Antibiotic crisis grows while drug companies make lifestyle meds

November 22, 2011 By Matthew Thompson in Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes

Antibiotic crisis grows while drug companies make lifestyle meds

Enlarge

South Korean models promote Cialis, a drug made by Eli Lilly that claims to make men potent for up to 36 hours, dosage depending. Credit: AAP/Yonhap News.

Antibiotics for acute infections are a pillar of medicine, but doctors say the pillar is crumbling as pharmaceutical companies neglect antibiotic development and instead chase massive profits from chronic illnesses and lifestyle diseases.

With a surge in often lethal infections that are resistant to existing antibiotics coinciding with a drastic shortage of in development, Professor Laura Piddock, of the University of Birmingham’s School of Immunity and Infection, has called for a global alliance to find a new generation of this most staple of medicines.

Writing in The Lancet Infectious Diseases edition last week, Professor Piddock argues that the drug industry will be shooting itself in the foot if it continues its myopic focus on the most lucrative drugs: “ need to recognise that many expensive medicines in their portfolio and in development might by useless if patients succumb to fatal infections. Therefore, their return on investment for products to treat cancer or chronic diseases depends, in part, on effective treatment of infections.”

Professor Piddock, who is also the President of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, writes that while public attention is often focused on access to exotic new drugs for diseases such as cancer, it is antibiotics that routinely keep cancer patients alive. The same is true for people aged over 65 whose immune systems are naturally waning yet often find themselves having medical procedures, Professor Piddock writes. For such people, antibiotics are an “integral and routine part of treatment”.

Yet, this routine treatment is increasingly failing as infectious bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. The World Health Organization (WHO) warns that “many infectious diseases risk becoming uncontrollable”.

Even as “the antibiotic pipeline is drying up”, discovering new ones is much more difficult than it used to be, said Professor Ken Harvey, Adjunct Senior Lecturer of Public Health at La Trobe University.

“The low-hanging fruit’s disappeared. Penicillin came from a mould that floated in through the window of Alexander Fleming’s laboratory. Streptomycin came from a mould on a cantaloupe. The easy stuff has been done, and it’s more difficult to develop new drugs,” Professor Harvey said.

“Another really big problem is that the industry really hasn’t put the money into it in recent years, and there’s a reason for that: there’s not a good return on investment with antibiotics when you compare them to drugs for diabetes, heart disease – these are chronic, lifelong diseases that need lifelong medication – the problem is that antibiotics are basically used in short courses to treat infections,” Professor Harvey said

“They [the drug companies] say there’s no return on investment, and that’s rather ironic because classically that’s been the problem of neglected diseases in the third world where poor people don’t have the money to pay for medicines, and so they haven’t researched tropical diseases, etcetera, but now it’s definitely come home to bite developed countries with antibiotics,” Professor Harvey said.

The relatively few new antibiotics suitable for resistant organisms are often used very sparingly to avoid the bugs finding ways to overcome them – and this practice compounds the commercial disincentive to develop such medicines, Professor Harvey said.

“There’s no profit in it, and therefore the research has dried up, but meanwhile bacterial resistance has increased inexorably and there’s still a lot of inappropriate use of antibiotics out there. There are now some organisms in hospital practice that are resistant to everything we’ve got and patients are dying, but they tend to be immuno-suppressed patients, critically ill, with lots of other things wrong with them. We are running out of antibiotics – the germs are doing well and the chemists have not given us what we should have,” Professor Harvey said. “The profit orientated approach, which has been quite successful for chronic diseases because there’s money in it, is not working for antibiotics.”

Developing medicines for ongoing conditions is often so profitable that the drug industry sometimes exaggerates the incidence of diseases requiring ongoing medication or even invents diseases to suit, Professor Harvey said.

“Disease mongering it’s called,” said Professor Harvey. “The focus we’re trying to bring the industry to is to produce drugs that are genuinely needed rather than producing drugs that aren’t needed, but it’s more profitable to produce the 15th anti-depressant or the 27th anti-hypertensive than it is to produce a new antibiotic at the moment, because you can market them aggressively and try to make out that new is better than old when often it isn’t.”

Meanwhile, antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” are killing an estimated 500,000 people each year just in Europe and the US, according to Matthew Cooper, the Professor of Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland. “With each patient who gets a superbug staying in an ICU [intensive care unit] upwards of a week, it’s costing the US alone upwards of $20 billion a year – it’s an enormous cost to society,” said Professor Cooper, who is working to gather the figures for Australia.

Despite the toll of our failing antibiotics, it would be unrealistic to expect pharmaceutical companies to pull their R&D money out of more lucrative drugs aimed at patients who need to take them for years. “We can’t change capitalist behaviour; we live in a capitalist society, and drug companies need to make money to survive. What we can do, however, is look at different types of business models,” he said.

In addition to hybrid models of public-private partnerships, “we could use patent extension [for new antibiotics] – so they have five more years before it becomes generic, or if the government subsidised the cost of Phase III trials [randomised multi-centre trials on large numbers of patients], then not just big pharma companies but smaller biotechs could afford to develop antibiotics,” Professor Cooper said. “When a new drug is launched it will not only save millions of lives, it will save billions of dollars – so it makes a lot of sense to look at different types of business models and development models that will encourage biotechs to invest in antibiotics again.”

A global alliance to develop new was vital but not unprecedented, Professor Cooper said. “We’ve seen a couple of global alliances make a huge impact – polio vaccine, small pox. HIV/AIDS is a good example because there was a fantastic lobbying alliance by the gay community in America and right now we’ve got great drugs for HIV/AIDS and people don’t actually die in Africa very much anymore from HIV, they die from TB – tuberculosis – so when we actually behave in an egalitarian manner and put our resources together we can make a big difference,” he said.

This story is published courtesy of the The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).

Source: The Conversation

send feedback to editors
5 /5 (4 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Osiris1
Nov 22, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
How about redefining what so called 'intellectual property' really should be in order to maximize the utility to society of our other-directed pharma worldwide cartel. Cutting the protection time of non-infection fighting drugs to less than five years, or to the point where antibiotics look good by comparison. Make the development of antibiotics more profitable by researching the products in government labs and only licensing the commercial production to these cartels, with strict criminal penalties for infringement. Capitalism, like the article said, has failed here. The proximate motivator of capitalism is greed and the quest for monopoly. Competition only exists long enough to be predated. This does not work for pharma products aimed to save lives, not destroy them. Here government of the people must prevail. All else is propaganda and nonsense that gets people killed. Lack of good antibiotics killed my wife.
rwinners
Nov 22, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
What we can do, however, is look at different types of business models, he said."

How about the government create a US Department of Medical Research. Supply the building, hire the scientists at comparable wages and develop what industry won't. Profits could be shared between the scientists and the Treasury.
Nerdyguy
Nov 23, 2011

Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
Capitalism, like the article said, has failed here. The proximate motivator of capitalism is greed and the quest for monopoly.


Quite the opposite, in point of fact.

You're talking about one of the most heavily regulated industries in existence. So, it's difficult to say what capitalism could or could not do, on its own.

Eli Lilly, for example, was where I first became familiar with the ins and outs of this industry (as a consultant). Inside it's spectacular headquarters in Indianapolis, IN, there are whole sections of offices set aside for the government agencies that essentially manage many aspects of Lilly's operation.

This is a type of intrusive government action that is unheard of in other industries.

In any case, the truth of this whole thing is much simpler. It's extraordinarily expensive, time-consuming and legally challenging to develop antibiotics. And the payback is very minimal. Not a good business model.

rubberman
Nov 25, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Capitalism, like the article said, has failed here. The proximate motivator of capitalism is greed and the quest for monopoly.


Quite the opposite, in point of fact.



In any case, the truth of this whole thing is much simpler. It's extraordinarily expensive, time-consuming and legally challenging to develop antibiotics. And the payback is very minimal. Not a good business model.


Um...this is why Capitalism fails here dude....
Vendicar_Decarian
Nov 25, 2011

Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
And that is why Government funding is required for fundamental medical research.

American style Capitalism is such a spectacular failure at producing improvements in the quality of life of most people.

"In any case, the truth of this whole thing is much simpler. It's extraordinarily expensive, time-consuming and legally challenging to develop antibiotics. And the payback is very minimal. Not a good business model." - NerdGuy
ryggesogn2
Nov 25, 2011

Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
American style 'capitalism' is no different than any other socialist 'enterprise' around the world so it is not surprising it is failing.
Why isn't the EU or Canadian drug industry picking up the slack?
Vendicar_Decarian
Nov 26, 2011

Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
"Why isn't the EU or Canadian drug industry picking up the slack?" - RyggTard

Because Intellectual Property rules agreed to to provide vast wealth to the pharmaceutics industry prevent it.

Having said that....

Global Drug Discovery: Europe Is Ahead

http://content.he...abstract
Callippo
Nov 26, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Free market economy follows the path of maximal profit in real-time prices, so it's unstable and it doesn't care about future.
Nerdyguy
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Capitalism, like the article said, has failed here. The proximate motivator of capitalism is greed and the quest for monopoly.


Quite the opposite, in point of fact.



In any case, the truth of this whole thing is much simpler. It's extraordinarily expensive, time-consuming and legally challenging to develop antibiotics. And the payback is very minimal. Not a good business model.


Um...this is why Capitalism fails here dude....


How so? There is little capitalism involved...
Nerdyguy
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Free market economy follows the path of maximal profit in real-time prices, so it's unstable and it doesn't care about future.


I believe one might argue -- despite the communist tendencies on this whacked-out forum -- quite the opposite case.

Capitalism is a system independent of time or place. It is a solution for ultimate stability, where it is allowed to thrive.

Do you really believe that the greatest period of enlightenment, as well as phenomenal social, economic, technical and medical growth has come about due to anything other than capitalism?

The U.S., Europe, and large parts of Asia have embraced capitalism, and the world has never looked back. Socialism has died a horrible death around the globe, and the world hasn't looked back. China and Russia have converted to capitalism, and things have never been better. Indeed, though the world economy is slightly depressed at this moment, capitalism has proven its worth and its ability to create stability.
ryggesogn2
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
So EU and Canadian drug companies can't do the R&D to create those life saving drugs, patent the drugs, and then grant free license to anyone who wants to produce and sell the product?
If they are able to do so, are they or are they not?
Callippo
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
The U.S., Europe, and large parts of Asia have embraced capitalism, and the world has never looked back.
Now we are facing return to socialistic ideas in many countries: European Union or even USA. The centralist socialism is more effective under the situation, when the society stagnates, the capitalism work better, when it's allowed to develop.
Socialism has died a horrible death around the globe
Whereas the capitalism brought the world into global economical crisis in 1933 and initiated the WWW II.

http://upload.wik...1960.gif
Callippo
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
China and Russia have converted to capitalism
Russia and particularly China converted to capitalism with strong centralist government, Europe as a whole is converging into such system gradually too. China in particular proved the relative effectiveness and stability of such system: locally communistic, at the global level centrally driven. The democracy of the USA suffers with strong plutocracy, which makes it effectively a centralist government too.
Callippo
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
The point is in the fact, living nature is full of strong natural antibiotics, the penicillin is just one of them. If we would use all of them randomly, the bacterias couldn't adapt to antibiotics so easily. But such plurality increases the production cost and the free market always converges to minimization of the cost. It doesn't care about consequences, because it always operates with current price at the market. We shouldn't forget, the penicillin is fifty years old and it's product of socialistic, i.e. government funded research, not the private research.
ryggesogn2
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Whereas the capitalism brought the world into global economical crisis in 1933 and initiated the WWW II.

You have this backwards.
It was socialism that led to WWI and WWII.
FDR was a socialist and an admirer of Mussolini, a national socialist.
Nerdyguy
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Now we are facing return to socialistic ideas in many countries: European Union or even USA.


Perhaps in your fantasies this might be the case Callipo, but clearly nowhere else. With the sole exception of the ludicrous healthcare act that was shoved down our throats, Americans have made no move whatsoever towards socialism. And, in point of fact, a majority of Americans are against the lunatic healthcare law. EU? Nowhere I've seen. Did England suddenly go Marxist while I was sleeping?

The centralist socialism is more effective under the situation, when the society stagnates, the capitalism work better, when it's allowed to develop.


You need to fact check. The VAST majority of formerly socialist/communist/marxist/bolshevik/etc. individuals throughout the world have renounced it as lunacy.
FrankHerbert
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: 2.7 / 5 (14)
Capitalism, like the article said, has failed here. The proximate motivator of capitalism is greed and the quest for monopoly.


Quite the opposite, in point of fact.

.
.
.

[Antibiotics are] Not a good business model.



Wait, capitalism hasn't failed but pharma companies don't make antibiotics because they aren't profitable. How is that not a failure of capitalism? Are you redefining words again?
ryggesogn2
Nov 27, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
because they aren't profitable

Where is the free market for anti-biotics?

Every step in the process is controlled by some govt agency, even the sales price.
Anyway, I hear anti-biotics have been so over prescribed that they are becoming ineffective.
Nerdyguy
Nov 28, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Capitalism, like the article said, has failed here. The proximate motivator of capitalism is greed and the quest for monopoly.


Quite the opposite, in point of fact.

.
.
.

[Antibiotics are] Not a good business model.



Wait, capitalism hasn't failed but pharma companies don't make antibiotics because they aren't profitable. How is that not a failure of capitalism? Are you redefining words again?


I don't ever redefine words. If anything, I'm far too anal about them.

The problem is, you are purposely trolling or just not bright enough to get the point. Either way, you should move on before you stub your intellect or something.
rubberman
Nov 28, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
NG ...very nice debate about the merits of capitalism. It doesn't change the fact the you pulled a quote from the article and managed to totally contradict the point you were trying to make with your final paragraph, sorry for pointing it out but you usually don't mess up like that.
Also Capitalism does not maintain stability. It is a system based on growth, profit and competition. I actually disagree with the article regarding the fact that it is a quest for monopoly (agree with the greed part) as we have laws in place to prevent monopoly, but it is the competiton aspect that has guided us in the direction of mass consumerism. The shoppers mentality of having the latest and greatest and mfg's feeding on this by timed releases of products (MS had the P4 processor when they were marketing the P1 for example)has resulted in the massive upward spiral in everything we produce and throw away.You really believe the entire world living as we have for the last 30 years is sustainable?
Nerdyguy
Nov 28, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
It doesn't change the fact the you pulled a quote from the article and managed to totally contradict the point you were trying to make


I didn't quote anything from the article. Osiris did. As I said, there's no way to know if capitalism failed, as the drug industry doesn't work in a capitalistic environment.

Also Capitalism does not maintain stability....


100 plus years of intellectual thought from the greatest minds in U.S. history in research, the military and government would disagree with you. Capitalism is THE single greatest contributor to global stability, and every U.S. administration since the latter 19th century has made this claim. It's well documented.

You really believe the entire world living as we have for the last 30 years is sustainable?


This is vague. Define "...living as we have..."
rubberman
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Apologies, it was Osiris evaluation of Capitalism that you quoted. Defining living as we (USA and Canada, western europe) have, check the per capita #'s compared with an average Chinese, African or Indian - Annual Carbon footprint (not in the GW sense - it is a good meter to show lifestyle), amount of garbage per person produced, amount of non renewable resources consumed, the amount of clean water required per year. Basically anything that can be used as a societal measuring stick.
Until the fall of the soviet union, 100 years of intellectual thought from their greatest minds beleived communism was the best way of life (it's also well documented)....at some point for them, it was. Same with China. The greatest contributor to global stability has been the constant existence of more than one "super power" since the dawn of the industrial age. There has always been someone to keep the other guy in check.
rawa1
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Capitalism does not maintain stability. It is a system based on growth, profit and competition.
The capitalism is the regulation system based on local feedback, something like the quantum mechanics which leads to the expansion of objects. The socialism is economy based on nonlocal feedback, i.e. the central planning and it leads to the gradual decay of society because of its dissipative nature. The capitalism is behaving like unstable PID controller instead, whereas the socialism like overdumped one.

http://www.expert...tor.html

The whole trick is therefore to balance the centralistic and decentralistic approach to the economy control. It can be checked with the position of day of tax freedom, which converges to the middle of year.

http://en.wikiped...edom_Day
ryggesogn2
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Also Capitalism does not maintain stability. It is a system based on growth, profit and competition.

You forget the most important part of capitalism, PERSUASION.
Only the govt is allowed to coerce, to use force.
rubberman
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
I'm not "down on Capitalism", I agree that it has led to most of the advancements our global community presently enjoys and I know I am fortunate to live where I do as I benefit from these advancements. (It has also led to extreme hardship for a great many). But if China and India do it the same way we have done it thus far, IMO, the world is screwed. We have already been witness to the repositioning of the manufacturing sector to the east as a result of Capitalism. It has worked for a hundred years because only half of the world lived by it. Now WE have an established standard of living based on what it has brought us, but the new players in the game have a different set of rules than we do, yet we invited them, welcomed them into the free capitalist market. Seemingly without any inkling of what could happen....and is.
rubberman
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
True Rygg, however more often than not it is the money that PERSUADES the government to act in a certain way, initiate policy , decide which bills will pass and which will go into the circular file...
CHollman82
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Capitalism, like the article said, has failed here. The proximate motivator of capitalism is greed and the quest for monopoly.


Quite the opposite, in point of fact.



In any case, the truth of this whole thing is much simpler. It's extraordinarily expensive, time-consuming and legally challenging to develop antibiotics. And the payback is very minimal. Not a good business model.


Um...this is why Capitalism fails here dude....


What are you talking about? He is arguing that due to heavy regulation you can't consider the current state of the pharmaceuticals industry to be a result of capitalism...

You do realize that capitalism does not include government regulation right? Maybe you should look up capitalism on wikipedia or re-read what he said because you don't understand the argument being made.
CHollman82
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
The fact is modern medicine wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for capitalism and in a truly capitalist system this wouldn't be a problem. The problem is government regulation.

If you need an antibiotic to save your life you will pay well for it, making it profitable, driving further research... that doesn't happen because the government steps in and tinkers with the industry...

The irony is that you guys are blaming capitalism when the problem is that our economy is not strictly capitalist, and if it were this problem wouldn't exist.
rawa1
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
You do realize that capitalism does not include government regulation right?
Of course, the real socialism and capitalism converge mutually - actually the more, the more the trade and currency exchange becomes intensive. The free market can exist only under protection of strong governmental regulation.
CHollman82
Nov 29, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
You do realize that capitalism does not include government regulation right?
Of course, the real socialism and capitalism converge mutually - actually the more, the more the trade and currency exchange becomes intensive. The free market can exist only under protection of strong governmental regulation.


Only because people want everything despite many of these wants being contradictory. For example, people want all kinds of government welfare but don't want to pay taxes... this is irrational and childish and only illustrates their lack of understanding of reality. People want the benefits of a capitalist economy but not some of the necessary side effects.

The real (simple) problem is that different people want different things and you can't please everyone all the time. That pretty much sums up all of economics and politics.
FrankHerbert
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (13)
You do realize that capitalism does not include government regulation right? Maybe you should look up capitalism on wikipedia or re-read what he said because you don't understand the argument being made.


That is not what Smith said. Maybe you should read the Wealth of Nations?

(Also, I'm not pretentious enough to type out the entire title so please don't try to deride me on that.)

The irony is that you guys are blaming capitalism when the problem is that our economy is not strictly capitalist, and if it were this problem wouldn't exist.


How can you say this when you have no idea what Capitalism is?
FrankHerbert
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (13)
"Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism. There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit, competitive markets, and wage labor. The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture."

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article (your suggested source). I will repeat the most relevant sentence.

"There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category."

Why are you so certain about things that are obviously wrong? You need to work on that. Just because you are intelligent doesn't mean you get to define reality. You might mature out of that someday.
Vendicar_Decarian
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
What are you jabbering about now Fool?

"You do realize that capitalism does not include government regulation right?" - CHollman82

How kind of you to define for us what capitalism is. The problem of course is that your comment is YOUR VISION of what Capitalism is.

Capitalism has Always included government regulation, and always will. Capitalism couldn't even exist without government regulation.

You Free Market ConservaTards don't have a clue as to how the world works and yet you demand that if only the world were to accept more of your Free Market Poison it would be cured from the economic cancer caused by your Free Market Poison.

Morons and lowlifes.

Vendicar_Decarian
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
What are you jabbering about now?, fool.

"The fact is modern medicine wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for capitalism." - CHollman82

Care to offer any "proof" of your claimed fact? Do you own some kind of space/time machine that allows you to set up alternate universes and then travel to them to see how things turned out?

No you don't do you. So your Claimed Fact is just your belief isn't it?

Well excuse me for ignoring the belief of a ConservaTard who's own idology has destroyed his own nation.

"The problem is government regulation." - CHollman82

To a dullard hammer, every problem appears to be a nail.

FrankHerbert
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (13)
Capitalism has Always included government regulation, and always will. Capitalism couldn't even exist without government regulation.


Well said. Even in its theoretical infancy Smith included regulations on banking, something republicans oppose today as anti-capitalist.

Also, Smith himself was not an ideologue. He comes right out and says that his system is laid out in a way affecting the most good for the most people, and that he would be the first person to scrap it if it didn't meet that goal.

"The fact is modern medicine wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for capitalism." - CHollman82


I'm fairly certain if Smith were alive today he would support some form of universal healthcare as medicine could not really be considered "healthcare" in his time. He is a smart enough individual to take into account the last 220 years, unlike many conservatives.
Vendicar_Decarian
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Sign over many NAZI death camps.
"Work brings freedom."

Perpetual promise of the Capitalist.
"Work brings freedom."

"You forget the most important part of capitalism, PERSUASION.
Only the govt is allowed to coerce, to use force." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
What are you Jabbering about now fool?

"As I said, there's no way to know if capitalism failed, as the drug industry doesn't work in a capitalistic environment." - NerdTard

The drug industry doesn't exchange drugs for money?

Good Christ you ConservaTards are such pathetic morons.

rawa1
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Well, when the free market isn't working, then apparently only two ugly socialistic ways exist, how to help to solve the antibiotic crisis. To introduce incentives for development of antibiotic drugs guaranteed with government, or to introduce new taxes for the lifestyle meds. If the consumption of alcohol and other recreational drugs is loaded with tax, why not the consumption of Viagra?

Or do we have a better ideas?
Nerdyguy
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
What are you Jabbering about now fool?

"As I said, there's no way to know if capitalism failed, as the drug industry doesn't work in a capitalistic environment." - NerdTard

The drug industry doesn't exchange drugs for money?

Good Christ you ConservaTards are such pathetic morons.



As always, Vendicar spreads hate, misery, pain and....misinformation. Sad to be him and sad for those who are forced to witness his painful breakdown.

When your only good argument is to rant like the 3rd-grade bully I expect you never outgrew, you do tend to miss a few things.

To the issue at hand, my point was and is valid. The fact that your preferred solution to EVERY global problem is to socialize it does not automatically make your point valid. Believe it or not, both conservatives AND liberals have valid points. And, in my experience, most people are not firmly in any one camp.

Those, like you, who are - we refer to as ideologues.

Nerdyguy
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Well, when the free market isn't working, then apparently only two ugly socialistic ways exist, how to help to solve the antibiotic crisis. To introduce incentives for development of antibiotic drugs guaranteed with government, or to introduce new taxes for the lifestyle meds. If the consumption of alcohol and other recreational drugs is loaded with tax, why not the consumption of Viagra?

Or do we have a better ideas?


1) Incentives aren't socialistic or ugly. In the old "carrot and stick" analogy, the carrot is the only way to incentivize any adult.

2) Viagra, like virtually all products in the U.S., is already taxed. Not that I know from having looked at the label when I picked mine up *cough*.
ryggesogn2
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1.4 / 5 (9)
Govt protection of private property is not regulation.
Govt regulation is setting a cap on prices of drugs, requiring inefficient tests, ....
The proper role of govt is to prosecute violations of property rights. If a company markets a drug that kills people, the right and proper role of the state is to prosecute. (Now, a bad drug can be approved by the FDA and kill people, but the FDA is not prosecuted. They are rewarded with more power to create more onerous regulations.)
rubberman
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
The fact is modern medicine wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for capitalism and in a truly capitalist system this wouldn't be a problem. The problem is government regulation.

First of all I'd like to thank the other posters for attempting to set holgram straight regarding the "definition" of Capitalism.
Secondly I have already stated that I am happy for the myriad of comforts and advancements that I enjoy as a result of the capitalist system.

If you need an antibiotic to save your life you will pay well for it, making it profitable, driving further research... that doesn't happen because the government steps in and tinkers with the industry...

The point the article makes is that because it is not AS profitable as "feel good" drugs, there is very little NEW R & D going into anti-biotics. There are no government regulations forcing drug companies to do this that i am aware of, the decision of whether a drug will be manufactured is made by the accounting dep.
rubberman
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
woops....effed that one up, sorry.
ryggesogn2
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
DARPA calls for antibiotic replacement
http://medicalxpr...firstCmt
FrankHerbert
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 2.7 / 5 (14)
To the issue at hand, my point was and is valid. The fact that your preferred solution to EVERY global problem is to socialize it does not automatically make your point valid.


You have no idea what capitalism is, as has been shown. You define socialism in opposition to capitalism, so how would you know what socialism is either?

So no, your point isn't valid. You are talking in buzzwords you don't even understand. Just say we should all be "proactive", it'd be about as meaningless.

Those, like you, who are - we refer to as ideologues.


You can really cut the irony with a knife here.
ryggesogn2
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
I define socialism as govt control of private property.
The govts of the world effectively control the prescription drug markets with regulations and price controls.
This is an example of socialism.
rubberman
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
I remeber that one Rygg. When I first read it I thought that if the nanoparticles could be designed to alter the gene responsible for Bacterial reproduction it would be insanely effective....and very convenient if it was the same gene in even 10% of these harmful bacteria. Which was when I realized the scope of what they would have to do if they approach it this way. You would have to have "intelligent" nano particles which adapt to the bacteria itself, or someone on site capable of doing the altering once the requirements had been identified......the Borg could do it.

The other problem is that the patient under this "cure" would remain susceptible to the same strain if re-exposed after the nanoparticles had cleared the patients system.
ryggesogn2
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
"Government intervention in Canada's prescription drug market is failing to make medicines more affordable for consumers, says a new report."
"Canadians pay almost twice as much as Americans for generic medicines because government drug plans distort retail prices and prevent manufacturer discounts from being passed on to consumers, claims a new report.

Canadian prices for 64 generics available in both Canada and the US were, on average, 90% higher than in the US in 2008 - the most recent year for which data is available, says the study, which is produced by free-market think tank the Fraser Institute. In 2007, generics prices in Canada were an average 112% higher than in the US, while in 2006 they averaged 115% more, it adds."
http://www.pharma...%9D.aspx
Nerdyguy
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
To the issue at hand, my point was and is valid. The fact that your preferred solution to EVERY global problem is to socialize it does not automatically make your point valid.


You have no idea what capitalism is, as has been shown. You define socialism in opposition to capitalism, so how would you know what socialism is either?

So no, your point isn't valid. You are talking in buzzwords you don't even understand. Just say we should all be "proactive", it'd be about as meaningless.

Those, like you, who are - we refer to as ideologues.


You can really cut the irony with a knife here.


Honestly, I've rarely seen such idiocy here. And that's saying something.

So, your entire rebuttal to my comments is to essentially tell me I'm stupid, without bothering to mention any specifics, without actually stating any details, with no effort to point out any flaws in my logic.

And we should take your opinion on what, then, faith?
FrankHerbert
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 2.7 / 5 (14)
You stated government regulations are antithetical to capitalism. I showed you that is not that case. Please keep pretending that didn't happen, it makes you look like more of an ideologue.

Marjon is also very good at plugging his ears and chanting talking points.

Just to quote you again:

You do realize that capitalism does not include government regulation right? Maybe you should look up capitalism on wikipedia or re-read what he said because you don't understand the argument being made.


And to quote Wikipedia again:

There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category


I also didn't call you stupid. I said you were wrong. I also SPECIFICALLY said you were intelligent. SPECIFICALLY.

Why are you so certain about things that are obviously wrong? You need to work on that. Just because you are intelligent doesn't mean you get to define reality. You might mature out of that someday.


Just lighten your tone.
rubberman
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
WOW...Rygg, I live in Canada (very happily). As a Canadian you are presented with a health card at birth. If you are a senior citizen or physically debilitated and unable to work, presenting this health card gets you your prescription, no cash req'd. With this health card, ANY emergency care, pre and post natal, pre, during and post op care (as long as it is not an elective surgury)and walk in clinic visit is also no payment req'd at site. For those of us requiring a scrip, most of us have health plans that cover between 80 and 100% of the cost. IMO, the inflated cost is due to these factors. We are taxed considerably higher than our American neighbours and alot of increases are made under the guise of burgeoning health care costs and an aging population requiring these services. But this is after all the government we are talking about...do you trust yours?
ryggesogn2
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
"We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.["
How do FDA regulations support this especially when FDA regulations cause people to die?
ryggesogn2
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Rubber, please stay in Canada and wait for months in pain when you need 'elective' surgery.
Wait time for a knee replacement:
http://www.health...dfc63996
Nerdyguy
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
@Franky & all 10 sock-puppet aliases:

Just an FYI: I think you got confused because you have so many aliases going you got your wires crossed. It's understandable. Anyone working so hard to be so deceptive and so downright nasty will occasionally slip up.

Anyway, here's the actual FYI:

You mixed up several posts above from different authors, and seemed to think you were talking to one person. For example, I asked you a question, and you responded with someone else's post claiming it as mine. Who knows, maybe you're off the normal meds today?
Nerdyguy
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
WOW...Rygg, I live in Canada (very happily). As a Canadian you are presented with a health card at birth. If you are a senior citizen or physically debilitated and unable to work, presenting this health card gets you your prescription, no cash req'd. With this health card, ANY emergency care, ...


Rubberman, judging from your post, it's possible to assume you are unaware that Canada's healthcare system is widely criticized by people as diverse as politicians, economists, healthcare industry analysts, medical professionals, and plenty of regular citizens. Both inside Canada and internationally. So, just thought I'd let you know.

I recall when the U.S. was debating healthcare reform, both in the Clinton era and more recently, many concerns that we would end up "like Canada".

So, don't make it out to be a utopia. Many Canadians would rip you for that one, eh.

In the U.S., btw, we have Medicaid and Medicare already, covering young, old, unemployed, and poor.
rubberman
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Rygg, my dad just had both of his done, had to wait 6 weeks for the left after booking, 4 months to heal to the point that it could deal with bearing more than half his weight distribution, then the right. He did them one at a time due to feedback from several people who got both done at the same time, it's a choice he made because he didn't want to be completely incapacitated. I've heard rumors BC is like a different country with this stuff.
rubberman
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Ng, I'd say move here and compare...but it makes no difference to me. Anybody can find fault with anything, criticism doesn't necessarily mean truth. The only thing i can tell you is that if I break my arm here and don't have insurance, I'm still not getting a bill from the hospital to have it set and casted. I'm happy that you beleive the american system is superior. The only criticism I can recall (of the canadian system) was of recent reforms where services such as eye exams and chiropractic were removed from health card services, then added to most health plans. If you have other examples.....share.
Nerdyguy
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Ng, I'd say move here and compare...but it makes no difference to me. Anybody can find fault with anything, criticism doesn't necessarily mean truth. ...I'm happy that you beleive the american system is superior. The only criticism I can recall (of the canadian system) was of recent reforms where services such as eye exams and chiropractic were removed from health card services, then added to most health plans. If you have other examples.....share.


I didn't criticize the Canadian plan.

I also didn't say what I thought about the American system.

I was just pointing out that the Canadian system has been highly criticized. For decades.

I agree with you that the anyone can find fault. There's no perfect system out there.

ryggesogn2
Nov 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
BC is like a different country with this stuff.

Last I looked BC is in Canada.
rubberman
Dec 01, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
That is why i said "like" a different country.
Rank 5 /5 (4 votes)
Tags

new antibiotics, chronic illnesses, acute infections, pharmaceutical companies, neglect, medicine, antibiotics
Related Stories
more news
Relevant PhysicsForums posts

More news stories

FDA warns of infections tied to Tennessee pharmacy

(AP)—Government health officials are investigating several health problems reported with potentially contaminated medications made by a Tennessee specialty pharmacy.

Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes created 19 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Comorbidities common with alopecia areata

(HealthDay)—Comorbid conditions often accompany alopecia areata, according to a study published online May 22 in JAMA Dermatology.

Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes created 20 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Top-ranked golfer beats scoliosis

(HealthDay)—As a world-class golfer, Stacy Lewis' accomplishments are remarkable. But it was a physical challenge in her childhood that defined her ascent to the top of her sport.

Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes created 21 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Saudi to send animal samples to US in coronavirus probe (Update)

Saudi Arabia said Friday it would send samples taken from animals possibly infected with a deadly SARS-like virus to the United States for testing in a bid to find the source of disease.

Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes created May 24, 2013 | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

WHO voices deep concern over spread of SARS-like virus

The World Health Organization voiced deep concern Thursday over the SARS-like virus that has killed 22 people in less than a year, saying it might potentially spread more widely between humans.

Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes created May 24, 2013 | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0


First drug to improve heart failure mortality in over a decade

Coenzyme Q10 decreases all cause mortality by half, according to the results of a multicentre randomised double blind trial presented today at Heart Failure 2013 congress. It is the first drug to improve heart failure mortality ...

Hormone levels may provide key to understanding psychological disorders in women

Women at a particular stage in their monthly menstrual cycle may be more vulnerable to some of the psychological side-effects associated with stressful experiences, according to a study from UCL.

Heart failure accelerates male 'menopause'

Heart failure accelerates the aging process and brings on early andropausal syndrome (AS), according to research presented today at the Heart Failure Congress 2013. AS, also referred to as male 'menopause', was four times ...

Researchers identify first drug targets in childhood genetic tumor disorder

Two mutations central to the development of infantile myofibromatosis (IM)—a disorder characterized by multiple tumors involving the skin, bone, and soft tissue—may provide new therapeutic targets, according to researchers ...

Going live: Immune cell activation in multiple sclerosis

Biological processes are generally based on events at the molecular and cellular level. To understand what happens in the course of infections, diseases or normal bodily functions, scientists would need to ...

Feds fight morning-after pill age ruling in NY

(AP)—Department of Justice lawyers have again asked a federal appeals court in New York to delay lifting age restrictions and prescription requirements on an emergency contraceptive popularly known as the morning-after ...