Read it as you will DD, it’s a genuine question. Interesting topic, but objections so far seem very general. It would be interesting to learn more detailed objections.

Eg, is this more than the CPR Datalink proposal/e-health research project? If so, how and why?

Sounds like C-G has the inside track, so why not ask her?

Some poeple are uncomfortbale with letting poor people die

My last load of NHS provided drugs didn’t cost me anything. Mind you, I’m reasonably well off, would I have had to pay if I was poor?

1- They exist to make profit and therefore they deny people access to medication that will save/improve their lifes because they cannot pay. Some poeple are uncomfortbale with letting poor people die some are not and think capitalism is ace and always best. Some would porefer to no thelp them make lots of money. As DD notes it not like they are going tpo share their data with us or stop telling fibs about thier own meds now is it.
2. Profits – well it depends what it is but basically it means charging people more for your service or things than they cost you…if someone does this on the fourm with bought parts it is often seen as ripping people off. No one needs to make profit to survive – they only need to cover costs[ including wages whihc are often large]. Still they value profits above saving lifes. Some are morally uncomfortable with this…are you going to ask why now?
3. You seem like a clever fella so I will see if you can think of any reason beyond a chip on their shoulder, envy and/or a failure to understand economics.

1) The alternative is to let both rich and poor people die? Better to save some people than none. Bessides that’s what the NHS is for, it either aporves a drug or it doesn’t. If it’s affordable and cost effective it saves people, if it’s not then it’s sold to hypocondriac Americans via a TV advert involving a a girl in her early 20’s skipping through a barley field with a labradoor.
2) Pharma wages are actualy pretty rubbish. People in my year at uni who went into Pharma typicaly earnt about two thirds of what people who went into oil and gas or petrochemicals. And if you can’t figure out why you need a profit then you really should keep quiet. Shareholders invest in a company, the company then uses that money to do things, those things make a profit and pay the shareholders a dividend, if they dont make a profit there’s no dividend and less people want the shares so there’s less money invested in the company.
3) see point 2 about failing to grasp economics.

1- They exist to make profit and therefore they deny people access to medication that will save/improve their lifes because they cannot pay.

In the majority of cases, the medication wouldn’t exist if there was no profit incentive for the developer. Not defending the position, just the way it is.

In the interests of disclosure I work for ‘big pharma’ at the moment. There are an awful lot of failures for the profitable products that make the grade, and they all cost more or less the same in terms of R&D. The successful products also need to cover themselves should there be unpleasant unintended consequences further down the line, even when it’s not clearly the products fault.

There remains a possibility for revenue generation for the government as at the moment I beleive that Pharma companies can have no involvement in any studies which use this type of data in the UK

I don’t know about the access (I’m not a clinician or white coated mad scientists meddling with THINGS THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND) but I reckon you’ve hit the nail on the head about it being a revenue stream for the government.

My last load of NHS provided drugs didn’t cost me anything. Mind you, I’m reasonably well off, would I have had to pay if I was poor?

You must be brighter than that…..

……but just in case: ‘some people are uncomfortable with letting poor people who don’t live in the UK to die’.

Except that in areas where you pay for healthcare, such as the US, you pay for ALL healthcare, eg x-rays and consultations, not just drugs. If your society deems that you pay for the healthcare you receive, how is that anything to do with the evil drug companies?

Think he may be looking at people significantly poorer than folk in America, such as Africa where the majority of people have problems buying food let alone drugs.

It is claimed that big pharma companies actively resist sales in such locations as it would drive prices down in more affluent nations; also overzealous protection of patents to the detriment of families existing on the borderline between life and death (specifically I am thinking of AIDS drugs).

I am not looking to argue the rights and wrongs, just clarifying what, I think, JY meant.

Off to work now.

Have a nice day.

No one would be silly enough to suggest that they do not need profits to survive

excellent point can you just explain the myth of charity to me and not for profit organisations? I realise they are extinct but historically what did they do?

1) The alternative is to let both rich and poor people die? Better to save some people than none.

you are right there is no way we could let both life..thanks for clearing it up..its impossible innit

Pharma wages are actualy pretty rubbish

And their profits which is what i was discussing are what?

3) see point 2 about failing to grasp economics.

I can epoxlain the cpaitlaist model if you wish but i am simply pointing out that it is is not the only way and one of the results is that peopel die becaus etheir is no moiney one saving them. I a would prefer a moral system than an economic one tbh

In the majority of cases, the medication wouldn’t exist if there was no profit incentive for the developer. Not defending the position, just the way it is.

Kepep buyoing the capitlaist dream/BS…is that actually true? if there was no money people would not try to save people’s lifes…are you really sure?

PS from my opening post

Not that I actually think you dont know the answer here, nor do I expect you to agree but i suspect the objections are [ and I am not saying they are all mine

I was answering a non genuine question only to allow our resident right wing economist to patronise me a little more.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drugs-companies-putting-profit-ahead-of-medical-discoveries-warn-scientists-8015784.html

I liked

More is spent on marketing (25 per cent of revenues) than on discovering new molecules (1.3 per cent).

Yes you are all right there really is no alternative to this as capitalism is so efficient and the market just so perfect…bless it and all it does for marketing managers healthcare

]

Pharma wages are actualy pretty rubbish

The staff need to get themselves unionised. Have they seen what Tube workers earn these days?

I liked

More is spent on marketing (25 per cent of revenues) than on discovering new molecules (1.3 per cent).

Yes you are all right there really is no alternative to this as capitalism is so efficient and the market just so perfect…bless it and all it does for marketing managers healthcare

] Some good points in that article about the lack of innovation in pharma, but also some intentionally misleading pish. The 1.3 per cent figure from Prof Light refers to pre-clinical research – the discovering new molecules bit prior to finding out if they actually do anything in a human. That’s the cheap part of pharma research – vast majority of costs and risk come in clinical trials. The totality is still a low number, relatively speaking, but it’s nothing like 1.3 per cent.

The part about only testing a new medicine against a placebo is also wrong, obviously.

Kepep buyoing the capitlaist dream/BS…is that actually true? if there was no money people would not try to save people’s lifes…are you really sure?

Slightly insulting for no reason there, well done. The argument is whether the development would take place if it weren’t done for profit, and I see no proof that it would – other than a few exceptions like the Gates foundation. Wonder where he got his fortune from to be a philanthropist?

I a would prefer a moral system than an economic one tbh

Wouldn’t we all? When you find the alternate dimension where all humans are decent people, let me know.

When you find the alternate dimension where all humans are decent people, let me know

Slightly insulting for no reason there, well done.

🙄

The argument is whether the development would take place if it weren’t done for profit, and I see no proof that it would

It seems to me to be a huge leap to assume that if we could not make profit we would just let people die and not try and make medicines to cure diseases.
This is what you are saying ..if it was not for money no one would develop drugs. I think they would but it would be state funded and we would save at least 25% on marketing costs.

Capitalists often just tell us this is the only way – read the link for why it is not a good thing – It is not the only way it is just the way we currently do it and this is not the same thing.

Well JY, it will be interesting to see alternative models. A cross check between the financial statements of Astra Zeneca and Glaxo will immediately raise question marks over the marketing expense statement. While marketing is high, that is a deliberate distortion…..just look at any annual report. But, ask yourself why marketing is high? The major drugs companies have very high revenue concentration by drug. In Astras case, two drugs make up almost 40% of total sales. Glaxo is better with top two just over 20%. But whatever the precise margins, these companies have to maximise returns here in the face of heavy R&D risk and investment requirements. Then the dreaded capitalist model has produced the whole industry of generic drugs which has had a massive impact on margins (+ve for consumers) and choice and accessibility (ditto).

An important consequence of competition has been the fact that drug companies have been forced to stop relying on big drug blockbuster and have replaced them with sales to emerging markets, vaccines, consumer healthcare, generics and diagnostics (ditto).

So while I accept that there are some dubious practices within the industry this simplistic jump to conclusions that it is completely immoral, that profits and marketing are not required and that a global pharma industry could be sustained on a not-for-profits basis seem a little wide of the mark. Just my opinion of course.

But back to the OP, I would be interested to know whether there have been a positive outcomes from UK Biobank from the industry insiders. That might be an interesting point to start understanding whether the current proposals make sense or not.

Edit for x-post. So the state funds would come from………?

The link talks a lot of c*ck, doesn’t include clinical trials costs for one. I think I have a little more experience in seeing the lifecycle of a drug than that one article gives, and I’m prepared to stick with that.

This is what you are saying ..if it was not for money no one would develop drugs. I think they would but it would be state funded and we would save at least 25% on marketing costs.

Not what I’m saying at all. Again, you think you know what & how I think. Very presumptuous of you. 🙄

My quote:

In the majority of cases, the medication wouldn’t exist if there was no profit incentive for the developer. Not defending the position, just the way it is.

The majority of medication on offer in your average UK pharmacy was developed by a profit oriented entity of some description. If we lived in a Utopian society, where enough income was collected by countries to fund such research then indeed it might be possible to develop drugs at overall cheaper costs and even open source them so the world can benefit, but the fact remains this is not how the world works today, and I have insufficient faith in humanity to see it ever changing.
But as you appear to be determined to argue with me even when I agree with you on many of your points I’ll leave it at that.

You are pining for TJ arent you 😳

What do you expect me to? Debate with Mr capitalism alternatives to the market?

@ brassneck
Just replace money with profit in my quote [which I would argue is interchangeable in that sentence anyway ]- i am sure you could argue the case though 😉

you appear to be determined to argue with me even when I agree with you on many of your points I’ll leave it at that.

LOL yes it is my fault you are arguing with me when you agree with me

One of the things capitlaism relies on [ like us propping up the banks or having swathes of cuts] is the myth that there is no alternative to it but it is not true. There are if we want them.

JY – yea right!!! Haven’t you noticed how pleasant STW has become recently!!!!

There are plenty of alternatives to capitalism include the UK’s version of a mixed economy, funnily enough, where health care involves the private and public sector both allocating scarce resources. So the “anti-capitalism” argument, while easy to apply, is hardly convincing!!

And state funding comes from……?
And the development of drugs companies and there distribution globally is funded by……?
And using a vast body of data for the development of future cures is harmful because…….?