[OT] gov't sponsored drug development  
Author Message
Kent Paul Dolan





PostPosted: 2003-11-19 2:20:00 Top

java-programmer, [OT] gov't sponsored drug development "Peter Koehlmann" <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

>> Development of life-saving drugs would be sponsored by the government.
> What universe was it you said you live in?

Oh, probably the one where in the US at least, the National Institutes
of Health do exactly that, every business day.

Tim lives in one of the civilized countries where they have Public
Health for all, and of course there, the government is money ahead
if new drugs cut down the total balanced cost of treating the ill and
compensating for the other disbenefits to society that illness causes,
even at the tax base level, and if they had any brains would realize
that and fund research accordingly.

xanthian.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
Peter K鰄lmann





PostPosted: 2003-11-19 8:22:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Dr Chaos wrote:

< snip bullshit >

> All other nations of the world benefit from the drug development
> paid for pretty much exclusively by the U.S. consumer.
>
> The other countries do NOT support large scale drug development---in
> fact it is inhibited by pharmaceutical price controls.

Really?
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.

 
Dr Chaos





PostPosted: 2003-11-19 8:23:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Kent Paul Dolan <email***@***.com> wrote:
> "Peter Koehlmann" <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> Tim Tyler wrote:
>
>>> Development of life-saving drugs would be sponsored by the government.
>> What universe was it you said you live in?
>
> Oh, probably the one where in the US at least, the National Institutes
> of Health do exactly that, every business day.

The NIH sponsors basic research and initial stages of drug creation.
but not the long term expensive trials and manufacturing, i.e.
development.

There are not $500 million grants to develop a single drug all
the way through manufacturing and commercial sales.

> Tim lives in one of the civilized countries where they have Public
> Health for all, and of course there, the government is money ahead
> if new drugs cut down the total balanced cost of treating the ill and
> compensating for the other disbenefits to society that illness causes,
> even at the tax base level, and if they had any brains would realize
> that and fund research accordingly.

All other nations of the world benefit from the drug development
paid for pretty much exclusively by the U.S. consumer.

The other countries do NOT support large scale drug development---in
fact it is inhibited by pharmaceutical price controls.

 
 
Otis Bricker





PostPosted: 2003-11-19 9:24:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <email***@***.com> wrote in
news:bpedac$b0d$00$email***@***.com:

> Dr Chaos wrote:
>
>< snip bullshit >
>
>> All other nations of the world benefit from the drug development
>> paid for pretty much exclusively by the U.S. consumer.
>>
>> The other countries do NOT support large scale drug development---in
>> fact it is inhibited by pharmaceutical price controls.
>
> Really?

While not completely accurate, it is pretty close. They use the US market
to fund R&D. If it costs $800M on average to bring a new drug to market and
the government controlled health system will only pay a bit over the
marginal cost to produce, who is left to pay for the up-front costs and the
costs of failed drugs? Consumersw in those markets where there are no
government controls.

The US is the largest of these.

It is a complicated problem. Refuse to provide the drugs to other countries
at the low price they demand, and you risk them ignoring your patents.
Force the remaining free market to bear the cost alone, and you get
backlash for the obvious inequity of the situation.

But someone has to pay for the up-front and failure costs or no one will
bother coming up with new and better treatments.

Otis
 
 
Dr Chaos





PostPosted: 2003-11-19 14:27:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Peter K鰄lmann <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Dr Chaos wrote:
>
>< snip bullshit >
>
>> All other nations of the world benefit from the drug development
>> paid for pretty much exclusively by the U.S. consumer.
>>
>> The other countries do NOT support large scale drug development---in
>> fact it is inhibited by pharmaceutical price controls.
>
> Really?

Well, there is some significant basic research in European countries
and Japan but even the big European pharmaceutical companies make the
overwhelming bulk of their profit in the USA, and make their
calculations on whether to develop medications or not accordingly.


 
 
William Brogden





PostPosted: 2003-11-19 22:11:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development
"Otis Bricker" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <email***@***.com> wrote in
> news:bpedac$b0d$00$email***@***.com:
>
> > Dr Chaos wrote:
> >
> >< snip bullshit >
> >
> >> All other nations of the world benefit from the drug development
> >> paid for pretty much exclusively by the U.S. consumer.
> >>
> >> The other countries do NOT support large scale drug development---in
> >> fact it is inhibited by pharmaceutical price controls.
> >
> > Really?
>
> While not completely accurate, it is pretty close. They use the US market
> to fund R&D. If it costs $800M on average to bring a new drug to market
and
> the government controlled health system will only pay a bit over the
> marginal cost to produce, who is left to pay for the up-front costs and
the
> costs of failed drugs? Consumersw in those markets where there are no
> government controls.
>
> The US is the largest of these.
>
> It is a complicated problem. Refuse to provide the drugs to other
countries
> at the low price they demand, and you risk them ignoring your patents.
> Force the remaining free market to bear the cost alone, and you get
> backlash for the obvious inequity of the situation.
>
> But someone has to pay for the up-front and failure costs or no one will
> bother coming up with new and better treatments.

Just one tiny problem with this line of blither - the drug companies
spend more on advertising than they do on research.

My family monthly bill for essential medication is over $200 - if
we lived in Canada or Mexico, it would be half that. I imagine your
attitude toward drug company price gouging is directly related to
your medical needs.







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
 
Phillip Lord





PostPosted: 2003-11-19 22:17:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development >>>>> "Otis" == Otis Bricker <email***@***.com> writes:

Otis> While not completely accurate, it is pretty close. They use
Otis> the US market to fund R&D. If it costs $800M on average to
Otis> bring a new drug to market and the government controlled
Otis> health system will only pay a bit over the marginal cost to
Otis> produce, who is left to pay for the up-front costs and the
Otis> costs of failed drugs?

This statistic is thrown around a lot, and its based on an incorrect
premise. It may cost $800 million to bring a drug to market, but it
does not cost $800 million for all the drugs which fail. The costs
increase toward the end of the process, and most drugs fail well
before that.

You don't pay for clinical trials of a drug that kills mice for
instance. You don't pay for advertising for a drug that fails its
clinical trials.

Phil
 
 
Otis Bricker





PostPosted: 2003-11-19 23:55:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Phillip Lord <email***@***.com> wrote in
news:email***@***.com:

>>>>>> "Otis" == Otis Bricker <email***@***.com> writes:
>
> Otis> While not completely accurate, it is pretty close. They use
> Otis> the US market to fund R&D. If it costs $800M on average to
> Otis> bring a new drug to market and the government controlled
> Otis> health system will only pay a bit over the marginal cost to
> Otis> produce, who is left to pay for the up-front costs and the
> Otis> costs of failed drugs?
>
> This statistic is thrown around a lot, and its based on an incorrect
> premise. It may cost $800 million to bring a drug to market, but it
> does not cost $800 million for all the drugs which fail. The costs
> increase toward the end of the process, and most drugs fail well
> before that.
>
> You don't pay for clinical trials of a drug that kills mice for
> instance. You don't pay for advertising for a drug that fails its
> clinical trials.
>

I never claimed that $800M was spent on every drug. I am not sure how you
drew this from my statement but as you loint out, it is not true. But even
if you assume that the 99 out of 100 drugs that never make it to market
cost nothing(obviously absurd), that still leaves $800M coming from
somewhere. Assume even 1% the cost of a successful drug and you almost
double that number.

SO what was wrong with my statement?


 
 
Phillip Lord





PostPosted: 2003-11-20 0:20:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development >>>>> "Otis" == Otis Bricker <email***@***.com> writes:

Otis> Phillip Lord <email***@***.com> wrote in
Otis> news:email***@***.com:

>>>>>>> "Otis" == Otis Bricker <email***@***.com> writes:
>>
Otis> While not completely accurate, it is pretty close. They use
Otis> the US market to fund R&D. If it costs $800M on average to
Otis> bring a new drug to market and the government controlled
Otis> health system will only pay a bit over the marginal cost to
Otis> produce, who is left to pay for the up-front costs and the
Otis> costs of failed drugs?
>>
>> This statistic is thrown around a lot, and its based on an
>> incorrect premise. It may cost $800 million to bring a drug to
>> market, but it does not cost $800 million for all the drugs which
>> fail. The costs increase toward the end of the process, and most
>> drugs fail well before that.
>>
>> You don't pay for clinical trials of a drug that kills mice for
>> instance. You don't pay for advertising for a drug that fails its
>> clinical trials.
>>

Otis> I never claimed that $800M was spent on every drug. I am not
Otis> sure how you drew this from my statement but as you loint out,
Otis> it is not true. But even if you assume that the 99 out of 100
Otis> drugs that never make it to market cost nothing(obviously
Otis> absurd), that still leaves $800M coming from somewhere. Assume
Otis> even 1% the cost of a successful drug and you almost double
Otis> that number.

Otis> SO what was wrong with my statement?

It's the logic argument again. The way you have put your statements
suggests that the $800 million in some way relates to the cost of the
failed drugs, which it doesn't.

Say for instance, most drugs fail at the early stage, then for ever
800 million perhaps they spend only 80 million on drugs that never
come to market.

The drugs companies currently spend about 10% of their turnover on
research, and this includes the research spent on the successful
drugs. I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of that 10% is
spent on drugs that never come to market.

Now clearly for drugs companies to operate they need to get paid at
least at a rate which reflects the total cost of production. This
includes the research of successful, and failed, drugs. Currently,
however, their total monopoly position that they have through patent,
means that they can charge at the maximum rate the market can
bear.

The companies argue that they can not spent the sort of money that
they do if they do not have patent rights. In which case why do they
spent the amount they do advertising the various drugs and
preparations that they produce which are not covered by patent rights?


Phil
 
 
Otis Bricker





PostPosted: 2003-11-20 1:03:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development "William Brogden" <email***@***.com> wrote in
news:3fbb79e7$email***@***.com:

>
> "Otis Bricker" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>> Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <email***@***.com>
>> wrote in news:bpedac$b0d$00$email***@***.com:
>>
>> > Dr Chaos wrote:
>> >
>> >< snip bullshit >
>> >
>> >> All other nations of the world benefit from the drug development
>> >> paid for pretty much exclusively by the U.S. consumer.
>> >>
>> >> The other countries do NOT support large scale drug
>> >> development---in fact it is inhibited by pharmaceutical price
>> >> controls.
>> >
>> > Really?
>>
>> While not completely accurate, it is pretty close. They use the US
>> market to fund R&D. If it costs $800M on average to bring a new drug
>> to market
> and
>> the government controlled health system will only pay a bit over the
>> marginal cost to produce, who is left to pay for the up-front costs
>> and
> the
>> costs of failed drugs? Consumersw in those markets where there are no
>> government controls.
>>
>> The US is the largest of these.
>>
>> It is a complicated problem. Refuse to provide the drugs to other
> countries
>> at the low price they demand, and you risk them ignoring your
>> patents. Force the remaining free market to bear the cost alone, and
>> you get backlash for the obvious inequity of the situation.
>>
>> But someone has to pay for the up-front and failure costs or no one
>> will bother coming up with new and better treatments.
>
> Just one tiny problem with this line of blither - the drug companies
> spend more on advertising than they do on research.
>

Companies don't advertise if it doesn't increase profits. Or at least no
sane company does. How are doctors to know about new medicines unless the
companies tell them?

Doctors cannot read all of the many journals that publish these days. I
would be surprised if any one doctor kept up with more than a couple.
Marketing and advertising are the way drug companies get the knowledge
out to doctors.


I happened upon this in a recent Thomas Sowell article:

"For years, the Food & Drug Administration forbad aspirin producers from
advertising that their product could be used to prevent heart attacks.
The fact was not in doubt but aspirin had not gone through the years-long
and very costly process required for official FDA approval for that
particular use.

It has been estimated that tens of thousands of needless deaths occurred
before the FDA ban was lifted. Lives saved by advertising are just as
important as lives saved any other way. No medicine will help anyone
unless its uses are known."

One more item. Those advertising and marketing costs include the free
samples provided to doctors. These allowed my family to try out 3
different alergy medications for my daughter to see which she tolerated
best before buying any. Almost 3 months worth without having to pay.


> My family monthly bill for essential medication is over $200 - if
> we lived in Canada or Mexico, it would be half that. I imagine your
> attitude toward drug company price gouging is directly related to
> your medical needs.
>
>

That may be true. I am not in your position. Perhaps my attitude is more
affected by the desire to see the companies continue to have incentive to
develop new drugs so the medications I might need will be developed when
I need them. The way those your family needs have been.



 
 
James A. Robertson





PostPosted: 2003-11-20 1:08:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development see below

On 19 Nov 2003 14:17:25 +0000, Phillip Lord <email***@***.com>
wrote:

>>>>>> "Otis" == Otis Bricker <email***@***.com> writes:
>
> Otis> While not completely accurate, it is pretty close. They use
> Otis> the US market to fund R&D. If it costs $800M on average to
> Otis> bring a new drug to market and the government controlled
> Otis> health system will only pay a bit over the marginal cost to
> Otis> produce, who is left to pay for the up-front costs and the
> Otis> costs of failed drugs?
>
>This statistic is thrown around a lot, and its based on an incorrect
>premise. It may cost $800 million to bring a drug to market, but it
>does not cost $800 million for all the drugs which fail. The costs
>increase toward the end of the process, and most drugs fail well
>before that.
>
umm - msure you do. Those costs are amortized by the drugs that do
get to market - those cost more as a result. Who do you think pays
that?

>You don't pay for clinical trials of a drug that kills mice for
>instance. You don't pay for advertising for a drug that fails its
>clinical trials.
>
>Phil

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
 
 
Kent Paul Dolan





PostPosted: 2003-11-24 0:00:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development "William Brogden" <email***@***.com> wrote:

> I imagine your
> attitude toward drug company price gouging is directly related to
> your medical needs.

Well, no, due to being poorer than you can even imagine, I'm
exempt from Veteran's Administration hospital drug co-pays, yet
suck down their free-to-me prescription drugs by the fistfull
and I still think US drug prices are scandalously out of line.

One doesn't absolutely _have_ to be suffering from a tyranny to
recognize it for what it is, though I agree it sure helps.

xanthian.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
 
Kent Paul Dolan





PostPosted: 2003-11-24 0:14:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development "Dr Chaos" <email***@***.com> wrote:

> The NIH sponsors basic research and initial stages of drug
> creation. but not the long term expensive trials and
> manufacturing, i.e. development.

My, my, did we just redefine our terms to try to win an
argument without admitting an outright fable had been
highlighted?

> All other nations of the world benefit from the drug
> development paid for pretty much exclusively by the U.S.
> consumer.

> The other countries do NOT support large scale drug
> development---in fact it is inhibited by pharmaceutical
> price controls.

My have you got _that_ shoe on the wrong foot: as the
current imbroglio over Canadian-routed imports of the exact
same drugs from the exact same manufacturers but sold there
at half the US price because, not of price controls, but
because no one is stupid enough to pay that much, rather
clearly demonstrates, the pretty much sole cause of the US
drug price fiasco is a state sponsored monopoly enforced by
the US Food and Drug Administration, which will not relax
its death-grip on power long enough to admit that nationals
nor governments anywhere else are capable of competently
testing pharmaceutical efficacy and safety.

That is the exact and only basis on which they claim the
right to exclude Canadian import drugs provably by chain of
custody, not drug testing, to be identical to the same drug
sold in the US, an, I would hope, self-evident bogosity.

xanthian.

Do I believe I wrote English that hard to read? Yes, on long
familiarity with the perpetrator and his style.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
 
Kent Paul Dolan





PostPosted: 2003-11-24 0:28:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development "Dr Chaos" <email***@***.com> wrote:

> Well, there is some significant basic research in European countries
> and Japan but even the big European pharmaceutical companies make the
> overwhelming bulk of their profit in the USA, and make their
> calculations on whether to develop medications or not accordingly.

And US customers should continue under FDA prohibition of competition
unvetted by the FDA to pay the world's drug development costs, once
more, exactly why? Are our regulators so entirely competent, and
Britian's Spain's, France's et alia so utterly guaranteed to sell
their own nationals down the river of dangerous and useless drugs, in
comparision? From where does this arrogance find its defense? Why
does the same argument not apply, say, to US Federal meat inspectors
and our frequent scandalous mass deaths from contaminated meat?

xanthian, must I whisper "Thalidomide"?



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
 
Otis Bricker





PostPosted: 2003-11-24 7:17:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development "Kent Paul Dolan" <email***@***.com> wrote in
news:email***@***.com:

> "Dr Chaos" <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, there is some significant basic research in European countries
>> and Japan but even the big European pharmaceutical companies make the
>> overwhelming bulk of their profit in the USA, and make their
>> calculations on whether to develop medications or not accordingly.
>
> And US customers should continue under FDA prohibition of competition
> unvetted by the FDA to pay the world's drug development costs, once
> more, exactly why? Are our regulators so entirely competent, and
> Britian's Spain's, France's et alia so utterly guaranteed to sell
> their own nationals down the river of dangerous and useless drugs, in
> comparision? From where does this arrogance find its defense? Why
> does the same argument not apply, say, to US Federal meat inspectors
> and our frequent scandalous mass deaths from contaminated meat?
>
> xanthian, must I whisper "Thalidomide"?
>
>

Thalidomide? You mean the drug that the FDA did NOT approve for use in the
USA long ago, so that the this country did not suffer the same tragedy as
some others? You seem to have pick an example that supports your opposition
here.

Though the real reason the FDA hadn't OK'ed it probably had more to do with
foot dragging than skill.






 
 
Dr Chaos





PostPosted: 2003-11-25 4:57:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Kent Paul Dolan <email***@***.com> wrote:
> "Dr Chaos" <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>> The NIH sponsors basic research and initial stages of drug
>> creation. but not the long term expensive trials and
>> manufacturing, i.e. development.
>
> My, my, did we just redefine our terms to try to win an
> argument without admitting an outright fable had been
> highlighted?

No, not intentionally. What was the original context,
I've forgotten.

Large scale phase III and most of phase II testing (except possibly
orphan diseases) is done by private industry who do it on the hopes of
making money. That's where the big expenses are.

The U.S. market is overwhelmingly more profitable than any other
country, and is frequently substantially more profitable than the rest
of the world combined.

>> All other nations of the world benefit from the drug
>> development paid for pretty much exclusively by the U.S.
>> consumer.
>
>> The other countries do NOT support large scale drug
>> development---in fact it is inhibited by pharmaceutical
>> price controls.
>
> My have you got _that_ shoe on the wrong foot: as the
> current imbroglio over Canadian-routed imports of the exact
> same drugs from the exact same manufacturers but sold there
> at half the US price because, not of price controls,

of course it's price controls.

The Canadian authorities set the price they will pay to the
pharma companies.

> but
> because no one is stupid enough to pay that much,

if that's the case, then why does the price need to be restricted by
regulation of the Canadian authorities?

Why don't they have a (more) free market like in the USA?

Obviously because it _will_ cost more.

> rather
> clearly demonstrates, the pretty much sole cause of the US
> drug price fiasco is a state sponsored monopoly enforced by
> the US Food and Drug Administration, which will not relax
> its death-grip on power long enough to admit that nationals
> nor governments anywhere else are capable of competently
> testing pharmaceutical efficacy and safety.

there are plenty of problems with the FDA, but of course the FDA does
not actually test the drugs in house. they review data submitted by
the sponsors (drug companies), and the drug companies often use trials
principally run by academic medical centers.

The reimportation gets the FDA upset, but not because there is
any scientific issue.

> That is the exact and only basis on which they claim the
> right to exclude Canadian import drugs provably by chain of
> custody, not drug testing, to be identical to the same drug
> sold in the US, an, I would hope, self-evident bogosity.

obviously the official Canadian drugs are just as good (if they
haven't been counterfeited). The Canadians and Europeans
are benefitting by the R&D done thanks to US profitability.

The Canadian import thing is an economic issue entirely, of course.

The Canadians and Europeans use their monosopy purchasing power.

(I didn't misspell it: a monopoly is a unitary supplier,
a monosopy a unitary buyer)

The point is that Canadian and European level of pharmaceutical
pricing, if also applied in the USA, would not support the R&D
investments of the drug companies by a longshot. The much higher
level of profits enjoyed in the USA justify the quantity and
quality of commercial development which exists presently.

The pharma companies don't want to upset the system too much because
they do make some money in Canada and Europe as long as selling is
above their *marginal* distribution and production costs. The
path of least resistance is to go along with Europe and Canada
and squeeze the bejeezus out of the USA.

If there is reimportation though that completely blows the economic
model. It's just like DVD region coding, but imagine, contrary to
movie economics, that almost all movie profit were made in the USA. Like
movies the marginal distribution and production cost is almost nil,
and the capital investment is large. Unlike movies, people die
without it, and other countries regulate downward the price heavily.

Can the USA convince Canada and Europe to jack up their pharmaceutcial
prices and induce more taxation of their citizens in order to benefit
the USA consumer, in order to maintain the same global level of R&D
with a fairer balance of costs? There's no way in hell.
There's a huge economic free rider problem.

Besides that there is the threat of compulsory licensing. Even if the
drug companies went on a boycott and refused to sell their drug at a
low price to socialized North Elbonia, the country will then force
licensing of the drug patent and the locality will have a generic
manufacturer make the drug anyway.

as you may have guessed I'm not defending this as some sort of
global optimum, but just the clusterfcuk that exists now.

The reality is that pharamaceutical fairness, e.g. "no drug region
codes" would inevitably result in far lower actual medical progress.
Already there are zillions of good biological and medical ideas which
don't get picked up and developed because they aren't economically
viable.

> xanthian.

what's the best alternative? I dunno, but how about this:

large scale socialized funding shared by USA, Europe and Japan of
actual full scale drug development followed by generic manufacturing
licensing of the public, no royalty patent, with human testing done at
much lower costs in third world countries. (By the way, Cuba
just made a new vaccine for the 3rd world)

from a purely utilitarian point of view it is optimal; rich countries
put in their knowledge and money, poor countries risk their ample
supplies of flesh, and the world benefits with new therapies for all.

politically, it is totally impossible, opposed by absolutely everybody
with any potent issue

1) pharmaceutical companies
2) taxpayers
3) people in poor countries who are sick of being taken advantage of
by the colonialists
 
 
Dr Chaos





PostPosted: 2003-11-25 5:07:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Kent Paul Dolan <email***@***.com> wrote:
> "Dr Chaos" <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, there is some significant basic research in European countries
>> and Japan but even the big European pharmaceutical companies make the
>> overwhelming bulk of their profit in the USA, and make their
>> calculations on whether to develop medications or not accordingly.
>
> And US customers should continue under FDA prohibition of competition
> unvetted by the FDA to pay the world's drug development costs, once
> more, exactly why? Are our regulators so entirely competent, and
> Britian's Spain's, France's et alia so utterly guaranteed to sell
> their own nationals down the river of dangerous and useless drugs, in
> comparision? From where does this arrogance find its defense?

No, that has nothing to do with it. The EMEA and Canadian authorities
are these days as good scientifically; the FDA is somewhat more strict
on some kinds of regulation, it is empirically harder overall to get a
drug through the FDA than the EMEA.

Importation is 100% economic and bureaucratic turf protecting, not
safety or scientific.

> Why
> does the same argument not apply, say, to US Federal meat inspectors
> and our frequent scandalous mass deaths from contaminated meat?
>
> xanthian, must I whisper "Thalidomide"?

well, that's what the FDA says when they want to act self righteous.
(the FDA refused to allow thalidomide, though it was sold in Europe).

By the way, thalidomide is, today, a legally sold drug in the USA,
and not in Europe. (it soon will be)

Oddly enough it is sold in the USA 'officially' only for
leprosy complications which is obviously stupendously rare.

In reality is it used 'off-label' mostly for cancer, particularly
hematological malignancies.

They make 75 year old men in excruciating pain with bone cancer swear
that they will not get pregnant and will use two forms of birth
control.

Obviously there are now many medical studies showing positive
results with thalidomide in cancer but the FDA still rejected
what to clinicians was fairly convincing evidence.

The company is trying to make thalidomide obsolete by developing
non-mutagenic and more medically effective derivatives.


> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 
 
Kent Paul Dolan





PostPosted: 2003-11-25 21:45:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Exactly, so if you remove the FDA prohibition of import of identical
drugs at lower prices, suddenly the US consumer subsidy of drug
development for everyone stops working, the house of cards collapses,
and, if you want to keep drug development going at least, you force
those paying artificially low prices to pick up part of the tab.

Thus it is _exactly_ the FDA-enforced monopolistic US-sources-only
supply chain that keeps the US subsidizing everyone else; simply let
consumers do what consumers do, factor in risk of bogus drugs versus
risk of dying from paying US prices, and the system _must_ rationalize
itself.

That's why I cannot understand the US being the country trying to stop
this trade, if you think it through, it should be _Canada_!!!

xanthian, not seriously expecting rational behavior of governments in my
lifetime, the bribe money is too popular.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
 
William Brogden





PostPosted: 2003-11-26 0:04:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development
"Kent Paul Dolan" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> Exactly, so if you remove the FDA prohibition of import of identical
> drugs at lower prices, suddenly the US consumer subsidy of drug
> development for everyone stops working, the house of cards collapses,
> and, if you want to keep drug development going at least, you force
> those paying artificially low prices to pick up part of the tab.

Or - the drug companies could cut their ad budgets in half and use that
money instead.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
 
Dr Chaos





PostPosted: 2003-11-26 5:29:00 Top

java-programmer >> [OT] gov't sponsored drug development Kent Paul Dolan <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Exactly, so if you remove the FDA prohibition of import of identical
> drugs at lower prices, suddenly the US consumer subsidy of drug
> development for everyone stops working, the house of cards collapses,
> and, if you want to keep drug development going at least, you force
> those paying artificially low prices to pick up part of the tab.

Explain exactly how that "force" will work.

For example: Bush goes over to Europe and says, pay to send some your
own blasted troops to get blown up in Iraq, and by the way, double
your drug prices and raise taxes so I can get cheaper drugs for
my c-c-c-onstitu....contiusti....voters.

what comes next?

> Thus it is _exactly_ the FDA-enforced monopolistic US-sources-only
> supply chain that keeps the US subsidizing everyone else; simply let
> consumers do what consumers do, factor in risk of bogus drugs versus
> risk of dying from paying US prices, and the system _must_ rationalize
> itself.

for optimum human health? I doubt it.

> That's why I cannot understand the US being the country trying to stop
> this trade, if you think it through, it should be _Canada_!!!

Canada does try to stop it when supplies of drugs purchased for
their own citizens get re-sold to the USA.

> xanthian, not seriously expecting rational behavior of governments in my