What is Digg?48 Comments
- BeShirtHappy, on 07/10/2009, -4/+20Personally, I think that pharmaceutical companies are the dregs of the earth. I wonder if you can take a lesser dosage of this drug, Cerezyme, and get the full benefits... wouldn't taking the original recommended dosage possibly cause some long term problems? I mean they were taking twice the amount - that just doesn't sound safe.
- Cancerkitty, on 07/10/2009, -1/+15Now that you mention it, I do think it's strange that my doctor told me to take fourteen Alegra twice a day.
- AmyVernon, on 07/10/2009, -0/+10So long as he's not telling you to take 14 Cialis. That'd be like drinking an entire vial of V.
- AmyVernon, on 07/10/2009, -2/+11This is really messed up. I love how they're all, "It's OK for people to to take smaller doses while we're screwed up. They just need to go back to using bigger doses later." WHAT?
- murrdpirate, on 07/11/2009, -0/+8This doesn't make any sense. The article says that Gaucher has the only treatment for this disease. Instead of charging double for an unnecessary double-dose, they could just charge double for a single dose because they have a monopoly on the treatment. Pills themselves cost very little money to produce; it's the research that created the recipe for the pills that costs money.
If I spend five years writing a book and sell you two copies of the book for $20, am I overcharging you by forcing you to buy two copies, or am I giving you a free extra copy? - Surferess, on 07/10/2009, -2/+10If you want to raise your ROI, you generally need to sell more product or increase your profit margin. Big Pharma has cleverly done both. Gotta hand it to 'em. They're crafty SOBs!
- digga1301, on 07/11/2009, -0/+7Actually, according to Wikipedia, Genzyme is not considered a part of "Big Pharma."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutica ... - inactive, on 07/11/2009, -0/+7Or you could get a doctor that doesn't suck and starts you off on the smallest dose they think you need.
- thirdeyeopen, on 07/11/2009, -0/+5lol. 'Big Pharma' you guys crack me up. You do realize that saying that (as well as Big Oil, Big Brother, Big Corn, Big Black Dick) just makes you sound like a CT nutter. Not really helping your case, whatever it is.
- AmyVernon, on 07/11/2009, -0/+4I'm so glad someone got the reference. ;-)
- anonymousmedic, on 07/11/2009, -0/+4Buried as misleading and inaccurate title. Aside from the conspiracy nutters coming out of the woodwork to say "ZOMG. BIG PHARMA IS BAD", they are ignoring two simple facts: The basic knowledge of how the drug is used and metabolized, and how doses, expecially when dealing with a genetic disease are higher or lower depending on multiple factors; and two: This is an orphaned drug. There are major incintives given to drug companies to develop drugs for conditions that affect a small amount of people because there is no money in them. The drug companies aren't milking people with this: They often lose more in research and testing then they weill ever make back in the short term.
- BREZZZ, on 07/11/2009, -0/+3...to be buried.
- lordmike, on 07/11/2009, -1/+4Oh, and guess what they are doing now as well.. The new, expensive pills come in funny shapes... it's not 'cos they want the pills to look cool. They don't want people to be able to use pill splitters on them. That way, people are discouraged from getting the higher mg pill (which usually costs the same) and split it at home to save money. My pharmacist confirms that the drug companies are doing this intentionally to prevent people from saving money by pill splitting...
- CourageWulf, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4Jason Stackhouse boner ftw.
- HandsOfNod, on 07/11/2009, -0/+3Seriously? That's pretty ***** up. Good to know some of them are being dicks whenever possible...
- Altotus, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2Well, seeing as how what you pay isn't linked to the size of the dose, it's probably not the problem. I'm guessing that larger dose = longer times for clearance. Longer clearance time = longer time between infusions. Longer time between infusions = fewer office visits = happier patient.
Also, biotech's (like Genzyme) aren't "Big Pharma" (purveyors of small-molecule meds). - Rikkochet, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2Because the costs of raw materials are always climbing and demand is orders of magnitude higher than it used to be. The middle class is a seething mass compared to what it was a generation ago - everyone wants the same stuff, and there are only so many components being harvested to produce them.
- IsraGeek, on 07/12/2009, -0/+2So, what can be done about this?
- Altotus, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2But, for biotech, to increase your ROI you want smaller doses (because production costs more) and, most importantly, quicker time to market.
Genzyme is a particularly poor choice for criticism because not only are smaller doses more advantageous to them than the patient, but they also work on so-called orphaned drugs. When you sell orphaned drugs, you can basically name your price. If Genzyme could charge you the same price for 1/2 or 1/3 the product, they'd hop on that.
So, in their case, one of two things has happened. Either their clinical trials dosing schedule used the suggested dose and a smaller dose wasn't tested (in which case, that's the dose that goes on the label), or, because the drug itself isn't toxic in larger doses, there's an advantage to larger doses. I suspect that, as a protein, people develop an immunological response to the drug over time and they're figuring that by using a larger dose you can ensure that there's some level of activity.
This is much different than small-molecule therapies of actual pharamceutical companies... - Altotus, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2Biotech companies in general are not considered big pharma. A conventional pharmaceutical company selling small-molecule therapies has tens or hundreds of thousands of employees and a market cap of over 100 billion. Biotechs don't generally make small-molecule therapies, have less than 10000 employees, and market caps below 100 billion (most below 10 billion).
Genzyme has about 10000 employees, a market cap of 14B -- making it one of the largest biotechs out there (Amgen is bigger still, and I think Genentech is the biggest, but both those have 1/10th as many employees as someone like Johnson and Johnson). - lusenok2, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1Did you notice that pill bottles frequently have descriptions on them, like: "round yellow pills with (certain) letters on it". That's because pharmacists dispence pills from large containers and errors do happen. These differences in shape and color help them (and you!) to catch their errors.
Remember one of the first House MD episodes? A boy got pretty damn sick because a pharmacist screwed up and gave him some very toxic stuff instead of cold medication.
Also pill splitting can be dangerous. Some pills come in special coating so they start do dissolve only in particular place of GI tract. Without this coating they can be pretty bad for a stomach and esophagus. - AbsurdParadox, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1@anonymous Even if what you are saying is true, government as an answer is a non-sequitor -- it limits itself far LESS than the market does.
- peacelove420, on 07/12/2009, -0/+1Some? All of them.
They're the richest and most powerful drug pushers in the world. - lusenok2, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1Pardon my french, but that's bullsh*t.
Food companies may advertize chewing two pieces of gum instead of one.
But with pharmaceuticals it's completely different story.
Larger doses means more people get side effects and they are more severe. This means less patients will stick to treatment and sales will eventually drop. This also means more costy lawsuits.
No sane pharma company will use doses higher than necessary. - anonymousmedic, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1The problem with certain drugs is they need to be gotten up to a therapeutic level quickly, and then maintained there. That means a larger dose in the beginning to get the level up, and then a smaller dose over time to maintain that level in the blood and plasma proteins. Depending on the function of the metabolite site, such as the liver or kidney, doses have to be tailored. The recommended dosages of mediations are somewhat misleading, as they are the median doses found within the therapeutic range that help the most people. Some people require far more, some people require a little less. Pharmacokinetics is very complicated, and VERY individualized. An ICU doc once told me that certain medications are like trying to fit a square peg into a star-shaped hole. You have to figure out which size dose you need to get it through there.
However, naturally distrusting people don't want to learn the facts. They comfort themselves by believing they have found some vast conspiracy that 99% of the other "sheeple" can't see, but they somehow can. They want to believe that it's all about profits and not about the science or biology. They want to say they are hiding the cures from us, and that they just want to keep us sick. They ignore a basic principal that hundreds of people cannot keep a secret for any period of time. That secret would have already been blown by now. - GoinEasy9, on 07/12/2009, -0/+1Why is this such a surprise, the big pharmaceutical companies have been out of control for a long time. Unfortunately, in order to guarantee safety for consumers, the FDA should require independent testing for all drugs before certification. I've been in the medical profession for 35 years, and, things have changed. It's ALL business now, profit and pleasing stockholders are the primary mission for these companies.
Just take a good look. Are these companies promoting the off label use of their products illegally? Do they hide or misrepresent side effects? (My favorite is Ambien using the word somnambulance during their tv commercials. What that really means is sleepwalking, or sleep driving, with no memory of the event afterward). When a patent is up, do they put out the same product in a different dosage form to hold onto the products revenue stream a little bit longer? (Like a time released version instead of immediate release). Do they pay generic manufacturers not to put out a generic? Do they claim side effects are company secrets?
I'm not familiar with facts of this particular article, but, everything I've mentioned above has been in the news over the last couple of years, although not given front page status. Do you think our cable or tv networks are willing do a real investigative story, and risk losing millions of dollars of ad revenue? - HimThatSpeaks, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1I half agree but I fear that the American corporate climate would not respect the great "balancing hand" of capitalism. They would only find new ways to charge us more to give us worse products. For example, which applies to every industry: I keep hearing how all of this technology and assembly lines make everything cheaper. Why are the damn prices for EVERYTHING going up even faster than inflation would justify? And why are the products ***** than what you could buy even 10 years ago? I would agree 100% on a separation of state and government if we as a people could return to the ethical norms (government, public, and business) of say 60 years ago. If we could stay the hand of rampant capitalism... business fraud, frivilous consumer lawsuits. Until then... Damn until then I can't wait!
- STPZ, on 07/11/2009, -1/+2this in addition to rebranding drugs which are about to be able to be produced generically by adding something to it so it not only lowers cholesterol but also treats heart disease, or helps you sleep and treats your restless leg syndrome too, amazing. Same goes for those now lasts X amount longer or now in a rapid release gels, etc.
- anonymousmedic, on 07/11/2009, -1/+2The reason it's not easier to bring medicines to market is pretty much well documented. Howabout a little aresenic and heroin in your cough syrup?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Ac ... - Pure Food and Drug ACt of 1906 because of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Drug,_and_Cosme ... - 1938 addendum due to the disaster of sulfanilamide
Amendments:
Infant Formula Act of 1980, Public Law (PL) 96-359 (Oct. 26, 1980)
Orphan Drug Act, PL 97-414 (Jan. 4, 1983)
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, PL 98-417 (Sept. 24, 1984)
Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, PL 100-293 (Aug. 18, 1988)
Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1988, PL 100-670 (Nov. 16, 1988)
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, PL 101-535 (Nov. 8, 1990)
Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, PL 101-629 (Nov. 28, 1990)
Medical Device Amendments of 1992, PL 102-300 (June 16, 1992)
Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992, PL 102-571 (Oct. 29, 1992)
Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) of 1994, PL 103-396 (Oct. 22, 1994)
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, PL 103-417 (Oct. 25, 1994)
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, PL 104-170 (Aug. 3, 1996)
Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996, PL 104-250 (Oct. 9, 1996)
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, PL 105-115 (Nov. 21, 1997)
Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, PL 107-109 (Jan. 4, 2002)
Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA) of 2002, PL 107-250 (Oct. 26, 2002)
Animal Drug User Fee Act of 2003, PL 108-130 (Feb. 20, 2003)
Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, PL 108-155 (Dec. 3, 2003)
Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004
Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, PL 108-282 (Aug. 2, 2004)
Drug Efficacy Amendment ("Kefauver Harris Amendment") of 1962
Other laws:[13]
Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (repealed; for historical reference)
Federal Meat Inspection Act (March 4, 1907)
Federal Trade Commission Act (Sept. 26, 1914)
Filled Milk Act (March 4, 1923)
Import Milk Act (Feb. 15, 1927)
Public Health Service Act (July 1, 1944)
Trademark Act of 1946 (July 5, 1946)
Reorganization Plan 1 of 1953 (March 12, 1953)
Poultry Products Inspection Act (Aug. 28, 1957)
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (Nov. 3, 1966)
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Jan. 1, 1970)
Controlled Substances Act (Oct. 27, 1970)
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (Oct. 27, 1970)
Egg Products Inspection Act (Dec. 29, 1970)
Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (Jan. 13, 1971)
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Oct. 6, 1972)
Government in the Sunshine Act (Sept. 13, 1976)
Government Patent Policy Act of 1980 (Dec. 12, 1980)
Federal Anti-Tampering Act (Oct. 13, 1983)
Sanitary Food Transportation Act (Nov. 3, 1990)
Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) (Oct. 27, 1992)
Bioterrorism Act of 2002 (June 12, 2002)
Project BioShield Act of 2004 (July 21, 2004)
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007
Yeah, the Pharmaceutical market is TOTALLY innocent, and would never do anything to harm the public without regulation, right?
Deregulation isn't the key here. Learning to sort through the nutters is. - inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1WWWWAAAAAAAHHHH it's the corporations that are causing all of our problems.
[Insert carefully thought out paragraph about big oil/pharma/agro/recordlabel/etc] - marytormey, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1They make the doses large enough to be effective for everyone but a minimum effective dose for one person could be enough to kill another, damage them to the point where they become dependent on pharmacuticals or even cause them to act in a way that harms others. It's time they admitted that some people are just more sensitive.
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -1/+2How does this confirm ANYTHING ? IT is like saying that when people ration food during an emergency, it confirms that humans don't REALLY need food to live. They are simply saying that the smaller doses will still be useful and won't harm people. It is not saying that the normal dosage is not BETTER. But if you were taking the drug, would you rather have SOME relief for 8 months, or take it as usual for 4 months and then be completely out of it for the next 4 months?
I don't know if they are or aren't inflating the dosage. But to consider that proof is absurd. - marytormey, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1Some products aren't available in the minimum effective dose for example Prozac or Sinthyroid
- motako, on 07/13/2009, -0/+0that's everything is commercial now go to that page
http://successinternetmarketingbusiness.com/blog/? ...
and you will see my opinion about the medication industry
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -0/+0And Wikipedia is certainly the source for that.
- AbsurdParadox, on 07/11/2009, -2/+2I think one should consider the fact that there is little in the way of market forces at work in pharmaceuticals due to extreme market regulation. If it were drastically easier to bring medicines to market, market forces would quickly correct situations such as these, and many others.
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -1/+1That's what I thought. Chances are they're telling people to take a lower dose and make it up later because they do need the higher dose over the long term, but won't be too severely affected if they take a lower dose for a short period; just like how missing one contraceptive pill doesn't immediately make you fertile (though you would be more fertile than if you had taken the pill), but missing two or three will.
- anonymousmedic, on 07/11/2009, -1/+1@petersonica: You're kidding right? Because all of those patient medications were truely cure-alls, and not poisons and snake oils? It was just Bayer and Big Pharma conspiring to put the true guys out of Business and keep the truth hidden right?! It's WELL DOCUMENTED that companies knew they were putting harmful substances into patient medications, and continued to do so until the PFDA of 1906. They would knowingly place addictive substances into cough syrups and elixirs given to children. They were giving children mixtures of mercury, silver, and arsenic as "Cure-Alls." Hundreds, if not thousands were dying every day because of it. Medicine Men and Snake Oil Salesmen killed more, if not just as much as, the diseases of the time. Or, even worse, they'd mix drugs and just put them on the market without any testing, which is what they did with sulfanilamide.
@AbsurdParadox: The market has already proven historically that it cannot be shown to ethically limit itsself. See things like Thalidomide, Vioxx. Read Ralph Nader's Book, for example, Unsafe at Any Speed, to see how well the market works to limit itsself and support consumer safety. - jakeorhodes, on 07/13/2009, -0/+0Of course many of them encourage larger doses, it means the consumer uses more and therefore has to buy more. They're in the *business* of health, and frankly they're more concerned with their profits than people's health.
- AbsurdParadox, on 07/11/2009, -2/+1medic, have you considered that regulation/certification itself could be handled by the market, instead of a governmental agency that requires nearly a billion dollars to bring a drug to market? An example in another industry would be Underwriters Laboratories.
- sir1real, on 07/11/2009, -2/+1It's fun watching all the Big Pharma fanboys have to eat their words.
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -2/+0innocent? Are you actually trying to say that they did all those things on purpose with flll knowledge of their harmful effects? If so...please. shut up. And I don't mean just on this. I mean, you have forfeited your right to communicate ever again.
- CodeAnxiety, on 07/11/2009, -4/+2Why is this company getting special treatment with our tax code?
End corporate welfare. Separate the state and economy. - inactive, on 07/11/2009, -4/+2any dose is dangerous. just say NO to big Phartma drugs.
- Meor, on 07/11/2009, -3/+0Aren't insurance companies the counterpoint to pharma pricing? Pharma companies want to make money, insurance companies want to save money so they generate policies on what they cover and what doctors are in-network?
- YoungRamblings, on 07/11/2009, -4/+0Trust me, if we start putting price before doses that don't do the job - costs will fall dramatically!
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is