Those always kill me. “…may cause Restless Ear Syndrome, Stretch Armstrong Marks, and Parallel Parkinson’s Disease.”
In a sense. I recently went back on oral meds for my diabetes. By coincidence I was also starting with a new doctor at the same time (my former gp has gone to the choir invisible), so when we were discussing my symptoms, I specifically requested a scrip for the same drug I was one before.
Living in central NJ around pharma research facilities is a lot different than working for a large pharma. So unless you worked for a large Pharma, (which you don’t imply), you can’t speak with certainty about what they are doing internally.
Many if not all of the small, start-ups that are funded by VC have as part of their business plan to be bought out. And this often happens. So if Big Pharma X has a weak pipeline, they might buy up small research A to increase their potential offerings and excite the investors on Wall Street.
Now what you say is partially true. It DOES sound foolhardy to chase after home run, block buster drugs only, but those are the only ones that a) bring the kind of revenue that excites Wall Street and jacks up their bonuses, and b) puts them on the research map. A good scientist who comes up with one great drug can write his/her ticket to go just about anywhere in the industry. And they often do. They also often fail, but that doesn’t stop someone else from hiring them in the hopes of getting that “next big drug”. Pharma companies are much like cash rich baseball teams. The guy they are after hasn’t had a breakthrough in years, but this year could be different. He might still have it, and with the right facilities and the right people, he could create the next blockbuster drug that will double our profits for the next 5 years. If not, a good contingency plan is to keep an eye on the smaller research shops and see if they have anything in stage 3 development that would be worth buying the company for. Or at the very least, we can enter into a marketing agreement with them.
If a smaller drug happens to be discovered at a large pharma, it’s usually by accident. The drug may not be on the radar screen of R&D, but the molecule happens to treat symptoms associated with another condition. So, they will pursue that drug.
You really seem to dislike pharmaceutical companies. But they’re really no more scummy or greedy than oil companies, insurance companies, credit card companies, investment bankers, lawyers, politicians…
My understanding is that the problem of “over medication” is also quite significant in America. When you have people being able to (to a large extent) “choose” the specific brand of medication for a problem TV advertising just ads to this.
What’s more, when “insurance” picks up the cost, but the consumer chooses, there is no incentive to minimise costs.
If you don’t think that TV advertising, for the average consumer, is going to add to this problem you are stark raving insane.
Gonzo, I can’t think of a single pharmaceutical that went from lead to final FDA approval in a medical school because it doesn’t happen. What you see is a researcher in a university somewhere comes up with a compound or even a class of compounds that is shown to do something in rats. The university PR department then writes a press release about how this latest breakthrough may cure cancer or something like that.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/02/14/new_cures_faster_faster.php
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/07/the_costs_of_drug_research_beginning_a_rebuttal.php
So you’ve found your initial lead compound. The first thing that happens is that a number of derivatives are synthesized on small scale and are screened. Computer modeling is used to get an idea of how the molecule should dock into the receptor. The crucial parts of the molecule are investigated to see what is needed and what can be stripped out or substituted. So now you’ve found your target compound. You’ve managed to make it one way or another (medicinal chemistry syntheses tend to be massively unsuitable for large-scale synthesis) in large enough amounts to push forward. The target then goes to the development chemists, who have to take the synthetic route provided and either scale it up or find alternative routes to the compound. Once the route is developed and proven on a reasonable scale (say between 100 g and 1 kg) more testing is done. Eventually the compound is synthesized under GMP conditions, often about the same size as the demonstration batch that was made by the development chemists. Eventually the synthesis has to go to a pilot plant, where additional problems normally have to be solved and then eventually into a production plant.
So you’ve managed to get your synthesis nailed down, you’ve made all the material needed to keep the FDA happy that you have control over what you’re doing, and you’re ready to start selling to the general public, right? Wrong. In most cases, you can’t just dissolve up the drug and inject it right into the bloodstream. If nothing else, people will hate it and compliance will be low. So you need to spend time figuring out how to formulate the drug into a pill or other delivery mechanism. This brings up all sorts of other issues, most of which I’m not qualified to talk about because I’ve never done any formulation work. But one potential problem that often crops up is that of polymorphs, or different crystal structures of the same compound. One polymorph may dissolve beautifully, another may be like a rock. Ideally the development chemists have already known about this and have managed to get polymorphs under control long before you’re actually worried about formulation.
During this whole time, of course, investigations have been going on in the biology side. I’m even less qualified to talk about that, but any number of targets have failed at the pre-clinical level. Others fail in clinical testing. All those tests cost money, lots of money. Filing applications with the FDA costs money. You can’t do synthesis without analytical support, so you need analytical equipment for the synthetic chemists and actual analytical chemists to develop analytical methods for use. Equipment costs money. Chemists cost money. Chemicals cost money, though on larger scales the price per gram or kilogram drops and one of the things development chemists try to do is to lower the cost of the synthesis. And of course all of this takes time.
Pharma may not be on the side of the angels, and as a chemist I have few reasons to love them right now. But these things really do cost money, and you can either have the system set up as it is right now or we could look into making the NIH (or an offshoot) into a federal government pharmaceutical company.
No one is saying it’s not a problem. What we are saying is that censorship is not the solution you’re looking for.
What about droids?
You would not be “denied” the information by ad limitations, any more than a smoker is “denied” information about the wonders of tobacco products due to the ban on broadcast cigarette ads.
For instance, I hear there’s this new-fangled thing called the Internet where one can look up all sorts of stuff.
Exactly what information TV ads would give you that you would not get in more detail from your research? What about those people who are too stupid or too clueless to do this kind of research, or to be able to evaluate the results even if they did? You know, the creationists, the Birthers, other similar rocket scientists.
The ban on smoking adverts shows how the slippery slope of censorship works. First, the government decides something is bad for people. It doesn’t matter if it really is or is not, but the fact that the government made the decision. So then the government decides that speech about that something is prohibited, making it harder for people to give their opinions and to get information for their decisions. The message is “trust the government to decide what’s best for you–don’t talk among yourselves”.
And now that we have established that the government can restrict information about one thing for the “public good”, maybe they should start restricting about other things for the “public good”. After all, the government can make a better decision than the people. So the government starts deciding what’s good and bad and makes it harder for people to speak and listen to others. And then we’re sliding down the slope to the government choosing what’s best and preventing further debate on many things. Maybe things you want to speak about.
Why do you pick out one medium to censor? Especially the one with the “public airwaves”–public venues should be the most protected.
If you want to change the minds of people, speak to change their minds–that is the way of a free society. Don’t use state power to censor your opposition–that is the way of an oppressive society.
I do work in Silicon Valley, in computer design, and I’m quite familiar with this model. But whether the VCs get their money from a buyout (which is the standard model for the EDA industry) or an IPO, they still need to be working on high return items. So my point remains. Not all buyouts make you rich - a guy who worked for me left to start a company, and they got bought out, and he is still working.
No, I said it was foolhardy to only go for home runs. A research portfolio will include them. Any funding decision involves expected return on investment over time and risk. You plot your portfolio on a risk versus return graph, throw away anything in the high risk, low return quadrant, pray you have something in the low risk, high return quadrant (not likely) and balance things in the rest.
I like home runs - the first year I followed baseball I was behind the 1961 Yankees, but anyone depending on home runs only is going to fail. You may push the exciting research out to the analysts, but your bottom line is going to look really bad if you hit a dry spell and strike out a lot. It is possible that you are right and Big Pharma is going after home runs only, since I make it a point to never underestimate the stupidity of a CEO, but if so, that is why their stock price tanks when the FDA rejects the latest drug. I hope, and even think, that they are smarter than this.
And, BTW, if you buy companies only after the succeed you are going to be paying more, especially of you are in an auction. Thaler calls this winner’s remorse.
It was a joke, son.
And I don’t hate them. Tagamet bought us our first house.
Why should television, a useful and established medium, be closed to such ads? And the medications (ideally) are unlike tobacco in that they actually help.
Then their doctor can tell 'em to shut their stupid traps.
Sitemap - Managedcaremag.com Why we can not win. The health care companies spend over 200 million dollars a year on lobbying senators and congressmen. They have power and influence beyond anything we could imagine unless you are a Supreme Court judge, then you love it.
The result of the evil,government banning smoking ads on TV is that millions of lives have been saved due in part to this, and to bans on smoking in the workplace and in public places. Smoking ads were and still are allowed in magazines, but clearly the impact is not the same. Ads in the early '50s had athletes pushing ciggies, and singers claiming that smoking actually helped their throats!
And it seems you would much rather trust the tobacco companies and their researcher whores than the government. Guess what - the government was 100% right about this.
Like prohibiting the sale of drugs for serious diseases which are either harmful or which do nothing to fight the diseases perhaps? Ones where the sellers will snooker people into taking it as their problem gets worse, worse to the point where it might be too late for real therapies to work? I’m sure the mortality rate would soar with this kind of government control. :rolleyes:
See above for an example of the difference between TV and other media. Web searches, even magazine ads, allow more information to be displayed, and web searches especially give you a range of responses.
And why do you speak of “opposition?” It is not like drug A is censoring drug B. It is not like the government has a financial stake in who wins. The opposing forces here are those who are bound by responsibility to their stockholders to push for increased sales as hard as they can, and those who are more bound to responsibility to patients and the public at large. And, before you call me a Commie, I have no problem with the capitalist model, because for the most part it gives the best results. But in some cases short term profit trumps long term security or the health of the population at large, and that is where government needs to step in. The mortgage crisis is the best example of this I can think of.
Or writes it anyway because the insurance company will pay, or because he doesn’t have time to educate this clown, or because he knows the clown will leave and go to a quack who will write it. You don’t have to be Michael Jackson to get a doctor who is free with the pad.
http://www.citizen.org/hrg1759 The FDA is a weak organization controlled by the pharm companies . They will allow drugs that are weakly tested and suspect. Why? Because of the political power of Pharm.
People die and suffer from these drugs and many more like them.
If people actually ask a doctor to prescribe a drug because they saw it advertised on TV, it is risky. Sometimes the doc does it. It is easier and quicker than explaining all the ramifications. In some cases doctors are getting paid by the pharm company to push the drug. They are encouraged to use the drug in treatments that it has questionable value or none at all.
What do bans on public smoking have to do with banning ads?
You seem to be conflating support for free speech with support for a particular viewpoint. I do not trust anything tobacco companies (or pharm companies) say about their products. Yet I believe they have the right to speak their views.
There are already laws against fraud.
So, because tv cannot have as much info as other media, we should reduce even more the amount of info it can have?
You answered your own question. Why should only one side be able to speak? Let every side speak and let the public have access to every side.
I have no problem with the government acting to solve a problem. My problem is with the solution of censorship.
What gets passed over here is that we’re talking about a product that cannot legally be sold directly to the public. Physicians who are patients cannot (or should not) themselves go out and buy them without a prescription.
Cries of “elitism” are often heard from people (generally of a conservative/libertarian bent) who get upset with the FDA for restricting supplement marketing and sales (at least in theory) because of known hazards and/or lack of proof of safety and efficacy. Why should the “theoretical” existence of “stupid people” prevent them from buying whatever they want, since they’re smart enough not to get hurt? And why have an FDA at all? Shouldn’t the marketplace be sufficient to decide what drugs succeed or fail? Leave it to the doctor and patient, they say.
Since government is involved in providing health care, it makes sense that it may exercise its regulatory powers over marketing and sale of drugs. There seems to be ample precedent regarding pharmaceutical ads - though it’s doubtful anything will happen given drug companies political clout (though nothing like in gonzo’s fevered fantasies) and potential legal issues.