do nothing. I'll wait for him to introduce a bill to do something about it.

[NigelTufnel]

47. The Prescription Drug Price Relief Act

is one of many bills over the years Bernie has sponsored that would lower insulin and other prescription drug prices. What you're really waiting for is enough Democrats to stop taking big pharma money and support his bills.

[Emile]

36. Bernie has never been on the side of Predatory Capitalism, he has always been on our side,

K&R

[RocRizzo55]

37. But Bernie

Think of the poor billionaires who will not be able to afford that third yacht, or the private jets foe each of their kids. Have some mercy on those who trickle down their profits to the insignificant ones. Who cares about the savage hoards? We need to only be concerned with the corporate masters in the oligarchy which is the US of A.
























(Sarcasm fully intended)

[GreenWave]

39. What does insulin cost to make elsewhere?

When I lived in the tropics I got 50 Zyloric tablets (Allopurinal) for $1. I had gouty arthritis back then. That is several decades ago.

I just checked on line 10 tablets are over $20!!!

[Major Nikon]

40. ...

[ultralite001]

50. Insulin Patent Sold for $1 - Banting House

https://bantinghousenhs.ca/2018/12/14/insulin-patent-sold-for-1/




That is all...

[Meowmee]

52. Nothing we don't already know

Especially those of us whose lives depend on it. They maybe should never have sold the patent and made terms so that it would stay at a very low cost forever.