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."