Apology accepted. However, I am sticking by what I said about the inertia in finding cures. This might not be the case in your company - fine. It may not apply to the industry in general. I wish I could say more and I apologize for being so secretive.

I do not disagree with what you are saying about the difficulty in finding cures. I will come back to this issue later.

The entire pharma industry isn’t always entirely evil. But our collective track record kind of stinks. I am sure you would have to admit we’d be hard pressed to find one pharma giant that hasn’t been caught doing something they shouldn’t have done. This makes it difficult to defend ourselves.

Only recently we’ headed down the path of prevention - vaccines - this is a step in the right direction.

Bob Freeman: The government does back research that appears very promising that is happening in public institutions. If the government is notified early enough - sorry I am not going to site instances that would be too much info at this time. My point is there needs to be more of this collaboration.

I also agree with your comments about AE’s. There are instances when physicians do not report them, particularly if they are feeling loyal to the company. Sounds ridiculous - I agree, but I am aware of two cases. If I am aware of two cases, you can believe there are more.

Nathan, it isn’t just the pharma that is bad, we’ve done a good job of undermining our physicians. There are some pretty famous cases that we are all aware of.

I cannot and will not change my position, Government and industry need to better align themselves. Industry cannot do the job of the government - protect and defend the people and government cannot do the job of industry - generate profit. Government can do a lot to stimulate the economy and we in pharma need them very much at this time. But hopefully we can hold out a little longer and wait until the Democrats get back in…

Justice, when I read one of these reports I neither believe or disbelieve the story. It’s too complex to be described in the limits of a newspaper.

As an ex-industry person and one who teaches pharmacoepidemiology, I know some of the difficulties in sifting through data trying to find association and causality. There’s no denominator in spontaneous AE reporting and it takes time to do case-series analysis and conduct more valid study designs. I should think that the drug safety people would want to be on firm ground before making a final determination. (I’ve also found “real” epidemiologists (I’m not one) to be very demanding re the quality of both the data and the analysis and they will not be rushed. So, I have no empiric basis to evaluate the article other than to do follow-up work.

Also, I would like to know when the FDA knew what. It’s not just the company who reports AEs to the FDA: it’s physicians, hospitals, pharmacists, etc. This is an issue that needs further reporting.

We aren’t perfect — the system isn’t perfect. You are correct about that. But it isn’t as dire or evil as you imply.

The NIH and the NSF do fine research. I haven’t seen a single drug come out the work… but the research is just fine. I’m saying that the government shouldn’t be in the buisness of telling companies how to spend their research dollars. There are various ways that the government can influence the direction of private research - I’ve already suggested a few ways in previous posts.

Go back to your cough syrup…

You’ve made lots of guesses and assumptions about what I might do and who I am- but you are way off base. For someone who researches, this is a critical skill you are obviously lacking in.

Additionally you have made wrong assumptions, wrongly rephrased the questions and inaccurately summarized what I have stated. You seem to twist things around so that you can bring your point (the only one you think is worth listening to) to this discussion.

You refuse to admit that there are major problems with the way companies are run and the lack of trust we Nathan, WE who work in this industry have generated through our unethical practices. You have forgotten that I did state that some good things have come out of research and are genuinely helpful.

I’ll give you the HPV vaccines for now - my fingers are crossed that it works like it is supposed to…

The reference to stem cell is very good, and by the way, can I say, this is surely one area where our government must step up to the plate. Other countries are leaping ahead of us on this front. In between playing with your cough syrup formulations you might want to read ” Cell of Cells - The Global Race to Capture and CONTROL the Stem Cell” you might actually learn something…

Chantix (a newer improved Zyban?)

You should stick to science and may we all be spared if your company actually lets you out of your lab and lets you play in management.

You still seem to think that working with government would be like having to deal with a big bad bogey man?

I cannot share with you some of the top projects the government has involved themselves in that has yielded amazing results - it would give too much information about myself. Governments seem to want to push R&D and technology. I do not know why you do not see this. You keep calling it socialist thinking - it isn’t.

To Bob Freeman - you’ve got it right!

To JIM - This is exactly my understanding. In Canada, the more the provinces subsidize the cost of the drugs, the more they influence the price of the drug. Makes sense, since they are paying the tab..Ergo, they do not allow cross border shopping.

Another point: The Canadian Government did away with compulsory licensing but introduced the Pharmaceutical Marketing Pricing Review Board. This allows them to look at the price of any given drug in other markets and ensure that Canada pays a fair price. They probably give priority to drug prices in Europe as the health care systems are very similar. The other part of the agreement was that Pharma was supposed to invest more money in R&D in INNOVATIVE drugs, but that isn’t happening.

The other huge problem is Drug distributors. I am all for pharma’s making fair profit on their drugs. The gouging from Drug distributors is a big problem. Most patients think that the price they pay at the pharmacy is what goes back to the drug company - this isn’t true. Drug Distributors do have, to a certain extent, a strong hold over pharma’s and take way too much profit. This artificially increases the cost of the drugs. When it comes to some cancer drugs for instance, the final cost to the patient includes a 50% markup in some cases. Drug distributors shouldn’t be allowed to do this. They do nothing in the way of research and innovation. They take this just to cover logistics…

Nathan, you say that if pharma doesn’t stay profitable then cuts will happen to R&D - think about that! Don’t you think it is ludicrous. Lack of funds to R&D just continues the spiral down into the long dark pit and no hope of recovery.

But then again, if this is really what happens and you say it is - I rest my case, it underscores the problem in the industry. I am in Marketing and I say the slashing should happen in sales and marketing. When/if a product comes out of the lab and it does what it is really intended to do - trust me on this one - you don’t need marketing and sales.

Nathan, you’ve been doing nothing but name calling and hurling insults at me. Yet all along I have stated and re-stated what would/could be the right approach.

I say it again - step out of the box you’ve allowed yourself to get stuck in..

Drug reimportation might (slightly) bring down prices in the short term, but in the longer term I think Jack2 is correct: it will probably just raise prices elsewhere. When price drops don’t occur like reimportation supporters think that they should, then suddenly they are going to demand that the government legislate lower prices like the Canadian government does. That’s how reimportation leads to price controls.

Unless Wall Street suddenly becomes altruistic, pharmaceutical manufacturers will continue to provide hefty profit margins. (that’s what investors expect, and that’s the basis of the current stock prices) If sales shrink, then R&D will shink proportionally in order to continue the good profit margins. R&D accounts for ~30% of the cost of medication. If overall sales shrink by 30%, then R&D will also shrink by 30%. Believe me, I wish it were different. There just isn’t any economic way around it. (short of forcibly socializing drug companies)

Psyche Drugs are Toxic in Children!!
Two Companies in 7 years,… is that something you really want brag about?