|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2007 : 15:10:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
The government gives a lot of money to corporations for drug research, and then lets those companies overcharge to recoup that money that they did not spend.
Having said that, I agree that the best solution is to remove all health care issues from the so-called "private" sector. While I think big companies do not necessarily equal evil, we need to remove short-term profit as one of the highest goals here.
Have any examples of those 'corporate grants' Gorgo?
Some tax dollars do go to universities, the NIH, and the CDC for research. There has been some furor over the fact the research is then public so corporations can profit from it without paying any royalties to the government. I'd like to know more specifically which direct grants you are aware of.
I don't see the example you gave of public research being more reliable than for profit research as the government giving corporations direct grants. If anything, it shows the for profit groups are not doing all the research.
BTW, the medical community is very aware of the bias issue. There are lots of other drug promotion campaigns we are aware of as well. I must say though after correcting the misinformation a physician I was talking to last night had about vaccines and thimerisol, we could stand to educate a few more health care providers in critical thinking.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/24/2007 15:15:20 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 15:27:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't see the example you gave of public research being more reliable than for profit research as the government giving corporations direct grants. If anything, it shows the for profit groups are not doing all the research.
What I said was in response to the OP which said that we would do better if government would take over research. I agree with that, but they are already funding a large part of research.
So, I wasn't promising specific examples of anything, and certainly not specific examples of one being more reliable than the other.
I simply was showing that government does fund research, and that corporations once again often privatize the profits and socialize the risks. Simply funding research for corporations does not lower prices or improve health care for poorer people.
Better to get profit out of the mix altogether and socialize the benefits as well as the risks.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 01/24/2007 15:28:41 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 15:46:37 [Permalink]
|
A few more points.
About health care providers as some of you have alluded to (both the claims and my reply point):
One of the points in my TAM talk was that when someone makes the claim such as pharmaceutical companies act in their own best interest therefore the public is vulnerable there is one glaring problem. Health care providers, HCPs, are not the drug companies, nor the government. So if the public is vulnerable in the above claim, you need one or more of three conditions:
Either HCPs are non-existent
or in on the conspiracy
or duped.
I assure you we are, for the most part, none of those three. There are dumb and greedy HCPs but they are in a very small minority. In addition it is not in HCPs best interest to provide poor medical care.
Regarding the HIV and other life saving drugs in third world countries, the issue is a big one and it is about the ability to invest in research and have security that your investment won't just be stolen by someone who can then sell the drugs without the cost of the research overhead. Having only government sponsored research would have an equally bad side in that we know capitalism is a great innovator. We would lose a lot of research drive if we went all public in funding medical research.
Do you know that the money it would take to treat all HIV patients would save millions more people if we just invested it in potable water supplies for everyone?
And, there has been extensive research in preventing HIV, TB, and malaria including millions, cumulatively billions, of dollars searching for vaccines for all three. If I wanted to start a rumor about a conspiracy to keep people ill in order to make a profit on HIV infections, I'd have to question the Evangelical's million dollar campaigns to stop condom promotion in favor of the failed policy of promoting abstinence, followed by monogamous marriage.
Measured outcome research (reminds me there is a ton of money in public health research) has found condom promotion to greatly decrease HIV infection rates while abstinence promotion has no effect and if coupled with restrictions on condom promotion, has actually increased HIV infection rates in countries which had seen decreases like Uganda. (The Catholics are officially anti-condom but they are not pushing it anywhere HIV or other STD risks are prevalent that I am aware of.)
|
|
|
|
kieranct
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 15:48:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And as for the cure not being "ownable," so what?
The basis of your argument showing that "big pharma" was incentivised to research cures appeared to centre around the 15 year exclusive patent life.
Neurosis - apart from appearing to be quite rude, i also take issue with you on the no link to mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis and crohn's. I consider myself something of an expert on the issue and when MAP is detected in over 90% of crohn's patients and only 12% of UC (Similar but not the same) i think it addresses the "chicken and egg" question. This debate may be better to have via PM as it could go on.....
My point originally was if there was any better paradigm than the one in place to find cures for chronic disease. The anecdotal evidence from forum re Crohn's and Omega 3 was just to suggest that maybe anecdotal evidence can help in this.
Things are a bit different over here regarding Doctors and Politics as we have the welfare state so i can't comment on health plans etc.
So far i think we have agreed:
"Big pharma" will never act in an altruistic way.
People should take more responsibility for there own health.
Research should be more independent and have more stringent ethical rules.
Nothing we wouldn't have all agreed on in the beginning then.....bugger |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 15:51:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
What I said was in response to the OP which said that we would do better if government would take over research. I agree with that, but they are already funding a large part of research.
So, I wasn't promising specific examples of anything, and certainly not specific examples of one being more reliable than the other.
I simply was showing that government does fund research, and that corporations once again often privatize the profits and socialize the risks. Simply funding research for corporations does not lower prices or improve health care for poorer people.
See post, top of page 3.
Better to get profit out of the mix altogether and socialize the benefits as well as the risks.
You said in a previous post the government funded corporate research. Am I mixing up your posts with kierancts?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/24/2007 15:53:42 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 16:00:19 [Permalink]
|
Association is not causation.
Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis, Genetic Susceptibility to Crohn's Disease, and Sardinians: the Way Ahead
"Recent genetic and epidemiological studies provide suggestive evidence for the presence of genetic determinants of susceptibility to Crohn's disease (CD) and its clinical progression. In a recent report, Behr and colleagues documented the coexistence of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection and a permissive NOD2/CARD15 mutant in one individual with CD (1). CD is a disease of unknown etiology linked to immune dysregulation (10). An increasing amount of evidence supports the idea that CD is caused by Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (8, 11, 12). In 2001, three independent mutations within the NOD2/CARD15 gene were discovered to be strongly linked to CD in Europeans (3, 4, 9). According to the observation of Behr et al., the presence of a gene that is associated with an increased susceptibility to develop CD does not preclude the possibility that the disease may be infectious in etiology (1). It is possible that genetically identifiable subpopulations may have different tendencies to develop CD when exposed to the same infectious agent (3, 6). The following case study suggests an exploitation of these considerations in a group of Mediterranean patients with CD."
SO, has it been determined which is occurring? Are people susceptible to both Crohn's and M.Avium or does the M.Avium come first and cause Crohn's or do you need both M.Avium and the gene?
M.Avium is more common in the SW USA. Is Crohn's more common there?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/24/2007 16:01:29 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 16:10:21 [Permalink]
|
Are you saying that I didn't show that in my previous post? Sorry if I'm not clear, but I posted a link to a quite extensive article on the subject.
Are you saying that the government doesn't fund drug research while corporations profit? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 16:14:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Are you saying that I didn't show that in my previous post? Sorry if I'm not clear, but I posted a link to a quite extensive article on the subject.
Are you saying that the government doesn't fund drug research while corporations profit?
Gorgo, it isn't hard. You said, "The government gives a lot of money to corporations for drug research, and then lets those companies overcharge to recoup that money that they did not spend." Cite something where the government gives or gave money directly to a corporation which the corporation then profited from.
I'm not saying they don't. I want to know the specifics.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/24/2007 16:16:33 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 16:27:51 [Permalink]
|
Kieranct, there is a reason for the issue about anecdotal evidence on the Crohn's forum or any chronic or serious disease forum. You have small sample sizes and no controls.
I give a flu shot to 12 people. They all get sick the next day? Why does this not mean the shot made them ill?
BECAUSE 12 people who didn't get the flu shot in the same office also got sick.
I wear my hat to the ball game 5 times in a row and my team wins but the one day I forget my hat, they lose. Do you really think the hat mattered?
With a disease as serious as Crohn's or any other serious disease for that matter, you deserve the best science, not some foolish conclusion by a few people who think their vitamins cured their disease.
On the other hand, if it's inexpensive, not harmful, and you aren't taking it in lieu of scientifically sound treatments, go for it. But know you are taking something which is untested. Know there is no real evidence just because people "believe". For some other treatment that is costly, harmful or which leads a patient to not take a treatment for which there is evidence, it really does matter.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 16:32:17 [Permalink]
|
Another false premise, kier:
"So far i think we have agreed:
"Big pharma" will never act in an altruistic way."
What about Ben and Jerry's example? Though it isn't a drug company. Why couldn't Bill and Melinda Gates own a Big Pharma company and feel they wanted to make sure ethics were part of the operating rules?
What about the stockholders boycotting companies with holdings in S Africa during apartheid?
I have dreams of addressing corporate ethics through the stockholders. I think it is a great but underutilized way to put ethics into the boardroom.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/24/2007 16:34:32 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 18:57:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Have any examples of those 'corporate grants' Gorgo?
Okay, sorry, You are right and I am wrong in the way that I put that. I see what you're saying, although are you quoting me directly here? I don't recall using that phrase, but I do appreciate the correction. It is not giving "direct grants" to corporations, but it might as well be. The result is the same. It is a giveaway. It is privatizing profit, while socializing risk. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 20:26:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by kieranct
quote:
And as for the cure not being "ownable," so what?
The basis of your argument showing that "big pharma" was incentivised to research cures appeared to centre around the 15 year exclusive patent life.
No, patents provide the main incentive to spend research and development money on any potential drug, not just cures. If patents didn't exist, neither would "big pharma."
But obviously patents aren't the only incentive. Aspirin, Tylenol, Motrin and Aleve are all manufactured and sold today, despite acetylcylic acid, acetominophen, ibuprofen and naproxen sodium (respectively) all being out from under patent. Bayer and McNeil are obviously still making money from them (Bayer gives us aspirin and Aleve, McNeil provides Motrin and Tylenol), despite CareOne selling the same stuff - cheaper! - right next to them on Giant's over-the-counter shelves. Hell, GlaxoSmithKline, one of the real biggies of big pharma, still sells Tums, which haven't had a patent for at least 50 years. Pfizer (the biggest of the big) still makes Listerine, despite the wild success of Viagra and all the other competition on the mouthwash shelves.
Obviously, it doesn't take a patent for a product to be profitable. My article stops at the end of patent because the revenues can drop drastically when everyone and their brother can sell the product, and because I'm not at all equipped to do any sort of analysis on such complex markets. The patentable case is the easy case.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Crohn's is effectively treated by a single antibiotic. Obviously, this antibiotic is already on the market - otherwise the researchers who made the discovery wouldn't have had it to test with (and very likely, its discovery as a Crohn's treatment was "anecdotal"). So the drug has already gone through millions of dollars worth of human toxicity testing, and only needs to be examined for its effectiveness at treating Crohn's.
This would shave a lot of money off the $250- to $800-million cost of bringing a new drug to market. Enough that it wouldn't be surprising to see the company (or companies) that are already making the antibiotic throw some money at finalizing that research. They could also re-patent the antibiotic as a Crohn's treatment, since patents cover methods and not products. But even without a patent, if the total cost to bring the drug into the Crohn's market were low enough that it could be recouped despite competition, it'd be economically stupid for a company not to invest in a new use for its own product.
And that includes smaller companies making generic antibiotics, long out of patent. The drug might be unpatentable, but whoever is currently making it is a lot farther along towards bringing it to market as a Crohn's treatment than any other company (which would have to tool up production lines and get them inspected, as well as write reams and reams of brand-new documents for the FDA, which the current company would already have on hand).
The only "loser" in the drug-production scenarios are, for example, things that people can get largely for free. Like, what if eating lawn clippings effectively treats Crohn's? No drug company is going to invest in that research. But they might wait until the research is all done and then start selling "purified" grass clippings pills like they almost all sell vitamins - if there's profit to be made. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 20:49:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by kieranct
Neurosis - apart from appearing to be quite rude, i also take issue with you on the no link to mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis and crohn's. I consider myself something of an expert on the issue and when MAP is detected in over 90% of crohn's patients and only 12% of UC (Similar but not the same) i think it addresses the "chicken and egg" question. This debate may be better to have via PM as it could go on.....
I was not intending to be rude. I also was not intending to be nice. If I came off as rude I will be happy to apologize. In text, it is hard to interpret tone.
I said nothing about MAP. I am not an expert on MAP. What I was saying is that we don't currently know the cause of Crohn's. MAP may be present in 90% of the cases but not 100%, maybe there are other contributing factors or even more less common causes. I don't know, its not my field.
quote:
My point originally was if there was any better paradigm than the one in place to find cures for chronic disease. The anecdotal evidence from forum re Crohn's and Omega 3 was just to suggest that maybe anecdotal evidence can help in this.
The anecdotal evidence you cited, and in fact, all anedotal evidence is about decrease in symptoms or feeling better. When you start talking about 'cures' then tests need to be performed and then the 'cure' needs to be duplicated in another case, when this happens it is no longer anecdotal, but now a sucessful test of a treatment mode.
quote:
So far i think we have agreed:
"Big pharma" will never act in an altruistic way.
No. Not exactly. What Dave and myself suggested is people usually act selfishly first. No one can be expected to be altruist. CEOs of Pharmaceuticals are no different then other businessmen.
quote:
People should take more responsibility for there own health.
Research should be more independent and have more stringent ethical rules.
No. Research should be conducted in such a way as to produce new information efficiently. Big research firms are fine.
What ethical violations exactly are you claiming pharmacueticals do? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/24/2007 21:13:16 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 20:53:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Are you saying that I didn't show that in my previous post? Sorry if I'm not clear, but I posted a link to a quite extensive article on the subject.
Are you saying that the government doesn't fund drug research while corporations profit?
I don't understand what your posting exactly. Are you complaining that corporate research has grant funds and they make profits so that is wrong? I mean I can get a grant from the government tomorrow (apply I mean) for a small business, a new home, home improvements (even if I am going to sell the home), education, and many other things, alot of them will bring profit to me. Are you talking about removing those grant progams? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evidenced based medicine
