American Medical advancements a thing of the past?

jreeves

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2008
6,588
319
48
RealClearPolitics - Obama Would Stifle Military and Medical Creativity
We also may be at risk of squandering our high-tech advantage in medicine. As Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institution points out, the top five American hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in all other developed countries. America has outpointed all other countries combined in Nobel Prizes for medical and physiology since 1970.

American theoretical health research financed by the National Institutes of Health and by American market-oriented pharmaceutical companies outshines the rest of the world combined. And the rest of the world tends to get the benefits at cut rates. American taxpayers finance NIH, which reports results publicly to the whole world.

Pharmaceutical companies that produce benefits for patients and consumers get the profits that support their research disproportionately from Americans, because other countries refuse to spend much more than the cost of producing pills, which is trivial next to the huge cost of research and regulatory approval. Getting these free riders to pay more is, again, Sisyphus's work.

The Democratic health care bills threaten to undermine innovation in pharmaceuticals and medical technologies by sending those with private insurance into a government insurance plan that would be in a position to ration treatment and delay or squelch innovation. The danger is that we will freeze medicine in place and no longer be the nation that produces innovations that do so much for us and the rest of the world.

We are quick to grow irritated with the imperfections of our health care system and with the inefficiencies inevitable (because there is just one buyer) in military procurement. But our grouchiness should not keep up from losing sight of the wondrous American ingenuity and creativity of the American military and American medicine.

It is ironic that an administration that promised hope and change is instead pursuing policies that could stifle American creativity. It is encouraging that, on health care, so many Americans are recoiling from that prospect and, as polls show, starting to appreciate the wonders of American achievement.

Just think, if American medical researchers no longer deliver cutting edge pharm. and medical treatments? Just to think, for instance, people were paralyzed by polio, died from heart attacks not knowing that their cholesterol was the cause, suffered from countless genetic disorders, died from kidney disease because kidney transplants weren't available, all of these have either been greatly learned upon or eradicated by American medical research and innovation. This only a minute sampling.....
 
Save the crocodile tears.

A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.

The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of $235.4 billion.

Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds

Perhaps if they didn't spend tens of billions of dollars in marketing and promotion (and hundreds of millions lobbying Congress), they could afford more research. Until they stop that crap, I don't want to hear their sob stories.
 
Save the crocodile tears.

A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.

The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of $235.4 billion.

Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds

Perhaps if they didn't spend tens of billions of dollars in marketing and promotion (and hundreds of millions lobbying Congress), they could afford more research. Until they stop that crap, I don't want to hear their sob stories.

except that advertising generates revenue, which gets spent on R&D.
 
Cutting edge medical technology doesn't much impress people who cannot afford it.
 
Save the crocodile tears.

A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.

The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of $235.4 billion.

Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds

Perhaps if they didn't spend tens of billions of dollars in marketing and promotion (and hundreds of millions lobbying Congress), they could afford more research. Until they stop that crap, I don't want to hear their sob stories.
It sounds like a bad case of "Penis Envy" by the Canadians. Even if their research were accurate and unbiased - and who would believe that - Pharma companies have a limited amount of time to amortize their investment before a drug goes generic and anyone can make it at cost. If it goes relatively unsold their investment in that first One-Billion-Dollar pill won't be paid for and their won't be others to lose money on.
 
Save the crocodile tears.

A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.

The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of $235.4 billion.

Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds

Perhaps if they didn't spend tens of billions of dollars in marketing and promotion (and hundreds of millions lobbying Congress), they could afford more research. Until they stop that crap, I don't want to hear their sob stories.
It sounds like a bad case of "Penis Envy" by the Canadians. Even if their research were accurate and unbiased - and who would believe that - Pharma companies have a limited amount of time to amortize their investment before a drug goes generic and anyone can make it at cost. If it goes relatively unsold their investment in that first One-Billion-Dollar pill won't be paid for and their won't be others to lose money on.
From the link:

Gagnon’s and Lexchin’s new estimate of total promotional costs is also consistent with estimates of promotional spending by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry from other sources they scrutinized, including reports by Consumers International, a non-governmental organization which represents consumer groups and agencies worldwide; Office of Technology Assessment, which extrapolated results from the cost structure of Eli Lilly, a global pharmaceutical company; Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who extrapolated data from Novartis Inc., a company which distinguishes marketing from administration expenditures in its annual reports; and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.


Pharma companies have a limited amount of time to amortize their investment before a drug goes generic and anyone can make it at cost.
Once prescription drugs are available OTC, that might make some sense. Prescribers receive all the information they need regarding new medications, new indications for existing medications and clinical trials through journals and other professional sources. The vast amount of the marketing by these companies is not necessary.
 
The Americans have been behind for a long time. The French are the leaders in medical and scientific breakthroughs and have been for a long while. Mainstream media doesn't report it. Leading edge physics, chemistry, medicine.....France leads.

The French invented the AIDS test. Fauci and the NIH stole it.
 
The Democratic health care bills threaten to undermine innovation in pharmaceuticals and medical technologies by sending those with private insurance into a government insurance plan that would be in a position to ration treatment and delay or squelch innovation.

How exactly would it do that? Hmm? By providing a public option in health insurance?

I sure would like to hear how that would work exactly.

And, Pharma companies make tens of billions of dollars each year for their stockholders. Pharma stocks keep going up and up, no matter what, and their R&D budgets are a tiny fraction of their stockholder profit totals.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Pharma companies. They are charging outrageous prices for drugs in the US to everyone's detriment.
 
The French are the leaders in medical and scientific breakthroughs and have been for a long while

But wait, how could they be? Hasn't their "innovation been squelched"?

Of course, the US is waaay ahead of France in the field of dealing with "Erectile Dysfunction".
 
You have missed the plot completely, modern medicine is not about improving the life of man its about extending the life of profits. Ilness and disease can now be creatd in a lab and let loose on an unsuspecting public just for profit alone, never mind what else they can do.

Extending the life of humans is about profit, power and greed, the view that it is to benefit the individual or the whole of humanity is just a smoke screen and nothing more.
 
Ilness and disease can now be creatd in a lab and let loose on an unsuspecting public just for profit alone, never mind what else they can do.

Somebody must have released a powerful stupid virus in the interior states then.

Seriously, I've never seen so much unsubstantiated rhetoric being swallowed whole in my life before.
 
Perhaps thats just because you are stupid, ignorant or just uneducated in the matters of the world. But none the less it is true. What examples would you like, I can think of a few.
 
Save the crocodile tears.



Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds

Perhaps if they didn't spend tens of billions of dollars in marketing and promotion (and hundreds of millions lobbying Congress), they could afford more research. Until they stop that crap, I don't want to hear their sob stories.
It sounds like a bad case of "Penis Envy" by the Canadians. Even if their research were accurate and unbiased - and who would believe that - Pharma companies have a limited amount of time to amortize their investment before a drug goes generic and anyone can make it at cost. If it goes relatively unsold their investment in that first One-Billion-Dollar pill won't be paid for and their won't be others to lose money on.
From the link:

Gagnon’s and Lexchin’s new estimate of total promotional costs is also consistent with estimates of promotional spending by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry from other sources they scrutinized, including reports by Consumers International, a non-governmental organization which represents consumer groups and agencies worldwide; Office of Technology Assessment, which extrapolated results from the cost structure of Eli Lilly, a global pharmaceutical company; Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who extrapolated data from Novartis Inc., a company which distinguishes marketing from administration expenditures in its annual reports; and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.


Pharma companies have a limited amount of time to amortize their investment before a drug goes generic and anyone can make it at cost.
Once prescription drugs are available OTC, that might make some sense. Prescribers receive all the information they need regarding new medications, new indications for existing medications and clinical trials through journals and other professional sources. The vast amount of the marketing by these companies is not necessary.
I noticed that these two PHDs must have taken into account "seeding trials" as advertising; they said: “Also, seeding trials, which are designed to promote the prescription of new drugs, may be allocated to other budget categories.”

Of course there is no other country with the development facilities like America's for this type spending comparison, it seems; certainly not our Canadian neighbors, who depend on America for almost all their pharmaceuticals.

So what is your explanation for pharma companies spending what to some critics seems to be excessive for marketing and advertising other than to gain a competitive marketing edge and the success of their business....huhhh?
 
Last edited:
I don't know about the whole seeding diseases thing, seems a bit extreme...

But I do know that treating a disease for a lifetime is certainly more profitable than curing a disease.

Which is a major fault of for-profit health-care.

It is possible that if treating AIDS, for instance, weren't so damn profitable, pharma companies would have focused on a cure rather than treatments, and hell we might even have one by now.
 
The people that actually WORK on the cures don't make the money, the corporations do. I'm sure that the people that work on the cures and do the research are remunerated quite well, but I doubt they do it for the paycheck, they do it because it is what interests them.

The "maintaining disease" model is the organic equivalent of planned/intended obsolescence, an inferior gizmo/fix so that the churn continues. With every churn, taxes are taken out.
 
I don't know about the whole seeding diseases thing, seems a bit extreme...

But I do know that treating a disease for a lifetime is certainly more profitable than curing a disease.

Which is a major fault of for-profit health-care.

It is possible that if treating AIDS, for instance, weren't so damn profitable, pharma companies would have focused on a cure rather than treatments, and hell we might even have one by now.
Treating a disease with drugs can be a whole lot better option than surgury, if a surgical option is available, especially at end of life (60-80) when a drug solution is far more attractive than suffering with a condition. My little 500 mg tab of naproxen taken twice daily saves me a lot of pain in the knees and allows me to go out and be usefully employed at 68, and put off knee replacement surgery to a point in time that it won't need be repeated a second time. Pharmaceutical companies make things like stints and ceramic prosthetic devices for knee and hip replacements too. It seems to me all this criticism is a lot of nonsense from people looking for something else to be pissed off about, because they completely lack understanding of incentives; to them incentives, particularly profit incentives, can only be evil.

The PHDs making this analysis did everything they could to assign costs to the area of promotion, marketing, and advertising. Advertising to a huge market like the US market is extremely costly. There is value in knowledge and information, and their advertising spreads useful knowledge and information to those whom it might be of value to. The others seem to be put out because it's not something they need RIGHT NOW.

I'm not able to provide a link but this was posted on a science forum a while back:
"Annual U.S. prescription sales hit $291 billion in 2008.
Annual U.S. illegal drug sales total ~$65 billion.
The pharmaceutical industry spent $4.2 billion on advertising in 2008"


My answer on the basis of that factoid was the following:
"The pharmaceutical industry spent less than 1½ percent of prescription drug sales income for advertising in 2008"

Obviously there is a disparity here. I suggest that the difference between these figures and the ones worked up by our Canadian Penis Enviers might be that the latter figures came from corporate tax data filed with the IRS.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top