AbbVie (ABBV) Wins "Nobel Prize" in Medicine

     The biopharmaceutical company, AbbVie (ABBV) has won the Prix Galien 2015 award for best pharmaceutical agent.  Specifically, the award recognizes the blood cancer treatment, IMBRUVICA, which AbbVie (ABBV) recently acquired in a multi-billion dollar deal.

The Prix Galien is very prestigious, as it is considered the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in biopharmaceutical and medical technology research.  This is not the first time that AbbVie has won it.  Back in 1999, before the pharmaceutical branch of Abbott Labs (ABT) broke off to form AbbVie (ABBV) in 2013, the business won the Prix Galien for its drug Norvir.  Then, in 2007, the Prix Galien was awarded once again in honor of the blockbuster medicine, Humira.

Considering that AbbVie (ABBV) stock went up more than 10% yesterday, when it was a down day for all three leading indexes, the honor of a Prix Galien does not come without fortune as well.

Paul Wharton
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY)

The FDA Wants to be Attacked Again

     As a guardian of the two companies that my blog defends, I am on the lookout for any political aggressor that seeks to throttle AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) and/or Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY).  Yesterday, an attack came once again from the FDA, this time directed at AbbVie (ABBV).

Government regulators force medical companies to do extensive clinical tests before they will withdraw their ban on new medical products.  These tests are based on statistics which enshrine collectivism in their methodology.  But, the genes of individuals are not the same.  Therefore, individual responses to pharmaceutical drugs and other medicines often differ, as well.

For example, consider the field of mood disorder treatment.  What would happen if the FDA required that a pharmaceutical company clinically test a new mood drug among 2,000 patients?  Considering that there is a common disposition among many individuals to have levels of: mania, depression, or manic-depression at different times, as genetically driven manifestations, what would the test mean?  Nothing.

With the dawn of advanced biotechnology that enables medical scientists to identify the genes of an individual and their expression, the FDA really needs to get out of the way and stop preventing each individual American from having access to being able to purchase medical products and services that facilitate one's optimal health.

Paul Wharton
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY)

The Ultimate Reward of Investing

     Most investors aim to make money through the dividends and stock appreciation of the companies they invest in.  While it is true that the more money one makes the more products one can buy, my argument in this blog is that, sometimes, an economic investment makes possible a product that didn't even exist before on the market--enhancing one's life, as well as one's bank account.

For example, look at Eli Lilly & Co.'s (LLY) latest purchase of a potential treatment for severe hypoglycemia.  Intranasal glucagon, which is one step away from the market, would greatly enhance the medical experience of those who suffer from serious hypoglycemia.  As both an investor of Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) and an individual who has to personally deal with a mild case of hypoglycemia, this prospective treatment will benefit me not only economically, but medically too, if my condition worsens with age--which I have read could well happen.

So, as you can see, Wall Street is more than a money game.  It is an industrial park in which one's economic demands aim to produce goods that fuel one's life according to the supply with which one infuses into the best companies.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Individual Rights in Indiana

     Indiana's laws concerning LGBT "rights" are being reconsidered again.  The two sides are portrayed as religious liberty vs. gay rights.  However, this is in complete error.  While one does have the freedom of religion, the only rights that exist are individual rights and what belongs to that which each individual possesses.

Considering freedom of trade, such as the infamous wedding cake refusal in Indiana, in question are the property rights of each individual.  I argue that the owner of a private business has complete control over one's property.  This includes the rights to hire and fire at will.  In my view, discrimination--though perhaps sad at times--is an absolute right.  A businessman can: discriminately refuse to hire, fire anyone for any reason, and (if one so chooses) fire anyone for no reason at all with complete legality.

While many business owners may choose to exclude dealing with gays, in Indiana, the leadership of Eli Lilly & Co. is LGBT friendly.  Lilly was in fact one of the major players in persuading the state to overturn the original RFRA that politically curtailed elements of the gay agenda.

On whichever side one finds oneself, on the issue, property rights apply to each individual no matter what the neighbors choose to do with their business.  If one is unhappy with the current situation, one does have the opportunity to try to open one's own business and conduct its trade, or lack thereof, with whomever one is willing to offer or deny services to.

Paul Wharton
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY)

Why I Dislike Insurance

     In response to several prominent health insurance entities refusing to offer Eli Lilly & Co.'s (LLY) new, superior diabetes drug, I thought I would take the time to share my views on insurance.

Insurance is usually not a good deal.  The odds are that an insured individual will pay more into the insurance than one will get out.  If I had my way, I would have no insurance.  I already have no health insurance and only purchase car insurance because I am required to by law.  My attitude about risk is that it will probably pay more to take the money one would send to an insurance company, save it, and use one's savings in the event of an emergency.  If no disaster happens, one will have a lot of cash on one's hands to spend on something else.

Another issue to consider is legal jargon.  There are so many pages with so much fine print for most insurance that if one does suffer a catastrophe, one really has no idea whether the insurance company will cover it or not.

Now analyze what happens when government injects itself into the private insurance market.  Not only do premiums go way up, we get the spectacle of what's happening with the exclusion of Eli Lilly's (LLY) better diabetes drug.

In America today, much insurance is employer provided.  The government pressures companies, in most cases, to do this.  However, what I think that few workers understand is that an insurance "plan" that is presented as a free extra is not free at all if it does have any substance.  By the laws of economics, insurance that has value would materialize as higher cash pay for oneself, if it was not offered.

And then there is ObamaCare.  The government is aiming at forcing everyone to have health insurance and forcing individuals to pay for it.  I don't know about you, but, having to pay money for something I'm never going to want is the least of my worries.  What I am outraged about is the specter of government health care force.  Health care is not usually as simple as swallowing a pill.  It can be anything from a painful injection to bloody butchery.

In closing, I am not advocating that semi-private health insurers funnel more money from those who do not freely choose to pay.  What I demand is that government get the hell out of all insurance, and leave Americans free to make and free to do in what is supposed to be the country of laissez-faire Capitalism!

Paul Wharton
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY)