From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Jul 18 2001 - 08:29:20 MDT
On Tuesday, July 17, 2001 8:28 PM Miriam English miriam@werple.net.au wrote:
> > Exactly why was that a huge commercial success for Astra, if they could
> > have gone on selling palliatives for ulcers instead?
> > Now the market for ulcer treatments is much smaller.
>
> I don't know of any ulcer cures marketed here in Oz. It has been known for
> maybe a decade, maybe two, that the pylori(sp?) bacteria are the cause of
> stomach ulcers,
The problem is the bacteria only causes some ulcers. A lot of physicians
and patients jump to the conclusion that they causes all ulcers and that
treating for them will cure all ulcers with few exceptions.
> but I haven't seen anything other than quackery about them
> at chemists (acid-neutralising alkalis, clay drinks, etc.) and quack
> palliatives are advertised heavily on TV and in the print media.
> However I am not a doctor or a chemist (I'm a lowly artist) so I can't
> really say cure are not available. I will be stepping out today to go to a
> computer club, so will drop in on a chemist and ask about this.
Generally, though not always, ulcers have a dietary or other lifestyle
cause. Most people, however, would rather pop pills than make big lifestyle
changes.
> >You are likely thinking of why so little is spent on malaria vaccines and
> >cures for other tropical diseases. That is a real problem, but the issue
> >isn't that cures are unprofitable (they aren't) but that it is hard to
make
> >any profit commensurable with the investment in the current regulatory
> >climate. The base costs of pharmaceutical development are high, and if
you
> >try to get FDA approval or something like it they will be even greater.
> >That will make the potential market in the developing countries small,
and
> >given the latest anti-patent moves on pharmaceuticals you might end up
> >funding competitors instead. If you just sell something less well tested
> >cheaply or do the tests in the developing nations you will be crucified
in
> >the media as a ruthless profiteer exploiting the poor. It is a lose-lose
> >situation which any sensible corporation will try to stay out from,
leaving
> >it to far less well funded organisations. Too bad.
>
> Yes. This is part of my point. Capitalism fails here.
>
> It is not really the fault of regulations either. The regulations are
there
> for a very good reason: to try to eliminate unethical business practices
> and honest mistakes (think thalidomide).
It's funny that thalidomide should be brought up, since the FDA first
approved it.:) Also, the FDA has kept life saving drugs off the market as
well as approving of life threatening ones. See "An Inside Look at the FDA'
s Sordid Drug Approval Process" at
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/june2001_report_fda.html
This is merely one example -- the FDA's approval of Rezulin. FDA approved
drugs kill tens of thousands of people in the US every year. (See
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag95/july95_offshore.html)
The FDA also does not freedom of speech. See "FDA Regulation:At Odds --
Again -- with Your Health Freedom" at
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag98/sep98_hepc2.html
> And those costs would come about
> one way or another eventually, perhaps by total distrust of all medical
> companies and associated loss of sales, or by insurance costs after
mopping
> up disasters, or by general damage to the drug-buying public.
The FDA creates an aura of credibility which lulls the drug using public
into a false sense of security. Instead of being informed consumers, most
people become trusting consumers -- because they think, like you, the FDA
does good work and has their best interests in mind.
> What it comes down to is that the phamaceutical companies are motivated by
> money. That is neither a good nor a bad thing. But it does mean that
> humanity can't depend upon capitalism alone.
And FDA regulators are motivated by? Money! Status! Power! This is not
to be totally cynical. I don't think that every last person at the FDA is
corrupt, but the system itself definitely allows and even encourages
corruption. A lot of FDA regulators retire to become... high paid
consultants for big pharmacueticals. (The same sort of thing happens
between the military and arms merchants.)
> This is where non-profit organisations shine. They help humanity where the
> money won't lure capitalism.
At least one big drug company -- Burroughs Wellcome -- is a nonprofit.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See "The Many Births of Free Verse" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/FreeVers.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:51 MST