Clark defending big pharma on CSPAN

[hedda_foil]

He was just being questioned by a man at the NH event and he talked about being on the board of a pharmaceutical company and basically defended their position.

[Jackhammer Jesus]

1. How so?

By supporting buying Canadian drugs?

...

[incapsulated]

2. this will get locked

It should be in the other forum.

And you should be a little more specific, don't you think?

[hedda_foil]

3. You're right. It should be in the other forum. Thanks.

Mods. Please move.

[JanMichael]

11. I didn't see this before I posted.

I'll make mine go away.

[Myra]

14. And hedda_foil, maybe you'll be decent enough to correct your post.

When you actually listen to General Clark's words and
get your facts straight.

[Meritaten1]

4. He was not "defending big pharma"

If you listen to the whole broadcast from today's speech and take his statements in context, he actually supported allowing US citizens to import cheaper drugs from Canada-- something big pharma most definitely does NOT want. The speech should be availabe at http://www.cspan.org. Also, for additional clarification, you could check out his policy position on this topic posted at http://wwww.clark04.com/issues/prescription

[kodi]

5. i agree, actually clark was saying quite the opposite on that program

anyone actually listening objectively would conclude so.

[devinsgram]

13. I watched it and you are exactly right.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Egnever]

16. Could you please repeat that about 100 times!

Plenty of lying going on in this forum and heda isnt the only one.

[BootinUp]

7. You must have missed "breaking pharmas back" comment

Clark was asked about buying drugs from Canada, his answer was to allow it until we could break pharma's back and get drugs for reasonable costs.

[Renew Deal]

8. This is a lie.

How did he do this? By saying that we were going to import from Canada until we break pharmas back?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JanMichael]

10. self edited.

.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikehiggins]

15. You must have been watching another station

The sequence during which he talked about being on a pharma board was after the talk. A man questioned his "flaky" answer about the drug issue and Clark was trying to explain the economics of the industry to him. He talked about how much it costs to get a drug to the market and mentioned a drug he tried to get developed, something to do with kidney disease, and the company wouldn't develop it because there wasn't a market for it. He also mentioned Viagra, though I didn't quite get his point.

However, he was not "defending" the pharmacuetical industry, he was explaining how it works.

But, when you're looking for a fight, like Clark said, you can always find one. I guess you were looking.

[TLM]

17. Clark was on the board of a phama company?

which one?

Or are you talking about the questioner?

[Myra]

18. :) We're actually talking about the fact that this thread title is a lie.

TLM...

[Redleg]

21. Clark said this after the speech.

He didn't mention which board.

[Tatiana]

19. This post is just sad.

How does allowing seniors to purchase their drugs in Canada, thereby subverting the overpriced American drug manufacturers translate into Clark defending "big pharma?"

[Redleg]

20. Your statement is a bit broad and misleading.

Although he recognized the desire of pharm. companies to recoup R&D costs, he offered some potentially useful short-term fixes to the problems. Those fixes, including permitting Americans to purchase drugs from Canada, are not popular in the pharm. industry.

[Jerseycoa]

22. I just watched it myself

It will be rerun at 11:15PM EST on C-Span 1. You should really watch it, too. Then come back and tell us what he really said, okay? You've obviously heard some whacko rumour and popped up here to repeat it without independently checking its authenticity.

[windansea]

23. foiled again n/t