|
On October 14 2012 06:51 PVJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote:
You might find it unethical, but it's good business and it's completely legal.
The effectiveness of this drug means that it suddenly becomes that much more valuable to the consumer. Demand for this has shifted right significantly of course, and they are charging a price that their statisticians and whatnot see as a price consumers will be willing to pay. They made the drug, so they can charge whatever they want for it. If it's "overpriced", it will fail because consumers will refuse to pay for it. But this kind of drug is very price inelastic because there are many people in great need of it, so they can afford to make crazy increases in price and still expect many people to buy it. Hate the system, but that's just how it works. Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool.
As has been stated over and over again in this thread, it feels like you are leaving out where these medicines are coming from. Companies pour tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in research to make safe and effective drugs. If a company doesn't expect to get money back why would they invest?
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:53 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:50 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from. Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold. If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point.
|
On October 14 2012 06:53 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:50 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from. Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold. If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
This will not and cannot happen. There's just too many examples of inefficient running of sectors in Canada that makes my point. People will be battling for union votes instead of for profit. Ideally, it should be private, but with proper government regulations to set its bounds.
|
On October 14 2012 06:54 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:53 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:50 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from. Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold. If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point. I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point.
Competence at providing non private services is directly tied to the public interest due to the scope of the services they provide, so it's very straight to the point.
|
On October 14 2012 06:55 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:53 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:50 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from. Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold. If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point. This will not and cannot happen. There's just too many examples of inefficient running of sectors in Canada that makes my point. People will be battling for union votes instead of for profit. Ideally, it should be private, but with proper government regulations to set its bounds.
Just disagreement on the implementation methods, there are precedents of functional systems in almost every configuration.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
|
On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote:
I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
You are about right. No wonder the drugs are expensive when they only have 25 years to make up that cost before generics can copy their drug.
|
On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote:
I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
Alot of drugs actually take longer development cycles than that due to the testing / marketing phase taking upwards of 5 years. What people are objecting to is not the original cost of the pharmaceutical, but the fact that a vital usage of it has been found then the company is potentially eliminating the possibility for individuals to access them with out alternative to live.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:56 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:54 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:53 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:50 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from. Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold. If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point. I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point. Competence at providing non private services is directly tied to the public interest due to the scope of the services they provide, so it's very straight to the point.
Then we disagree on this, as I regard medication to be a private interest for the individual (barring general outbreaks and pandemics, but here the generalized medication exceptions on patent law kicks in, see Thailand and South Africa for example and the Doa Convention on it.). General healthcare is in the public interest and that it is implemented to a certain degree of general satisfaction. The way of implementation, aka private business automatically removes it from having the public interest at heart and results in the situation where they aren't tied in any meaningful relation from my perspective.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
On October 14 2012 07:00 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote:
I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines. Alot of drugs actually take longer development cycles than that due to the testing / marketing phase taking upwards of 5 years. What people are objecting to is not the original cost of the pharmaceutical, but the fact that a vital usage of it has been found then the company is potentially eliminating the possibility for individuals to access them with out alternative to live.
This does not make sense, as it would be destroying their own market. I'd be amazed if there hasn't gone extensive research in what the existing healthcare systems and general income can support with regard to potential drug costs. The price is undoubtedly based on the results of that.
|
On October 14 2012 06:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:37 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:24 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:20 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:
[quote]
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it. I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible. Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand) I am part of a few that think capitalism and socialism can coincide, the idea of a free market is great but just like in real life "freedoms" are inhibited by certain things. When a company or companies form a monopoly on a product, which is healthcare since the demand WILL NEVER GO DOWN we need socialistic ideologies to allow the corporations to practice more ethical treatments and not raise prices by 20x. Capitalism itself doesn't work because of human greed, when we can start pricing a persons life then we as humans have failed. Carl Sagan has a few nice pieces on this. On October 14 2012 06:25 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:16 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:14 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:
[quote]
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all. Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present. Somebody always has to pay in the end. Not true, as I noted above. Regulations and caps are put on things everyday to insure required things aren't overpriced. Pharma companies respectively have a very simple monopoly on products as a whole and thus they can charge an outrageous amount because everyone wants to live. So the government goes "We know you want to make this proift margin, but this one is more realistic and doesn't allow people to go without medical treatment". So "pay" would be on the pharma end. Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative. I always here this argument, where is the proof? It's like when people argue that "less military spending means China will attack or Russia". What basis is this argument coming from? Simple logic and understanding of capital flows. I am investor myself and I know many others. I want to invest in good businesses and good businesses means profiable businesses with solid growth prospects. Goverment meddling with the pricing power of an industry is a spectacular way to lose attention of investors, money these people have to invest will simply go towards ventures with higher probability for an outsized profit. Examples of this are everywhere. But it has never happened yet. I asked for a specific example in which a government went "You can't price your shit at 120 dollars a bottle" for essential life saving pills and their stock crashed, there business tanked. I have no issue right now going to my store and buying the same products everyone else can but why are mine 40 and Americans 80? Because my government practices ethics over profit in fundemental cases. The demand for medical treatment will never go away, investing in medical treatments will never go away becasue people will always pay. The debate is on whether pharma compnaies should make more than the GDP of some countries by over pricing required products or be held at a more reasonable multi billion dollar range?
If you want a specific example of goverment pricing policies preventing growth and stagnating the economy, you need to take a close look at Argentina: lacking the proficiency to extract and refine their own oil, they had to invite large foreign oil companies. As soon as those ventures got off the ground, they then proceeded to slap them with pricing caps on oil sold within the country because the goverment deemed the pricing excessive.
As a result, basically all investment from the oil companies in Argentina stopped, because it makes no economic sense for them to spend money investing inside Argentina for a low return when they can invest for a higher return elsewhere. As a result of that, Argentina oil output is in the shitter with no improvement in sight, resulting in less tax revenues collected, resulting in less money for the budget, less jobs, etc etc etc
|
On October 14 2012 07:00 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:56 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:54 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:53 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:50 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from. Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold. If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point. I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point. Competence at providing non private services is directly tied to the public interest due to the scope of the services they provide, so it's very straight to the point. Then we disagree on this, as I regard medication to be a private interest for the individual (barring general outbreaks and pandemics, but here the generalized medication exceptions on patent law kicks in, see Thailand and South Africa for example and the Doa Convention on it.). General healthcare is in the public interest and that it is implemented to a certain degree of general satisfaction. The way of implementation, aka private business automatically removes it from having the public interest at heart and results in the situation where they aren't tied in any meaningful relation from my perspective.
I was answering this with the assumption that under the current situation, pharmaceutical companies are private, where as infrastructure services are public.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
On October 14 2012 07:00 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote:
I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines. You are about right. No wonder the drugs are expensive when they only have 25 years to make up that cost before generics can copy their drug.
Haha yeah I know. The ones that do make it through the proces and end up being profitable are worth more then proverbial gold. For profit business, can't blamen in my opinion. Blame the system  . Again, just my very biased personal opinion after years of brainwashing at university haha.
|
On October 14 2012 07:02 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 07:00 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote:
I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines. Alot of drugs actually take longer development cycles than that due to the testing / marketing phase taking upwards of 5 years. What people are objecting to is not the original cost of the pharmaceutical, but the fact that a vital usage of it has been found then the company is potentially eliminating the possibility for individuals to access them with out alternative to live. This does not make sense, as it would be destroying their own market. I'd be amazed if there hasn't gone extensive research in what the existing healthcare systems and general income can support with regard to potential drug costs. The price is undoubtedly based on the results of that.
It's about the net profit made, companies and organizations are more than willing to destroy their own market quite literally (destruction of agricultural goods and waste to drive up profit margins in latin america etc) to achieve a higher overall profit. Except in this case those who can not afford the service will likely suffer.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
On October 14 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 07:00 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:56 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:54 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:53 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:50 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:
[quote]
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from. Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold. If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point. I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point. Competence at providing non private services is directly tied to the public interest due to the scope of the services they provide, so it's very straight to the point. Then we disagree on this, as I regard medication to be a private interest for the individual (barring general outbreaks and pandemics, but here the generalized medication exceptions on patent law kicks in, see Thailand and South Africa for example and the Doa Convention on it.). General healthcare is in the public interest and that it is implemented to a certain degree of general satisfaction. The way of implementation, aka private business automatically removes it from having the public interest at heart and results in the situation where they aren't tied in any meaningful relation from my perspective. I was answering this with the assumption that under the current situation, pharmaceutical companies are private, where as infrastructure services are public.
Aahhh I misunderstood the premesis on which you were argueing/making your statement then. My bad good sir. With that clarification I understand and argueing from that assumption I fullheartedly agree.
|
On October 14 2012 06:54 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:51 PVJ wrote:On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote:
You might find it unethical, but it's good business and it's completely legal.
The effectiveness of this drug means that it suddenly becomes that much more valuable to the consumer. Demand for this has shifted right significantly of course, and they are charging a price that their statisticians and whatnot see as a price consumers will be willing to pay. They made the drug, so they can charge whatever they want for it. If it's "overpriced", it will fail because consumers will refuse to pay for it. But this kind of drug is very price inelastic because there are many people in great need of it, so they can afford to make crazy increases in price and still expect many people to buy it. Hate the system, but that's just how it works. Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool. As has been stated over and over again in this thread, it feels like you are leaving out where these medicines are coming from. Companies pour tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in research to make safe and effective drugs. If a company doesn't expect to get money back why would they invest?
I'm not asking them to lose money over it, just asking them to profit less. These companies maximize profits to the point at which they'd let many go without treatment. Which sucks.
Go find any big pharma company and find out how much they spend on research vs how much revenue their drugs generate. The money is definitely not being put into more research. Instead it goes towards buying out other companies, advertising, etc etc.
|
On October 14 2012 07:04 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 07:00 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote:
I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines. You are about right. No wonder the drugs are expensive when they only have 25 years to make up that cost before generics can copy their drug. Haha yeah I know. The ones that do make it through the proces and end up being profitable are worth more then proverbial gold. For profit business, can't blamen in my opinion. Blame the system . Again, just my very biased personal opinion after years of brainwashing at university haha.
Here is the patent in question if you are curious
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20120328&CC=EP&NR=2433649A2&KC=A2
Could only find it on the french espacenet at first.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
Repatenting and ways to extend them are absolutely disgusting from a moral point of view. Well, at least from mine I guess. Such a break in the system and totally not in line with aiding in reaching the system's intended goals.
|
On October 14 2012 07:08 Nyovne wrote:
Repatenting and ways to extend them are absolutely disgusting from a moral point of view. Well, at least from mine I guess. Such a break in the system and totally not in line with aiding in reaching the system's intended goals.
I'm still not entirely convinced that that is what is happening. Or by what means they could if they wanted to, but I'm still not particularly experienced in the field yet.
|
For reference, this drug currently costs 25000 CAD for a full treatment course in Canada, the next most expensive (fludarabine) costs around 7200 CAD), so after this price adjustment the full treatment cost would be ludicrous. There are also numbers that it costs up to 60000 USD per annum in the US currently.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/drugs/ced/pdf/alemtuzumab.pdf
These numbers may be out of date but I can't find anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
