My Dearest Friend Ducksie - R I P
ChatterBank0 min ago
Are..
drug companies keeping wonder drugs such as cures for Cancer and AIDs etc etc to themselves ?
And shouldn't they have on the spot inspections to make sure they aren't keeping any lifesaving cures from us or am I just being naive thinking that the government actually gives a sh*t about it's people ?
And shouldn't they have on the spot inspections to make sure they aren't keeping any lifesaving cures from us or am I just being naive thinking that the government actually gives a sh*t about it's people ?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Glidr. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What a ridiculous suggestion. Why wouyld they? If they had a lifesaving cure the drug companies would be selling it. It costs a fortune to develop a drug.
The government certainly needs to keep an eye on drug companies but to prevent them selling drugs that haven't been adequately tested for safety and efficacy.
The government certainly needs to keep an eye on drug companies but to prevent them selling drugs that haven't been adequately tested for safety and efficacy.
Look at the history of the treatment of peptic ulcers. It was known for a number of years that ove 3/4 of peptic ulcers were associated with a bacterium, however the drug companies kept insisting that the correct treatment was long term antacids. Since the 1990s, a short course of antibiotics has been used to treat the underlying cause, resulting in a massive reduction in suffering for the patients, and a massive loss of revenue for the drug companies.
Currently huge sums are being made selling drugs to contol AIDS, and if a drug came along that actually cured it, the temptation to keep it under wraps would be enormous.
Currently huge sums are being made selling drugs to contol AIDS, and if a drug came along that actually cured it, the temptation to keep it under wraps would be enormous.
Expensive tablets were used to help corononary heart problems until they came up with the simple aspirin remedy.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/08August/Pages/Asp irinforcoronaryheartdisease.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/08August/Pages/Asp irinforcoronaryheartdisease.aspx
I don't intend to defend big business here, but I can tell you there's another side - or more.
1. Profits: Each tablet may cost a penny to make, and sell for pounds, but that starts from the second tablet. The first one cost tens of millions to develop usually, and the chemical tesing alone for each compound takes several years and each individual test costs somewhere close to �500,000 to complete by govt agencies. Dozens of these tests are required before you put a drug on the market - no-one wants more thalidomide. That said, companies MUST be profitable to continue.
2. The standard used at the moment to gauge new medicine is for every 1,000 trialled, one will make it to market. AFTER the testing mentioned above and the costs incurred.
3. Many companies are hesitant to launch new drugs as they are being copied in the far east and cheap copies flood the market.
4. There are proven cures for alzheimers etc shelved by companies for the present. The drug will work on the condition, but the delivery system just doesn't exist. I won't go into detail on the reasons for this - google 'blood brain barrier' to try understand the workings of the body and why the drugs can't ge to where they're needed- but until the delivery system is invented the drugs are useless. But you can bet that the first one to get a method to work will flood the market and make a mint
1. Profits: Each tablet may cost a penny to make, and sell for pounds, but that starts from the second tablet. The first one cost tens of millions to develop usually, and the chemical tesing alone for each compound takes several years and each individual test costs somewhere close to �500,000 to complete by govt agencies. Dozens of these tests are required before you put a drug on the market - no-one wants more thalidomide. That said, companies MUST be profitable to continue.
2. The standard used at the moment to gauge new medicine is for every 1,000 trialled, one will make it to market. AFTER the testing mentioned above and the costs incurred.
3. Many companies are hesitant to launch new drugs as they are being copied in the far east and cheap copies flood the market.
4. There are proven cures for alzheimers etc shelved by companies for the present. The drug will work on the condition, but the delivery system just doesn't exist. I won't go into detail on the reasons for this - google 'blood brain barrier' to try understand the workings of the body and why the drugs can't ge to where they're needed- but until the delivery system is invented the drugs are useless. But you can bet that the first one to get a method to work will flood the market and make a mint
1 to 6 of 6
