The sad fact is most of the new stuff is no better (or even worse) than existing generics but they are pushed on us in the name of profits.

ArkAngel: Sales does not equal profits. They still have to pay taxes on all those and market them so they can get the sales. Also add in the potential costs of lawsuits if something goes wrong.

Taxes rarely make a venture unprofitable as they are paid on profits. They can make the return to low to be worthwhile, though. The manufacturing, marketing, distribution, legal issues, etc are certainly significant and do make the difference between a profit and loss..

NowhereMon: You have employees that can work an entire career and never contribute a lick of work to a successful project.

They should just fire all those people. They'd save a TON of money.

Though, I must say, I am surprised at how little it costs to bring a single, successful drug to market. $55 million sounds way too low. But I would guess there are a lot of low cost drugs that are very similar to old ones and then some far more expensive ones that are totally new.

I'm not really surprised. Even if you can get the drug approved, it might be some complex PITA to synthesize with expensive/obscure starting materials and/or a long synthesis with poor yields.

My personal favorite is calicheamicin. Completely ridiculous synthesis (the first synthesis had some 100+ intermediates). Then even once you have the molecule, to get it to kill cancer (and not the patient, too), you have to build the right immunoconjugate. Amide linkage or carbohydrate? Which antibody do you use? And of course all the testing that goes along with this is extremely expensive and the resulting drug, since its synthesis is a headache, is going to be expensive.

Of course I could be farking wrong.

It takes multiple trials to insure the new drug won't make you sick, crash your car, or feel three feet thick.

dywed88: Though, I must say, I am surprised at how little it costs to bring a single, successful drug to market. $55 million sounds way too low. But I would guess there are a lot of low cost drugs that are very similar to old ones and then some far more expensive ones that are totally new.

See: Evergreening

Pertinent example: Wyeth's patent on Effexor ( Venlafaxine) ran out, so they introduced a "brand new" drug: Pristiq ( aka Desvenlafaxine ).

winterwhile: Weaver95: The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion

...and they make about $30-40 billion off worldwide sales and distrubution.

don't let anyone kid you - drug companies make oodles of money off their products.

I have a good idea

why don't you... say..... not buy any drugs????????

will you sign up for that??????????????????

if you will not sign up... then shut up

I'm not following your logic... Because it's necessary for some people to live (or necessary for some people to live a semblance of a "normal" life), a company should profit off of it? Man, I can't wait until someone patents the atmosphere...

GranoblasticMan: dywed88: Though, I must say, I am surprised at how little it costs to bring a single, successful drug to market. $55 million sounds way too low. But I would guess there are a lot of low cost drugs that are very similar to old ones and then some far more expensive ones that are totally new.

That's 55 mil to bring it to market, but then there's 550 mil in advertising once it's on the market.

See: Evergreening

Pertinent example: Wyeth's patent on Effexor ( Venlafaxine) ran out, so they introduced a "brand new" drug: Pristiq ( aka Desvenlafaxine ).

Which the EU won't approve because:

In relation to its parent substance, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine seemed to be less effective with no advantages in terms of safety and tolerability.

And it sure didn't cost $4 billion to synthesize the natural metabolite of venlaxafine and call it a day.

Wyeth (and Forbes) sure do seem to have the best interests of the patient first and foremost, no?

/no

rumpelstiltskin: Rapmaster2000: It takes multiple trials to insure the new drug won't make you sick, crash your car, or feel three feet thick.

Actually, it takes one trial to do that. That's what Phase II trials are for.

The final trial will determine if it makes patients feel like I feel when I'm with you. When I'm alone with you.

Rapmaster2000: It takes multiple trials to insure the new drug won't make you sick, crash your car, or feel three feet thick.

How did this take 20 posts? You're slipping, Fark.

This must not be a very profitable industry, right?

Rapmaster2000: It takes multiple trials to insure the new drug won't make you sick, crash your car, or feel three feet thick.

THANK you!

The Bestest: Rapmaster2000: It takes multiple trials to insure the new drug won't make you sick, crash your car, or feel three feet thick.

How did this take 20 posts? You're slipping, Fark.

I just watched that video for the first time in 25 years. I never knew Huey Lewis and the News were from San Francisco. It's like the 80s drove a stake through the heart of the counterculture.

That's $4B in press release money.

That's the same amount we lose when the NCAA holds a basketball tournament.
Link (new window)

Can you see where I'm going with this?

This is one of the worst-written articles I've seen from a major publication in a while. But I guess $4B price tag does not include an editor. Or was it drug research price? I'm confused

rumpelstiltskin: GranoblasticMan: winterwhile: Weaver95: The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion

...and they make about $30-40 billion off worldwide sales and distrubution.

don't let anyone kid you - drug companies make oodles of money off their products.

I have a good idea

why don't you... say..... not buy any drugs????????

will you sign up for that??????????????????

if you will not sign up... then shut up

I'm not following your logic... Because it's necessary for some people to live (or necessary for some people to live a semblance of a "normal" life), a company should profit off of it? Man, I can't wait until someone patents the atmosphere...

There is a middle ground between the guy who says "if you want a normal life, I can give it to you. For everythng you own", and the guy who says "I'm a human and I deserve a life, so give it to me for nothing". But I'm becoming more and more convinced the best solution may be just to kill everybody, and let the apes and the dolphins struggle for global supremacy.

For some reason now, I keep imagining an ape/dolphin hybrid. O_o

I want a new drug. One that won't hurt my head. One that won't make my mouth too dry or make my eyes too red. One that won't make me nervous, wonderin' what to do - one that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you.


/When I'm alone with you.

AfroX: I want a new drug. One that won't hurt my head. One that won't make my mouth too dry or make my eyes too red. One that won't make me nervous, wonderin' what to do - one that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you.


/When I'm alone with you.

You're such a good sport!

struct: What I don't get is how a business is supposed to get products out without advertising. Presumably marketing to doctors is okay because they need some way about hearing about new medicines. Personally, I can see the problem with DTC marketing, but I would rather have more information (however flawed and biased) in the hands of consumers than less. My view is that more of a dialog is better than less, especially since I know that doctors don't always keep up on the latest and greatest in their fields.

And how does drug-company propaganda help the consumer? Let's use the Effexor-Pristiq example given above. Wyeth has a highly profitable medication whose patent is about to expire. Their response is to patent a chemical cousin (Pristiq), then try to sell it to the public as a brand-new wonder drug despite the fact that it has been proven less effective than its predecessor.

Big Pharma doesn't get to play the victim card after pulling shiat like this (and this is benign example compared to some), especially while making multibillion-dollar profits. And I don't know why you're white-knighting them--after all, they'll probably end up screwing you anyway sooner or later.

Let's not kid ourselves that big pharma companies don't make good money. But it is not only the pharma companies to blame.

As a pharmacist, I have seen patients demand a brand drug even though they haven't tried the generic which is on pharmacy's $5 drug and works exactly the same. And don't get me started on doctors writing prescriptions for nothing but brand names cuz the hot sales lady had him feeling mighty in his pants.

I don't support DTC, but lets put some responsibilities on the patients and the doctors as well.

badsah11: Let's not kid ourselves that big pharma companies don't make good money. But it is not only the pharma companies to blame.

As a pharmacist, I have seen patients demand a brand drug even though they haven't tried the generic which is on pharmacy's $5 drug and works exactly the same. And don't get me started on doctors writing prescriptions for nothing but brand names cuz the hot sales lady had him feeling mighty in his pants.

I don't support DTC, but lets put some responsibilities on the patients and the doctors as well.

Yes, patients have responsibilities, but how many of those patients would still be demanding specific prescription drugs if there were no DTC advertising and/or if the FDA hadn't become a corporate lapdog? Or are you suggesting that it's the patients' responsibility to do the research and find out whether or not the new miracle drug being advertised everywhere is not just a weaker version of an old drug (which coincidentally is losing its patent protection and will soon be 75% cheaper)?

You're right about the doctors, though.

Yeah? I call 'bullshiat'

Big Pharma uses the same accounting principles as Big Film where, for example, the first Batman movie has never made a 'profit'.

I'm all for capitalism but I hate liars.

winterwhile: GranoblasticMan: winterwhile: Weaver95: The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion

...and they make about $30-40 billion off worldwide sales and distrubution.

don't let anyone kid you - drug companies make oodles of money off their products.

I have a good idea

why don't you... say..... not buy any drugs????????

will you sign up for that??????????????????

if you will not sign up... then shut up

I'm not following your logic... Because it's necessary for some people to live (or necessary for some people to live a semblance of a "normal" life), a company should profit off of it? Man, I can't wait until someone patents the atmosphere...

so you think folks should work... for free??????/

why don't you???

Oman should just mandate them for free.

winterwhile: GranoblasticMan: winterwhile: Weaver95: The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion

...and they make about $30-40 billion off worldwide sales and distrubution.

don't let anyone kid you - drug companies make oodles of money off their products.

I have a good idea

why don't you... say..... not buy any drugs????????

will you sign up for that??????????????????

if you will not sign up... then shut up

I'm not following your logic... Because it's necessary for some people to live (or necessary for some people to live a semblance of a "normal" life), a company should profit off of it? Man, I can't wait until someone patents the atmosphere...

so you think folks should work... for free??????/

why don't you???

Don't know why I'm bothering, but false dichotomy is false.

douchebag/hater: Yeah? I call 'bullshiat'

Big Pharma uses the same accounting principles as Big Film where, for example, the first Batman movie has never made a 'profit'.

I'm all for capitalism but I hate liars.

So did Adam Smith.

Just one more thing today's self-styled Capitalists^TM don't want you to know.

My Mom has been in the medical industry since forever. Urology. So she's telling me about this new drug that costs $25,000. I mention that that means if 4 people take the drug, that's $100,000. She's not impressed. Then I ask her if there are 4,000 cases of this specific type of bladder cancer in the US. She says probably. Well Mom, that's a hundred million dollars.

Now, the same people that have no problem calling Clint Eastwood an Obama shill, reaffirming their hatred of the bailouts ("Chrysler should have just been left to die..."), have no problem, when people really need something (effing medicine!), for those people also foot the bill for a company's failures.

common sense is an oxymoron: badsah11: Let's not kid ourselves that big pharma companies don't make good money. But it is not only the pharma companies to blame.

As a pharmacist, I have seen patients demand a brand drug even though they haven't tried the generic which is on pharmacy's $5 drug and works exactly the same. And don't get me started on doctors writing prescriptions for nothing but brand names cuz the hot sales lady had him feeling mighty in his pants.

I don't support DTC, but lets put some responsibilities on the patients and the doctors as well.

Yes, patients have responsibilities, but how many of those patients would still be demanding specific prescription drugs if there were no DTC advertising and/or if the FDA hadn't become a corporate lapdog? Or are you suggesting that it's the patients' responsibility to do the research and find out whether or not the new miracle drug being advertised everywhere is not just a weaker version of an old drug (which coincidentally is losing its patent protection and will soon be 75% cheaper)?

You're right about the doctors, though.

No, I am not saying the patients should know that the new drug they saw on TV is nothing better than the one that already exists and is much cheaper. All I am saying is just because your doctor prescribed you a drug doesn't mean you can't ask him to give you a generic alternative. And that generic drugs are just as effective.

And oh, trust the guy behind the counter when he says you can save tons of money by getting a generic alternative and still get the same if not better benefits. He went to school for four years to do more than count by 5s.

CSB incoming...

My wife takes, or, rather, used to take, modafinil to counteract the side effects of the medication regime that arrests her severe osteo & rheumatoid arthritis. She no longer takes it because, when we were dirt poor two years ago, Cephalon Cares subsidized her prescription. Fast forward to the end of 2011, the first year since 2009 that I made a reasonable yearly income. We no longer qualify for the subsidy, but we figured "sure, we'll pay out of pocket." (I'm a contractor without medical coverage.)

For a 90 day supply, modafinil costs over $2,300. But only in the United States. It's less than half that in Canada, and less than a tenth that in the EU. That works out to more than $25 a dose. We dropped the medication. Sure, she sleeps about 14 hours a day (or more) now, but what the hell, right?

We briefly entertained ordering modafinil from an overseas pharmacy, but the idea of spending a year in jail because I want to take care of my wife means not taking care of my wife, so we nixed that.