mergers and acquisition mania that everybody saw on wall street but was actually happening out in pharma i grew up in michigan and a lot of my friends you know grew up on farms and there are no living in the houses on farms that have been in their families for generations but are now owned by con agra or some other big company they got what i took you know. willie nelson was going around doing farming tours and things and saloons and and is this the consequence of these subsidies or is this the consequence of the failure to enforce the sherman act or were all of the what do we do about all of the word all day so i worked for the physicians committee for responsible medicine and we really focused on the nutrition aspect when we look at how much money. the current congress is trying to cut from the budget in the billions we see health care costs in the trillions of looking at your face it's the epidemic as you mentioned and if we look at heart disease costs a projected twenty thirty costs eight hundred billion here a year hundred billion dollars we cannot afford this and this is these are

biotech and pharma have issues with globalized markets. other models need to be moved in andlicensing with more interesting and diverse structures. they are on a patent clip for the significant loss of revenue. anyone working with academia, anyone working on the same thing in the industry. if it is not working and we see it come in the door we cannot tell pfizer that we saw the same thing and why it is not good. sharing information could help drive them. i have some dollar figures about current target which is a paint receptor or you can look at a $460 million investment where only in phase 1 doing similar things. medical device companies presents and challenges because small business has a different set of concerns and needs and one of their challenges is the reimbursement environment and sharing information could help promote better outcomes in that sector. i will try to be quick. this is clearly a huge issue for diagnostic companies because they rely on adoption by physicians to get their product out. clearly a huge issue when we think

pharma spin doctors resorted to the language of the cold war propaganda days and why has it been so effective in causing styria among tea party go was. curious i'm going to say mark crispin miller enron your professor and corporate propaganda expert there are certain techniques that that propagandists really need to you is and they're so basic that you know they leave the scene in arguable to us or we never even notice them but one thing that one must still of course is cloak on this message and a kind of moral righteousness you know we we believe in liberty we believe in free enterprise we hear that all the time but i pay sixty names crony capitalism but it implies something that most americans will you know feel a surge of positive emotion about right now there is a tacit opposition there between the free enterprise and communism and that's the other technical guy that has to be you know still you've also got to have enemies game and was able to service scapegoats and against which you can and all of the angry feelings that the propaganda will also get psyched. for them the socialism conjur

biotech and pharma, clearly have issues with globalized markets.horizontal integration models that need to be moved to more inlicensing and more interesting and diverse structures. an issue with patenting right now where they are on a patenting cliff with a significant loss of revenue. duplication of failure. so the same thing i'm talking about in academia. everybody is working on the same kinesi in academia and everybody is working on the same 10 there. we can't tell pfizer we've seen it ten times before and why it's not a good pathway. sharing information can help drive down costs by reducing duplication in the future. i have a dollar figure about a current target trip v1 which is a pain receptor where you found a $460 million investment right now in pharma we're only in phase one and 12 companies doing essentially the same things. okay. medical device companies. i think they present unique challenges because of some of the things that are articulated. small business has a very different set of concerns. very different set of needs and again, i t

lots of research showing prolong pharma imagery can increase aggression toward others, desensitized viewers to real life violence and increase fear of becoming a victim of violence. such were the findings of the 1994 national television violence study at three year effort by researchers from four university overseen by several national policy organization. others confirmed the findings. there is evidence that prolonged viewing of violent imagery can prolong what psychologists call this inhibition. the viewing of violent media can remove or reduce reservations that people may have with regard to perform the aggressive acts that they already know. in theory seeing bugs bunny blow up while the coyote was the case of acme dynamite or sea and arnold schwarzenegger goes through fields of nameless enemy soldiers can dissident and related acts of aggression like pushing and shoving on a playground. or hitting regardless of age. future studies may confirm this as one of the more onerous effects of watching violent imagery. i talk about this relationship, correlation and causality and the relationshi

marcia, how did this dispute between data miners and big pharma and the state of vermont make it to the supreme court? >> well, ray, you know that when we get a prescription for drugs we go into a pharmacy, we get the drugs. we leavement we don't think much about what happens to that actual prescription. federal law requires pharmacies to keep a record of the prescription and not to reveal the patient's identity. but pharmacies can and do sell the other information in those prescriptions to data mining companies who sift through all this information about trends and patterns and then sell that to, as in this case, drug companys who can then have their sales representatives do targeted marg iting of mark iting of brand name drugs to doctors. in 2007 vermont passed a law that said doctors' prescription information may not be used by pharmacies or used to market drugs unless the physician consents. three data-mining companies and a trade organization challenged the law in federal court. ultimately the lower federal appellate court found that vermont's law violated the first amendment that

and also the fact that there are some rules that are really inherited from the time when the pharma industrywas chemistry. so like paper or kilogram of this and kilogram of that. when a patient has to increase a dose of one of their drugs that they are using, maybe because of metabolism or anything, they will have more and the dose is higher because in terms of value, in terms of what the drug is doing. in fact, it isn't changing. if you take 800 or 400 milligrams of drug, it's doing what it does for two different patients. and the result of that, for example, is that injectable product and our product are treated and you have tradeoffs in terms of using injectables but it's not based on the value but it's based on the way the system works. i mean, speaking of revolution from early this morning, i think there's really something to be thought about of sort of trying to put that on the roof that take the value to patients as a route the way the system is built instead of all of the processes that have been historically built. >> and actually, there's an interesting lesson for manufacturers. th

i was at a meeting with a scientist-based pharma company recently talking about their company and howpointing out there's three other molecules, and they said, well, that's an inelegant molecules, why would anyone pay for that? the scientists actually thought that the way it was constructed was inelegant and, therefore, nobody would purchase. so we have some room to go to bridge the gap between the science community and the payer community because that one blew my mind. i will say that innovations in contrast to one of the earlier talks, innovations that have the capability of bending the cost curve are very interesting to the payer community. so the payers actually find regenerative medicine and stem cell research fascinating and really exciting science particularly because they have the opportunity to cure things and not just convert things into chronic maintenance drug therapy conditions. so by contrast to what was said earlier, i can tell you that the payer community's actually very interested in those new sciences. of course, let's wait and see what they actually produce. anyway,

it places direct responsibility on commanders to ensure all leaders, officers, and nco's, pharma civilians, and interested family members are properly and sufficiently educated on this important policy change. on this important policy change. , its potential impact on them and our expectations of them. the guidance to commanders is clear. leadership matters most. this training is not disruptive. in february, general casey personally led the first session with all four star generals. i'd participate in this session. i can attest that the process works. the chain teaching program facilitates constructive dialogue between leaders and supporters. this dialogue is hugely important, especially at the lower levels where consensus is most critical. response to the repeal has been generally positive. we cannot assume there will be no negative response in the days ahead. there are some who have expressed concern regarding the repeal. our force is stressed and stretched by nearly one decade of war. the war is not over yet. we recognize if we are to risk to readiness, we must continue to do this delib