phamarceutical companies vs. supplement companies (referring to one of coops posts)

[HIT4ME]

I certainly won't argue that pharma company is big money, but that doesn't automatically mean they're holding out on anything. There also seems to be a lot of throughts on here that researchers are making money off of any of this. The CEOs and VPs are making a LOT of money, but the researchers make way, way less. I'm talking over a million and under 100k, and sometimes 40 or 50k which may sound like a lot of money to some, but doesn't go very far when you've got over 100k in student loans to pay off.

But yes, pharma is a business just like anything else. People seem to want things for free, but also want breakthrough discoveries that cost money.

This is the thing - most of these cures are being studied by bio chemists, doctors, etc. - people who ARE doing this out of some sense of progress at the very least. I mean, I don't go to work everyday and hope that I don't make any progress. And these people aren't getting super rich like the CEO's - but the business side of it (where the CEO's, VPs, etc. play) is a totally different story and they have a HUGE impact on how money gets spent and what research gets funded, etc. - and they are going to go for profits over a cure any day of the week. How could anyone think otherwise? I wouldn't expect otherwise, especially given the way the entire system is rigged right now between the govt and pharm companies.

On the other hand, medicine doesn't come cheap and most people don't understand the actual cost. They see that this one pill costs $0.50 to make a bottle of, but they charge $100 for it - they don't see the 1,000 pills that were supposed to do its job that never made it and got researched and developed and failed. They never see the dead ends and wasted time, resources, effort that went into coming up with that one pill. I do get that.

Funding is hard to get and researchers need to be creative to keep alive, both in academia and in private pharma companies. If you want to learn about diseases and possible therapies, I think it would be great for you to email a researcher with your ideas. If there is an area or disease that you are particularly interested in, I would be more than happy to help you find people to reach out to. I can't guarantee that they'll all be receptive, but I personally would never have turned away somebody that wants to help me think outside of the box. Researchers typically love to talk about their research. It's their life and it's really long hours trying to find one tiny piece of a puzzle that nobody will ever realize that you had any part of. This is why I take it so personally when people think researchers sit around the lab lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills while the cure for all diseases is locked away in a filing cabinet.

I would love this opportunity. Not sure I have any useful ideas at this point, I'm no expert. I'm trying to learn some things and grow. Having researchers to talk to would be REALLY interesting to me and it would make learning so much easier I am sure. Not sure what I could offer them at this point...like Jiggz pointed out, I've read studies and books....far from an expert. I know enough and have seen enough to realize that most people have no clue about what actually happens on the research side and how complicated it is - but that's about where I'm at.

People have mentioned "when was the last cure" and saying that pharma doesnt fund cures, but makes medicine to treat rather then cure. I think the reason why we arent seeing as much for cures, has a lot to do with ethics. We have ethics alot better ethics now then they did 50 years ago. Doctors did alot of medical testing to mental ill patient and mentally handicaped, that would definitely be illegal now.

The other issue here is, in discovery people learn a certain bag of tricks and those tricks tend to create large leaps forward in understanding - but those few tricks will only take you so far. You get to a wall where they won't give you any more break throughs, but how do you know when you've hit that wall, and what do you do when you have? You don't know the new tricks yet, so you have to learn them. In the early 1900's we discovered a new bag of tricks (the existence of germs, a lot of new chemistry idea and ideas about atoms, etc) - and they cured some stuff. But the problems we are trying to overcome now, as has been pointed out, are MUCH more complex with multiple causes. It isn't as simple as, "Your body creates antibodies so a vaccine containing an inactive strain will inoculate you." Giving someone cancer won't inoculate them.

Yes Jiigzz, I think I can cure Diabetes.... Come on man. Apparently you believe in the altruistic good that permeates the pharma industry. As a layman, I've seen enough evidence backed data that says they will get away with what they can, and when they F up (Vioxx, Phen-Fen, etc...), nothing happens anyway. Man, I could go on about Glucometers and Test Strips all day, what a racket that is, but I'm sure there's no monetary incentive behind that too, LOL. Anyway, I'm just giving an opinion that I believe BigP would choose profits uber alles if given the choice - not that I KNOW they are standing on cures.

I feel your pain here man. My gf has asthma and the insurance companies often try to not pay for Advair. She has gone without it at times because it can cost $200/month. A rescue inhaler can cost $40-60 without insurance. Or I can go and get the same thing from other sources and pay $44 for the Advair and $7 for the rescue inhaler. But this is the business and gov't side and not the "cure" side.

Like I said before, I see both sides of the argument and think both sides are kind of right....but it's like looking at an elephant's feet. One side is one foot, the other side is the other foot and they are both "right" but they are tied together too.

 

[heavylifter33]

In relation to what you stated about not wanting to cure the issue with a range of illnesses, have you thought about the commercial side of it being more profitable to treat an illness rather than all out cure it due to the requirement of repeat treatment, e.g. Chemotherapy is still used due to being expensive and a massive money maker.

Not this bullchit again. Fuking tinfoil hat idiots. This is most definitely NOT the case. And i can tell you that with 100% certainty.

 

[Aleksandar37]

This is the thing - most of these cures are being studied by bio chemists, doctors, etc. - people who ARE doing this out of some sense of progress at the very least. I mean, I don't go to work everyday and hope that I don't make any progress. And these people aren't getting super rich like the CEO's - but the business side of it (where the CEO's, VPs, etc. play) is a totally different story and they have a HUGE impact on how money gets spent and what research gets funded, etc. - and they are going to go for profits over a cure any day of the week. How could anyone think otherwise? I wouldn't expect otherwise, especially given the way the entire system is rigged right now between the govt and pharm companies.

How is it rigged? Again, I think you're making a lot of assumptions here which are not based on any actual facts. I've said that pharma companies are a business like any other business and they need to consider profits as part of a very complicated equation, but there are a lot of other factors that people seem to ignore. Insurance companies are a huge part of why prices are high. Pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens and also mail order pharmacies like Express Scripts have a ton of pull as well. Also, don't forget the concept of generics and the idea of spending millions on research to finally get something that works and then you only get a set amount of years to make a profit before somebody else gets to sell a generic version of your hard work.

Also, look into orphan drugs which are used to treat rare diseases. Thanks to the Orphan Drug Act, these are at least a little bit more profitable to drug companies, but often still don't make sense to manufacture from a business viewpoint. Yet companies still make them because there are patients that need them.

 

[Jiigzz]

This is the thing - most of these cures are being studied by bio chemists, doctors, etc. - people who ARE doing this out of some sense of progress at the very least. I mean, I don't go to work everyday and hope that I don't make any progress. And these people aren't getting super rich like the CEO's - but the business side of it (where the CEO's, VPs, etc. play) is a totally different story and they have a HUGE impact on how money gets spent and what research gets funded, etc. - and they are going to go for profits over a cure any day of the week. How could anyone think otherwise? I wouldn't expect otherwise, especially given the way the entire system is rigged right now between the govt and pharm companies.

On the other hand, medicine doesn't come cheap and most people don't understand the actual cost. They see that this one pill costs $0.50 to make a bottle of, but they charge $100 for it - they don't see the 1,000 pills that were supposed to do its job that never made it and got researched and developed and failed. They never see the dead ends and wasted time, resources, effort that went into coming up with that one pill. I do get that.



I would love this opportunity. Not sure I have any useful ideas at this point, I'm no expert. I'm trying to learn some things and grow. Having researchers to talk to would be REALLY interesting to me and it would make learning so much easier I am sure. Not sure what I could offer them at this point...like Jiggz pointed out, I've read studies and books....far from an expert. I know enough and have seen enough to realize that most people have no clue about what actually happens on the research side and how complicated it is - but that's about where I'm at.



The other issue here is, in discovery people learn a certain bag of tricks and those tricks tend to create large leaps forward in understanding - but those few tricks will only take you so far. You get to a wall where they won't give you any more break throughs, but how do you know when you've hit that wall, and what do you do when you have? You don't know the new tricks yet, so you have to learn them. In the early 1900's we discovered a new bag of tricks (the existence of germs, a lot of new chemistry idea and ideas about atoms, etc) - and they cured some stuff. But the problems we are trying to overcome now, as has been pointed out, are MUCH more complex with multiple causes. It isn't as simple as, "Your body creates antibodies so a vaccine containing an inactive strain will inoculate you." Giving someone cancer won't inoculate them.



I feel your pain here man. My gf has asthma and the insurance companies often try to not pay for Advair. She has gone without it at times because it can cost $200/month. A rescue inhaler can cost $40-60 without insurance. Or I can go and get the same thing from other sources and pay $44 for the Advair and $7 for the rescue inhaler. But this is the business and gov't side and not the "cure" side.

Like I said before, I see both sides of the argument and think both sides are kind of right....but it's like looking at an elephant's feet. One side is one foot, the other side is the other foot and they are both "right" but they are tied together too.

The bottom is an example of your failed medical care system, not of pharmaceuticals driving profits. They have a LOT of costs to recover for R&D, and then of course costs to drive profits. But if you get stuck in the "they just care about money and not about anything else", you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Jiigzz]

Yes Jiigzz, I think I can cure Diabetes.... Come on man. Apparently you believe in the altruistic good that permeates the pharma industry. As a layman, I've seen enough evidence backed data that says they will get away with what they can, and when they F up (Vioxx, Phen-Fen, etc...), nothing happens anyway. Man, I could go on about Glucometers and Test Strips all day, what a racket that is, but I'm sure there's no monetary incentive behind that too, LOL. Anyway, I'm just giving an opinion that I believe BigP would choose profits uber alles if given the choice - not that I KNOW they are standing on cures.

You mentioned that you are an "expert", how so exactly?

In all cases of medical care, you need treatment tools, and in the case of diabetics, you need a means to test before you treat as well. What you are saying (or at least it seems) is that these strips and gluco meters are a sham, yet people rely on them to administer a treatment tool. If we cannot "cure" diabetes, what alternative can you offer to these people if you think of it a scam?

 

[The_Old_Guy]

You mentioned that you are an "expert", how so exactly?

In all cases of medical care, you need treatment tools, and in the case of diabetics, you need a means to test before you treat as well. What you are saying (or at least it seems) is that these strips and gluco meters are a sham, yet people rely on them to administer a treatment tool. If we cannot "cure" diabetes, what alternative can you offer to these people if you think of it a scam?

Is it your comprehension of my posts, or the way I write (a definite possible), that is causing you to get 99.9% of what I write, wrong? My placement of quotes around the word expert, was a self-deprecating move - my "expertise" (there they are again) is just from having a spouse and child with Type I, and dealing with everything related to it for the last 15 years. My comment on Glucometers, was NOT that they are a scam, but the way the strips and meters and prices and insurances companies all dance around when dealing with that item - "this works with that and that, but not that, and we only cover this and that, but not those"... It's a pure money move, not looking out for the patients best interests. Anyway, I don't want to start a beef, we each have our opinions and are unlikely to change.

 

[dynamo]

Is it your comprehension of my posts, or the way I write (a definite possible), that is causing you to get 99.9% of what I write, wrong? My placement of quotes around the word expert, was a self-deprecating move - my "expertise" (there they are again) is just from having a spouse and child with Type I, and dealing with everything related to it for the last 15 years. My comment on Glucometers, was NOT that they are a scam, but the way the strips and meters and prices and insurances companies all dance around when dealing with that item - "this works with that and that, but not that, and we only cover this and that, but not those"... It's a pure money move, not looking out for the patients best interests. Anyway, I don't want to start a beef, we each have our opinions and are unlikely to change.

Speaking of how insurance companies handle things, I've known instances where someone needed the tubing for their insulin pump and had to bend over backwards, light hoops aflame, and backflip through them landing with a pirouette before they finally allowed her to order on using her insurance.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Speaking of how insurance companies handle things, I've known instances where someone needed the tubing for their insulin pump and had to bend over backwards, light hoops aflame, and backflip through them landing with a pirouette before they finally allowed her to order on using her insurance.

I could write a book The injector kits must be made by the lowest bidder - wife uses up 1 batch with 'maybe' 1-2 "site failures" in the whole box. Gets a second batch delivered, and has a failure on almost every other insertion. No identifiable difference visually, or on any markings.

 

[double s]

No, I'm a bitter outcast. When I graduated from college, almost 15 years ago, I decided I wanted to be a pharma sale rep. I had VPs of pharmaceutical companies calling on my behalf to tell their HR people to interview me. A lot of these companies never interviewed me anyway, even though their VP brought my resume to them and told them he wanted them to interview me.

One day, I was at my doctor's office and he asked what I was looking to do and I told him. He laughed. I looked at him. He said, "You'll never get that job. You're not a blond woman with big tits."

One day I was at a Pfizer interview. I was sitting in a room, with a bunch of other candidates. I was looking around the room, and every one of the other people being interviewed was a REALLY good looking female. Not all blond mind you. But I was in good company. I started talking to them and most of them didn't even know what position they were applying for, or what geography in new England they wanted to cover. I doubt any of them could hold a conversation about chemistry or even list off the drugs that Pfizer wanted them to sell.

I never got a call back. They weren't interested in someone actually knowing how to help people. They just wanted to get a doctor's attention so they could sell more over priced drugs.

Having said that, this is a necessary evil in some ways. This is also how they get the funds to pay for all this research and come out with good products. And to say they don't have good products is crazy. I don't think anyone on here would choose RC chems over a pharmaceutical grade product. And coming out with new compounds isn't easy. But the application of these products isn't always so great, and part of that is the nature of life itself.

I work in the Pharma/Biotech industry, you would be surprised by how many companies do not want to hire the blonde haired bimbo looks.They feel it makes their companies look bad. Many companies now are hiring former athletes whether college, pro etc. Think about it. Former FSU football player goes to visit a male Dr, they chat football,etc etc same person goes to meet a female Dr, will most likely still have a decent interaction.

 

[Jiigzz]

Is it your comprehension of my posts, or the way I write (a definite possible), that is causing you to get 99.9% of what I write, wrong? My placement of quotes around the word expert, was a self-deprecating move - my "expertise" (there they are again) is just from having a spouse and child with Type I, and dealing with everything related to it for the last 15 years. My comment on Glucometers, was NOT that they are a scam, but the way the strips and meters and prices and insurances companies all dance around when dealing with that item - "this works with that and that, but not that, and we only cover this and that, but not those"... It's a pure money move, not looking out for the patients best interests. Anyway, I don't want to start a beef, we each have our opinions and are unlikely to change.

Fair point, the internet is hard to discuss through because tone and the nuances of text are sometimes hard to discern. You being in the US will give you a different outlook vs. my own, considering medical is largely covered here and I pay next to nothing to benefit from it.

 

[toddmuelheim]

I work in the Pharma/Biotech industry, you would be surprised by how many companies do not want to hire the blonde haired bimbo looks.They feel it makes their companies look bad. Many companies now are hiring former athletes whether college, pro etc. Think about it. Former FSU football player goes to visit a male Dr, they chat football,etc etc same person goes to meet a female Dr, will most likely still have a decent interaction.

Yeah, plus bigger hands

 

[double s]

Yeah, plus bigger hands

???

 

[toddmuelheim]

???

They can carry more samples, so efficiency is increased