On June 23 2011 04:20 lixlix wrote: People should be glad that there are companies willing to sink a billion dollars in to research before seeing a single cent back so that at least these drugs exist. Having these drugs exist paves the way for research in to making these drugs more affordable and efficient.
I really find the people complaining about high costs amusing as everything we have today at one point was considered exorbitant and unaffordable by 99.9% of the population. Maybe you should disparage the guy that invented fire (what? you want a bushel of berries to teach me how to build a fire? stop robbing everybody).
It must be so painful for them to sink all that money in, and then make huge profits out of that.
That money to spend on living ridiculous this is yet another example of companies that just care about the money, not considering the LIFE of a human being. I really hope your friend can pull through, make sure he stays positive, and if he is that's half the battle won.
On June 23 2011 04:42 Frequencyy wrote: That money to spend on living ridiculous this is yet another example of companies that just care about the money, not considering the LIFE of a human being. I really hope your friend can pull through, make sure he stays positive, and if he is that's half the battle won.
If they catered to everyone, these companies wouldn't exist and the drugs would not be developed... and many more people would not be saved...
On June 23 2011 04:45 Baarn wrote: It's too bad drug companies don't have to conform to Duty to Rescue.
If they did then they would simply stop doing research on all rare conditions and only develop drugs likely to turn a huge profit, and that's if they don't simply go out of business. Your bleeding-heart view doesn't look very far.
Firstly I want to say I am truly sorry for your friend and I extend my heartfelt wishes to him and his family.
I work for a pharmaceutical company based in Argentina, but we only cater to international markets (currently none of our drugs are commercialized in Argentina). I received my education and training in the U.S. for FDA regulated markets (highest standard of regulation in Pharma), in consequence I feel qualified to speak on this particular matter.
The problem in these situations are not the pharmaceutical companies but the government and the health insurance providers who want to maximize profits by leaving people with fringe conditions with no coverage. The government in this respect sometimes provides funding for research on "Orphan drugs" (drugs with no real commercial potential) in addition to providing a fast track for the approval and registration of these drugs in order to speed them from the bench to the market.
Everybody likes to point the finger at big pharma saying that they are greedy, but the truth of the matter is it takes billions and billions of dollars to run a large pharmaceutical companies. As has been mentioned, the cost of R&D is astronomical. Acquiring new IP in order to successfully bring it to the market is also incredibly costly. Without big pharma, we would not have drugs that save millions of lives yearly like Atorvastatin (Lipitor), because they simply cost too much money to develop. Moreover, you are not taking into consideration the millions of dollars in sunken costs when a drug fails FDA approval, which trust me, is unbelivably stringent.
The real problem in the U.S. is the health insurance system that effectively leaves the poor without the possibility to get even the most basic assistance, which is unacceptable.
On June 23 2011 04:20 lixlix wrote: People should be glad that there are companies willing to sink a billion dollars in to research before seeing a single cent back so that at least these drugs exist. Having these drugs exist paves the way for research in to making these drugs more affordable and efficient.
I really find the people complaining about high costs amusing as everything we have today at one point was considered exorbitant and unaffordable by 99.9% of the population. Maybe you should disparage the guy that invented fire (what? you want a bushel of berries to teach me how to build a fire? stop robbing everybody).
It must be so painful for them to sink all that money in, and then make huge profits out of that.
thats it? thats your only reply? you understand profits are not guaranteed or that companies can run out of money, go bankrupt before a product is developed. Drugs fail all the time in the testing phase or fail FDA tests which lasts several years.
You obviously missed the point of my post. Somebody needs to go invent these drugs and the best incentive is profit. The best incentive for any innovation or risk taking is profit.
On June 23 2011 04:45 Baarn wrote: It's too bad drug companies don't have to conform to Duty to Rescue.
If they did then they would simply stop doing research on all rare conditions and only develop drugs likely to turn a huge profit, and that's if they don't simply go out of business. Your bleeding-heart view doesn't look very far.
Research wouldn't stop and drug companies already develop drug to make huge profits. Read the OP. No bleeding heart man. This price is just unreasonable.
To all those who blame capitalism and "greedy corporations": Are you retarded? Have you spent even a single minute thinking about what would happen if you forced pharmaceuticals to sell drugs below price, making all investments in drug research and development a definite loss?
On June 23 2011 01:22 Selkie wrote: Yes, but look at it this way- if a drug is so expensive noone can afford it, then they can make none of their money back. Supply and demand curves. These companies need to hire an economist =D
Yeah, it would be interesting to know what were they thinking when they came up with the price tag, or why did they even start developing the drug. They might have miscalculated it, or the drug might be the byproduct of some other research.
On June 23 2011 04:45 Baarn wrote: It's too bad drug companies don't have to conform to Duty to Rescue.
If they did then they would simply stop doing research on all rare conditions and only develop drugs likely to turn a huge profit, and that's if they don't simply go out of business. Your bleeding-heart view doesn't look very far.
On June 22 2011 11:35 Kamais_Ookin wrote: What's the point of a cure if pretty much 99% of the people can't afford it? I understand profits and stuff but come on now...
Unfortunately pharmaceutical companies are businesses too. It costs literally billions of dollars to develop new drugs, and without reimbursement for them research couldn't move forward.
Yeah but those guys make way too much money. I understand it takes excellent minds to develop this stuff but commanding 7 figure salaries for executive types, not even the researchers, and asking for more is a tad ridiculous.
This seriously sucks for your friend. My condolences.
At what point do we step back and look at how far we've come in fighting disease? Are diseases natural population limiters that exist to keep people from exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity? Is it worth prolonging one life at the cost of $500,000 / yr or to prolong the lives of many in malnourished and poverty-stricken nations that can't afford basic medicines like antibiotics or antivirals for malaria,TB, etc.? I don't know the answers but these are just some questions that come to mind thinking about this whole situation.
On June 23 2011 04:42 Frequencyy wrote: That money to spend on living ridiculous this is yet another example of companies that just care about the money, not considering the LIFE of a human being. I really hope your friend can pull through, make sure he stays positive, and if he is that's half the battle won.
Why don't you go kick your friends studying chemistry/biology/pharm in the balls repeatedly then? You should also laugh and ridicule them for pursuing a profession that would barely pay more than a McDonald's job if the world worked the way you're stating.
Now time for a reality check on companies doing it "for the money (oooooh so scarrry)":
New drugs can take anywhere from two to a dozen years to get on the market. Also, people saying it costs roughly $800 million are being generous. Try $1.8 billion for a more realistic estimate. That's money spent to make sure the proposed drug actually does something about a disease and to make sure it doesn't flat out kill you 3 years later. Think about that next time you're getting your prescription drug. Also consider that for every 1 drug that has made it to market, 10000 additional ones have failed. And for every 3 drugs that make it to market, 1 actually sells well enough to make a profitable return. What do companies do with their profits? Invest in future R&D projects to create better drugs.
Okay, damn. That's sooooooooo much money and time that has to go nowhere before those companies start seeing any of it back.
You're saying they should stop caring about the money and on prioritizing people's lives. Well, sorry. It can't happen. If things work out the way you want it to, you're robbing from the people who spent endless years in med school hell and read more textbooks than you will read novels your entire life. Sure, they're working for private firms, but they are still doing the world a public service by discovering these miracle drugs. But if the companies don't get the money, guess what? They go bankrupt. The hard workers go unemployed and live miserably. And ultimately, R&D halts and down the years, 200,000 more people are condemned to die terribly because the proper drug couldn't cure them in time.
Look, I feel for the guy just as much as everyone else (I hope) does. Be supportive for him, but don't be ignorant and start blindly bashing pharmaceutical corporations because of his plight.
On June 23 2011 04:42 Frequencyy wrote: That money to spend on living ridiculous this is yet another example of companies that just care about the money, not considering the LIFE of a human being. I really hope your friend can pull through, make sure he stays positive, and if he is that's half the battle won.
the life of 1 creature out of over 6 billion. The company has a cost to manufacture things... they can't just give half a million dollars of resources away to someone for free...
Even if someone would pay that 500,000 per year, no way would I accept it if I was in his shoes— you can do a lit of things with that kind of money, and it's essentially just throwing it away to improve a one in 30 million/500 million/6 billion (depending how you look at it) person's life.
On June 23 2011 04:45 Baarn wrote: It's too bad drug companies don't have to conform to Duty to Rescue.
If they did then they would simply stop doing research on all rare conditions and only develop drugs likely to turn a huge profit, and that's if they don't simply go out of business. Your bleeding-heart view doesn't look very far.
What exactly does your link prove? That it's cheap to discover any medical treatment because somehow we'll always get lucky that some randomly growing fungus will have medical treatment properties?
I think the fact that pharma companies spend billions in R&D is enough proof that developing drugs costs a lot of money.
On June 22 2011 13:18 Reignyo wrote: The drug companies can't jsut hand out cheap drugs, theyre a business.
Why is that the case? It makes no sense to have a system in charge of caring for and healing people be focused purely on profit. If the object of a drug company is profit, then the best course of action is to make as much as possible by treating as few people as possible, at the largest price.
On June 22 2011 13:18 Reignyo wrote: The drug companies can't jsut hand out cheap drugs, theyre a business.
Why is that the case? It makes no sense to have a system in charge of caring for and healing people be focused purely on profit. If the object of a drug company is profit, then the best course of action is to make as much as possible by treating as few people as possible, at the largest price.
On June 22 2011 13:18 Reignyo wrote: The drug companies can't jsut hand out cheap drugs, theyre a business.
Why is that the case? It makes no sense to have a system in charge of caring for and healing people be focused purely on profit. If the object of a drug company is profit, then the best course of action is to make as much as possible by treating as few people as possible, at the largest price.
Do you seriously think the guy who starts a pharma company wants to save the world, or heal every problem every person has?? He could be making a lot of money in any other field, so it's reasonable of him to want to make money in his field.
EDIT: what I'm trying to say is: The drug companie's system is NOT a system created to care for and heal people, it's a system created to make money. Caring and healing is only the product they offer you in exchange of your money,
EPT
