Santorum

[tkr4lf]

And people can say what they like about the FDA (and I won't defend them, I'm not a huge fan either), but without them, we wouldn't have side effects listed on the sides of bottles, we wouldn't have rigorous clinical testing being done on all new medications, etc.

I have difficulty understanding how rigorous the clinical testing is when we have numerous class action lawsuits going on for these medications causing extremely serious problems for a large number of people.

I can speak to the rigorousness of the studies.

After a single person, "First in Human" study is done, Phase 1 studies begin. Phase 1 studies are studies run with "normal", healthy individuals. The primary concern of these studies is to figure out the side effects, the proper dosage, and to ensure safety. Depending on the drug and the format of the study, there can be anywhere from 5 to 60 subjects in a single study. And they don't just run one study, they normally run numerous Phase 1 studies. And they usually do some of them at different facilities in different parts of the country. These are the studies where participants are rewarded handsomely. Usually anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 for successfully completing the study. It all depends on the length of the study and how many procedures (blood draws, EKG's, checking of vital signs, giving urine, etc.) they have. I've seen many, many smaller studies where the subjects get about $2,500 - $4,000. The largest study I personally ever saw was a 50-something-day long study (and yeah, they have to remain inside the clinic for the full 50 days, no leaving at all...) where the participants all received $10,000. It's pretty crazy, there are people who are "professional lab rats", they do this for a living. Check out this website: http://www.jalr.org. This is set up and run by one of our regulars. These Phase 1 studies are done all over the country and these people travel all over the place to get into a study...it's nuts.

After Phase 1 studies have concluded, they start Phase 2 studies. Phase 2 studies are done on people who actually need the medication. So, if it was an AIDS drug, then only people who actually have AIDS can participate in these studies. The main goal of these is to ensure the effectiveness of the drug in people who actually suffer from the illness. (Sorry, my knowledge of the later phases of clinical trials is sorely lacking. I know way more about Phase 1, but that makes sense, considering that's where I worked.)

Then come Phase 3 studies. Rather than talk out of my ass and act like I know anything about these, I'll just say that I honestly don't know what they do in Phase 3, or Phase 4 for that matter.

All of these Phases are done after all of the initial R&D and animal studies, etc., are done.

So, this should show that the actual studies are performed rigorously. Do mistakes get made? Oh yeah, all the time. The people doing the research are still people, prone to mistakes like all people. And really, no matter how many people you test a drug on, you will never see every possible side effect that could result. There are just too many people, and each person is different.

So, I guess, my main point here is that all these lawsuits and the like, are the exception, not the rule. For every drug you hear about that causes some life threatening illness or has horrible side effects that were previously unknown, or for every lawsuit about said drugs, there are easily hundreds that reach the market and are generally safe and effective.

A RIGOROUS study into drug impacts lasts years, not days. Sorry.. you just prove Woodruff's point.

You realize Phase 1 studies by themselves can run for over a year before even moving on to Phase 2, right? The individual studies I referred to above are just parts of the greater research. I even said above that:

And they don't just run one study, they normally run numerous Phase 1 studies. And they usually do some of them at different facilities in different parts of the country.

So, once you factor in all the Phases, we're talking about at least 2-4 years of research, if not more.

[tkr4lf]

Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

OUR system is not a free market system. Companies take government funded research and "tweek" it or work on things that will provide quick pay offs.

Viagra.. not cures for breast cancer, never mind malaria.

There are 2 primary reasons the US has provided so many drugs to date. The first is our sheer size. Our institutions have attracted people from all over. Other places had good research, but we tended to have more.

AND.. our wonderful education system, particularly the higher education system that has been open to more people than other countries' systems.

NOTHING about free markets. Sorry, that is pure illusion. (and no, you CANNOT find this by checking patents because the government does not get patents)

Once again, you are talking out of your ass. Viagra was originally a heart medicine. It was during phase 1 testing that they noticed the side effect of massive erections. Fun fact: The PPD phase 1 clinic here in Austin that I worked at actually tested Viagra.

And you think that runs counter to what I said?
Many drugs are discovered that way, but its only when they have a highly marketable effect that the companies push for approval.

ALSO... the drug companies did NOT come up with a cure for malaria, and most of that heart research to which you refer is funding by government grants. Some individual studies in the mix are not, but on the whole.. we get drugs more from government research than private funding. AND, when it IS "private" funding, its often groups the the Komen foundation, American Diabetes association, etc. NOT private corporations needing a profit.

I think it runs counter to what you said because your statements imply that pharmaceutical companies "tweaked" research in order to create viagra because it would provide quick payoffs. Nobody "tweaked" anything. During a Phase 1 clinical trial an interesting side effect for a blood pressure medicine was noticed. And yes, like any company would do, they saw a huge market and huge dollar signs, and they jumped at the opportunity.

But you try to pass it off as if this was done on purpose, just to make money. And that's not the case at all. There are and were many different blood pressure medicines on the market already, so why wouldn't they jump at the opportunity to fill a void in the market over adding more to an over-saturated market? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but Viagra was one of the first ED medicines.

Also, these companies don't take government funded research and "tweek" it. They have extensive R&D departments of their own that do the research, and then Contract Research Organizations to do the actual studies. The only part the government plays in any of this is the FDA and their many requirements, but that is all about ensuring that the drugs that actually reach the market are safe.

LOL..
Not wrong here. Just look at the funding for any university doing medical studies, as well as even the funding for many of those "private" companies. Its not really so private. Also, again, they do "big bang" research. They don't do baseline research that takes years, may or may not have a real result..b ut that lays the foundation for all thes "phenomenal discoveries".

Universities aren't part of big pharma, so they're not really what we're talking about here. Of course universities get grants for medical research, they are state run universities. But the big companies don't get grants like the universities do. They pay for their R&D. They pay for the testing. They pay to develop and market their drugs, not the government.

Now, perhaps some of the research done at a university would be passed on to a pharmaceutical company to develop an interesting new drug. In that case, then yes, big pharma would be indirectly benefiting from government funded research. But there is no direct funding to private companies for research by our government.

You really should try to learn about things before you just start spouting stuff out about things of which you have no knowledge.

Then again, you should take your own advice.

I, others have posted this research many times, in the Socialized medicine thread and other places. We KEEP posting it.. and you promptly ignore it.
Sorry, I haven't ignored anything. I've never seen the posts you speak of, but I don't think I've even been in the Socialized medicine thread, the topic didn't interest me that much.

[PLAYER57832]

And people can say what they like about the FDA (and I won't defend them, I'm not a huge fan either), but without them, we wouldn't have side effects listed on the sides of bottles, we wouldn't have rigorous clinical testing being done on all new medications, etc.

I have difficulty understanding how rigorous the clinical testing is when we have numerous class action lawsuits going on for these medications causing extremely serious problems for a large number of people.

I can speak to the rigorousness of the studies.

After a single person, "First in Human" study is done, Phase 1 studies begin. Phase 1 studies are studies run with "normal", healthy individuals. The primary concern of these studies is to figure out the side effects, the proper dosage, and to ensure safety. Depending on the drug and the format of the study, there can be anywhere from 5 to 60 subjects in a single study. And they don't just run one study, they normally run numerous Phase 1 studies. And they usually do some of them at different facilities in different parts of the country. These are the studies where participants are rewarded handsomely. Usually anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 for successfully completing the study. It all depends on the length of the study and how many procedures (blood draws, EKG's, checking of vital signs, giving urine, etc.) they have. I've seen many, many smaller studies where the subjects get about $2,500 - $4,000. The largest study I personally ever saw was a 50-something-day long study (and yeah, they have to remain inside the clinic for the full 50 days, no leaving at all...) where the participants all received $10,000. It's pretty crazy, there are people who are "professional lab rats", they do this for a living. Check out this website: http://www.jalr.org. This is set up and run by one of our regulars. These Phase 1 studies are done all over the country and these people travel all over the place to get into a study...it's nuts.

After Phase 1 studies have concluded, they start Phase 2 studies. Phase 2 studies are done on people who actually need the medication. So, if it was an AIDS drug, then only people who actually have AIDS can participate in these studies. The main goal of these is to ensure the effectiveness of the drug in people who actually suffer from the illness. (Sorry, my knowledge of the later phases of clinical trials is sorely lacking. I know way more about Phase 1, but that makes sense, considering that's where I worked.)

Then come Phase 3 studies. Rather than talk out of my ass and act like I know anything about these, I'll just say that I honestly don't know what they do in Phase 3, or Phase 4 for that matter.

All of these Phases are done after all of the initial R&D and animal studies, etc., are done.

So, this should show that the actual studies are performed rigorously. Do mistakes get made? Oh yeah, all the time. The people doing the research are still people, prone to mistakes like all people. And really, no matter how many people you test a drug on, you will never see every possible side effect that could result. There are just too many people, and each person is different.

So, I guess, my main point here is that all these lawsuits and the like, are the exception, not the rule. For every drug you hear about that causes some life threatening illness or has horrible side effects that were previously unknown, or for every lawsuit about said drugs, there are easily hundreds that reach the market and are generally safe and effective.

A RIGOROUS study into drug impacts lasts years, not days. Sorry.. you just prove Woodruff's point.

You realize Phase 1 studies by themselves can run for over a year before even moving on to Phase 2, right? The individual studies I referred to above are just parts of the greater research. I even said above that:

And they don't just run one study, they normally run numerous Phase 1 studies. And they usually do some of them at different facilities in different parts of the country.

So, once you factor in all the Phases, we're talking about at least 2-4 years of research, if not more.

Still not truly long.

You only REALLY know if there are side effects by seeing the impact for at least a lifetime of many, many people. A long term study is more like 50 years minimum.. or at the very least, 20.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's never long enough for some people. TKR, get stretching.

[tkr4lf]

Still not truly long.

You only REALLY know if there are side effects by seeing the impact for at least a lifetime of many, many people. A long term study is more like 50 years minimum.. or at the very least, 20.

Ok, you realize that you expect the impossible then, yes?

Who is going to pay for these 50 year long studies? Certainly not the drug companies, they have a hard enough time paying for the studies they do now. Look, I agree that the current system isn't perfect, and is in need of change. But you have to be realistic here. That will never happen. Never. You would have 1 scientist devoting his entire adult life to seeing a single medication reach the market. There would be no feasible way to make it cost effective. Basically, if it was a requirement to run 50 year long studies on every medication, then the drug companies would cease to exist. Nobody would make medication since there is absolutely no profit to be made. Well, no profit unless a bottle of Tylenol costs $600.

So, yeah, get back to me when you have something realistic to offer, instead of completely unfeasible "ideal solutions" that would never work.


Also, yeah, it's never good enough for you, is it? You state that studies should last years, not days. Then when I inform you that they do last years, you say that that's not enough anymore, it should be like 50 years. Sometimes I honestly think you just like to f*ck with people.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

In 50 years medicine will be obsolete. The Singularity will have occurred, and we'll just upload our consciousnesses into machines or servers. We won't have need of our weakly physical bodies.

-TG

[natty dread]

Anagrams for Rick Santorum:

Crank Tourism
A Trick Mourns
A Struck Minor
A Scrotum Rink
Manic Rusk Rot
Racist On Murk
Smack Riot Run
Crank Rims Out
Crank Is Tumor
Croak Ism Runt
Rock Trim Anus
Can Irk Tumors
Narc Riot Musk
Scat Ink Rumor
Iran Cum Stork
Air Muck Snort

[PLAYER57832]

Still not truly long.

You only REALLY know if there are side effects by seeing the impact for at least a lifetime of many, many people. A long term study is more like 50 years minimum.. or at the very least, 20.

Ok, you realize that you expect the impossible then, yes?

"Expecting?". I expect honestly in language and understanding. You were proclaiming that the drug companies do these wonderful long term studies .. lada lada... I simply pointed out that these "long term" studies were pretty far from long term.

Who is going to pay for these 50 year long studies? Certainly not the drug companies, they have a hard enough time paying for the studies they do now.

LOL.. LOL...LOL.
FIRST, never said a 50 year study should be required. I said 50 years would be required before you can start claiming it is a complete, long term study. The information WILL come out, in time.
BUT... this is yet one of many reasons why drug production, etc should not be dictated by the "market". They are not now, anyway, but let's do away with the fiction. The length of time needed to test a drug should be based on the risk and benefit, NOT the ability of the company to make a profit.

Look, I agree that the current system isn't perfect, and is in need of change. But you have to be realistic here. That will never happen. Never. You would have 1 scientist devoting his entire adult life to seeing a single medication reach the market. There would be no feasible way to make it cost effective. Basically, if it was a requirement to run 50 year long studies on every medication, then the drug companies would cease to exist. Nobody would make medication since there is absolutely no profit to be made. Well, no profit unless a bottle of Tylenol costs $600.

Actually, with computerized records, the data could and should be collected pretty readily. However, you ignored another part I ALSO wrote, where I specifically said that we cannot wait until a drug is considered fully safe before putting it on the market. The risk we are willing to accept depends on the danger of the illness/injury in question. If we are talkingsoem new "death plaque" that is going to kill everyone in 10 years... I think you would get people willing to come out and take even gobs of arsenic IF there were some chance of it combatting the disease. If we are talking about a minor bruise... most people don't really see the need for ANY intervention. (But drug companies would be happy to convince us we need 1000 creams and such to treat them).

So, yeah, get back to me when you have something realistic to offer, instead of completely unfeasible "ideal solutions" that would never work.

Then again, you could look at what I write instead of just assuming.

Also, yeah, it's never good enough for you, is it? You state that studies should last years, not days. Then when I inform you that they do last years, you say that that's not enough anymore, it should be like 50 years. Sometimes I honestly think you just like to f*ck with people.

No. If you want to do a truly LONG term medical or biological study, it truly DOES take that long. NOT understanding that, pretending that these 1 year and 2 year studies are "complete" as opposed to just a stab in an emergency (which is essentially what drug development is.. a response to an emergency), then you make decisions, judge risk very, very incorrectly.

[PLAYER57832]

Private companies competing to regulate drugs. Oh yeah, no worries there..

Sure, there's plenty of worries. The lawsuits would sort out the losers from the winners, thus developing a trusty reputation behind Drug Certification Agency A's approval stamp.

Of course, I wouldn't be the first to take their drugs. I'd wait it out some years until then, or if I really needed a certain medicine, and I couldn't get in the clinical studies controlled by the FDA, then there's my opportunity to live: thank you, Drug Certification Agency A.

Competition would provide more opportunities and a faster rate of innovation in the long-run. This would very likely drive down the costs of producing and distributing safe drugs. A monopoly like the FDA has very little incentive to become more efficient and just as safe.

I see, because competition has resulted in us getting cheaper and better, more reliable appliances, right?
Except.. NO... the average lifespan of a major appliance was 20 years, then 10 years. I just wound up throwing out a dishwasher that was just 3 years old simply becuase the company stopped making the front panel! It not even a major electronic part, basically just the part that holds the switches and lighted them. I finally just could not stand looking at "duct tape" any more.

Sure drug companies will be happy to produce things they can sell cheaply and make millions. They will NOT, however, produce life-saving drugs for relatively few people, do the baseline research that sets the stage for all those drugs they create and produce, etc, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

And you think that runs counter to what I said?
Many drugs are discovered that way, but its only when they have a highly marketable effect that the companies push for approval.

ALSO... the drug companies did NOT come up with a cure for malaria, and most of that heart research to which you refer is funding by government grants. Some individual studies in the mix are not, but on the whole.. we get drugs more from government research than private funding. AND, when it IS "private" funding, its often groups the the Komen foundation, American Diabetes association, etc. NOT private corporations needing a profit.

I think it runs counter to what you said because your statements imply that pharmaceutical companies "tweaked" research in order to create viagra because it would provide quick payoffs. Nobody "tweaked" anything. During a Phase 1 clinical trial an interesting side effect for a blood pressure medicine was noticed. And yes, like any company would do, they saw a huge market and huge dollar signs, and they jumped at the opportunity.

EXACTLY! They are quick to note a possible benefit for a drug already in existance. They are not that great at finding and creating entirely new classes of drugs. They are quick to find cures for erectile dysfunction (yes, viagra). However, a cure for malaria.. a disease that still kills millions? It was not until the government realized that more soldiers were dying from malaria than injuries (or at least that malaria contributed significantly to the problems) that the research was done.

But you try to pass it off as if this was done on purpose, just to make money. And that's not the case at all. There are and were many different blood pressure medicines on the market already, so why wouldn't they jump at the opportunity to fill a void in the market over adding more to an over-saturated market? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but Viagra was one of the first ED medicines.

Pretty much my point.

Also, these companies don't take government funded research and "tweek" it. They have extensive R&D departments of their own that do the research, and then Contract Research Organizations to do the actual studies. The only part the government plays in any of this is the FDA and their many requirements, but that is all about ensuring that the drugs that actually reach the market are safe.

LOL..
Not wrong here. Just look at the funding for any university doing medical studies, as well as even the funding for many of those "private" companies. Its not really so private. Also, again, they do "big bang" research. They don't do baseline research that takes years, may or may not have a real result..b ut that lays the foundation for all thes "phenomenal discoveries".

Universities aren't part of big pharma, so they're not really what we're talking about here. Of course universities get grants for medical research, they are state run universities. But the big companies don't get grants like the universities do. They pay for their R&D. They pay for the testing. They pay to develop and market their drugs, not the government.

Now, perhaps some of the research done at a university would be passed on to a pharmaceutical company to develop an interesting new drug. In that case, then yes, big pharma would be indirectly benefiting from government funded research. But there is no direct funding to private companies for research by our government.

I see, so your claim is that pharmaceutical companies don't benefit from or have access to university research, government research, etc.? They actually do recieve some direct funding, but they also benefit immensly from the indirect. The government does a lot of baseline research, the stuff that may not have any immediate result, that gradually builds general understaning and that every now and then winds up producing something phenomenal. Yeah.. all that "waste". That "waste" so often dismissed by the right and many conservatives is precisely the research that actually does provide the "cures for cancer" or such. Some of the largest companies recognize that enough to invest in some base research, but its still pretty targeted. Going down to south america to collect any plant known to native populations (or just not known much by the west) so they can patent and claim any benefits that might result.. sure, they will do that. But...determining if certain food additives cause specific childhood illnesses.. nope, not even on their radar. NOT a for profit item. Yet, as a society, we need the latter perhaps more than the former.

[AndyDufresne]

In 50 years medicine will be obsolete. The Singularity will have occurred, and we'll just upload our consciousnesses into machines or servers. We won't have need of our weakly physical bodies.

-TG

I've slowly been downloading my mind and consciousness into my computer. I stick a couple of wires in my ears every night for an hour or so, hook it all up to my PC, and let some of it all drain out.

show

=====

As for Santorum, hm, good for him I suppose!


--Andy

[tkr4lf]

Still not truly long.

You only REALLY know if there are side effects by seeing the impact for at least a lifetime of many, many people. A long term study is more like 50 years minimum.. or at the very least, 20.

Ok, you realize that you expect the impossible then, yes?

"Expecting?". I expect honestly in language and understanding. You were proclaiming that the drug companies do these wonderful long term studies .. lada lada... I simply pointed out that these "long term" studies were pretty far from long term.

No, I wasn't.

I just read through every post of mine in this thread, and I have only said the words "long term study" once, and that was to say:

Ok, I understand all of that. But that just doesn't strike me as particularly rigorous, given the potential problems (particularly long-term) that can occur from medication. I guess to my view, "rigorous" would almost have to include some sort of a long-term study (which admittedly could be in the Phase 3 or 4 you described, as I have far less knowledge of it than you do).

It could be, but I doubt it. From my understanding, there aren't many (if any at all) "long term" studies like what would be ideal. The costs associated with running these studies is already enormous. I couldn't imagine how much they would have to spend to run the type of study that would pass your rigorous test.

That's not to say I don't agree. I do. I think they should continue to run tests on these medications, just to ensure the safety and efficacy. Unfortunately, big pharma is just like any other "evil corporation" in that their bottom line is profits. I think that in their eyes, it's more cost effective to simply pay off the people who bring up the law suits than to devote the significant amount of money and man hours needed to do a serious long-term study. That's pretty fucked up, but it is the truth (or at least I think it is, I could be wrong).

So you realize you're arguing with me about something we agree upon, right? I already said that as far as I know there aren't many "long term" studies but that there should be.

Who is going to pay for these 50 year long studies? Certainly not the drug companies, they have a hard enough time paying for the studies they do now.

LOL.. LOL...LOL.
FIRST, never said a 50 year study should be required. I said 50 years would be required before you can start claiming it is a complete, long term study. The information WILL come out, in time.
BUT... this is yet one of many reasons why drug production, etc should not be dictated by the "market". They are not now, anyway, but let's do away with the fiction. The length of time needed to test a drug should be based on the risk and benefit, NOT the ability of the company to make a profit.

But the company has to make a profit or there is no incentive to even market the drug.

Look, I agree that the situation isn't ideal. In a perfect world, all medicines would be tested for as long as it takes to make sure that it is safe and effective, no matter what the costs.

But this isn't a perfect world. These are companies we're dealing with, and a company's bottom line is profits. There is no other reason to be in business other than to make money.

So every drug they market must make them enough profit to warrant the costs associated with researching, developing, manufacturing, testing, and marketing the drug.
What you want is a utopia that will never happen. It would be great if it would happen, but it won't. Big Pharma is pretty entrenched, much like the FDA. Good luck ever getting them to give up their power.

Look, I agree that the current system isn't perfect, and is in need of change. But you have to be realistic here. That will never happen. Never. You would have 1 scientist devoting his entire adult life to seeing a single medication reach the market. There would be no feasible way to make it cost effective. Basically, if it was a requirement to run 50 year long studies on every medication, then the drug companies would cease to exist. Nobody would make medication since there is absolutely no profit to be made. Well, no profit unless a bottle of Tylenol costs $600.

Actually, with computerized records, the data could and should be collected pretty readily.

That has little to do with the costs of running a 50 year long study. Data collection is the least of your worries. You have to pay somebody to run the study for you, or you have to pay your own scientists to run a study. You have to pay to manufacture and ship all of the medication to the trials. You have to pay for the volunteers, at least in Phase 1 studies, etc.

I don't think data collection is a major concern when it comes to a drug company's decision on whether to run a 50 year long study or not.

However, you ignored another part I ALSO wrote, where I specifically said that we cannot wait until a drug is considered fully safe before putting it on the market.

No, I didn't.

I just read through every post of yours in response to me and you never once said that we cannot wait until a drug is considered fully safe before putting it on the market. Not once. Either you have a terrible memory or you are a liar. Maybe you said it in another thread that I haven't seen. Either way, you did not say that in this thread to me.

The risk we are willing to accept depends on the danger of the illness/injury in question. If we are talkingsoem new "death plaque" that is going to kill everyone in 10 years... I think you would get people willing to come out and take even gobs of arsenic IF there were some chance of it combatting the disease. If we are talking about a minor bruise... most people don't really see the need for ANY intervention. (But drug companies would be happy to convince us we need 1000 creams and such to treat them).

Yeah, that makes sense.

And of course the drug companies would happily convince you that you need something when you don't, they are a for-profit company. They'll jump at the opportunity to make new profits.

So, yeah, get back to me when you have something realistic to offer, instead of completely unfeasible "ideal solutions" that would never work.

Then again, you could look at what I write instead of just assuming.

I do. And I see that most of it is rubbish. I also notice that you believe what you want to without needing any proof. Such as:

You were proclaiming that the drug companies do these wonderful long term studies

and:

However, you ignored another part I ALSO wrote, where I specifically said that we cannot wait until a drug is considered fully safe before putting it on the market.

Considering both of these are false, and can be proven false by anybody simply reading this thread, I'm going to have to go the Woodruff route and say that your reading comprehension really sucks.

Also, yeah, it's never good enough for you, is it? You state that studies should last years, not days. Then when I inform you that they do last years, you say that that's not enough anymore, it should be like 50 years. Sometimes I honestly think you just like to f*ck with people.

No. If you want to do a truly LONG term medical or biological study, it truly DOES take that long. NOT understanding that, pretending that these 1 year and 2 year studies are "complete" as opposed to just a stab in an emergency (which is essentially what drug development is.. a response to an emergency), then you make decisions, judge risk very, very incorrectly.

Again, never said the studies done are long term. The word I used was rigorous.

A 2-4 year study with multiple phases which are devoted to different aspects of the drug is usually sufficient. Yes, there are times when it is not sufficient and bad things result, but as I said earlier in this thread to Woodruff, for every drug lawsuit you see, there are hundreds of other medicines that are both safe and efficient, even though they were only studied for 2-4 years.

Yes, it would be better to have much longer studies done, but it's not economically feasible.

I believe that the drug companies see it as being much more cost-efficient for the companies to simply pay off lawsuits than to devote the money and the manpower to these perfect long term studies. Is that right? No, I don't think so. But that is the system we have.

Also, no, drug development is not essentially a response to an emergency. Like I said, these companies have extensive R&D divisions, we have the university research that you pointed out, etc.

How can thousands of hours of research that happens to result in an interesting effect of some new compound being noticed and subsequently developed into a medicine that is then tested on animals for however long they do that, and then rigorously tested on humans for 2-4 years be considered a response to an emergency?

And you think that runs counter to what I said?
Many drugs are discovered that way, but its only when they have a highly marketable effect that the companies push for approval.

ALSO... the drug companies did NOT come up with a cure for malaria, and most of that heart research to which you refer is funding by government grants. Some individual studies in the mix are not, but on the whole.. we get drugs more from government research than private funding. AND, when it IS "private" funding, its often groups the the Komen foundation, American Diabetes association, etc. NOT private corporations needing a profit.

I think it runs counter to what you said because your statements imply that pharmaceutical companies "tweaked" research in order to create viagra because it would provide quick payoffs. Nobody "tweaked" anything. During a Phase 1 clinical trial an interesting side effect for a blood pressure medicine was noticed. And yes, like any company would do, they saw a huge market and huge dollar signs, and they jumped at the opportunity.

EXACTLY! They are quick to note a possible benefit for a drug already in existance. They are not that great at finding and creating entirely new classes of drugs. They are quick to find cures for erectile dysfunction (yes, viagra). However, a cure for malaria.. a disease that still kills millions? It was not until the government realized that more soldiers were dying from malaria than injuries (or at least that malaria contributed significantly to the problems) that the research was done.

You still insinuate that the industry purposefully made an ED pill. They did not. It was a complete accident.

And that is completely wrong about they are not great at finding entirely new classes of drugs. New classes of drugs are found all the time. That's why there has been a steady advance in the quality of, say, anti-depressants, or blood pressure medicine, or heart medication, or AIDS medications.

As for a cure for malaria, I wasn't aware the government developed one because it noticed more soldiers were dying of it than injuries. Perhaps you have a source?

But you try to pass it off as if this was done on purpose, just to make money. And that's not the case at all. There are and were many different blood pressure medicines on the market already, so why wouldn't they jump at the opportunity to fill a void in the market over adding more to an over-saturated market? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but Viagra was one of the first ED medicines.

Pretty much my point.

Then we agree here.

Also, these companies don't take government funded research and "tweek" it. They have extensive R&D departments of their own that do the research, and then Contract Research Organizations to do the actual studies. The only part the government plays in any of this is the FDA and their many requirements, but that is all about ensuring that the drugs that actually reach the market are safe.

LOL..
Not wrong here. Just look at the funding for any university doing medical studies, as well as even the funding for many of those "private" companies. Its not really so private. Also, again, they do "big bang" research. They don't do baseline research that takes years, may or may not have a real result..b ut that lays the foundation for all thes "phenomenal discoveries".

Universities aren't part of big pharma, so they're not really what we're talking about here. Of course universities get grants for medical research, they are state run universities. But the big companies don't get grants like the universities do. They pay for their R&D. They pay for the testing. They pay to develop and market their drugs, not the government.

Now, perhaps some of the research done at a university would be passed on to a pharmaceutical company to develop an interesting new drug. In that case, then yes, big pharma would be indirectly benefiting from government funded research. But there is no direct funding to private companies for research by our government.

I see, so your claim is that pharmaceutical companies don't benefit from or have access to university research, government research, etc.?

No, that is not my claim at all. That's why, just above, I said:

Now, perhaps some of the research done at a university would be passed on to a pharmaceutical company to develop an interesting new drug. In that case, then yes, big pharma would be indirectly benefiting from government funded research. But there is no direct funding to private companies for research by our government.

This is the third time in this massive post that you have said something completely untrue. You should really work on that reading comprehension problem. [/Woodruff]

They actually do recieve some direct funding, but they also benefit immensly from the indirect. The government does a lot of baseline research, the stuff that may not have any immediate result, that gradually builds general understaning and that every now and then winds up producing something phenomenal.

Care to provide some evidence? Have a source?

I'm sure they do benefit from the indirect funding, but I from my understanding they do not receive direct funding from the government. Would you care to prove me wrong? All it takes is some evidence, and I will gladly admit that you are correct on that point.

Just to be clear... this part:

They actually do recieve some direct funding

is what I would like some evidence of.

Yeah.. all that "waste". That "waste" so often dismissed by the right and many conservatives is precisely the research that actually does provide the "cures for cancer" or such. Some of the largest companies recognize that enough to invest in some base research, but its still pretty targeted. Going down to south america to collect any plant known to native populations (or just not known much by the west) so they can patent and claim any benefits that might result.. sure, they will do that. But...determining if certain food additives cause specific childhood illnesses.. nope, not even on their radar. NOT a for profit item. Yet, as a society, we need the latter perhaps more than the former.

Yup, Big Pharma is just like every other huge, evil corporation. They want money, lots of it. I've already agreed to this.


Sorry for the length of this post, but wanted to combine your two posts into one.

This is probably the last I will converse with you on this topic, because trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to talk to a brick wall. I caught you in 3 different instances of either falsely accusing me of saying or doing something or falsely saying that you said something. Either you smoke a lot of pot and have a horrible memory, you just suck at debating, or you are an extremely dishonest person. Either way, I'm really tired of dealing with you.

If you can provide some evidence to your claims as I asked for above, I will respond to that. Otherwise, I may or may not. Just depends on how I'm feeling. But right now, I'm really tired of you. I still stand by my belief that you just like to f*ck with people.

[spurgistan]

This thread needs more santorum.

[BigBallinStalin]

Private companies competing to regulate drugs. Oh yeah, no worries there..

Sure, there's plenty of worries. The lawsuits would sort out the losers from the winners, thus developing a trusty reputation behind Drug Certification Agency A's approval stamp.

Of course, I wouldn't be the first to take their drugs. I'd wait it out some years until then, or if I really needed a certain medicine, and I couldn't get in the clinical studies controlled by the FDA, then there's my opportunity to live: thank you, Drug Certification Agency A.

Competition would provide more opportunities and a faster rate of innovation in the long-run. This would very likely drive down the costs of producing and distributing safe drugs. A monopoly like the FDA has very little incentive to become more efficient and just as safe.

I see, because competition has resulted in us getting cheaper and better, more reliable appliances, right?
Except.. NO... the average lifespan of a major appliance was 20 years, then 10 years. I just wound up throwing out a dishwasher that was just 3 years old simply becuase the company stopped making the front panel! It not even a major electronic part, basically just the part that holds the switches and lighted them. I finally just could not stand looking at "duct tape" any more.

1) I'd recommend switching suppliers.

2) The process of discovery requires trial-and-error, so rational deliberation is required on your part.

3) How do you know you're not falling victim to sample bias? You see planned obsolescence everywhere, but it's only based on your own purchasing decisions.

4) Then, how do you know you're not falling victim to confirmation bias? You see planned obsolescence while mentally recording conversations with your neighbors (on only the products that fail after a short time).

There's also the problem of having a 30 year old fridge. Talk about inefficient in energy usage! Any environmentalist would balk at wanting to purchase and retain 20+ year-old equipment which is relatively very energy-intensive compared to the lesser energy-intensive appliances of today and within the next 5, 10, 20+ years.

[BigBallinStalin]

DANGER, TKR!! DANGER!!

You're returns from exchanging words with players are sharply decreasing. Nose-diving into zero.

DANGER, TKR! DANGER!!

[tkr4lf]

DANGER, TKR!! DANGER!!

You're returns from exchanging words with players are sharply decreasing. Nose-diving into zero.

DANGER, TKR! DANGER!!

You're telling me. I spent almost an hour composing that fucking post. And has there been a response? Go figure...


Hey everyone, I know how to make PLAYER go away now! Just call her out on her bullshit, point out her lies and/or mistakes, and she disappears!

Tell everyone you know!

[PLAYER57832]

If you allowed the "free market" to dictate drugs, you would see what we now have with appliances. You can no longer get a refridgerator or any major appliance that lasts more than 5 years. Even finding parts for many items is difficult, no matter how easy they are to repair. We just wound up having to pitch a 3 year old dishwasher simply because the company was no longer making the front panel! Its bad enough when its a dishawasher. Its tragic when that happens with medications.

What appliances have you been buying? Mine are awesome!

Don't believe you are old enough to have given them a 10 year test, yet -- never mind a 20 year test. BUT.. I get my information from discussions with various repairmen and suppliers (as a result of trying to get things repaired). The industry standard WAS a 10 year lifetime, repair parts available for at least a good part of that. Now... its 5 years and many repair parts are just not made, at all.

I can still use some of my grandmother's appliances and while the newer ones are often more energy efficient and have a few extra gimgaws (that are more likely to break than the basic appliance). The thing is, too many younger people like yourself have just never known another situation and just think a society of everything disposable is perfectly OK.

BUT.. to get back to the topic, Congress had to force companies to produce "orphan drugs". Some of those have so few users that the drugs are not at all profitable. HOWEVER, a major reason for limits we now see in supplies of some vaccines and commonly used medications is that companies have been consolidating into just a few plants. When one problem occurs, it impacts the entire stream of the medication. In many cases, larger companies have bought up smaller, profitable but not quite as profitable companies to make this happen.

Sometimes I think you like to pretend that "efficiency" simply means "better". It definitely does not mean better quality and too often is code for "cutting as many corners.. and people ... as possible". When "inefficiency" means that you have several smaller companies that produce something instead of one big company, the real benefit is profit to the top levels/stockholders. That may be OK if you are making T-shirts. No one is going to die becuase they don't get their favorite brand or design. When its drugs.. that is plain unacceptable.

[tkr4lf]

If you allowed the "free market" to dictate drugs, you would see what we now have with appliances. You can no longer get a refridgerator or any major appliance that lasts more than 5 years. Even finding parts for many items is difficult, no matter how easy they are to repair. We just wound up having to pitch a 3 year old dishwasher simply because the company was no longer making the front panel! Its bad enough when its a dishawasher. Its tragic when that happens with medications.

What appliances have you been buying? Mine are awesome!

Don't believe you are old enough to have given them a 10 year test, yet -- never mind a 20 year test. BUT.. I get my information from discussions with various repairmen and suppliers (as a result of trying to get things repaired). The industry standard WAS a 10 year lifetime, repair parts available for at least a good part of that. Now... its 5 years and many repair parts are just not made, at all.

I can still use some of my grandmother's appliances and while the newer ones are often more energy efficient and have a few extra gimgaws (that are more likely to break than the basic appliance). The thing is, too many younger people like yourself have just never known another situation and just think a society of everything disposable is perfectly OK.

BUT.. to get back to the topic, Congress had to force companies to produce "orphan drugs". Some of those have so few users that the drugs are not at all profitable. HOWEVER, a major reason for limits we now see in supplies of some vaccines and commonly used medications is that companies have been consolidating into just a few plants. When one problem occurs, it impacts the entire stream of the medication. In many cases, larger companies have bought up smaller, profitable but not quite as profitable companies to make this happen.

Sometimes I think you like to pretend that "efficiency" simply means "better". It definitely does not mean better quality and too often is code for "cutting as many corners.. and people ... as possible". When "inefficiency" means that you have several smaller companies that produce something instead of one big company, the real benefit is profit to the top levels/stockholders. That may be OK if you are making T-shirts. No one is going to die becuase they don't get their favorite brand or design. When its drugs.. that is plain unacceptable.

I see that you completely ignored what I posted.

What's wrong? Afraid to own up to your mistakes/lies? Afraid to support your claims with evidence?

That's fine. I didn't expect any different. I see you for what you are. You're an intellectually lazy and dishonest person who makes sweeping claims and then refuses to back them up with proof when you're called out on them. Why do you even bother posting, then? As I said before, I suspect that it is just because you like to f*ck with people, or maybe you just enjoy arguing, even when you know you're wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

I just read through every post of mine in this thread, and I have only said the words "long term study" once, and that was to say:

You started this by pouncing on me as "talking through my ass" when I told you that drug companies basically take existing research and tweek it for profits rather than really doing the advancing research themselves. And then went on with an "explanation" of how "rigorous" the studies were (along with claiming that them marketing Viagara somehow proved they werenot just tweaking research ) to attempt to refute what I said... as well

YET.... it turns out that every assertion I made was actually correct and yet you still want to argue about it

Ok, I understand all of that. But that just doesn't strike me as particularly rigorous, given the potential problems (particularly long-term) that can occur from medication. I guess to my view, "rigorous" would almost have to include some sort of a long-term study (which admittedly could be in the Phase 3 or 4 you described, as I have far less knowledge of it than you do).

It could be, but I doubt it. From my understanding, there aren't many (if any at all) "long term" studies like what would be ideal. The costs associated with running these studies is already enormous. I couldn't imagine how much they would have to spend to run the type of study that would pass your rigorous test.

That's not to say I don't agree. I do. I think they should continue to run tests on these medications, just to ensure the safety and efficacy. Unfortunately, big pharma is just like any other "evil corporation" in that their bottom line is profits. I think that in their eyes, it's more cost effective to simply pay off the people who bring up the law suits than to devote the significant amount of money and man hours needed to do a serious long-term study. That's pretty fucked up, but it is the truth (or at least I think it is, I could be wrong).

So you realize you're arguing with me about something we agree upon, right?

NO, I think you don't really understand as much as you think about medical studies, but instead of just admitting you were wrong on several fronts just decide to play the "attack player" game.

I already said that as far as I know there aren't many "long term" studies but that there should be.

Except, you decided to argue when I said a really long term study would take 20-50 years... and decided, though I never said it, that this clarification meant I was insisting this is what companies should do.
BUT, ....
Specifically, to clarify, if you are talking about a drug that will help a terminal patient.. who cares about impacts 5-10 years down the road, and who really needs to know whether it will cause them to get brittle hair or even have more serious issues. IF, however, you are talking about a drug for achne... I want to know it is pretty darned SAFE before letting teenagers take it! Maybe not 20 years safe, but definitely no indications of kidney problems, heart problems or even brittle hair that is permanent in more than a very small portion of the poeple taking it. Even that definition of "small portion" changes. If this is a disease that kills 1 in 250, then a risk of death in 1 in 1,000 is acceptable. If its something that most kids outgrow (acne.. though I do qualify that serious acne cases can permanently scar and thus do have lifetime impacts.. just not death), then a 1 in 1000 risk of death seems a bit extreme.

Who is going to pay for these 50 year long studies? Certainly not the drug companies, they have a hard enough time paying for the studies they do now.

LOL.. LOL...LOL.
FIRST, never said a 50 year study should be required. I said 50 years would be required before you can start claiming it is a complete, long term study. The information WILL come out, in time.
BUT... this is yet one of many reasons why drug production, etc should not be dictated by the "market". They are not now, anyway, but let's do away with the fiction. The length of time needed to test a drug should be based on the risk and benefit, NOT the ability of the company to make a profit.

But the company has to make a profit or there is no incentive to even market the drug.

Yet one more reason why having these industries run on a "for profit" basis, particularly a profit without limits, is wrong and inappropriate.

Look, I agree that the situation isn't ideal. In a perfect world, all medicines would be tested for as long as it takes to make sure that it is safe and effective, no matter what the costs.

But this isn't a perfect world. These are companies we're dealing with, and a company's bottom line is profits. There is no other reason to be in business other than to make money.

So every drug they market must make them enough profit to warrant the costs associated with researching, developing, manufacturing, testing, and marketing the drug.

Except right now, that is HEAVILY skewed by tax dollars and yet taxpayers are kept ignorant of this. The right wing utterly ignores the major payments we make to medical research, the fact that companies are flat out GI VEN patents for drugs researched for using NIH (taxpayer) dollars... and then the right wants to object to limits on the profits of these companies or even requirements that they actually produce the drugs for which they have patents.

What you want is a utopia that will never happen. It would be great if it would happen, but it won't. Big Pharma is pretty entrenched, much like the FDA. Good luck ever getting them to give up their power.

What I want above all is more honesty and awareness of the situation. Too many posters here, like yourself, seem very unaware of the full and complete extent to which taxpayers truly support these companies AND the huge profits they gain from just one very successful drug like Viagra (that very much make up for the losses in other areas -- never mind lower profits in other areas)

Look, I agree that the current system isn't perfect, and is in need of change. But you have to be realistic here. That will never happen. Never. You would have 1 scientist devoting his entire adult life to seeing a single medication reach the market. There would be no feasible way to make it cost effective. Basically, if it was a requirement to run 50 year long studies on every medication, then the drug companies would cease to exist. Nobody would make medication since there is absolutely no profit to be made. Well, no profit unless a bottle of Tylenol costs $600.

Actually, with computerized records, the data could and should be collected pretty readily.

That has little to do with the costs of running a 50 year long study. Data collection is the least of your worries. You have to pay somebody to run the study for you, or you have to pay your own scientists to run a study. You have to pay to manufacture and ship all of the medication to the trials. You have to pay for the volunteers, at least in Phase 1 studies, etc.

Let me clarify a point upon which you appear to be ignorant. I HAVE DONE government research, for years. My research is designs are still used today in the field, are published. And, while no, I was not directly involved in medical/pharmaceutical research, I would see and hear about some of those people in various conferences, even back in college classes (note.. an anomoly of many biology classes is that you may sit beside graduate students in the very same lecture and study with them. you just get differing grades).

Sooooo:
It has a LOT to do with teh cost of running a 50 year study!

Physicians can be, should be required to list even just reported side effects of drugs. That is, if they give a drug and then the patient gets a stomache ache an hour later.. or 6 hours later .. or the next day.. that needs to be recorded. Now, if you are familiar with biological studies, you know that this, alone is not proof of anything (did the kid "just happen" to eat 3 bags of halloween candy right after taking the medication?). However, given huge numbers of people and the correct data, this stuff can very much highlight possible side effects and sometimes actual proof of side effects. This ability to collate and collect information is exactly what makes studies so costly.. and difficult. Only with computers can you possibly look at the many parameters and stratify the data well enough to get results. Computers make it much, much easier to pull out, say just women between the ages of 30 and 40.. and allows collection of data across a much wider physical region than traditional tests. The data is less controlled, and so this kind of collection won't completely replace the more intensive and controlled type studies, but as much as anything it can highlight much more efficiently where such studies might be more warranted. AND, when the results are serious and/or severe... this kind of data can show real results. (if I know there is even a chance of 1 in 200 kids dying from a cough medicine.. PULL IT!!! and only maybe worry about a follow-up study, depending on the evidence. If I see that there seems to be higher incidence of various problems in young children taking a particular medicine or women who are 40-45, then a better study is warranted).

I don't think data collection is a major concern when it comes to a drug company's decision on whether to run a 50 year long study or not.

Then you don't know much about the situation.

But, the bottom line is that companies will only do what is required or that they feel will be cost-effective in warding off lawsuits and penalties. Right now, they have no incentive.. actually have negative incentives to really do a good job of collecting side effect data after a drug is released (just to point out one BIG problem).

However, you ignored another part I ALSO wrote, where I specifically said that we cannot wait until a drug is considered fully safe before putting it on the market.

No, I didn't.

I just read through every post of yours in response to me and you never once said that we cannot wait until a drug is considered fully safe before putting it on the market. Not once. Either you have a terrible memory or you are a liar. Maybe you said it in another thread that I haven't seen. Either way, you did not say that in this thread to me.

I never said that this was a requirement, EVER. I objected to your classification of 1-2 year studies as being "long term" and "complete". They just are not. What level of testing should be required is a DIFFERENT QUESTION. So, to begin you "debated" a point that I never even made.

BUT.. still, I DID addres what you claim I did not:

However, I DID very much say, this:
Page 5, colorization added to the pertinent part.

At some point, you have to cut off any study. The truth is that you don't really know a drug's full impact unless it is used for a lifetime among huge numbers of people. However, most people are willing to accept that. The problem comes when people are not given full information about what IS available and when there are incentives to distort real results.

From page 6:

BUT... this is yet one of many reasons why drug production, etc should not be dictated by the "market". They are not now, anyway, but let's do away with the fiction. The length of time needed to test a drug should be based on the risk and benefit, NOT the ability of the company to make a profit.

And here, you save me finding this one:

The risk we are willing to accept depends on the danger of the illness/injury in question. If we are talkingsoem new "death plaque" that is going to kill everyone in 10 years... I think you would get people willing to come out and take even gobs of arsenic IF there were some chance of it combatting the disease. If we are talking about a minor bruise... most people don't really see the need for ANY intervention. (But drug companies would be happy to convince us we need 1000 creams and such to treat them).

Yeah, that makes sense.

and it did not even kill you to admit that!

And of course the drug companies would happily convince you that you need something when you don't, they are a for-profit company. They'll jump at the opportunity to make new profits.

Yes, they very much do that. And, for all the right wants to claim that the government has vested interests counter to the needs of the public, I have yet to see the extremely subversive impact of extra money for stockholders. In fact, most of the so-called "political" and "government" interest is actually monetary interest of people supporting various politicians.

So, yeah, get back to me when you have something realistic to offer, instead of completely unfeasible "ideal solutions" that would never work.

Then again, you could look at what I write instead of just assuming.

I do. And I see that most of it is rubbish. I also notice that you believe what you want to without needing any proof. Such as:

You were proclaiming that the drug companies do these wonderful long term studies

Ah, yes, you spoke of the "rigorousness" of the studies, not "long term". But you still felt free to pounce on me when I said they were not really long term. and:

HERE is the part that started it all off.

Night Strike wrote:
pmchugh wrote:
Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.
OUR system is not a free market system. Companies take government funded research and "tweek" it or work on things that will provide quick pay offs.

Viagra.. not cures for breast cancer, never mind malaria.

There are 2 primary reasons the US has provided so many drugs to date. The first is our sheer size. Our institutions have attracted people from all over. Other places had good research, but we tended to have more.

AND.. our wonderful education system, particularly the higher education system that has been open to more people than other countries' systems.

NOTHING about free markets. Sorry, that is pure illusion. (and no, you CANNOT find this by checking patents because the government does not get patents) PLAYER57832

Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am


PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
pmchugh wrote:
Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.
OUR system is not a free market system. Companies take government funded research and "tweek" it or work on things that will provide quick pay offs.

Viagra.. not cures for breast cancer, never mind malaria.

There are 2 primary reasons the US has provided so many drugs to date. The first is our sheer size. Our institutions have attracted people from all over. Other places had good research, but we tended to have more.

AND.. our wonderful education system, particularly the higher education system that has been open to more people than other countries' systems.

NOTHING about free markets. Sorry, that is pure illusion. (and no, you CANNOT find this by checking patents because the government does not get patents)
Once again, you are talking out of your ass. Viagra was originally a heart medicine. It was during phase 1 testing that they noticed the side effect of massive erections. Fun fact: The PPD phase 1 clinic here in Austin that I worked at actually tested Viagra.

Also, these companies don't take government funded research and "tweek" it. They have extensive R&D departments of their own that do the research, and then Contract Research Organizations to do the actual studies. The only part the government plays in any of this is the FDA and their many requirements, but that is all about ensuring that the drugs that actually reach the market are safe.

You really should try to learn about things before you just start spouting stuff out about things of which you have no knowledge.

[/quote]

Also, no, drug development is not essentially a response to an emergency. Like I said, these companies have extensive R&D divisions, we have the university research that you pointed out, etc.

Skipped a piece because its just repeating what was already said. Again, this is specifically referring to the fact that we cannot wait for full and complete proof fo safety, because people need these medications. That IS my definition of an "emergency" and, in the context is an appropriate use of the word.

I think it runs counter to what you said because your statements imply that pharmaceutical companies "tweaked" research in order to create viagra because it would provide quick payoffs. Nobody "tweaked" anything. During a Phase 1 clinical trial an interesting side effect for a blood pressure medicine was noticed. And yes, like any company would do, they saw a huge market and huge dollar signs, and they jumped at the opportunity.

[/quote]
So they took and bottled it into a new form, sold it was a drug to cure erectifel dysfunction. In other words, they TWEAKED something that already existed, shifted its focus. They did not discover a wholly new drug.

EXACTLY! They are quick to note a possible benefit for a drug already in existance. They are not that great at finding and creating entirely new classes of drugs. They are quick to find cures for erectile dysfunction (yes, viagra). However, a cure for malaria.. a disease that still kills millions? It was not until the government realized that more soldiers were dying from malaria than injuries (or at least that malaria contributed significantly to the problems) that the research was done.

You still insinuate that the industry purposefully made an ED pill. They did not. It was a complete accident.

And that is completely wrong about they are not great at finding entirely new classes of drugs. New classes of drugs are found all the time. That's why there has been a steady advance in the quality of, say, anti-depressants, or blood pressure medicine, or heart medication, or AIDS medications. [/quote]And yet, you make these statements without really paying attention to where that research comes from.

now.. I can qualify that I could have misused the terms "class of drugs". I don't know the technical definition of what distinguishes one class from another. And its possible there is an exception.. most probably it would be in researching tropical plants. (though as I noted, that is largely a matter of collecting data.. its just the data is from tribes people not government research necessarily). HOWEVER, by and large companies take existing research and use it. the government makes the initial stabs that so often are unsuccessful.

As for a cure for malaria, I wasn't aware the government developed one because it noticed more soldiers were dying of it than injuries. Perhaps you have a source?

Ralph Nadar gave a pretty interesting speech on the topic. You can access it, but have to pay $20. I have not found a ready free source. (the information is likely there, just in various different places such that I just don't ahve time to tie it all together the way he did). A lot of the research was done in Walter Reed hospital, which got a bad name, but was actually a leading institution for a long time. One big reason it was neglected is that unlike the drug companies and private corporations, the staff of Walter Reed could NOT even call legislators on the phone to say they had definite needs for xyz, never mind say "hey, did you know we did... xyz".

Also, research done by the NIH, etc is required, by law to be GIVEN to private corporations..the corporations doing the closest type of research. This is one big reason a LOT of people are just utterly unawre of exactly how much research is done by the government. You cannot look at who gets credit for results (unless you look at published papers.. and then you generally have to know who the people are and so forth). Also, government employees are limited in the credit they can take in publications at times. (also limited in what they can publish, since research, unlike fiction, costs money to be published)

I see, so your claim is that pharmaceutical companies don't benefit from or have access to university research, government research, etc.?

No, that is not my claim at all. That's why, just above, I said:

Now, perhaps some of the research done at a university would be passed on to a pharmaceutical company to develop an interesting new drug. In that case, then yes, big pharma would be indirectly benefiting from government funded research. But there is no direct funding to private companies for research by our government.

This is the third time in this massive post that you have said something completely untrue. You should really work on that reading comprehension problem. [/quote]
Except your "point" was made that I was "talking through my ass" to say that these companies were mostly taking government funded research, tweaking it a bit and then making huge profits, rather than doing the baseline research.

So.. you disputed your own point. And STILL want to accuse me of need ing reading comprehension lessons.

They actually do recieve some direct funding, but they also benefit immensly from the indirect. The government does a lot of baseline research, the stuff that may not have any immediate result, that gradually builds general understaning and that every now and then winds up producing something phenomenal.

Care to provide some evidence? Have a source?

Oh please, this AGAIN.

You actually agree, here below:

I'm sure they do benefit from the indirect funding, but I from my understanding they do not receive direct funding from the government. Would you care to prove me wrong? All it takes is some evidence, and I will gladly admit that you are correct on that point.

Under what universe does "benefit from indirect funding" translate into "they pay for their own way" (to PARAPHRASE what you said.. please look the term up before you tell me I am quoting you incorrectly!)

THAT is where most of the real and true moving research happens.

ALSO, they DO receive the patents made from government funding (source noted above.. its Ralph Nadar). ANd, yes, they do receive some direct funding.

Just to be clear... this part:

They actually do recieve some direct funding

is what I would like some evidence of.[/quote]

Oh please.. you even admitted above that they likely to get some funding. You just wanted to say it wasn't significant amounts.
ANY combined, cooperative research effort is recieving direct funding.

I caught you in 3 different instances of either falsely accusing me of saying or doing something or falsely saying that you said something. Either you smoke a lot of pot and have a horrible memory, you just suck at debating, or you are an extremely dishonest person. Either way, I'm really tired of dealing with you.

You are unwilling to admit you are wrong.

I am a grown up... and long since past that idiotic stage of life. BUT, I do take exception with people trying to claim I say things I don't , twist my arguments, and who try to take credit for "winning:" debates that were not even really debates.

But right now, I'm really tired of you. I still stand by my belief that you just like to f*ck with people.

No, I like HONESTY.

Too bad you don't seem to even understand what that means.. specifically, it includes verifying before you strat lobbing out accusations. AND, if you are wrong, as you very much are above, you APOLOGIZE. Those things take maturity, though. Sadly lacking here of late.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you allowed the "free market" to dictate drugs, you would see what we now have with appliances. You can no longer get a refridgerator or any major appliance that lasts more than 5 years. Even finding parts for many items is difficult, no matter how easy they are to repair. We just wound up having to pitch a 3 year old dishwasher simply because the company was no longer making the front panel! Its bad enough when its a dishawasher. Its tragic when that happens with medications.

What appliances have you been buying? Mine are awesome!

Don't believe you are old enough to have given them a 10 year test, yet -- never mind a 20 year test. BUT.. I get my information from discussions with various repairmen and suppliers (as a result of trying to get things repaired). The industry standard WAS a 10 year lifetime, repair parts available for at least a good part of that. Now... its 5 years and many repair parts are just not made, at all.

I can still use some of my grandmother's appliances and while the newer ones are often more energy efficient and have a few extra gimgaws (that are more likely to break than the basic appliance). The thing is, too many younger people like yourself have just never known another situation and just think a society of everything disposable is perfectly OK.

BUT.. to get back to the topic, Congress had to force companies to produce "orphan drugs". Some of those have so few users that the drugs are not at all profitable. HOWEVER, a major reason for limits we now see in supplies of some vaccines and commonly used medications is that companies have been consolidating into just a few plants. When one problem occurs, it impacts the entire stream of the medication. In many cases, larger companies have bought up smaller, profitable but not quite as profitable companies to make this happen.

Sometimes I think you like to pretend that "efficiency" simply means "better". It definitely does not mean better quality and too often is code for "cutting as many corners.. and people ... as possible". When "inefficiency" means that you have several smaller companies that produce something instead of one big company, the real benefit is profit to the top levels/stockholders. That may be OK if you are making T-shirts. No one is going to die becuase they don't get their favorite brand or design. When its drugs.. that is plain unacceptable.

I'm less than 10 years old?!?!

I usually look for guarantees. If a part breaks, they fix it. If that company gives me trouble, I stop buying their products and let other people know. I'm a vicious customer who values his time and money.

If I'm buying Chinese products, I expect them to break soon, while adding in the later additional replacement cost... much of this makes sense to me. Maybe your expectations are unrealistic? You expect 30+ year old products with no break-downs or faults, and that could be possibly to produce except it would cost so much that you and most people wouldn't be able to afford it...

[tkr4lf]

Ok, PLAYER, I'm done talking with you.

You take points that I make and then go on to comment on tons of shit that has nothing to do with what I said. When I point out obvious mistakes/lies of yours, and provide proof of those, you ignore that and somehow claim that I am the one lying/making mistakes, without any proof. You refuse to provide evidence when asked for it. You are an intellectually lazy and dishonest person, and I have no desire to continue this exchange of words with you.

It's no wonder few on this website are willing to engage in serious and thoughtful conversation with you. I don't know what I was thinking taking you off of the foe list. Back to it you go. Good day.

[HapSmo19]

You can no longer get a refridgerator or any major appliance that lasts more than 5 years.

No need for long term reliability when the clathrate gun is about to go off.

[PLAYER57832]

I see that you completely ignored what I posted.

Which post. I answered quite a few of yours. I might well have missed one. They seem to repeat.

Summary "if player says it, I will dispute it.. even if she is saying things to which I actually agree"

[PLAYER57832]

If you allowed the "free market" to dictate drugs, you would see what we now have with appliances. You can no longer get a refridgerator or any major appliance that lasts more than 5 years. Even finding parts for many items is difficult, no matter how easy they are to repair. We just wound up having to pitch a 3 year old dishwasher simply because the company was no longer making the front panel! Its bad enough when its a dishawasher. Its tragic when that happens with medications.

What appliances have you been buying? Mine are awesome!

Don't believe you are old enough to have given them a 10 year test, yet -- never mind a 20 year test. BUT.. I get my information from discussions with various repairmen and suppliers (as a result of trying to get things repaired). The industry standard WAS a 10 year lifetime, repair parts available for at least a good part of that. Now... its 5 years and many repair parts are just not made, at all.

I can still use some of my grandmother's appliances and while the newer ones are often more energy efficient and have a few extra gimgaws (that are more likely to break than the basic appliance). The thing is, too many younger people like yourself have just never known another situation and just think a society of everything disposable is perfectly OK.

BUT.. to get back to the topic, Congress had to force companies to produce "orphan drugs". Some of those have so few users that the drugs are not at all profitable. HOWEVER, a major reason for limits we now see in supplies of some vaccines and commonly used medications is that companies have been consolidating into just a few plants. When one problem occurs, it impacts the entire stream of the medication. In many cases, larger companies have bought up smaller, profitable but not quite as profitable companies to make this happen.

Sometimes I think you like to pretend that "efficiency" simply means "better". It definitely does not mean better quality and too often is code for "cutting as many corners.. and people ... as possible". When "inefficiency" means that you have several smaller companies that produce something instead of one big company, the real benefit is profit to the top levels/stockholders. That may be OK if you are making T-shirts. No one is going to die becuase they don't get their favorite brand or design. When its drugs.. that is plain unacceptable.

I'm less than 10 years old?!?!

If you think infants buy appliances, I suppose you say that

I usually look for guarantees. If a part breaks, they fix it.

Keep looking. The best you can get in all but the absolute most expensive models now is a service contract. And they usually wind up just giving you credit for a new one, not supplying parts, because that parts often don't exist. There are exceptions, but they are few.

If that company gives me trouble, I stop buying their products and let other people know. I'm a vicious customer who values his time and money.

LOL... and in comes LOWEs. As long as there are a few smaller locally owned stores, sure. When Lowes and Home Depot start competing... watch out.

If I'm buying Chinese products, I expect them to break soon, while adding in the later additional replacement cost... much of this makes sense to me. Maybe your expectations are unrealistic? You expect 30+ year old products with no break-downs or faults, and that could be possibly to produce except it would cost so much that you and most people wouldn't be able to afford it...

Unrealistic to expect a major appliance to last at least 10 years? Apparently, based on what is available today.

At any rate, this is not what we need in the the medical industry.

[PLAYER57832]

Private companies competing to regulate drugs. Oh yeah, no worries there..

Sure, there's plenty of worries. The lawsuits would sort out the losers from the winners, thus developing a trusty reputation behind Drug Certification Agency A's approval stamp.

Of course, I wouldn't be the first to take their drugs. I'd wait it out some years until then, or if I really needed a certain medicine, and I couldn't get in the clinical studies controlled by the FDA, then there's my opportunity to live: thank you, Drug Certification Agency A.

Competition would provide more opportunities and a faster rate of innovation in the long-run. This would very likely drive down the costs of producing and distributing safe drugs. A monopoly like the FDA has very little incentive to become more efficient and just as safe.

I see, because competition has resulted in us getting cheaper and better, more reliable appliances, right?
Except.. NO... the average lifespan of a major appliance was 20 years, then 10 years. I just wound up throwing out a dishwasher that was just 3 years old simply becuase the company stopped making the front panel! It not even a major electronic part, basically just the part that holds the switches and lighted them. I finally just could not stand looking at "duct tape" any more.

1) I'd recommend switching suppliers.

2) The process of discovery requires trial-and-error, so rational deliberation is required on your part.

3) How do you know you're not falling victim to sample bias? You see planned obsolescence everywhere, but it's only based on your own purchasing decisions.

4) Then, how do you know you're not falling victim to confirmation bias? You see planned obsolescence while mentally recording conversations with your neighbors (on only the products that fail after a short time).

There's also the problem of having a 30 year old fridge. Talk about inefficient in energy usage! Any environmentalist would balk at wanting to purchase and retain 20+ year-old equipment which is relatively very energy-intensive compared to the lesser energy-intensive appliances of today and within the next 5, 10, 20+ years.

You assume I am talking about personal experience, not industry standards.

And the energy efficiency is not why these appliances break so readily now.