Ok, honestly, if I hear one more thing about the big bad pharmaceutical companies, I'm going to start beating people over the head.
I'd like to see 98% of the public go into the labs and do even ONE simple synthesis reaction, let alone a 10-20 step synthesis that most of today's medications need to be created at a yield of about 50%! Oh, and then purify, make sure it's deliverable in a manner that ensure the bioavailablity in humans, and then do all of the testing to make sure that the FDA is satisfied with it's safety. Drugs are expensive because it costs money to employ chemists.Don't believe me
( ... )
I value the skills of chemists, and I fully recognize that I would be unable to engineer drugs to help, say, my mother, who is a Type I diabetic. I recognize also that the chemists who do this kind of work should enjoy financial security; since, as you pointed out, it takes years of specialized training.
However, chemists are not the reason for the excessive costs of brand-name pharmaceutical drugs. Sure, the fact that they have to be well-compensated contributes to the cost, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the lobbying costs pharmaceutical companies pay in order to maintain a stranglehold on drug prices: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/23518.php Among other things, the article talks about how the pharmaceutical industry lobby spent over $750 million between 1998 and 2005.
Enormous legal fees, donations to campaigns --these things cost much more than paying the chemists who actually make the drugs.
Wow. I had no idea R&D was that killer. However, I'm still not convinced that less governmental regulation of gigantic corporations fixes the problem. And part of that lobbying money has gone directly toward blocking government negotiations in terms of price negotiation. Which means that, simply, the drug companies can charge whatever they want. They can outspend the government easily, and throwing money at a problem like price negotiation tends to resolve the issue in favor of the rich.
Perhaps you could elaborate on some of the "ridiculous policies relating to economics and the pharmaceutical industry." Do you think testing is too excessive, for example? And do you really think that these corporations are fighting to keep consumer costs down?
And in terms of your father's situation, wouldn't you want things like that regulated? If they weren't, then the patents would be awarded to whomever could coerce them, not necessarily who invented them.
However, I'm still not convinced that less governmental regulation of gigantic corporations fixes the problem.
The problem is, you're generalizing pharmaceutical companies as being these large corporation machines. Yes, there are big guys like GSK, Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, just to name a few. But a lot of pharmaceutical companies out there are companies you've probably never heard of - like Millennium, Barr, Reliant, for example. These are companies that make drugs that people need and use, but don't do lots of advertisements because it's either not in their best interest, or (and what is more commonly the place) they have very specific target audiences, and so you only see their ads in places that the medical community would look -- such as academic journals. As well, remember that there are many several companies, like Johnson & Johnson, who technically do make pharmaceutical products, so you have to consider that "pharma" isn't just one big giant beast. There are lots of companies of varying shapes and sizes.
Perhaps you could elaborate on some of the "ridiculous policies relating to economics and the pharmaceutical industry." Do you think testing is too excessive, for example? Sure, I can elaborate. Let me just make a general list, so it'll be easy to follow
( ... )
Comments 6
I'd like to see 98% of the public go into the labs and do even ONE simple synthesis reaction, let alone a 10-20 step synthesis that most of today's medications need to be created at a yield of about 50%! Oh, and then purify, make sure it's deliverable in a manner that ensure the bioavailablity in humans, and then do all of the testing to make sure that the FDA is satisfied with it's safety. Drugs are expensive because it costs money to employ chemists.Don't believe me ( ... )
Reply
However, chemists are not the reason for the excessive costs of brand-name pharmaceutical drugs. Sure, the fact that they have to be well-compensated contributes to the cost, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the lobbying costs pharmaceutical companies pay in order to maintain a stranglehold on drug prices: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/23518.php Among other things, the article talks about how the pharmaceutical industry lobby spent over $750 million between 1998 and 2005.
Enormous legal fees, donations to campaigns --these things cost much more than paying the chemists who actually make the drugs.
Reply
Reply
Perhaps you could elaborate on some of the "ridiculous policies relating to economics and the pharmaceutical industry." Do you think testing is too excessive, for example? And do you really think that these corporations are fighting to keep consumer costs down?
And in terms of your father's situation, wouldn't you want things like that regulated? If they weren't, then the patents would be awarded to whomever could coerce them, not necessarily who invented them.
Reply
The problem is, you're generalizing pharmaceutical companies as being these large corporation machines. Yes, there are big guys like GSK, Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, just to name a few. But a lot of pharmaceutical companies out there are companies you've probably never heard of - like Millennium, Barr, Reliant, for example. These are companies that make drugs that people need and use, but don't do lots of advertisements because it's either not in their best interest, or (and what is more commonly the place) they have very specific target audiences, and so you only see their ads in places that the medical community would look -- such as academic journals. As well, remember that there are many several companies, like Johnson & Johnson, who technically do make pharmaceutical products, so you have to consider that "pharma" isn't just one big giant beast. There are lots of companies of varying shapes and sizes.
and ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment