Drug firms 'block' cheap medicine

[Fop 1]

So the problem is income inequality then. Well done on getting there

Still trying your best to ignore the 1300 patents issue I see.

 

 

Out if interest how does:

 

Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?'

"Sometimes we see that Big Pharma tries to extend their own patent lifetimes with patents that are not novel," Mr Wessman told the BBC.

 

"We just sue them to get the patents invalidated when the patents are only there to delay us getting to market. And those court cases are running all over the world."

The big pharmaceutical companies deny just tweaking drugs to get new patents - and thus, new patent protection.

 

GlaxoSmithKline told the BBC that "product line extensions" were for the benefit of patients.

 

The company continually reviewed its products to improve them and the successor took time to be developed.

 

It has a string of drugs that are successors to products that had just gone out of patent protection:

 

* Anti-depression drug Paxil CR was launched in the US in 2002 (Paxil went generic in 2003)

* Anti-depression drug Wellbutrin XL was launched in 2003 (Wellbutrin went generic in 2004)

* Heart drug Coreg CR was launched in the US in 2007, the same year that Coreg went generic.

 

 

fit in with your new (flannel for that post anyway) socialist agenda?

 

Surely you support full public research and the banning of all private research then?

[manc-mag 1]

Welcome to Fop's pick 'n mix tbh.

[Fop 1]

Welcome to Fop's pick 'n mix tbh.

With added pathos?

[Renton 17795]

Fop, are you feeling OK mate?

[manc-mag 1]

Welcome to Fop's pick 'n mix tbh.

With added pathos?

 

If you like, aye.

[ChezGiven 0]

I dealt with it in the post where i called you stupid for thinking we make money by making people sicker.

 

The patent delaying tactics are a bit spurious but without the initial patent, there is no initial drug so the world is worse off without the product in the first place if you dont have a patent.

 

Whether you delay price cuts by 6 months or not doesnt address how you get the products in the first place, which was dealt with by Renton when he asked which government is going to take the risk with 500m investment on something that has a high chance fo failing.

 

I wouldnt disagree that delaying the patent may seem cynical but that ignores these points and the bigger picture.

[Meenzer 14055]

Fop, are you feeling OK mate?

I'd invest in a cure for whatever it is he's got.

[Fop 1]

Fop, are you feeling OK mate?

 

Welcome to Fop's pick 'n mix tbh.

With added pathos?

If you like, aye.

Really?

 

 

I dealt with it in the post where i called you stupid for thinking we make money by making people sicker.

 

Ah yes, a fine riposte.

 

The patent delaying tactics are a bit spurious but without the initial patent, there is no initial drug so the world is worse off without the product in the first place if you dont have a patent.

 

Whether you delay price cuts by 6 months or not doesnt address how you get the products in the first place, which was dealt with by Renton when he asked which government is going to take the risk with 500m investment on something that has a high chance fo failing.

 

I wouldnt disagree that delaying the patent may seem cynical but that ignores these points and the bigger picture.

 

I must admit you've got good flannel, you're admitting I'm correct, without seeming to do so.

[Fop 1]

Fop, are you feeling OK mate?

I'd invest in a cure for whatever it is he's got.

No profit in it.

[Happy Face 29]

HF your HIV vaccine isnt example of public funded research leading to private profits as........ wait for it........ there is no HIV vaccine. Hence nothing is being sold.

 

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960

 

That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

 

Also, NICE has limited the use of drugs that are more than 30k per QALY, which limits the price. HAS in France sets the price of the drug, Germans reference price and then the rest of the EU region follows suit.

 

Anyway, i'm with Renton, its pragmatism, not idealism thats required.

 

Here's a view on something which might give you food for thought. Us, Roche, Novartis and GSK spend so much on cancer research now, we keep coming up with thse new products which add months to the end of life for cancer patients. The pipelines are even more promising. If the rate at which we are gaining increments in survival through the development of new products (and it is vital that these are paid for to help drive the investments) continues at the current pace, then i will say this here and now, we are around 12 years away from what is effectively a cure for cancer as it will become a chronic condition like HIV.

 

Now, thats a prediction.

 

 

What an age we live in. It's brilliant.

 

Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

The patent delaying tactics are a bit spurious but without the initial patent, there is no initial drug so the world is worse off without the product in the first place if you dont have a patent.

 

Whether you delay price cuts by 6 months or not doesnt address how you get the products in the first place, which was dealt with by Renton when he asked which government is going to take the risk with 500m investment on something that has a high chance fo failing.

 

I wouldnt disagree that delaying the patent may seem cynical but that ignores these points and the bigger picture.

 

I must admit you've got good flannel, you're admitting I'm correct, without seeming to do so.

 

I'll agree with the small and not so important point that companies employ some cynical tricks to keep exclusivity to what is theirs from rabid profiteering lawyers who never invest in healthcare.

 

That ignores the bigger picture though and concedes nothing on what i've said on this.

[Park Life 70]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

 

The numbers coming out of America are mind boggling btw.

[Park Life 70]

The patent delaying tactics are a bit spurious but without the initial patent, there is no initial drug so the world is worse off without the product in the first place if you dont have a patent.

 

Whether you delay price cuts by 6 months or not doesnt address how you get the products in the first place, which was dealt with by Renton when he asked which government is going to take the risk with 500m investment on something that has a high chance fo failing.

 

I wouldnt disagree that delaying the patent may seem cynical but that ignores these points and the bigger picture.

 

I must admit you've got good flannel, you're admitting I'm correct, without seeming to do so.

 

I'll agree with the small and not so important point that companies employ some cynical tricks to keep exclusivity to what is theirs from rabid profiteering lawyers who never invest in healthcare.

 

That ignores the bigger picture though and concedes nothing on what i've said on this.

 

 

Tbf though once the drugs become generics they are much cheaper are they not?

[ChezGiven 0]

HF your HIV vaccine isnt example of public funded research leading to private profits as........ wait for it........ there is no HIV vaccine. Hence nothing is being sold.

 

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960

 

That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

 

Also, NICE has limited the use of drugs that are more than 30k per QALY, which limits the price. HAS in France sets the price of the drug, Germans reference price and then the rest of the EU region follows suit.

 

Anyway, i'm with Renton, its pragmatism, not idealism thats required.

 

Here's a view on something which might give you food for thought. Us, Roche, Novartis and GSK spend so much on cancer research now, we keep coming up with thse new products which add months to the end of life for cancer patients. The pipelines are even more promising. If the rate at which we are gaining increments in survival through the development of new products (and it is vital that these are paid for to help drive the investments) continues at the current pace, then i will say this here and now, we are around 12 years away from what is effectively a cure for cancer as it will become a chronic condition like HIV.

 

Now, thats a prediction.

 

 

What an age we live in. It's brilliant.

 

Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria.

 

On your first point, agreed in principle, i'm just saying it hasnt happened yet and therefore i'm still looking for those 3 drugs that i asked fop to name. Feel free to have a go too.

 

On your second point, are you advocating free gin'n'tonics for the 3rd world? How very colonial of you.

[Fop 1]

I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

It's largely the case, often the ground work (which is often unsexy and unpatentable, but vital) is done with public money and the results lead to private pushes and profit (and no private company wants to do the ground work as their competitors can gain from it). Although like I said the black hole this is ends up as results a negative feedback into public research.

 

The political will to change this is almost never there, because of the potential £££'s being wafted around.

[ChezGiven 0]

The patent delaying tactics are a bit spurious but without the initial patent, there is no initial drug so the world is worse off without the product in the first place if you dont have a patent.

 

Whether you delay price cuts by 6 months or not doesnt address how you get the products in the first place, which was dealt with by Renton when he asked which government is going to take the risk with 500m investment on something that has a high chance fo failing.

 

I wouldnt disagree that delaying the patent may seem cynical but that ignores these points and the bigger picture.

 

I must admit you've got good flannel, you're admitting I'm correct, without seeming to do so.

 

I'll agree with the small and not so important point that companies employ some cynical tricks to keep exclusivity to what is theirs from rabid profiteering lawyers who never invest in healthcare.

 

That ignores the bigger picture though and concedes nothing on what i've said on this.

 

Tbf though once the drugs become generics they are much cheaper are they not?

 

Obviously.

[Renton 17795]

HF your HIV vaccine isnt example of public funded research leading to private profits as........ wait for it........ there is no HIV vaccine. Hence nothing is being sold.

 

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960

 

That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

 

Also, NICE has limited the use of drugs that are more than 30k per QALY, which limits the price. HAS in France sets the price of the drug, Germans reference price and then the rest of the EU region follows suit.

 

Anyway, i'm with Renton, its pragmatism, not idealism thats required.

 

Here's a view on something which might give you food for thought. Us, Roche, Novartis and GSK spend so much on cancer research now, we keep coming up with thse new products which add months to the end of life for cancer patients. The pipelines are even more promising. If the rate at which we are gaining increments in survival through the development of new products (and it is vital that these are paid for to help drive the investments) continues at the current pace, then i will say this here and now, we are around 12 years away from what is effectively a cure for cancer as it will become a chronic condition like HIV.

 

Now, thats a prediction.

 

 

What an age we live in. It's brilliant.

 

Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria.

 

Quinine is not very effective against malaria nowadays HF, I wouldn't recommend it. But you're right, there's little investment in antimalarial drugs because the people who need them are poor, that's the hard truth of the matter. But what're you going to do about it? We live in a shitty world.

[ChezGiven 0]

I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

It's largely the case, often the ground work (which is often unsexy and unpatentable, but vital) is done with public money and the results lead to private pushes and profit (and no private company wants to do the ground work as their competitors can gain from it). Although like I said the black hole this is ends up as results a negative feedback into public research.

 

The political will to change this is almost never there, because of the potential £££'s being wafted around.

 

Name 3.

[Park Life 70]

The patent delaying tactics are a bit spurious but without the initial patent, there is no initial drug so the world is worse off without the product in the first place if you dont have a patent.

 

Whether you delay price cuts by 6 months or not doesnt address how you get the products in the first place, which was dealt with by Renton when he asked which government is going to take the risk with 500m investment on something that has a high chance fo failing.

 

I wouldnt disagree that delaying the patent may seem cynical but that ignores these points and the bigger picture.

 

I must admit you've got good flannel, you're admitting I'm correct, without seeming to do so.

 

I'll agree with the small and not so important point that companies employ some cynical tricks to keep exclusivity to what is theirs from rabid profiteering lawyers who never invest in healthcare.

 

That ignores the bigger picture though and concedes nothing on what i've said on this.

 

Tbf though once the drugs become generics they are much cheaper are they not?

 

Obviously.

 

[Thread closed/]

[Fop 1]

The patent delaying tactics are a bit spurious but without the initial patent, there is no initial drug so the world is worse off without the product in the first place if you dont have a patent.

 

Whether you delay price cuts by 6 months or not doesnt address how you get the products in the first place, which was dealt with by Renton when he asked which government is going to take the risk with 500m investment on something that has a high chance fo failing.

 

I wouldnt disagree that delaying the patent may seem cynical but that ignores these points and the bigger picture.

 

I must admit you've got good flannel, you're admitting I'm correct, without seeming to do so.

 

I'll agree with the small and not so important point that companies employ some cynical tricks to keep exclusivity to what is theirs from rabid profiteering lawyers who never invest in healthcare.

 

That ignores the bigger picture though and concedes nothing on what i've said on this.

 

 

Tbf though once the drugs become generics they are much cheaper are they not?

 

Not for the companies in question.

[Meenzer 14055]

Fop, are you feeling OK mate?

I'd invest in a cure for whatever it is he's got.

No profit in it.

Si si.

[Happy Face 29]

HF your HIV vaccine isnt example of public funded research leading to private profits as........ wait for it........ there is no HIV vaccine. Hence nothing is being sold.

 

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960

 

That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

 

Also, NICE has limited the use of drugs that are more than 30k per QALY, which limits the price. HAS in France sets the price of the drug, Germans reference price and then the rest of the EU region follows suit.

 

Anyway, i'm with Renton, its pragmatism, not idealism thats required.

 

Here's a view on something which might give you food for thought. Us, Roche, Novartis and GSK spend so much on cancer research now, we keep coming up with thse new products which add months to the end of life for cancer patients. The pipelines are even more promising. If the rate at which we are gaining increments in survival through the development of new products (and it is vital that these are paid for to help drive the investments) continues at the current pace, then i will say this here and now, we are around 12 years away from what is effectively a cure for cancer as it will become a chronic condition like HIV.

 

Now, thats a prediction.

 

 

What an age we live in. It's brilliant.

 

Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria.

 

On your first point, agreed in principle, i'm just saying it hasnt happened yet and therefore i'm still looking for those 3 drugs that i asked fop to name. Feel free to have a go too.

 

On your second point, are you advocating free gin'n'tonics for the 3rd world? How very colonial of you.

 

Just my 6th form naivite coming to the fore again. Generic drugs don't necessarily mean the poor getting access.

[Happy Face 29]

HF your HIV vaccine isnt example of public funded research leading to private profits as........ wait for it........ there is no HIV vaccine. Hence nothing is being sold.

 

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960

 

That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

 

Also, NICE has limited the use of drugs that are more than 30k per QALY, which limits the price. HAS in France sets the price of the drug, Germans reference price and then the rest of the EU region follows suit.

 

Anyway, i'm with Renton, its pragmatism, not idealism thats required.

 

Here's a view on something which might give you food for thought. Us, Roche, Novartis and GSK spend so much on cancer research now, we keep coming up with thse new products which add months to the end of life for cancer patients. The pipelines are even more promising. If the rate at which we are gaining increments in survival through the development of new products (and it is vital that these are paid for to help drive the investments) continues at the current pace, then i will say this here and now, we are around 12 years away from what is effectively a cure for cancer as it will become a chronic condition like HIV.

 

Now, thats a prediction.

 

 

What an age we live in. It's brilliant.

 

Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria.

 

Quinine is not very effective against malaria nowadays HF, I wouldn't recommend it. But you're right, there's little investment in antimalarial drugs because the people who need them are poor, that's the hard truth of the matter. But what're you going to do about it? We live in a shitty world.

 

The 17th century sounded better than the 40's and the more modern stuff.

 

There's very little you or I can do, except, when the government try to raise the bar on the strata of society able to access drugs, and give the makers carte blanche to put the drug to market at a price they dictate, we can at least say we disagree rather than taking it up the arse and accepting the free market as the only way.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Happy Face

[Park Life 70]

HF your HIV vaccine isnt example of public funded research leading to private profits as........ wait for it........ there is no HIV vaccine. Hence nothing is being sold.

 

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960

 

That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

 

Also, NICE has limited the use of drugs that are more than 30k per QALY, which limits the price. HAS in France sets the price of the drug, Germans reference price and then the rest of the EU region follows suit.

 

Anyway, i'm with Renton, its pragmatism, not idealism thats required.

 

Here's a view on something which might give you food for thought. Us, Roche, Novartis and GSK spend so much on cancer research now, we keep coming up with thse new products which add months to the end of life for cancer patients. The pipelines are even more promising. If the rate at which we are gaining increments in survival through the development of new products (and it is vital that these are paid for to help drive the investments) continues at the current pace, then i will say this here and now, we are around 12 years away from what is effectively a cure for cancer as it will become a chronic condition like HIV.

 

Now, thats a prediction.

 

 

What an age we live in. It's brilliant.

 

Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria.

 

Quinine is not very effective against malaria nowadays HF, I wouldn't recommend it. But you're right, there's little investment in antimalarial drugs because the people who need them are poor, that's the hard truth of the matter. But what're you going to do about it? We live in a shitty world.

 

The 17th century sounded better than the 40's and the more modern stuff.

 

There's very little you or I can do, except, when the government try to raise the bar on the strata of society able to access drugs, and give the makers carte blanche to put the drug to market at a price they dictate, we can at least say we disagree rather than taking it up the arse and accepting the free market as the only way.

 

 

They're trying for depopulation...No need for cheap drugs in Afrika ka ka ka!

[Fop 1]

HF your HIV vaccine isnt example of public funded research leading to private profits as........ wait for it........ there is no HIV vaccine. Hence nothing is being sold.

 

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960

 

That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though.

 

Also, NICE has limited the use of drugs that are more than 30k per QALY, which limits the price. HAS in France sets the price of the drug, Germans reference price and then the rest of the EU region follows suit.

 

Anyway, i'm with Renton, its pragmatism, not idealism thats required.

 

Here's a view on something which might give you food for thought. Us, Roche, Novartis and GSK spend so much on cancer research now, we keep coming up with thse new products which add months to the end of life for cancer patients. The pipelines are even more promising. If the rate at which we are gaining increments in survival through the development of new products (and it is vital that these are paid for to help drive the investments) continues at the current pace, then i will say this here and now, we are around 12 years away from what is effectively a cure for cancer as it will become a chronic condition like HIV.

 

Now, thats a prediction.

 

 

What an age we live in. It's brilliant.

 

Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria.

 

Quinine is not very effective against malaria nowadays HF, I wouldn't recommend it. But you're right, there's little investment in antimalarial drugs because the people who need them are poor, that's the hard truth of the matter. But what're you going to do about it? We live in a shitty world.

 

The 17th century sounded better than the 40's and the more modern stuff.

 

There's very little you or I can do, except, when the government try to raise the bar on the strata of society able to access drugs, and give the makers carte blanche to put the drug to market at a price they dictate, we can at least say we disagree rather than taking it up the arse and accepting the free market as the only way.

 

 

They're trying for depopulation...No need for cheap drugs in Afrika ka ka ka!

 

You sell them BOTH ways, sell them stuff to keep them alive longer (but in poor health), and sell them things to neuter them too. Efficiency.