Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Antibiotic resistance


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,733 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 03:56 PM

I thought this excellent piece by the Telegraph deserved its own thread.  Think twice next time you hassle your doctor for antibiotics for the cold.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,018 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 05:09 PM

Farmers' indiscriminate use of antibiotics have contributed to their becoming less effective.  They routinely dish them out to animals regardless of the consequences. But then that's farmers for you.  Who was it fed sheep and cow remains to cows? Who was it agitated for the regulations on cattle feed to be made less stringent?  Who was it had all the hedges rooted out in the seventies?  Basically most farmers care about one thing and one thing only - the bottom line.


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#3 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:22 PM

The problem now is that new antibiotics are unlikely to be developed by the pharmaceutical companies because for them to be effective their use will have to be restricted, so no short term large profit.

Another example of the free market working

#4 johnmatrix

johnmatrix
  • Players
  • 26 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 08:49 PM

I thought one of the problems with identifying new antibiotics is that they cause severe side effects and big Pharma companies want much smaller and faster clinical trials to reduce costs as the regulatory standards have been set very high(rightly so), I'm not sure if that’s a good thing to reduce trials or not. Should we as a world accept riskier new drugs for incurable infections when there are no alternatives and lives are on the line. I don't no if we should as a whole, but if there are no alternatives and it was my last chance i would probably roll the dice



#5 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:01 PM

Whenever I read the phrase 'Big Pharma' I feel like reaching for my Freeman On The Land Guide To Conspiracy Theories (and the tin foil at).


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#6 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:09 PM

The problem now is that new antibiotics are unlikely to be developed by the pharmaceutical companies because for them to be effective their use will have to be restricted, so no short term large profit.

Another example of the free market working

They will still get their short-term huge profits. After a certain period, other companies are allowed to make "generic" drugs that copy the original design but sell for a small fraction of the price. This is why doctors are able to overprescribe. You can guarantee that they were not doing that when the drugs new on the market and insanely expensive.

 

And the medicine market isn't a free market either. The government rigs the market so that the prices are artificially high. They do this to keep the drug companies investing in new products.


Edited by Northern Sol, 04 February 2014 - 10:11 PM.


#7 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,018 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:31 PM

Pharmaceutical companies have realised there is no longer term profit in miracle cures, they want to introduce drugs that stabalise conditions and must be taken for life.



Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#8 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:28 AM

They will still get their short-term huge profits. After a certain period, other companies are allowed to make "generic" drugs that copy the original design but sell for a small fraction of the price. This is why doctors are able to overprescribe. You can guarantee that they were not doing that when the drugs new on the market and insanely expensive.

And the medicine market isn't a free market either. The government rigs the market so that the prices are artificially high. They do this to keep the drug companies investing in new products.

No they won't get the short term profit.

The reason antibiotics are becoming less effective is due to their overuse. Consequently the infectious dieseases are evolving tolerances to these drugs.

For a new antibiotic to be effective it's use will have to be restricted. Therefore no widespread role out, not big profits on large volumes etc, and by the time to patent runs out, if used correctly the drug should not have been used extensively.

All in all making antibiotic development not profitable.

#9 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,951 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 01:14 PM

They will still get their short-term huge profits. After a certain period, other companies are allowed to make "generic" drugs that copy the original design but sell for a small fraction of the price. This is why doctors are able to overprescribe. You can guarantee that they were not doing that when the drugs new on the market and insanely expensive.

 

And the medicine market isn't a free market either. The government rigs the market so that the prices are artificially high. They do this to keep the drug companies investing in new products.

 

With the massive cost of clinical research and getting a new drug approved pharma companies need to make a lot of sales at a premium prices before the patent expires to even cover costs let alone have enough money to fund development of the next line of new medicines.

 

If you had ever been to a funding discussion with a health authority then you would realise how wrong your final statement is. Governments battle to get drug prices as low as they can, at the end of the day they are paying for them so have no interest in paying high prices. Drug companies want high prices to cover development, pay share holders, pay employees and invest in future work. The two do battle to reach a price that works for both of them. NICE are a ruthless bunch as they have a limited budget to work with and therefore will only approve drugs for reimbursement on the NHS if they get a price that works for them, they have no vested interest in pharma development.


28m391z.jpg


#10 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,951 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 01:32 PM

Pharmaceutical companies have realised there is no longer term profit in miracle cures, they want to introduce drugs that stabalise conditions and must be taken for life.

 

I assume your reference document is the Daily Mail.


28m391z.jpg


#11 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,733 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 01:34 PM

We're long gone from the days and methods where the likes of Penicillin was discovered.  There's a quite excellent series of programmes on BBC now called Pain, Pus and Poison, episode 2 of this covers infections and their cures.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#12 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:00 PM

I thought this excellent piece by the Telegraph deserved its own thread. Think twice next time you hassle your doctor for antibiotics for the cold.


the doc wont give you antibiotics for a cold. Colds are caused by viri antibiotics work on infections.
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#13 my missus

my missus
  • Coach
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:04 PM

i should be ok, i have never had an antibiotic :biggrin:


What does it mean
This tearjerking scene
Beamed into my home
That it moves me so much
Why all the fuss
It's only two humans being.


#14 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,733 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:08 PM

the doc wont give you antibiotics for a cold. Colds are caused by viri antibiotics work on infections.

But they do though to get rid of whiny and demanding mothers who want them for their precious offsprings' sniffles

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#15 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:19 PM

I really think that more of the public need to be more aware of the wonder drug called placebo. Then these whiny demanding mothers can beat a path to their GPs and demand placebos for their precious darlings.

#16 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 11:08 PM

No they won't get the short term profit.

The reason antibiotics are becoming less effective is due to their overuse. Consequently the infectious dieseases are evolving tolerances to these drugs.

For a new antibiotic to be effective it's use will have to be restricted. Therefore no widespread role out, not big profits on large volumes etc, and by the time to patent runs out, if used correctly the drug should not have been used extensively.

All in all making antibiotic development not profitable.

And as I said whilst the medicines still belong to the developer, they are unlikely to be overused, they are too expensive.

 

It's only when generic alternatives come onto the market that it's possible to oversubscribe.



#17 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 11:11 PM

 

If you had ever been to a funding discussion with a health authority then you would realise how wrong your final statement is. Governments battle to get drug prices as low as they can, at the end of the day they are paying for them so have no interest in paying high prices. Drug companies want high prices to cover development, pay share holders, pay employees and invest in future work. The two do battle to reach a price that works for both of them. NICE are a ruthless bunch as they have a limited budget to work with and therefore will only approve drugs for reimbursement on the NHS if they get a price that works for them, they have no vested interest in pharma development.

I have not been to any funding discussions but it is a fact that the patent gives a monopoly to the developing company. Monopoly power means monopoly prices. Government is not usually in the business of giving companies that develop a product this kind of power. Especially when they are the main customer.



#18 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,018 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 11:11 PM

I assume your reference document is the Daily Mail.

 

No, my wife's university. 



Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#19 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:47 AM

And as I said whilst the medicines still belong to the developer, they are unlikely to be overused, they are too expensive.

It's only when generic alternatives come onto the market that it's possible to oversubscribe.

.
Why would a company spend a large amount of money to develop a product and then price it out of the market?

Antibiotics are not like any other product . The reason we are we're we are with these diseases is that antibiotics have been overused, and resistant strains have evolved.

The whole point of a new antibiotic is that, for it to be effective, us that it's use needs to be restricted.

It's got nothing to do with the price companies charge restricting the use, it's a purely medical reason.

#20 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,951 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 09:43 AM

I have not been to any funding discussions but it is a fact that the patent gives a monopoly to the developing company. Monopoly power means monopoly prices. Government is not usually in the business of giving companies that develop a product this kind of power. Especially when they are the main customer.

The patent is taken out when the drug is still in the lab to give the company protection over it's intellectual rights and to give it chance to recoup their investment. The patent clock starts ticking from that date. Without patent law innovation would pretty much grind to a halt across most industries (pharma, car, phone, computers, etc...). Why would a company invest millions to develop something so that everyone could then profit from selling it without having to pay anything towards the development? You seem to be confusing intellectual rights with monopoly.

 

Even once a drug has been through lab and clinical testing it then still needs to be approved by a government body. After that they then begin pricing discussions. There are plenty of drugs that have been approved but never go to market because it is just not financially viable to sell them at the price that governments set for them. The government hold a huge amount of power when it comes to dictating prices.

 

Pharma companies start discussions very early in the development process with government bodies to cover pricing to figure out will they get a price approved that makes their investment worthwhile. The role of the health economist within the pharma company has grown massively in recent years because of this, they have to look at pricing very early before the company invests millions to try and figure out whether the drug is worth bothering with from a reimbursement perspective. Most big pharma do have teams who develop drugs for non-profitable indications (often for diseases more prevalent in the 3rd world), but at the end of the day they need to make a profit or they will soon go out of business.


28m391z.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users