What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
128 Comments
- PacketScan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46I just got out of hospital. I know this first hand.
This should not be allowed.
They are taking the same drug and artificially inflating the price.
pure *****.. they should be morally ashamed of them selves. - Phesta, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42Pure greed.
I've come to expect nothing less from the pharmaceutical industry. - junner518, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36this is a perfect example of the corruption of the medical industry. It's catch-22: you can't live comfortably with 1000s of dollars worth of medication bills bogging you down but you can't live blind either!! And insurance doesnt cover all of it even if you have it.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Porn?
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Of course. They are in the perfect industry. They have a product that people absolutely *need* to survive, and those people can't get it anywhere else. What other product on this planet has those qualities?
- antisthenex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21***** it. I'm moving to Canada.
- piper999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Your comment does not relate to the article which does not refer specifically to ophthalmologists (assuming that is what you meant) operating in the United States.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I wonder what else they're holding back on, and how many people are suffering/dying because of their greed.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Imagine if this were the cure to cancer or AIDs. They'd do the same thing if it was less profitable than treating it. They'd patent it so no one else could make it and then never market it. Drug companies are worse than terrorists, they're the real national security threat. They're threatening the health, lives and financial security of every person in Western civilization to make a few bucks for themselves.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Well don't worry; once the telcos start up their teired internet you better believe sites like Digg won't be able to buy their way into the "fast lane" for any price. They'll simply bury sites like this and come up with their own sanitized corporate-friendly versions.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14And all those gullible folks using those dumbass 'folding @ home' drug cure progrms still think that any new cure derived from their CPU cycles will be made available for a fair price!!
- CursedMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17The more I read digg, the more I dislike capitalism. First the music industry, then politicians, now this...
- Celeron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14This is capitalism at its lowest.
- thepharmacist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12" I say let doctors make decisions about what's safe,"
Doctors can absolutely prescribe the cheaper drug if they think it's appropriate, even if it's not "officialy" approved. It's called off-label use. - dbre2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Every month I see stuff on the news: "Cure for diabetes"...we've probably got 3 or 4 viable cures for it, but the ones that are getting support are the "cures" that still make you dependant on pharmaceutical companies for medication. Rather than take daily shots, you'll just have to take monthly booster shots. What was the last disease that was really cured? Capitalism is great and all...but for some things it's really holding us back.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10From where? Apparently this is an issue in the UK as well, and they have a similar system to Canada's. If this was me or someone I loved, I'd obtain Avastin through "other channels", then find an ophthalmologist willing to give me the injection. If the system won't work for you, you've got to work around the system.
- Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10As a type 1 diabetic, I can't say I'm surprised either.
- Crave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12They'll never cure cancer or AIDs. Far more profitable to treat it.
- bryxal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Goldfishy
Althought i do appreciate that you wrote something quite sensible it is sadly not exactly the truth. Have a look at the spending of pharmaceutical firms in the marketing department. My father works for a pharmacy, they get free trips with the family and everything paid if you buy from one brand over another. if you don't sell the generic you get free trips lots of perks etc. I am not against investing in research the problem is that is not what it is anymore. Look at all the ads on tv for any random thing. "Do you sometimes feel tired, do you have to go to the washroom, have you ever walked on a crack in the sidewalk"? there needs to be more regulation on marketing spending. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8OK, it certainly *looks* like you're speaking english there. I mean those are all english words.. but what the hell did you just say?
- billyvnilly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12...or at its highest, however you want to look at it.
- farrellj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8to Chompy:
Actually, the Canadian system is home grown.
It was all started by The Greatest Canadian of All time (yes, there was a vote): Tommy Douglas, who is the grandfather of the star of 24, Kiefer Sutherland. Rather than go through it all, go read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas#Medicare
As for drugs in Canada, vs the US...I have direct experience there.
Let's take the antihistamine I use to control my allergies. In the US, it is callec Zyrtec, in Canada, Reactine. I used to have a co-pay, not actual cost, for Zyrtec in the US of $40 USD (Approx $45CDN) for a 30 day supply. In Canada, I can buy the same 30 day supply for $18 CDN...and I can save even less if I buy the house branded version at a major drug store chain...I got 72 pills for $20 CDN.
Oh, yes, and I don't need a prescription to get it either..so add a one time cost of $30 USD cost to using Zyrtec in the US.
The Canadian health care system is not perfect, but it is head and shoulders above the US system.
ttyl
Farrell - mv10, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Can't say im suprised.
- thepharmacist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"If they can't get the drug, they can't give it to anyone."
Hum, I don't think you quite got that correctly. When a health care facility buys drugs, they don't have to tell the drug company what they intend to do with it. In fact, they most of the time don't even buy it from the company itself. There are wholesalers which buy drugs from various manufacturers and then the hospital/pharmacy buys most of its drugs from a single wholesaler. Once the drug is sold to the hospital, the hospital can do whatever it wants with it (within the limits of reason of course !). See what I wrote a couple posts down about off-label use and why it's absolutely legal (summary: if it was illegal every child under 4 with asthma would die). - thepharmacist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah but there's this thing called "off label use" which is a widespread practice in the medical world. The only catch is that most of the time it's really problematic with insurance companies.
- Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Thank you Brim.
There is a reason "off label use" is forbidden. If we just tested a drug for one condition and found it to be safe, but then allowed its use any any other condition without first proving it's effectiveness, we might have quacks suggesting one drug or another as a cure-all when, in fact, there is no evidence to support it. Not to mention that different conditions can change how the drug works in the human body.
We don't know the long term effects of this drug on those injected in the eye. Even if it does work in most cases (and we don't have real random studies to back that up) there might be horrible long term side effects which don't present for a while. Drug companies don't want folks suing them because their drug caused horrible side effects. - veloscaper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This is what we get by not having the government pay for elections, politicians then need to get money from corporations who expect and get paid back 10x in other ways such as government no bid contract hand outs or some government process gets corrupted to pure ineffectiveness or a new bureaucracy created to help the corporation make huge profits.
- dotwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Personally, I believe that the British should take a moral stance on patents - if a technology, such as a drug, is mishandled by a company that is perceived as a great miscarriage of courage, such as this, then the company would be forced to submit the product into the public domain, or a private pharmaceutical lab owned by the government.
If someone is actively doing something to prohibit the mass-market from getting something that radical improves their quality of life (or indeed, preventing it from being terminated) then they should be punished, and I can think of no better punishment.
Believe me, I'm not for Governmental regulation often, but I think cases such as this DEMAND it. - hadtojoin4this, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5also @bryxal
if your father is receiving trips or any gifts or perks for choosing to give one drug over the other he should seriously re-read the guidelines set out by the AMA/PMA on such practices.
have a read here:
http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-90-00480.pdf
accepting goods and trips from sales reps is illegal and immoral - your dad should be ashamed - cragga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4only on the internet can a discussion about a crappy pharm company turn into an insane george bush rant. you sir, are insane.
- Magadass, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Its really a double edged sword when it comes to these companies, while it is great to have cheap and effective drugs readily available again it is not cheap to make these drugs and these companies spend billions of dollars in research and development, case studies, etc. Without the expensive prices the drugs wouldn't exist in the first place, as unfortunate as that really is its the reality of the whole thing. Now I know someone is going to mention profits against my logic, but profits are what drive a company forward to spending 40 billion on researching a drug versus 1 billion without steady profits, so keep that in mind also when you make that argument.
- lucask, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Drug dealers don't make their money on the sale
they make it on the rebound. - Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed, of course perfect certainty cannot be achieved with statistics. But the doctors prescribing this should be careful of using such a new drug in place of a more expensive, but proven version simply because it is cheaper. If both the proven one and this version are as quick as each other to treat the illness, we should prefer the proven one except, perhaps, in cases where the patient can't afford it.
In another note, I've added you to my friends list and marked up your posts because you an intelligent poster who corrected me when I erred. - Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://tinyurl.com/oj82c seems to show a promising short tem effect, but we don't see any side effects which presented in it's other use, preventing the growth of blood vessels to treat cancer. Either there are major differences in the way it effects the body when given via hypodermic needle, and we need to investigate further to determine that other side effects might not present in it's origional use, or we simply didn't see the side effects which ought to have occured.
Things in that study just don't seem to happening as they should given the data of the larger studies. - Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yes, I do suppose you are correct in saying that off-label use is not forbidden, at least in the US. However there needs to be evidence to actually support it's safety and effectiveness for an appropriate prescription to be made. From what I can gather from this article, there seems to be very little, if any, information on it's use as an blindness treatment/cure in humans. This makes it medically unsound to prescribe it.
- thepharmacist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As I said, monoclonal antibodies are so recent technology that their long-term effects, even in primary indications, won't be known for a couple years. I don't believe it's unreasonable to use them in last-resort situations, but I agree with you that safety profiles aren't really clear. However, if safety profiles were to be crystal clear every time we use a drug, we wouldn't be able to use pretty much every molecule that came on the market in the last 10 years.
- thepharmacist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Quick search on PubMed leads me to believe that there is tangible evidence on the (at least immediate) safety of intravitreal bevacizumab. However, that molecule is so new (monoclonal antibody) that its long-term safety isn't even clear in its primary indication. Therefore, I don't believe intravitreal bevacizumab would be unsafe considering the current knowledge on this drug.
- hadtojoin4this, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
if it weren't for patent protection drug companies would not be able to fund the research necessary to produce these therapies.
As it stands now drug companies only have a limited amount of time where they can profit from the medicine they make. Think about it - why would anyone innovate when they could simply sit back, wait for the next big molecule to come out and theny copy it? No one would take the risk to create a new therapy because they would never profit from it. - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You guys do not understand a very important aspect of drug licensing. When a drug for one condition (in this case, colon cancer) for it to be used for another (macular degeneration) it must completely repeat the entire licensing process. It must go through animal trials, then small scale human trials, then large scale human trials, then apply for a license, then go through post marketing surviellience.
For Genentech to get this drug licensed for this indication will cost millions of dollars. This isn't something that is being stopped by the company; this is medical regulation. - SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Or tear the system down.
- thepharmacist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"There is a reason "off label use" is forbidden"
Off-label use is not absolutely not forbidden. It's a common and frequent practice everywhere. If off-label use was really forbidden, then anybody giving salbutamol (also called albuterol or Ventolin) to children under 4 years old would doing so illegaly. According to the product monograph of that compound, salbutamol shouldn't be given to children under 4. Working in a children hospital, I can assure you that we don't let children under 4 choke if they have an asthma attack. We give them Ventolin. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually it's unfair government regulations that are causing people not to get this drug. Companies are forced to recoup their entire investment in a few years because drug patents expire faster than anything. These socialist policies may be well intentioned but the burden they create gets passed on to the consumer in the form of high prices. If these companies don't make a profit they go out of business and everybody suffers.
- hadtojoin4this, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@bryxal
while you are right that pharma companies do spend a lot on marketing, Genentech in comparison spends very little. If you compare financial statements you'll see that Merck's spending on marketing and operations is about 2.5 times what they spend on R&D whereas Genentech spends about the same on both.
Over the past three years Genentech has spent on average 21% of it's REVENUE on R&D - not many other companies do that.
furthermore Genentech does not currently have direct to consumer campaigns - their marketing relies solely on information found in Physician journals, websites (herceptin.com, avastin.com, rituxan.com etc) and the materials they provide to their sales reps to pass on to Physicians.
it's quite unfair to lump Genentech in with the rest of the Pharma world when they try very hard (and in my mind succeed) at doing things in a very different way.
again these comments in this Digg show a lack of understanding of how Genentech does its business - and that's a shame. Genentech should be applauded for the advances they've made and should be looked up to by other companies for a lot of things they do - one of which is the Access to Care foundation - read about it... http://www.gene.com/gene/about/community/patients/access.jsp - jrsims, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Too bad this industry can't be "open-sourced", so to speak.
No one would beta test.
Looks like we're f*cked. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Drugs are expensive for a reason. They cost a metric ***** to produce, and pharmaceuticals need to recoup their costs. But, there are many cases when certain companies exploit the system in a blind profit grab - Avastin has proven to be safe in limited practice and should be undergo the proper testing for general use in treating this particular form of blindness. End of story, really. The research and development put into Avastin has already been paid for with its years of use.
Don't be stupid, Diggers. Drugs don't miraculously fall from the sky. It takes years (if not decades) to get a drug treatment from concept to product, with much of the cost put on public and private entities. Pharmaceutical companies can and do exploit this system at times and overinflate their costs too often for me to be comfortable, but the alternative of taking this all public ain't much better. Ask someone in the UK how long the wait is for even simple treatments. Reform is what the industry needs, not some razing to the ground. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What does Bush have to do with Britain's Dept. of Health?
- alphaterminus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thalidomide
- awfulshot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8how is this a catch 22?
nevermind, my meaning of catch 22 was different ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_%28logic%29 - himynameiznate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's places like Digg and Slashdot that continue to prove that just because you're interested in Tech news, doesnt make you any less a moron.
Anyways, did anyone think that perhaps a company like Genentech did not do extensive testing or due diligence on sticking medicine meant for your ass into your eye?
Yes, some opthamologists are finding it successful, but that is absolutely retarded to go just off of that. Back about a hundred years ago some doctors were prescribing cocaine as a cold remedy. Looks like all they cared about was efficacy in the short term.
But guess who gets sued for billions of dollars if it turns out that butt medicine really didnt do too well in the eyes, over the longterm?
It sure aint the doctors.
BTW, I love the self-appointed price police who somehow instinctually "know" how much things SHOULD cost, and cry foul play when creators disagree. - Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, ya know, if Exon and Hyundai weren't hiding their space car partnership with NASA in which they frequently take trips to asteroids and harvest rare fuels from them, we'd all be rich and wouldn't have to worry about paying for a more expensive drugs.... Those bastards!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is