Posts Tagged ‘drug companies.’

If Dave feels entitled to sell our medical data to drug companies, what about our blood, or our organs.

August 31, 2012

NO2ID is a group set up to oppose the use of identity cards, because they do not trust the Government to use it purely for our benefit.

They recently sent out a newsletter pointing out that Dave’s promise that medical records will be anonymised is a sham.

Companies are already busy correlating any data that they can pick up on you. ………..Cookies on your computer. Goods bought, tagged by your loyalty card. Visa transactions. Oyster cards and similar. Charity donations. Anything that can be attached to your name and that can go straight into digital format.

This is in addition to data-miners such as the “free” toolbars that keep trying to download to your computer and all those T&C’s that you sign onto. (microsoft recently sent out a notification of new T&C’s, which basically says you use their stuuf, then they own anything that they can find out about you.

Your medical records contain most of your personal details.

If they are anonymised simply by removing your name, it would take seconds for someone, who wanted to put your name back onto their copy of your medical records, to cross-check your details (address, age, post-code, phone number, empoloyer etc.) and do so.

How anonymous is that?

The Government feels entitled to sell your medical records to  Drug Companies etc.

What would they want with that information?

Well! They have drugs to test and they need to do blind testing on selected people (i.e. the people being tested won’t know) and they have to have controls.

Consider if you have a prostate condition, which can be controlled with specific drugs, owned by a specific drug company. Suppose another drug company has a possible alternative that it wishes to test. No point in giving it to women, or young healthy men. It’s aimed at a specific group.

With £ Millions involved, there would be pressure on G.P’s. (not all are virtuous) to prescribe this new drug, without letting their patients know that it is experimental and may not work, or may have side effects, such as growing breasts (There are men taking Spironolactone as a cure for baldness, who found this happening).

These people could find that their prostate problems get worse and could even experience death, through their bladders bursting (see Thales).

What about the controls? Those getting a placebo. They would not be afforded the relief that they sought and might suffer bladder problems also.

Should the Drug Companies be allowed to do this?

Should they even have access to this information?

Would a Good Government sell such information, or would it legislate against such misuse?

Consider further.

If a Government believes that it has a mandate to sell your medical information, how would it feel about selling your blood?

Answer, it’d feel fine, because our Government was selling our blood to New York City (privatised medicine) until they refused to buy it after the BSE (mad cow disease) problem.

We, apparently buy blood products from the Americans (at least the American donors get paid for their blood) and that caused a little flurry of concern when some haemophiliacs contracted HIV from it.

Would it stop there?

Let’s add in DNA details, which are incredibly quick and cheap nowadays and which are probably logged somewhere for most people.

With your DNA profile, you can be identified as a cross-match for someone, who might need a kidney.

Such a DNA databank might be a good thing but in view of the previous observations, how secure might one feel about holding onto one’s kidney’s?….Or Liver, or cornea’s, or bones, or teeth, or anything else that could be usefully harvested?

I do not trust the Government any more than a sheep should trust the the shepherd and I resent this Government selling my Medical details to the highest bidder.


rising obesity levels are seen as an investment opportunity, which could mean resistance to finding a cure for diabetes.

August 31, 2012

Fullermoney is like a tip sheet for moneymen and relies on objective assessments of situations, the last bit is why I read its newsletters.

This bit is useful as a summary of what diabetes is but is meant to point out the fact that diabetes provides an investment opportunity.

Thinking further ahead it poses the problem of how these drug companies and these investor’s would re-act to a cure for diabetes, for the masses.

This could be especially problematic for the masses, as I recently read that stem cells could be used to create a new pancreas, or its equivalent. I suspect that only the rich would be able to afford that sort of cure.

Your free daily email from

Commentary by Eoin Treacy

Pharmaceuticals for Beginners 2012 � Thanks to a subscriber for this highly educative 329-page report for anyone with an interest in the pharmaceuticals sector. The full report is posted in the Subscriber’s Area but here is a section on diabetes:

Diabetes is not yet curable, but can be controlled. The goals of diabetes management are to attain and maintain a near-normal blood sugar level, and reduce the risk of complications.

In Type 1 diabetes, treatment depends on the individual’s needs, but typically consists of an insulin regimen, which at present requires the regular injection of differing formulations of insulin. This often comprises daily injections of long-lasting insulin to provide a basal level similar to that of the normal body, together with separate injections of rapid/intermediate acting product to provide a �top-up’ at meal times.

For Type 2 diabetics, treatment initially focuses on diet and exercise, as the loss of weight in obese patients helps to reduce the degree of insulin resistance. If this is insufficient, a range of oral medication may be started. Medication usually works by addressing one or several of the issues of Type 2 diabetes, e.g., reducing peripheral insulin resistance, reducing glucose production by the liver or increasing insulin secretion.

It should also be noted that diabetes is a progressive disease, where insulin resistance and ongoing beta cell death result in the patient progressing from a single oral therapy, to multiple oral therapies, to finally requiring insulin. At the time of diagnosis, only about 50% of pancreatic beta-cell function would remain, and this is estimated to continue to decline at an average of 4% a year. About 50% of patients will require more than one anti-diabetic medication by three years after their initial diagnosis, and this increases to 75% at nine years.

My view � I reviewed a number of US pharmaceutical companies in yesterday’s piece on shares which appear to be emerging from a 12-year process of valuation contraction. Due to the relatively predictable nature of pharmaceutical cash flows, they tend to have some of the more consistent patterns in terms of the progression of P/E multiples. Their valuations are therefore easier to monitor with charts.

The healthcare, energy and technology sectors are in a special category because ground breaking innovation in any one of them can literally create value where it had not previously been imagined. In the case of healthcare, new therapies can enhance standards of living, increase productivity and cut costs. Therefore, while many look at the healthcare sector as defensive, it unquestionably also has a growth aspect. Additionally, the expansion of the global disposable income class is creating additional demand growth for healthcare products which is likely to remain on a secular upward trajectory for a considerable period of time.

Diabetes is a global pandemic fuelled by increased calorie consumption and can be viewed from an investment perspective as a corollary of rising per capita incomes.