Medical breakthroughs

[Ravi]

Quite a few people state that medical breakthroughs will dry up without a profit margin but I wonder if this is true. Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

I understand that companies like to patent their drugs, etc. and so pay researchers to research. But isn't it possible that these discoveries would happen anyway. And is it possible that many shortcuts get taken with an eye to the bottom line (I'm thinking of drugs that come on the market that turn out to have deadly side effects)?

 

[Oddball]

Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

There have been plenty of them delayed and outright shelved because of the greed of FDA bureaucrats.

But I guess your greed doesn't count if you're a minion of Big Daddy, huh??

 

[editec]

Clearly they'll stop producing those ME TOO drugs whose only purpose is to give them new patentable drugs that do the same things as the drugs they're replacing.

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

There have been plenty of them delayed and outright shelved because of the greed of FDA bureaucrats.

But I guess your greed doesn't count if you're a minion of Big Daddy, huh??

I didn't want to just hear your opinion though I'm not surprised that is all you had to offer.

 

[Oddball]

Public forum, pal.

You seem to think that human failings don't count if you're a politician or bureaucrat, when in fact they become amplified.

 

[Ravi]

Public forum, pal.

You seem to think that human failings don't count if you're a politician or bureaucrat, when in fact they become amplified.

Is that what I think? Thanks for telling me.

If you've got no statistics I've no idea why you are here puffing out your chest and regurgitating meaningless talking points.

 

[Valerie]

Quite a few people state that medical breakthroughs will dry up without a profit margin but I wonder if this is true. Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

I understand that companies like to patent their drugs, etc. and so pay researchers to research. But isn't it possible that these discoveries would happen anyway. And is it possible that many shortcuts get taken with an eye to the bottom line (I'm thinking of drugs that come on the market that turn out to have deadly side effects)?

Further Thoughts On NIH Funding | EEG INFO - Newsletter - Articles and Discussion on Neurofeedback and Biofeedback - Dr. Siegfried Othmer

The combination of marginal successes for ever-greater expenditures, and competition from other social needs, may lead to a collapse in the present medical-industrial research complex. Currently the U.S. spends about 16% of our gross domestic product on healthcare – about twice the per capita rate for other advanced countries – but our national health statistics are nothing to write home about. A number of advanced countries, spending much less per capita on healthcare, have greater life expectancies and lower infant mortalities than the U.S. Our extra dollars feed a gigantic health insurance bureaucracy, Big Pharma, and a steady stream of expensive “cutting edge breakthrough” therapies that often disappoint.

Of course, no one has an invincible crystal ball. Certainly we would all welcome some real Big Science medical breakthroughs. It’s possible, but I’m not holding my breath.

Both the NIH and the U.S. healthcare system present serious cost/benefit problems at a time when funding seems destined to shrink. Healthcare expenditures are expected to reach 20% of GDP within a decade. Health insurance costs threaten to bankrupt major U.S. businesses, not to mention low-income families. And of course U.S. military expenditures and budget deficits are setting records. Simply paying our healthcare bills, let alone paying down the federal budget deficit, may start to crowd out biomedical research. Currently, NIH budget growth is flat, and Charlton could be right that in the future, NIH budgets may decline. And if funding does indeed decline, vested Big Science interests are likely to pursue an even greater share of research dollars.

NIH - Research, Training & Scientific Resources

 

[Big Black Dog]

You seem to think that human failings don't count if you're a politician or bureaucrat, when in fact they become amplified.

That's for sure. If you think you don't have any short-comings or enemies, run for any political office. Your short-comings and enemies will pop up like weeds in the garden!

 

[Valerie]

Across the country, dozens of biotech companies are running out of cash to fund their business operations, leaving promising treatments for such disorders as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's and diabetes to sit longer in labs. Some biotech start-ups can't even get off the ground.

This slowing of money into the biotech industry has the potential to deal a major setback to medical innovation. Biotech companies are seen as pioneers in medicine, seeking to develop new drugs and devices that large pharmaceutical companies often view see as financially too risky, leaving the investment in early research to smaller players.

In the U.S., where the bulk of biotech innovation occurs, 91 companies are operating with less than six months of cash remaining, and 140 of 370 public biotechs have less than one year's cash on hand, including Evanston-based Northfield Laboratories Inc., according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

To deal with the financial crisis and the credit crunch, many companies are putting research on hold, cutting jobs to save cash for operations and considering a sale of their businesses at low prices to bigger pharmaceutical companies. In October, 20 biotech companies announced layoffs, partly to conserve expenses for their research, a trend that has been growing since late last year.

Unlike big pharmaceutical companies that take in billions of dollars in sales that help fund research and development, biotechs are smaller and generally do not generate sales in their early years because their goal is to get a single product to market. Instead, they rely on investment banks to fund their operations until their products are approved for sale.

Biotech funding down to last drops Investments for medical breakthroughs in jeopardy

 

[Oddball]

Public forum, pal.

You seem to think that human failings don't count if you're a politician or bureaucrat, when in fact they become amplified.

Is that what I think? Thanks for telling me.

If you've got no statistics I've no idea why you are here puffing out your chest and regurgitating meaningless talking points.

Go ahead an disprove that it costs more than $500,000,000 to get a new medication or technology approved.
Golly...I wonder who benefits by that??

Google "orphan drugs".

Try to 'splain, with any cogent reasoning, why the FDA refused to allow aspirin manufacturers from printing indications for use in the event ot an AMI or CVA, and why they prohibited EMS personnel who knew of the benefits from administering ASPIRIN without an ER doc's direction.

Those are factual cases, not talking points, Skippy.

 

[Ravi]

Across the country, dozens of biotech companies are running out of cash to fund their business operations, leaving promising treatments for such disorders as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's and diabetes to sit longer in labs. Some biotech start-ups can't even get off the ground.

This slowing of money into the biotech industry has the potential to deal a major setback to medical innovation. Biotech companies are seen as pioneers in medicine, seeking to develop new drugs and devices that large pharmaceutical companies often view see as financially too risky, leaving the investment in early research to smaller players.

In the U.S., where the bulk of biotech innovation occurs, 91 companies are operating with less than six months of cash remaining, and 140 of 370 public biotechs have less than one year's cash on hand, including Evanston-based Northfield Laboratories Inc., according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

To deal with the financial crisis and the credit crunch, many companies are putting research on hold, cutting jobs to save cash for operations and considering a sale of their businesses at low prices to bigger pharmaceutical companies. In October, 20 biotech companies announced layoffs, partly to conserve expenses for their research, a trend that has been growing since late last year.

Unlike big pharmaceutical companies that take in billions of dollars in sales that help fund research and development, biotechs are smaller and generally do not generate sales in their early years because their goal is to get a single product to market. Instead, they rely on investment banks to fund their operations until their products are approved for sale.

Biotech funding down to last drops Investments for medical breakthroughs in jeopardy

I was thinking about this as well. When recessions happen big companies stop taking risks where government funding tends to chug on.

As for your other post, I have a friend that moved to Sweden a couple of years ago where medical needs for all children are compliments of the state. According to him at least, when you add up all the taxes Americans pay and Swedes pay it is pretty close to the same amount.

I don't know if the Swedes benefit from our private discoveries, though.

 

[Political Junky]

Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

There have been plenty of them delayed and outright shelved because of the greed of FDA bureaucrats.

But I guess your greed doesn't count if you're a minion of Big Daddy, huh??

It's amazing to me that cons would do away with the FDA. I guess they'd prefer to test products on their kids and themselves.

 

[geauxtohell]

Quite a few people state that medical breakthroughs will dry up without a profit margin but I wonder if this is true. Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

I understand that companies like to patent their drugs, etc. and so pay researchers to research. But isn't it possible that these discoveries would happen anyway. And is it possible that many shortcuts get taken with an eye to the bottom line (I'm thinking of drugs that come on the market that turn out to have deadly side effects)?

I think most scientists undertake the pursuit of knowledge for the love of trying to find answers. The profit margins aren't found on the bench science side of the game.

There are a lot of talking points that are being used as scare tactics these days that I am not sure I agree with.

Perhaps the greatest medical breakthrough of this century, penicillin, was complete happenstance.

 

[Oddball]

Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

There have been plenty of them delayed and outright shelved because of the greed of FDA bureaucrats.

But I guess your greed doesn't count if you're a minion of Big Daddy, huh??

It's amazing to me that cons would do away with the FDA. I guess they'd prefer to test products on their kids and themselves.

I'm not a conservative, knucklehead. And hiding behind children to demonize others is the height of cowardice.

The FDA has out-and-out killed people running their giant protection racket, under the phony guise of saving them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Quite a few people state that medical breakthroughs will dry up without a profit margin but I wonder if this is true. Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

I understand that companies like to patent their drugs, etc. and so pay researchers to research. But isn't it possible that these discoveries would happen anyway. And is it possible that many shortcuts get taken with an eye to the bottom line (I'm thinking of drugs that come on the market that turn out to have deadly side effects)?

No, it's not possible that these new drugs would be developed by accident. A researcher might come by an unexpected insight that leads eventually to a new drug, but the cost of developing the drug and of taking through the average 8 1/2 years of testing needed for FDA approval will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[auditor0007]

Clearly they'll stop producing those ME TOO drugs whose only purpose is to give them new patentable drugs that do the same things as the drugs they're replacing.

Triple Rep for that .

 

[auditor0007]

Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

There have been plenty of them delayed and outright shelved because of the greed of FDA bureaucrats.

But I guess your greed doesn't count if you're a minion of Big Daddy, huh??

It's amazing to me that cons would do away with the FDA. I guess they'd prefer to test products on their kids and themselves.

The FDA is a mess, no doubt, but some oversight is necessary. I'm just not sure the FDA is the way to go.

 

[editec]

Is the FDA really a mess?

What evidence does anyone bring to the table to prove that?

Because it takes years to get a new drug onto the market?

I don't doubt that. Research takes time and time is money.

It takes money to create really breakthrough drugs, and it take years to study the effects of of these drugs on people, too.

And we're blaming the FDA for the scientific process?

Might as well blame the pharmauetical companies for doing thier research thoroughly

That makes about as much sense as blaming the FDA for demanding that new drugs that come on the market are safe.

 

[Ravi]

Quite a few people state that medical breakthroughs will dry up without a profit margin but I wonder if this is true. Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

I understand that companies like to patent their drugs, etc. and so pay researchers to research. But isn't it possible that these discoveries would happen anyway. And is it possible that many shortcuts get taken with an eye to the bottom line (I'm thinking of drugs that come on the market that turn out to have deadly side effects)?

No, it's not possible that these new drugs would be developed by accident. A researcher might come by an unexpected insight that leads eventually to a new drug, but the cost of developing the drug and of taking through the average 8 1/2 years of testing needed for FDA approval will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

I didn't mean by accident. I'm also not convinced FDA testing is a bad thing, I'd like to know that I can purchase something with a pretty good chance that it will do some good.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Quite a few people state that medical breakthroughs will dry up without a profit margin but I wonder if this is true. Does anyone have any statistics on major medical breakthroughs that were happened upon simply because of love of money vs. ones that came about through dedication and love of the medical craft?

I understand that companies like to patent their drugs, etc. and so pay researchers to research. But isn't it possible that these discoveries would happen anyway. And is it possible that many shortcuts get taken with an eye to the bottom line (I'm thinking of drugs that come on the market that turn out to have deadly side effects)?

No, it's not possible that these new drugs would be developed by accident. A researcher might come by an unexpected insight that leads eventually to a new drug, but the cost of developing the drug and of taking through the average 8 1/2 years of testing needed for FDA approval will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

I didn't mean by accident. I'm also not convinced FDA testing is a bad thing, I'd like to know that I can purchase something with a pretty good chance that it will do some good.

I'm not knocking the FDA, but it is a fact that FDA testing delays the release of new drugs for years and requires the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to prove a drug safe and effective. We're always hearing about promising new drugs that are abandoned during human trials because while they did great things for sick mice or monkeys they failed to do the same things for humans. If a drug fails during effectiveness trials, most often tens of millions if not hundreds of millions have already gone into its development, so when a drug is finally proven to be safe and effective and ready for the market, the development costs of all the drugs that failed have to be considered part of the development cost of this drug that didn't fail.

If the drug companies were not willing to put up these huge sums of money in the hope of a huge payoff when that one in a thousand drug finally gets FDA approval, who would put up the money necessary to bring this drug to market? The answer is, no one. The upside of the FDA is that we can be fairly confident an approved drug will perform as it is supposed to, but the downside is only big pharma with its eyes on big profits from a patent and big money to invest in developing the drug has the means and will to bring it all the way through the FDA testing process.