8 ms·

I still worry about the profit motive getting in the way. You'll buy antibiotics for days or maybe weeks; you'll buy drugs for high cholesterol the rest of you

I still worry about the profit motive getting in the way. You'll buy antibiotics for days or maybe weeks; you'll buy drugs for high cholesterol the rest of your life.

zeteo 13y ago
>you'll buy drugs for high cholesterol the rest of your life Not if you get killed by an infection first.
- bad_user 13y ago
  Also many chronic diseases are autoimmune diseases, like asthma or type 1 diabetes. In such patients the immune system gets weaker when in crisis, leaving them vulnerable to infections.
- mturmon 13y ago
  This humorous observation does not affect the argument, it just derails it. It's easier to make money off drugs for chronic conditions than for one-off infections.
  - MaysonL 13y ago
    And it's sometimes easier to invent a chronic condition for a drug, than vice versa.
criley2 13y ago
Remember, it takes 8-12 years and $1,000,000,000 on average to whittle 10,000 drug candidates into 1 fully tested FDA approved drug. If a company is going to spend a decade and a billion attempting to develop a "management" antibiotic for continual profit, I'm willing to bet the profit motive exists for another company to make a normal antibiotic... that most doctors would happily prescribe over the ridiculous multi-year option... It's a big risk and I doubt some company will attempt to make a maintenance drug out of antibiotics. Unless you're implying that profit motive means they simply won't try because it's not insulin or something, which is ridiculous. Profit motive... there is profit to be made in a new antibiotic, there's the motive. Not every pharma company will just let money sit on the table in favor of older drugs nearing the end of patent protection.
- Fomite 13y ago
  Though one recent study of drug development costs had an antibiotic against C. difficile as one of the cheapest to develop. I've actual found there's a fair amount of interest in antibiotic development among drug companies.
selmnoo 13y ago
This is touched in the FRONTLINE documentary. See 33:40-40:00 here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/?autoplay http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmar... Basically Pfizer, one of the last companies working on antibiotics for gram-negative bacteria, pulled out due to pressure from shareholders, because there's little money to be made here. You spend billions of dollars on creating an antibiotic, and upon its release the recommended instruction is to "use it as less as possible"? -- there's no money in that obviously, there's more money in cholesterol drugs, ADHD drugs, and other drugs you'll continue taking for a long long time. I feel bad to steer the discussion this way -- but this it, this perfectly underscores one of the scary faults of capitalism. Everyone wants to see a nice smooth growth curve. Growth is prioritized higher than long-term stability of society. We need to fundamentally re-think this.
- XorNot 13y ago
  No we don't - this is just where we need to fund government laboratories to research drugs in areas which drug companies do not presently find profitable.
- lemmsjid 13y ago
  Having read this and the article on autonomous corporations, I suddenly understand that the future of capitalism is extinct humans and very financially well-off computers.
- refurb 13y ago
  Keep in mind that Pfizer's strategy is in response to the incentives offered by the marketplace including regulations set forth by the FDA and patent office. It's not a free market that sense. It's not hard for the FDA to streamline approval process so that development costs are lowered or for them to offer extended periods of market exclusivity so that costs can be recouped over a longer period of time. The FDA has already moved on the regulatory aspect and companies have responded. Antibacterials is a much more attractive market now than it was 5 years ago.
- aianus 13y ago
  They could patent it and charge $5000 a course to people who are suffering from resistant bacteria. It's the American way.

I still worry about the profit motive getting in the way. You'll buy antibiotics for days or maybe weeks; you'll buy drugs for high cholesterol the rest of your life.

zeteo 13y ago

>you'll buy drugs for high cholesterol the rest of your life Not if you get killed by an infection first.

bad_user 13y ago
Also many chronic diseases are autoimmune diseases, like asthma or type 1 diabetes. In such patients the immune system gets weaker when in crisis, leaving them vulnerable to infections.
mturmon 13y ago
This humorous observation does not affect the argument, it just derails it. It's easier to make money off drugs for chronic conditions than for one-off infections.
- MaysonL 13y ago
  And it's sometimes easier to invent a chronic condition for a drug, than vice versa.

criley2 13y ago

Remember, it takes 8-12 years and $1,000,000,000 on average to whittle 10,000 drug candidates into 1 fully tested FDA approved drug. If a company is going to spend a decade and a billion attempting to develop a "management" antibiotic for continual profit, I'm willing to bet the profit motive exists for another company to make a normal antibiotic... that most doctors would happily prescribe over the ridiculous multi-year option... It's a big risk and I doubt some company will attempt to make a maintenance drug out of antibiotics. Unless you're implying that profit motive means they simply won't try because it's not insulin or something, which is ridiculous. Profit motive... there is profit to be made in a new antibiotic, there's the motive. Not every pharma company will just let money sit on the table in favor of older drugs nearing the end of patent protection.

Fomite 13y ago
Though one recent study of drug development costs had an antibiotic against C. difficile as one of the cheapest to develop. I've actual found there's a fair amount of interest in antibiotic development among drug companies.

selmnoo 13y ago

This is touched in the FRONTLINE documentary. See 33:40-40:00 here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/?autoplay http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmar... Basically Pfizer, one of the last companies working on antibiotics for gram-negative bacteria, pulled out due to pressure from shareholders, because there's little money to be made here. You spend billions of dollars on creating an antibiotic, and upon its release the recommended instruction is to "use it as less as possible"? -- there's no money in that obviously, there's more money in cholesterol drugs, ADHD drugs, and other drugs you'll continue taking for a long long time. I feel bad to steer the discussion this way -- but this it, this perfectly underscores one of the scary faults of capitalism. Everyone wants to see a nice smooth growth curve. Growth is prioritized higher than long-term stability of society. We need to fundamentally re-think this.

XorNot 13y ago
No we don't - this is just where we need to fund government laboratories to research drugs in areas which drug companies do not presently find profitable.
lemmsjid 13y ago
Having read this and the article on autonomous corporations, I suddenly understand that the future of capitalism is extinct humans and very financially well-off computers.
refurb 13y ago
Keep in mind that Pfizer's strategy is in response to the incentives offered by the marketplace including regulations set forth by the FDA and patent office. It's not a free market that sense. It's not hard for the FDA to streamline approval process so that development costs are lowered or for them to offer extended periods of market exclusivity so that costs can be recouped over a longer period of time. The FDA has already moved on the regulatory aspect and companies have responded. Antibacterials is a much more attractive market now than it was 5 years ago.
aianus 13y ago
They could patent it and charge $5000 a course to people who are suffering from resistant bacteria. It's the American way.