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)
Mr. Angell must really hate the drug makers because he's saying things that make no sense. Emotion tends to do that. If the drug companies spend more than 20% of revenue on R&D (proven in post #41) then 2.5 times that would be 50% of revenue. So according to this guy, marketing, administration and R&D alone eat up 70% of the drug makers' gross revenue. Now, manufacturing overhead in the drug business is very costly and averages about 35% of revenue. According to this idiot, the drug companies are losing 5% on ever sale they make before costs for selling, utilities, insurance and interest - among other expenses are even considered. This is utter nonsense! Your source wouldn't be Public Citizen, would it?
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.
Angell has no idea how the relationship between universities, NIH, NSF and private industry work. The public sector has always done much of the basic research and then they turn it over to the private sector to do the necessary applied research that translates research into products. If the basic research is not being done in the public sector or, if the research being done is not high caliber, then private industry will do it themselves. Universities are continuously patenting their discoveries and licensing it to private industry for commercialization. This complaint is just stupid.
The company agreed to pay the NIH only 0.5 percent in royalties for the drug.
What were the costs of the applied research and the costs of taking this product to market? He conveniently ignores this. The NIH agreed to accept this amount, not the other way around. Bristol-Myers Squibb wasn't the only company they negotiated with.
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.
So what? Why this surprises anyone is beyond me. The generic business is going gangbusters. All generic drugs have to be approved by the FDA. That's what's happening here. He's considering generics as me-too drugs. This is much ado about nothing and I don't understand the point you were trying to make - if you were even trying to make one.
But Nexium didn't bring a new antibiotic on the market, it simply combined and antibiotic with Prilosec
The reason I know about these drugs is that I suffered from chronic acid reflux for almost five years and was at risk for developing esophageal cancer. Prilosec would control the acid but the doctors had nothing available to repair the damage. Nexium repaired the damage and I no longer worry about contracting this cancer that is becoming far too common.
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 Astra did it when no one else would or knew to do it. They absolutely deserve patent protection. This drug is saving lives and dramatically improving lives.
But that brings us to still another issue - lawsuits. Drug companies LOVE to sue eachother.
Drug companies LOVE to sue eachother? That's just absurd. The reason this happens is because the patent office is in terrible shape. They've allowed for conflicting patents and they are undisciplined and understaffed. They used to have experts in every area they managed but now it's just a mess.
Prove it. Some companies that you assume are American, are not. (I can assert that with confidence because of the statement above)
Good grief. Did you even bother to read what I posted before jerking your knee? I said that nearly 90% of all new drugs are discovered in the U.S. That doesn't mean American companies are doing all the discovering; it just means that the world's R&D is, for the most part, located right here in the good ol' USA. The reasons are obvious to me because I understand the industry and what drives it. Let me know if you'd like me to list those reasons for you.