Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases

swissinfo.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases

#121

Post by cjfd »

j_m_b wrote: post #91
cjfd wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there is a market solution to this problem. I cannot claim to have thought this up, it was discussed in an episode of econtalk. Don't remember the person that was interviewed. The idea is that big pharma companies have to publicly post a price for each of their patents. If anyone is prepared to pay that price they get the patent for that price. Next there needs to be a tax that is a percentage of the price…

>The money that comes from this tax needs to be funneled back into healthcare or even better go straight to the ones who are paying for the particular medicine that the patent protects. Tax money is allocated for one thing is often used for other things. There is nothing preventing lawmakers from doing this, they after all, make the laws.

I suppose that is quite possible. I still like the idea though. Like, if they are going to engage in scoundrelism it needs to be as blatant as possible. Now we are stealing from the sick. That kind of thing.

Re: With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases

#122

Post by WalterBright »

vikramkr wrote: post #101
WalterBright wrote: post #5

In the 1960s big increases in regulations on new drug development led to big cost increases, and hence less interest in non-blockbuster treatments.

It's also lead to unprecedented investment and development of drugs for rare diseases. Some 45% of drugs approved last year are for rare diseases. The key with those is that high pricing let's those rare disease drugs be blockbusters - you can still make enough money in a disease with only a few thousand patients in the US if you're able to charge whatever you want. We've seen less interest in drugs that can't be blo…

> we also haven't had another thalidomide yet

I recall approval for some diet drugs was removed because they were causing fatal heart attacks. I recall recently some cholesterol drugs were causing unanticipated problems, too. Tylenol is now known for causing liver problems, even failure.

Re: With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases

#123

Post by WalterBright »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #96
barry-cotter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have a stringent safety process without having any efficacy process. The FDA has no incentive to approve drugs but plenty to deny them so delay is the order of the day. Delay in approving new effective drugs costs lives. The FDA has not shown any willingness to pull back on regulations during the current COVID crisis, nor have they historically shown any such willingness. Politicians have forced them to. They…

[flagged]

> AIDS was a public health emergency.

I.e. there was enormous political pressure put on the FDA to do something. If you suffer from a rare disease that is not on the 6 o'clock news every day, that's not likely to happen.

(I remember those days - everyone was talking about AIDS, everyone was terrified of it.)

Re: With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases

#124

Post by HarryHirsch »

WalterBright wrote: post #123
HarryHirsch wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> AIDS was a public health emergency. I.e. there was enormous political pressure put on the FDA to do something. If you suffer from a rare disease that is not on the 6 o'clock news every day, that's not likely to happen. (I remember those days - everyone was talking about AIDS, everyone was terrified of it.)

There is much more: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/nda-and-bla-approvals/fast-track-a...

Just last year: triclabendazole for liver flukes. That's emphatically not political. From 2018: apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist. Prostate cancer doesn't nearly get the attention it deserves, not political but sorely needed. 2017: secnidazole, for bacterial vaginosis. Strange to see that there, given that there are sufficient nitroimidazoles at market already. No political pressure.

Please, no reflexive regurgitation of libertarian propaganda directed against the FDA. They actually do their job.

Re: With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases

#126

Post by Proven »

refurb wrote: post #4

What's needed is a new payment model for anti-infectives. This already happens at a small scale with grants from institutions like BARDA. The DOD of also does this for vaccines for biological weapons like anthrax where there is a high likelihood the drug will never be used, but a vaccine is needed because if there is an outbreak, the consequences are severe. Basically, rather than paying for drugs on a per unit basis…

No.

What's needed is that governments stop interfering with free market so that those who want to invest in this underserved market can make more money than those who invest in other markets.

Re: With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases

#127

Post by beardedman »

jokowueu wrote: post #61
beardedman wrote: post #59

What a pile of sensationalist rubbish. In 2018 we had an estimated 400k people dying of Malaria [1] & around 600k (est.) people dying of cancer in the US alone. [2] Compare that to the 3110 deaths that have happened in the last 3 or so months for COVID-19. [3] I think a little perspective would go a long way here. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/world-m... [2] https://www.cancer.org/research/…

Covid if not put under control will effect every one everywhere (unlike malaria) . Imagine a 1% fatality on the human population but at a repetitive rate .

That 1% is still to be confirmed. We don't know the mortality rate yet.

Re: With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases

#128

Post by beardedman »

empath75 wrote: post #79
beardedman wrote: post #59

What a pile of sensationalist rubbish. In 2018 we had an estimated 400k people dying of Malaria [1] & around 600k (est.) people dying of cancer in the US alone. [2] Compare that to the 3110 deaths that have happened in the last 3 or so months for COVID-19. [3] I think a little perspective would go a long way here. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/world-m... [2] https://www.cancer.org/research/…

> Compare that to the 3110 deaths that have happened in the last 3 or so months for COVID-19. [3] There were 300 deaths 30 days ago. There will be 30,000 this month. And the month after that?

There will be 30k deaths in March? So it's going to go from 1.3k to 30k in the next 20 days?
Post reply on HN