Do you ever wonder whether the drug companies would...

[Gypsy]

really share a "cure" when it would result in them losing money? Just watched an inflammatory Law and Order SVU that claims that there is a 'cure' for heroine addiction Ibogain (spelling unknown) that is illegal in this country because the drug companies have no incentive to produce it because Methadone treatment is more profitable. Now, I have no idea if this is true. But it does make me wonder-- there there was a cure for cancer or AIDS and the drug companies were the ones who found it, but it would result in them losing money, would they share it?

I'm not disparaging every one in the pharmaceutical industry but it does make me wonder... so I thought I'd see what you all thought about the issue.

 

[justginger]

Greed is rampant in all large industries. I have no doubt that it would take a very long time for them to push through a less profitable cure. Similar to the car manufacturing industry, which could have weaned themselves off oil much, much sooner. Individuals are kind and generous, large corporations are not. It's almost a crowd mentality - a board will consent to something a person never would.

 

[Jennifer W]

I'm going to say no. I do not think these companies are interested in work that does not result in profit. They exist solely to make money for shareholders. It's a conflict of interest - public gain versus private profit. Call me cynical, but I'm confident they would not do anything to harm their long term profitability.

Of course, in taking that approach, they ensure that they are around in the long term to make more progress and develop more treatments, so maybe it's not all bad. Maybe.

edited to make some sense - it's early here...

 

[honey22]

No. They would sell it and they would make sure they made money by pricing it to sell at a high cost. If it really was curative, there would be a massive demand and the drug companies could charge whatever they wanted for it. Sad but true.

 

[Gypsy]

No. They would sell it and they would make sure they made money by pricing it to sell at a high cost. If it really was curative, there would be a massive demand and the drug companies could charge whatever they wanted for it. Sad but true.

Oddly comforting logic, honey. LOL.

JG and JW, you basically hit my fears on the head.

 

[vc10um]

Greed is rampant in all large industries. I have no doubt that it would take a very long time for them to push through a less profitable cure. Similar to the car manufacturing industry, which could have weaned themselves off oil much, much sooner. Individuals are kind and generous, large corporations are not. It's almost a crowd mentality - a board will consent to something a person never would.

I couldn't have said this better myself.

Additionally, there are many drugs on sale in countries other than the US that are incredibly effective in treating various diseases, but because the FDA process in the US is so expensive and lengthy, the drugs are not on sale here because the drug companies would not make a profit on them in the long run in this country. However, they may release it in other countries where the pharmaceutical regulatory process isn't as long or cumbersome.

honey, you do bring up a good point. It would be a calculated move on their part, but they'd have to take their R&D costs, add to that the profit they would want to make, and divide that by the expected number of sales to get their total cost. It would have to be a pretty wide-spread disease for the cost to the consumer to be anything reasonable. For drugs for more rare conditions, I know the FDA provides funding and special assistance for research, as well as reductions in regulatory costs, so that drug companies do research to begin with!

 

[packrat]

No, I don't think they would. I think in pretty much everything, if there's money to be made (w/big pharma and the gov't, oil companies etc), the common folk will suffer to get that last nickel squeezed out of them.

 

[Enerchi]

Sadly, I'm of the suspicious "nope, its all about profit for THEM" camp. I may be a victim of too much Hollywood influence, but business models aren't based on altruism, they are based on profit. I'd be sick and repulsed, if I worked for a company that had a cure for something and just wouldn't release it because it wouldn't give them enough profit. Again - probably too much Hollywood, but I'm sure there may be some of this going on....

Just wait till one of their loved ones has 'whatever' and they wish they'd moved on the miracle drug for that issue ....

 

[luv2sparkle]

I don't think they would either. Methadone treatment has a very very low success rate yet they still promote it as a way to get off heroin.
Based on that alone, I don't think they would share the treatment. It does seem like it is more about making money than helping people at times.

 

[LJL]

A trademark/patent professor of mine claimed he had inside knowledge of something like this -

He said - there is a cure for alzheimers - or a drug that they are pretty certain can prevent and cure it. BUT that there are about 50 patents in the way. I didn't fully understand but he said that it has to do with the FDA testing process and with patents and that they would need permission from like 50 other patents (each of those patents might be held by many people) in order to fully test and put this drug on the market. However, since it would be a huge money maker, all the other companies want their share - he said something like 3-5% (which works fine in many instances if you only need permission from one patent holder but there are so many patents at issue here) which would ultimately make the drug unprofitable (3% x 50 patents = more than 100% of profits). Its that whole cooperation/holdout problem.



But isnt it sad to think about this??

 

[movie zombie]

the same companies that sell the drugs to treat cancer are involved in owning the products we use that contain cancer causing agents.......since this is the case there is no way in shell that i believe the profit motive would be replaced by a "for the greater good" nonprofit motive.

 

[Trekkie]

Addiction can't be cured by popping a pill.

I've seen heroin addicts use despite being on methadone and subutex. I've seen alcoholics drink right through anti-booze meds.

"There is no chemical solution to a spiritual problem"

 

[Skippy123]

I can't comment on the drug addiction part but I do wonder if someone found a cure for something if the pharmaceutical company's would sell it without making a profit? I wonder if there are any drugs out there right now like that? does anyone know?

 

[Pandora II]

I'm possibly less cynical because meds here cost so much less than they do in the USA so profits aren't quite so massive - perhaps they rely on the USA to make all their money?

I'm always shocked when I hear what you guys pay for things. Someone told me recently that it was over $1k for a Mirena - here, like all birth control it's free and the NHS is not in the business of overpaying for meds (if they are too expensive and the committee decides there isn't enought evidence of a benefit then you have to buy them yourself).

I also know a few people who work at the coal face in research for these companies - they want their place in history and would not be too happy with a company putting the silencers on a great new product that was that effective.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I say yes they would, some , but not all. Pandora just gave the case for a yes, because our drug companies sell drugs oversee much cheaper than they do here. We, in the US pay for development costs, but they share the drugs with the rest of the world at lower cost, much lower. The National Health Institute does research on behalf of the Govt , and has developed such things as the DNA map. Another company (Dr Tom Watkins, of Humune Geonome Science sort of competed with the HSI on that project and they both got credit for it. Neither institution made a lot of money on this break through.

Aids research has had the support of the world community and I think France is a leader in finding new drugs for a variety of ills.

HGSI has found a new drug for lupus, the first in 50 yrs. They are not profitable yet. The vetting process in Germany and Great Britain have turned the drug down. These are the Biotech. companies that have cash burn rates that keep needing more investors.
Sometimes they are bought out by big Pharm who can market them for profit, but the developers are the biotech.

So there are many biotechs that do not turn profits and keep researching, along with the NHI .
A new prostate cancer drug was found by Dendreon, which is also not profitable.

Yes, I believe they would as they have in the past. I invest in them (the two I mentioned) I got lucky, but they worked for it and are not yet profitable Some companies also provide for those that cannot afford their drugs. It is definetly not all bad or one sided.
I'm for them.

 

[kenny]

Companies exist to make money.
They will do what is most profitable.

Why should they make a pill that cures you when they can sell you pills you take daily the rest of your life that treats you?
Big Pharma has shareholders to answer to and shareholders want maximum profits, not what is kind, nice, moral or ethical.

 

[MissStepcut]

A trademark/patent professor of mine claimed he had inside knowledge of something like this -

He said - there is a cure for alzheimers - or a drug that they are pretty certain can prevent and cure it. BUT that there are about 50 patents in the way. I didn't fully understand but he said that it has to do with the FDA testing process and with patents and that they would need permission from like 50 other patents (each of those patents might be held by many people) in order to fully test and put this drug on the market. However, since it would be a huge money maker, all the other companies want their share - he said something like 3-5% (which works fine in many instances if you only need permission from one patent holder but there are so many patents at issue here) which would ultimately make the drug unprofitable (3% x 50 patents = more than 100% of profits). Its that whole cooperation/holdout problem.



But isnt it sad to think about this??

This is what we learned in IP as well (not about this specific medication but about medications in general). I think Honey22 is right, though. IIRC, methadone has gone generic. A new medication with patent protections is probably more profitable for the company that releases it than producing a generic medication.

I do worry there is insufficient profit motive to come up with an AIDS cure. Less so about cancer cures, since cancers are prevalent in the first world.

 

[JGator]

I worked as a consultant at a major pharma company for over 10 years, and I believe they would market a cure at a price where they would make a profit at least in the US. They tend to make much more money in the US than other countries.