The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
<< Who Is The Real Conservative? This Much Anger Isn't Healthy >>
Quote of the Week

On a post regarding the foolish idea that government could take over research and development of pharmaceuticals, by Megan McArdle:

My friend, have you ever taken a close look at the military procurement process? It costs a fantastic amount of money to generate products that often aren't even wanted by the end users--how many times have you read about some military service being forced to buy some gargantuan piece of equipment they don't want because the thing is being manufactured in a key congressman's district? This is how we spend four percent of our national income on something that most of the American public never sees. Forgive me if I'm not excited about applying the same process to health care.

Go read the whole thing.  In fact, read the rest of her posts for the last week.  She's been covering drug companies and their pricing model in a very common sense fashion.

# Posted at 9:15 AM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 3 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Misc

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:10:40 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
None of what Megan says is wrong. However she paints a very pretty picture for pharma by hiding much. Much that I'm sure that she is very aware of.

While a successful drug may cost $500 million tshe makes no mention of unnecessary costs. Cost due to hiding failed drugs that are still prescribed. Prescribed only because there is big money in pushing them.

The broken government grant system that is little more than a good-old-boy network, where the popularity of your research theory determines whether or not you get a grant. Where whether your research get the desired results (political results the hell with the real world) determine whether you get your next grant.
Friday, February 01, 2008 3:59:55 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
What do you mean by failed drugs that are still prescribed? How are they failed if they passed the approvals, and are deemed helpful enough by doctors to prescribe? Do you consider a drug failed just because there is a newer drug that treats the same problem in a different way? Because in that particular case, there are often price trade offs that make the newer drugs less desirable than the older ones. I see this all the time when looking at my mother's medication for diabetes, and research newer drugs that her doctor tells her about.
Monday, February 04, 2008 12:11:59 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Off the top of my head, statins for one. There's no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and cholesterol in blood, and science has always known that. After age 50 the lower ones cholesterol, the lower thier life expectancy.

Another is AZT given to healthy HIV+ people. It is a cancer drug shelved in the 50s because it was too toxic for human use. In fact it actually causes imune deficiencey, the very disease it is supposed to cure.

That a drug passes FDA approval simply means that the politics behind it was strong.
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2012 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar