Murder of a CEO

[Aseahawkfan]

The R&D might take place in other countries, but the lion's share of new drugs is marketed first in the United States where they can make more money to pay for it:

From 2018 to 2022, the United States had the highest number of new drugs sold, with 212 new drugs available by the end of 2022. This accounted for 74% of all new drugs launched during that period.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/h ... n3/04.html

To be fair, there are other factors besides economics that restrict companies from launching new drugs in other countries as some have tighter governmental regulations. But the fact is that drug companies get a helluva lot more money from selling their new drugs in the US than they do internationally. Take that cash cow away from them and R&D dries up worldwide.

You keep posting this when many of your posts show that we publicly fund 50 percent of drug development and don't get a 50% discount. The majority of drugs developed don't work and are often money grabs where they claim a new drug, do some testing, IPO the company, and collect the massive capital from people looking for a lotto ticket.

You once again show the money comes from the United States, but the drugs come from worldwide research, much of it subsidized by the public often in University labs. You get a 50-50 public-private joint operation where the public in America pays the majority of the cost because of a broken, profit driven healthcare system.

You keep harping on the drugs as some example of a private system working, when other nations are healthier than us and the drugs are not extending life for the majority of people. They are often just ways to make huge sums of money for private investors.

Yet you keep pushing this and it's total horseshit. How do I know its horseshit? I invest in these companies. I've seen how they operate and how many fail as well as all the copycat rubbish attempts where one company comes out with a drug so a bunch of others claim they are doing the same thing to attract capital, drive up the stock price, not making it past stage 3 to approval and crash and burn.

The system is slimy, but you just keep on believing these lies about drug development because you think that is the only way drugs get developed when it isn't.

This system of drug development is relatively new, overly costly in capital, and inefficient. Right now Americans are paying the majority of the cost without a tangible benefit in lifespan or healthcare outcome.

Yet people like Riverdog can't explain this. If the private system produces all these miracle drugs and this great system, then why isn't it showing up in American lifespans and health outcomes? Why?

What metric do you use to measure the quality of your healthcare compared to what you pay, Riverdog? How do you compare it? You keep touting this drug development that is relatively recent in its pursuit of profit backed up by scumbag laws like not allowing American consumers to access drugs from Canada for cheaper due to protectionist policy, but are we getting for all this expensive drug development? Longer lifespans? Nope. Better health outcomes? Nope. Better quality of life? Nope.

What are we getting? Symptom relief, not even a cure, for diseases often caused by a bad food environment, lack of good health education when younger, and the like.

Some positives are there for people with unusual maladies from drugs with orphan designations due to the small number of people with the disease or disorder. But a lot of the big drugs are symptom treatment like the obesity drugs or diabetes drugs or cholesterol drugs treating symptoms from a terrible food environment and an obesity epidemic caused by the crap foods produced by other companies.

It's an unbelievable travesty being allowed by a corrupt government system too lazy to do what is necessary to fix it.

American Doctor: "Here's your blood pressure and cholesterol medication so you can keep eating your cheetos and Mcdonalds. Now both companies can make money off making you being sick and treating it. I love my job."

American investor: "I love that Eli Lilly made this amazing diabetes and weight loss drug. I made a killing off all those stupid, fat cheeto and McDonald eating Americans. They still don't want better healthcare and a better food environment. What drug company can I invest in next? Let me go look at the next stupid, unhealthy lifestyle choice Americans are making."

You want what's funny? I'm that American investor. I'm literally telling Americans what they're doing to them. I'm making money off it. Eli Lilly shot way the hell up off the obesity drugs. A bunch of folks made a killing off it. I got in late unfortunately so I'm only at 200 percent gain.

But I hate seeing it. I hate seeing how badly managed American healthcare is, but I also can't help but make money off it because it's allowed, even encouraged. It's not going to change as long as Democrats are wasting their time worrying about Donald Trump being Hitler and Republicans crying about what a real female is. That's why the business news is so much better than the mainstream political news. You see that business doesn't give a flying crap about Trump or what a female is, they just want to sell more drugs and shitty food to Americans to make more money off the synergy of terrible American health in a terrible American healthcare and food system.

But I've told people. I've shown them. It's all visible, in the open, no conspiracies. Just an open environment with obvious information available to see what is going on and no one doing anything about it because they'd rather watch the political news tell them what they should pay attention to spending more time on that than fixing real issues in their systems.

[Aseahawkfan]

One last comment on the self-regulation. Companies do not self-regulate or regulate period unless the following occurs:

1. The government requires it.

2. It hurts their profitability not to self-regulate such as bad PR which is I guess what Riverdog is hoping for, which is unlikely as this is temporary.

3. A competitor regulates and gains market share.

4. Costs are cut by regulating leading to better business efficiency.

5. Basically, any regulation that helps the business make more money in some fashion is the only thing that will cause a business to self-regulate.

Businesses are about making money. The healthcare business makes more money the sicker you are, the more depressed you are, the more they create a problem and sell you a healthcare solution whether a drug, procedure, or some other fix.

Voluntary plastic surgery is one of the most egregious uses of the healthcare system to make money. Pure greed driven by pure vanity and fear or aging or ugliness. But there are plenty of other examples.

It's sickening to watch, but I just can't help making money off it is because bioetch is one of the most profitable industries in the world if you can hop in the right drug company just before its sales skyrocket and you make a huge gains.

[River Dog]

Excerpts from an article from the National Institute of Health, a federal government agency, not private industry, and posted without comment:

Public research funding and pharmaceutical prices: do Americans pay twice for drugs?

In the debate over prescription drug pricing, some pharmaceutical industry critics claim that U.S. taxpayers pay twice for costly therapies, because publicly supported research is a major contributor to drug discovery and American taxpayers are inadequately rewarded for their research investment due to high drug prices. In fact, the empirical evidence supporting these claims is weak, and the pay twice argument distracts from important efforts to ensure that impactful new drugs continue to be developed and made widely available to patients who need them.

But in a large majority of cases, the public sector’s contribution to new drugs has been in the form of early scientific findings, unrelated to current or potential applications. The public sector supported key basic research for 19 of the 26 “transformative” drugs and drug classes cited above, contributed to the actual discovery of a new therapy in just 11, and could claim sole discovery credit in only four cases 5. More broadly, although NIH funding supported at least one publication related to each of the 210 new medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2010 to 2016, over 90 percent of those papers were related to the underlying drug target, not the actual therapy itself 6.

Comprehensive reviews of the genesis of approved drugs confirm that while publicly funded science often characterizes important pathologic processes and identifies potential drug targets, the private sector is the main inventor of most new therapies. A recent study found that for only 25 percent of drugs approved from 2008 to 2017 was there any documented contribution, of any magnitude, to a drug’s initial discovery, synthesis, or key intellectual property by a public sector research institution or academic “spin-off” company 7. This finding corroborated a review of approvals from 1998 to 2007, which found that publicly funded research helped either identify the chemical structure of the final compound or its direct antecedents or demonstrated therapeutic proof-of-concept for the target for only about a third of new drugs 8. If one uses a more stringent definition of “contribution” based solely on intellectual property, then taxpayers’ role in drug discovery is even smaller; less than 15 percent of new medicines are covered by even a single patent that was either directly issued to a public entity or contains a “government interest statement” acknowledging public funding 7, 9, 10.

Government funding makes enormous contributions to medicine by generating novel insights into biology and disease. But accumulated evidence demonstrates that in the majority of cases, it is the private sector, not academia, which translates those insights into new therapeutics.


It is superficially attractive to argue that Americans are entitled to pay a lower price for a new drug that was substantially enabled by taxpayer-funded research. But the implication of that claim – that there is no such entitlement to affordability, or far less of one, for a drug mostly developed by a for-profit company – runs counter to the overarching goal of ensuring that all Americans have equitable access to beneficial therapies. Proposals to control a therapy’s price based on the degree to which public funds contributed to its development are not just unfeasible to implement, but also a distraction from more far-reaching efforts to improve the affordability of all medicines. Attention should instead be focused on developing practical solutions that ensure that clinically valuable new drugs continue to be developed and are accessible by all patients in need.


Here's the full article:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/P ... #abstract1