billsfan89 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 12 minutes ago, MJS said: What metric is used to calculate that. Do you have sources? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious. I work in economic development and that would be interesting data to look at. Do they break it down by states also? Sure, this study kind of goes over it. Compared to Western Europe, Japan and Canada the US produces about 36% of all new drugs put out on the market. Which sounds like a huge win for the private sector but keep in mind the US's population is 5 times greater than the UK and the UK produces about 10% of new drugs. And a large chunk of the US's new drugs are developed by the NIH which is a public enterprise. There are many nations that produce a lot of new drugs at or near the rate of the US. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ Pharmaceutical innovation is an international enterprise. Higher prescription drug spending in the United States does not disproportionately privilege domestic innovation. Conversely, many countries with national health systems and drug pricing regulation were significant contributors to pharmaceutical innovation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: he should cease immediately Cease false claims?? Good luck with Dr's and false claims, that's about all they know... 2 hours ago, billsfan89 said: Sure, this study kind of goes over it. Compared to Western Europe, Japan and Canada the US produces about 36% of all new drugs put out on the market. Which sounds like a huge win for the private sector but keep in mind the US's population is 5 times greater than the UK and the UK produces about 10% of new drugs. And a large chunk of the US's new drugs are developed by the NIH which is a public enterprise. There are many nations that produce a lot of new drugs at or near the rate of the US. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ Pharmaceutical innovation is an international enterprise. Higher prescription drug spending in the United States does not disproportionately privilege domestic innovation. Conversely, many countries with national health systems and drug pricing regulation were significant contributors to pharmaceutical innovation. How many fatal events are linked to these pharmaceuticals? Many... How many diseases have they cured? 0.0% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 13 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said: Cease false claims?? Good luck with Dr's and false claims, that's about all they know... How many fatal events are linked to these pharmaceuticals? Many... How many diseases have they cured? 0.0% Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Good luck. No hard feelings WEO, No disrepsect meant, I'm out of line... Just venting about this Doc and his claim to fame is all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 This is a good thread, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBillsFan Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, jeremy2020 said: I'm curious. What are some of the big advancements that came about from US companies without using public money? You do realize that almost every piece of equipment at a hospital from your head to your toe is created with private companies right? Almost every major advancement in joint treatment is done by a private clinic. Most all medical equipment. Immunotherapy, PRP/schelerotherapy, etc.. Spyglass technology alone is revolutionizing the medical field. It's 1st application was gallstones and now being applied to the heart. Edited January 28, 2020 by BigBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, BigBillsFan said: Immunotherapy, PRP/schelerotherapy, etc.. Spyglass technology alone is revolutionizing the medical field. It's 1st application was gallstones and now being applied to the heart. Just asking for one that was developed without public money being invested into it. "In a recent analysis, published in the journal PNAS, researchers found that American tax dollars helped fund the basic research that went into every single one of the drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016 — including several cancer immunotherapies. All told, $100 billion in National Institutes of Health research grants helped advance the science behind those drugs." I get you believe in your theory. I'm asking you to make me believe. If what you posit is true, then finding a single example of 'big' medical advancement that wasn't supported by public money should be simple. I'd also ask you refrain from throwing out random medical stuff and then having me disprove it as that is not providing an example. You should have some sort of data that shows public money wasn't used in the development. Throwing out random stuff that you don't know whether it used public money or not is not an example and tends to be more of a frothing at the mouth desperate to prove your belief regardless of data type of deal and we certainly don't want that to be your reputation. I'd also ask you not do something silly like 'move the goalposts' and claim that even though it was public money that a private company developed it. Let's keep the focus on that one example that didn't use public money which, again, should be easy to find. Edited January 28, 2020 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBillsFan Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 19 hours ago, jeremy2020 said: Just asking for one that was developed without public money being invested into it. "In a recent analysis, published in the journal PNAS, researchers found that American tax dollars helped fund the basic research that went into every single one of the drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016 — including several cancer immunotherapies. All told, $100 billion in National Institutes of Health research grants helped advance the science behind those drugs." I get you believe in your theory. I'm asking you to make me believe. If what you posit is true, then finding a single example of 'big' medical advancement that wasn't supported by public money should be simple. Just read your own quote and you’ll find it cleverly worded to aggrandize public spending and minimize the truth. I’ll break it up for you… 1st quote: “researchers found that American tax dollars helped fund the basic research that went into every single one of the drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016…” So they didn’t invent or innovate, they increased funding for research and only for drugs which were approved. So #1 they didn’t innovate the research, they only added to it, #2 they only gave funding after approvals and only for drugs. Immunotherapy is not a drug, although the FDA might label it that way to help monopolize the process for larger companies. People forget the synergy of large corps and big gov't. People like to polarize the debate but they both suck. The question is who does what better. Also FDA approval is only for big pharma companies that can afford the approval. To get stage 4 funding for a drug costs $25 million. This is the FDA and Big Pharma colluding against our health to stop innovation from smaller scientists and doctors. Continuing… “including several cancer immunotherapies.” Does it say how many immunotherapies they helped fund after the research was done? Did it explain who developed and innovated? Of course not, this is written by someone purposely to obfuscate. I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, BigBillsFan said: Just read your own quote and you’ll find it cleverly worded to aggrandize public spending and minimize the truth. I’ll break it up for you… 1st quote: “researchers found that American tax dollars helped fund the basic research that went into every single one of the drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016…” So they didn’t invent or innovate, they increased funding for research and only for drugs which were approved. So #1 they didn’t innovate the research, they only added to it, #2 they only gave funding after approvals and only for drugs. Immunotherapy is not a drug, although the FDA might label it that way to help monopolize the process for larger companies. People forget the synergy of large corps and big gov't. People like to polarize the debate but they both suck. The question is who does what better. Also FDA approval is only for big pharma companies that can afford the approval. To get stage 4 funding for a drug costs $25 million. This is the FDA and Big Pharma colluding against our health to stop innovation from smaller scientists and doctors. Continuing… “including several cancer immunotherapies.” Does it say how many immunotherapies they helped fund after the research was done? Did it explain who developed and innovated? Of course not, this is written by someone purposely to obfuscate. I hope that helps. Could you provide the 1 example. Remember, you said this exists so it shouldn't be this hard to get it out of you. Edited January 29, 2020 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBillsFan Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 29 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said: Could you provide the 1 example. Remember, you said this exists so it shouldn't be this hard to get it out of you. I did before so I'll write it shorter and clearer and I'll give you 2 in case you want to argue one of them.. Immunotherapy was developed privately. Spyglass was developed privately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) On 1/27/2020 at 10:59 PM, Sherlock Holmes said: Cease false claims?? Good luck with Dr's and false claims, that's about all they know... How many fatal events are linked to these pharmaceuticals? Many... How many diseases have they cured? 0.0% How many people are alive mainly because they take statins or other cholesterol drugs? I am not THE biggest fan of Big Pharma but I think that the above is a legit question. Edited January 29, 2020 by Bill from NYC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 hours ago, BigBillsFan said: I did before so I'll write it shorter and clearer and I'll give you 2 in case you want to argue one of them.. Immunotherapy was developed privately. Spyglass was developed privately. I specifically asked that you not change the goalposts. "Big" Advances that did not use public money. You came up with this and you can't name one. Maybe it's time to admit the 'public' is involved in most medical advances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonbus23 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 On 1/27/2020 at 6:49 AM, BarleyNY said: In reality most medical breakthroughs and advancements are made by researchers at universities, not private companies. And most of the funding for research is from government grants. Companies are great at monetizing the advancements, but it’s rare that the people who did the actual work get much out of it financially. This is exactly correct. The public pays for the R&D and the private sector reaps the rewards. Socialize the risk; Privatize the rewards. We pay for the research and development and then pay again in the market. Same exact scenario with tech companies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBillsFan Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, jeremy2020 said: I specifically asked that you not change the goalposts. "Big" Advances that did not use public money. You came up with this and you can't name one. Maybe it's time to admit the 'public' is involved in most medical advances? Reading comprehension is not your strongest suit so let me try this again. The capped words are to help you focus. Your question was to give you advances in science and medicine WITHOUT public money. I gave those to you. Now did the gov't fund some immunotherapies after they were advanced WITHOUT public money? Yes, but those advancements were invented WITHOUT public funding. The public funding was to enhance the research given to the FTC but the advancement was done WITHOUT public funding. If you struggle with that let's try this again... 1.Dr. Smith discovers a cure using immunotherapy WITHOUT government funding. 2. Dr. Smith has to send said studies to the FTC for stage approval WITHOUT government funding 3. FTC receives such studies and then uses that basis as the hypothesis to use governments to research such claims and statements that were invented WITHOUT government funding You changed the goalposts from "Give me 1 example" to "If the government funded something in the future and gave money to research then it doesn't count." Sorry, that's not YOUR argument. That's revisionism and the quintessential definition of moving the goalposts. Edited January 29, 2020 by BigBillsFan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 5 hours ago, Bill from NYC said: How many people are alive mainly because they take statins or other cholesterol drugs? I am not THE biggest fan of Big Pharma but I think that the above is a legit question. Well, if they really wanted they could just change their lifestyle and lower their cholesterol instead of forever relying on a pharmaceutical that isn't going to lengthen their life the way reversing their health condition would, also most people don't want to put in the work to change they just want the easy way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, leonbus23 said: This is exactly correct. The public pays for the R&D and the private sector reaps the rewards. Socialize the risk; Privatize the rewards. We pay for the research and development and then pay again in the market. Same exact scenario with tech companies. Unimaginably vast sums of taxpayer money are spent on a nearly infinite array of medical research that will have no practical outcome. And, ion the extremely rare incidence where a university researcher strikes gold, it's not Parma that steals his/her discovery. It's his/her employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatloaf63 Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 On 1/27/2020 at 7:38 PM, Sherlock Holmes said: You mean the good ol' USA??? When else is a modality allowed to rule over juridiction of parents other than dictatorships, or socialism??? These people have been Gods wayyyy too long... sorry I know the game... Chemotherapy for Rheumatoid arthritis in children?!?!?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! Wake up people!!!! Really? See what I mean??? Bro do you even Medicine? No I mean Great Britain where hospitals posted guards to prevent several families from taking there children to try alternative treatments and made them watch them slowly die at the Dr’s & hospital boards hands. Not sure what your talking about,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 9 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes said: Well, if they really wanted they could just change their lifestyle and lower their cholesterol instead of forever relying on a pharmaceutical that isn't going to lengthen their life the way reversing their health condition would, also most people don't want to put in the work to change they just want the easy way out. I suppose genetics don't mean much to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 hours ago, Bill from NYC said: I suppose genetics don't mean much to you. They mean everything.... 12 hours ago, Meatloaf63 said: No I mean Great Britain where hospitals posted guards to prevent several families from taking there children to try alternative treatments and made them watch them slowly die at the Dr’s & hospital boards hands. Not sure what your talking about,... Exactly this but in our country... chemotherapy in children for rheumatoid arthritis. Next it will be you get your children taken if you don't give them chemo or radiation for a stubbed toe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts