# Does G Sachs really say "no money in cures"? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 22, 2018, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906 "2018-04-22T17:01:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/21 "2018-04-22T22:07:35Z")
It really is true that pharmaceutical companies are spending almost no effort on developing new antibiotics. Do you think that we’ve already discovered every possible antibiotic chemical? We’ve developed many, and we could develop many more. But we aren’t. Why not? It’s not because they wouldn’t be useful, or because they wouldn’t save a lot of lives. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/22 "2018-04-22T22:28:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It really is true that pharmaceutical companies are spending almost no effort on developing new antibiotics. Do you think that we’ve already discovered every possible antibiotic chemical? We’ve developed many, and we could develop many more. But we aren’t. Why not? It’s not because they wouldn’t be useful, or because they wouldn’t save a lot of lives. An [article](https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/why-are-there-so-few-antibiotics-in-the-research-and-development-pipeline/11130209.article) from _The Pharmaceutical Journal_ 2013 that addresses the question, and some efforts to address answers to it. > [@](#): > > … Although society wants pharmaceutical companies to research and develop new antibiotics, policy-makers do not want healthcare professionals to use them. In other words, products should sit on the shelf until they are really needed by patients because of the antimicrobial resistance problem through the imprudent use of antibiotics over the years. > > Furthermore, if antibiotics are used, they are generally used for the short-term, not like the long-term therapies that help bring in revenues for companies. > > “The reason why many companies dropped out from the anti-infectives [field] was because of the [lack of] return on investment,” says Klaus Dembowsky, chief medical officer of Polythor, which recently licensed its investigational antibiotic POL7080 (which targets “superbug” Pseudomonas species) to Roche. > > He says that a lot of the products being approved are second, third or fourth generation antibiotics, meaning they are just follow-up compounds, without a novel mechanism of action. > > Mahesh Patel, director of drug discovery research at Wockhardt, says the biggest barrier for companies is the regulatory burden. “The costs of trials are so high and society is not willing to pay the high price for antibiotics; so that is the paradox. Society wants a cheaper antibiotic, but the costs of development will be high. So we need to manage these two conflicting needs.” … ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/23 "2018-04-23T00:08:59Z")
> [@doubleminus](#): > > Gilead made over $25 billion dollars up to now from the Hep-C drug. How could this be less than uber-profitable ? Wanted to come back to this bit. Gilead is illustrative. They were able to make a cure you have to be able to price it like by being able to price it at $84K for the treatment course … which compared to treating Hep C otherwise is still a bargain albeit a front-loaded one. And that cash cow was time limited. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/24 "2018-04-23T00:28:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But it’s not only a competition between different pharmaceutical companies. There’s a competition within each pharmaceutical company over which research projects get funded. There’s only a finite amount of money so some projects get funded and other projects, even if they are worthwhile, do not. > > So within each company there are decisions made over which projects make the cut. And from a financial point of view, a project to develop on ongoing treatment is better than a project to develop a one-time cure. Sure. But some companies have only a couple of drugs. And something that brings in media attention would be perfect for a start-up. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/25 "2018-04-23T00:30:44Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It really is true that pharmaceutical companies are spending almost no effort on developing new antibiotics. Do you think that we’ve already discovered every possible antibiotic chemical? We’ve developed many, and we could develop many more. But we aren’t. Why not? It’s not because they wouldn’t be useful, or because they wouldn’t save a lot of lives. This article answers that question: [https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/why-are-there-so-few-antibiotics-in-the-research-and-development-pipeline/11130209.article](https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/why-are-there-so-few-antibiotics-in-the-research-and-development-pipeline/11130209.article) More or less, it’s Government regs. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/26 "2018-04-23T00:36:55Z")
Government regs apply to all drug development. If the pharmaceutical companies think that’s such a big problem, then they should be in a different line of business. The antibiotic problem is, in a nutshell, exactly what this thread is about: They would save many lives, but they’re not profitable, and so no drug company is willing to devote resources to develop them. I’m sure that if they stumbled upon one without trying, they’d be happy to sell it, but just stumbling upon drugs isn’t something that happens very often. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/27 "2018-04-23T01:01:17Z")
Seems to me like the antibiotic issue is one of those situations where, for the public good, we should be subsidizing this sort of thing. If our healthcare costs were under control and as efficient as other countries, that might help us have the money to do this. I could also see other incentives, like allowing longer patents as long as you can show you are working to make the drug obsolete or on other worthwhile projects. And, of course, there are the tax breaks and such, which can happen after the drug is made, so it’s not so costly. If raw capitalism isn’t incentivizing what we want, then that’s the time to use something else. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/28 "2018-04-23T01:11:51Z")
If we are to maintain the market model for pharma, perhaps FDA certification should incur no cost to the developer. Though, I would prefer a more hybridized approach – and a return to the days when Zilnaxacorphenolprim[sup]TM[/sup] could not be advertised to the general public. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/29 "2018-04-23T01:25:37Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > If pharma had not been pushing antibiotics so hard, maybe these resistance situations would not have been cropping up. Oh, please - it’s not JUST pharma. Think of all the parents who _demand_ that doctors prescribe antibiotics for viral illnesses. As just one example. Some medical problems are more complex than just one easy explanation or strawman to blame. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/30 "2018-04-23T01:34:59Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Oh, please - it’s not JUST pharma. Think of all the parents who _demand_ that doctors prescribe antibiotics for viral illnesses. I should think that doctors ought to be allowed to prescribe a placebo when the patient demands inappropriate treatment, but I hear that this is proscribed. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/31 "2018-04-23T04:40:02Z")
if you found the cure for cancer, you’d be wiping your ass with Bugatti Veyrons. The money would be so ridiculous that even if it meant a diminished cash flow ten years from now, you could invest it in other stuff. Also, vaccines are a form of one-time cure and they are still being produced for profit. There was a documentary series by the BBC called “The Men who made us Fat” where the total revenue of curing obesity was about $10 trillion. These are the numbers. I’m sure that cancer, which we all may get, especially as we all live to longer age, would be even more profitable. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/32 "2018-04-23T05:24:45Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > if you found the cure for cancer, you’d be wiping your ass with Bugatti Veyrons. > The money would be so ridiculous that even if it meant a diminished cash flow ten years from now, you could invest it in other stuff. Also, vaccines are a form of one-time cure and they are still being produced for profit. > > There was a documentary series by the BBC called “The Men who made us Fat” where the total revenue of curing obesity was about $10 trillion. These are the numbers. I’m sure that cancer, which we all may get, especially as we all live to longer age, would be even more profitable. “Cure for cancer” is a misleading example because of course a company that found a blanket cure would become silly rich. And since if you group all cancers together they’re the second biggest killer in the west, pharma employees are as affected by this as the rest of us: I’ve sadly seen plenty of examples of people visiting oncology clinics as researchers one month and then as a patient the next. But for diseases that are less common, like just the individual types of cancer, there’s no doubt that the financial imperative is often not towards cure. And I don’t blame the pharma companies for that: if they don’t think about the bottom line, maybe they go out of business, and the number of treatments or cures they produce would be zero. I’m in favor of unfettered markets but wrt medical research it’s an area where public (and charitable) funding is undoubtedly also required. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/33 "2018-04-23T12:45:45Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > It’s not that they are avoiding it just because they want to make more money, it’s not as if they are saying, “Oh, don’t develop cancer cures, we make more money on the treatment, and we wouldn’t want to lose that revenue stream.”, it is more, “It’ll cost billions of dollars to attempt to develop a cure for this particular cancer, and if we are successful, the return on investment will be in the millions.” The reality is that sales from successful cancer drugs tend to cover investment costs pretty quickly. _“According to these data, the average cost of developing a cancer drug is about $720 million. The average annual revenue is about $2.7 billion. Within just one year, the annual revenue of the top five drugs on this list—which treat lymphoma, prostate, leukemia, and colorectal cancers—covers the total costs of research and development.”_ > **[New data show that cancer drugs cost less to make than big pharma has claimed](https://qz.com/1075285/new-data-show-that-cancer-drugs-cost-less-to-make-than-big-pharma-has-claimed)** > > The cost of developing cancer drugs may not be as high as we previously thought—but they still turn a quick profit. Of course, that doesn’t take into account losses from new drugs that never make it to market. But in terms of $$, there’s plenty to made from new drugs that just modestly increase life spans. Take for instance meds for non-small cell lung cancer which they are currently advertising the bejeezus out of. Now think of what profits could be made from a non-small cell lung cancer _cure_ (never mind the fantastic publicity, awards etc.). For a truly depressing look at absence of critical thinking on this issue, check out the Natural News/Alex Jones contingent and the woo-pushers that feed off it. The lack of permanent cures is never about the sheer difficulty of overcoming physiologic barriers, it’s because Big Pharma/doctors/the gummint/Giant Media want to keep us fat, sick and ignorant of Natural Cures which address the Root Causes of illness, and by the way we sell those Cures in our online stores. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906/34 "2018-04-23T13:03:29Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It really is true that pharmaceutical companies are spending almost no effort on developing new antibiotics. Do you think that we’ve already discovered every possible antibiotic chemical? We’ve developed many, and we could develop many more. But we aren’t. Why not? It’s not because they wouldn’t be useful, or because they wouldn’t save a lot of lives. Lascufloxacin? Cefiderocol? Taksta? Ceftobiprole? Eravacycline? etc. etc. Yes, [antibiotics are hard](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/11/03/antibiotics-are-hard-continued). But there are 30 or so antibiotics in clinical trials. Most of them probably won’t be approved. But it’s not like people aren’t trying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-g-sachs-really-say-no-money-in-cures/812906.md?page=1)