Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want pharma companies to keep doing drug discovery why not ban outright any kind of marketing or advertising for their products? R&D spend across the industry is a fraction of the marketing spend. Think of all the good research that money would fund once pharma companies were freed from spending it on advertising.
Seems like a reasonable idea to me, has anyone attempted to apply some of the less controversial possible solutions here in the US? Like shorter patent lifetimes or a ban or reduction on drug advertising?
An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
111–120 of 286 posts
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Long term don't these companies think that charging outrageous prices for drugs will cause a future voter/government backlash of some sort No, because it demonstrably won't. People say they're angry and then do nothing about it. The US has an entire political party angrily decrying any effort to regulate healthcare as socialist slavery. The drug companies know they'll be just fine. Maybe some token slaps on the wris…
the US has an entire political party angrily decrying any effort to regulate healthcare as socialist slavery. Argubly regulation is the problem we're in this mess. Do you think an epipen would cost $600 if there weren't a Government granted monopoly? We have two parties who love the current amount of regulations on competition - you need to go to an AMA approved medical school to become a doctor, there aren't H1Bs fo…
But in terms of overall effect, one can't ignore other nations which pay much lower prices for healthcare with both regulation for drug patents, as well as regulation on drug prices. That combination manages to deliver better care at lower costs than the US (we pay on average double per capita). So I don't think one can generically fault "regulation" for a poorly performing health market in the US.
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#113> “To deny someone access to a lifesaving medication is murder,” he said. And “an act of theft [of intellectual property] to prevent an act of murder is morally acceptable.” I agree with the conclusion, but for a different reason. "Theft" is the wrong way to think about IP. The economic function of IP is not to protect producers from consumers, but to protect producers from free-riding by other producers.[1] Thus, fo…
I've always wondered about this line of reasoning. Drug is made that could save a life, but is put behind an access and paywall that would prevent person from living. So one steals this drug or makes it in violation of patent rights. Now, logically theft is illegal and stealing it is theft.
However we also have another area of law called "Justification" - it "because committing the crime advanced some social interest or vindicated a right of such importance that it outweighs the wrongfulness of the crime." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(jurisprudence) ) . This topic came up with the recent ex-marine who "stole" a truck to drive the shooting victims to the hospital, at the Vegas Massacre. On the face, he stole a vehicle. However it was to save lives, which is justification.
So yes, it is theft or violation of patent. However this is in the face of living or dying. Whomever would state this defense would have to admit complete guilt to the court, and rely on this as the defense.
But if this won, it would say that everyone has the right to life-saving drugs, but those that can afford it have to pay.
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#114>Then he took another sip from a flute of Taittinger Champagne. What? >Swaggering, charismatic, and complex, Gag me. >Michael Laufer has become a fixture in the growing biohacker movement ever since he published plans last year for a do-it-yourself EpiPencil — a $35 alternative to the pricey EpiPen. That couldn't possibly go wrong, eh? >It’s not clear whether anyone has actually ever used a homemade EpiPencil to prev…
Imagine you decide you are a modern day Robinhood, and you go around the U.S. breaking into medical facilities and stealing Epipens to distribute them for free to the general populace. You do this until you and your band get caught, and which point you go to prison.
At the end of your run every person who received a free Epipen got the same quality device as the people who paid exorbitant price for an Epipen. To the degree that you inspire others to do this, they are bound by the same risk of prison time. Finally, since the price you charged was $0 there is no financial incentive for copycats to distribute fake Epipens (or at least if somebody does they must be a bad actor with ill intentions, or they must charge a fee in which case potential buyers will rightly be skeptical of the product).
What the DIY chemist apparently wants to do is persuade non-experts that they can produce Artisanal Epipens that are ostensibly as safe as the real thing (or at least safe enough that the risk is overridden by the alternative). But that is only an argument for a doctor to use an artisanal epipen if it is the only thing that happens to be lying around-- it's not an argument for persuading the general public to practice and spread the idea of DIY non-expert chemistry.
DIY chemistry doesn't come with public policy expertise. It doesn't come with trained (and funded!) epidemiology. And if their DIY ethos goes horribly wrong-- as the "roll-up-our-sleeves-and-research-our-own-vaccines-schedules" movement has-- they won't have the competence in statistics to know just how dangerous their movement has become in terms of public health. Worse, where science tends toward rigor, verifiability, and a narrowly defined scope of research, these DIY chemists will likely be skeptical of the published canon and "wing it" by trying to do their own epidemiology (because after, ignorance and lack of training didn't stop them from being a chemist...)
Worst of all, unlike my Robinhood example there is no natural filter to keep otherwise good faith actors from making decisions that will have terrible consequences for themselves and others. To steal Epipens you've got to break in to a physical place and potentially physically harm or threaten a security guard. This filter keeps tens of millions of people who are no doubt convinced of the deep unfairness of pharmaceutical prices from becoming an angry and dangerous mob whose violence quickly outweighs the single benefit of redistributing epipens to the poor.
Based on that, DIY artisanal epipens are more risky and can scale into a public hazard more easily than just robbing a pharmaceutical warehouse. So I claim that casually encouraging people to make DIY epipens without a systematic, well-tested, and well-funded research regimen is more dangerous and irresponsible than just stealing extant epipens.
So if you're the type of person who rejects robbery out of hand, you probably shouldn't entertain the idea of Artisanal Epipens, either.
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally, the government should just straight-up pay companies to do drug discovery using something similar to cost-plus defense contracts (and establish DCAA-style auditing practices to keep them honest). Establish strict price controls, ban drug patents, and make production volume guarantees a hard condition of receiving federal drug discovery money. And the money should be large enough to be worth it. Ideally, 90%+…
That's a very left-wing view of things - I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I think there are far less drastic changes that can be made to achieve a comparable result. You'll have a hard time selling a plan like that to anyone even slightly right leaning - think about it politically for a second. The government decides what drug development gets priority? Remember the death panels talk from a few years ago? It…
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
When drug companies issue patents, do they not also publicise production methods?
as vonmoltke suggests, even if you've got some chemical synthesis procedure laid out in a peer reviewed journal, you are, in the best case, expert man hours away from successfully duplicating it. and you'll only know you've successfully duplicated it if you can run the result through really expensive analytical equipment to confirm that 1) you made the stuff you wanted to make and 2) it doesn't have impurities that a…
What I find most dubious about the article is the lack of attention to synthetic biology. Because QA in that sense can become say, “this modified organism can produce the drug in question under most conditions and all future populations will carry the new genes with X% assurance” - ONCE -and you’re done.
This is quite possibly the real Pharma killer, IMO.
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enbrel? They just received another patent extension, too. This is what government granted monopolies look like.
This is what the breakdown of working competitive markets look like, and in this case it takes both government monopolies, as well as well as overwhelming short-term greed on the part of the private companies. Long term don't these companies think that charging outrageous prices for drugs will cause a future voter/government backlash of some sort... or maybe they think they should extract profits now because of a cha…
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. When you actively advocate for this, do you face moral responsibility when someone prepares it wrong and dies? (I’m pretty sure the legal answer would be yes on so many fronts)
The moral answer is obviously no, given the context in which we live. That the moral and legal answers are completely opposite of each other is telling. Imagine a natural disaster happens, and the strong hoard more water and food and shelter and medicine than they could ever use in a million lifetimes and protect it with guns. Then you tell the poor "in an emergency scenario, here are some options to keep you and you…
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sad but there's a lot of truth to that: if you are fighting against a nation state with an army, you have to have your own army to fight it. And on the day when you are victorious, you'll find yourself sitting on a large plot of land and people and the only intact organization around will be.. your army. And the government you form will closely resemble an army in form and function, and the high ranking members of th…
The natural response would be instead of fighting a government with an army, experiment and build the structures that you would like to see, without dogma, learning as you go. When these structures solve enough problems for your community, a democratic country may peacefully transition.
Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a difficult balance to strike - you want the companies to keep developing drugs, you want onerous regulation on those drugs to make sure they're produced and tested for safety and efficacy. But then you want them to be cheap for patients and insurance companies. The best solution is probably to simply drop patent extensions for these things and allow generic drug manufacturers to do what they do best, but if you…
Ideally, the government should just straight-up pay companies to do drug discovery using something similar to cost-plus defense contracts (and establish DCAA-style auditing practices to keep them honest). Establish strict price controls, ban drug patents, and make production volume guarantees a hard condition of receiving federal drug discovery money. And the money should be large enough to be worth it. Ideally, 90%+…
The issue is entirely government granted patents, if multiple companies could produce the same drug the price would fall to the cost of materials and labor plus some marginal amount. If I am the only one who can produce the drug I have a monopoly and can set the price extremely high and that is what we are witnessing.