abbott labs gets greedy

abbott labs got some front page muckraking for its bad behavior (and this is coming from the wall street journal, hardly the embodiment of the liberal bias). the bad behavior: if abbott could eliminate one protease inhibitor(PI) (i.e. norvir) from the market (norvir is marketed by abbott labs), it could undercut other medications which are used concurrently with norvir and promote its own companion PI, kaletra. the concern is that norvir was used in small amounts to improve the effects of PIs - but what concerned abbott labs was that the PIs that were supported by norvir were not made by abbott labs, but HORROR, by other companies. so if abbott eliminated norvir, another combination therapy, kaletra, also made by abbott, would become a clear choice.

let's clarify this: abbott labs wanted to undercut one of its own drugs that has small revenue stream, but has a proven track record in improving PI efficacy (regardless of the manufacturer), in order that abbott could, in turn, promote its own combination therapy (i.e. kaletra).

why is this such a problem? patients with a viral load who are currently managing their disease by a combination therapy (not being exclusively manufactured by abbott) are reducing the potential revenue stream of abbott labs.

abbott labs final choice: quintuple the price of norvir while exempting those having a minimal income (i.e. those on medicaid). those low income people who needed norvir were conviniently exempted to show it was not affecting poor people - but herein lies the rub. should a company be free to raise the price of a drug under patent protection to force those with health insurance towards kaletra? this action risks the health and welfare of people who are suffereing from a chronic disease, and effectively managing it with some combination worked out with the patient and their health care provider, but have health insurance. should they be forced towards a single regimen (that may or may not work) that is provided exclusively by abbott labs through abbott lab's manipulation of patent law....is that alright with the majority of americans?
and this is where the next point is made: whomever has health insurance would be forced, through simple economics, onto kaletra (as opposed to their existing combination of PIs which has been deemed effective by experience to manage their viral load). this is simple capitalism at work and has, by my predicted inaction, the endorsement of the american government.

i can only hope that those at the human rights campaign (HRC) will think for two seconds and, as a result of this reflection, protest this to the fullest extent. but don't hold your breath. HRC never bites the hand that feeds, ever (think about lance bass getting a visibility award which will generate more press, hence revenue, than any homo with HIV). also, will the mainstream gay mags, primarily advocate and out (both of which get an enormous amount of ad revenue from abbott - just see how many kaletra ads grace their pages), come out in opposition? (i receive both publications). again, not likely. if there is no action, it will only confirm my hypothesis that the HRC, advocate, and out will whore gays in order to ensure a revenue stream from a major ad revenue provider (i.e. abbott labs).

gays are a political minority and their "leaders" (i.e. HRC, advocate and out) have drifted far, far away from those of us who are "provincal" (i.e. no access to congressional cocktail parties). these self styled leaders should be in full protest of this provacative action by abbott.

i can only hope that these organizations, who have spent endless amounts of money on the promotion of gay marriage, will position themselves at the "forefront" for gay rights, and resultingly, might consider this action by abbott labs. how many dollars of ad revenue or lobbyist fees will assuage the guilt of whoring your constituency? if i don't see some action by the HRC, in particular, then i try to drag in larry kramer to highlight what should be simple common sense. HEY! HRC, ADVOCATE, and OUT, we, the homos, are your constituency. you do not exist to suck down cocktails with senators by virtue of the money that is raised in the name of "gay rights". if the HRC is not emboldened (have you seen its downtown d.c. castle??) to raise holy hell on behalf of HIV positive gay men over this issue - well, what can i say? might we hope that perhaps andrew sullivan (the conservative editor turned NT Times spokesman on all things gay) will deign to spit out the cock in his mouth to say something useful. remember, before dear andy sullivan popped HIV+ (and that was due to "unsafe" oral sex, by his estimation), all those with HIV were whores - one of his books in the 90s highlighted how if we all adopted hetero values then we could be "respected". if you doubt this, look back at his writing for confirmation.

this action by abbott is disgraceful (but expected given capitalist values in america). if we see no action by the gay "leadership", this action will be condoned.

i can only hope that larry kramer will come to our rescue.