Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Antibiotic resistance

49 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume your reference document is the Daily Mail.

 

No, my wife's university. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just nonsense but about by Probiotic loons.

 

Why can't they just learn to get along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017