With our friend Marilee Munizaga
From Chile
I am writing this while waiting for the 49ers-Packers game
to begin. The last word I heard was that
the temperature (in Green Bay) would be about zero, with wind-chills around -20o F. Frankly, I am less interested in the game
than I am about how human beings – fans and players – can survive and pretend
to enjoy themselves under those conditions.
Somewhere I read that the 49ers gave up plans to train this week on the Weddell
Sea ice pack and went to Green Bay instead - it was colder there.
So, there is an encouraging article in the latest
Economist. You should read it, at http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21592599-researchers-and-drug-companies-are-ganging-up-new-push-against. It relates progress against cancer on two
fronts: targeted therapy, and activated immune response. Two things seem to behind this progress: the ability
to sequence cancer genes rapidly, and lots of money. As far as I can tell the approach still seems
to be mostly empirical: try a whole lot
of things and see if they work. Of
course, which things you try depends to a large extent on knowledge of basic
cancer biology: which mutated genes produce which proteins that don’t do their
jobs right. The problem is exacerbated
by the fact that cancer cells, by definition rapidly dividing, produce new
mutations which may also be deleterious.
It’s as if the House has stacked the deck against us. But, we will prevail. I may never get the Nobel Prize for curing
ovarian cancer, but somebody will. Someday..
One astonishing thing brought out by this article is how
expensive some of these new treatments can be.
Try $100,000 for one year.
Joe Mortimer asked why so much, on Facebook. Here is my reply:
ReplyDeleteWell, it goes something like this. Drugs are developed by drug companies, which operate in the private sphere – they aren’t governmental agencies. Private companies have to make a profit to survive. A typical drug costs millions of dollars to develop, maybe many millions. Also, for every drug that “works” the typical drug company will spend many millions more on drugs that don’t work. To make a profit they must recoup all those expenses, plus a little more. If the drug they develop is a sure-fire cure for a common disease – diabetes for instance, or high cholesterol – they can sell lots of doses at a reasonable cost. If, however, the drug works well but only for a minute number of patients, they must jack up the price. How much they can jack it up depends to some extent on the FDA.
Adding to their woes (and excuses) is that countries other than the United States may elect to analyze the drug, reproduce it, and sell it at cost plus a little – which would be much less than the American Big Pharma firm would charge. Down go their revenues, again. The result is that American consumers are subsidizing health care abroad. (I say that because most Big Pharma firms are American; actually Switzerland and Great Britain have big drug companies, too.) So, the rich western countries provide health assistance to the rest of the world, whether they want to or not.
This is not to say that BP (Big Pharma) is a collection of sheep in wolves’ clothing. They pay their executives too much, they advertise too much, and they really don’t give too much of a hoot about you and me. However, I am at a loss to suggest a better way to proceed. Any suggestions?
Hi Myrl,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your mention of American consumers subsidizing international heathcare in relation to the prices we pay for prescription drug in this country. Having been very ill in a foreign country, I'm MORE than happy to subsidize their healthcare, even by paying what we do for meds. Being ill in another counrty is an awful experience, but the cost was cheap compared to the U. S. Fortunately I also had great care (not always the case...). American consumers have been 'bullied' to pay the going rate for a LONG time - whether for meds or any other healthcare cost. Now many more American cunsumers are not able to pay for these services/meds./etc - not covered in their health insurance policy. (When you buy the cheap policy, you get what you pay for.) The CEO's, in all of the healthcare industry, especially insurance, and a few layers of management on down are making plenty of money. A recent article discussed the research on the effects of Vit E on dementia as compared to the standard drug - Vit E, the inexpensive alternative, was more effective than the expensive prescription drug. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270708.php
Sometimes there is good science and good healthcare, but few profits. That leaves out Big Pharma.