Sally Redux

A cure would be much less profitable than ongoing treatment though.

Bluegrass Lass

Unless the 'cure' was some pill or injection you had to take the rest of your life. That's the only kind of 'cure' I would think pharma companies are interested in.

Awesome Welles

I'm so sorry, I didn't mean for it to come out that way - I was quite enjoying the debate. I do feel that the pharmaceutical industry, despite it's faults - and it has many, is heavily maligned - based only on the cost of medications - be they aleviated by institutions like the NHS and Medicare or not.
We seem to have a very jaundiced (sorry, I couldn't resist that) view that they are evil empires, awash with cash, who exploit the down-trodden and sickly.
All of them are down-sizing and laying employees off, left, right and center at the moment. Thousands at Merck, Lilly, AZ, Takeda, Abbott, Amgen, Roche are being handed their walking papers because of the economic squeeze on them. Ever more stringent regulatory and compliance pressure means that many have very little 'pipe-line' activity i.e. not much in development at present. That has a huge negative effect on their stock values.
When these companies stop R&D, our collective healthcare is in trouble.

Apologies again, if I came across as stamping my feet - that was not my mood at all. It's nice to discuss something other than where to get tea bags, or who's homesick, or how shit Florida is!

Sally Redux

Oh OK, I couldn't take another person out for my blood.

I like to discuss some serious topics too.

I'll declare an interest as my husband has worked in medical research all his life and has a total commitment to finding those cures. Working with government and charitable funding allows him freedom to research promising lines, hopefully to everyone's benefit. Several of his colleagues have moved to Pharma companies over the years and they're still good people and we're still friends with them

Awesome Welles

I can categorically assure you, that the first company that comes up with a way of making burned-out pancreas's start producing insulin again will be bigger than the rest of the global pharma industry combined.
This is one of the 'holy-grails' of medicine.
Unfortunately, there are some things medicine and pharmacology just can't fix with the technology and wisdom available today.
If some pill or injection you have to take for the rest of your life means that you continue to have a life, then that is a reasonable compromise for most people. Taking tablets trumps dying.
The notion that pharmaceutical companies like to keep their customers sick is a bit silly, I think.

Bluegrass Lass

Unless the side effects outweigh the benefits of said pill/injection it's not always reasonable.

As a person with an incurable auto-immune disease and current drugs only minimally help with symptoms (if they do at all), I'm well aware of potential compromises more than most people. And I do very much believe that pharmaceutical companies like to keep customers hooked on the pills/injections rather than an outright cure

GeoffM

Lumigan (bimatoprost), I use it myself but only in one eye... which has led to my wife on the one hand joking that my eyelashes are different in each eye, but on the other hand jealous that I have such thick, curly lashes - something that she spends money and time perfecting, whereas I just stick a drop in every night. Also has the possible side effect of turning the iris permanently brown after prolonged use.

Some cosmetic companies tried to market it I believe.

Regarding drug costs, perhaps the price of the raw material has gone up. Some food staples have virtually doubled in the last couple of years.

Duncan Roberts

It really wouldn't, at least in the case of diabetes. You have a trillion dollar worldwide market gagging for it and another trillion or so over the course of 10 years. Remember, a cure will not be given away for free and it doesn't mean a disease will be eradicated from existence. There will be a constant need for it. Just look at vaccinations, companies make a mighty penny off them year after year after year. It's a similar concept. Plus, there is always some other condition to make drugs for.

Awesome Welles

I'm sincerely sorry to hear that you are not well. I can understand your frustration if your meds are ineffective. Does that mean you don't take them?
Many patients don't really have a choice. If they don't take the drugs, they endanger themselves profoundly.

Having negative feelings about a drug company because you are ill is understandable, but not rational in my view. I would liken it to suggesting that doctors and nurses are also motivated to keeping you ill - and that fire fighters would support arsonists.

Outright cure is an objective in all disease states. Some previously fatal diseases have been conquered by pharmacological science - but to suggest that drug companies have the capability to cure, but are incentivized not to deploy that capability is absurd.

Rete

I find that faulty thinking. If it were true then there would be no polio vaccinations or one for smallpox, chickenpox, measles (both kinds) as having those illnesses means money in the pocket of doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs, etc.

Duncan Roberts

Well, that needs some stipulations because that is possible now. It needs to come with no immunosupressive drugs, works in 100% of cases, in the case of type 1 a cure for the underlying autoimmune attack is also needed and will work until the person dies.

Jerseygirl

http://www.restasis.com/default.htm?x=Restasis

It's heavily advertised on TV and magazines.

GeoffM

For what? Surely not cosmetic/beauty reasons?

Duncan Roberts

100% cosmetic. Sometimes when doing something else you accidentally find useful drugs like penicillin, other times you get one to give you bigger eyelashes!

Awesome Welles

Are you referring to pancreatic transplant?