Balanced Rebellion Going Viral

[shocka khan]

JH4P brought up something that's been a concern of mine for years. We keep electing lawmakers who feel it's their duty to enact laws, so they do. After a couple hundred years of that, we end up with so many laws that it can become difficult to function as either private or corporate citizens.

Untangling the mess is an incredibly difficult task.

And both the major political parties are at fault. Many republicans 'say' they're in favor of limited government but once elected started passing solutions (bills) in search of problems. I always thought that was hypocritical. Same with the people (like Ted Cruz) who say they're financially responsible, then proceed to throw a spanner in the cog just to massage their own oversized ego.

The dems just write and pass those 'solutions in search of problems' and don't even talk about doing better.

It's all just political pandering. An op-ed moment with an aggrieved person (or their immediate family) used as props after passing a bill that accomplishes nothing more than the laws already on the books.

There ought to be a federal sunset commission to look at all departments and laws and then get rid of the ones that have outlived their useful purpose.

[wufan]

In your perfect world, would medication receive any kind of patent-esque protection? I am not sure what I think about this topic, but I am not sure I've really heard people on the right criticize the protection that medication gets. The argument is always that the companies wouldn't innovate if they didn't receive the protection.

My personal opinion is that the epi-pen fiasco wouldn't happen in a pure-capitalist market but it also wouldn't happen under someone like Bernie Sanders. I have no doubt that it will continue to happen under someone like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

The Epi pen issue was not created by the patent laws, rather by beurocracy that stops innovation. The patent expired decades ago. Those are seperate issues. One can still have patent laws that protect innovation without creating post-patent monopolies. It does create cronie-capitalists that push for laws that add to their own personal growth. You should see the deficiencies that the FDA throws out there to stifle these products from getting to the market. Currently I'm supporting three generic drug launches, two of which have been delayed over a year for minor items, and one of which was delayed very reasonably.

[Aargh]

The Epi pen issue was not created by the patent laws, rather by beurocracy that stops innovation. The patent expired decades ago. Those are seperate issues. One can still have patent laws that protect innovation without creating post-patent monopolies. It does create cronie-capitalists that push for laws that add to their own personal growth. You should see the deficiencies that the FDA throws out there to stifle these products from getting to the market. Currently I'm supporting three generic drug launches, two of which have been delayed over a year for minor items, and one of which was delayed very reasonably.

And still, daytime television is about 50% paid for by lawyers with class action suits against pharmaceuticals for some rather nasty unintended effects.

A friend of mine showed signs of memory loss, loss of logic and reasoning skills, and lessened ability to process new information. I asked him if any of his meds had changed. He said they hadn't.

He didn't remember that he doubled the dosage of his weight loss medication about the same time he started noticing the problems with his memory. That was 2 weeks before I mentioned the problems I had observed.

His medication is a drug originally designed for recovering addicts. It reduces the cravings they have from their addiction.

Then they noticed that those taking the drug lost their appetites. Guess what? New use for the drug. Now it's prescribed as a weight loss solution. No exercise. No sticking to a diet. Just take this medication and you won't want to eat anything.

Only a couple of problems with the no effort weight loss. First, that is the stupidest way to lose weight possible. Blood sugar is going to be totally messed up. Once anyone stops taking the drug, their metabolism is going to be so low that their body will be semi-permanently in an all-out effort to store fat.

Then there are the side effects. The only side effect the pharmaceutical had to report was that people taking the medication may experience mental changes. My friend was unaware of the side effects until he did some research after he realized his memory loss happened at about the same time he was instructed to double the dosage he had been taking.

Mental changes, my ass. His mental state seemed to be that of someone who had recently had a stroke! This is a prescribed weight loss medication, so it's covered by insurance. We're all paying for this medication to pretty much wreck people's lives.

[jdshock]

The Epi pen issue was not created by the patent laws, rather by beurocracy that stops innovation. The patent expired decades ago. Those are seperate issues. One can still have patent laws that protect innovation without creating post-patent monopolies. It does create cronie-capitalists that push for laws that add to their own personal growth. You should see the deficiencies that the FDA throws out there to stifle these products from getting to the market. Currently I'm supporting three generic drug launches, two of which have been delayed over a year for minor items, and one of which was delayed very reasonably.

Either one is a monopoly, though, right? Does it matter if it is via bureaucracy or if its because of a patent? Is your argument that a bureaucratic monopoly is uniquely bad for innovation or are you arguing that the bureaucracy created monopoly extends for too long of a period?

Edit to add: obviously a patent is more predictable for the company. I'm just interested in hearing more about why a monopoly might be good in one situation but not in another.

[shocka khan]

Either one is a monopoly, though, right? Does it matter if it is via bureaucracy or if its because of a patent? Is your argument that a bureaucratic monopoly is uniquely bad for innovation or are you arguing that the bureaucracy created monopoly extends for too long of a period?

Actually, in my mind it does matter. The FDA creates rules that allow the manufacturer to recoup R&D expenses. In this case, the FDA pulled products off the market that created the monopoly. Although I am somewhat suspect about the value of these rules (because most of the time big pharma buys their R&D by buying up smaller companies who are pioneers in their field) I understand the need to have the R&D expenditure reimbursement.

In this case, there was nothing to reimburse. Nothing but pure profit on a product that should cost just a few dollars to make and whose patent had expired long ago.

The pharma company (which is run by Sen. Joe Manchin's daughter - another example that someone could point to about the system being rigged) does not have patent protection on the product. I'm betting (and I'm cynical on this) the $$$ go back to shareholders, which would explain why the stock price of the company plummeted when the bad press started leaking out.

The FDA made a miscalculation in this case that creating a monopoly over efficacy and safety. I would bet that the FDA has some sort of corporate values that probably make vague references to patient safety, ease of use and improvement in living. I'm betting that none of their 'values' have anything to do with creating a monopoly. I'm further betting that this lesson will not be lost on career FDA employees and that this incident will be calculated in future considerations.

Sometimes things get taken off the market because they 'could' cause an issue. I'm betting that if the FDA had this to do all over again, they would not have removed the competitor unless there was a clear and urgent problem.

Monopolistic behavior is bad for our economy. The reasons are as obvious as this news story. At least the FDA has a compensating activity going on (by allowing the pharma company to only recover their costs of R&D) and if there was monopolistic behavior going on, they could step in and make it cease.

In this case they can't do anything but watch.

And for the EpiPen maker, you know you're facing a corporate image disaster when Martin Skrelly (Pharma Bro) gets on TV and approves of your actions.

[jdshock]

Actually, in my mind it does matter. The FDA creates rules that allow the manufacturer to recoup R&D expenses. In this case, the FDA pulled products off the market that created the monopoly. Although I am somewhat suspect about the value of these rules (because most of the time big pharma buys their R&D by buying up smaller companies who are pioneers in their field) I understand the need to have the R&D expenditure reimbursement.

In this case, there was nothing to reimburse. Nothing but pure profit on a product that should cost just a few dollars to make and whose patent had expired long ago.

The pharma company (which is run by Sen. Joe Manchin's daughter - another example that someone could point to about the system being rigged) does not have patent protection on the product. I'm betting (and I'm cynical on this) the $$$ go back to shareholders, which would explain why the stock price of the company plummeted when the bad press started leaking out.

The FDA made a miscalculation in this case that creating a monopoly over efficacy and safety. I would bet that the FDA has some sort of corporate values that probably make vague references to patient safety, ease of use and improvement in living. I'm betting that none of their 'values' have anything to do with creating a monopoly. I'm further betting that this lesson will not be lost on career FDA employees and that this incident will be calculated in future considerations.

Sometimes things get taken off the market because they 'could' cause an issue. I'm betting that if the FDA had this to do all over again, they would not have removed the competitor unless there was a clear and urgent problem.

Monopolistic behavior is bad for our economy. The reasons are as obvious as this news story. At least the FDA has a compensating activity going on (by allowing the pharma company to only recover their costs of R&D) and if there was monopolistic behavior going on, they could step in and make it cease.

In this case they can't do anything but watch.

And for the EpiPen maker, you know you're facing a corporate image disaster when Martin Skrelly (Pharma Bro) gets on TV and approves of your actions.

This all makes a lot of sense, and I shouldn't have posted before thinking it through. (Maybe I should've ended that sentence two words earlier) I did a poor job conveying my actual thoughts on the matter.

I just think it's ridiculous to post an article that is titled "Don't blame capitalism for your pricey epipen." But nobody is really proposing allowing pure capitalism into the pharmaceutical industry, right?

The company acted with capitalistic intent. It was motivated by greater profits. That's the key component of capitalism. The bad regulation allowed the company to act badly, in a capitalistic way. The patent monopoly allows the company to do the same thing (seek great profits), and society approves. One is an effective regulation and one is an ineffective regulation. The epipen situation relied on two parts though: a bad regulation plus a company attempting to maximize profits.

The problem can be solved by removing the bad regulation or by removing the incentive (i.e., getting rid of capitalism). These articles that are coming out act like capitalism can't be the problem, implying it's too little capitalism that causes it. It's just so much more complicated than that, though.

[MoValley John]

The simple solution to the epipen problem is to get your dr to prescribe you a vial of epinephrine and a syringe. Epinephirine is cheap, $10 gets you the whole enchilada. Learn how to deliver a dose in an orange. Children learn how to give themselves insulin, people with allergies could easily learn how to deliver a dose of epinephrine. Draw the dose, clear the air, shove the bastard in your thigh and push the plunger.

If people do this en masse, the manufacturer will drop the price of the epipen.

[MoValley John]

20160829_171630.jpg

Those are my epipens. I'm highly allergic to bee and wasp stings and have been hospitalized. If, when my epipens expire, the cost to me is high, I will have my dr simply prescribe me a vial of epinephrine. No whining, just the free market at work.

[wufan]

And still, daytime television is about 50% paid for by lawyers with class action suits against pharmaceuticals for some rather nasty unintended effects.

A friend of mine showed signs of memory loss, loss of logic and reasoning skills, and lessened ability to process new information. I asked him if any of his meds had changed. He said they hadn't.

He didn't remember that he doubled the dosage of his weight loss medication about the same time he started noticing the problems with his memory. That was 2 weeks before I mentioned the problems I had observed.

His medication is a drug originally designed for recovering addicts. It reduces the cravings they have from their addiction.

Then they noticed that those taking the drug lost their appetites. Guess what? New use for the drug. Now it's prescribed as a weight loss solution. No exercise. No sticking to a diet. Just take this medication and you won't want to eat anything.

Only a couple of problems with the no effort weight loss. First, that is the stupidest way to lose weight possible. Blood sugar is going to be totally messed up. Once anyone stops taking the drug, their metabolism is going to be so low that their body will be semi-permanently in an all-out effort to store fat.

Then there are the side effects. The only side effect the pharmaceutical had to report was that people taking the medication may experience mental changes. My friend was unaware of the side effects until he did some research after he realized his memory loss happened at about the same time he was instructed to double the dosage he had been taking.

Mental changes, my ass. His mental state seemed to be that of someone who had recently had a stroke! This is a prescribed weight loss medication, so it's covered by insurance. We're all paying for this medication to pretty much wreck people's lives.

I'm involved in stage 3 approval, which means the product already passed all of the requirements for safety and efficacy in the clinical stages. It failed for your friend and it sometimes fails for other drugs (as mentioned). That said, again the reason for the EpiPen fiasco has nothing to do with that. This was straight up beurocratic blockage of drugs, and maybe they were warranted, but it was post clinical, and had to do with some disagreement in how they do business rather than danger to patient.

[wufan]

Either one is a monopoly, though, right? Does it matter if it is via bureaucracy or if its because of a patent? Is your argument that a bureaucratic monopoly is uniquely bad for innovation or are you arguing that the bureaucracy created monopoly extends for too long of a period?

Edit to add: obviously a patent is more predictable for the company. I'm just interested in hearing more about why a monopoly might be good in one situation but not in another.

Khan answered fairly well. Monopolies of products are bad for capitalism. Patent protected monopolies are good for innovation.

[wufan]

Actually, in my mind it does matter. The FDA creates rules that allow the manufacturer to recoup R&D expenses. In this case, the FDA pulled products off the market that created the monopoly. Although I am somewhat suspect about the value of these rules (because most of the time big pharma buys their R&D by buying up smaller companies who are pioneers in their field) I understand the need to have the R&D expenditure reimbursement.

In this case, there was nothing to reimburse. Nothing but pure profit on a product that should cost just a few dollars to make and whose patent had expired long ago.

The pharma company (which is run by Sen. Joe Manchin's daughter - another example that someone could point to about the system being rigged) does not have patent protection on the product. I'm betting (and I'm cynical on this) the $$$ go back to shareholders, which would explain why the stock price of the company plummeted when the bad press started leaking out.

The FDA made a miscalculation in this case that creating a monopoly over efficacy and safety. I would bet that the FDA has some sort of corporate values that probably make vague references to patient safety, ease of use and improvement in living. I'm betting that none of their 'values' have anything to do with creating a monopoly. I'm further betting that this lesson will not be lost on career FDA employees and that this incident will be calculated in future considerations.

Sometimes things get taken off the market because they 'could' cause an issue. I'm betting that if the FDA had this to do all over again, they would not have removed the competitor unless there was a clear and urgent problem.

Monopolistic behavior is bad for our economy. The reasons are as obvious as this news story. At least the FDA has a compensating activity going on (by allowing the pharma company to only recover their costs of R&D) and if there was monopolistic behavior going on, they could step in and make it cease.

In this case they can't do anything but watch.

And for the EpiPen maker, you know you're facing a corporate image disaster when Martin Skrelly (Pharma Bro) gets on TV and approves of your actions.

My only disagreement is that when the smaller pharma innovators are purchased, the only thing of value that is being purchased is the patent protected innovation. Generally, everything else is the purchase of their millions in debt which has to be paid back prior to earning a nickel.

[wufan]

The simple solution to the epipen problem is to get your dr to prescribe you a vial of epinephrine and a syringe. Epinephirine is cheap, $10 gets you the whole enchilada. Learn how to deliver a dose in an orange. Children learn how to give themselves insulin, people with allergies could easily learn how to deliver a dose of epinephrine. Draw the dose, clear the air, shove the bastard in your thigh and push the plunger.

If people do this en masse, the manufacturer will drop the price of the epipen.

Good call! They're cheap and effective. We make them in McPherson.

[MoValley John]

Just so everyone knows, epinepherine has no patent protection. Any pharmacutical company can market epinepherine. The patent on the epipen has everything to do with their patented delivery system. If I were running a competing pharmacutical, I'd simply market a preloaded syringe of epinepherine in a tamper proof box. Game. Set. Match.

[wufan]

Just so everyone knows, epinepherine has no patent protection. Any pharmacutical company can market epinepherine. The patent on the epipen has everything to do with their patented delivery system. If I were running a competing pharmacutical, I'd simply market a preloaded syringe of epinepherine in a tamper proof box. Game. Set. Match.

That's the problem. The company's that have come out with these products have not been allowed to sell in the US.

Also, they aren't that easy to make. The pressure from the gun, if not we'll secured in the pen, can cause some traumatic injuries. The glass carpuole is prone to shatter. The precision delivery is difficult as well. Finally, you have to obtain approval from two different groups within the FDA; Pharma and devices.

[MoValley John]

That's the problem. The company's that have come out with these products have not been allowed to sell in the US.

Also, they aren't that easy to make. The pressure from the gun, if not we'll secured in the pen, can cause some traumatic injuries. The glass carpuole is prone to shatter. The precision delivery is difficult as well. Finally, you have to obtain approval from two different groups within the FDA; Pharma and devices.

But any pysician can prescribe epi prn, you can also obtain a syringe. Lean how to draw the epinepherine and how to shoot it in your thigh.