5 ms·

This is one of the reasons why I want presence of governmental entities in drug research. There is very little incentive for a private drug companies to show th

by srean 12y ago

This is one of the reasons why I want presence of governmental entities in drug research. There is very little incentive for a private drug companies to show that an el-cheapo generic drug that has had centuries of use (in some form or the other) behind it, can counter some serious diseases. Yes new use can be patented, but its really impractical to enforce. Sort of like those allergy drugs and sleeping aids, same exact composition but placed in different aisles with different names and grossly different prices. As much as I love the market, sometimes it is either insufficient, or works way too slow for a human lifetime. [Digression: We either need a quantum increase in life-span, or a market force catalyst that will speed up market dynamics few orders of magnitude, so that the consequence of a market intervention affects the same guy who made that intervention] Back to aspirin, its really somewhat of a wonder-drug without a hype, if you can stomach it that is.

adventured 12y ago
Bayer sells a lot of Aspirin. It's clearly in their interest. They even have a site called wonderdrug.com just for it. It's also in the interest of generic Aspirin makers to prove such. Competing interests exist in a free market and counter the problem you contend.
- srean 12y ago
  They do, but with such old generics, the profit per unit would really be peanuts compared to newer fad'ish drugs, regardless of whether they are more effective than their older kin. Dont have the numbers but I would guess the market price of generic aspirin would have reached the zone shade above its marginal cost by now. A company would spend only so much effort here. The effect is more pronounced for poor man's diseases and health care issues.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    Which would in turn create a massive opportunity for companies like Bayer to undercut the market. The concept that the government would be more incentivized and thus more likely to discover novel uses for a product than it's sellers doesn't really make sense to me.
    - corin_ 12y ago
      Really the big difference is that with the government their motivation will always (in theory, of course) be finding the best cure, whereas for businesses it could go either way. Sure, Bayer might have a great opportunity to undercut the market. Alternatively Bayer might have a less efficient but more-profitable drug which incentivates them away from stuff like this.
      - CWuestefeld 12y ago
        with the government their motivation will always (in theory, of course) be finding the best cure Well, that ignores all of public choice theory. Under this model, the entities of government (the politicians, the regulators, the regulatory agencies) only have the incentive to ensure their own outcomes. That overlaps to a certain extent with finding the best cure, but it's far from synonymous.
    - CWuestefeld 12y ago
      Much as I love the market (I'm a Hayek groupie), I think there's a free rider problem here. Why would Bayer invest in improving the market for aspirin (paying for research, marketing, etc.) when the benefit of that investment would be enjoy by countless other generic makers, with Bayer reaping hardly any of it?
      - wdewind 12y ago
        But is the government more incentivized? If so why?
mistermann 12y ago
I hadn't heard of this, more info: http://boards.bootsnall.com/sleeping-pills-benedryl-allergy-meds-save-your-t5451.html http://boards.bootsnall.com/sleeping-pills-benedryl-allergy-...
smanuel 12y ago
Is there a stomach which can handle aspirin regularly (even in small doses) without the risk of getting ulcers and bleeding? If there is... where's the line to get one? :)
- atmosx 12y ago
  Just dissolve the tablet in a spoon of water. Will pass through the stomach fast enough. Also there are PPIs which can help with ulcer risk reduction... I mean, between cancer and aspirin...
  - refurb 12y ago
    How fast the aspirin passes through your stomach has no impact on ulceration and bleeding. It's not a contact effect, it's a systemic effect that reducing the stomach's ability to protect itself.
- e40 12y ago
  I've been taking a low-dose aspirin for 10+ years with my morning meal and I've never had issues with ulcers or bleeding.
TelmoMenezes 12y ago
> There is very little incentive for a private drug companies to show... Yes, but let's consider why: 1- Government regulation (patents) creates an artificial concept of property that prevents humanity at large from benefiting from scientific advances that could be much cheaper. The reasoning for patents is that they are a required incentive from companies to go through expensive tests. But guess what... 2- It's government regulation that makes the tests so expensive. So the government tries to solve a problem, then creates a new problem, then tries to solve the new problem, then.... Every step seems reasonable and in the interest of the consumer, but the end result is still that a majority of people do not have access the the level of health care that is scientifically and technically possible, and not even close. But at least they are protected from a number of things. Maybe. We demand a high level of scientific rigor to accept a medication, but we don't demand the same high level of scientific rigor to accept government meddling. We just take it at face value that the benefits of regulation outweigh the costs and this premise is never tested at large.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Government regulation (patents) creates an artificial concept of property that prevents humanity at large from benefiting from scientific advances that could be much cheaper. That regulation might be voted by government, but is lobbied for and pushed by the corporations. Like copyright is. It's not inherent in government to have strong patent/copyright/etc regulation. In fact some of them that don't get pushed and attached diplomatically by more powerful governments working for private interests (like the US pressuring Sweden for the Pirate Bay etc).
  - spindritf 12y ago
    People will always want things. If the government cannot balance and resist those influences then this is an inherent flaw of the government.
    - 12y ago
rollthehard6 12y ago
Hear hear, there are a lot of drugs in this position. c.f. Naltrexone 'low dose Naltrexone' and OGFr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met-enkephalin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met-enkephalin The lack of research into these drugs leads to a lot on-line mis-information and patient-led self-experimentation. This can work for some, it has for me with LDN and Crohn's but can leave others confused, disappointed and frustrated, as well as putting doctors in an awkward position.

by srean 12y ago

adventured 12y ago

Bayer sells a lot of Aspirin. It's clearly in their interest. They even have a site called wonderdrug.com just for it. It's also in the interest of generic Aspirin makers to prove such. Competing interests exist in a free market and counter the problem you contend.

srean 12y ago
They do, but with such old generics, the profit per unit would really be peanuts compared to newer fad'ish drugs, regardless of whether they are more effective than their older kin. Dont have the numbers but I would guess the market price of generic aspirin would have reached the zone shade above its marginal cost by now. A company would spend only so much effort here. The effect is more pronounced for poor man's diseases and health care issues.
- wdewind 12y ago
  Which would in turn create a massive opportunity for companies like Bayer to undercut the market. The concept that the government would be more incentivized and thus more likely to discover novel uses for a product than it's sellers doesn't really make sense to me.
  - corin_ 12y ago
    Really the big difference is that with the government their motivation will always (in theory, of course) be finding the best cure, whereas for businesses it could go either way. Sure, Bayer might have a great opportunity to undercut the market. Alternatively Bayer might have a less efficient but more-profitable drug which incentivates them away from stuff like this.
    - CWuestefeld 12y ago
      with the government their motivation will always (in theory, of course) be finding the best cure Well, that ignores all of public choice theory. Under this model, the entities of government (the politicians, the regulators, the regulatory agencies) only have the incentive to ensure their own outcomes. That overlaps to a certain extent with finding the best cure, but it's far from synonymous.
  - CWuestefeld 12y ago
    Much as I love the market (I'm a Hayek groupie), I think there's a free rider problem here. Why would Bayer invest in improving the market for aspirin (paying for research, marketing, etc.) when the benefit of that investment would be enjoy by countless other generic makers, with Bayer reaping hardly any of it?
    - wdewind 12y ago
      But is the government more incentivized? If so why?

mistermann 12y ago

I hadn't heard of this, more info: http://boards.bootsnall.com/sleeping-pills-benedryl-allergy-meds-save-your-t5451.html http://boards.bootsnall.com/sleeping-pills-benedryl-allergy-...

smanuel 12y ago

Is there a stomach which can handle aspirin regularly (even in small doses) without the risk of getting ulcers and bleeding? If there is... where's the line to get one? :)

atmosx 12y ago
Just dissolve the tablet in a spoon of water. Will pass through the stomach fast enough. Also there are PPIs which can help with ulcer risk reduction... I mean, between cancer and aspirin...
- refurb 12y ago
  How fast the aspirin passes through your stomach has no impact on ulceration and bleeding. It's not a contact effect, it's a systemic effect that reducing the stomach's ability to protect itself.
e40 12y ago
I've been taking a low-dose aspirin for 10+ years with my morning meal and I've never had issues with ulcers or bleeding.

TelmoMenezes 12y ago

> There is very little incentive for a private drug companies to show... Yes, but let's consider why: 1- Government regulation (patents) creates an artificial concept of property that prevents humanity at large from benefiting from scientific advances that could be much cheaper. The reasoning for patents is that they are a required incentive from companies to go through expensive tests. But guess what... 2- It's government regulation that makes the tests so expensive. So the government tries to solve a problem, then creates a new problem, then tries to solve the new problem, then.... Every step seems reasonable and in the interest of the consumer, but the end result is still that a majority of people do not have access the the level of health care that is scientifically and technically possible, and not even close. But at least they are protected from a number of things. Maybe. We demand a high level of scientific rigor to accept a medication, but we don't demand the same high level of scientific rigor to accept government meddling. We just take it at face value that the benefits of regulation outweigh the costs and this premise is never tested at large.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 12y ago
>Government regulation (patents) creates an artificial concept of property that prevents humanity at large from benefiting from scientific advances that could be much cheaper. That regulation might be voted by government, but is lobbied for and pushed by the corporations. Like copyright is. It's not inherent in government to have strong patent/copyright/etc regulation. In fact some of them that don't get pushed and attached diplomatically by more powerful governments working for private interests (like the US pressuring Sweden for the Pirate Bay etc).
- spindritf 12y ago
  People will always want things. If the government cannot balance and resist those influences then this is an inherent flaw of the government.
  - 12y ago

rollthehard6 12y ago

Hear hear, there are a lot of drugs in this position. c.f. Naltrexone 'low dose Naltrexone' and OGFr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met-enkephalin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met-enkephalin The lack of research into these drugs leads to a lot on-line mis-information and patient-led self-experimentation. This can work for some, it has for me with LDN and Crohn's but can leave others confused, disappointed and frustrated, as well as putting doctors in an awkward position.