-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
Ex-hedge funder buys rights to AIDS drug and raises price from $13.50 to $750 per pill
- Thread starter phocup
- Start date
Climber
Well-known member
I'm sure that he's already on their radar with this event and he'll revel in the opportunity, if past interviews are any indication.
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
That is a generic equivalent, which is not legal for sale in the U.S.
Climber
Well-known member
Sounds like it should be, it's made by the same company and most likely in the same production lines.
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
I'm saying it's a drop in the bucket. The overwhelming majority of funding for drug development and testing is performed by private companies in the pharma and biotech industries. Remove the profit motive, that funding dries up and it's all left to the government. And in that case, drugs would likely be cheaper (because taxpayers would be bearing risk at a below market cost), but a lot of that otherwise would have been researched, developed and brought to market, wouldn't be.
Climber
Well-known member
Not necessarily, you're projecting.
If the government was producing and selling, it would also have a much bigger war chest to develop the drugs. The NIH has not bee inactive in research and all of those grants going out to companies could as easily be spent developing new drugs at universities which would be a much cheaper alternative.
I'm tired of hearing the argument that 'Capitalism drives Innovation', it's not a black and white equation and it's PEOPLE who drive innovation and often those people aren't paid a huge amount, that is the mostly talent less executives who get the huge salaries and bonuses.
Cycle61
What the shit is this...
My understanding is the price-inflated drug is also a generic, but it happens to be the only one on the US market.
nbean16
The Art of Seduction
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2011
- Location
- North San Jose
- Moto(s)
- 2019 Ducati Panigale 959
Corse, 2007 Honda CBR600RR, 2000 Yamaha YZF-600R (sold)
- Name
- Nick
Those individuals who dont get paid a huge amount may only have jobs because of these companies. If you think leaving it to the goverment is going to drive just as much innovation youre mistaken.
Climber
Well-known member
They would have jobs with the government, if that is the employer, and in case you haven't been paying attention, government jobs pay much better now, for the workers and that isn't even counting benefits.
The people making those innovations aren't the execs but the workers, the execs are the ones who take the lion share of the profits and credit.
Bay Arean
Well-known member
I know this is the gospel, but once again, it's a tired and wornout concept. We are talking about human scientific innovation. The zeal of scientists exists without the inducements of capitalism. Human suffering is the need. We have had great innovations and discoveries prior to our big oligarchy of today. If you argue the point backwards, it fails, unless you take the stance that, had we had modern capitalism in the past, we'd have progressed much further than where we are today.
What is the point of having everything thing and comfort that we now have if we do not establish baselines of humanity and moral behavior? When you see some poor sucker dying of cancer or whatever, and the the therapies are just too expensive because of drug costs, you should be fucking ashamed of our system. I certainly am. Maybe it's oversimplification, i'm sure my correctors here will chime in if so, but this just seems to be a domain of human activity that should exists outside the confines of profit motive. Save it for gadgets and driving machines and fancy clothes and furniture.
Mike95060
Work In Progress
I want government to fund university research. Have you met any university researchers? They are real scientists looking for novel discoveries. They are not government bureaucrats. Fund Scientist and they will push boundaries.
For all of those who think private outfits are the answers for our Heath problems I have a question: how many new antibiotics are in the pipeline from pharmaceutical companies?
Second question: how many people will die this year due to antibiotic resistant infections? (Hint, last I checked it will be more than die from HIV)
http://www.nature.com/drugdisc/news/articles/425225a.html
Bay Arean
Well-known member
Naw, they're too busy inventing anti-depressants for your anti-depressent, super Hydrocodone, and Restless Leg Syndrome (RSL) pills, or whatever new damn syndrome they can put into a couple of letters. And making tv commercials that send me into a tailspin of despair on behalf of my fellow sapiens.
Ya know, important stuff. Meanwhile, Dr. Evil is probably getting gene therapy somewhere along with the other rich people so they don't get zombie-itis. No. This system is not working to the public benefit, just the shareholders as this entire thread displays.
latindane
Learner. EuroPW, NaPS
Completely agree in the case of innovation related to drug research. The folks doing the innovation, the researchers, tend to be much less driven by money, almost to a fault.
CoorsLight
New member
Most university research is funded by govt. agencies. I'd estimate about 80-90%. But, the legs got kicked out from under basic research since about 2002. This means that more and more research is being done baasically for free by grad students who have to take TA appointments to fund themselves.
In terms of drug development, university research has been very useful in identifying biological targets for drugs, as well as providing insight on physiological and biochemical mechanisms of disease. University research has produced almost no "druggable" compounds on their own, however. If you are looking to universities to get into the drug discovery business, well let's just say you should exercise, eat your Wheaties, and hope for the best.
Also, academia is extraordinarily bureaucratic. Far more so than even the biggest of big pharma.
Also, university researchers must pay an "overhead." Basically they pay a huge chunk out of government grants and it goes right to the university, so they can spend it on brochures and caviar for the Regents. University research is unbelievably inefficient, and has a low return on the dollar, despite treating grad students like slaves.
Lots of companies are working towards this. It's just incredibly hard as all the good chemical scaffolds have been squandered. That's not primarily the fault of pharma; it's the prescribers and the patients that are mostly responsible.
Huge efforts are going into it, so much that some companies are skipping the traditional small molecule approaches, and are taking a small molecule/antibody hybrid approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-drug_conjugate
Climber
Well-known member
I've experienced it happening in the software industry numerous times, also in the biotech industry when I was in it.
The concept the true innovation is driven by greed is pretty much a farce, most of the real innovators created new stuff because that is what drove them personally. People driven by greed simply can't understand that and/or can't understand why somebody would create something simply because they got personal satisfaction from doing it.
Mike95060
Work In Progress
Coors, it's been quite a while since I was an undergrad washing dishes in a lab but, when I was there, the PI wrote grant proposals, and when the got a winner they had control of the funds, I thought. I don't remember hearing much about grant money being put into a general fund for the university. If that model has to change so be it. In my mind it is still more promising and a better system to guard public health than a private model. Private business has very little incentive to create drugs that treat and cure a non chronic problem like an infection. Private business, Like BayArean has stated, will get a better return for drugs that treat chronic problems.
Edit, I quickly scanned your link, I see it talking about anti cancer drugs. I'm specifically talking about antibiotics for resistant infections. Everything I have seen on that problem says private industry isn't working on it.
Edit, I quickly scanned your link, I see it talking about anti cancer drugs. I'm specifically talking about antibiotics for resistant infections. Everything I have seen on that problem says private industry isn't working on it.
Last edited:
CoorsLight
New member
The main problem with private research is the requirement for market size and/or market wealth. This idea that there is no incentive to make a cure should look no further than Harvoni and Solvaldi. There is no conspiracy to keep cures off the market. It's just that finding cures is a lot harder than most people seem to believe.
Public research would be great for stuff like antiparasitics and drugs for syndromes affecting only a few people.
Too bad university research is so:
1. dependent on granting agencies that are increasingly underfunded
2. hamstrung by the university system itself
3. riddled with scientific dishonesty, unreproducible studies, and generally shoddy work done by grad students who just want to get the hell out of there.
Public research would be great for stuff like antiparasitics and drugs for syndromes affecting only a few people.
Too bad university research is so:
1. dependent on granting agencies that are increasingly underfunded
2. hamstrung by the university system itself
3. riddled with scientific dishonesty, unreproducible studies, and generally shoddy work done by grad students who just want to get the hell out of there.
Mike95060
Work In Progress
Sound like we agree? In no way do I mean to come off as thinking cures are easy. I'm frustrated with where the resources are allocated and the apparent total disregard for public health by people in power. Government, business and maybe academia too? Anyhow, when I'm supreme leader I'll fix this shit.
Johndicezx9
Rolls with it...
Usually grant money is earmarked for a specific program with guidelines specified by the grant; usually salaries, materials, etc. The institution will take a certain percentage (7-10%) as it is the institution staff (not specifically paid by the grant) processing paychecks and purchase payments using those funds. Usually all on the up and up as grants are audited quite closely.