What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
69 Comments
- Ninh, on 11/09/2009, -13/+65As well as they should, the western countries are not their nannies.
- RahlsSoldier, on 11/09/2009, -4/+42Western Countries should not have to develop vaccines or treatments for diseases that aren't applicable here. That being said, I think that it's impressive that small, developing countries can produce vaccines for a little over a one-hundredths of the cost of ours and we call our countries developed.
- PlasticHotDog, on 11/09/2009, -8/+39The only reason drugs are so expensive in places like the US is because the drug companies don't have a reason to sell them cheaply. Capitalism in action!
- elliotys, on 11/09/2009, -2/+23Can't we just look at this as a good thing for the developing countries without demonizing the US/West? Why do we insist on injecting politics into science?
- Pxtl, on 11/09/2009, -1/+19Yes, but it says something about the "invisible hand of the free market". There's obviously a very large market for treating these vaccines, but it is apparently far, far less profitable to research them vs. simply developing yet-another-penis-pill.
A vital, life-and-death market niche is being left so wide open that small, local 3rd-world countries are moving into it. Isn't that remarkable? - cheddaro, on 11/09/2009, -1/+16To be fair, it's very hard to grow such large amounts of coca plants in the US unnoticed.
- manbeef, on 11/09/2009, -2/+13"the principal female character in a literary or dramatic work"?
Oh! HEROIN! I got it now. Spelling counts, yo. - anxdiety, on 11/09/2009, -1/+9I'm highly curious what was the last major cure that has been developed? All I can think is that treatments are a lot more profitable than cures. Just like the cure for Diabetes has been 5 years away for the last 20 years. I love my $150 in med supplies a month, I really do.
- mkvenner420, on 11/09/2009, -3/+11ROFL if only you knew just how big a joke our testing and research requirements are, and how FDA's testing schedule is not only "corrupt" to a degree, but also subject to "line-cuts" for certain research firms who receive preferential treatment - SURPRISINGLY one thing that merits a line cut for a drug to undergo expedited testing is if it's company participates in - get this - subsidized research into vaccines and treatments for illnesses in third world developing countries! It comes full circle, in a somewhat backward way.
Remember kiddies, capitalism justifies egotism! - schnikies79, on 11/09/2009, -1/+9That is the way it should be. Study and produce the treatment in the area that it is applicable.
If it's a localized problem, treat and study it locally. - PlasticHotDog, on 11/09/2009, -3/+10That's good to know. They can't depend on the developed nations forever.
- elliotys, on 11/09/2009, -2/+9Brand name drugs, anywhere in the world, are expensive. Generics are not. This is not just a phenomenon of the US.
- nyxerebos, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6... and also because a lot of publicly funded university research ends up in private patents, continuing corporate monopolies rather than reducing the cost of healthcare for taxpayers.
- ricksite, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6What we have here is a cool story ruined by a whiny ass author. Until you are able to run a drug company that can cure all of the diseases and give it away for free, STFU.
- frsrblch, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6Good for them. I can wish all I want that preventing human suffering were a concern for our governments, but the corporations paying our officials just can't make money from it.
- joculator, on 11/09/2009, -6/+12like heroine
- shig, on 11/09/2009, -3/+7We don't have a free market in drugs. Maybe you've noticed all the folks in jail, or you had to have a prescription from a doctor before, but we have a drug industry rife with government intervention and control.
- DaDrake, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4When you look at genetic/metabolic diseases, there are few examples of medicine actually reversing/curing the effects. This is because we have no methodology to efficiently and precisely change a person's genome to eliminate the disease. Even when we understand the disease fully, it is nearly impossible. For example, sickle cell disease is caused by a SINGLE nucleotide mutation... how exactly do scientist go about "fixing" it. You can't exactly open a person out, take a knife, and replace that nucleotide in every red blood cell and bone marrow cell in the body.
Thus, medicine often works by simply substituting the missing factor from an artificial one. For diabetes mellitus, we give insulin to those who can't produce enough of it. But the entire suggestion that pharmaceutical companies are purposefully hiding a cure for many diseases is absurd. For one, this inference assumes humanity has a much greater amount of medical knowledge and technology than actually exists. Secondly, cures will be much more profitable than treatments. As long as the company sets the price slightly below the treatment, insurance companies will fall over backwards to pay for it (like they do with kidney transplants instead of dialysis); and even though the cure would be cheaper, the company would make magnitudes more, in profit, simply by having a monopoly on the cure for the first decade or two.
And there has been HUGE advancements in the medical field... just look at cardiovascular disease and treatments for burn patients (we actually can grow human skin now). For diabetes, there has recently been new drugs working by indirect methods, such as increasing insulin production or making cells more sensitive to insulin. For many patients with type II diabetes, some of these drugs eliminate the need for insulin and only need to be taken every 24 hours... making the disease much more manageable than it was 10 years ago. - UselessTrivia, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4The poorer countries probably don't require several years of FDA-style drug testing.
There is a commonly used drug in the US that's basically a cheap generic that has shown promise as a cancer treatment, even though it was originally designed to do something else entirely. But since the FDA requires testing to prove that the drug is effective as a treatment for whatever illess it's used for, nobody wants to do it. You're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and several years of clinical studies to get approval to use a drug that's already on the market.
And the reason they won't do it is because it can't be re-patented, so the company that spends all the money proving the drug works for cancer won't get to sell it exclusively, and then anyone else can just start selling their own versions without putting a dime into it.
So a poor country can probably develop a drug much easier and much cheaper, but it won't have gone through anywhere near as much scrutiny to prove it's safe and effective. - Samurai77, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4A very slanted article.
From the WHO about river blindness.
Ivermectin kills the larvae but not the adult worms of Onchocerca volvulus, the parasite that causes the disease, so annual or biannual treatments are required to prevent resurgence. Merck & Co., the company that discovered and manufactures the drug, agreed in 1987 to donate the drug free of charge to countries where onchocerciasis is endemic. This has resulted in annual treatments to all eligible community members – over 60 million people were treated in 26 African countries in 2008.
And Singer calls this Ad-Hoc. - pintomp3, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5So you propose no testing and regulations of drugs? Just go back to the days of snake oil salesmen?
- DaDrake, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4Not sure why darkened is getting dugged down. While the FDA has its faults, the mandated testing is responsible for high drug prices. Today, most drugs cost over a billion dollars to place on the market (In the early 90s, it was around 350 million). As one can imagine, with this price tag, drug companies aren't going to invest much into drugs that effect minority populations (this is why there are many tax breaks and essentially free money for companies willing to look at neglected diseases).
We also got to remember that FDA testing is incredibly rigorous and shouldn't be mocked. For example, by today's standards, penicillin would likely not be approved by the FDA if it was discovered today. Thus, when people discuss drugs pulled from the market, that does not mean they have no pharmaceutical benefits or they are more harmful than the disease. Some of these drugs have re-entered the market after the unevaluated-risks have been accessed. Of course, there are examples of the FDA showing little competence (Phen-Phen for one), but these are rare.
If anything, the FDA standards are too strong. - jman491, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3There isn't a high demand in western countries for "rabies, hookworm and river blindness," therefore no incentive for companies based in that region to create treatments/drugs to combat them.
- frsrblch, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3I know, I'm cynical.
- 029A, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2. . . diseases such as lack of cocaine.
- s73v3r, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3Polio wasn't really so much a "cure" as a preventative treatment. There are people who still get polio. However, most people (in developed nations, anyway) get the vaccine when they are little, and it allows the body to fight off the polio virus. Same thing with smallpox.
- rlvis, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2How about 'some countries make some stuff that other countries don't'.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/09/2009, -3/+5But the Republicans told me that the only reason any disease ever gets cured or a new drug created is because of our for-profit American healthcare system (which, incidentally, is the best in the world).
I don't understand how poor people can make drugs, or WHY anyone would bother making drugs for poor people. The profit margins must be awful or nonexistent. This makes NO sense.
Buried as inaccurate, socialist nazi propaganda.
/S - duncan202, on 11/09/2009, -3/+5Or, they charge us more, knowing we can pay more, to offset the fact the sell them cheaper in poorer countries.
- falconear, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2It makes sense. The third world is the laboratory of the Industrialized nations. That's where we try out dangerous drugs on people, it's where we fight our wars, export our undesirables, and funnel our money (i.e.-through institutions like the IMF and World Bank).
- anxdiety, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2@fasda The retrovirals aren't really a cure though. They are once again a treatment. I won't disagree that treatments have been developed but I can't recall a cure for any major disease or illness in a very long time. The last one that comes to mind is Polio and that was what in the 60s? Maybe small pox perhaps as that's been wiped out as well.
- buzaman, on 11/09/2009, -1/+3@pintomp3
How did that FDA work out with: Vioxx, Bextra, Zelnorm, Tysabri, NeutroSpec, Cylert, Permax, Baycol, Palladone?
Here's more:
http://www.consumerjusticegroup.com/drugrecall/dru ...
The FDA certification gives corporations cover and 'legitimacy' with any drug they release. And as we seen with Treasury and the FED, when you have wolves guarding the hen house you're asking for trouble. With these monopoly certification institutions we see an unhealthy partnership with big business and government.
Having a single entity 'protecting' consumers makes the industry vulnerable to corruption. The consumers should be informed and should seek out 3rd party entities who have the reputation as honest and objective institutions, for example Consumer Reports.
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/home.htm
No one is saying there will be no testing, colleges, 3rd party institutions, medical groups and competing companies will always perform testing. There will always be snake oil salesmen regardless of FDA or no FDA, but the question is how to do better expose them? - imkookoo, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2Duncan/Nyxerebos: I think your points are implied by Plastic's comment. Except, that there's no "offsetting" happening. Drug companies make plenty enough profit with just US sales alone. I mean, did it take $120 million dollars of R&D to produce the Hepatitis B vaccine -- where a lot of the research and knowledge of the company has been taken from sources that are free for the company (I'm getting $120 mil just assuming only 5 million Americans get the Hep B vaccine with the cost of $25 -- but of course there's much more than that)? That, and it's a one-time cost for them.. It's not like they continually have to pay R&D to keep inventing the vaccine. So, I'm sure by now, they already realized their R&D cost and everything else is just cost of materials/tax/shipping/operation, which is a very small proportion of the $25. Consider that these companies have many of these different vaccines/drugs as well. It's a billion-dollar industry for a reason, ya know. Many of these companies realized -profits- of over 30 billion dollars in the past.
elliotys: Of course generics will always be cheaper than brand name. That's not the argument. The problem is that even with generics... they are substantially cheaper in some other countries than in America. - inactive, on 11/09/2009, -1/+3Sending them soap and telling them to filter their water might be a good idea while preventing many deaths WITHOUT any drugs whatsoever.
- localzuk, on 11/09/2009, -1/+3I think you misunderstand what the 'care' means in 'health care'?
- Pxtl, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1The FDA blocked Thalidomide in the USA. This is why Americans didn't have any flipper-babies.
To me, that proves their worth. - digga1301, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1With that said, the lack of FDA approval doesn't stop doctors from using it in cancer treatments.
- Elranzer, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2Like cocaine and marijuana.*
*(Two products that could probably save the US economy.) - SilverBlade2k, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1That's because 'cheap' isn't in the minds of Big Oil. If it's cheap to produce, then consumers will expect it to be cheap to purchase, while Big Oil wants to make everything incredibly expensive and won't touch 'cheap'
- digitalArtform, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2This is a great argument for replacing businesses in health care with socialized medicine.
- digga1301, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Way to drag partisan ***** into a science article.
- Ajzzz, on 11/09/2009, -5/+6America also had a hookworm problem, they solved it by special technology called "toilets", must have been a French invention with a name like that. People are going to solve problems that effect them first. Drug companies are businesses, heart disease is a big earner.
- JDiZZle300Z, on 11/09/2009, -2/+3Yeah that's the worst cop-out ever for pot. Pot doesn't make a person lazy. A lazy person is going to be lazy and a motivated person will be motivated, long term, regardless of any substance they take.
- Julian88888888, on 11/09/2009, -4/+5ONLY reason? generalization fail.
- JDiZZle300Z, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1So the real question is, why haven't we figured out how to make a HIV vaccine since its a virus also? Is it impossible to make one or do they not want to because there is more money is treatment or is it something else?
- Cable, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1and what drug is this?
- UselessTrivia, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1There are two actually. There's a drug called Metformin which is diabetes medication that supposedly improves the performance of chemotherapy. That one MIGHT actually get used in clinical trials because it can probably be altered chemically enough that it could still be re-patented.
The other drug is called DCA. That one may actually kill cancer cells outright, but it's been used as a treatment for metabolic disorders and for whatever reason can't be re-patented so the pharma companies aren't goign to shell out a few hundred million to do clinical trials.
All is not lost, however, because there's always the possibility that the government could fund some of the early stage clinical testing, enough that the various cancer research organizations could help fund the rest. - DaDrake, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1JDiZZle because it mutates incredibly fast and has many ways to penetrate a cell. Think of the flu, which mutates into a lovely new strand every year, on steroids...
- s73v3r, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1I'm choosing to believe that the reason one hasn't been created yet is the difficulty involved, as HIV/AIDS viruses act so much more differently than other viruses, like polio. I really don't want to think its because there's more money in simply treating it with the AIDS cocktail than coming up with a vaccine.
- Samurai77, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Wow talk about cynical.
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is