If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The FDA has approved only 2 of 13 new categories of antibiotics, and makes the approval process difficult to comply with. Naturally, this is a failure of capitalism   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 46
    More: Obvious, FDA, National Institutes of Health, drug resistance, Clostridium difficile, antibiotics, drug safety, beakers, kidney diseases  
•       •       •

1804 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Aug 2012 at 8:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-26 08:01:19 AM  
For-profit companies are in it to make money. If they do not see a venture as profitable, they really do not want to waste resources on it.

Simple as that.
 
2012-08-26 08:04:53 AM  
Between 1945 and 1968, drug companies invented 13 new categories of antibiotics, said Allan Coukell, director of medical programs at the Pew Health Group.

Between 1968 and today, just two new categories of antibiotics have arrived.


Utter FAIL at reading comprehension, submittard.
 
2012-08-26 08:19:55 AM  
Tomorrow subby will submit a vioxx headline about how the FDA regulations are too weak so they should just be abolished.
 
2012-08-26 08:20:45 AM  
Or is a success of ObamaDon'tCare?

/half full; half empty; wrong glass -- your choice
 
2012-08-26 08:30:48 AM  
FTA: While a new antibiotic may bring in a billion dollars over its lifetime, Shlaes said, a drug for heart disease may net $10 billion. Depression and erectile dysfunction drugs - typically taken daily for years, unlike antibiotics, which are used short-term - are also more profitable than antibiotics.

Here's the real failure of capitalism. These companies are not in it for the patients. They're in it for the profits.
 
2012-08-26 08:33:11 AM  

monkeyman3875: FTA: While a new antibiotic may bring in a billion dollars over its lifetime, Shlaes said, a drug for heart disease may net $10 billion. Depression and erectile dysfunction drugs - typically taken daily for years, unlike antibiotics, which are used short-term - are also more profitable than antibiotics.

Here's the real failure of capitalism. These companies are not in it for the patients. They're in it for the profits.


Bingo.

Antibiotic resistance is a major public health danger, and the public should finance R&D on it. But gods forbid we spend money on science.
 
2012-08-26 08:37:20 AM  

Dinki: Between 1945 and 1968, drug companies invented 13 new categories of antibiotics, said Allan Coukell, director of medical programs at the Pew Health Group.

Between 1968 and today, just two new categories of antibiotics have arrived.

Utter FAIL at reading comprehension, submittard.


Come on you don't expect the submitter to actually READ the article do you?
 
2012-08-26 08:41:25 AM  

LazarusLong42: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health danger, and the public should finance R&D on it. But gods forbid we spend money on science.


Obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the owners of these pharmaceutical companies.
 
2012-08-26 08:59:02 AM  

t3knomanser: LazarusLong42: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health danger, and the public should finance R&D on it. But gods forbid we spend money on science.

Obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the owners of these pharmaceutical companies.


They tried something like that already... it doesn't seem to be enough according to the article...

AFTFA: Congress recognized the problem earlier this year, inserting a provision in an FDA authorization bill to grant an additional five years of market exclusivity - meaning no competition from generics - for companies inventing new antibiotics.
 
2012-08-26 09:01:23 AM  

monkeyman3875: They tried something like that already... it doesn't seem to be enough according to the article...


CUT TAXES HARDER. It's the only way to be sure.
 
2012-08-26 09:04:30 AM  

t3knomanser: monkeyman3875: They tried something like that already... it doesn't seem to be enough according to the article...

CUT TAXES HARDER. It's the only way to be sure.



and build even more taxpayer funded scientific user facilities/beamlines/etc to let them use instead of making them build their own!
 
2012-08-26 09:05:18 AM  

monkeyman3875: t3knomanser: LazarusLong42: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health danger, and the public should finance R&D on it. But gods forbid we spend money on science.

Obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the owners of these pharmaceutical companies.

They tried something like that already... it doesn't seem to be enough according to the article...

AFTFA: Congress recognized the problem earlier this year, inserting a provision in an FDA authorization bill to grant an additional five years of market exclusivity - meaning no competition from generics - for companies inventing new antibiotics.


Obvoisly those tax cuts weren't enough. MOAR tax cuts!
 
2012-08-26 09:09:05 AM  

Leader O'Cola: and build even more taxpayer funded scientific user facilities/beamlines/etc to let them use instead of making them build their own!


And they definitely need some research grants.
 
2012-08-26 09:11:58 AM  
It's my thalidomide and I want it now!!!!
 
2012-08-26 09:15:50 AM  

cabbyman: It's my thalidomide and I want it now!!!!


I'd hand it to you... but... you know.
 
2012-08-26 09:17:23 AM  
subby's reading comprehension failure aside...

having worked in this area, I can say that the general feeling amongst doctors is that superbugs are getting the upper hand

so when a new drug (or even class of drugs) comes on the market, they hold it in reserve because as soon as they start to use it they start the process of the bug evolving resistance to it.

as a result, the drug comapnies don't make money, so they shift R&D to other, more lucrative areas.

in the meantime, the government and non-profits are screaming for work in this area, for the public's safety.

so, on the contrary, capitalism is doing exactly what it always does - and the long-term public good ain't part of that.
 
2012-08-26 09:28:48 AM  

I eat mop: as a result, the drug comapnies don't make money, so they shift R&D to other, more lucrative areas.


The only thing different they're doing these days is stock buybacks. And while you can argue that this money should be invested in R&D, it's not like pharma companies can stop researching drugs and drill for oil or something. They will still do what they do.
 
2012-08-26 09:52:19 AM  

cabbyman: It's my thalidomide and I want it now!!!!


Thalidomide is on the market and has a couple of acceptable uses these days. The very mechanism by which it causes birth defects also cripples many types of cancer. (It's *NOT* a cure, it just makes it harder for the tumor to grow.)
 
2012-08-26 10:02:14 AM  
You mean low hanging fruit is easier to pick?
 
2012-08-26 10:07:25 AM  
Big Pharma can't put more money into R&D. They have to have money to fund their advertising and lobbyists.
 
2012-08-26 10:13:57 AM  
This is Romney's America.
 
2012-08-26 10:18:10 AM  
I just wanted to join the parade of people calling subby a dumbass.

Subby, you dumbass.
 
2012-08-26 11:18:51 AM  

Bontesla: This is Romney's America.


In Romney's America, there would be no pesky FDA to get in the way of drug manufacturers.

Of course, the added benefit would be a huge boom in pre and post natal care facilities to care for the deformed babies. Oh, and the funeral industry would see a big boost.
 
2012-08-26 11:31:01 AM  

Loren: cabbyman: It's my thalidomide and I want it now!!!!

Thalidomide is on the market and has a couple of acceptable uses these days. The very mechanism by which it causes birth defects also cripples many types of cancer. (It's *NOT* a cure, it just makes it harder for the tumor to grow.)


It's also an effective treatment for leprosy.
 
2012-08-26 11:44:45 AM  

Dinki: Bontesla: This is Romney's America.

In Romney's America, there would be no pesky FDA to get in the way of drug manufacturers.

Of course, the added benefit would be a huge boom in pre and post natal care facilities to care for the deformed babies. Oh, and the funeral industry would see a big boost.


I was saying Romney's America because capitalism has decided antibiotic R&D will be "rarer" because it's less proftable.
 
2012-08-26 11:45:53 AM  

lohphat: It's also an effective treatment for leprosy.


And jazz hands.
 
2012-08-26 11:58:00 AM  
I had a bad experience with one of those 13 approved before 1968. It think it was called Tao but it was mostly penicillin made using a new process that made it even cheaper by dropping many of the purification steps.
 
2012-08-26 12:12:30 PM  
The problem is the FDA gets hammered on both sides.

They get hammered for being too rigorous - it takes so long for new drugs to be approved! And then they get hammered for not being rigorous enough - they approved X which can increase chances of Y when taken by people in Z population! They really can't win.
 
2012-08-26 12:26:06 PM  
Oh I see what's going on here. This is how republicans are going to blame ObamaCare for VRE and MRSA.
 
2012-08-26 12:44:44 PM  

cman: For-profit companies are in it to make money. If they do not see a venture as profitable, they really do not want to waste resources on it.

Simple as that.


Uhh... Life is priceless... Antibiotics have a great profit motive...
 
2012-08-26 01:36:09 PM  

Maul555: Uhh... Life is priceless... Antibiotics have a great profit motive...


ftfa:
"While a new antibiotic may bring in a billion dollars over its lifetime, Shlaes said, a drug for heart disease may net $10 billion. Depression and erectile dysfunction drugs - typically taken daily for years, unlike antibiotics, which are used short-term - are also more profitable than antibiotics."

The invisible hand doesn't give a shiat whether you live or die. Free market fundamentalism fails once again...
 
2012-08-26 01:50:27 PM  

enry: monkeyman3875: t3knomanser: LazarusLong42: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health danger, and the public should finance R&D on it. But gods forbid we spend money on science.

Obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the owners of these pharmaceutical companies.

They tried something like that already... it doesn't seem to be enough according to the article...

AFTFA: Congress recognized the problem earlier this year, inserting a provision in an FDA authorization bill to grant an additional five years of market exclusivity - meaning no competition from generics - for companies inventing new antibiotics.

Obvoisly those tax cuts weren't enough. MOAR tax cuts!


How about starting the patent clock when the drug is approved by the FDA instead of when the patent is approved. Then it wouldn't matter how long the FDA took to approve the drug, it would always have the full patent time to recoup the investment.
 
2012-08-26 01:54:04 PM  

Mad Tea Party: lohphat: It's also an effective treatment for leprosy.

And jazz hands.


You misspelled "flipper."
 
2012-08-26 02:56:58 PM  

Maul555: cman: For-profit companies are in it to make money. If they do not see a venture as profitable, they really do not want to waste resources on it.

Simple as that.

Uhh... Life is priceless... Antibiotics have a great profit motive...



IT'S A SOCIALIST! GET THEM!

Seriously though. When you let Big Business/Pharm's profit margin govern medicine, all you will get is more hair loss treatment, dick pills, and boob jobs. Bad ones.
 
2012-08-26 02:57:17 PM  
So basically from this we're to take it that nobody else other than a pharma company will work on antibiotics and shame on them for not using their limited resources to make something people will rage at them for not giving away for next to nothing later.

Medical research goes on all the time in labs across this country not connected to the pharma industry, why don't you tell them where they should be spending their money and resources?

Better than that, stop spending a billion dollars to build a new sports stadium that will sit empty for the majority of the year and tell the whole sports industry to build its own arenas if it wants new ones. Now spend that money on medical research.
 
2012-08-26 03:01:43 PM  

cman: For-profit companies are in it to make money. If they do not see a venture as profitable, they really do not want to waste resources on it.

Simple as that.


Yep. There will be new antibiotics when all the old ones become useless.
 
2012-08-26 04:23:00 PM  
No subby, it's the failure of government patents. There are adverse incentives for pharmaceutical companies to focus more on marketing than researching new drugs. Limit the life of pharmaceutical patents and pharmaceutical companies will focus more on research to create better drugs.

/or we could limit frivolous lawsuits regarding medical drugs so the FDA doesn't have such stringent requirements.
//as a plus I won't have to get my medicine from Canada.
 
2012-08-26 05:10:38 PM  
We make antibiotics, bugs evolve to survive.

Amazing.


starbrightillustrations.com

"What does not kill me, makes me stronger"
 
2012-08-26 05:20:49 PM  
The FDA approved a 4th erectile dysfunction drug earlier this year ...

"Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections."
 
2012-08-26 07:59:27 PM  

It's a Trap!: The FDA approved a 4th erectile dysfunction drug earlier this year ...

"Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections."


1. Its really easy to make ed drugs.

2. In spite of all the superbug scare talk, overall demand for new antibiotics is low. This means that the incentive for investing half a billion is low.

3. Govt efforts at assisting in actual drug discovery, where unmet need outweighs the financials, have not been the riproaring success they were sold as. This is because this type of work requires a lot of risktaking, which puts a dent in the number of papers that get published and grants that are awarded. Finally, a lot af academics engaged in drug discovery dont want to get involved in actual drug development, so their activities are not focused as well as they should be.
 
2012-08-26 08:07:08 PM  

sbskeeper: No subby, it's the failure of government patents. There are adverse incentives for pharmaceutical companies to focus more on marketing than researching new drugs. Limit the life of pharmaceutical patents and pharmaceutical companies will focus more on research to create better drugs.

/or we could limit frivolous lawsuits regarding medical drugs so the FDA doesn't have such stringent requirements.
//as a plus I won't have to get my medicine from Canada.


Universities have a tendency to award exclusive licenses to a company for a patent. This allows the one company who is licensing the information about a drug target to restrict other companies and nonprofit entities from working on it.

Universities have had way toi much latitude in what they do with NIH funded discoveries.
 
2012-08-27 02:52:58 AM  
Fen fen almost killed a friend of mine. So, yeah. Take your time. Get it right this time.
 
2012-08-27 06:27:12 AM  

t3knomanser: LazarusLong42: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health danger, and the public should finance R&D on it. But gods forbid we spend money on science.

Obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the ownersCEOs of these pharmaceutical companies.


fixed that for you. The 'average' owner of a pharmaceutical company today is a bunch of middle class people each owning a smidgen of stock in a mutual fund held in a retirement account.

It's the CEOs and board of directors that make off like bandits.

Animatronik: 3. Govt efforts at assisting in actual drug discovery, where unmet need outweighs the financials, have not been the riproaring success they were sold as. This is because this type of work requires a lot of risktaking, which puts a dent in the number of papers that get published and grants that are awarded. Finally, a lot af academics engaged in drug discovery dont want to get involved in actual drug development, so their activities are not focused as well as they should be.


You know, I always wonder why drug research seems to be treated in such a US-centric way. Wouldn't it be logical for England and Europe, with their socialized heathcare systems, to fund the development of new, more effective and more economical drugs?
 
2012-08-27 09:01:43 AM  

cman: For-profit companies are in it to make money. If they do not see a venture as profitable, they really do not want to waste resources on it.

Simple as that.


Very true.

Which is why the massive expense of FDA compliance mitigates a pharmaceutical company's development of less profitable drugs that could treat those afflicted with rarer conditions. Instead of making a medication that could help smaller groups of people with uncommon illnesses, they have to spend that money getting drugs approved for nonsense illnesses that more people have, like "restless leg syndrome" or "social anxiety disorder", hoping that the profits from those help defray the losses incurred by developing more important drugs that the FDA turns over to generic drug manufacturers in a few short years.

Simply put, the FDA distorts the market in a way that makes the expense of medication for chronic or terminal illnesses inevitable, while thousands of people with rare, but no less life-threatening, conditions go untreated.
 
2012-08-27 11:27:17 AM  

Animatronik: 2. In spite of all the superbug scare talk, overall demand for new antibiotics is low. This means that the incentive for investing half a billion is low.


There are few oral antibiotics for psudomonas a. There was geocylin and carbinacylin, but those aren't made anymore. I believe the same is true for kleb pnumona. And those bacteria are getting way too common. Cipro might be all there is, and resistance to that is building

Hell, I'd personally fund a search for an oral P. a. drug, but I'd have to get this port out of my arm and have the bug killed before they would let me near a lab.
 
2012-08-27 11:42:25 AM  

Contents Under Pressure: Fen fen almost killed a friend of mine. So, yeah. Take your time. Get it right this time.



Fen-phen resulted in considerable morbidity / mortality.

I wonder how many people have been killed from being morbidly obese?
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report