Really? Yes, really.
According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995.
Without any involvement from private industry at all? Are they including scientists associated with universities? How did they arrive at that percentage? What was their success rate in other years?
Total NIH money spent for all healthcare research projects -not just pharmaceuticals - will total less than $15 billion this year. Conversely, American Pharmaceutical companies will invest more than $30 billion this year on R&D just for drugs.
When companies begin recycling old products in new packages, it would seem they are experiencing a loss of creativity.
And you're sure this is all they're doing? How do you know so much about the focus of their R&D? Get the last issue of Forbes and read about the challenges we face with drug resistant bacteria. Some of the most promising antibiotics are coming from reformulated products already in existence. A simple reformulation of Prilosec into Nexium allowed the drug to repair damage caused by acid reflux. There is no excuse for your level of cynicism.
It would be impossible to trace the amount of tax dollars that line the pockets of drug companies. Much research in conducted in universities, domestic and worldwide, that receive public funding, add to research that is carried out by government entities like NIH. Then there are the tax breaks/incentives given to drug companies plus tax money that pays the consumer cost of prescriptions through various programs
The United States produces nearly 90 percent of the world's supply of new pharmaceuticals. Half of all medical treatments in use today were developed in the last 25 years. Yeah, those results are terrible. Maybe, someday, they'll develop something for the acute cynical nature syndrome you seem to be suffering from.
How much tax money is spent worldwide providing drugs to those who can't pay?
Ok, how much?
The "free market" drug industry could not survive without feeding at the government trough
They derive nothing from their $30 billion annual investment in R&D? LOL!
No doubt that's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year lobbying government for more and more handouts.
What handouts are those? How much of the NIH budget goes directly to the drug companies? Drug companies must make great investments with all that government largess. Can you prove it by showing us their net profit as a % of revenue compare to other industries, or in their earnings multiples?
In the mean time, big pharma spends more on advertising than on R&D.
That's funny coming from someone who has no clue about how much they spend on R&D. Like I said, hopefully they're allocating resources to find a cure for your chronic pessimism condition.
Total NIH money spent for all healthcare research projects -not just pharmaceuticals - will total less than $15 billion this year. Oh?
The FY 2005 budget request of $28.8 billion for the NIH is an increase of $729 million (2.6 percent). Of this total, 97 percent or $27.9 billion is classified as R&D; the remainder is for training and research, management and support (RMS).
Taxol is a case of a drug that was developed with tax money while profits were privatized.
Angell disputes the industry’s reputation as an “engine of innovation,” arguing that the top U.S. drug makers spend 2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research. At least a third of the drugs marketed by industry leaders were discovered by universities or small biotech companies, writes Angell, but they’re sold to the public at inflated prices. She cites Taxol, the cancer drug discovered by the National Institutes of Health, but sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb for $20,000 a year, reportedly 20 times the manufacturing cost. The company agreed to pay the NIH only 0.5 percent in royalties for the drug.
And you're sure this [recycling old products in new packages] is all they're doing? How do you know so much about the focus of their R&D?
Well, here are the results.
>Of the seventy-eight drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only seventeen contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs. The other seventy-one drugs approved that year were variations of old drugs or deemed no better than drugs already on the market. In other words, they were me-too drugs. Seven of seventy-eight is not much of a yield. Furthermore, of those seven, not one came from a major US drug company. (US Food and Drug Administration)
Some of the most promising antibiotics are coming from reformulated products already in existence. A simple reformulation of Prilosec into Nexium allowed the drug to repair damage caused by acid reflux.
Interesting you should mention Prilosec. It was developed in Sweden, by the Swedish company, Astra, which has since merged to become Astra-Zeneca.
But Nexium didn't bring a new antibiotic on the market, it simply combined and antibiotic with Prilosec.
Prilosec maker Astra-Zeneca, which filed multiple lawsuits against generic drug makers to prevent them from entering the market when the company’s exclusive marketing rights expired. The company “obtained a patent on the idea of combining Prilosec with antibiotics, then argued that a generic drug would infringe on that patent because doctors might prescribe it with an antibiotic.”
Even you must admit that the possibility of a doctor prescribing a generic version of Prilosec with an antibiotic, is hardly a patent rights issue.
But that brings us to still another issue - lawsuits. Drug companies LOVE to sue eachother.
The United States produces nearly 90 percent of the world's supply of new pharmaceuticals. Half of all medical treatments in use today were developed in the last 25 years.
Prove it. Some companies that you assume are American, are not. (I can assert that with confidence because of the statement above)