Are we really going to sit by while they destroy the NHS?

[Sasaferrato]

Surely the Pharmaceutical companies want to sell the drugs? It looks like price gouging to me.

The NHS should be able to buy cheap and safe generic prescription drugs.

Maybe the government ought to repeal a lot of that patent and copyright redtape?

They can, however, that would have a major effect on the British pharmaceutical industry, as other countries would ignore our patents.

 

[Blagsta]

Ah, ad hom, the refuge of those with no argument to make.

Ironic

 

[Sasaferrato]

Surely the Pharmaceutical companies want to sell the drugs? It looks like price gouging to me.

The NHS should be able to buy cheap and safe generic prescription drugs.

Maybe the government ought to repeal a lot of that patent and copyright redtape?

The cost of bringing a new drug to the market is astronomical. It is over a billion pounds. The process is set out here: The price of health: the cost of developing new medicines

Two points from the article:

mandatory studies in animals to determine the toxicity of the drug.

A big part of the problem is that animal models are not particularly predictive of human efficacy.

The reason for continued animal testing is EU regulations, and even when we leave, if we want to sell in the EU, the fairly useless animal tests will continue.

If you spend a billion as a company, you have to get it back, obviously. Drug patents last for 20 years from registration, and it can take eight years after registration before the drug is approved. That leaves 12 years to recoup costs and make a profit before the generics kick in. If you come up with a shit hot analgesic, which will generate millions of scripts, then the price of a course of treatment can be low, if it is a drug for a rare form of cancer, £40k a course is not uncommon.

 

[NoXion]

How are animal tests useless? At some point you'll want to test your new drug on an actual living organism, as opposed to a petri dish full of cells or some digital model with however many thousands of assumptions built into it. Better it be a lab rat than a human being, especially since they have much shorter life cycles giving a more complete picture of the drug's effect on a mammalian organism sooner - two to three years, rather than however many decades a human subject might live.

 

[yield]

The cost of bringing a new drug to the market is astronomical. It is over a billion pounds. The process is set out here: The price of health: the cost of developing new medicines

Drug company R&D: Nowhere near $1 billion.
How drug companies exaggerate research costs to justify absurd profits.
03/03/11

 

[Sasaferrato]

How are animal tests useless? At some point you'll want to test your new drug on an actual living organism, as opposed to a petri dish full of cells or some digital model with however many thousands of assumptions built into it. Better it be a lab rat than a human being, especially since they have much shorter life cycles giving a more complete picture of the drug's effect on a mammalian organism sooner - two to three years, rather than however many decades a human subject might live.

Thalidomide was extensively tested on animals. So were a range of COX inhibitors that have been withdrawn due to extreme adverse effects.

Ask your vet about giving human medicines to animals.

 

[NoXion]

Thalidomide was extensively tested on animals. So were a range of COX inhibitors that have been withdrawn due to extreme adverse effects.

Ask your vet about giving human medicines to animals.

Thalidomide wasn't tested on pregnant animals though.

 

[8115]

Has anyone posted this yet?

Most of central London hospital to be sold off, plans reveal

 

[Sasaferrato]

Drug company R&D: Nowhere near $1 billion.
How drug companies exaggerate research costs to justify absurd profits.
03/03/11

Tufts CSDD R&D Cost Study Now Published | Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development

Does it really cost $2.6 billion to develop a new drug?

Cost of drug development - Wikipedia

The Tufts Centre is very highly regarded, their figure disagrees with your random chap.

I worked for Roche at the time Mobiflex (Tenoxicam) was approved. The paperwork left our site in a lorry.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Thalidomide wasn't tested on pregnant animals though.

In fact, extensive animal testing had failed to predict any hazards from thalidomide, and the drug was made available to doctors largely because of the existing animal data. According to James L. Schardein, an expert in teratogens (birth defect-causing substances), "In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11 breeds of rabbits, 2 breeds of dogs, 3 strains of hamsters, 8 species of primates and in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalidomide has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally." Moreover, the few animals who did experience birth defects did so only with exposure to huge concentrations of thalidomide. For example, causing deformities in New Zealand white rabbits required drug concentrations between 75 and 300 times the level of human exposure. It is unquestionable that thalidomide is not a teratogen in the vast majority of species and that animal data did not predict the human response. Thus the FDA's animal-testing policy stems largely from a misunderstanding of the facts surrounding the thalidomide case.

AFC - The Tragedy of Thalidomide and the Failure of Animal Testing

Sorry to piss on your chips, but it was tested on pregnant animals.

 

[yield]

Tufts CSDD R&D Cost Study Now Published | Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development

Does it really cost $2.6 billion to develop a new drug?

Cost of drug development - Wikipedia

The Tufts Centre is very highly regarded, their figure disagrees with your random chap.

I worked for Roche at the time Mobiflex (Tenoxicam) was approved. The paperwork left our site in a lorry.

The Slate article, which I'm sure you've read, takes apart the Tufts Center group report. Unverified figures and lots of guesswork from the look of it. Doubt it would pass peer review.

The first research phase involved in developing a new drug is basic (as opposed to applied) research. Very little of this type of research is funded by drug companies; 84 percent is funded by the government, and private universities provide additional, unspecified funding. The Tufts Center group assumed that drug companies spent, on average, $121 million on basic research to create a new drug, but Light and Warburton find that hard to square with their estimate that industry devotes only 1.2 percent of sales to all their basic research.

Also looks like Tufts Center group receive over a third of their funding from "unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms, as well as companies that provide related services to the research-based industry." No agenda though obviously.

Financial Disclosure | Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development

The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) at Tufts University is a non-profit, multi-disciplinary academic research group. The Tufts Center receives unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms, as well as companies that provide related services to the research-based industry (e.g., contract research, consulting, and technology firms). These grants represent approximately 35% of Tufts CSDD’s operating expenses. The remainder comes from foundation support, grants for commissioned projects, registration fees for courses and conferences, and subscription fees for Tufts CSDD publications. Sponsoring companies have no direct access to any of the Tufts Center’s proprietary databases. Whereas sponsoring companies, regulators, academics, and others outside of Tufts CSDD may suggest topics for investigation, the research agenda of Tufts CSDD is set by the group’s director and its research staff.

How taxpayers prop up Big Pharma, and how to cap that
27/10/15

Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research
February 11, 2015

Big pharma is spending millions to fight limits on opioids like OxyContin, Vicodin and fentanyl
September 18, 2016

 

[teqniq]

Ffs, cunts!

Jeremy Hunt privatising NHS firm which saves taxpayer £70m a year

 

[teqniq]

Whilst the scumbag that is Jeremy Hunt blatantly continues to lie about pretty much anything to do with the NHS and is taken to task over this by Stephen Hawking, we now learn that:

NHS hospitals hit by crippling rate hikes as private hospitals save millions in tax breaks

 

[Sprocket.]

You could believe that we are being lied to by millionaire scum-buckets!
Sadly no one will bother until it's too late. Some may tut loudly.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Whilst the scumbag that is Jeremy Hunt blatantly continues to lie about pretty much anything to do with the NHS and is taken to task over this by Stephen Hawking, we now learn that:

NHS hospitals hit by crippling rate hikes as private hospitals save millions in tax breaks

NHS hospitals have to pay business rates? wtf is that about?

 

[Tropi]

Thread from 2014 and we are still sitting by. But what can we do?
I saw this extremely creepy outdoor in Wanless Road last night. We are very fucked indeed.

 

[Ming]

Anyone heard of The Naylor report? It details the Tories plans to sell off NHS land and buildings. 'The NHS is safe in our hands' and 'no top down reorganization of the NHS on my watch' are 2 whopping lies but they've done it. They've privatized the NHS essentially. It'll just be a privately owned brand in under a decade.

 

[Ming]

Bit more on the Naylor report. I had no doubt after the Health and Social Care Act 2012 they'd given themselves the tools to sell the NHS off. Now we're seeing how they're doing it.

 

[Ming]

A film the two doctors above were involved in about the privatisation of the NHS. We'll be America in terms of healthcare quite soon.

 

[Ming]

I suppose the answer to the original OP is yes.

 

[TremulousTetra]

This isnt really politics anymore is it, privatising the NHS, its religion.



Fraternal Greetings, ResistanceMP3

 

[teqniq]

It was never about politics, just greed.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It was never about politics, just greed.

I don't agree, but that's okay.



Fraternal Greetings, ResistanceMP3

 

[Ming]

I don't agree, but that's okay.



Fraternal Greetings, ResistanceMP3

What underpins the politics? Altruism? Look at the track record since 1979/80. What we had before and what we’ve had since the right took power. You can argue (as i would) that it’s biological. The amygdala is the part of the brain that is generally thought to control very primitive responses like fight or flight and empathy. The brain generally is thought to have evolved from the top of the spinal column upwards and to the front where the higher reasoning is.
So here i get to my point. Lack of empathy (or the ability to project it further than outside one’s nearest and dearest) is a trait of the right. Their amygdalas don’t function as well as left wingers. They can’t feel the pain that their policies/actions cause to others. And no i’m not saying all right wingers are psychopaths. But it is a statistical cluster. And i genuinely feel that this issue needs more air in the public sphere. But it does bring up issues of free will and existential matters. And certainly legal issues too. Welcome to the age of biology.
ETA: One last think on rant. It might be an evolutionary advantage to have no empathy. Probably is actually which is why the Tories/Republicans are so effective. But then you go to subjective valuation. What has value? A friendship? Can you quantify that? My first profession was being an accountant. There’s a great book called Accountants’ Truth by Matthew Gill you should all read. Gives real insight into how things are valued in the business world. And what’s left out.

 

[Ming]

Anyone reading this thread please watch the first video i posted about the Naylor report. It’s important if you value having access to healthcare.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I know where you're coming from, I read a book "The Wisdom Of Psychopaths " a small section of which explained how and why the psychopaths are over represented in the financial industry. However, extinction of humanity is not even in the psychopaths interest. In the short termism of capitalism is pushing us towards global extinction of human species through global warming et cetera.

In my opinion, the bigger problem is the dominant ideology of the operating SYSTEM.

The Tony Blair's, Rupert Murdoch's, and any other major players there has been actually believe the ideology. The vast majority of people see no alternative, no realistic alternative with any weight, to the ideology. So it's not just a matter of greed, in my opinion, they think they are doing the best thing for humanity. (I'm not saying greed isn't relevant.)

I have been influenced by physics lately. When looking at society, I prefer to take a system analysis (operating system analogy).

Rather than any individuals greed being the driving force, this system is self-regulating. Individuals come and go, but the system is gravitating to the logic/maths of the system. We are quickly approaching the point at which 1% of the population will order over half the world's wealth. This will happen whichever individuals come and go, because it is the logic/maths on the system. We need a new operating system. (To be honest, it's really hard to explain my opinion. Though as an accountant, you would probably find it quite interesting. As reality is a mathematical structure :-D)

I'm against berating the right. Especially the right wing working class people (my best lifelong friend is on an anti-Muslim crusade) for the pragmatic reason, it has no effect. If anything it pushes them further away from being part of the fight for a better world. Which is what they want too.

Listening to right wing, religious, scientific, political and every other type of person, I have come to a conclusion that we all seem to be saying the same thing in different languages. That perhaps we should all concentrate on what we are for, instead of what we are against. That somehow, someway, we have to include everybody, well at least the majority, which will include all of the above, in the fight to save the NHS and create a better world.

Sorry, I don't think online forums are a good format for honest discussion. Much better face-to-face with people, but also much more difficult.



Fraternal Greetings, ResistanceMP3

What underpins the politics? Altruism? Look at the track record since 1979/80. What we had before and what we’ve had since the right took power. You can argue (as i would) that it’s biological. The amygdala is the part of the brain that is generally thought to control very primitive responses like fight or flight and empathy. The brain generally is thought to have evolved from the top of the spinal column upwards and to the front where the higher reasoning is.
So here i get to my point. Lack of empathy (or the ability to project it further than outside one’s nearest and dearest) is a trait of the right. Their amygdalas don’t function as well as left wingers. They can’t feel the pain that their policies/actions cause to others. And no i’m not saying all right wingers are psychopaths. But it is a statistical cluster. And i genuinely feel that this issue needs more air in the public sphere. But it does bring up issues of free will and existential matters. And certainly legal issues too. Welcome to the age of biology.
ETA: One last think on rant. It might be an evolutionary advantage to have no empathy. Probably is actually which is why the Tories/Republicans are so effective. But then you go to subjective valuation. What has value? A friendship? Can you quantify that? My first profession was being an accountant. There’s a great book called Accountants’ Truth by Matthew Gill you should all read. Gives real insight into how things are valued in the business world. And what’s left out.

 

[teqniq]

Scum.

Tories blow £3m of taxpayers cash in failed bid to privatise NHS staffing agency

 

[teqniq]

Today marks the day when a founding principle of the NHS is destroyed

Today you are waking up to a new NHS. An NHS where you will be faced with racial profiling and discrimination at every outpatient appointment. An NHS where you are forced to show your passport before being given “non-urgent” care. An NHS where you will be charged upfront if you cannot prove your eligibility through right to remain or nationality....

 

[DotCommunist]

Today marks the day when a founding principle of the NHS is destroyed

thin end of the wedge

 

[Corax]

The cost of bringing a new drug to the market is astronomical. It is over a billion pounds. The process is set out here: The price of health: the cost of developing new medicines

Two points from the article:

mandatory studies in animals to determine the toxicity of the drug.

A big part of the problem is that animal models are not particularly predictive of human efficacy.

The reason for continued animal testing is EU regulations, and even when we leave, if we want to sell in the EU, the fairly useless animal tests will continue.

If you spend a billion as a company, you have to get it back, obviously. Drug patents last for 20 years from registration, and it can take eight years after registration before the drug is approved. That leaves 12 years to recoup costs and make a profit before the generics kick in. If you come up with a shit hot analgesic, which will generate millions of scripts, then the price of a course of treatment can be low, if it is a drug for a rare form of cancer, £40k a course is not uncommon.

2017 profits

Johnson & Johnson 16.3 Billion
Gilead Sciences 12.2 Billion
Roche 10.0 Billion
Pfizer 8.4 Billion
Abbvie 6.6 Billion
Novartis 6.5 Billion
Novo Nordisk 6.2 Billion
Sanofi 5.7 Billion
Merck 5.1 Billion

I don't think they're struggling to cover their research costs, whatever they may be.