Pharmaceutical company buys drug used to treat life-threatening infections; raises price from $13.50 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48736958]They are also not marketed as cures. The supplement industry is more of a free market than the drug industry because the FDA does not regulate supplements for efficacy, only for safety.[/QUOTE] And in regards to later, they tend to do a poor job, since the choice of consumption is entirely relegated to the user, in the same way that a person who has peanut allergy can legally eat peanut butter.

[QUOTE=gufu;48736934]While I do thank you for the listing of the entire process (no, really, I do), the point that the first step is not done by the companies, still holds true. It only makes sense for the companies to begin development when they actually know their market, hence they start at step 2. I still don't see you showing how I am wrong about the regulations.[/QUOTE] I was trying to correct your views on the drug development process, I didn't say anything about the regulations.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48736983]I was trying to correct your views on the drug development process, I didn't say anything about the regulations.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you quoted the wrong part of my post, then.

[QUOTE=gufu;48736934]Since I cannot claim any positive improvement due to deregulations of a market within my memory, may I request that you give me an example?[/QUOTE] Off the top of my head: the trucking industry. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 massively deregulated the US trucking industry. It led to lower costs, more competition, better coverage, etc. ([url]https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-and-other-international-competition-fora/ibero-trucking.pdf[/url]) [QUOTE]There is a possibility that an equal or greater amount of people could die due to lack of restrictions. Other industries suffer from things like pollution as long as they can run around the issue and hide it. Such actions in medicinal industry could be disastrous and is not worth the risk.[/QUOTE] It's a tough one. I'm trying, and failing, to find any stats from before the fda regulation. [QUOTE]None of those are considered medicine and are therefore not regulated by FDA. The acquisition of those by consumer is simply due to consumer's ignorance to the lack of the benefits and possible dangers. FDA stops snake oil salesmen from actually legally stating that their product is medicine.[/QUOTE] Sure, it's not technically called medicine, but that doesn't stop people from selling it as beneficial. My point is just that the fda hasn't stopped this kind of thing. It's just changed form.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48736985]Sure, it's not technically called medicine, but that doesn't stop people from selling it as beneficial. My point is just that the fda hasn't stopped this kind of thing. It's just changed form.[/QUOTE] It stopped them from claiming that it's an actual medicine. That's a sufficient enough effect to stop Mentos producers for a wild example, from telling you that consumption of their product will improve your blood pressure.

[QUOTE=gufu;48736994]It stopped them from claiming that it's an actual medicine. That's a sufficient enough effect to stop Mentos producers for a wild example, from telling you that consumption of their product will improve your blood pressure.[/QUOTE] Yet we have people like Dr. Oz telling millions of middle aged women that all they have to do to lose weight is eat things like raspberry ketones.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48736985]Off the top of my head: the trucking industry. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 massively deregulated the US trucking industry. It led to lower costs, more competition, better coverage, etc. ([url]https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-and-other-international-competition-fora/ibero-trucking.pdf[/url])[/QUOTE] My biggest problem with this, is that trucking industry is by default, has a lesser overhead than medical industry, to the point where they cannot be truly compared in equal light. Most importantly, however, is the subject of which specific regulations of Pharmoceutical company could be considered unneeded to the continuing safety of the consumers? [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48737010]Yet we have people like Dr. Oz telling millions of middle aged women that all they have to do to lose weight is eat things like raspberry ketones.[/QUOTE] Just like Fox News can claim to provide news without being an actual news channel. It's based on specific wording as well as the fact that their roles are not of a medical specialists, but of a television personae.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48737010]Yet we have people like Dr. Oz telling millions of middle aged women that all they have to do to lose weight is eat things like raspberry ketones.[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure where you stand on this. Do you think that regulation should be extended to cover things like this, or do you think that regulation should be lifted from the drug industry?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48737043]I'm not quite sure where you stand on this. Do you think that regulation should be extended to cover things like this, or do you think that regulation should be lifted from the drug industry?[/QUOTE] Personally, I think that people should be responsible for their own health. I don't think that the wilful ignorance of one group of people justifies taking choice away from everyone else. Ideally, I would want the FDA to be an agent of information, and nothing more. They should give the consumer relevant info such as who made the product, what the product claims to do, the mode of action, what kind of testing has been done on the product, etc. That way consumers can decide what level of risk they are willing to take instead of having that decision be made for them by the FDA.

So, where is 4chan on this?

[QUOTE=sgman91;48737071]Personally, I think that people should be responsible for their own health.[/QUOTE] Medicine is an incredibly complicated field, and is also very specialized. Even assuming that anyone is capable of being able to know the entirety of the field, much less being able to apply it to everyone entirely, is foolish. Health as a service implies an individual's access to it is based on their wealth, despite the fact that loss of health is (usually) based upon a situation outside of individual's control. In addition, an obviously harmful product could be released do public, and it would be possible to escape any sort of responsibility through a proper proxy system.

[QUOTE=gufu;48737116]Medicine is an incredibly complicated field, and is also very specialized. Even assuming that anyone is capable of being able to know the entirety of the field, much less being able to apply it to everyone entirely, is foolish. Health as a service implies an individual's access to it is based on their wealth, despite the fact that loss of health is (usually) based upon a situation outside of individual's control.[/QUOTE] Obviously a single person wouldn't need to know the entirety of the medical field. Like literally every other market, you have reviews, you have specialists, etc. I don't need to know anything about how a car works to figure out what cars are good and what are cars are bad. Even if we're going with the idea that all healthcare is a right, then have the government give a stipend, but let people pick their treatment. [QUOTE]In addition, an obviously harmful product could be released do public, and it would be possible to escape any sort of responsibility through a proper proxy system.[/QUOTE] This already happens. A new study just came out that found a very popular antidepressant (Paxil) is unsafe for teens. ([URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/health/antidepressant-paxil-is-unsafe-for-teenagers-new-analysis-says.html[/URL])

[QUOTE=gufu;48737116]Medicine is an incredibly complicated field, and is also very specialized. Even assuming that anyone is capable of being able to know the entirety of the field, much less being able to apply it to everyone entirely, is foolish. Health as a service implies an individual's access to it is based on their wealth, despite the fact that loss of health is (usually) based upon a situation outside of individual's control. In addition, an obviously harmful product could be released do public, and it would be possible to escape any sort of responsibility through a proper proxy system.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to know every aspect of a single specialization back to front either, that's how enormous the body of medical knowledge is at press time. Any physician with even a little self respect will admit this to you.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48737071]Personally, I think that people should be responsible for their own health. I don't think that the wilful ignorance of one group of people justifies taking choice away from everyone else. Ideally, I would want the FDA to be an agent of information, and nothing more. They should give the consumer relevant info such as who made the product, what the product claims to do, the mode of action, what kind of testing has been done on the product, etc. That way consumers can decide what level of risk they are willing to take instead of having that decision be made for them by the FDA.[/QUOTE] I just don't see such a system producing safe and effective cures at all (ignoring the fact that it will most certainly produce unsafe and ineffective cures). I presume that you think the incentive for drug companies to get their drugs evaluated for safety or efficacy is the profit motive, because customers will prefer those drugs that have been evaluated over those that haven't. Unfortunately I can't see this happening, because in the supplement industry, which is less regulated than the drug industry, companies peddle quack cures all the time and are allowed to get away with it because they don't claim that it is a drug. They have no incentive to carry out the necessary studies to prove the efficacy of their product, because customers buy it anyway. With full deregulation, they will have no incentive to prove the safety either. If the drug industry was to go down the same route, I don't see any company being willing to carry out the necessary studies, because these studies are expensive and have no guarantee of success. "But the first company to actually carry out those studies to prove that their drug is safe and effective will get all the profit!" I doubt it. The biggest hole in this system is that consumers are stupid and buy into crap marketing. Most are ill-equipped to evaluate the safety and efficacy information themselves. I'd wager that 99% of patients will not be able to understand the mechanism of action of a drug, nor will they be able to understand the data regarding bioavailability, pharmacokinetics, metabolism and toxicity. Efficacy data is equally arcane. Even in the presence of such data, I doubt many will be swayed over to the more expensive drug that has been proven safe and effective, over the cheaper drug that hasn't been proven. Your system might work with one slight modification. Instead of an agent of information, the FDA could act as a rubber-stamping agency, certifying that certain drugs have passed their standards of safety and efficacy. Under this system, anything is allowed to be sold as a drug, but only those that have passed through the studies can be certified by the FDA. However, even under such a system, bad drugs will still be created and marketed. I would argue that there is a public good to be had in preventing unsafe and ineffective cures from being sold. Yes, people may be stupid for buying into quack cures and dangerous drugs, but I don't think they should have to die for it, nor should they be swindled out of their money. Brought to an extreme, such a system will lead to many more incidents such as the one that prompted the introduction of the FFDCA in the first place: over a hundred people died taking an antibiotic preparation that used diethylene glycol as a solvent for sulfanilamide; it had not been tested for safety (even in animals) prior to being brought to market. This isn't even touching the problem of how drug patents would be managed under such a system, or if they will even exist. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48737122]Obviously a single person wouldn't need to know the entirety of the medical field. Like literally every other market, you have reviews, you have specialists, etc. I don't need to know anything about how a car works to figure out what cars are good and what are cars are bad.[/QUOTE] The difference is that driving a bad car won't kill you. Those that are bad enough to kill you don't even reach the market because of (surprise!) regulations.

Welp. I lived long enough. GG WORLD

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48737166] The difference is that driving a bad car won't kill you. Those that are bad enough to kill you don't even reach the market because of (surprise!) regulations.[/QUOTE] I'll take used cars sale for 500, sir. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] In my opinion, one of the better ways to encourage competition, would be to enforce the publication of the methods of production, instructions, and information of the medical product. Not only this removes the requirement of R&D from the development of the same product, but places emphasis on R&D for the development of new medical product, to reach the product that is not yet claimed. This also has a benefit of making oligopolies more difficult to implement, since numerous small companies are able to produce multiple products at production-covering costs at such number, that big pharmaceutical companies would not be able to outlast them by simply lowering the price below for a period of time. In that way, everyone wins.

[QUOTE=gufu;48737242]I'll take used cars sale for 500, sir. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] In my opinion, one of the better ways to encourage competition, would be to enforce the publication of the methods of production, instructions, and information of the medical product. Not only this removes the requirement of R&D from the development of the same product, but places emphasis on R&D for the development of new medical product, to reach the product that is not yet claimed. This also has a benefit of making oligopolies more difficult to implement, since numerous small companies are able to produce multiple products at production-covering costs at such number, that big pharmaceutical companies would not be able to outlast them by simply lowering the price below for a period of time. In that way, everyone wins.[/QUOTE] Again, you're not quite understanding how drug development works. Drug development costs money, and companies need to have a guarantee that they can recoup this money when they do eventually come up with a drug that works. The patent system does this by granting market exclusivity to the company that creates a new drug. Production and distribution costs are minimal compared to R&D costs.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48737340]Again, you're not quite understanding how drug development works. Drug development costs money, and companies need to have a guarantee that they can recoup this money when they do eventually come up with a drug that works. The patent system does this by granting market exclusivity to the company that creates a new drug. Production and distribution costs are minimal compared to R&D costs.[/QUOTE] Exactly. You have a much lower overhead for the new companies to enter the fray. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] In the specific case, the companies have more reason to produce more product, due to a period of time they have to claim higher pay offs for it, while no one is around to provide a cheaper alternative. Above all, it benefits the consumer. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] Technically, it is the way the current system needs to work, but the fact that the generics need to be developed separately due to copyright, makes this problematic.

Also as far as patents go, if they patented just this specific drug I imagine it wouldnt be too hard to make an insignificant chemical change to it and then patent it as a different drug, but one that does the same job. Generally there are several known analogs for any given drug, and unless this patent covers all of them then a company can just manufacture another analog. Though I guess if they need to certify the drug seperately even though its chemically very similar then that sort of blows it out of the water.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48737373] Though I guess if they need to certify the drug seperately even though its chemically very similar then that sort of blows it out of the water.[/QUOTE] That not only requires a great deal of research, but even minor alteration of a chemical may bring up unexpected side effects.

[QUOTE=gufu;48737357]Exactly. You have a much lower overhead for the new companies to enter the fray. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] In the specific case, the companies have more reason to produce more product, due to a period of time they have to claim higher pay offs for it, while no one is around to provide a cheaper alternative. Above all, it benefits the consumer. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] Technically, it is the way the current system needs to work, but the fact that the generics need to be developed separately due to copyright, makes this problematic.[/QUOTE] How will there be lower barriers to entry? I don't quite understand.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48737379]How will there be lower barriers to entry? I don't quite understand.[/QUOTE] The entering companies do not have to go through the entire R&D part of the equation, thus lowering the barrier of entry. They enter direct competition with the current producer, since they are allowed to create the same product at the price that they desire, after initial capital in the form of production equipment.

[QUOTE=gufu;48737391]The entering companies do not have to go through the entire R&D part of the equation, thus lowering the barrier of entry. They enter direct competition with the current producer, since [b]they are allowed to create the same product at the price that they desire[/b], after initial capital in the form of production equipment.[/QUOTE] But they're not, because of patents.

Is there anything that would stop other companies from producing the same drug at an undercut price? Fuck, I really hope this guy is targeted by victims (directly or through family/friends) unable to afford the drug/in incredulous amounts of debt due to this shit. I really fucking do. I want him to suffer an agonising fate for his greed.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48737396]But they're not, because of patents.[/QUOTE] Congratulations, you have entirely have missed the fact that my point is based around the fact that the system can be improved by reworking the way patents apply to the system.

[QUOTE=gufu;48737406]Congratulations, you have entirely have missed the fact that my point is based around the fact that the system can be improved by reworking the way patents apply to the system.[/QUOTE] Okay, and you've missed my point on how patents, as they stand, are necessary because drug development would otherwise not occur at all. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=GordonZombie;48737403]Is there anything that would stop other companies from producing the same drug at an undercut price? Fuck, I really hope this guy is targeted by victims (directly or through family/friends) unable to afford the drug/in incredulous amounts of debt due to this shit. I really fucking do. I want him to suffer an agonising fate for his greed.[/QUOTE] He has stated that his company will provide the drug for low/no cost to needy patients. Those who have insurance or can otherwise afford it will pay the full cost. It doesn't make it any better, though, because that merely increases costs for insurance companies, who will have to pass on the costs to the rest of their customers.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48737415]Okay, and you've missed my point on how patents, as they stand, are necessary because drug development would otherwise not occur at all.[/quote] You are implying that R&D would not happen simply because the profits cannot be assured to be astronomic? While logical, the R&D would still happen since the untapped markets could still be exploited, like the current market currently is. Either way, it is still an unethical approach.

[QUOTE=gufu;48737430]You are implying that R&D would not happen simply because the profits cannot be assured to be astronomic? While logical, the R&D would still happen since the untapped markets could still be exploited, like the current market currently is. Either way, it is still an unethical approach.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's what I'm implying. Revenue has to be astronomic because costs are astronomic.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48737436]Yes, that's what I'm implying. Revenue has to be astronomic because costs are astronomic.[/QUOTE] Just so, can we back this up with statistics?

[QUOTE=Soleeedus;48736123]if Turing sold Daraprim at the previous price, it would only have a revenue of $5mil. which isn't realistic for a modern pharmaceutical corporation that is attempting to branch out in other respects also keep in mind that Turing will provide Daraprim for free to those without insurance and the poor[/QUOTE] Even if selling 750$ Daraprim is his only way to make big revenue that doesn't make it right. It's not like making his company grow is some sort of necessity.