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

Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 245 posts

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#201

Post by metabagel »

philipallstar wrote: post #181
metabagel wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, meditate, fast intermittently, get therapy, and develop healthy ways of handling stress and dissatisfaction. Everyone’s path is a little different. What is only a little difficult for some might be downright impossible for others (or feel that way).

No, those things aren't nearly as important. Handling stress and therapy can also be replaced by some physical activity as well. General advice that would work for 95% of people shouldn't be criticised because it doesn't address the other 5%. If people did it then there'd be far more money in the system to pay for usefully targetted specialist treatment for those people.

If we are talking about overweight people, then I think your 95% figure is backwards. Maybe 5% can stick to that regimen without addressing what’s going on between their ears. Likely, your perspective is skewed by the crowd you hang out with or from seeing other people at the gym. That’s not a representative cross-section of the population, particularly with respect to people who are overweight.

The emotional/psychological side is important, because the person must make long term changes in their lifestyle.

People tend to over-eat for a reason, and typically it is a reaction to stress or some emotional/psychological need which isn’t being met.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#202

Post by qgin »

stevehawk wrote: post #101
kimos wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree and this all seems reasonable, I think you give the average person far too much credit.

it's extremely common. everyone i know that's on a glp-1 does it this way. that way you can buy it in bulk for a discount. i buy mine roughly 35 weeks worth of doses at a time.

How do they have confidence that the vials they're getting are sterile / pure / free of endotoxins / etc?

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#203

Post by dghlsakjg »

Marsymars wrote: post #112
dghlsakjg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't figure into the pricing strategy or giving away patent protection in Canada in 2018 as far as I can tell? Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently, so I assume you are talking about the US? Compounding Ozempic in the US wasn't a thing in 2018 when this patent was released in Canada, so not sure what one has to do with the other. What are you getting at in reference to the argument that the patent w…

> Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently How does this work? Why/when would compounding not be allowed?

If health Canada determines there is a shortage, compounding is allowed. Health Canada has determined that there is no longer a shortage.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#204

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

philipallstar wrote: post #184
wasabi991011 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI, this isn't "by Science", it's by Derek Lowe, this is his blog, which is hosted on Science>Commentary>Blogs. In its description, Lowe says it is "editorially independent".

Then they'd be better off removing this section if "editorially independent" means "we will take things that even in their headline may not be true at all".

> Derek Lowe’s commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry. An editorially independent blog, all content is Derek’s own, and he does not in any way speak for his employer.

The top of the sidebar describes what "In the Pipeline" is.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#205

Post by metabagel »

metabagel wrote: post #201
philipallstar wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, those things aren't nearly as important. Handling stress and therapy can also be replaced by some physical activity as well. General advice that would work for 95% of people shouldn't be criticised because it doesn't address the other 5%. If people did it then there'd be far more money in the system to pay for usefully targetted specialist treatment for those people.

If we are talking about overweight people, then I think your 95% figure is backwards. Maybe 5% can stick to that regimen without addressing what’s going on between their ears. Likely, your perspective is skewed by the crowd you hang out with or from seeing other people at the gym. That’s not a representative cross-section of the population, particularly with respect to people who are overweight. The emotional/psychol…

Intermittent fasting can help with appetite suppression and blood sugar spikes. Our bodies didn’t evolve to snack all day long. More likely, we gorged and fasted depending on what was available.

There’s a book called “The Carbohydrate Addict’s Diet” which promotes intermittent fasting to lose weight, and I think it’s on the right track, although the book recommends taking in calories only during a one hour period each day, which for me was too extreme.

I do think it’s beneficial to fast for at least 6 hours once a day, if possible. It’s good for your blood sugar as well as your gut. It can give you more energy and help you feel more like exercising.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#206

Post by rapfaria »

tredre3 wrote: post #144
chrisweekly wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"same as the minimum wage" ... an hour's wage? a week? a month? annual?

From context it was clear to me that they meant the entire income. Minimum wage in brazil is 280/month. I don't know how much of it would be taken by taxes, but even if it's 0 then ozempic in Brazil still costs almost 70% of that amount each month.

It’s not so straightforward, though. In the U.S., wages are usually discussed in terms of hourly pay or annual salary, whereas in Brazil, they’re typically expressed as monthly earnings.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#207

Post by devilbunny »

philipallstar wrote: post #200
jbrnh wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a blog. It references an interview. The post is also four month old. "In the Pipeline" is generally a fantastic resource on the pharma industry and chemistry news.

> It's a blog. Not really. It doesn't look like a blog, and it's not a person/org's specific blog post. It's just called "blog" in a breadcrumb somewhere, which most people won't read. It's actual a guest editorial, but still - doesn't really look like one.

> it's not a person/org's specific blog post

Yeah, it really is, even if what's linked to is one post rather than the entire blog.

His stuff pops up here often enough. He really does blog at Science. Has for years and years.

If you have a background in chemistry, it's fairly accessible (i.e., he very rarely talks about anything in a depth that an undergrad chem major would have trouble understanding - which, given that most chemists start branching off very quickly in grad school, is roughly the appropriate depth for writing intended for a general chemistry audience, since it's the last common knowledge level).

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#208

Post by Scoundreller »

jacobgorm wrote: post #37
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, what are the legality concerns? Is it illegal to bring medicine for your own use over the border? If not that, then what? (Honest question. I don't know.)

Just don’t do it in a speed boat.

More government attacks on the freedom of law-abiding speed boat owners

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#209

Post by Scoundreller »

foxglacier wrote: post #158
jzebedee wrote: post #4

> Prof. Michael Hoffman from Toronto put me on to the Canadian Patent Database, where you can find that Novo did file a patent there for semaglutide. . .but the last time they paid the annual maintenance fee on it was 2018! > You can even find a letter where their lawyers send a refund request for the 2017 maintenance fee ($250) because Novo apparently wanted some more time to see if they wanted to pay it. > On the s…

Don't be so quick to assume it was a failure not intentional. One of the comments in the article suggests it could have been to avoid PMPRB which is price control for patented drugs.

I still don’t get that though: is that worth losing exclusivity over?

I guess they think some other production patent will let them maintain exclusivity without it being a patent on the drug itself?

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#210

Post by abcd_f »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #20

AIUI, because they let the patent expire, the drug was not subject to price regulation by the government. So they could charge whatever. And during most of that time, they were still protected by 'data exclusivity' which means that any generic producer could not get approved without doing their own clinical trials, until 8 years had passed. So they gave up some period of exclusivity in return for being able to charge…

> AIUI

?

Post reply on HN