3 ms·

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.

by 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.
- pimentel 13y ago
  If that's what's necessary for the company to develop such an antibiotic, why not? State-of-the-art cancer drugs can cost that ore more. I'd rather pay $5k and live, to not being able to do anything.
stef25 13y ago
I worked for Pfizer, for 2 years in clinical trials to get Linezolid on the market. This was for treating MRSA infections. I was in close contact with nurses & doctors who seemed to think it worked well. Back then (around 10 yrs ago), there was almost no MRSA resistance, unheard of from what I remember. Then I left and lost track of it all. Wikipedia now says it's 100USD / pill. If there's really a lot of resistance to Linezolid, that would be quite shocking. In my project there was a lot more MRSA in "poorer" parts of the country, in hospitals with lower hygiene standards. Hospitals also refused to report their MRSA stats ("it doesn't exist here", not wanting to be known as a place where it's found since it is related to hygiene). Interesting stuff.

by selmnoo 13y ago

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.

pimentel 13y ago
If that's what's necessary for the company to develop such an antibiotic, why not? State-of-the-art cancer drugs can cost that ore more. I'd rather pay $5k and live, to not being able to do anything.

stef25 13y ago

I worked for Pfizer, for 2 years in clinical trials to get Linezolid on the market. This was for treating MRSA infections. I was in close contact with nurses & doctors who seemed to think it worked well. Back then (around 10 yrs ago), there was almost no MRSA resistance, unheard of from what I remember. Then I left and lost track of it all. Wikipedia now says it's 100USD / pill. If there's really a lot of resistance to Linezolid, that would be quite shocking. In my project there was a lot more MRSA in "poorer" parts of the country, in hospitals with lower hygiene standards. Hospitals also refused to report their MRSA stats ("it doesn't exist here", not wanting to be known as a place where it's found since it is related to hygiene). Interesting stuff.