6 ms·

Alright, if you don't know how it would work, but you do know how it does work, tell me how it does work. What countries are you talking about, what years, wha

by nudge 16y ago

Alright, if you don't know how it would work, but you do know how it does work, tell me how it does work. What countries are you talking about, what years, what drugs? How did the companies cover the cost of research? What was in it for them? Why did they do it? I am perfectly willing to amend my views but so far you have done nothing but say you have evidence. Show me! I don't have time to read your source but I am happy to read what you quote as relevant.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
> I am happy to read what you quote as relevant. Ah, now we're talking. So, chapter 9, page 247 http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf """ You may wonder why we are offering all these details about specific countries, patenting of chemical processes, and pharmaceutical products. For a very simple reason: if patents were a necessary requirement for pharmaceutical innovation as claimed by their supporters, the large historical and cross country variations in the patent protection of medical products should have had a dramatic impact on national pharmaceutical industries. In particular, at least between 1850 and 1980, most drugs and medical products should have been invented and produced in the United States and the United Kingdom, and very little if anything in continental Europe. Further, countries such as Italy, Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, Germany, should have been the laggards of the pharmaceutical industry until recently. Instead the opposite was true for longer than a century.""" I fear you would have to read "all these details about specific countries" if you want anything more substantial. That's 7 pages (from 241 to 247).
- nudge 16y ago
  Interesting, but not very convincing. The argument concerns historical periods when the costs of research were not nearly as high as they are now. As your own source rightly points out: "the total cost of bringing a new drug to market [is] around $800 million, in year 2000 dollars... [T]his figure suggests a spectacular increase in the cost of innovating. This increase is due, mostly, to the capitalization of the longer and more expensive clinical trials the FDA requires." It may well be that patents were not always necessary for drug development. It is lazy thinking to conclude from this that they are not necessary now.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    > It is lazy thinking to conclude from this that they are not necessary now. Correct. We may want to test for that, if at all possible. Also, if we manage to reduce the costs of clinical trials, we may make that point moot. But in the end, I fear we will have to set priorities, and make compromises. I just hope that it will be based on rational judgements, instead of political stances alone.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    Simple explanation: patents and the FDA represent barriers to entry for new competitors. Costs going up just means more money spent within the industry, and more profit to be taken later. Costs (and profits) going up are a consequence of patents and regulation, not the other way around. Remove patents and regulation and watch costs plummet.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      Well, we could remove patents, but removing (or lightening) regulation may be a bit more tricky: you wouldn't want Big Pharma to release something that's more a poison than a medication.
      - binaryfinery 16y ago
        And how has regulation changed this? What extra laws do we need in place to make sure companies don't kill people other than "dont kill people"?
        loup-vaillant 16y ago
        > And how has regulation changed this? I don't know. Nor am I aware of any study which shows regulation's effects, or lack thereof. I'm just saying that if regulation has benefits, they should be compared to the drawbacks before we forfeit them. If it has no benefit, of course get rid of it. Anyway, as I said, I don't know a thing about pharmaceutical regulations. If you do, a few pointers would be welcome.

by nudge 16y ago

loup-vaillant 16y ago

> I am happy to read what you quote as relevant. Ah, now we're talking. So, chapter 9, page 247 http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf """ You may wonder why we are offering all these details about specific countries, patenting of chemical processes, and pharmaceutical products. For a very simple reason: if patents were a necessary requirement for pharmaceutical innovation as claimed by their supporters, the large historical and cross country variations in the patent protection of medical products should have had a dramatic impact on national pharmaceutical industries. In particular, at least between 1850 and 1980, most drugs and medical products should have been invented and produced in the United States and the United Kingdom, and very little if anything in continental Europe. Further, countries such as Italy, Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, Germany, should have been the laggards of the pharmaceutical industry until recently. Instead the opposite was true for longer than a century.""" I fear you would have to read "all these details about specific countries" if you want anything more substantial. That's 7 pages (from 241 to 247).

nudge 16y ago
Interesting, but not very convincing. The argument concerns historical periods when the costs of research were not nearly as high as they are now. As your own source rightly points out: "the total cost of bringing a new drug to market [is] around $800 million, in year 2000 dollars... [T]his figure suggests a spectacular increase in the cost of innovating. This increase is due, mostly, to the capitalization of the longer and more expensive clinical trials the FDA requires." It may well be that patents were not always necessary for drug development. It is lazy thinking to conclude from this that they are not necessary now.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > It is lazy thinking to conclude from this that they are not necessary now. Correct. We may want to test for that, if at all possible. Also, if we manage to reduce the costs of clinical trials, we may make that point moot. But in the end, I fear we will have to set priorities, and make compromises. I just hope that it will be based on rational judgements, instead of political stances alone.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  Simple explanation: patents and the FDA represent barriers to entry for new competitors. Costs going up just means more money spent within the industry, and more profit to be taken later. Costs (and profits) going up are a consequence of patents and regulation, not the other way around. Remove patents and regulation and watch costs plummet.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Well, we could remove patents, but removing (or lightening) regulation may be a bit more tricky: you wouldn't want Big Pharma to release something that's more a poison than a medication.
    - binaryfinery 16y ago
      And how has regulation changed this? What extra laws do we need in place to make sure companies don't kill people other than "dont kill people"?
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        > And how has regulation changed this? I don't know. Nor am I aware of any study which shows regulation's effects, or lack thereof. I'm just saying that if regulation has benefits, they should be compared to the drawbacks before we forfeit them. If it has no benefit, of course get rid of it. Anyway, as I said, I don't know a thing about pharmaceutical regulations. If you do, a few pointers would be welcome.