Big Pharma nixes new drugs despite impending 'antibiotic apocalypse'
with news about and related
to the EU, the Netherlands,
and Almere - Europe's most modern multi-cultural city
Showing posts with label Pharmaceutical Industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pharmaceutical Industry. Show all posts
September 15, 2019
January 30, 2019
Capitalism: slowly but surely the Capitalist system is self-destructing
Capitalism: all we have to do is look how some major multinational
corporations, including the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industries,
weapons or financial Industry, are exploiting the world community, to
realize they are the ones who are destroying the image and reputation
of Capitalism
http://www.asanet.org/news-events/speak-sociology/real-structural-problem-self-destruction-capitalism
http://www.asanet.org/news-events/speak-sociology/real-structural-problem-self-destruction-capitalism
April 27, 2015
Mercury in Vaccines: Anti-vax group defends comparing immunisation withThimerosam additive to rape
In a press release issued recently, one
that almost no mainstreain Australia m media sources have bothered to report, it was
announced that Dr. Brian Hooker had finally received documents from the
CDC through a Freedom of Information Act that revealed the CDC had
access to data linking Thimerosal in vaccines to autism, non-organic
sleep disorders, and speech disorders.
Two members of Congress helped Dr. Hooker
draft his letter to the CDC, after having spent nearly 10 years
submitting over 100 Freedom of Information Acts to no avail.
This information is very damaging to the CDC, which has stated for years
that there are no studies linking the mercury of Thimerosal in vaccines
to autism.
In another recent testimony given by the CDC in the November 2012 Congressional
Hearing on Autism, they claimed there are no studies linking
Thimerosal to autism. Thimerosam however is still used today in the flu shot
that is administered to pregnant women and infants.
An
Anti-vaccination group in Australia has defended an advert which
appears to compare immunising children with being raped.
The Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network posted an image of a woman
with a man threateningly holding his hand over her mouth on its Facebook
page earlier today.
This information, so far, has been completely blacked out of the mainstream media.
EU-Digest
March 7, 2015
Pharmaceutical Industry: Do U.S. Consumers Foot the Bill for Cheap Drugs in Europe and Canada? - not really !
In an an article under the heading U.S. Consumers Foot the Bill for Cheap Drugs in Europe and Canada Megan McArdle
wrote in the Bloomberg View. "
A few days ago, when I remarked that U.S. pharmaceutical prices subsidize much of the research that benefits the rest of the world, I got various forms of push back, so it seems worth running, briefly, through the logic:
1. Both critics and boosters of pharma agree that prices are higher here than elsewhere.
2. Therefore, the U.S. accounts for a disproportionate share of pharmaceutical profits for companies that develop new drugs.*
3. Profits provide both incentive to develop new drugs and the cash with which to do so.
4. Drug companies are, in fact, needed to bring large numbers of drugs to market.
5. New drugs are valuable.
That’s not a very interesting argument, though it is one we’ll surely be having over and over again. But there was an interesting question asked in the comments: How do we make Europe and Canada and Japan bear part of the costs of drug development? I’m going to sound like a Negative Nellie here, but the answer is, we don’t.
Let’s start by pointing out that the problem is not that we’re paying Canada’s “share” of development for the drugs we get. This is not how markets work. Drug companies charge what the market will bear for the drugs they make, both here and abroad. Here, where the market is largely private, that share is small. Abroad, where the “negotiation” consists of governments telling you what they are willing to pay, even as you know that they can always change the law to shorten your patent term so that other countries can manufacture your product, using your research for free.
There’s more to it than that, to be fair. Yet when negotiating with other governments, pharmaceutical companies operate at a severe disadvantage, not because the governments’ buying power is so vast (the national health-care systems of Canada and many European countries cover fewer people than Aetna), but because the people you’re negotiating with can change the rules under which your product gets sold. At any point they can say, like Lord Vader, “I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it any further.”
But if Canada started paying more, that wouldn’t mean we’d pay less. Drug companies are charging what they think we will pay. The result of Canadians and Europeans paying less is not that we pay more for drugs; it’s that fewer drugs get developed. To the extent that they are harming us, it is in hindering the development of cures or better treatments that we are missing, and don’t even know about.
Unfortunately, this is a classic case of Bastiat’s dilemma. It is easy for each country’s government to see the high prices that people are paying and intervene to lower them. It is hard for each country’s government, much less its citizens, to envision the new medical treatments that they might get if they paid more for drugs. So their incentives are heavily skewed toward controlling the price here and now, even if that means losing future cures.
Drug development is essentially a giant international collective-action problem. The U.S. has kept it from being a total disaster because we don’t have good centralized control of our insurance market, and our political system is pretty disorganized and easy to lobby. If that changes -- and maybe we just changed it! -- we’ll knock down the prices of drugs to near the marginal cost using government fiat, and I expect that innovation in this sector will grind to a halt. Stuff will still be coming out of academic labs, but no one is going to take those promising targets and turn them into actual drugs.
I don’t expect this to happen right away, but if the Affordable Care Act does result in some form of pharmaceutical price controls, I think we’ll see the death of Big Pharma, after which we will realize, much to the surprise of folks such as Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, that they did a bit more than just printing pretty labels and inventing new cures for baldness.
There are some promising alternatives. The main two that have been suggested are prizes and having the U.S. government get into the business of developing actual drugs, rather than just funding basic research. I’m in favor of trying both of these approaches. But so far, prizes have not proved themselves as ways to fund what is essentially commercial product development -- at least, not at the same level that patents do. Nor has the government. As we’ve just seen from the government’s attempt to develop a Travelocity-like site for health insurance, there are reasons to think that government might not be very good at that sort of thing. I don’t mean to slur the government -- governments absolutely have developed drugs in the past. But these are not the majority, and government processes often make it hard to do things that companies do easily."
Our take on this editorial in Bloomberg by Megan McArdle is that the headline and the facts in the story at times somewhat confusing because it gives the impression that all research is done in the US by US companies and institutions. Fact is that among the 10 top global pharmaceutical companies 5 come from the US and 5 from Europe.
These are: 1) Pfizer, USA 2) Novartis, Switzerland 3) Sanofi, France 4) Roche Holding, Switzerland 5) Merck & Co., USA 6) GlaxoSmithKline, UK, 7) AstraZeneca, UK 8) Eli Lilly & Co., USA, 9) Abbott Laboratories, USA 10) McKesson, USA
On the other hand one can fully agree with the statement on the Affordable Care Act, which notes "that if the Affordable Care Act result in some form of pharmaceutical price controls, I think we’ll see the death of Big Pharma, after which we will realize, much to the surprise of folks such as Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, that they did a bit more than just printing pretty labels and inventing new cures for baldness".
Anyway,at present, whatever way you look at it, the pricing structure differences between the US, Canada and Europe are abnormal, to say the least.
EU-Digest
A few days ago, when I remarked that U.S. pharmaceutical prices subsidize much of the research that benefits the rest of the world, I got various forms of push back, so it seems worth running, briefly, through the logic:
1. Both critics and boosters of pharma agree that prices are higher here than elsewhere.
2. Therefore, the U.S. accounts for a disproportionate share of pharmaceutical profits for companies that develop new drugs.*
3. Profits provide both incentive to develop new drugs and the cash with which to do so.
4. Drug companies are, in fact, needed to bring large numbers of drugs to market.
5. New drugs are valuable.
That’s not a very interesting argument, though it is one we’ll surely be having over and over again. But there was an interesting question asked in the comments: How do we make Europe and Canada and Japan bear part of the costs of drug development? I’m going to sound like a Negative Nellie here, but the answer is, we don’t.
Let’s start by pointing out that the problem is not that we’re paying Canada’s “share” of development for the drugs we get. This is not how markets work. Drug companies charge what the market will bear for the drugs they make, both here and abroad. Here, where the market is largely private, that share is small. Abroad, where the “negotiation” consists of governments telling you what they are willing to pay, even as you know that they can always change the law to shorten your patent term so that other countries can manufacture your product, using your research for free.
There’s more to it than that, to be fair. Yet when negotiating with other governments, pharmaceutical companies operate at a severe disadvantage, not because the governments’ buying power is so vast (the national health-care systems of Canada and many European countries cover fewer people than Aetna), but because the people you’re negotiating with can change the rules under which your product gets sold. At any point they can say, like Lord Vader, “I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it any further.”
But if Canada started paying more, that wouldn’t mean we’d pay less. Drug companies are charging what they think we will pay. The result of Canadians and Europeans paying less is not that we pay more for drugs; it’s that fewer drugs get developed. To the extent that they are harming us, it is in hindering the development of cures or better treatments that we are missing, and don’t even know about.
Unfortunately, this is a classic case of Bastiat’s dilemma. It is easy for each country’s government to see the high prices that people are paying and intervene to lower them. It is hard for each country’s government, much less its citizens, to envision the new medical treatments that they might get if they paid more for drugs. So their incentives are heavily skewed toward controlling the price here and now, even if that means losing future cures.
Drug development is essentially a giant international collective-action problem. The U.S. has kept it from being a total disaster because we don’t have good centralized control of our insurance market, and our political system is pretty disorganized and easy to lobby. If that changes -- and maybe we just changed it! -- we’ll knock down the prices of drugs to near the marginal cost using government fiat, and I expect that innovation in this sector will grind to a halt. Stuff will still be coming out of academic labs, but no one is going to take those promising targets and turn them into actual drugs.
I don’t expect this to happen right away, but if the Affordable Care Act does result in some form of pharmaceutical price controls, I think we’ll see the death of Big Pharma, after which we will realize, much to the surprise of folks such as Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, that they did a bit more than just printing pretty labels and inventing new cures for baldness.
There are some promising alternatives. The main two that have been suggested are prizes and having the U.S. government get into the business of developing actual drugs, rather than just funding basic research. I’m in favor of trying both of these approaches. But so far, prizes have not proved themselves as ways to fund what is essentially commercial product development -- at least, not at the same level that patents do. Nor has the government. As we’ve just seen from the government’s attempt to develop a Travelocity-like site for health insurance, there are reasons to think that government might not be very good at that sort of thing. I don’t mean to slur the government -- governments absolutely have developed drugs in the past. But these are not the majority, and government processes often make it hard to do things that companies do easily."
Our take on this editorial in Bloomberg by Megan McArdle is that the headline and the facts in the story at times somewhat confusing because it gives the impression that all research is done in the US by US companies and institutions. Fact is that among the 10 top global pharmaceutical companies 5 come from the US and 5 from Europe.
These are: 1) Pfizer, USA 2) Novartis, Switzerland 3) Sanofi, France 4) Roche Holding, Switzerland 5) Merck & Co., USA 6) GlaxoSmithKline, UK, 7) AstraZeneca, UK 8) Eli Lilly & Co., USA, 9) Abbott Laboratories, USA 10) McKesson, USA
On the other hand one can fully agree with the statement on the Affordable Care Act, which notes "that if the Affordable Care Act result in some form of pharmaceutical price controls, I think we’ll see the death of Big Pharma, after which we will realize, much to the surprise of folks such as Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, that they did a bit more than just printing pretty labels and inventing new cures for baldness".
Anyway,at present, whatever way you look at it, the pricing structure differences between the US, Canada and Europe are abnormal, to say the least.
EU-Digest
February 9, 2015
USA: What happened to the Hippocratic Oath? Can Pharmaceutical And Medical Industry Still Be Trusted ?
Hippocratic Oath has been shoved under the mat? |
The oath is believed to have been written by ancient Greek Philsopher Hippocrates and dates back to 5th Century BC. When translated notable parts include to, “keep patients from harm and injustice”, and to practice medicine in both “purity and holiness”.
But are they keeping that Oath?
Undoubtedly there are more doctors who care about the quality of patient care over personal profit, but what about the professionals who are willing to take bribes to endorse a product?
In-between doctors and pharmaceutical companies are the little-known championers of the pharmaceutical industry- the drug reps.
According to Glassdoor the average Pharma sales rep made more than $80,000 last year while the average biotech rep pulled in $152,000 dollars a year- 6 times more than the average American citizen.
Pharma representatives rarely have any formal education in science with the majority holding a BA in the liberal arts or business.
A former rep for Eli Lily revealed that he was the only member of his team with a background in science, and that the majority of his coworkers were “former cheerleaders and ex-models”.
Base salaries begin at $60,000 for new reps and $150,000 for a seasoned biotech representative- but perks don’t stop there. Johnson & Johnson’s reps celebrated on internet forumswhen they were given a chance to partake in a new fleet of Audi A3’s, with a MSRP of over $27,000.
With commission ranging from 10-15%, a company car, free gas and bank account the job is undeniably sexy, but pharma reps aren’t the only ones who are benefitting from Big Pharma’s generosity.
Doctors who endorse their products routinely receive gifts as well. Medical giant Medtronic shocked the media when it was discovered they had bribed a team of 13 doctors $210 million over the course of 15 years to post favorable studies of the off-label use of their INFUSE bone graft.
Many patients who received the bone grafts became paralyzed or died from complications stemming from the uncontrollable bone growth.
Consequently large drug companies have grown "wealthy beyond imagination" through blockbuster drugs that depended on government-funded research—and by committing fraud.
Elisabeth Warren, a Democratic Senator recently noted that over the past 10 years, some of the US's wealthiest drug companies—those that capitalize on government research to generate billions of dollars in revenues through the sale of blockbuster drugs—have found another way to boost profits".
Warren said, in a prepared text of her speech at an event sponsored by the health care advocacy group Families USA. "They've been caught defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, withholding critical safety information about their drugs, marketing their drugs for uses that aren't approved, and giving doctors kickbacks for writing prescriptions for their drugs."
Democrats have largely laid off the pharmaceutical industry since the legislative debate over the Affordable Care Act, when drugmakers agreed to support the bill as long as it didn't include certain policies. And Warren—whose home state is home to several large drug companies—praised the industry's scientific advances.
But, said Warren, drug companies paid roughly $13 billion in settlements with the federal government
between 2007 and 2012. "That doesn't happen without serious wrongdoing."
After 1978 Bayer (a German Company) and other pharmaceutical companies produced Factor VIII and IX.
The product was designed for hemophiliacs, people who suffer from a genetic disorder whose blood can not clot to stave bleeding. As a result, even a minor cut could cause them to bleed out and lose dangerous levels of blood. Factor VII is harvested from the blood plasma of non-hemophiliacs, but to purportedly to cut costs Bayer harvested blood from pools of “high risk” individuals.
This included: prison populations, intravenous drug users and blood from clinics with a large amount of homosexual donors. Federal law also forbids the use of blood from an individual with a history of viral hepatitis- but Bayer and other companies failed to enact strict prerequisites for blood farming. As a result, thousands of hemophiliacs died from the HIV- tainted blood plasma.
Senator Warren said, "it seems that the biggest drug companies are increasingly playing by a different set of rules than everyone else," Warren said. "The government has kicked thousands of small and medium-sized physician practices out of the Medicare program for fraud, but not one of these major drug companies has ever been kicked out. The government convicts hundreds of people of health care fraud every year, but not one of these major drug company cases has even gone to trial."
Warren in a bill proposed to the Senate wants pharmaceutical companies to fund more of the basic research conducted by the National Institutes of Health. Many blockbuster drugs do stem, at least in part, from NIH research.
Under Warren's proposal, "the biggest and most successful drug companies" would have to contribute to the NIH's budget whenever they settle criminal accusations with the federal government. In addition to the fines that companies already pay, they would have to contribute 1 percent of their annual profits to the NIH for five years.
"It's like a swear jar: Whenever a huge drug company that is generating enormous profits as a result of federal research investments gets caught breaking the law—and wants off the hook—it has to put some money in the jar to help fund the next generation of medical research," Warren said.
If such a policy had been in place over the past five years, NIH would have seen a budget bump of about $6 billion—or 20 percent—per year, she said.
In the meantime, however, in the US, the boundaries between the drug companies, FDA, and doctors have became increasingly blurred. FDA officials sometimes move to jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, which means they may not want to burn their bridges with industry.
The same FDA officials who approve the drugs are responsible for monitoring them after they are on the market, which gives them an obvious disincentive to say that the drugs they earlier certified as safe were now unsafe.
Finally, the FDA gets input from outside advisory panels made up of doctors who are experts in their fields. Most of these doctors receive payments as consultants, research grants and support for travel to conferences from drug companies.
In some cases, the doctors are working as paid consultants to the same companies whose drugs are coming up for approval by their advisory committees.
The US is the only country in the world where you can turn on the TV and have an announcer tell you to go ‘ask your doctor’ for a drug.
Doctors often will give medications to patients even if they don’t think they need it. For example, one study showed that 54% of the time doctors will prescribe a specific brand and type of medication if patients ask for it.
Drugs on the average cost twice as much in the US than in Canada or Europe . US Dr's also prescribe more drugs to their "patients" than any other nation in the world
The argument drug manufacturers make for the high cost of their products is that the money supports research and development of new life-saving medicine. And they also say that expensive advertising is needed not to sell drugs, but to educate doctors and patients. Indeed, a whopping 80% of their budgets is used for marketing and advertising, certainly not education.
Some things definitely are broken and need fixing in the US Pharmaceutical and Medical Industry.
A Special EU-Digest Report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)