Goverment stealth
Moderators: Aladinsaneuk, MartDude, D-Rider, Moderators
- Aladinsaneuk
- Aprilia Admin
- Posts: 9503
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:37 pm
- Location: Webfoot territory
well, its not as straightforward as that andy
lets take a well known example - and i am not being one hundred percent accurate but it does help people understand it easier
when a new drug is made, in this country and most of europe, it has to go through extensive trials - some on animals, then on humans
once the drug is licensed, and allowed to be sold / prescribed then that drug cannot be copied by any other drug company for a period of time - around 5 years iirc
once that period of time is up, then any company can produce it - ie, copy it and sell it cheaper
(Hence brand name prescribing - on first release, lansoprazole, for dyspepsia or heart burn was sold as Zoton - and that was how it was prescribed - once other companies started to produce it, then it became well known as lansoprazole)
so, there is a golden sales window - as in the product, if it is the best out there, can be charged for at a premium rate.
that sounds scandelous - BUT
to develop a drung to market is going to take 7 years - and that is costly - very costly. the days of the mad scientist are long gone - now you need teams of scientists etc. At any one time each of the big pharma companies is probably working on multiple drugs - the vast majority of them will not make it to release - but the cost is still there.
So - the companies can, and do post huge profits - but look beyond the profit line and consider how much is reinvested - and how much goes to cover insurance costs
Guess the best way to explain it is paracetemol
when it first came out, it was known as parahypon - and was made by calmic, a part of burroughs wellcome.
the drug was very successful - and still is!
camic, if they still exist, have not made it for years.... but, the burroughs wellcome foundation, a charitable research lab set up and heavily funded by the success of paracetemol, is one of the two likely contenders to find a cure for HIV/aids.... and that is being funded by drug company profits
I will agree that some companies take the piss - and some like nestle deserve to be shot - but, we do need those companies to keep making profits and reinvesting those profits
(Oh - if you deal in stocks and shares... i would have shares in glaxo smith kline beecham..... they do have something interesting coming up soon)
lets take a well known example - and i am not being one hundred percent accurate but it does help people understand it easier
when a new drug is made, in this country and most of europe, it has to go through extensive trials - some on animals, then on humans
once the drug is licensed, and allowed to be sold / prescribed then that drug cannot be copied by any other drug company for a period of time - around 5 years iirc
once that period of time is up, then any company can produce it - ie, copy it and sell it cheaper
(Hence brand name prescribing - on first release, lansoprazole, for dyspepsia or heart burn was sold as Zoton - and that was how it was prescribed - once other companies started to produce it, then it became well known as lansoprazole)
so, there is a golden sales window - as in the product, if it is the best out there, can be charged for at a premium rate.
that sounds scandelous - BUT
to develop a drung to market is going to take 7 years - and that is costly - very costly. the days of the mad scientist are long gone - now you need teams of scientists etc. At any one time each of the big pharma companies is probably working on multiple drugs - the vast majority of them will not make it to release - but the cost is still there.
So - the companies can, and do post huge profits - but look beyond the profit line and consider how much is reinvested - and how much goes to cover insurance costs
Guess the best way to explain it is paracetemol
when it first came out, it was known as parahypon - and was made by calmic, a part of burroughs wellcome.
the drug was very successful - and still is!
camic, if they still exist, have not made it for years.... but, the burroughs wellcome foundation, a charitable research lab set up and heavily funded by the success of paracetemol, is one of the two likely contenders to find a cure for HIV/aids.... and that is being funded by drug company profits
I will agree that some companies take the piss - and some like nestle deserve to be shot - but, we do need those companies to keep making profits and reinvesting those profits
(Oh - if you deal in stocks and shares... i would have shares in glaxo smith kline beecham..... they do have something interesting coming up soon)
Let's face it, you wouldn't go to a nurse to get good advice on a problem with a Falco - you'd choose an Engineer or a mechanic...
Hmm - it is once you've separated profit from the costs of the business ...Aladinsaneuk wrote:well, its not as straightforward as that andy
... the cost of which is all part of developing the product and is not profit.Aladinsaneuk wrote:look beyond the profit line and consider how much is reinvested - and how much goes to cover insurance costs
Profit is the stuff that is put into such things as reserves and into feeding the hungry owners of the business (shareholders).
“Scientists investigate that which already is. Engineers create that which has never been.”
-- Albert Einstein
-- Albert Einstein
It does cost a fortune to develop new drugs, more money than a lot of small counties make. Debz designs the databases for drug trials (and had a good laugh while working on the one for Viagra) and gets paid a ludicrous amount of money compared to my standards of 'well paid' work.
The down side of that is that the drug companies always develop what's profitable, rather than what's effective. If they can sell a hundred billion bottles of syrup A that will slightly ease discomfort in a hundred billion people, or sell a thousand bottles of syrup B which will save the lives of a thousand people, they'll go with A every time because that's where the money is, as the development cost will probably be about the same for each.
The down side of that is that the drug companies always develop what's profitable, rather than what's effective. If they can sell a hundred billion bottles of syrup A that will slightly ease discomfort in a hundred billion people, or sell a thousand bottles of syrup B which will save the lives of a thousand people, they'll go with A every time because that's where the money is, as the development cost will probably be about the same for each.
SHINY BIKE SYNDROME Motorcycle valeting and paint protection specialist.
Aladinsaneuk wrote:andy is having a VERY heavy period
Raspberry Lucozade!(Oh - if you deal in stocks and shares... i would have shares in glaxo smith kline beecham..... they do have something interesting coming up soon)

Or would it be an anti-biotic that may knock out MRSA and similar resistant bacteria?
SHINY BIKE SYNDROME Motorcycle valeting and paint protection specialist.
Aladinsaneuk wrote:andy is having a VERY heavy period
- Aladinsaneuk
- Aprilia Admin
- Posts: 9503
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:37 pm
- Location: Webfoot territory
I want raspberry Lucozade 

SHINY BIKE SYNDROME Motorcycle valeting and paint protection specialist.
Aladinsaneuk wrote:andy is having a VERY heavy period