|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
This is not a natural cure, it's an old medicine that has been found to treat cancer. Think of it as a cheap and safe form of chemotherapy. |
The article does talk a bit about claims "natural" substances like herbs cure cancer but it does address the notion that there's a big pharma conspiracy to suppress some magic bullet cure. |
Not exactly. Again, watch the video. They aren't pointing fingers at the pharmaceutical companies, who are naturally unwilling to spend up to 100 million dollars to put this through the trials for others to profit from it, but rather at the system that makes it difficult for independent researchers to put such drugs through trials for lack of funding.
PS. This guy is a U of Alberta researcher, not some quack doctor.
The university counts among its alumuni a World Chemisty Prize winner and a Nobel laureate. I also know that several Nobel Prize winners have worked at the University of Alberta at one point or another in their careers. |
Let me repeat my other post:
Regarding the actual drug, it's a legal, safe, effective drug. As far as I understand, a doctor can prescribe a legal drug, even if it's not for the intended purpose. I mean, doctors prescribed estrogen for menopause, despite the lack of clinical trials. The lack of a pharma company unwilling to invest in an expensive clinical trial doesn't mean doctors can't use it to treat cancer.
But is the free market system (companies need profits to get money to conduct expensive clinical trials) automatically a conspiracy by big pharma? I'd like a jet pack, but there isn't a market for one. Conspiracy to deny me a jet pack? This is the bed we've made and generally we all profit from it. Don't like it? Ask the government to take more of your tax dollars for more public medical research.
The CTV report does seem to say "cheap drugs no longer under patent protection can't get the $100 million from a pharma company to do trials."
That's not conspiracy, a company having the cure and sitting on it to keep milking profitable drugs that treat but don't cure. That's economics. Many drugs that work in rats don't work in humans. It's a huge risk. If you hand over a large amount of your research to private industry, they need a profit motive. If you want to fix it, give more of your tax dollars for public science. |
The drug hasn't been approved to treat cancer, which is why it needs to go through drug trials. Such drugs, drugs that are known to be safe for humans, should be quickly approved for uses other than the ones they were originally tested for. But, that is not how the system works.
The CTV story is indirectly critical of the system, not the pharmaceutical companies. Once again, this drug has been proven to be safe for humans, and yet it needs to go through additional medical trials because it wasn't approved to treat cancer. It never claims there is a conspiracy, but rather suggests that pharmaceutical companies aren't touching it because they can't justify spending 100 million dollars on a drug that they don't own to their shareholders. It is also trying to ensure that the Canadian government will get involved in funding the medical trials for this medicine because, frankly speaking, it is potentially the greatest medical breakthrough in years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
The drug hasn't been approved to treat cancer, which is why it needs to go through drug trials. Such drugs, drugs that are known to be safe for humans, should be quickly approved for uses other than the ones they were originally tested for. But, that is not how the system works. |
Like I say, approved drugs can be prescribed by doctors, even if the drug was not tested for the specific condition. Hence the reason estrogen was given to women under the assumption it would take the edge off of menopause or why doctors were prescribing Minoxidil (nee Loniten) to fight hair loss although it was approved as a high blood pressure med.
If a doctor feels this cheap, safe drug can help in cancer, and it will do no harm, he is at liberty to prescribe it. If he's treating it like a magic bullet and also not conducting established treatments, well then he sure does risk a lawsuit.
It's not difficult to get some small initial trials on humans, especially with a safe proven drug. Drug companies just don't launch into massive drug trials based on animal evidence. People first conduct small human trials. If doctors see favorable results, they won't ignore it. If those are favorable, then the evidence becomes harder to deny. That's the course of medical science. Animal studies. Some small informal human trials.
CTV is overlaying the doomsday scenario that based on some animal studies there is no big drug company willing to lay out $100 million for a large, double blind, multi-centered trial. Golly.
My skeptical senses are always raised when a scientist goes to the media with his findings in animal subjects and complains the system is stacked against him for getting to head up a $100 million dollar study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Yes.
Altho' I'd rather pm you the names of them if that's okay with you? |
Well, I'd like to debate it openly. That's your interpretation but there are two sides to every story.
But let me grant you that this happens. What percentage of drugs does this happen to? It's like saying because some car mechanics do unnecessary repairs, all car mechanics will. |
I think you're misunderstanding the situation.
I don't have any exact figures/percentages and to be honest I'm not sure where to get them, but my impression while I worked in the pharmaceutical industry was that the majority of drugs withdrawn from the market were withdrawn for commercial reasons rather than for issues of safety (and thank god that's the case, I'd hate if it was the other way around!). In other words the company withdrew the drug because it was no longer profitable to produce and market it.
Let me illustrate with an example.
Company X produced a product called Y for the treatment of conjunctivitis.
(This is a real case, pm me if you want the name of the company and the product.) At the time that the company withdrew the product from the market it had been available (prescription only) for almost thirty years. The company was selling the product into pharmacies at just under three english pounds per unit (a months supply). This was close to the orignal price when it first appeared on the market.
Why had the company not simply increased the price as the years went by?
The reason is that the price of drugs is very strictly regulated by governments and it's very hard to get the government to agree a price increase (particularly in the UK where the government pays for most prescription drugs...god bless the National Health Service)!. Usually a substantial increase is only allowed when a new indication (use) has been found for the drug involving a reformulation of the active ingredient and more clinical trials to prove efficacy and safety.
A good example of that is Upjohn's 'Minoxil'. Originally produced as a treatment for blood pressure and selling for peanuts because it was so long on the market, it was accidently discovered that it promoted regrowth of hair in balding men. The company reformulated it (it went from being an oral medication to a topical one) did more clinical trials and launched it on the market for a substantially higher price (even tho' the topical formulation contained only a fraction of the active ingredient that the oral formulation did and tho' the cost of the clinical trials was also only a fraction of the cost for the oral medication since most of the studies needed had already been done for the oral drug).
Not all companies have been as lucky as Upjohn!
In the case of company X they had on the market an extremely effective drug but the profit they made on it (if any) did not warrent the cost of production, sales and marketing. They had been unsuccessful in finding a more effective replacement so they simply withdrew it from the market and replaced it with another much more expensive medication.
They published no comparative studies between the two drugs!
This in itself speaks volumes to anyone working in the pharmaceutical industry.
Normally when a new drug is produced in a therapeutic area, comparative studies are done against the original one, (if it exists and in this case it did) which is considered to be the Gold Standard. From the fact that the company did not publish comparative studies it can be inferred that the studies had showed no advantage of the new drug over the old and even possibly that it was less effective (anecdotal evidence supports the latter conclusion but no one will ever no for sure unless the company itself decides to publish the studies).
Is this a unique case?
Certainly not!
Companies often invest millions researching and developing new (more costly) drugs hoping to replace older (cheaper and off-patent so vulnerable to generic competition) ones, only to find in the end of the day,
when the final results of the clinical trials are in, that the new drug tho' safe and effective, is not more effective, only equally effective or even less effective than the older cheaper one.
Do the companies simply sigh, wring their hands and consign their costly investment to the wastebin?
What do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Companies often invest millions researching and developing new (more costly) drugs hoping to replace older (cheaper and off-patent so vulnerable to generic competition) ones, only to find in the end of the day,
when the final results of the clinical trials are in, that the new drug tho' safe and effective, is not more effective, only equally effective or even less effective than the older cheaper one.
|
If a safe, effective drug is out of patent, other people can manufacture it. The drug becomes cheaper. Sure the original company might want a new drug. Does that mean the drug drops out of the minds of doctors? One company might stop making it. Does that mean all companies stop making the generic?
Someone is still making the drug in question, even though it's generic and, oddly, has limited use in rare genetic diseases. Where's the problem? A drug company isn't ready to do a $100 million study based on animal trials? Did the CTV reporter even talk to a drug company? We take the reporter's word for it that drug companies may not fund research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo
| Quote: |
| The problem here is big phrama aren't the only ones who research drugs. |
Who funds most of the public and private research into a cure for asthma?
The companies who produce maintenance therapy for the treatment of asthma.
Do they keep this a secret?
No, they advertise the fact on their promotional literature as an example of their public spiritedness.
Who stands to have their business in maintenace therapy wiped out if a cure is found for asthma?
I know I know.
The idea is as paranoid as believing that tobacco companies would increase the amount of nicotine in their cigarettes to increase smokers' addiction....
...or as paranoid as believing that an actuary of a car company would decide that it was cheaper to pay the cost of compensation for deaths rather than recall the model of the car that contained the design flaw that caused those deaths.
Anybody care to continue the list of what big companies are prepared to sacrifice in human lives to save a buck (and there are fewer bigger than the pharmaceutical giants)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Companies often invest millions researching and developing new (more costly) drugs hoping to replace older (cheaper and off-patent so vulnerable to generic competition) ones, only to find in the end of the day,
when the final results of the clinical trials are in, that the new drug tho' safe and effective, is not more effective, only equally effective or even less effective than the older cheaper one.
|
If a safe, effective drug is out of patent, other people can manufacture it. The drug becomes cheaper. Sure the original company might want a new drug. Does that mean the drug drops out of the minds of doctors? One company might stop making it. Does that mean all companies stop making the generic?
|
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on how big the market is for the drug, how much it costs to produce, how much would need to be spend on promotion (sales, marketing, advertising etc).
Drug Y is no longer produced by any company.
And you're right the doctors don't forget, they regulary complain to drug reps about this practice! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on how big the market is for the drug, how much it costs to produce, how much would need to be spend on promotion (sales, marketing, advertising etc).
Drug Y is no longer produced by any company.
And you're right the doctors don't forget, they regulary complain to drug reps about this practice! |
Yes, putting the vast majority of drug production and late stage clinical trials in the hands of private industry has a down side. Drug companies are not charities and want to make a profit. The solution, obviously, is to spend more tax dollars and form, what, government run drug companies? Okay, I'll start paying the extra tax dollars. But I'll first wait until I see you fish out $100 out of your wallet to pay the new tax.
What is your solution?
However, examples of drug companies following a profit motive is not exactly a smoking gun that there's a cure for cancer on the shelf of a drug company. Did the drug company do the $100 million clinical trials, discover it was effective, and then shelve it? Golly.
And if your company does produce a cure for cancer, even if it wipes out one profit center, aren't investors going to flock to your company which clearly has miracle workers on staff? What else will they think of? Investors will certainly pump up your stock on a gamble that your pharma company is going to turn out the next wonder drug. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo
| Quote: |
| And if your company does produce a cure for cancer, even if it wipes out one profit center, aren't investors going to flock to your company which clearly has miracle workers on staff? What else will they think of? Investors will certainly pump up your stock on a gamble that your pharma company is going to turn out the next wonder drug. |
They'd be crazy to!
Fisons and Boerhinger are two drugs companies I can think of off hand that followed up two hugely successful drugs with two hugely expensive flops.
More recently, remember Merck with Vioxx?
Ever hear the saying 'you're only as good as your last sale'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo
| Quote: |
| The solution, obviously, is to spend more tax dollars and form, what, government run drug companies? |
Just don't get me started on the government vs. drug companies!
In the past in the UK it was legal for drug companies to try to bribe doctors to prescribe their drugs.
Then the government clamped down on that.
Now all that drug companies can do is offer financial incentives to doctors to try to get them to prescribe their drugs.
There are days I look in the mirror and wonder if it's only me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| In the case of company X they had on the market an extremely effective drug but the profit they made on it (if any) did not warrent the cost of production, sales and marketing. |
.....
And you're not going to put any blame on the price controls which prevented them making money? This seems like a poor example for you to use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| In the case of company X they had on the market an extremely effective drug but the profit they made on it (if any) did not warrent the cost of production, sales and marketing. |
.....
And you're not going to put any blame on the price controls which prevented them making money? This seems like a poor example for you to use. |
Riiiiiight.......so...exactly how would it help my argument to blame the price controls?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
The price controls prevented them from charging a price that would make the drug profitable given the costs of, as you say, production, sales, and marketing, so they pulled it from the market.
Not exactly rocket science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
The price controls prevented them from charging a price that would make the drug profitable given the costs of, as you say, production, sales, and marketing, so they pulled it from the market.
Not exactly rocket science. |
Soooo.....congratulations on being able to read?
But okay if you want....
What I said in the post you referred to +...'of course it's all the fault of the bloody government for refusing to sacrifice the national health so that pharmaceutical companies can enrich themselves even further....
....because let's face it if the NHS was bankrupted the drug companies would be happy because they would be getting richer, the rich would still be happy because they wouls still be getting quality drugs and the poor.....
.....well who cares about the poor'.
Howzat! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still don't see a good plan to fix drug research. As a society we benefit when drug companies risk private money (ie not our tax dollars) and come up with new drugs. To reward their risks, we allow them to make profits. We give them the right to be the only maker of the drug for x number of years. Drugs fall out of patent protection and the drug company stops making the drug as others begin to produce their own cheaper version. The original drug maker sometimes stops making that drug and releases a new version. This does not imply the generic version always vanishes from the market. And yes, drug companies have powerful marketing wings. Until recently they weren't allowed to run TV ads (still prohibited in many nations). So we're talking like the beer industry with marketing dollars but they can't spend it on expensive media campaigns. This means a lot of free microwaves for the nurses' lunch room, pizza parties, free drug samples, etc. Stuff that smacks to us of playola.
The downside (can't get something for nothing), sometimes drugs with low profit potential vanish from the market. Doctors are seduced into prescribing drugs.
The state steps in with regulation. Orphaned drug laws. Laws to govern how drugs can be marketed etc.
But we're still not living in a perfect world.
So how would you make it perfect? And does any of this strongly point to the notion that drug companies have on the shelf the cure for cancer but they're hiding it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's no way to make it perfect... other than to stop using so many drugs in the first place.
What we need is education in preventive care rather than more money spent on costly research on drugs that try to treat you after the fact.
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/medical/drug1a.html
THE SMALL ROLE OF MEDICINE IN MORTALITY
It is important to understand that the vast majority of people are born healthy and, if not tampered with, are "equipped" to remain healthy throughout life. We seldom require intervention with illnesses because the body, as well as the mind, is usually able to defend and heal itself against disease and injury. Only infrequently do we require assistance.
Medical intervention is the least important of the four factors that determine the state of health. The Centers for Disease Control analysed data on the ten leading causes of death in the United States, and determined that lifestyle was by far the most important factor (51%), followed by environment (20%), biologic inheritance (19%), and lastly medical intervention (10%). (46)
According to a classic analysis by Professor Thomas McKeown of Birmingham University, medicine played a very small role in extending the average lifespan in Britain over the past few centuries, the major benefit to people having been improvements in nutrition and public sanitation. (47,4
Researchers, John McKinlay and Sonja McKinlay came to similar conclusions. They showed that medical intervention only accounted for between 1 and 3.5 per cent of the increase in the average lifespan in the United States since 1900. (49)
The above statistics prove that health depends primarily on prevention, through hygiene and proper nutrition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
