Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/07/are-we-running-out-of-antibiotics.html

"According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, only five of the 13 biggest pharmaceutical companies are still looking at all. Medications that treat cancer or chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or even baldness are simply much more lucrative. That’s because a single course of the most expensive antibiotics (linezolid and daptomycin) runs just seven days and sells for $1,000 to $2,000, while a single course of, say, any given cancer treatment runs for weeks to months and costs from 10 to 20 times as much. Chronic-disease medications, which a patient typically takes for the rest of his or her life, yield even higher returns. It doesn’t matter that bacterial infections are infinitely more common than cancer or even heart disease; antibiotics are still less profitable."

"Policymakers are, at last, working to change this. One bill floating through Congress, the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act, would extend the patents on certain types of antibiotics by five years to protect them from generic competition. Other proposals include tax breaks, liability protection, and the same guaranteed government purchases that have been so successful in spurring bioterrorism research."


Great:rolleyes:

Now drug companies need tax breaks/subsidies to invest in antibiotics.:rolleyes:

No windfall profits, no worky on drug.....:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Oh, come on. With you, all profits are windfall profits. Private corporations work for their investors, not the government. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new drug to market, and antibiotics have become some of the most expensive because there are no new classes of antibiotics out there. No one knows when a new wonder antibiotic will be found. If your retirement fund was invested in big pharma, my guess is you would want them developing profitable drugs instead of pouring hundreds of millions down a rathole. Well, guess what? Millions of people DO have their retirment funds invested in big pharma. I hope they manage their business to make as much profit as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,111 Posts
Oh, please . . . Newsweek as a source? For anything?

The rag that was sold for one dollar, and was overvalued at that?

Epic fail. Try again. Or better yet, don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Oh, please . . . Newsweek as a source? For anything?

The rag that was sold for one dollar, and was overvalued at that?

Epic fail. Try again. Or better yet, don't.
I don't even read them at the doctor's office. :laughing:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,157 Posts
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/07/are-we-running-out-of-antibiotics.html

"According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, only five of the 13 biggest pharmaceutical companies are still looking at all. Medications that treat cancer or chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or even baldness are simply much more lucrative. That’s because a single course of the most expensive antibiotics (linezolid and daptomycin) runs just seven days and sells for $1,000 to $2,000, while a single course of, say, any given cancer treatment runs for weeks to months and costs from 10 to 20 times as much. Chronic-disease medications, which a patient typically takes for the rest of his or her life, yield even higher returns. It doesn’t matter that bacterial infections are infinitely more common than cancer or even heart disease; antibiotics are still less profitable."

"Policymakers are, at last, working to change this. One bill floating through Congress, the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act, would extend the patents on certain types of antibiotics by five years to protect them from generic competition. Other proposals include tax breaks, liability protection, and the same guaranteed government purchases that have been so successful in spurring bioterrorism research."


Great:rolleyes:

Now drug companies need tax breaks/subsidies to invest in antibiotics.:rolleyes:

No windfall profits, no worky on drug.....:rolleyes:
You must not have read the entire article ...

Did you miss the part about how the government has gotten in the way of development?

Did you read the part about finding patients to test drugs on is sometimes near impossible - like the one drug that went two years and only had about 60 potential patients to study?

Like Tex posted, you see the evil corporation behind everything.

Yawn ...

Can't you try something NEW once in a while?

Steven
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
You must not have read the entire article ...

Did you miss the part about how the government has gotten in the way of development?
I cherry picked my beliefs and comments just like the article author did, and everybody else does here.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Did you miss the part about how the government has gotten in the way of development?

Did you read the part about finding patients to test drugs on is sometimes near impossible - like the one drug that went two years and only had about 60 potential patients to study?
yep.


Yet it was not a problem in the past when these companies were younger and more motivated.
 

·
Grey Squirrel
Joined
·
22,780 Posts
Things would be so much better if all corporations and businesses were controlled, operated, and owned by the government.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
If you enjoy subsidizing corps that enjoy healthy profits like banks and energy companies, just say so.

We have national deficit to fix.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Considering that a patent only lasts 20 years, the average time it takes for a new drug to actually be available to the public is 15 years, and the average costs for developing a new drug is around $800 million, I can't really blame the pharmaceutical companies for focusing on developing drugs that bring in more profits. For every 10 drugs a pharmaceutical company has on the market, only 3 are making a profit. Kind of hard to make a profit on a drug in 5 years when you have already invested almost a billion dollars into developing that particular drug.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
That's not the point.

Do you want non-viral superbugs like strep and TB to wipe out eveybody but the billionares and a rare few who have unique genes to adapt repell it?

A plague......if you will?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
That's not the point.

Do you want non-viral superbugs like strep and TB to wipe out eveybody but the billionares and a rare few who have unique genes to adapt repell it?

A plague......if you will?
:laughing:
You sound just like your version of Beck.

What goes around, comes around. :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
That's not the point.

Do you want non-viral superbugs like strep and TB to wipe out eveybody but the billionares and a rare few who have unique genes to adapt repell it?

A plague......if you will?
If they don't develop the drug, then billionaires can't buy it either. There is simply no moral imperative for any company to lose hundreds of millions of investor's dollars in order to develop a much needed drug. If the government has a strong interest in such development, it should put some of it's money on the line.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top