–Artwork By Michael DiMilo
Last summer, my wife and I had to pay a visit the local emergency room—nothing serious—and even though the treating physician was exceedingly efficient and confident, I couldn’t get over the fact that he looked like one of my high school students. During our visit, I asked him if he could clear up a question that had been bothering me.
“Doctor,” I asked, “could you tell me why there’s a Lyme disease vaccine for dogs, but not one for people?”
“Well,” he said, cocking an eyebrow and adjusting his glasses, “there actually is a vaccine for humans. They stopped making it because it wasn’t marketable.”
I took the young man at his word, although I found it a little hard to believe that a vaccine for Lyme disease wouldn’t sell; it would have been a godsend for two people I know who have been debilitated by the disease—a painful and relentless illness. The vaccine is something I would have used myself; its demise seemed absurd—so I googled it.
A banner on the Center for Disease Control website page reads:
“A Lyme disease vaccine is no longer available. The vaccine manufacturer discontinued production in 2002, claiming insufficient consumer demand.”
It turned out the kid was right. The vaccine LYMERix, developed by SmithKline Beecham, had proved to be ninety-two percent effective against Lyme disease but had only been available for a few years. Concerns about LYMERix’s detrimental long-term side effects, specifically arthritis, spurred several class-action lawsuits and forced the company to discontinue the product. Even though no scientific data to prove these allegations had been substantiated, sales of LYMERix plummeted. Continued adverse media coverage and public backlash caused SmithKline to cease manufacture of the vaccine.
Apparently, the prevention and mitigation of the suffering caused by Lyme disease wasn’t reason enough for this company to pursue delivering this vaccine to patients. Better to abandon the product and let the masses suffer than to spend time and money fighting specious litigation. To SmithKline, profits seemed to supplant every other concern. And they’re not alone.
The charming Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, after acquiring the drug Daraprim, raised it price five thousand percent to seven hundred and fifty dollars a pill. The drug is used to treat a form of encephalitis, a potentially deadly virus—if you can afford it. If you can’t, well, too bad.
It gets worse.
Over the past decade, the price of insulin has risen two hundred and seventy percent. An average patient may pay up to one thousand dollars per month—or more—on the drug, depending on the producer or their insurance carrier. And diabetics need it to stay alive.
There is no cheaper alternative, no generic brand of insulin. In fact, three of the blockbuster companies which produce the drug, Eli Lily, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, are deliberately blocking attempts to create a cheaper alternative for fear of lowering their profit margin. Insulin has become so expensive that some underinsured patients are forced to ration it, leading to complications, and in some cases, death.
There’s more.
Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, is the producer of OxyContin, the main catalyst behind the opioid epidemic in this country. Purdue is a multi-billion dollar family-run business. Small wonder, considering that OxyContin generated over thirty-five billion dollars of revenue for Purdue and over four billion dollars of personal profit for the Sackler family, who have been accused of conducting a promotional campaign that deliberately misrepresented the addictive properties of the drug. Purdue aggressively marketed the drug to doctors and dentists, misleading them as to its dangers, all the while fully aware of how its addictive qualities were ruining thousands of lives.
At one time, Oxy was everywhere. My daughter’s oral surgeon prescribed it after her wisdom teeth were removed, which seems like going after a mosquito with a howitzer; luckily, she was smart enough not to fill the prescription, but many weren’t.
Nearly everyone knows of someone affected by OxyContin. In fact, abuse of it is widespread that Richard Sackler patented an anti-addiction drug designed to help curb addiction to OxyContin. Talk about creating your own market.
There’s more; it never ends.
Who are these people? Apparently, surprisingly, they’re not criminals; even though hundreds of people have died as a result of their actions—or inactions—none of them are in jail. A few have been sued, but none are facing criminal charges or jail time—at least for these crimes. Apparently, they’re not even pariahs; even though their behavior is repugnant, they are not shunned by many.
They’re capitalists, plain and simple. They were put on this earth to make money by any means possible. Greed is their ethos and profit their religion. These people take advantage of citizens and their weakest and most vulnerable, charging them exorbitant rates just to stay alive. If you can’t afford it, too bad. Life and health are only commodities to them.
There is not only negligence here, but malice. The actions of these businessmen, these executives, these captains of industry are calculated to profit from human misery, much as munitions and gun manufacturers do. But they are not the only ones to blame.
The political system that allows these atrocities to continue, that refuses to hold these companies—these men and women—accountable is equally as guilty as the perpetrators. And we, the bystanders, are not guiltless, either.
We install the representatives in our government. We tolerate their indifference, their hypocrisy, their callousness, and their avarice. They are being paid to turn away. We, however, are not; we turn away on our own accord. Like gapers at a highway accident, we might slow down, take a good look, but we will continue on our way, putting the carnage out of our minds.
But the truth is that disease, and its capitalist minions, will catch up with us all sooner or later. Try looking away then.
“What hurts the victim most is not the cruelty of the oppressor, but the silence of the bystander.”
–Elie Wiesel