Re: Science has to be exact or else : Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:00 am  

Mintball wrote: Big drug companies also fail to pass on much of their trail data to doctors, regulators etc. Except for the results from the most positive trials of course. If anyone wants to know more, read this. It leaves you with one conclusion: in 'the real world', profits matter far more than people. Interview with the author here

Mintball wrote: Big drug companies also fail to pass on much of their trail data to doctors, regulators etc. Except for the results from the most positive trials of course. If anyone wants to know more, read this. It leaves you with one conclusion: in 'the real world', profits matter far more than people. Interview with the author here

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:04 am  

Neil wrote: Interview with the author here And well worth listening.

Neil wrote: Interview with the author here And well worth listening.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:20 pm  

Mintball wrote: Big drug companies also fail to pass on much of their trail data to doctors, regulators etc. Except for the results from the most positive trials of course. If anyone wants to know more, read this. It leaves you with one conclusion: in 'the real world', profits matter far more than people. From your book - how much on average does it cost to bring a new drug to market? What is the hit rate? Profit is crucial how else is R&D to be funded - there are current >200 potential alzheimer's drugs in development. How many drugs actually get to market with real negative side effects? How many drugs get through the independent testing, get a licence and then get pulled due to adverse side effects? Perhaps you think drug development should be undertaken solely within the public sector - maybe we should still be using leeches!!

Mintball wrote: Big drug companies also fail to pass on much of their trail data to doctors, regulators etc. Except for the results from the most positive trials of course. If anyone wants to know more, read this. It leaves you with one conclusion: in 'the real world', profits matter far more than people. From your book - how much on average does it cost to bring a new drug to market? What is the hit rate? Profit is crucial how else is R&D to be funded - there are current >200 potential alzheimer's drugs in development. How many drugs actually get to market with real negative side effects? How many drugs get through the independent testing, get a licence and then get pulled due to adverse side effects? Perhaps you think drug development should be undertaken solely within the public sector - maybe we should still be using leeches!!

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:40 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

From your book - how much on average does it cost to bring a new drug to market? What is the hit rate? Profit is crucial how else is R&D to be funded - there are current >200 potential alzheimer's drugs in development.

How many drugs actually get to market with real negative side effects? How many drugs get through the independent testing, get a licence and then get pulled due to adverse side effects?

Perhaps you think drug development should be undertaken solely within the public sector - maybe we should still be using leeches!!

It's not 'my' book.

But if you need the answer to these questions - and more - I suggest you read it. It is written by a doctor and scientist. It will, no doubt, have absolutely been legaled into the ground before publication.

But then again, one could quote another doctor, Dr Phil Hammond (also the health columnist for Private Eye) that we are "medicalising" (his word) the populace and that pharmaceutical companies are inventing drugs - and then a condition to 'cure'. The example he uses is companies creating a female need for Viagra.

You could also read Dr Malcolm Kendrick on the con of cholesterol as a disease and cholesterol drugs in particular (this is also covered in Goldacre's book).

There's Dr John Briffa too, who uses science to show why the diet advice of the past 30 odd years has been counterproductive in terms of rising obesity. He also covered the cholesterol issue - scientifically but for a lay reader.

There is no shortage of material out there if you wish to educate yourself.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:17 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: ..Profit is crucial how else is R&D to be funded - there are current >200 potential alzheimer's drugs in development. Indeed. Seems clear there is potentially much more cash in not finding a cure for anything than in finding one. The golden goose of drugs would presumably be something that didn't cure you, but would keep you alive for as long as you took the drug. Now that's what I'd call profit. Sal Paradise wrote: ..maybe we should still be using leeches!! Sadly for the medically illiterate and the knee-jerkers searching for a bon mot, we still do.

Sal Paradise wrote: ..Profit is crucial how else is R&D to be funded - there are current >200 potential alzheimer's drugs in development. Indeed. Seems clear there is potentially much more cash in not finding a cure for anything than in finding one. The golden goose of drugs would presumably be something that didn't cure you, but would keep you alive for as long as you took the drug. Now that's what I'd call profit. Sal Paradise wrote: ..maybe we should still be using leeches!! Sadly for the medically illiterate and the knee-jerkers searching for a bon mot, we still do.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:36 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Indeed. Seems clear there is potentially much more cash in not finding a cure for anything than in finding one. The golden goose of drugs would presumably be something that didn't cure you, but would keep you alive for as long as you took the drug. Now that's what I'd call profit. Sadly for the medically illiterate and the knee-jerkers searching for a bon mot, we still do. Most drugs don't actually cure things - they enable the condition to be managed. Your body is like a machine over time it will wear out and can never be restored to its optimum. If you have a heart condition surgery is really the only option and that will only work in conjunction with drugs like beta-blockers and AC inhibitors. Before these drugs were developed you would have been lucky to get to surgery. You may consider this a bad thing because it involves "profit" but you should ask the anyone who takes them whether their quality of life has been improved because of them. You could do the same for the cancer treatments that have increased the quality and longevity of many peoples lives. Without the drive for competitive advantage and ultimately profit these drugs would never have been developed as quickly as they have. They improve the quality of life for billions of people. Your view on drug companies says much about your irrational take on all things that involve profit making enterprises.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Indeed. Seems clear there is potentially much more cash in not finding a cure for anything than in finding one. The golden goose of drugs would presumably be something that didn't cure you, but would keep you alive for as long as you took the drug. Now that's what I'd call profit. Sadly for the medically illiterate and the knee-jerkers searching for a bon mot, we still do. Most drugs don't actually cure things - they enable the condition to be managed. Your body is like a machine over time it will wear out and can never be restored to its optimum. If you have a heart condition surgery is really the only option and that will only work in conjunction with drugs like beta-blockers and AC inhibitors. Before these drugs were developed you would have been lucky to get to surgery. You may consider this a bad thing because it involves "profit" but you should ask the anyone who takes them whether their quality of life has been improved because of them. You could do the same for the cancer treatments that have increased the quality and longevity of many peoples lives. Without the drive for competitive advantage and ultimately profit these drugs would never have been developed as quickly as they have. They improve the quality of life for billions of people. Your view on drug companies says much about your irrational take on all things that involve profit making enterprises.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:00 am  

Mintball wrote:

It's not 'my' book.

But if you need the answer to these questions - and more - I suggest you read it. It is written by a doctor and scientist. It will, no doubt, have absolutely been legaled into the ground before publication.

But then again, one could quote another doctor, Dr Phil Hammond (also the health columnist for Private Eye) that we are "medicalising" (his word) the populace and that pharmaceutical companies are inventing drugs - and then a condition to 'cure'. The example he uses is companies creating a female need for Viagra.

You could also read Dr Malcolm Kendrick on the con of cholesterol as a disease and cholesterol drugs in particular (this is also covered in Goldacre's book).

There's Dr John Briffa too, who uses science to show why the diet advice of the past 30 odd years has been counterproductive in terms of rising obesity. He also covered the cholesterol issue - scientifically but for a lay reader.

There is no shortage of material out there if you wish to educate yourself.

The average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $4bn in some cases it is almost 3 times that. If you think drugs that help manage conditions are a good thing for mankind as whole where would you suggest the money comes from if it not from private sector enterprises?

Medical science is not an exact science - the human body is a very complex organism that doesn't always react identically to the identical inputs. Like all science you will have views that can be polarised. For all the examples you have given you could google and get the opposite view - life is far too short.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:13 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: The average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $4bn in some cases it is almost 3 times that. If you think drugs that help manage conditions are a good thing for mankind as whole where would you suggest the money comes from if it not from private sector enterprises? Medical science is not an exact science - the human body is a very complex organism that doesn't always react identically to the identical inputs. Like all science you will have views that can be polarised. For all the examples you have given you could google and get the opposite view - life is far too short. I'm sure most reasonable people would agree that companies have the right to earn a decent profit on the investments they make in new products. During my OU studies, I did a case study in a similar field (agro chemicals) where we had to model an investment strategy. The percentage of products that make it to market is very small hence the huge R & D costs per product. So, I understand the requirement for the patenting and making profits from pharmecutical products. However, it would appear that pharmecutical companies are not being honest with the data that they release with regards to the efficacy and safety of their products when they have a moral obligation to do so. Example here.

Sal Paradise wrote: The average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $4bn in some cases it is almost 3 times that. If you think drugs that help manage conditions are a good thing for mankind as whole where would you suggest the money comes from if it not from private sector enterprises? Medical science is not an exact science - the human body is a very complex organism that doesn't always react identically to the identical inputs. Like all science you will have views that can be polarised. For all the examples you have given you could google and get the opposite view - life is far too short. I'm sure most reasonable people would agree that companies have the right to earn a decent profit on the investments they make in new products. During my OU studies, I did a case study in a similar field (agro chemicals) where we had to model an investment strategy. The percentage of products that make it to market is very small hence the huge R & D costs per product. So, I understand the requirement for the patenting and making profits from pharmecutical products. However, it would appear that pharmecutical companies are not being honest with the data that they release with regards to the efficacy and safety of their products when they have a moral obligation to do so. Example here.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:06 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $4bn in some cases it is almost 3 times that. If you think drugs that help manage conditions are a good thing for mankind as whole where would you suggest the money comes from if it not from private sector enterprises?

That was not what I commented on.

I was mentioning how such companies routinely avoid telling the whole truth about a drug in order to make it sound better than it might be (both in terms of efficacy and safety) and to improve sales, regardless of the cost to the patient.

And see Neil's post directly above this one.

Re: Science has to be exact or else : Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:03 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Most drugs don't actually cure things - they enable the condition to be managed. Your body is like a machine over time it will wear out and can never be restored to its optimum.

Completely wrong. Most drugs do indeed "cure" things. For a start, the most overwhelmingly widely prescribed/administered drugs aimed at "curing " things - antibiotics - do exactly that. They enable your body to eliminate the infection. Not to "manage" it, but to "cure" it.

Sal Paradise wrote:

You may consider this a bad thing because it involves "profit"

I said no such thing, nor do I have anything against "profit".

Sal Paradise wrote:

but you should ask the anyone who takes them whether their quality of life has been improved because of them. You could do the same for the cancer treatments that have increased the quality and longevity of many peoples lives.

Straw man. Whatever the answer, it has absolutely nothing to do with the point. The cancer drugs developed could be a bargain, or they could be a gross ripoff, or anything else, the answer to your question wouldn't shed any light on that.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Without the drive for competitive advantage and ultimately profit these drugs would never have been developed as quickly as they have. They improve the quality of life for billions of people.

Again, a statement of the bleedin obvious. As it would be to point out that one big drive for profit would be to invent drugs that people have to take forever, to "manage" conditions, as opposed to invent drugs that are only taken short term (to "cure" conditions).

That's not the same as saying that that's what all drug companies do in relation to all drugs - just that if they do NOT do this, then you'd have to conclude (and here's one for you to get your head round) that there was some driver for such conduct which was NOT to maximise profit. That's the bit you're struggling with.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Your view on drug companies says much about your irrational take on all things that involve profit making enterprises.

1. You don't know my view on drug companies.
(clue: I don't have one generic view, and there are many drug companies, doing different things).
2. You don't know my "take" on profit making enterprises.
(clue: for many years I ran such entities).

Therefore your ad hominem is exposed as irrational garbage. If you want to discuss, do try to raise it above schoolboy yah-boo level.