Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

4 Comments

  1. At last an awareness of this utterly horrendous bill playing into the vast and greedy gullet of pharmaceutical companies and being sneaked through under the radar.
    If all the wokey folk ever discovered history they might learn about the controversy played out in the seventies/eighties when the gay population were fighting Anthony Fauci and the drug he was promoting when there were alternative safer and cheaper therapies for HIV/Aids.
    I first learned of this saga reading Candice Pert’s book ‘Molecules of Emotion’ some years ago. Pert in the seventies was the person who first isolated the opiate receptor on a cell.
    The story is covered in detail in Robert Kennedy Jnr’s book ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’

  2. “Ensuring market monopolies isn’t a public health measure, it’s a corporate health measure.”
    Bingo, there should be common sense controls on imports (such as a GPs prescription) but this provides an architecture that facilitates a cartel take over, inching NZ towards the US model which works so well.

  3. I think you need to consider the interests of all the stakeholders here Martyn. Removal of the Section 29 provision may help some companies but in can just as easily mean that some drugs won’t be available because, based on volume, it’s not worth paying the medsafe fees to register a drug and have the compliant packaging/artwork etc. Any small sales will disappear. You can just as easily argue pharmacy chains don’t want a parallel channel for importation, rather some global giant worry about 10 packs of product x.

    Healthcare is big business for a lot stakeholders, not just your favourite target

Comments are closed.