Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
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

#21 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,883 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 09:47 AM

No, my wife's university. 

 

Interesting, all the pharma companies that I have worked for are very focused on developing cures for illnesses and are actively doing so, investing billions of dollars in the process.

 

The clinicaltrails.gov website lists all active clinical trials if you want to have a look at all the ongoing development programs for new drugs to see what they are up to.


28m391z.jpg


#22 Just Browny

Just Browny
  • Coach
  • 11,613 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:04 PM

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

 

I assume you haven't read the article; that really makes no odds to the problems humans are facing.

 

I see Northern Sol is doing his A-level Hayekian economics lesson again.


I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.


#23 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:23 PM

This is just nonsense but about by Probiotic loons.

 

Why can't they just learn to get along?


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#24 Bleep1673

Bleep1673
  • Coach
  • 3,430 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:31 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.

You will find it's not just farmers giving out anti-B's, Doctors do too, most in patients in hospital get anti-B's because no matter how clean healthcare professionals keep themselves, all it takes is one ignorant visitor, who thinks washing their hands at home is going to prevent HCAI's (ed, Health Care Acquired Infections) and then they pick up an infection on the bus, train, taxi, lift button, and we have an outbreak of c-diff, and wards are closed, or isolated.


Edited by Bleep1673, 06 February 2014 - 01:33 PM.

Swinton RLFC est 1866 - Supplying England with players when most of your clubs were in nappies

#25 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,865 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:39 PM

You will find it's not just farmers giving out anti-B's, Doctors do too, most in patients in hospital get anti-B's because no matter how clean healthcare professionals keep themselves, all it takes is one ignorant visitor, who thinks washing their hands at home is going to prevent HCAI's (ed, Health Care Acquired Infections) and then they pick up an infection on the bus, train, taxi, lift button, and we have an outbreak of c-diff, and wards are closed, or isolated.

 

I remember Little Ginger being in NICU in 2005.  The posters then had just gone up advising healthcare professionals to remember to wash their ****ing hands.

 

Infection rates plummeted.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#26 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,933 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:03 PM

I assume you haven't read the article; that really makes no odds to the problems humans are facing.

 

I see Northern Sol is doing his A-level Hayekian economics lesson again.

Only on this forum are there so many chips on shoulders. Did your Business Studies teacher constantly put you down or what?

 

Perhaps you could try making a concrete point, just a thought.


Edited by Northern Sol, 06 February 2014 - 10:12 PM.


#27 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,933 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:09 PM

.
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.

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

 

Companies are granted a patent for a limited amount of time. During this time they can make huge amounts of money because the drug price is kept artificially high. Doctors are responsible for their budgets and tend not to prescribe such drugs unless they have to. Thus there is little chance of drug resistance building up.

 

When the patent expires then other companies can produce identikit "generic" drugs that sell for a fraction of the price under a different name. This is when problems of over-prescription start. 



#28 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,933 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:11 PM

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.

Intellectual rights are a monopoly where in the pharmacy industry or elsewhere but aside from that I can't really see much difference between what you have said and what I said.



#29 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,883 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:59 PM

Intellectual rights are a monopoly where in the pharmacy industry or elsewhere but aside from that I can't really see much difference between what you have said and what I said.

Intellectual rights are a benefit gained from investing time, money and knowledge. When you claim that drug prices are artificially high during the patent period kindly explain how you think the economics of drug development would work if companies never recouped their costs and made a profit for reinvestment in the development of new medicines.

 

Surely generic prices are artificially low as they do not reflect the costs involved in developing those drugs and testing them to show that they are safe and effective.


28m391z.jpg


#30 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,933 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:49 AM

Intellectual rights are a benefit gained from investing time, money and knowledge. When you claim that drug prices are artificially high during the patent period kindly explain how you think the economics of drug development would work if companies never recouped their costs and made a profit for reinvestment in the development of new medicines.

 

Surely generic prices are artificially low as they do not reflect the costs involved in developing those drugs and testing them to show that they are safe and effective.

When a farmer sells a sack of King Edwards, the price does not include the cost of breeding the Kind Edwards breed.

 

I'm not saying that government policy is wrong, far from it. I'm saying that for the reasons you descibe a free market would not  'work'. In a free market (one where any company can participate), there would be little innovation as one company would simply copy any new product.


Edited by Northern Sol, 07 February 2014 - 10:50 AM.


#31 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,883 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:49 AM

When a farmer sells a sack of King Edwards, the price does not include the cost of breeding the Kind Edwards breed.

 

I'm not saying that government policy is wrong, far from it. I'm saying that for the reasons you descibe a free market would not  'work'. In a free market (one where any company can participate), there would be little innovation as one company would simply copy any new product.

No, that's because he is selling 'generic' King Edwards and he never incurred the cost of 'developing' them.

 

The free market bit occurs after the patent expires. The patent is the incentive for someone to develop something new spending their own time and money to do so. It would be great to live a purely altruistic world, but for this to be the case everyone would have to buy in and demonstrate a selfless concern for the well-being of others with nobody out to make a profit of any sort. 


28m391z.jpg


#32 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,933 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:40 PM

No, that's because he is selling 'generic' King Edwards and he never incurred the cost of 'developing' them.

 

The free market bit occurs after the patent expires. The patent is the incentive for someone to develop something new spending their own time and money to do so. It would be great to live a purely altruistic world, but for this to be the case everyone would have to buy in and demonstrate a selfless concern for the well-being of others with nobody out to make a profit of any sort. 

I agree, the free market occurs when the patent expires. There isn't a free market before that.



#33 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,883 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 04:22 PM

I agree, the free market occurs when the patent expires. There isn't a free market before that.

 

Do you think there should be a free market as soon as a new drug is approved? Do you think there will ever be any new medicines if that was the case (and if so how would the development of these be paid for)?


28m391z.jpg


#34 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,311 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 04:26 PM

The bizarre thing with the industry is that when the patent expires, the original producer is immediately undercut by people who have just started making it.  It an advanced industry, having a few years head start in making a product should make you far more efficient at making it.  That is the major issue for the industry atm.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#35 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,883 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 05:36 PM

The bizarre thing with the industry is that when the patent expires, the original producer is immediately undercut by people who have just started making it.  It an advanced industry, having a few years head start in making a product should make you far more efficient at making it.  That is the major issue for the industry atm.

A lot of companies do continue to manufacture and sell the original product alongside the generics but obviously profit margins drop as generics erode sales. Eventually they will make the decision that the manufacturing/packaging plant will be better served by using it for production of novel drugs that are on patent. Otherwise companies would need ever expanding manufacturing capabilities.


28m391z.jpg


#36 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,933 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 05:38 PM

Do you think there should be a free market as soon as a new drug is approved? Do you think there will ever be any new medicines if that was the case (and if so how would the development of these be paid for)?

I don't but I think it is inaccurate to use the term "free market" to describe monopolies created by intellectual property rights. It's also inaccurate to describe the dispensing of medicines by doctors as having much to do with the free market.



#37 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,933 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 05:56 PM

The bizarre thing with the industry is that when the patent expires, the original producer is immediately undercut by people who have just started making it.  It an advanced industry, having a few years head start in making a product should make you far more efficient at making it.  That is the major issue for the industry atm.

It's not that unusual. Music and books are protected by similar intellectual property rights. The company that currently has the rights to Harry Potter won't necessarily be the most efficient producer of Harry Potter books when the copyright expires.



#38 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,883 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 08:51 PM

I don't but I think it is inaccurate to use the term "free market" to describe monopolies created by intellectual property rights. It's also inaccurate to describe the dispensing of medicines by doctors as having much to do with the free market.

Back tracking a bit but did someone suggest that a free market exists anywhere when it comes to patenting new ideas? Some countries choose to ignore international patents, this seriously harms innovation.

 

You seem very hung up on drug development not being a free market, but you don't offer an explanation of how this could ever be viable if that were the case. 


28m391z.jpg


#39 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,933 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:01 PM

Back tracking a bit but did someone suggest that a free market exists anywhere when it comes to patenting new ideas? Some countries choose to ignore international patents, this seriously harms innovation.

 

You seem very hung up on drug development not being a free market, but you don't offer an explanation of how this could ever be viable if that were the case. 

You seem to have missed the post(s) where I said it wasn't viable any other way.

 

I objected to Bostik Bailey moaning about the obvious failure of the "free market". The free market has very little to do with it. 



#40 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:23 PM

You seem to have missed the post(s) where I said it wasn't viable any other way.
 
I objected to Bostik Bailey moaning about the obvious failure of the "free market". The free market has very little to do with it.


I think you have missed the point that this thread is about antibiotics, not patent issues on products. drug companies develop drugs to, in principle at least, help medical conditions. They protect their investment in the development of these drugs through the patent system. The whole point being that the drug is effective and will be used extensively so they can sell as much as possible during the patent period.

The way antibiotics work is that their use needs to be restricted otherwise the pathogens will evolve resistance to the drugs. Hence if a new antibiotic with little or no side effects is developed, the medical profession will restrict its use, to preserve its effacity .

Therefore it is not profitable to develop antibiotics since their use will be restricted on medical grounds.

In the case of antibiotics (which is what this thread is about) the free market will not work since why would any company invest in a product that will only be use sparingly before the patent runs out?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users