Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 22:07:23 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:37:38 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:44:25 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:51:58 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:09:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:44:39 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: Maybe it cost that much to produce. R&D aint cheap That is the problem with all of the "orphan" diseases. If you spend $50 million developing a drug that only goes to 10 thousand paying patients, it is going to be expensive. So, therefore, it should not be up to for-profit companies. It should be the responsibility of the state to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens. The reality is the same, whether it is the taxpayer or the people who buy drug insurance or just the patient himself. It will still be expensive per patient and there is always a cost benefit analysis. If you are honestly suggesting the government should be developing these drugs, I would ask, which breakthrough drug has the government ever developed? Just look at the human genome project. The government spent a lot of money and got nowhere for over a decade. A private company tackled the project and broke the code in months. The cost will not be the same, since the gov't wouldn't be spending a large percentage of money on adverts to "promote" the drug. In addition, the overhead would be lower, and most importantly, most of the orphan disease drugs would not be even developed by the for-profit drug companies. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0105140107.htm 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 not suggesting the gov't do the R&D. Rather the development should be done in a similar way flu vaccines are created. Somewhat dated, but here's a timeline... http://www.influenza.com/images/timeline.gif Flu vaccine that will be taken by tens of millions of people has little to do with a drug made for a few thousand. You also grow a vaccine from the cells of the virus you want to kill. It is not like a chemical you have to make from scratch without really knowing what to even start with. Reply: The cost to develop is large. Last Bioengineering company I worked for spent $45 million on a women's incontinence procedure. Due to a design consideration, mechanical, not on the electrical side I worked on we hurt a couple women in the clinical trials. Training of the doctors was also a problem and that probably caused 5 of the 9 problems during clinical trials of 150 women. Company went out of business. Someone will have to cover that $45 million in the next startups the VC's fund. Yes, the development cost is large, but so is the marketing budget. That's a very, very big number. |
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:22:44 -0800 (PST), "Katie O'Hara"
wrote: On Nov 27, 1:07*am, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in messagenews:fd11f65pjsnt9to8d0h8v9s1soa7tidolc@4ax .com... On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:37:38 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:44:25 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:51:58 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:09:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:44:39 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: Maybe it cost that much to produce. *R&D aint cheap That is the problem with all of the "orphan" diseases. If you spend $50 million developing a drug that only goes to 10 thousand paying patients, it is going to be expensive. So, therefore, it should not be up to for-profit companies. It should be the responsibility of the state to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens. The reality is the same, whether it is the taxpayer or the people who buy drug insurance or just the patient himself. It will still be expensive per patient and there is always a cost benefit analysis. If you are honestly suggesting the government should be developing these drugs, I would ask, which breakthrough drug has the government ever developed? Just look at the human genome project. The government spent a lot of money and got nowhere for over a decade. A private company tackled the project and broke the code in months. The cost will not be the same, since the gov't wouldn't be spending a large percentage of money on adverts to "promote" the drug. In addition, the overhead would be lower, and most importantly, most of the orphan disease drugs would not be even developed by the for-profit drug companies. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0105140107.htm 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 not suggesting the gov't do the R&D. Rather the development should be done in a similar way flu vaccines are created. Somewhat dated, but here's a timeline... http://www.influenza.com/images/timeline.gif Flu vaccine that will be taken by tens of millions of people has little to do with a drug made for a few thousand. You also grow a vaccine from the cells of the virus you want to kill. It is not like a chemical you have to make from scratch without really knowing what to even start with. Reply: The cost to develop is large. *Last Bioengineering company I worked for spent $45 million on a women's incontinence procedure. *Due to a design consideration, mechanical, not on the electrical side I worked on we hurt a couple women in the clinical trials. * Training of the doctors was also a problem and that probably caused 5 of the 9 problems during clinical trials of 150 women. *Company went out of business. *Someone will have to cover that $45 million in the next startups the VC's fund. If left up the the govt, few new drugs would ever be developed, especially for diseases with few sufferers. The model to look at is the old Soviet Union, they developed nothing of value to people except by copying the west.tathupe Please show me where anyone is seriously suggesting that the development of new drugs should be "left up to the gov't." |
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:23:03 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:32:39 -0800, wrote: If left up the the govt, few new drugs would ever be developed, especially for diseases with few sufferers. The model to look at is the old Soviet Union, they developed nothing of value to people except by copying the west.tathupe Please show me where anyone is seriously suggesting that the development of new drugs should be "left up to the gov't." What does "So, therefore, it should not be up to for-profit companies. It should be the responsibility of the state to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens." mean? Not sure what point you're trying to make. Nobody is suggesting the gov't produce the special-needs drugs. What I'm proposing is that the gov't mandate that those diseases have R&D research done and that certain drug companies be required to produce them with reasonable compensation made to them by us. Why is the profit motive so all important when it involves someone's health or life? |
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
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. 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. 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. |
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
|
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:49:23 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:31:26 -0800, wrote: Why is the profit motive so all important when it involves someone's health or life? Corporations have a fiduciary responsiblity to their stock holders to try and achieve profits. That is why they are in business. To suggest that government should force corporations to develop and produce a product without a profit motive is totally unrealistic. PS, this discussion should be taken offline before it turns political. Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to produce things like tanks, bombers, etc? Again, why should a profit motive drive what's needed for people's health and welfare? You don't need to explain basic business concepts to me, as I probably have a better education on the subject than most here. PS, stop being the newsgroup policeman. Greg and I are having a pleasant conversation that will only get mishandled by those who have that motivation. |
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
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!) |
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
|
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote: Corporations have a fiduciary responsiblity to their stock holders to try and achieve profits. That is why they are in business. To suggest that government should force corporations to develop and produce a product without a profit motive is totally unrealistic. PS, this discussion should be taken offline before it turns political. Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to produce things like tanks, bombers, etc? No. Again, why should a profit motive drive what's needed for people's health and welfare? You don't need to explain basic business concepts to me, as I probably have a better education on the subject than most here. If you want a corporation involved, there has to be a profit motive. PS, stop being the newsgroup policeman. Greg and I are having a pleasant conversation that will only get mishandled by those who have that motivation. I don't view myself in that role at all but I do have a long history here, and have a very good idea how these discussions get out of control and attract a lot of overheated emotional content. Out of consideration for others, please find another venue where this discussion would be more appropriate. That little lady has been out of control since the day she got here. -- Ziggy® |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Drugs and Ferries | ASA | |||
Descrition drugs, more info... | General | |||
This woman is on drugs. | General | |||
OT Get your cheap drugs here... | General |