L00b Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) It shouldn't cost that much to develop a drug. I'm quite sure big pharma shareholders would fully agree with you on that one I'm equally sure they and their multi-multi-multi-PhD'd R&D Directors and multi-PhD'd researchers (not forgetting Professors and Biotech sections in Unis sponsored by same up to their hair roots) would be all ears for your suggestions, so go knock'em dead Edited June 1, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 It shouldn't cost that much to develop a drug. Really? I mean youve developed them yourself and know what it should cost? I got involved with a project at Uni providing support to a buch of biomed students developing a photosensitive dye for cancer in ahrd to reach areas. The dye is taken up by the cancer, and then irradiated by light passed from a fibreoptic cable in an artery in the cancer. Was used for deep seated brain cancers so you can do it without surgery. To get a dye that is sufficiently non toxic, sufficiently active for the cancer to take it up, but sufficiently inactive for the surrounding tissue (and the rest of the body) to take it up took them six years of searching. I was using reagents that had a production cost of over £25k for 10 milligrams of product - sneeze and you blew half your research grant into thin air. And that cost of reagents wasnt unreasonable - some compuands are incredibly difficult and expensive to make. When it wnet into production we built a four hundred stage pilot plant just to produce one specific drug component. Four hundred steps - for every tonne of reactants in you would get about a half gramme of product and a lot of waste byproduct to recycle and reuse.... Drug discovery is expensive. Do you think that if it wasn't so, someone wouldnt set up a company to do it cheaper and faster? There are many bright idealistic graduates just itching to do taht and they don't because it's not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Can it? Which communist country has brought new anti cancer drugs to market? ---------- Post added 01-06-2015 at 15:18 ---------- You have no idea what's involved in developing a new drug from initial concept to human approval. You have no idea how patronising you sound at times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 You have no idea how patronising you sound at times! Thing is though, he's right. Are you going to address the point made or just resort to ad hominem instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Really? I mean youve developed them yourself and know what it should cost? I got involved with a project at Uni providing support to a buch of biomed students developing a photosensitive dye for cancer in ahrd to reach areas. The dye is taken up by the cancer, and then irradiated by light passed from a fibreoptic cable in an artery in the cancer. Was used for deep seated brain cancers so you can do it without surgery. To get a dye that is sufficiently non toxic, sufficiently active for the cancer to take it up, but sufficiently inactive for the surrounding tissue (and the rest of the body) to take it up took them six years of searching. I was using reagents that had a production cost of over £25k for 10 milligrams of product - sneeze and you blew half your research grant into thin air. And that cost of reagents wasnt unreasonable - some compuands are incredibly difficult and expensive to make. When it wnet into production we built a four hundred stage pilot plant just to produce one specific drug component. Four hundred steps - for every tonne of reactants in you would get about a half gramme of product and a lot of waste byproduct to recycle and reuse.... Drug discovery is expensive. Do you think that if it wasn't so, someone wouldnt set up a company to do it cheaper and faster? There are many bright idealistic graduates just itching to do taht and they don't because it's not possible. I was talking more about the testing and route to market. I know drugs take many years to develop. ---------- Post added 01-06-2015 at 15:23 ---------- Thing is though, he's right. Are you going to address the point made or just resort to ad hominem instead? Are you going to wind your neck in and wait for me to respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I was talking more about the testing and route to market. I know drugs take many years to develop. ---------- Post added 01-06-2015 at 15:23 ---------- Are you going to wind your neck in and wait for me to respond? You'd already responded. Wind your own neck in and debate sensibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Can't watch Youtube I'm afraid. Cuba. 25 years formulating a vaccine for lung cancer. They're giving it away for free. ---------- Post added 01-06-2015 at 15:25 ---------- You'd already responded. Wind your own neck in and debate sensibly. Then stop with the childish comments! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Cuba. 25 years formulating a vaccine for lung cancer. They're giving it away for free. They need to, the Cubans have to live on around $22 a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I was talking more about the testing and route to market. I know drugs take many years to develop. Irrelevant. They have to recoup the development costs, and development is the route to market regardless. 20 billion in developement costs. Say ten years to get it back and break even. So that's 2 billion a year on average profit required. Say you have a rare condition, lets see, leuakemia in children. They are the ones that will benefit from the drug most. So that's 800 cases a year in the UK at most. 2 billion split 800 ways is 2.5 million per person in drug costs. Pay the piper I'm afraid - it has to be paid somehow or new drugs simply dont get developed. ---------- Post added 01-06-2015 at 15:29 ---------- Then stop with the childish comments! You were the one who started with the abusive comments Bonzo. I've pointed them out before. Wind your neck in or I'll report the thread. I'm sick of dealing with your passive aggressive ways when you lose an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I was talking more about the testing and route to market.How about we do away with the myriad national and international treaties, agreements, laws and other statutory requirements that make this testing compulsory before a new drug is unleashed on the (respective, national-) public? Tell the US FDA, the UK's NHS and all the others they ain't getting no testing and trials no more, they just get to watch the drug go to market and if it's a zombie-making ****-up, well, hey-ho. OK with you? Only, you have to undertake not to ever moan or whinge at the Gvt for allowing the zombie-making ****-up to happen (you agreed to the testing being done away in the name of cost-saving, so you get to share the responsibility for the decision - that's only fair). Still OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now