BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:54:34 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:42:44 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:20:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:30:27 -0800, wrote:

You are not going to see me defend the way big pharma markets drugs
but they are the only ones with the capability to develop new drugs.
Personally I think we are over drugged. The doctors and the drug
companies have convinced us we haven't been to the doctor unless we
come home with a couple prescriptions.
Unfortunately they will usually be the ones the drug salesman is
pumping, whether it really helps you or not. A hint is what you see on
all the pens and note pads at the doctor's office.

I am the only person I know my age who is not taking 3 or 4 pills a
day. I take 2 fish oil capsules and that is it.

I'm glad you're not going to defend them. They're indefensible on so
many levels. Yes, they're the only ones capable, but they don't have
to do the orphan disease drugs for a profit. They could do them as
part of a regulatory requirement... funded, but no profit.

There is no way to force a drug company to develop a drug that doesn't
exist yet. You can't even prove it is possible until they actually
make it, test it and get FDA approval (a huge part of the cost).
Of course there is also the lawyer tax. They spent 20 tiles the amount
defending cases against Vioxx than it cost to develop the drug.
Fen Phen was even worse than that. It doesn't help that there are
ambulance chasers on TV telling people that they have money coming,
even if they never had any bad reactions to a drug.

I guess you never heard of NIH funded research? Happens all the time.

I know quite a bit about NIH funded research, I worked there for 5
years. It is largely an earmark type operation with universities
getting federal grants, based on the power of their congressmen.

The example I gave about the human genome project is typical.
NIH screwed around with this for years, with mediocre results.

That's one example of how many examples of NIH funding... I take it
you saw the 60 Minutes show and that's where you're getting that? The
NIH funds all sorts of programs, as do other gov't agencies, including
DARPA.

FYI, what's wrong with earmarks for worthy things? We're not talking
about a bridge to nowhere.

Not sure what dangerous drugs on the market without proper
testing/verification has to do with funding research for specialty
drugs, but feel free to attack lawyers if you think that'll solve the
problem of people who have rare diseases not getting the drugs they
need.

Lawyers tend to attack anything where there is a buck to be made, real
danger or not. All drugs have side effects, some worse than others.
The only real question is whether it is worse than the disease.

?? People with orphan diseases aren't going to be suing. That's just
ranting against lawyers on your part.

A great example is methotrexate. One of the quacks I went to
prescribed it to me for my arthritis. I read the 4 page warning sheet
and threw it in the trash. I suppose if I had incurable cancer I might
have been tempted to take it tho. I ended up with some physical
therapy and I live with some pain. I can deal with that.

Again, this has nothing to do with orphan diseases.

As I said, if you had some horrible/deadly disease, you'd take the
drug and not sue.

So, if marketing the drugs are 50% of the price after they get them to
market, and we reduce that percent to zero, don't you think that'll
lower the cost to the end user? Even if we gave Pharma 10% profit
guaranteed, it would still cost people less.

I rate advertising drugs right up there with lawyer advertising and
political advertising. They should all be banned.

No disagreement with either of those statements! (except patent
attorneys of course!)