All things considered, it's a blessing that the NHS can't, in any case, afford all those drugs. Yay, Jeremy Hunt!!
Thanks for the links Craig - some refreshing perspective and rationality
- 12,000 centrally licensed medicines (i.e. blanket licensed in all EU via the EMA) will no longer be licensed in the UK.
Are you suggesting that the EMA is a licensing body?
mad thing is brexies just love pissing off the EU
eg todays latest attempts to damage UKs chance of deal by [url= https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/may-told-to-exploit-merkel-crisis-german-instability-to-reduce-brexit-divorce-bill-tg090h99k ]Mogg, IDS[/url], [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/dont-listen-terrified-europeans-singapore-model-brexit-opportunity/ ]Patteson[/url] [url= https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-key-leave-ministers-appear-to-back-16340bn-eu-divorce-bill-11136452 ]Johnson[/url])
to them no deal is somehow the preferred option!!
[url= https://english.cbg-meb.nl/latest/news/2017/07/11/the-dutch-bid-for-the-european-medicines-agency ]would be bad all round for UK & EU, dutch Medicenes Review Board already ramping up to take over MHRA role as lead trial regulator, investing millions, but that will take time,[/url]
As I said b4, great for the dutch, sad day for uk science & medicine
I see increasing attention is being made to Legatum, the tories go to hard brexit think tank, the one run by an New Zealand billionaire who made his money during the "chaos" in Russia.
I mean who'd have thought that someone with these credentials would now be circling the UK? Along with AggregateIQ/Cambridge Analyitca...
No matter how dirty Brexit is with all this outside influence I don't expect brexiters to change.
Q: "Why did you vote to leave the EU?" Because I didn't want to be in the EU any more.
Q: "What did you hope to gain by leaving the EU?" I hoped to gain not being in the EU any more.
Q: "What defines whether Brexit succeeds?" Whether, at the end of the process, we've left the EU.
With this kind of logic, they really don't understand who they've jumped into bed with.
Davis falls off stage after no deal brexit speech - it's like they want the meme's and derisive laughter.
[img] 
[/img]
On the divorce settlement. May and co are prepared to offer more - raising their offer from derisory to to little too late.
this is all BS anyway - if there is a bill then it should be known what that bill is - there shouldn't need to be any negotiation.
When I last visited a resturant the bill showed a breakdown of evwerything I owed, they didn't just request a number and I suggested a lower one.
It's incompetance on both sides, but worse from the EU as their language keeps trying to suggest there is some precision about the number they want, whereas it is plainly obvious they have as little clue as us.
We should tell them to come up with a breakdown of what they think we owe, by a certain date, or they get nothing and we exit with no deal and become a low corporation tax environment.
They should also realise that all the rubbish they keep coming out with just strengthens the resolve of the majority to leave.
Are you suggesting that the EMA is a licensing body?
Well, the EC is for the products authorised via a centralised procedure (which is what I'm referring to). One license which covers all EU. EC grants licenses based on the opinion of the CHMP, which is the part of the EMA responsible for human medicinal products.
It isn't a negotiation Turnerguy - thats the point. The EU have a minimum amount they believe the UK owes. We either pay it or we don't
Turner Guy - the process involves extensive negotiation at nearly every line. Which is what is being worked on. A good example is pension liabilities. Here, as elsewhere, the EU are trying every trick in the book including the use of dodgy discount factors.
Odd that those who complain about the cost are at the same time advocating that we simply pay what the EU are demanding despite their dodgy numbers. It's a bloody good job that out side is going through this sensibly and in detail not rolling over wth the KY in hand.
Mr conspiracy theory TurnerGuy of controlled demolition WTC7 claims the EU is conspiring againt Britain.
The EU has done exactly what you've requested TurnerGuy, but your own government chooses not to inform you of those details or indeed any other dtails pertaining to Brexit (those hundreds of impact report). Your own government wants you to remain ingnorant. There is no EU conspiracy - the conspiracy if there is one is between the lobby groups and finaciers, and British politicians.
No matter how dirty Brexit is with all this outside influence I don't expect brexiters to change.Q: "Why did you vote to leave the EU?" Because I didn't want to be in the EU any more.
Q: "What did you hope to gain by leaving the EU?" I hoped to gain not being in the EU any more.
Q: "What defines whether Brexit succeeds?" Whether, at the end of the process, we've left the EU.
Nail on the head.....
When I last visited a resturant the bill showed a breakdown of evwerything I owed, they didn't just request a number and I suggested a lower one.
It's a divorce, it's not clear-cut as everything is intertwined with everything else - we're arguing over who gets the fine bone china...
<sigh> It's all a shambles and not in the UKs best interests at all.
The news that at a former colony has pinched our seat on the UN ICJ must put a bit of a dent in May's vision of a post-EU Global Britain.
for TG, this explains how the EU wants to calculate the bill vs how the UK wants to calculate it
https://www.ft.com/content/61e4faea-cac5-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8c6c
By March 2019, when the UK is scheduled to leave, the EU estimates there will be €582bn outstanding EU commitments along with €83bn of long-term liabilities such as pensions — leading to a total of €665bn.The demand is for Britain to honour its share — estimated to be 13 per cent, or €86.4bn gross — and offer assurances over a further €11.5bn of additional contingent liabilities, such as EU loans to Ukraine. Britain has so far offered to make transition payments — worth about €20bn net — for 2019 and 2020, since during those years it wishes to retain most membership rights.
Odd that those who complain about the cost are at the same time advocating that we simply pay what the EU are demanding despite their dodgy numbers.
Who is doing that? I haven't seen anybody advocating that we don't negotiate; just people pointing out that we have dealt ourselves a weak poker hand.
Mr conspiracy theory TurnerGuy of controlled demolition WTC7 claims the EU is conspiring againt Britain.
Except that all I said was the video was 'compelling' - at no point did I say I believed any of it.
The EU has done exactly what you've requested TurnerGuy
I am afraid I do not believe that 🙂
TurnerGuy - Member
The EU has done exactly what you've requested TurnerGuy
I am afraid I do not believe that
facts just bounce off you like nerf bullets dont they?
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8039
Good to see the rigour of the process to select the stand out location - drawing up lots!!
I foolishly looked at what the Telegraph had to say about this; they're sneering at the process used to select the new locations too instead of mentioning anything actually important such as the loss of jobs, direct and indirect income, influence, attraction of related businesses, the contradiction of what DD said about it ages ago...
just popping in to give a shout out to the Leavers for getting the EMA moved out of London. it's much better that the centre of the European pharma industry (a mere 25% of global sales after all) is in another country, and our young smart people will be much happier pulling cabbages than study to work in that industry. good job.
Don't worrying Matt, Craig has already provided some proper perspective that shows that your concerns are overblown. Thank goodness.
teamhurtmore - Member
Don't worrying Matt, Craig has already provided some proper perspective that shows that your concerns are overblown. Thank goodness.
did you read the piece thm?
please highlight the bits were it was saying that this was overblown!
Good links. We'll worth reading. Good comments here from Tallpaul as well.
Tell you what as this is your centre of excellent ll me where (1) the EMA grants licences (as claimed above) and (2) that it (the EMA) is centre of the pharma industry. Like the EBA, totally overblown stories. Plus ca change
not sure who said what re the EMA but my partner has decades of experience in pharma and says it attracts significant inward investment and the loss of the ripple effect from it's presence is sad and stupid.
that's good enough for me.
teamhurtmore - Member
Tell you what as this is your centre of excellent ll me where (1) the EMA grants licences (as claimed above)
Via the centralised procedure, the EMA (CHMP) provides opinion, EC provides license (authorisation). How many sources would you like?
1) From EMA themselves:
http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/general/general_content_000109.jsp
2) From the MHRA (bottom of p.2):
This does not mean all medicines in the UK are licensed by the EC but some are. In the no deal scenario, these products will no longer be licensed in the UK at the point of Brexit.
Indeed is an advisory body not the licence granter itself, despite what you alluded to earlier.
We also know - we can all read from Giv briefing papers that EEA countries are also part of EMA and other countries eg Canada, Switzerland and Australia have mu tail recognition agreements
Do you really think that - given how closely the MHRA and EMA currently work together - that this will suddenly end or that there will be no mutual recognition agreement with the U.K.?
Do you really think that - given how closely the MHRA and EMA currently work together - that this will suddenly end or that there will be no mutual recognition agreement with the U.K.?
Given what you've seen of the idiots in charge of this, would you be surprised if they ****ed it up to the point that there wasn't?
Assume hardest of hard brexits, anything less that that is an improvement, but not really a win.
no mutual recognition agreement with the U.K.
Yes. NO deal is possible - see NI. NO deal means no deal on anything
No deal is better than a bad deal thm.
Yes. Very much.
Did you read the links Tallpaul supplied THM?
[b]The role of the European regulator[/b]Some medicines used in the UK are licensed by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (external link) rather than the MHRA. Herceptin, used to treat patients with a certain type of advanced breast cancer, and the flu drug, Tamiflu, are two such examples.
Certain medicines can only be licensed through the EMEA. These include:
“High tech” biotechnology treatments, such as gene therapies
Medicines to treat HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases, such as multiple
sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease
Orphan drugs—medicines that would not normally be commercially viable, because they have been
developed for rare diseases, occurring in fewer than five in 10,000 peopleThis is to make sure that these important medicines are automatically available in every European Union member state rather than just in individual countries.
Manufacturers who want their medicines to be used across the European Union can also apply to the EMEA for a single licence, rather than having to apply to each country’s regulator separately. This speeds up patient access to these treatments.
It may be captain but it's in no ones interestes to halt cooperation with either the EBA and the EMA and the grown ups know that.
But headlines about moving location need to be written and froth created as the truth is so much duller. Note how the roles of both agencies have been exagerated throughout. No need to ask why?
THM - you come across as quite knowledgeable until you start arguing with people such as TallPaul from the specialist area you're currently opining on. Doing stuff like that tends to give us a glimpse behind the curtain.
Does your 'Chief Economist' have any views on health policy and pharmaceutical regulation?
Of course he didn't Kelvin. It doesn't fit his narrative so its ignored
Note how the roles of both agencies have been exagerated throughout. No need to ask why?
Most people don"t fully understand how the agencies work, including, clearly, both of us. Help with the process of gaining understanding, rather than just slapping people down in your condecending fashion THM.
quite ironic - enough people voted for "more money for the NHS" to decide the vote (says Dominic Cummins), but likelihood, if we leave the EMA as well as it leaving us, is drug costs will rise and time to UK market for new product will lengthen.
or we stay in as a member, or we shadow it somehow, but have no control and have lost the economic benefit of being the host while still bearing our share of the cost.
you couldn't make it up.
Also, very bored of the [i]"severing ties is in the interest of no one, so stop warning about what occurs in that circumstance"[/i], as if the last few years have taught us nothing.
So - what would a bad deal look like that would be worse than no deal?
Well TP talked about the EMA being the licensing body which it isn't, it's an advisory body, so I chose to check what he was saying myself.
Kelvin your link refers to Herceptin which as anyone who wants to stick to facts will know was made available to EU and to EEA-EFTA states at the same time according to the Roche 2010 announcement and ismore widely available too.
Of course mention cancer and you can create an immediate emotive reaction while hiding the facts behind the availability of the drug.
So people can exagerate for effect or stick to the facts. Your choice
No one has denied that nonEU countries make use of the EMA, nor that we could without being EU members, given the correct deal and arrangements… put away your straw man…
Just to move away from the EMA & EBA departures, I give you....Aerospace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42065836
Countries that MRA's with Europe don't automatically accept the EC decision and grant license. It just means that whats good enough for the EMA is also an acceptable pathway for that country.
e.g. if a Pharma company goes to the EMA for scientific advice, agrees a development plan for their new medicine and meet all EMA guidelines, then that is the [i]minimum[/i] threshold to apply for a medicinal license in Europe. The EMA then reviews that and gives an opinion.
So, in the example of Canada, that strategy will broadly be acceptable to Health Canada (national authority). However, they still review the whole package and grant their own license. They will ask the applicant different questions and the product can either be refused approval or approved with a different set of conditions to the EC.
Also, very bored of the "severing ties is in the interest of no one, so stop warning about what occurs in that circumstance",
Its is moronic since after all whilst it will not be in the UKs or the EU as a whole interest.
It could be in the interests of individual EU countries who could benefit whilst the EU overall loses out. It will almost certainly be in some third party countries interests and also in the interests of some companies and investors.
Of course mention cancer and you can create an immediate emotive reaction while hiding the facts behind the availability of the drug.
The examples were chosen by the MHRA, presumably more to use examples that people would have heard off, rather than rarer little talked about drugs. I don't see why they would be looking for an emotive reaction for describing which drugs fall outside their own remit (currently).
