Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30610/media-do-hamas-dirty-work-claim-israel-killing-ben-shapiro?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

On Monday, in an attempt to depict America’s decision to open its embassy in Jerusalem as a provocative act of incitement, Hamas-backed terrorists attacked the Gaza border en masse, seeking to harm Israeli soldiers and invade Israeli territory. Israeli soldiers were forced to respond, and some 50-plus Palestinians have now been killed. The media dutifully reported the Hamas line, suggesting that Israel was to blame for the violence against “protesters.”

Take, for example, this Washington Post headline: “Israelis kill dozens of Palestinians in Gaza protesting US Embassy move to Jerusalem.” This makes it sound as though a bunch of peaceful protesters gathered in Gaza for a sit-in. Not so much. The same article quotes one of the “protesters,” 23-year-old Mohammed Mansoura: “We are excited to storm and get inside. … Whatever is possible, to kill, throw stones.” The New York Times similarly headlined, “Israeli Troops Kill Dozens of Palestinian Protesters.” The Wall Street Journal headlined, “Scores Killed, Thousands Injured as Palestinians Protest US Embassy Opening In Jerusalem.” That same article acknowledged, however, that “Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, which controls the territory, suggested last week that more than 100,000 people could storm the fence on Tuesday. Israeli military officials say it has information that Hamas is using the protests as a pretext to stage an attack into Israel. Earlier in the morning Israel’s military dropped leaflets over Gaza warning residents not to approach the border.”

Organizers of the “protests” are telling demonstrators that they should attempt to burst through the border fence, and lying that Israeli soldiers were “fleeing their positions.” According to the Jerusalem Post, “Some 35,000 Palestinians were reported by the IDF as taking part in violent protests at 12 different locations along the fence, throwing stones, explosive devices, and Molotov cocktails at the fence and IDF troops, burning tires, and other burning objects with the intention of setting fires in Israeli territory. The Jerusalem Post witnessed at least six incendiary kites, with two setting fires in fields near Kibbutz Nahal Oz.” At one outpost, Palestinians laid an explosive device. The IDF spokesman, Ronen Manelis, says that Hamas is paying families to protest, and that Hamas was planning to use the protests as cover to abduct soldiers.

As always, Hamas and other terrorist groups hide their terrorists among civilian populations in an attempt to portray Israeli troops as targeting civilians. That’s untrue. Israel has utter air and ground superiority — if it wanted to kill protesters en masse, there would be no logistical problem in doing so. Israel stringently attempts to protect civilians on both sides.

All of which prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to respond:

This translates roughly this way: “Each country must protect its borders. Hamas' terrorist organization states that it intends to destroy Israel and send thousands to breach the border fence to realize this goal. We will continue to act firmly to protect our sovereignty and our citizens.”

The media’s willingness to do Hamas’ dirty work in distributing their propaganda is horrendous. These are not protesters being killed. These are rioters attacking a sovereign nation’s border and attempting to harm its soldiers. To cover them as peaceful protesters merely hoping to spread flower power is a lie, and a lie on behalf of one of the world’s worst terror organizations.

[Kapture1]

how the left shapes the narrative

[Dr. Strangelove]

Instant Hall of Fame tweet. Exceptional

[ame]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/996129630913482755[/ame]

[AlabamAlum]

Instant Hall of Fame tweet. Exceptional

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...29630913482755

That is awesome.

[Jeff Buchanan]

This report is 18 months old from the Senate. It offers some insight, but I'd like Jeff's take on this as someone on the front line, so to speak.

https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/med...g%20Report.pdf

Lets get a couple of things straight:

(1) There is a difference between the cost of a drug that consumers pay and the price of the drug set by the manufacturer.

(2) This legislation targets pricing by manufacturer's and further specifically targets off patent drugs that have a single source. You may remember Epi-Pen. Priced at about $20 for years, Mylan acquired the off-patent sole rights to the drug and raised the price of a two pack to $600. Public outrage was so strong that Mylan reduced the price to $250. Whoopee. They did get sued and settled not for this but for something they could be sued for in Civil Court. I don't think this Civil action has curbed companies that still pull this shit. But I think there are some steps that do not require new legislation that have been taken under existing Anti-Trust Laws to dissuade, to some extent, this behavior.

(3) There is Federal legislation already enacted that prevents drugs made by multiple manufacturers from being monopolized through acquisition of competitors enforced under several Anti Trust laws. The purpose of things like the Sherman Antitrust Laws are to prevent the single source problem that the legislation in question targets.

(4) As egregious the conduct of these single source companies is, and the pressing need to prevent it, the legislation is still in committee. Why do you think this is? If you said Big Pharma lobbying you'd only be partly correct. As I mentioned above the monopolizing practice has been largely contained, not eliminated outright though.

Pricing models for the majority of drugs prescribed in the US involve an entirely different process. The drug makes it through the licensing process that can be very costly as has already been mentioned by Kapture. Those costs are amortized over the period which the drug is granted patent protection by the FDA. The manufacturer sets the price. There are changes in the pipeline to existing procedures and times to bring drugs more quickly to market.

Now the bull-shit begins. The cost consumers will pay for an on patent drug is established by a process that is unseen by regulators and consumers and clouded in secrecy for dubious reasons.

I've already mentioned Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and the consolidation of the means of distribution for drugs to maybe a half dozen huge companies, e.g., Express Scripts or CVS Caremark. These essentially control what is on your benefit plan's formulary, by exclusion what drugs you can get and how much you are going to pay for them. These PBM's negotiate secretly with drug manufacturers, what the distribution group (Express Scripts, for example) will pay to allow the drug to be on a particular plans formulary and ultimately what you will pay out of pocket based on the tier the drug is assigned to by the PBMs.

Via this process, maybe 20 years ago, a system of rebates from manufacturers was started as a means of incentivising drug manufacturers to price their drugs attractively in order to get them on as many formularies as possible. Ostensibly the rebates should have lowered the cost of the drug to consumers. Nope. The PBMs are alleged to have been pocketed these rebates and the evidence is pretty strong that they do just that.

My view is that Pharmaceutical companies, while complicit as a result of the lack of transparency in how they price a drug, are only about 30% of the problem. The PBMs seem to me to be the biggest problem right now in driving up the cost of a drug that consumers will pay.

..... and BTW, the US is the only country in the developed world that does not have mechanisms for setting prices of pharmaceuticals. Sure, most drugs are brought to market by US owned companies but R&D isn't as big of a cost to drug companies as they make them out to be and the FDA isn't allowed to see what those R&D costs actually were. Silly isn't it.

I can tell you this. If I were diagnosed with a disease that had very costly medications to control it, I'd seek treatment in another country, India or perhaps Quatar or Kuwait would do. I'd prefer the hassle in doing that to having to fight Express Scripts who is my health care plan's PBM and experience the delays in care and the likelihood of a poor outcome this fight entails.

[iam416]

Supreme Court opens up sports betting to the entire country

What I find interesting about the decision is that it's fundamentally a 10th A question. The statutory scheme that was in question made it illegal for STATES to authorize sports gambling instead of making it illegal for INDIVIDUALS to engage in sports gambling. The former is a pretty big 10th A issue that only that batshit liberal justices would really take issue with. The latter wasn't before the court. In theory, if Congress could tie gambling to interstate commerce (fairly easy) then they could still outlaw it.

In other words, it's not unconstitutional to ban sports gambling, but it was unconstitutional to ban it in the way they did.

[iam416]

You may remember Epi-Pen. Priced at about $20 for years, Mylan acquired the off-patent sole rights to the drug and raised the price of a two pack to $600.

I'm very confused how anyone could have sole rights to a drug that is off-patent. In fact, it's impossible. The thing Mylan had patent rights to was the drug delivery system. The active ingredient compound was off-patent, but the drug product was not. So, competitors were still free to sell the active ingredient in an alternative delivery system.

There is Federal legislation already enacted that prevents drugs made by multiple manufacturers from being monopolized through acquisition of competitors enforced under several Anti Trust laws.

Correct. And the FTC is fairly aggressive when acquisitions will produce significant consumer harm.

The drug makes it through the licensing process that can be very costly as has already been mentioned by Kapture. Those costs are amortized over the period which the drug is granted patent protection by the FDA. The manufacturer sets the price. There are changes in the pipeline to existing procedures and times to bring drugs more quickly to market.

New drug development typically proceeds in the following way. First, they discover an active compound. Then they file for patent protection (usually in bulk with other similar compounds). Then they start doing their own assays the appropriate cell lines. Then they move promising candidates into pre-clinical. Then the move into clinical testing -- Phase I, Phase II before finally having enough data for FDA approval. In the meantime, the patent application has almost certainly worked it's way through the USPTO (not FDA) and been issued. So, the company is sitting there burning it's patent life waiting for regulatory approval (patents typically issue in 3 years or less from application; the FDA NDA process can require 5-7 years).

So, that's the process. What should be apparent is that the New Drug Application process is a formidable barrier to entry. You're looking at many years and a minimum of $40-50M to get to approval. That means that small firms and entrepreneurs that are focused on new drug development really only have one exit -- acquisition or license to a big dog. It is yet another example of why Big Pharma (and other "Big Companies") actually like/don't mind complex regulatory hurdles. They don't need to be monopolistic -- the Government does it for them by making it very difficult for new firms to get into the market.

and BTW, the US is the only country in the developed world that does not have mechanisms for setting prices of pharmaceuticals. Sure, most drugs are brought to market by US owned companies but R&D isn't as big of a cost to drug companies as they make them out to be and the FDA isn't allowed to see what those R&D costs actually were. Silly isn't it.

I don't think it's silly. What on earth does R&D cost have to do with what the FDA does? Or put another way, what on earth does R&D cost have to do with clinical efficacy and safety?

You know what I think is silly -- passing laws that significantly alter the marketability of drugs and expecting nothing to change. I think that's blindingly stupid, and I certainly don't think you're a stupid man. So, I assume we can all agree that if the market is significantly altered we will see less drug innovation. And that's the cost/benefit analysis that policy-makers ought to undertake. How much can we save in drug costs vs. how much we lose in new therapies.

[iam416]

I've already mentioned Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and the consolidation of the means of distribution for drugs to maybe a half dozen huge companies, e.g., Express Scripts or CVS Caremark. These essentially control what is on your benefit plan's formulary, by exclusion what drugs you can get and how much you are going to pay for them. These PBM's negotiate secretly with drug manufacturers, what the distribution group (Express Scripts, for example) will pay to allow the drug to be on a particular plans formulary and ultimately what you will pay out of pocket based on the tier the drug is assigned to by the PBMs.

Via this process, maybe 20 years ago, a system of rebates from manufacturers was started as a means of incentivising drug manufacturers to price their drugs attractively in order to get them on as many formularies as possible. Ostensibly the rebates should have lowered the cost of the drug to consumers. Nope. The PBMs are alleged to have been pocketed these rebates and the evidence is pretty strong that they do just that.

Separately, because this is the real issue. The market for purchasing anything can be grossly inefficient when you're playing with insurance or other intermediaries that shield the consumer from the true cost (student loans being a prime example).

[iam416]

The media’s willingness to do Hamas’ dirty work in distributing their propaganda is horrendous. These are not protesters being killed. These are rioters attacking a sovereign nation’s border and attempting to harm its soldiers. To cover them as peaceful protesters merely hoping to spread flower power is a lie, and a lie on behalf of one of the world’s worst terror organizations.

Yeah, this is also true. They were also protesting for some time before the announcement. It wasn't some sort of spontaneous outrage.

Whatever. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Good on PDJT.

[Ghengis Jon]

Once upon a time, in 2000 at Camp David, there was an agreement concluded between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators that needed Arafat's approval. Deciding that he wanted history to remember him as a freedom fighter and not the founding father of a new nation, Arafat scuttled the deal. 18 years later the Palestinians are in worse shape and blame only Israel.

Chump's relocation of the embassy is a calculated move. First, its red meat thrown to his supporters for optics. Operationally, it doesn't matter if the embassy is in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, it's the symbolism. Second, it is a message to the Palestinians that you blew your best chance and that things will only get worse. Come to the table now or you might lose yet another negotiating point. Time has run out.

Will it work? Who knows. The Palestinian people have been oppressed as much by other Arab nations as by Israel. Their neighbors deny them a path to citizenship (won't rob them of their 'birthright'). They are confined to refugee camps with no freedom of movement (3rd rate non-citizens). They are kept in squalor so that the dictatorships across the ME can say to their own angry populace "You don't have it so bad, look at the Palestinians". They are sometimes useful pawns in ME politics, particularly to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezzbollah.

The Palestinians have no friends in Israel or the Arab world. For four generations they have been left in the desert, under crushing economic conditions, leading a life so bleak there is no hope, only despair. Fighting an 'enemy' gives otherwise aimless and hopeless people a direction in life. For four generations the Palestinians have been subjected to relentless propaganda that Israel directly and the US indirectly is the blood sworn enemy, never to be trusted. For four generations the Palestinians have been shit on and do little more than aggravate their plight by following armed factions that have agendas of their own. There is no hope there and inhumanity is the only outlet against their inability to change their conditions.

This is not an environment conducive to peace. The powers that be, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, do not object to the ME exploding into conflict. Wars that damage their rivals is a good thing, particularly if they are not involved in the conflict. Regime change in Iran and Syria, to name just two, furthers their ambitions and weakens the survivors. If Israel is the tinder and/or the scapegoat, that's all well and good.

I see only two possible outcomes. Either a solution is imposed upon the players by the rest of the world (not likely) or the players will make full scale attempts to wipe each other out ala 1967.

The embassy move might fan the flames, but that fire has been burning for decades. If Iran starts up its "industrial scale" enrichment programs because of President Douche Bag's agreement pullout, the whole region could get ugly in a hurry. A massive disruption of oil flow and closure of shipping lanes could quite easily trigger a worldwide recession or worse. Not to mention the loss of life.

[Kapture1]

[Ghengis Jon]

Dr Goebbels, how about shrinking your propaganda posts down so they don't take up the entire thread page.

[Kapture1]

perhaps if they didn't elect a terrorist organization to run Gaza...

I saw on twitter yesterday a statement that summed this up perfectly...

the Palestinians want to murder the Jews. The Jews don't want to be murdered. neither side is willing to compromise.




Gaza could become one of the world's foremost vacation destination spots, but instead it's a shithole because the Palestinians elected Hamas, that funds terrorism before meeting the basic needs of the citizens.

[Whitley]

Once upon a time, in 2000 at Camp David, there was an agreement concluded between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators that needed Arafat's approval. Deciding that he wanted history to remember him as a freedom fighter and not the founding father of a new nation, Arafat scuttled the deal. 18 years later the Palestinians are in worse shape and blame only Israel.

Chump's relocation of the embassy is a calculated move. First, its red meat thrown to his supporters for optics. Operationally, it doesn't matter if the embassy is in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, it's the symbolism. Second, it is a message to the Palestinians that you blew your best chance and that things will only get worse. Come to the table now or you might lose yet another negotiating point. Time has run out.

Will it work? Who knows. The Palestinian people have been oppressed as much by other Arab nations as by Israel. Their neighbors deny them a path to citizenship (won't rob them of their 'birthright'). They are confined to refugee camps with no freedom of movement (3rd rate non-citizens). They are kept in squalor so that the dictatorships across the ME can say to their own angry populace "You don't have it so bad, look at the Palestinians". They are sometimes useful pawns in ME politics, particularly to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezzbollah.

The Palestinians have no friends in Israel or the Arab world. For four generations they have been left in the desert, under crushing economic conditions, leading a life so bleak there is no hope, only despair. Fighting an 'enemy' gives otherwise aimless and hopeless people a direction in life. For four generations the Palestinians have been subjected to relentless propaganda that Israel directly and the US indirectly is the blood sworn enemy, never to be trusted. For four generations the Palestinians have been shit on and do little more than aggravate their plight by following armed factions that have agendas of their own. There is no hope there and inhumanity is the only outlet against their inability to change their conditions.

This is not an environment conducive to peace. The powers that be, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, do not object to the ME exploding into conflict. Wars that damage their rivals is a good thing, particularly if they are not involved in the conflict. Regime change in Iran and Syria, to name just two, furthers their ambitions and weakens the survivors. If Israel is the tinder and/or the scapegoat, that's all well and good.

I see only two possible outcomes. Either a solution is imposed upon the players by the rest of the world (not likely) or the players will make full scale attempts to wipe each other out ala 1967.

The embassy move might fan the flames, but that fire has been burning for decades. If Iran starts up its "industrial scale" enrichment programs because of President Douche Bag's agreement pullout, the whole region could get ugly in a hurry. A massive disruption of oil flow and closure of shipping lanes could quite easily trigger a worldwide recession or worse. Not to mention the loss of life.

Right on. The only thing that I would say is that by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, what it does do is take the US out of being a neutral party as a broker for peace. And I think that any peace is going to have to be put on them.

Course if war happens, that will give Trump the ability to go after the oil in whatever country and claim for the US. And he might drop a nuke or two.

[iam416]

It could do a number of different things. It could, quite rightly, signal to the Palestinians that whatever deal they harbor hopes for is dead and that perhaps should take what they can get.

It could also be giving something big to Israel to set up significant concessions to be asked for later on -- concessions that the Sunni world will back.

This could be a step forward in what the US views as a necessary Sunni-Israel partnership against Iran (part and parcel to getting the fuck out from under Obama's verbal promise).

In any event, I'm quite happy we're no longer tip-toeing around a terrorist-run state hoping that this time, THIS TIME, the same failed policies will produce a different result.