Larry Blanchard wrote:

Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the process
is to develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.

And do you know how much all those legions of drug pushers visiting
doctors and hospitals cost? Add that to media advertising costs.

And those copycat drugs? Here's a quote I found online, based on FDA
statistics:

From 1989 to 2000, 1,035 drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those,
only 35% were classified as a "new molecular entity," or a drug that
contains a new active ingredient. And only 15% were drugs that both
used new active ingredients and offered significant benefits over
existing drugs. These drugs included Lipitor, Viagra, and Fosamax.

More than two-thirds of the drugs approved by the FDA contained active
ingredients that were already available in existing products. Most of
the drugs were recast with minor improvements in dosing form, how the
drugs are administered. Some drugs had merely combined existing active
ingredients.

Eleven percent of the approved drugs were identical to products
already available on the market.

Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly profitable,
and then the patent expired which allowed for generic versions which cut
into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came up with Esomeprazole
(Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay better than the old version
despite them having some difficulty showing convincing evidence of that.
But the new drug is covered by a new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted
to $5.7billion. Gosh, hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just
enough to get a new patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising,
isn't it.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the process
is to develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.

And do you know how much all those legions of drug pushers visiting
doctors and hospitals cost? Add that to media advertising costs.

And those copycat drugs? Here's a quote I found online, based on FDA
statistics:

From 1989 to 2000, 1,035 drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those,
only 35% were classified as a "new molecular entity," or a drug that
contains a new active ingredient. And only 15% were drugs that both
used new active ingredients and offered significant benefits over
existing drugs. These drugs included Lipitor, Viagra, and Fosamax.

More than two-thirds of the drugs approved by the FDA contained active
ingredients that were already available in existing products. Most of
the drugs were recast with minor improvements in dosing form, how the
drugs are administered. Some drugs had merely combined existing active
ingredients.

Eleven percent of the approved drugs were identical to products
already available on the market.

Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly profitable,
and then the patent expired which allowed for generic versions which cut
into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came up with Esomeprazole
(Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay better than the old version
despite them having some difficulty showing convincing evidence of that.
But the new drug is covered by a new patent, so their sales in 2005
amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh, hard to imagine why they tweaked the
formula just enough to get a new patent and then did saturation-bombing
advertising, isn't it.

Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting time here
chattering when you can be out cashing in on those opportunities. What
exactly is the problem from your point of view? Is it that they're profiting
while you are not? That you foreswore the easy money on moral grounds (which
morals?) while they get fat by exploiting those same? Or is it simple
outrage that they fleeced unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their
doctors, out of $5.7B for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising
hype? Which of these misapprehensions apply to you personally?

"MikeWhy" wrote in
:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Do you really believe this? Have you ever read how long the
process is to develop a successful new drug? Didn't think so.

And do you know how much all those legions of drug pushers visiting
doctors and hospitals cost? Add that to media advertising costs.

And those copycat drugs? Here's a quote I found online, based on
FDA statistics:

From 1989 to 2000, 1,035 drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those,
only 35% were classified as a "new molecular entity," or a drug that
contains a new active ingredient. And only 15% were drugs that both
used new active ingredients and offered significant benefits over
existing drugs. These drugs included Lipitor, Viagra, and Fosamax.

More than two-thirds of the drugs approved by the FDA contained
active ingredients that were already available in existing products.
Most of the drugs were recast with minor improvements in dosing
form, how the drugs are administered. Some drugs had merely combined
existing active ingredients.

Eleven percent of the approved drugs were identical to products
already available on the market.

Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly
profitable, and then the patent expired which allowed for generic
versions which cut into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came
up with Esomeprazole (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay
better than the old version despite them having some difficulty
showing convincing evidence of that. But the new drug is covered by a
new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh,
hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just enough to get a new
patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising, isn't it.

Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting
time here chattering when you can be out cashing in on those
opportunities. What exactly is the problem from your point of view? Is
it that they're profiting while you are not? That you foreswore the
easy money on moral grounds (which morals?) while they get fat by
exploiting those same? Or is it simple outrage that they fleeced
unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their doctors, out of $5.7B
for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising hype? Which of
these misapprehensions apply to you personally?

This just shows the power of the bean counters and regulators. Rather
than research better medications for heart disease, go tweak a patent!!!

There is an urgent need for finding therapies for heart and vascular
disease, since they are still the number 1 cause of mortality and
especially morbidity (tongue firmly in cheek: stroke victims often live,
but is it a life?). Current medications help some, but aspirin and blood
pressure medication don't help everyone.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

MikeWhy wrote:

Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly
profitable, and then the patent expired which allowed for generic
versions which cut into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came
up with Esomeprazole (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay
better than the old version despite them having some difficulty
showing convincing evidence of that. But the new drug is covered by
a new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh,
hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just enough to get a
new patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising, isn't it.

Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting
time here chattering when you can be out cashing in on those
opportunities. What exactly is the problem from your point of view?
Is it that they're profiting while you are not? That you foreswore
the easy money on moral grounds (which morals?) while they get fat by
exploiting those same? Or is it simple outrage that they fleeced
unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their doctors, out of $5.7B
for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising hype? Which of
these misapprehensions apply to you personally?

Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to the
motives of those who merely make observations about the industry's often
unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the game around, exactly what
is it *you* get out of this process, why are the pharmaceutical makers your
personal sacred cow? I know a guy who runs a research lab for a
pharmaceutical company and while he certainly doesn't blab about internal
company matters like drugs they're working on he isn't shy about discussing
the industry's sometimes discreditable antics. He wouldn't pretend that
their pursuit of profit sometimes leads such companies to do things that are
not in the public's interest the same as pretty much every other industry.
You, on the other hand, appear to take it personally when someone notes
well-documented cases of the drug companies doing things they should be
ashamed of, although I can't help but notice you shy away when evidence of
such is laid on the table. What's up with that, got a lot of pharmaceutical
stocks in your portfolio?

"DGDevin" wrote in
:

MikeWhy wrote:

Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly
profitable, and then the patent expired which allowed for generic
versions which cut into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came
up with Esomeprazole (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay
better than the old version despite them having some difficulty
showing convincing evidence of that. But the new drug is covered by
a new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh,
hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just enough to get a
new patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising, isn't it.

Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting
time here chattering when you can be out cashing in on those
opportunities. What exactly is the problem from your point of view?
Is it that they're profiting while you are not? That you foreswore
the easy money on moral grounds (which morals?) while they get fat by
exploiting those same? Or is it simple outrage that they fleeced
unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their doctors, out of $5.7B
for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising hype? Which of
these misapprehensions apply to you personally?

Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to the
motives of those who merely make observations about the industry's
often unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the game around,
exactly what is it *you* get out of this process, why are the
pharmaceutical makers your personal sacred cow? I know a guy who runs
a research lab for a pharmaceutical company and while he certainly
doesn't blab about internal company matters like drugs they're working
on he isn't shy about discussing the industry's sometimes
discreditable antics. He wouldn't pretend that their pursuit of
profit sometimes leads such companies to do things that are not in the
public's interest the same as pretty much every other industry. You,
on the other hand, appear to take it personally when someone notes
well-documented cases of the drug companies doing things they should
be ashamed of, although I can't help but notice you shy away when
evidence of such is laid on the table. What's up with that, got a lot
of pharmaceutical stocks in your portfolio?

Take up your complaints with your congress critters. They rewrote the
patent laws not too long ago. Companies need to show a profit for their
stock holders. You (and I) need to push congress (note lower case) to
make laws in the public interest.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:

Omeprazole (Prilosec) is a good example. Useful drug, highly
profitable, and then the patent expired which allowed for generic
versions which cut into AstraZeneca's profits. So AstraZeneca came
up with Esomeprazole (Nexium), which of course they claim is waaaay
better than the old version despite them having some difficulty
showing convincing evidence of that. But the new drug is covered by
a new patent, so their sales in 2005 amounted to $5.7billion. Gosh,
hard to imagine why they tweaked the formula just enough to get a
new patent and then did saturation-bombing advertising, isn't it.

Seems to me you're missing out on stratospheric profits by wasting
time here chattering when you can be out cashing in on those
opportunities. What exactly is the problem from your point of view?
Is it that they're profiting while you are not? That you foreswore
the easy money on moral grounds (which morals?) while they get fat by
exploiting those same? Or is it simple outrage that they fleeced
unwary consumers, with the cooperation of their doctors, out of $5.7B
for nothing more than paper fantasies and advertising hype? Which of
these misapprehensions apply to you personally?

Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to the
motives of those who merely make observations about the industry's often
unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the game around, exactly
what is it *you* get out of this process, why are the pharmaceutical
makers your personal sacred cow?

You have that entirely backwards. I'm not defending an industry. I'm simply
offended by your socialist bleating. That first quoted paragraph above is
yours. I wouldn't know what Esomeprazole (Nexium) is or does, and doubt the
details are germane. Your entire complaint is that they're making money on
their patent. Here's a solution: don't spend your $5.7B on the emperor's new
clothes when the old clothes are doing just fine. See how simple? The system
doesn't need adjustment. Just don't buy it if doesn't offer value.

"MikeWhy" wrote in
:

You have that entirely backwards. I'm not defending an industry. I'm
simply offended by your socialist bleating. That first quoted
paragraph above is yours. I wouldn't know what Esomeprazole (Nexium)
is or does, and doubt the details are germane. Your entire complaint
is that they're making money on their patent. Here's a solution: don't
spend your $5.7B on the emperor's new clothes when the old clothes are
doing just fine. See how simple? The system doesn't need adjustment.
Just don't buy it if doesn't offer value.

The average Joe does not know what is the better medication. The hoopla
about Nexium is overblown to an extent. It is a slight variation and may
be somewhat better than the previous iteration of (I think) their proton
pump inhibitor. The proton pump is what makes your stomach acid, and too
much acid is bad, heart burn and worse - Barrett's esophagus (Dad had it)
and esophageal cancer (Dad didn't have this) aren't fun, though chances
are fairly low.

Sometimes "me too" drugs are good - there are good and better and much
better statins (although ask your doctors' unbiased opinion, if they are
unbiased). Sometimes, in cases like Nexium (IMNSHO) research money could
be better spent.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

Take up your complaints with your congress critters. They rewrote the
patent laws not too long ago. Companies need to show a profit for
their stock holders. You (and I) need to push congress (note lower
case) to make laws in the public interest.

What makes you think I haven't? It's a conversation, somebody offers their
opinion, I respond with mine, they have a hissy-fit--I don't see where
Congress enters into it. It's Usenet, if there weren't people foaming at
the mouth over a differing opinion a significant portion of the
entertainment value would disappear.

"DGDevin" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Take up your complaints with your congress critters. They rewrote
the patent laws not too long ago. Companies need to show a profit
for their stock holders. You (and I) need to push congress (note
lower case) to make laws in the public interest.

What makes you think I haven't? It's a conversation, somebody offers
their opinion, I respond with mine, they have a hissy-fit--I don't see
where Congress enters into it. It's Usenet, if there weren't people
foaming at the mouth over a differing opinion a significant portion of
the entertainment value would disappear.

Sorry, defect in English. I meant you should as in "one should", or
everyone should.
Also, this is usenet, don't get so upset so easily, PLEASE!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

The average Joe does not know what is the better medication. The
hoopla about Nexium is overblown to an extent. It is a slight
variation and may be somewhat better than the previous iteration of
(I think) their proton pump inhibitor. The proton pump is what makes
your stomach acid, and too much acid is bad, heart burn and worse -
Barrett's esophagus (Dad had it) and esophageal cancer (Dad didn't
have this) aren't fun, though chances are fairly low.

Sometimes "me too" drugs are good - there are good and better and much
better statins (although ask your doctors' unbiased opinion, if they
are unbiased). Sometimes, in cases like Nexium (IMNSHO) researchq
money could be better spent.

I don't recall saying the drug makers should be prevented from coming up
with slightly different formulas to get new patents, I merely noted that's
what they do, causing brother Mike's underwear to get into a sweaty twist.
However I would be upset if my doctor prescribed the new (much more
expensive) version in the absence of clinical evidence that it worked any
better than the old version.

Concealing studies that the new drug is dangerous, or testing it illegally,
or price-fixing, or overcharging the taxpayer for it--those are very
different issues, ones some folks are curiously reluctant to discuss. It
would seem that price-fixing or overcharging the taxpayer is just business,
mentioning it identifies one as a raving socialist.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:

Your determination to defend the drug industry and speculate as to
the motives of those who merely make observations about the
industry's often unsavory history is very curious. Let's turn the
game around, exactly what is it *you* get out of this process, why
are the pharmaceutical makers your personal sacred cow?

You have that entirely backwards. I'm not defending an industry. I'm
simply offended by your socialist bleating.

Oh lordy, now that's funny.

That first quoted
paragraph above is yours. I wouldn't know what Esomeprazole (Nexium)
is or does, and doubt the details are germane. Your entire complaint
is that they're making money on their patent. Here's a solution:
don't spend your $5.7B on the emperor's new clothes when the old
clothes are doing just fine. See how simple? The system doesn't need
adjustment. Just don't buy it if doesn't offer value.

Once again you've conspicuously sidestepped your own previous posts and my
responses. You asked for evidence to support my position that the drug
companies sometimes do things not merely greedy, but unethical and illegal
as well, things that even kill their customers and lead to civil and
criminal prosecutions. I did just that, and your response is to accuse me
of being a socialist (my business associates and employees would howl at
that) while conveniently ignoring the news stories of concealed studies
showing lethal side-effects, unauthorized testing on unwitting patients,
deliberate overcharging, price manipulation, fraudulent claims of
efficacy, and on and on and on.

Help me out, how is pointing out that drug companies do things like hide
studies showing dangerous side effects "socialist bleating"?

You're asking the wrong person. My sole position has been that patent
protections and intellectual property rights fuel innovation and development
of life saving inventions. Everything else you're dragging in is your own
twist. Have fun arguing them. We're done here.