the pharmaceutical industry and profit

[qwe]

i'm posting here because i understand many people here are familiar with the research that goes on with the pharmaceutical industry. i know bilzor is getting his phd in this area

i've heard one side of the argument, and i'm wondering what the other side is

the argument being that pharmaceutical industries (in collaboration with teh government; many top executives have "served the country" in positions on the DEA) are just that: industries. their motive is profit

the profit from cures are almost nothing compared to the profit from drugs that treat symptoms, or must be used over long periods of time

with all of the money interests in having drugs treating people over long periods of time, instead of having drugs cure people, this is a powerful motivating factor on research, which is funded by the very same pharmaceutical industries and government agencies, causing a bias towards profit instead of cures

this is, of course, bad for the health of america

what is the perspective on this from people involved in this research?

 

[Smyth]

What "drugs" are you talking about? Are you talking about mood-enhancers, antidepressants, analgetics or some medication for treating diseases?

Remember that clinical trials tend to indicate the effectiveness of a potential therapy. Even if third parties are not involved to begin with, invariably they will get involved some time after the drugs release into the mainstream. But I think the drug companies are alot more powerful bodies than some independent investigator.

Give an example of where a drug has to be taken for prolonged periods of time in cases where it might have been possible to provide a cure.

Admittedly I have never worked in the pharmaceutical sector so I dont really know. However your question is somewhat vague to me. Maybe other people with more life experience will be better equipped to answer your question.

 

[BilZ0r]

Of course drug companies are motiated by profit, but that's not a bad thing. It means they'll make drugs which people want to buy. Another important factor is that multi-national drug companies aren't the only people make drugs. The NIH, university researchers and other sources also do the research.

Oh, and the reason why we have treatments and not cures (which isn't 100% true) is because treatments are a lot fucking easier to make.

And the drug companies are actively researching cures for fuck loads of things, with the help of governments, univeristies and charitable associations.

 

[raybeez]

A lot of basic R&D towards the development of cures is carried out in the academic science community, which is partially funded by the pharm. sector. However, most products that do get taken from wet bench into clinical trials are as you said, products that must be used continuously...

A good example of this is antibiotic and vaccine development for the prevention/treatment of infectious diseases. Antibiotics are taken by most people for seldom more than a week, and only every few years.

There is a high incidence of antibiotic resistant infections, and there are only _two_ drugs left on the market that can still treat these infections (Vancomycin and Teicoplanin, both which resistance is starting to appear to). Both these drugs have a high degree of host toxicity. Still, it's been 10 years since a new high level antibiotic has been introduced, simply because profit margins and development costs are too low.

As a pharmaceutical company, your obligation is to your shareholders and profits, not to the greater good of society.

the profit from cures are almost nothing compared to the profit from drugs that treat symptoms, or must be used over long periods of time

with all of the money interests in having drugs treating people over long periods of time, instead of having drugs cure people, this is a powerful motivating factor on research, which is funded by the very same pharmaceutical industries and government agencies, causing a bias towards profit instead of cures

this is, of course, bad for the health of america

what is the perspective on this from people involved in this research?

 

[cainnabelspawn]

As a pharmaceutical company, your obligation is to your shareholders and profits, not to the greater good of society.

Yes, but why is it this way? It seems obvious to me that this 'system' isn't working correctley.

I wonder what is the general feeling about the huge increase in the number of people with 'problems' ? For these people, are these drugs even doing good for all/most of them?

I say that they are not, but I know far less about the subject than I would like to. This is a conjecture based on friends/ family/people in general that I have seen clearley mis-diagnosed as having various symptoms. They have gone through visable hell with addiction/withdrawl, mood/peronality altering, etc.

I myself was mis-diagnosed as having ADHD as a child and prescribed Ritalin. As I passed maybe age 7, my 'hyperactivity disorder' passed and as an adult I can confidentley say I have no Attention deficit disorder or hyperactivity, and don't feel that I need or ever needed this medication. I also believe it to be the cause of a patch of depigmented skin that appeared and grew throughout the time I took Ritalin. For me, the system did not work.

I guess I am saying that from what I see...

the argument being that pharmaceutical industries (in collaboration with teh government; many top executives have "served the country" in positions on the DEA) are just that: industries. their motive is profit

Yes, this is the case, and yes, it is bad.

 

[BilZ0r]

Yes, but why is it this way? It seems obvious to me that this 'system' isn't working correctley.

Why? What is going wrong? The only thing I see going wrong is the rediculously litigous society of america, making drug companies less and less confident to release new drugs which could save lives. Drug companies are striving to get new drugs, which they can sell to make money and keep share holders happy. If they stop curing dieases the companies will fail. A bigger problem would be if pharmacuetical companies were government controlled. Then there would be much less effort put on being efficient and making money, and we wouldn't have new drugs.

I myself was mis-diagnosed as having ADHD as a child and prescribed Ritalin. As I passed maybe age 7, my 'hyperactivity disorder' passed and as an adult I can confidentley say I have no Attention deficit disorder or hyperactivity, and don't feel that I need or ever needed this medication. I also believe it to be the cause of a patch of depigmented skin that appeared and grew throughout the time I took Ritalin. For me, the system did not work.

If you want to blame someone for that, blame your doctor. Blame your parents for not getting a better doctor. Blame the voters of your country (which I assume is america) for allowing direct to consumer advertising. The drug companies just made the drugs, which work wonderfully on someone with ADHD.

America massively prescribes stimulants compared to the rest of the world. Probably due to the higher pressure on children and teachers in my opinion. ADHD as it stands is a group of behavioural symptomes. Without a "test for ADHD" misdiagnosis will always be a massive problem (or at least a fear).

 

[qwe]

If they stop curing dieases the companies will fail

if they cure diseases, the companies will fail, because their profits will plummet. treatment raises their profits because they dispense drugs over long periods of time.

cures lower profits because the patient uses a drug or chemical for a week, or something else is done, and then he no longer pays the industry

or is this not the case bilzor? you say we are trying to find cures, but government agencies and associations only exist so long as the problem exists----the pharmaceutical industry would not like a cancer cure, the american cancer society would not like a cancer cure, the DEA is spooning with the pharm ind. if there is a cure bilzor are you so sure it would get out?

p.s. another facet of this is the fact that animals in the wild don't have heart attacks, arthritis, and other problems associated with industrialized society, and that humans today are sicker than ever before. however perhaps the animals don't live as long as they do in our society and we have a diet thats not very hospitable to our bodies? i dont know

 

[cainnabelspawn]

Why? What is going wrong?).

If you want to blame someone for that, blame your doctor.

America massively prescribes stimulants compared to the rest of the world. Probably due to the higher pressure on children and teachers in my opinion.

Yes, that is what I am getting at. There is no working system of getting needed drugs to the people. This same system is also a system that gets unneeded drugs to people who don't need them.

I am not trying to place blame on pharmaceutical companies, I would say this is more of a governmental/economical theology. The companies are merley buisness pioneers in the frontier of modern capatalism. Alot is involved in this problem, all I say is that it is a problem.

PS> I do not at all disagree with the idea of exploring new chemicals; it is their end result that is questioned.

 

[BilZ0r]

if they cure diseases, the companies will fail, because their profits will plummet. treatment raises their profits because they dispense drugs over long periods of time.

Is that why there is such a huge amount of research into curing cancers, neurodegenerative disorder and cardiovascular problems? It just doesn't make sense. Drug companies are of course motivated by money (that's why large companies haven't come up with new antiepileptics in about 20 years, because they have the longest lead in times of any therapy on the planet). I forget who said it but "never attribute to malice what can be explained by lazyness". It's true here (not to mention occams razor). The reason why there are more treatments than cures, is because it's a lot easier to treat something, than cure it.

or is this not the case bilzor? you say we are trying to find cures, but government agencies and associations only exist so long as the problem exists----the pharmaceutical industry would not like a cancer cure, the american cancer society would not like a cancer cure, the DEA is spooning with the pharm ind. if there is a cure bilzor are you so sure it would get out?

The pharmaceutical industry would love to cure cancer, get on the patent databases, look at the thousands of compounds patented which are possible cures. A cure for cancer would make so much fucking money it is out of control. Roche is still living off diazepam, and that's hardly prescribed anymore, think about a cure for cancer. "The american cancer society would not like to cure cancer" That's just a rediculous statement. Societies like that would love to get rid of themselves. There funded and staffed by people who have suffered from cancer and the pain caused by it.

 

[TheDEA.org]

The pharmaceutical industry is a pack of scheming, greedy bastards that would step over their own dying mother to pick up a dollar. And that's why I trust them.

The first thing you need to know is that the real money is in patented drugs; once the patent runs out anybody can make and sell the drug, which drives profit margins way down. So, companies need to keep innovating to keep making large profits. Sometimes this takes rather questionable directions (did we really need Zoloft and Paxil when we already had Prozac?) but it also produces a lot of truly novel, valuable drugs.

Let's say you have an incureable cancer. Greedy company A wants your money, so they invent a pain killer to make you more comfortable. But greedy company B also wants your money, but there's not much of a market for pain relief, since that need has been filled. So, perhaps they try to invent a medication that slows tumor growth, extending your life. Perhaps it has some unpleasant side effects, such as nausea. So, the drug companies invent an anti-nausea drug, or a treatment with fewer side effects or more efficacy (after all, they want more of your money.) But, the patents keep expiring. So what's a greedy drug company to do? The market opportunities to treat pain from your cancer, to slow tumor growth, and to treat side effects of the chemo have already been exploited. That leaves a cure as just about your last chance to get rich off that disease.

To suggest that drug companies don't want to cure diseases because that would mean losing a customer would only make sense in a monopoly; in a competitive market, the greedy companies are forced to try to cure diseases in order to maintain a competitive edge.

For much the same reason you can be confident that most 'herbal' cures don't actually work; if they did, the greedy drug companies would swoop in, isolate the active compound(s) from the herbs, put it in a pill and patent it.

Greed works. Sometimes in strange ways, but in a competitive environment no other system ensures that the desires and interests of the consumer will be met as quickly and as cost-effectively.

 

[human]

if they cure diseases, the companies will fail, because their profits will plummet. treatment raises their profits because they dispense drugs over long periods of time.

cures lower profits because the patient uses a drug or chemical for a week, or something else is done, and then he no longer pays the industry

You do realize how much one could charge for a cure, don't you? A fucking cure to a terminal illness? The sky's the fucking limit (well, to a point obviously, I mean I'm sure at some point charges of extortion would arise, but you can still price a cure pretty fucking high).

Additionally, you think that people are gonna stop getting cancer just cause we can cure it? Of course not. There are always new patients.

Jesus man, think about it. Say Merck or Pfizer or GlaxoSmithKline or whoever the fuck you want cures cancer or comes up with an AIDS vaccine or some other blockbuster. You really think the headlines a few years down the road would read "Pfizer cures cancer - goes bankrupt." I mean it's not even reasonable. Of course there is a lot of money involved in ongoing treatments, but there is just as much—if not more—in a cure. And with vaccines, shit, even those enjoying good health are given them! Goldmine!

Enough blabber. Cures and preventions are worth fuckloads of money. To think otherwise is ridiculous. Additionally, beacuse of that worth, if a company holds back on curing a disease, another one will come right along and take that opportunity. The incentive to hold back is dwarfed by the possible rewards of success.

 

[nanobrain]

i work for an independent biotech / pharma company in a senior role. if you have specific questions, i'll be glad to answer.

current paradigm: pharmas will not sell "cures" or prophilactics which would obviate illness (adaptogenic immunomodulators mostly) if they can sell long term management therapeutics instead, and they will milk the cash cows until offpatent or no longer viable.

reason - simple economics again. 1/300 drugs makes it to Phase III human trials, thus the amortised cost of developing a new successful drug is ~USD 800,000,000 and ~12 years from lab to market.

 

[Jamshyd]

Being realistic about things (such as the way economics works) doesn't make said things right .

It took people (at least those who woke up) some time to realize, for example, that the government did not make recreational drugs illegal because it cared for them. It'll be a while till they start realizing that "normal" economics is not-so normal.

But *sigh*, till then, we can only smile and nod .

 

[moracca]

Have you ever seen that commercial on television with the man standing in the middle of a snow storm talking? He's saying "See all these snowflakes? now imagine that each one is a drug, but that only one out of these millions of snowflakes will treat one variant of one disease, AND be safe enough to pass testing in order to distribute to America." Granted, these are the pharm companies themselves stating this, but its true. There are massive numbers of possiblities and its difficult to find the one you need. Not only is it difficult, it takes a lot of money. Also, in the commercial, he talks about how viruses mutate all the time, and new diseases/virii emerge. These things take a lot of effort. Now I dont disagree that America has a nasty habit of over-medicating and prescribing drugs that shouldn't be/don't need to be prescribed. However, as was previously stated, blame doctors or parents or the overall culture of America for that. Anyway, that said, I think that the pharmacutical companies are definitely in it at least partially for the money, but not all of them, i mean, the workers and scientists who are working to develop these cures/treaetments, many of them at least, are looking to help the greater good. Anyway, The pharmacutical buisiness is just that, a business.. and like any business, they want to bring in money, attract more shareholders, etc. Now if you really wanna get on a corrupt industry, look at the gasoline industry

//moracca

 

[~*Meg*~]

The pharmaceutical industry is a pack of scheming, greedy bastards that would step over their own dying mother to pick up a dollar. And that's why I trust them.

The first thing you need to know is that the real money is in patented drugs; once the patent runs out anybody can make and sell the drug, which drives profit margins way down. So, companies need to keep innovating to keep making large profits. Sometimes this takes rather questionable directions (did we really need Zoloft and Paxil when we already had Prozac?) but it also produces a lot of truly novel, valuable drugs.

Let's say you have an incureable cancer. Greedy company A wants your money, so they invent a pain killer to make you more comfortable. But greedy company B also wants your money, but there's not much of a market for pain relief, since that need has been filled. So, perhaps they try to invent a medication that slows tumor growth, extending your life. Perhaps it has some unpleasant side effects, such as nausea. So, the drug companies invent an anti-nausea drug, or a treatment with fewer side effects or more efficacy (after all, they want more of your money.) But, the patents keep expiring. So what's a greedy drug company to do? The market opportunities to treat pain from your cancer, to slow tumor growth, and to treat side effects of the chemo have already been exploited. That leaves a cure as just about your last chance to get rich off that disease....

Excellent points. Innovation, regarding patents, is the key word though. In US patent law, new drug patents are to be issued if the drug is novel, and "non-obvious" (meaning, you didn't take the next logical scientific step to get to where you are)...however, this isn't happening because patent officers get a bonus depending on how many patent applications they process (and it's clearly easier to say "yes" to an application than to deny it). Take Prozac and Sarafem for example. Prozac's patent was running out so Pfizer colored the pill purple, ran some clinical trials for PMDD indications, and poof we have ourselves Sarafem - complete with a new patent.

I could go on and on with examples like these, but I'll spare you the academic hour. Suffice to say that the vast majority of drugs produced are "me too" drugs not truely innovative drugs. And when a drug is truely innovative (like Gleevec, for example) it becomes the poster child for said pharma.

For interesting reading, check out The Truth About Drug Companies by Marcia Angell. It's just one book, so don't put all of your big pharma eggs in one basket, but it is certainly interesting.