Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[James Caruthers]

Hey Carrruthers. That asshole Thunderf00t is trashtalking your sweetheart Anita again. :x
[youtube]CZoABBMQ6f4[/youtube]

What a dick. :(

[James Caruthers]

Carruthers is definitely up to something. Reread the threads if you have to.

Carruthers is a quintuple-agent!

I'm working with the Illuminati. Sorry, I mean the SJWinati.

Anita will have all your dox by the end of the week. A week after that, you will bow and pledge your cock to her service!

Big Sister is watching.

Oh I misread that.

You just don't get it, do you, Gumby?

http://i.imgur.com/rixp3D7.jpg

I bow before the master. :dance:

:D

The Pit will be bursting into flames momentarily. But I will be spared because I am a Brown Piller.

Indigo Pill is the only way to salvation when the Illuwomanati take over this forum.

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/x/image/1 ... 875112.png

[James Caruthers]

Stopping the shitposting for a minute, I hear google shadowbanned 8chan.

http://observer.com/2015/08/google-bloc ... om-search/

[Ape+lust]

To clear the air, Caruthers isn't really nazi, any more than Elyse really spent spent $50 getting her butthole waxed while begging for funds.

http://i.imgur.com/nWcpHC7.png
http://i.imgur.com/tZfwZI6.png
http://i.imgur.com/wftPQHQ.png
http://i.imgur.com/FI5Yhwq.png
http://i.imgur.com/KukYZdr.png
http://i.imgur.com/UxKT32t.png

Now we know what it takes to draw the Executive Director of CFI-DC out of her hidey-hole.

http://imgur.com/M7nFrZc.png

[Tigzy]

Who knows what's up with this Google Ideas thing, but I am sure it will bode badly. Inviting Randi Harper was a silly move though. I notice Shanley was conspicuously absent. She must be fuming.

Hopefully it's just a token gesture - 'Yeah, let's make like we're listening to these squawking feminists for a while just to show [does fingers quotation mark] we care [end fingers quotation mark], and then they'll shut the fuck up and we can get back to the proper business of making money.' - but we'll see, I guess.

Also -

I notice Shanley was conspicuously absent. She must be fuming

Shanley? Consider poor old Becky-boos. Truly, she coulda been a contender; truly she coulda had her fat arse wedged alongside the lumpen derriers of Randi and the Quimster, delivering the charming snark she is renowned for in the service of combatting misogyny via Google Ideas. 'Uh...yeeaaah...my elevator thing...yurh...I got so much abuse, y'know? Yeaaah, I made a page o hate for it all...sent a penis bird...hurhhh...best cock he'll ever see...hmurrhhhh.'

So I suspect Becky will be fuming too, though that is kind of redundant given the amount of ethanol that must naturally exist in her sweat.

[Suet Cardigan]

To clear the air, Caruthers isn't really nazi, any more than Elyse really spent spent $50 getting her butthole waxed while begging for funds.

http://i.imgur.com/nWcpHC7.png
http://i.imgur.com/tZfwZI6.png
http://i.imgur.com/wftPQHQ.png
http://i.imgur.com/FI5Yhwq.png
http://i.imgur.com/KukYZdr.png
http://i.imgur.com/UxKT32t.png

Now we know what it takes to draw the Executive Director of CFI-DC out of her hidey-hole.

http://imgur.com/M7nFrZc.png

Make a shoop of Elyse getting buttjazzled. Go on - I dare you.

[Parody Accountant]

Side bar:

Friend sent this:

Japanese woman stabbed your husband in the face bc he had really smelly dumps. She caught a whiff and couldnt take it anymore and stabbed him.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7071722

[Ape+lust]

So... Google doesn't google.

They want Randi? Zoe? I don't think anyone should let Google forget they were stupid enough to embrace those two.

And where's Brianna? My fucking God, they forgot the TRANS! How could they do that? Frank must be getting the shit beat out of him right now.

[Cnutella]

Reading that story, it sounds like there was some tenuous evidence pointing to the boyfriend as the culprit:

The only evidence that investigators had unearthed was a tenuous link between his computer network and a fake email account created in his ex's name. But detectives couldn't prove Seay had created the email account or used it to disseminate any photos. "We had some proof issues that we couldn't overcome," says Mark Cox, a spokesman for the State Attorney's Office.

If his webmail account had been hacked, why would there be a link, tenuous or otherwise, to his computer network, unless he was running his own mail server?

A criminal checking out the mail folders on a hacked webmail account isn't in a position to set up a new webmail account via the network of the person whose mail they hacked. It's possible his system got owned via malware and they bagged all his passwords that way but why would they then go on to set up an account from his network? Even if that was their lame exfiltration strategy, why would they use his ex-gf's name?

He mentions the possibility of one of her exes setting him up, but I'd imagine they would have done a better job leaving a forensic trail if they were able to hack his network.

So this all seems a bit suspect to me although there's really not enough information to draw a too much ofa conclusion. Maybe the Fascist Tit or one of you other admin guru/virgins could weigh in?

[Parody Accountant]

To clear the air, Caruthers isn't really nazi, any more than Elyse really spent spent $50 getting her butthole waxed while begging for funds.

http://i.imgur.com/nWcpHC7.png
http://i.imgur.com/tZfwZI6.png
http://i.imgur.com/wftPQHQ.png
http://i.imgur.com/FI5Yhwq.png
http://i.imgur.com/KukYZdr.png
http://i.imgur.com/UxKT32t.png

Oh my fucking god

[CuntajusRationality]

And Google Ideas just tweeted a pic that is causing fits on Twitter. Not that there's much GG and assorted allies will be able to do about it - Google are waaaay too big. Aside from delisting sites, I wonder what else they've got in mind?

Quite a diversity of voices Google seems to have assembled here. Looks like 11 out of 14 whiteys and just 3 POC, all of whom are relegated to the back of the photo. I estimate between 9 and 12 are presenting as women.

[Ape+lust]

Make a shoop of Elyse getting buttjazzled. Go on - I dare you.

Dare away. Better a wuss than scoping Big E's browneye for an hour. :lol:

Besides, that thing erupts as often as Old Faithful, but randomly. I pity the sap who draws Elyse's number at the shop :shock:

[Ape+lust]

Who knows what's up with this Google Ideas thing, but I am sure it will bode badly. Inviting Randi Harper was a silly move though. I notice Shanley was conspicuously absent. She must be fuming.

Hopefully it's just a token gesture - 'Yeah, let's make like we're listening to these squawking feminists for a while just to show [does fingers quotation mark] we care [end fingers quotation mark], and then they'll shut the fuck up and we can get back to the proper business of making money.' - but we'll see, I guess.

Also -

I notice Shanley was conspicuously absent. She must be fuming

Shanley? Consider poor old Becky-boos. Truly, she coulda been a contender; truly she coulda had her fat arse wedged alongside the lumpen derriers of Randi and the Quimster, delivering the charming snark she is renowned for in the service of combatting misogyny via Google Ideas. 'Uh...yeeaaah...my elevator thing...yurh...I got so much abuse, y'know? Yeaaah, I made a page o hate for it all...sent a penis bird...hurhhh...best cock he'll ever see...hmurrhhhh.'

So I suspect Becky will be fuming too, though that is kind of redundant given the amount of ethanol that must naturally exist in her sweat.

I've been rearranging Rebecca's mug for years and it didn't even occur to ME she should've been there :lol:

Once an icon, now a game show host. Poor Boodles, she peaked too early.

[CuntajusRationality]

Make a shoop of Elyse getting buttjazzled. Go on - I dare you.

Dare away. Better a wuss than scoping Big E's browneye for an hour. :lol:

Besides, that thing erupts as often as Old Faithful, but randomly. I pity the sap who draws Elyse's number at the shop :shock:

Fur Elyse:
[youtube]LN1fytRK68g[/youtube]

[Cnutella]

And where's Brianna? My fucking God, they forgot the TRANS! How could they do that? Frank must be getting the shit beat out of him right now.

She says she was invited but had a conflict...

Shanley, on the other hand, has said nothing nor retweeted the group pic by way of solidarity. Still, is you are going to invite Freebsdgirl, you may as well have Shanley there too. I mean, why not?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

What the fuck is Nerd on about here? Clueless cunt.

http://i.imgur.com/MJDaNUX.png

http://i.imgur.com/1hNyOZG.png

Hey, Meyers: you enjoying the current level of intellectual discussion on your blog? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-974409

[James Caruthers]

what the fuck elyse

what the fuck

[Cnutella]

Banders made a comment in the Elyse thread:

Seriously WTF? You have no idea what you're talking about and you don't know our situation.

Wellllll, I think people thought they did because Elyse posted about being too broke to move out. I can understand spending a bit of cash on basic maintenance, but there has to be cheaper and less frivolous ways to self-soothe when you're completely fucked financially.

[Cnutella]

The revolution will not be televised, but it will be thoroughly waxed.

[Parody Accountant]

what the fuck elyse

what the fuck

Golden age, man.

[Billie from Ockham]

What the fuck is Nerd on about here? Clueless cunt.

http://i.imgur.com/MJDaNUX.png

http://i.imgur.com/1hNyOZG.png

Hey, Meyers: you enjoying the current level of intellectual discussion on your blog? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-974409

It must be 12:00 ... 12:00 ... 12:00, because Nerd of Redhead is correct.

[Gumby]

In the world of SJW online fundraising scams, I guess anus waxing is the Jerry Springer trailer trash version of Fluevogs. But its anyone's guess as to which one is uglier.

[Parody Accountant]

#buttholesuffrage

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

*wave*

I did the Ramadan Fast two years in a row. I skipped this year but it is highly possible I will do it again in the future.

(just saying)

And? Do you want a fucking medal?

Idiot!

Lol'd

Also.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

What the fuck is Nerd on about here? Clueless cunt.

http://i.imgur.com/MJDaNUX.png

http://i.imgur.com/1hNyOZG.png

Hey, Meyers: you enjoying the current level of intellectual discussion on your blog? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-974409

It must be 12:00 ... 12:00 ... 12:00, because Nerd of Redhead is correct.

Bollocks. Gizza link.

[HunnyBunny]

Fess up, who is We are Plethora, I know you're here somewhere...

We are Plethora, Protectors of the Orb of Tranquility ~+~ Seated on the Throne of Fantasia
23 September 2015 at 7:59 pm
Nerd of Redhead @70,
The biggest expense of a new drug is advertising. Typically it is more than half the cost.
Wow, really? Do you have a citation for this?
Just asking because we’d like to pass this information along to others but without a citation to some third-party evidence we’re afraid it might appear to them like just our unevidenced opinion. Would be nice to be able to provide them a citation to support this if you don’t mind passing it along.
According to http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... eeds-2-5b/ this Scientific American article from November 2014 the cost to develop a new (prescription) pharmaceutical drug is about $2.6 billion and the the total life-cycle cost is about $2.9 billion.
You’re saying that it’s typical that more than half of these costs or $1.25B-$1.45B are spent on advertising? That is mind-blowing.
From the SciAm article linked above:
A new report published by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) pegs the cost of developing a prescription drug that gains market approval at $2.6 billion, a 145% increase, correcting for inflation, over the estimate the center made in 2003.
The study concludes that another $312 million is spent on postapproval development—studies to test new indications, formulations, and dosage strengths—for a life-cycle cost of $2.9 billion.
The steep rise in costs comes despite an intense effort in recent years to bring efficiency to pharmaceutical R&D. Offsetting any such savings, according to CSDD, are higher costs due to the increased complexity of clinical trials, a greater focus on chronic and degenerative diseases, and tests for insurers seeking comparative drug effectiveness data.
It’s telling that SciAm did not mention advertising costs at all in their analysis. Do you think they are trying to hide this information from the consumer perhaps?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150924010 ... nt-page-1/

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Fess up, who is We are Plethora, I know you're here somewhere...

We are Plethora, Protectors of the Orb of Tranquility ~+~ Seated on the Throne of Fantasia
23 September 2015 at 7:59 pm
Nerd of Redhead @70,
The biggest expense of a new drug is advertising. Typically it is more than half the cost.
Wow, really? Do you have a citation for this?
Just asking because we’d like to pass this information along to others but without a citation to some third-party evidence we’re afraid it might appear to them like just our unevidenced opinion. Would be nice to be able to provide them a citation to support this if you don’t mind passing it along.
According to http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... eeds-2-5b/ this Scientific American article from November 2014 the cost to develop a new (prescription) pharmaceutical drug is about $2.6 billion and the the total life-cycle cost is about $2.9 billion.
You’re saying that it’s typical that more than half of these costs or $1.25B-$1.45B are spent on advertising? That is mind-blowing.
From the SciAm article linked above:
A new report published by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) pegs the cost of developing a prescription drug that gains market approval at $2.6 billion, a 145% increase, correcting for inflation, over the estimate the center made in 2003.
The study concludes that another $312 million is spent on postapproval development—studies to test new indications, formulations, and dosage strengths—for a life-cycle cost of $2.9 billion.
The steep rise in costs comes despite an intense effort in recent years to bring efficiency to pharmaceutical R&D. Offsetting any such savings, according to CSDD, are higher costs due to the increased complexity of clinical trials, a greater focus on chronic and degenerative diseases, and tests for insurers seeking comparative drug effectiveness data.
It’s telling that SciAm did not mention advertising costs at all in their analysis. Do you think they are trying to hide this information from the consumer perhaps?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150924010 ... nt-page-1/

I am not them, but I sure wish I was!

All respect to you, Plethora!

[Billie from Ockham]

Sorry, but the budgets for advertizing are usually equal to or larger than the budgets for R&D. That's pretty well known and a few minutes with teh google will get you lots of references. Now, you could try to get around this by focusing on the claim that more is spent on marketing than development for new drugs, such that, at the moment it goes on the market, probably more has been spend so far on R&D than marketing, but the general point being made about marketing vs R&D is accurate.

[NoGodsEver]

Fess up, who is We are Plethora, I know you're here somewhere...

I admit it, it's me!

/not really, I just wanted to be like Parody Accountant for a second.

/sorry

[Aneris]

One person endorsed by Google, Randi Harper's twitter information states they are the founder of the ggautoblocker, that is a tool that automatically adds people to the blacklist that follow more than one account the creator disapproves of. Now everyone can freely sign up on the other end, if they wish to automatically have people blocked in this fashion. People can categorically decide to not interact with some group, e.g. not purchase from Jews, not service gays et cetera, but we should be clear about the attitude.

It makes it a tool which fosters prejudice, since once any interaction is blocked categorically, it is no longer possible to make a proper judgment call. But isn't that exactly what this whole mindset is about, safe space echo chambers and people trapped in their own confirmation bias.

It is also troubling per se to have an entity decide what is “abuse”, and then even worse invite people who are the worst in this regard. Just like the insane US secular movement where porcupine rape and rusty knives insulters — based on rape imagery — get to parade on the moral high ground. The comical element is there too, with a Die in a Fire style comment from Rabdi Harper who apparently made many similar comments. For that reason, Google does not get away as “accidentially” picking these people, the story for me is: Google to endorse online abusers. Probably nothing will come from this, but it reminds me that Google anyway is too big and influential.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Sorry, but the budgets for advertizing are usually equal to or larger than the budgets for R&D. That's pretty well known and a few minutes with teh google will get you lots of references. Now, you could try to get around this by focusing on the claim that more is spent on marketing than development for new drugs, such that, at the moment it goes on the market, probably more has been spend so far on R&D than marketing, but the general point being made about marketing vs R&D is accurate.

Again, bollocks.

Read the frozen link above, and its link: New Scientist estimates a cost to bring a drug to market of around 2.5 billion$. But Fierce estimates that the TOTAL pharmaceutical ad budget (that would include such standbys as all of the acetaminophen/paracetamol, aspirin, and anti-histamine preparations) is only 2.7 billion$ per annum.

http://i.imgur.com/uYbYfTL.png

[katamari Damassi]

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2015/09/2 ... can=n&fb=y

Soldier uses GoPro to prove wife's domestic abuse

Check out exactly what she did...

Good on you, Soldier. That ranger was a smart one.

I eagerly await the feminist response. I'm sure that PZ will cover it, or Ophelia at her new digs. McEwen or Furtelle. Can't see Valenti or Marcotte missing it. Or Elyse, Watson...

A few years ago there was a case out of Rutgers University(I think)where a woman claimed she was gang raped. One of the men involved recorded the encounter on his phone and the video was used to exonerate the men. I believe it was on Marcotte's Pandagon blog wherein it was expressed that the guy was wrong to have recorded the session without the woman's permission and that was as bad as rape.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Sorry, but the budgets for advertizing are usually equal to or larger than the budgets for R&D. That's pretty well known and a few minutes with teh google will get you lots of references. Now, you could try to get around this by focusing on the claim that more is spent on marketing than development for new drugs, such that, at the moment it goes on the market, probably more has been spend so far on R&D than marketing, but the general point being made about marketing vs R&D is accurate.

Nerd actually has provided links to his bullshit.

It seems he is confusing reports of total ad spends with total R&D spends. There really is no point in chastising Nerd about anything serious, as he is genuinely a fucking moron. I really should stop it.

Anyway, here you go. You'll have to "spend a few minutes with teh Meyers" if you want to follow the links.

http://i.imgur.com/ryTQVh6.png

[Bhurzum]

Make a shoop of Elyse getting buttjazzled. Go on - I dare you.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/56610954.jpg

(As soon as I sober up!)

[Guest_aed0334c]

50 dollars to get the old starfish waxed.
How much does Duct tape cost?

CaughtUpLockedOut

[Billie from Ockham]

Sorry, but the budgets for advertizing are usually equal to or larger than the budgets for R&D. That's pretty well known and a few minutes with teh google will get you lots of references. Now, you could try to get around this by focusing on the claim that more is spent on marketing than development for new drugs, such that, at the moment it goes on the market, probably more has been spend so far on R&D than marketing, but the general point being made about marketing vs R&D is accurate.

Again, bollocks.

Read the frozen link above, and its link: New Scientist estimates a cost to bring a drug to market of around 2.5 billion$. But Fierce estimates that the TOTAL pharmaceutical ad budget (that would include such standbys as all of the acetaminophen/paracetamol, aspirin, and anti-histamine preparations) is only 2.7 billion$ per annum.

http://i.imgur.com/uYbYfTL.png

Maybe I'm obtuse, but I saw no comparison between ad and R&D budgets in any of that. Plus, it is focused on DTC, which is only half the story of drug marketing in the US.

[Ape+lust]

Make a shoop of Elyse getting buttjazzled. Go on - I dare you.

Dare away. Better a wuss than scoping Big E's browneye for an hour. :lol:

Besides, that thing erupts as often as Old Faithful, but randomly. I pity the sap who draws Elyse's number at the shop :shock:

Fur Elyse:
[youtube]LN1fytRK68g[/youtube]

http://imgur.com/j9Cwu7y.jpg

[NoGodsEver]

50 dollars to get the old starfish waxed.
How much does Duct tape cost?

CaughtUpLockedOut

I'm trying to figure out how all the hair hasn't already been worn off.

[NoGodsEver]

She should get a new nosering. That's a cool thing for a middle-aged woman to have, right? Right?

[Ape+lust]

And where's Brianna? My fucking God, they forgot the TRANS! How could they do that? Frank must be getting the shit beat out of him right now.

She says she was invited but had a conflict...

Shanley, on the other hand, has said nothing nor retweeted the group pic by way of solidarity. Still, is you are going to invite Freebsdgirl, you may as well have Shanley there too. I mean, why not?

Geezus, nooooo.... the suckage from Google today is boggling.

[Loose CK]

Not bollocks, here are Pfizers financials for 2014. Note that they made more profit than they spent on research, and that they spent 17% of revenue of research. If they spent 60% of their selling, info, admin expenses on advertising it would equal the research budget.

data.jpg

(86.29 KiB) Downloaded 254 times

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Sorry, but the budgets for advertizing are usually equal to or larger than the budgets for R&D. That's pretty well known and a few minutes with teh google will get you lots of references. Now, you could try to get around this by focusing on the claim that more is spent on marketing than development for new drugs, such that, at the moment it goes on the market, probably more has been spend so far on R&D than marketing, but the general point being made about marketing vs R&D is accurate.

Again, bollocks.

Read the frozen link above, and its link: New Scientist estimates a cost to bring a drug to market of around 2.5 billion$. But Fierce estimates that the TOTAL pharmaceutical ad budget (that would include such standbys as all of the acetaminophen/paracetamol, aspirin, and anti-histamine preparations) is only 2.7 billion$ per annum.

http://i.imgur.com/uYbYfTL.png

Maybe I'm obtuse, but I saw no comparison between ad and R&D budgets in any of that. Plus, it is focused on DTC, which is only half the story of drug marketing in the US.

As I said, the comparison comes by looking at the to links. Not perfect, but then: post your own, or else FLOOSH.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Two, not to.

[Billie from Ockham]

As I said, the comparison comes by looking at the to links. Not perfect, but then: post your own, or else FLOOSH.

The first item that teh google returns is a decent summary: http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/new-n ... 2014-11-06

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Not bollocks, here are Pfizers financials for 2014. Note that they made more profit than they spent on research, and that they spent 17% of revenue of research. If they spent 60% of their selling, info, admin expenses on advertising it would equal the research budget.

data.jpg

Firstly, your data seem to cover the whole of Pfizer's operations, which would include promotion of existing patented pharmaceuticals and also whatever proprietary blends of generics they market.

Second, Nerd original: "The biggest expense of a new drug is advertising". This was in response to a comment about "bringing new drugs to market". As I said upstream, I guess it is best not to get into discussions about Nerd comments, as the guy seems to be deeply stupid, and perhaps with some kind of learning/developmental issue(s).

[katamari Damassi]

Neo-völkisch movements, as defined by the historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, cover a wide variety of mutually influencing groups of a radically ethnocentric character which have emerged, especially in the English-speaking world, since World War II. These loose networks revive or imitate the völkisch movement of 19th and early 20th century Germany in their defensive affirmation of white identity against modernity, liberalism, immigration, multiracialism, and multiculturalism.[1] Some identify as neo-fascist, neo-Nazi, or Third Positionist; others are politicised around some form of white ethnic nationalism or identity politics,[1] and may show right-wing anarchist tendencies.[2] Especially notable is the prevalence of devotional forms and esoteric themes, so that neo-völkisch currents often have the character of new religious movements.

BTW, the little White Supremacist Neo-Pagan Norse Rune (Othala Rune) on the main character's shoulder was a dead give-away when viewed in the CONTEXT of his his propaganda:

Yeah, except Iron Pill was clearly taking the piss.

Even the Stormfronters know that - they're not exactly fans.

If posting Iron Pill makes Caruthers a nazi then dress me up in an SS uniform and call me Himmler

FINALLY. I'll go put on my striped pajamas.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

As I said, the comparison comes by looking at the to links. Not perfect, but then: post your own, or else FLOOSH.

The first item that teh google returns is a decent summary: http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/new-n ... 2014-11-06

This is the same page I linked to earlier. Is that the joke?

"Spending more on marketing than R&D" for a pharma company as a whole does not mean that advertising is the predominant cost of bringing a drug to market. They have to continue promoting Tylenol, Advil, Aleve, Nasonex, etc. Cartoon hispanic bees don't come cheap, you know.

[Ape+lust]

Stopping the shitposting for a minute, I hear google shadowbanned 8chan.

http://observer.com/2015/08/google-bloc ... om-search/

What the hell, Google? Is this the day you decided to decloak as everybody's nightmare?

Jeezus Kee-rist, that must be Melody's secret. She's getting top job at Google in December.

[Billie from Ockham]

"Spending more on marketing than R&D" for a pharma company as a whole does not mean that advertising is the predominant cost of bringing a drug to market. They have to continue promoting Tylenol, Advil, Aleve, Nasonex, etc. Cartoon hispanic bees don't come cheap, you know.

Do you have a plot of how much is spent on advertizing at various points in a drug's cycle? That's needed to make your point and would be cool, as it would make this discussion new and interesting to me.

[Loose CK]

"Spending more on marketing than R&D" for a pharma company as a whole does not mean that advertising is the predominant cost of bringing a drug to market. They have to continue promoting Tylenol, Advil, Aleve, Nasonex, etc. Cartoon hispanic bees don't come cheap, you know.

You are now the one making claims yet showing no data. For example, Pfizer's whole OTC business brings in $3.3B or 7% of revenues. So how much ad costs are associated with it? Please find out, then you might have an argument.

You seem to be saying that Pfizer spends more advertising on low margin drugs than high margin ones. Lyrica, Prevnar, Enbrel, Celebrex, and Lipitor account for 38% of their revenue, you know, the ones you see TV commercials for all the time.

[ffs]

[Guest_84d94f98]

To clear the air, Caruthers isn't really nazi, any more than Elyse really spent spent $50 getting her butthole waxed while begging for funds.

i.imgur.com/nWcpHC7.png
i.imgur.com/tZfwZI6.png
i.imgur.com/wftPQHQ.png
i.imgur.com/FI5Yhwq.png
i.imgur.com/KukYZdr.png
i.imgur.com/UxKT32t.png

That tops fluevogs.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

"Spending more on marketing than R&D" for a pharma company as a whole does not mean that advertising is the predominant cost of bringing a drug to market. They have to continue promoting Tylenol, Advil, Aleve, Nasonex, etc. Cartoon hispanic bees don't come cheap, you know.

Do you have a plot of how much is spent on advertizing at various points in a drug's cycle? That's needed to make your point and would be cool, as it would make this discussion new and interesting to me.

It sounds as though you are well experienced in this argument: "...as it would make this discussion new and interesting to me."

I am not a prideful guy, so if you can share some links that may be old to you, but new to me, that would be great and I will fold. I just have not found the data through my own searches that suggests advertising of a specific pharmaceutical agent as being the majority of the cost of bringing that agent to market.

[AndrewV69]

And Google Ideas just tweeted a pic that is causing fits on Twitter. Not that there's much GG and assorted allies will be able to do about it - Google are waaaay too big. Aside from delisting sites, I wonder what else they've got in mind?

Dunno but they have two known harassers and abusers Quinn and Harper in their little group to combat Online Harassment. Break out the popcorn people :popcorn:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

"Spending more on marketing than R&D" for a pharma company as a whole does not mean that advertising is the predominant cost of bringing a drug to market. They have to continue promoting Tylenol, Advil, Aleve, Nasonex, etc. Cartoon hispanic bees don't come cheap, you know.

You are now the one making claims yet showing no data. For example, Pfizer's whole OTC business brings in $3.3B or 7% of revenues. So how much ad costs are associated with it? Please find out, then you might have an argument.

You seem to be saying that Pfizer spends more advertising on low margin drugs than high margin ones. Lyrica, Prevnar, Enbrel, Celebrex, and Lipitor account for 38% of their revenue, you know, the ones you see TV commercials for all the time.

This is not about Pfizer specifically, sorry if I gave that impression.

Secondly: if the five drugs you mentioned do indeed "account for 38% of their revenue", do you have any references for they have spent more than half of the costs of bringing this drug to market on advertising, per the original point? I don't care about losing an argument, let me know.

[Billie from Ockham]

"Spending more on marketing than R&D" for a pharma company as a whole does not mean that advertising is the predominant cost of bringing a drug to market. They have to continue promoting Tylenol, Advil, Aleve, Nasonex, etc. Cartoon hispanic bees don't come cheap, you know.

Do you have a plot of how much is spent on advertizing at various points in a drug's cycle? That's needed to make your point and would be cool, as it would make this discussion new and interesting to me.

It sounds as though you are well experienced in this argument: "...as it would make this discussion new and interesting to me."

I am not a prideful guy, so if you can share some links that may be old to you, but new to me, that would be great and I will fold. I just have not found the data through my own searches that suggests advertising of a specific pharmaceutical agent as being the majority of the cost of bringing that agent to market.

Not sure if serious, but I don't know much about drug marketing; I've just known about the approximately equal spending on R&D and marketing for a while (and thought that it was common knowledge, to be blunt). I'd be genuinely interested in learning about the amounts spent on marketing at various points in a drug's cycle. My guess, based on similar items, is that it is highest (by far) at the launch and then goes up and down as market-share changes and/or competitors pop up or fade. This is distinct from, e.g., cars, where you get to re-invent the thing every few years and have a second, third, etc, launch.

[AndrewV69]

Stopping the shitposting for a minute, I hear google shadowbanned 8chan.

http://observer.com/2015/08/google-bloc ... om-search/

*shrug* put it this way, search for 8chan and not even the domain come back. I am trying out new search engines. Not going back to Google no matter what.

[Loose CK]

This is not about Pfizer specifically, sorry if I gave that impression.

Yes, but Pfizer is as good an example to work with as any and its easy to get some real numbers for them from their financials.

Secondly: if the five drugs you mentioned do indeed "account for 38% of their revenue", do you have any references for they have spent more than half of the costs of bringing this drug to market on advertising, per the original point? I don't care about losing an argument, let me know.

I have no desire to argue for Nerd's poorly worded statement, a bit of truth covered in shit. I came into the debate here:

Sorry, but the budgets for advertizing are usually equal to or larger than the budgets for R&D. That's pretty well known and a few minutes with teh google will get you lots of references. Now, you could try to get around this by focusing on the claim that more is spent on marketing than development for new drugs, such that, at the moment it goes on the market, probably more has been spend so far on R&D than marketing, but the general point being made about marketing vs R&D is accurate.

Again, bollocks.

Read the frozen link above, and its link: New Scientist estimates a cost to bring a drug to market of around 2.5 billion$. But Fierce estimates that the TOTAL pharmaceutical ad budget (that would include such standbys as all of the acetaminophen/paracetamol, aspirin, and anti-histamine preparations) is only 2.7 billion$ per annum.

The quote above is just for DTC (direct to customer) ads. That is just a small part of the marketing space. Sure you want customers to ask their doctors about your product but you really want the doctor to prescribe it. So you give out tons of samples, sponsor seminars, luncheons, and vacations for doctors. You have sales reps visit the doctors and take them out for a round of golf. This shit cost money.

What do you think that $14B in selling, informational and administrative expenses are?

Here is the bottom line: out of the $49B people paid Pfizer for pharmaceuticals in 2014 36% went to the cost of producing the drugs and that year's R&D. Not a very efficient use of medical care dollars.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Do you have a plot of how much is spent on advertizing at various points in a drug's cycle? That's needed to make your point and would be cool, as it would make this discussion new and interesting to me.

It sounds as though you are well experienced in this argument: "...as it would make this discussion new and interesting to me."

I am not a prideful guy, so if you can share some links that may be old to you, but new to me, that would be great and I will fold. I just have not found the data through my own searches that suggests advertising of a specific pharmaceutical agent as being the majority of the cost of bringing that agent to market.

Not sure if serious, but I don't know much about drug marketing; I've just known about the approximately equal spending on R&D and marketing for a while (and thought that it was common knowledge, to be blunt). I'd be genuinely interested in learning about the amounts spent on marketing at various points in a drug's cycle. My guess, based on similar items, is that it is highest (by far) at the launch and then goes up and down as market-share changes and/or competitors pop up or fade. This is distinct from, e.g., cars, where you get to re-invent the thing every few years and have a second, third, etc, launch.

Perfectly serious. And now I have no idea what your position is: do you have evidence for your original complaint, or were you just fishing? If you have expertise in the area, just come out and say it; as I said, I do not mind at all being shown to be wrong. You have me confused, Billie, just spell out your position (with evidence, per Nerd).

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

*massive snip*

The quote above is just for DTC (direct to customer) ads. That is just a small part of the marketing space. Sure you want customers to ask their doctors about your product but you really want the doctor to prescribe it. So you give out tons of samples, sponsor seminars, luncheons, and vacations for doctors. You have sales reps visit the doctors and take them out for a round of golf. This shit cost money.

What do you think that $14B in selling, informational and administrative expenses are?

Here is the bottom line: out of the $49B people paid Pfizer for pharmaceuticals in 2014 36% went to the cost of producing the drugs and that year's R&D. Not a very efficient use of medical care dollars.

What do you think that $14B in selling, informational and administrative expenses are?

You tell me.

Here is the bottom line: out of the $49B people paid Pfizer for pharmaceuticals in 2014 36% went to the cost of producing the drugs and that year's R&D. Not a very efficient use of medical care dollars.

What does pharmaceutical companies' "efficient use" of money have to do with this discussion? Don't worry, I'm sure their shareholders are keeping tabs on that.