ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd July 2019, 09:31 AM   #1
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,727
New Refugee Caravan

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin...e-us-diabetes/

Drug price refugees are heading to canada, what will the government to do stop this as such refugee caravans are a well documented threat that the countries they are happening in need to stop. Ice needs to be fully marshalled against them and open up new concentration camps. And on the plus side they won't even need to keep them very long as the lack of insulin will get rid of them quickly, though this will limit investment bankers ability to profit from them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:03 PM   #2
Bouncing Bettys
Thinker
 
Bouncing Bettys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Bowen Island, British Columbia
Posts: 193
My ex is a type 1 diabetic. Unless things have changed in the last while in Canada, acquiring insulin isn't without barriers. At the start of every year, even those fully covered under Pharmacare are required to pay the first $200 before the coverage kicked in. For something necessary to live.
Bouncing Bettys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:25 PM   #3
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,632
Originally Posted by Bouncing Bettys View Post
My ex is a type 1 diabetic. Unless things have changed in the last while in Canada, acquiring insulin isn't without barriers. At the start of every year, even those fully covered under Pharmacare are required to pay the first $200 before the coverage kicked in. For something necessary to live.
I'm not sure I see your point.

Food and water are necessary to live, but we still insist that people pay full price for their groceries, and insist that they pay their water bill every month.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:46 PM   #4
Bouncing Bettys
Thinker
 
Bouncing Bettys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Bowen Island, British Columbia
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure I see your point.

Food and water are necessary to live, but we still insist that people pay full price for their groceries, and insist that they pay their water bill every month.
Those aren't really comparables. Food can be produced, consumed, and comprised of countless different ingredients with varying costs. Municipal water, while provided with a quality sufficient for drinking, can and is used for a multitude of other purposes in the house.
Bouncing Bettys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 05:20 PM   #5
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,613
Walmart has insulin over the counter for $24/ 1,000 unit vial.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 06:16 PM   #6
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,632
Originally Posted by Bouncing Bettys View Post
Those aren't really comparables. Food can be produced, consumed, and comprised of countless different ingredients with varying costs. Municipal water, while provided with a quality sufficient for drinking, can and is used for a multitude of other purposes in the house.
And yet we still expect people to pay for it.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:19 AM   #7
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,616
The difference, as explained in the article, is that in the USA drug companies have far more power as they negotiate with several insurance companies and if you are not insured then you pay what the drug companies say you should pay. In many other countries, such as Canada and Australia the government negotiates with the drug company.

Hence the USA subsides the rest of the world for drugs. If the USA started the same system then the drug companies would not be able to afford to offer such prices to the rest of the world.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:59 AM   #8
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,727
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
The difference, as explained in the article, is that in the USA drug companies have far more power as they negotiate with several insurance companies and if you are not insured then you pay what the drug companies say you should pay. In many other countries, such as Canada and Australia the government negotiates with the drug company.

Hence the USA subsides the rest of the world for drugs. If the USA started the same system then the drug companies would not be able to afford to offer such prices to the rest of the world.
Or they would just make less money. I mean as the article points out, it wasn't america that invented the insulin after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 04:54 AM   #9
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Hence the USA subsides the rest of the world for drugs. If the USA started the same system then the drug companies would not be able to afford to offer such prices to the rest of the world.
I really wonder how much truth there is to that claim. It's certainly an unusual use of the word 'subsidy'.
Got any sources?
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 03:54 PM   #10
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,294
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
The difference, as explained in the article, is that in the USA drug companies have far more power as they negotiate with several insurance companies and if you are not insured then you pay what the drug companies say you should pay. In many other countries, such as Canada and Australia the government negotiates with the drug company.

Hence the USA subsides the rest of the world for drugs. If the USA started the same system then the drug companies would not be able to afford to offer such prices to the rest of the world.
I don't think so.

https://www.businessinsider.com/insu...8-9/?r=AU&IR=T

Most established medicines can be made for the cost of any common commodity.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 04:49 PM   #11
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,479
What is a common commodity? Automobiles?

Not that I disagree with the idea that the cost of some drugs is scandalous..

They charge what the insurance companies and dying people are willing to pay..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 04:58 PM   #12
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,632
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
I don't think so.

https://www.businessinsider.com/insu...8-9/?r=AU&IR=T

Most established medicines can be made for the cost of any common commodity.
But they can't be researched, developed, tested, trialed on humans, and permitted by the FDA for cheap.

The difference between the manufacturimg cost and the sticker price is the cost of making the drug exist in the first place, plus the reward to the maker for performing this service.

It amazes me how ungrateful so many people are. People who have life-saving drugs in their hands, but have no interest in paying for its development, and no interest in rewarding the developers. Or they're very interested in both those things, as long as it's not them who has to do the paying. And as long as we all agree that the people who are actually making life-saving medicine are all evil bastards who deserve nothing.

I think for a lot of people, the ideal world would be all the medicine makers out of business, and free medicine for everyone. One of these days, they might actually figure out how to square that circle.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 06:26 PM   #13
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But they can't be researched, developed, tested, trialed on humans, and permitted by the FDA for cheap.

The difference between the manufacturimg cost and the sticker price is the cost of making the drug exist in the first place, plus the reward to the maker for performing this service.

It amazes me how ungrateful so many people are. People who have life-saving drugs in their hands, but have no interest in paying for its development, and no interest in rewarding the developers. Or they're very interested in both those things, as long as it's not them who has to do the paying. And as long as we all agree that the people who are actually making life-saving medicine are all evil bastards who deserve nothing.

I think for a lot of people, the ideal world would be all the medicine makers out of business, and free medicine for everyone. One of these days, they might actually figure out how to square that circle.
Don't forget the marketing costs!
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 06:34 PM   #14
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,479
Right..

I want the cost of my life saving drug to include the cost of those million dollar TV adds..

I'ts only fair..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 09:18 PM   #15
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Right..

I want the cost of my life saving drug to include the cost of those million dollar TV adds..

I'ts only fair..
Not to mention how much of the basic research is publicly funded. Not to mention the shenanigans used to get monopolies (such as to extend patents by making very minor changes to a profit producing drug).

For instance, looking at a recent thread about clinical use of ketamine to treat treatment resistant depression, we have a recent FDA approval. But actually, they did not approve ketamine at all,... except they kind of did.

What they approved is something called esketamine. What is esketamine, you ask? It turns out ketamine is not a single compound but a mixture of two mirror image versions. As far as we can tell, the effects we are looking for come from only one of the enantiomers. The other does little or nothing. Esketamine is a drug formulation that uses only the active enantiomer.

This is apparently enough for a drug company to be able to file a patent. The patent allows the company to charge approximately 500 times the amount of money that you would otherwise need to purchase an amount of ketamine that would produce the same effect. While it is likely that producing the one enantiomer alone is more expensive than producing the racemic mixture, it is almost certain that it is nowhere near 500 times more expensive (chances are most of that money being charged is pure profit).

Mind you, it's doubtful that the isolated enantiomer is significantly superior to the normal ketamine mixture of the two.
__________________
--
August Pamplona

Last edited by cosmicaug; 5th July 2019 at 09:19 PM.
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 09:38 PM   #16
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,846
Health-care should be distributed on the basis of ability to pay, not need. We should never adopt a model based on need because it's a form of socialism. The biggest provider of health-care shouldn't be the government. It should be GoFundMe.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:29 AM   #17
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,294
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But they can't be researched, developed, tested, trialed on humans, and permitted by the FDA for cheap.

The difference between the manufacturimg cost and the sticker price is the cost of making the drug exist in the first place, plus the reward to the maker for performing this service.

It amazes me how ungrateful so many people are. People who have life-saving drugs in their hands, but have no interest in paying for its development, and no interest in rewarding the developers. Or they're very interested in both those things, as long as it's not them who has to do the paying. And as long as we all agree that the people who are actually making life-saving medicine are all evil bastards who deserve nothing.

I think for a lot of people, the ideal world would be all the medicine makers out of business, and free medicine for everyone. One of these days, they might actually figure out how to square that circle.
I specifically mentioned established drugs. Any development costs were paid for years ago.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:42 AM   #18
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But they can't be researched, developed, tested, trialed on humans, and permitted by the FDA for cheap.

The difference between the manufacturimg cost and the sticker price is the cost of making the drug exist in the first place, plus the reward to the maker for performing this service.

It amazes me how ungrateful so many people are. People who have life-saving drugs in their hands, but have no interest in paying for its development, and no interest in rewarding the developers. Or they're very interested in both those things, as long as it's not them who has to do the paying. And as long as we all agree that the people who are actually making life-saving medicine are all evil bastards who deserve nothing.

I think for a lot of people, the ideal world would be all the medicine makers out of business, and free medicine for everyone. One of these days, they might actually figure out how to square that circle.
I specifically mentioned established drugs. Any development costs were paid for years ago.
Indeed, the OP concerns insulinWP which was first used in 1922 (the inventor, Banting, refused to put his name on the patent, by the way). This is not to say that minor tweaks to this medication do not exist and that they do not make a difference to function (they do and they do).
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 06:09 AM   #19
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,314
I'll tell you what the government will do about...nothing. When I was an INS Inspector on the land border with Canada in Washington State, we got a couple of these busses every weekend and this is back in the late 90s. You could have your purchases sitting on your lap and we wouldn't see them as we walked through the aisle. "Pharmacy tourism" was and probably still is a big business in areas within a day's drive of Canada.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 06:23 AM   #20
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Not to mention how much of the basic research is publicly funded. Not to mention the shenanigans used to get monopolies (such as to extend patents by making very minor changes to a profit producing drug).

For instance, looking at a recent thread about clinical use of ketamine to treat treatment resistant depression, we have a recent FDA approval. But actually, they did not approve ketamine at all,... except they kind of did.

What they approved is something called esketamine. What is esketamine, you ask? It turns out ketamine is not a single compound but a mixture of two mirror image versions. As far as we can tell, the effects we are looking for come from only one of the enantiomers. The other does little or nothing. Esketamine is a drug formulation that uses only the active enantiomer.

This is apparently enough for a drug company to be able to file a patent. The patent allows the company to charge approximately 500 times the amount of money that you would otherwise need to purchase an amount of ketamine that would produce the same effect. While it is likely that producing the one enantiomer alone is more expensive than producing the racemic mixture, it is almost certain that it is nowhere near 500 times more expensive (chances are most of that money being charged is pure profit).

Mind you, it's doubtful that the isolated enantiomer is significantly superior to the normal ketamine mixture of the two.
All your problems in this post seem to be with the government. If you got rid of government involvement, these problems go away.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 06:56 AM   #21
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
All your problems in this post seem to be with the government. If you got rid of government involvement, these problems go away.
We (the emergent behaviour of a large group of humans) tried it that way and didn't want that way.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 09:30 AM   #22
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,479
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Indeed, the OP concerns insulinWP which was first used in 1922 (the inventor, Banting, refused to put his name on the patent, by the way). This is not to say that minor tweaks to this medication do not exist and that they do not make a difference to function (they do and they do).
How the hell do they manage to patent a hormone? !!!
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 10:31 AM   #23
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,632
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
I specifically mentioned established drugs. Any development costs were paid for years ago.
Where do you think the funding comes from, for the R&D to establish new drugs?

The world is still full of diseases for which no good established drug yet exists.

Take MS for example. There are a number of drugs on the market, including both for-purpose and off-label. All of them have tradeoffs. All of them either lose efficacy with prolonged use, or increase risk with prolonged use, or both.

A close friend of mine has MS. At first, they were taking a drug that suppressed the immune system. For a year or so, they were jabbing themselves every other day with a needle, carefully rotating through different areas of the skin to avoid excessive damage (same as a junkie has to do).

After that, they switched to an off-label anti-inflammatory drug, that was shown to be effective against some parts of the MS process. A pill every day, with side effects like hot flashes and intense itching. But after about two years, it stops being effecitve.

So now they're going to a clinic once a month for a steroid infusion via IV. Two hours in clinic waiting room with a line in their arm. But that's it for the month! Side effects include acute fatigue, and increased risk of contracting a condition even worse than MS. This treatment should be effective for another year or so, and then they'll have to try something else. Or rotate back to one of the previous treatments.

Where do you think the money for all this R&D is coming from? What makes you think that MS treatments - or treatments for any other major illness or disease - have already all been established, with no more R&D to pay off?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 11:15 AM   #24
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
All your problems in this post seem to be with the government. If you got rid of government involvement, these problems go away.
That seemed like a bit of a non sequitur but I'll bite.

You consider that eliminating all intellectual property protections would make all of these problems go away?
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 11:19 AM   #25
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Where do you think the funding comes from, for the R&D to establish new drugs?



... Snip.. .


Certainly in the UK and other EU countries it's often from the tax payer via the likes of universities or charities that fund or undertake basic research.

ETA an example https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org...very-alliance/
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 6th July 2019 at 11:23 AM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 11:02 PM   #26
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,616
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
I don't think so.

https://www.businessinsider.com/insu...8-9/?r=AU&IR=T

Most established medicines can be made for the cost of any common commodity.
That does not address the issues I raised.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 11:49 PM   #27
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,118
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
How the hell do they manage to patent a hormone? !!!
There may be many patents involved. The medicinal insulin is no longer extracted from animal organs, but is synthetic. The genes for insulin are patented (one can argue about that), and a variety of patents exist around creating GMO that synthesise insulin. The insulins used differ a bit from natural insulin and this modification can be patented, the modification prolongs the effect and slows the breakdown of insulin in the body.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 11:58 PM   #28
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,118
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Where do you think the funding comes from, for the R&D to establish new drugs?

The world is still full of diseases for which no good established drug yet exists.

Take MS for example. There are a number of drugs on the market, including both for-purpose and off-label. All of them have tradeoffs. All of them either lose efficacy with prolonged use, or increase risk with prolonged use, or both.

A close friend of mine has MS. At first, they were taking a drug that suppressed the immune system. For a year or so, they were jabbing themselves every other day with a needle, carefully rotating through different areas of the skin to avoid excessive damage (same as a junkie has to do).

After that, they switched to an off-label anti-inflammatory drug, that was shown to be effective against some parts of the MS process. A pill every day, with side effects like hot flashes and intense itching. But after about two years, it stops being effecitve.

So now they're going to a clinic once a month for a steroid infusion via IV. Two hours in clinic waiting room with a line in their arm. But that's it for the month! Side effects include acute fatigue, and increased risk of contracting a condition even worse than MS. This treatment should be effective for another year or so, and then they'll have to try something else. Or rotate back to one of the previous treatments.

Where do you think the money for all this R&D is coming from? What makes you think that MS treatments - or treatments for any other major illness or disease - have already all been established, with no more R&D to pay off?
Proportionately some of the biggest cost rises for drugs have been so called generics. Drugs off patent, the researcher has long covered their costs, made their profit and moved on to developing new drugs. They sell off the tights and manufacturing plant to a so called generic company who often increase prices very significantly. The previous owners could manufacture the drug and return a small profit but the new owners are often owned themselves by investors who expect big returns so increase prices hugely.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48377232
Reports a 700% increase in the price of an out of patent drug.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 05:46 AM   #29
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,632
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Certainly in the UK and other EU countries it's often from the tax payer via the likes of universities or charities that fund or undertake basic research.

ETA an example https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org...very-alliance/
While there's still a lot of work to be done on MS drugs, the ones my friend has been taking represent some of the most effective that have been developed to date.

I don't think any of them were developed by UK taxpayer funded research, nor are they being offered to my friend at any low price.

I'll ask, the next time I see them.

But think about it. If taxpayer-university alliances were developing all the good stuff, we wouldn't be having this thread.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 06:55 AM   #30
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
While there's still a lot of work to be done on MS drugs, the ones my friend has been taking represent some of the most effective that have been developed to date.

I don't think any of them were developed by UK taxpayer funded research, nor are they being offered to my friend at any low price.

I'll ask, the next time I see them.

But think about it. If taxpayer-university alliances were developing all the good stuff, we wouldn't be having this thread.
Yes we would because we are.

Research networks that incorporate the universities and so on are one of the foundations of modern medical research, doing much of the basic research which is then taken on by a pharmaceutical partner.

Many universities are very commercially aware and either licence IP or form joint ventures with large companies. There are even purely research companies that all they do is research new treatments, get some indicative results and shop around the IP.

The key areas that the big pharmaceutical companies bring to the market are manufacturing expertise, clinical trials and marketing.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 07:06 AM   #31
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Of course large pharmaceutical companies do some research before you come back with some silliness about that.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 07:08 AM   #32
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
That seemed like a bit of a non sequitur but I'll bite.

You consider that eliminating all intellectual property protections would make all of these problems go away?
That would only solve the issue of companies making small changes to exploit the patent problem.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 11:42 AM   #33
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
That seemed like a bit of a non sequitur but I'll bite.

You consider that eliminating all intellectual property protections would make all of these problems go away?
That would only solve the issue of companies making small changes to exploit the patent problem.
Maybe I was reading too much into your statement. Given that the main "government involvement" that we are dealing with here is intellectual property protection, in my mind I turned "If you got rid of government involvement" into "If you got rid of intellectual property". Perhaps that's not what you were trying to say at all.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 11:48 AM   #34
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Research networks that incorporate the universities and so on are one of the foundations of modern medical research, doing much of the basic research which is then taken on by a pharmaceutical partner.
Also consider that everything is a pipeline where most of the stuff that enters at one end doesn't come out the other. Promising projects come out of university research and get picked up by the private sector. However, for everything that's promising, there's a massive number of other projects that never are going to be of any interest to any pharmaceutical company. The thing is, you don't know ahead of time what is ultimately going to be interesting and what isn't.

So it's not like we are, in a sense, subsidizing the private sector when they pick up the one interesting set of research projects and develop it further. Instead, we are subsidizing the private sector with that interesting project as well as the 100 other research projects that never went in directions that became interesting to them.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 11:52 AM   #35
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Drugs off patent, the researcher has long covered their costs, made their profit and moved on to developing new drugs. They sell off the tights and manufacturing plant to a so called generic company who often increase prices very significantly.
This formulation is not making much sense to me (and not because of the typo). What rights are we talking about if we are dealing with something that is already off patent?
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 12:11 PM   #36
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Maybe I was reading too much into your statement. Given that the main "government involvement" that we are dealing with here is intellectual property protection, in my mind I turned "If you got rid of government involvement" into "If you got rid of intellectual property". Perhaps that's not what you were trying to say at all.
The post of yours I was responding to was only a couple problems But based on that post, scrapping patents and the FDA would end the practice of making minor changes to get FDA approval to get a new monopoly.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 06:11 PM   #37
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,613
Big Pharma spends about 5% on ads, corps in other fields about 2%.

Biggest sunk cost is in doing the clinical trials. One recent example was a trial of $5B, that showed no benefit to the prospective drug.

And the GM drugs are not patented, they are COPYRIGHTED. If Disney Studios has it's way, copyrights will never expire. So no generics. But, back to the OP, there is a company in India making a functional equivalent of Humalin and Novalin. I don't know the name, but you can't get it in America, and they won't ship- it needs refrigeration.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 09:13 PM   #38
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The post of yours I was responding to was only a couple problems But based on that post, scrapping patents and the FDA would end the practice of making minor changes to get FDA approval to get a new monopoly.
It certainly would. I also know of a way to get rid of all drunk driving offenses (just get the government out of it).
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 12:09 AM   #39
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Also consider that everything is a pipeline where most of the stuff that enters at one end doesn't come out the other. Promising projects come out of university research and get picked up by the private sector. However, for everything that's promising, there's a massive number of other projects that never are going to be of any interest to any pharmaceutical company. The thing is, you don't know ahead of time what is ultimately going to be interesting and what isn't.



So it's not like we are, in a sense, subsidizing the private sector when they pick up the one interesting set of research projects and develop it further. Instead, we are subsidizing the private sector with that interesting project as well as the 100 other research projects that never went in directions that became interesting to them.
I'm not one that considers "big pharma" to be evil, they are simply businesses doing what businesses are (at least in the UK) legally obliged to do. And I agree with you overall, with just one caveat and that is everyone has got smarter about what research to do, which is why you get these research networks that are focused on one particular area of research, the goal being to improve what gets into the pipeline in the first place.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 12:10 AM   #40
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The post of yours I was responding to was only a couple problems But based on that post, scrapping patents and the FDA would end the practice of making minor changes to get FDA approval to get a new monopoly.
And you missed the post of mine which explained your solution is one that has been tried and it failed, so offering it up again as a solution is not scientific skepticism.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.