Lucas Maciesa has a rare blood disorder. He needs this experimental
Medicine just to stay alive. There's a 60% chance of complete
recovery.

WHY does the Drug cost $500,000 per year?
That's$41,666 per month
$1,344 per day.

HOW can a Drug Company be allowed to charge such an outrageous price?

It seems completely criminal to me, but that's my opinion.The Hospital
has given him dosage au gratis, but after hes released, he's on his
own. He's only 22 I think it said.

FUNNY THING : The Province of Quebec covers it for Politicians in
service.

HOW would the Province even KNOW about it, if
its " Experimental "?

"*e#c" wrote in message
...
Lucas Maciesa has a rare blood disorder. He needs this experimental
Medicine just to stay alive. There's a 60% chance of complete
recovery.

WHY does the Drug cost $500,000 per year?
That's$41,666 per month
$1,344 per day.

HOW can a Drug Company be allowed to charge such an outrageous price?

It seems completely criminal to me, but that's my opinion.The Hospital
has given him dosage au gratis, but after hes released, he's on his
own. He's only 22 I think it said.

FUNNY THING : The Province of Quebec covers it for Politicians in
service.

HOW would the Province even KNOW about it, if
its " Experimental "?

Politicians have quite a knack of looking after themselves..................
usually at the expense of the taxpayer.

In article d938f063-7373-45cd-9ef1-924edfd95daf@
37g2000prx.googlegroups.com, says...

Lucas Maciesa has a rare blood disorder. He needs this experimental
Medicine just to stay alive. There's a 60% chance of complete
recovery.

WHY does the Drug cost $500,000 per year?
That's$41,666 per month
$1,344 per day.

HOW can a Drug Company be allowed to charge such an outrageous price?

It seems completely criminal to me, but that's my opinion.The Hospital
has given him dosage au gratis, but after hes released, he's on his
own. He's only 22 I think it said.

FUNNY THING : The Province of Quebec covers it for Politicians in
service.

HOW would the Province even KNOW about it, if
its " Experimental "?

Ummm, just because it's experimental doesn't mean is super top
secret....

On Nov 25, 9:41*am, Crotchedy Harry wrote:
In article d938f063-7373-45cd-9ef1-924edfd95daf@
37g2000prx.googlegroups.com, says...





*Lucas Maciesa has a rare blood disorder. He needs this experimental
Medicine just to stay alive. There's a 60% chance of complete
recovery.

WHY does the Drug cost $500,000 per year?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *That's$41,666 * per month
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *$1,344 * * per day.

HOW can a Drug Company be allowed to charge such an outrageous price?

It seems completely criminal to me, but that's my opinion.The Hospital
has given him dosage au gratis, but after hes released, he's on his
own. He's only 22 I think it said.

FUNNY THING : The Province of Quebec covers it for Politicians in
service.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *HOW would the Province even KNOW about it, if
its " Experimental "?

Ummm, just because it's experimental doesn't mean is super top
secret....

Maybe it cost that much to produce. R&D aint cheap

On Nov 25, 10:09*pm, 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.

In R&D, 90% of what is tried fails for reasons you could not see
before you tried it. So, when something finally works, the first few
(or thousands) have to pay for all those failures. Even worse, the
successes are done with equipment that has not been optimized for
production but for research. Thus each dose is essentially hand made
and is paying for all those failures too. Being basically
experimental, the insurance for the drug company is bizzaro expensive
for this drug. Costs for developing and certifying any new drug is so
expensive as to make it a wonder any new ones are ever done.
Once it is known to work, certain other nations laws allow them to
copy the drug while paying very little to the developer and nations
like China copy and pay nothing. Thus you, American customer pay for
all th development costs while allowing everybody else to essentially
get it for nothing

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.

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.

She's living in fantasy land. Unbelievable.

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

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

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.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:23:11 -0500, wrote:

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 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.


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.

Actually, it's quite similar, since the companies that make it don't
make much money at it. It's also similar in some respects to other
drugs. Many drugs are not "chemical" based alone. Do you think that
vaccines are pure bio agent?