The most expensive medicine in the world...

[dolf]

Costs £1.79 million per dose!

I'm too bogged by to be amazed by the science, or delighted for the babies who will benefit.

That's $2,471,730.45 in American dollars.

$2.47 million.

...For one dose.

 

[Champakian]

When you are on the cusp of having only niche conditions to research and treat,
then you're going to get situational pricing.

I liken it to the evolution of the smart phone and the flat screen.
At first, they were affordable only to the very wealthy.
But eventually the price came down.
Even "the poor" have them.





Even if they have to kick some ass at Walmart for one of those Black Friday deals.

 

[Champakian]

Of course, that won't happen here with such a niche market,
but eventually, the generic stuff will be made in India and the price will come down.

 

[dolf]

Yup, I imagine it took some very skilled, highly qualified professionals, and a shitload of expensive research, trials, red tape, etc. The price highlights the problem with developing treatments for orphan diseases. It's such a tiny market, it has to cost a lot to make any sort of profit.

Sucks to be rare!

 

[Champakian]

We had the opportunity, just recently to fully understand the cost of red tape
with Operation Warp Speed, but that is a lesson that was ignored for political gain.

In fact, until it became the Biden vaccine, a lot of the Left was decrying the speed
and the cutting of corners, but they turned on a dime and then started blasting
those who believed them and didn't trust the vaccines as the haters of Science
once the election of Grandpa had been secured...

/soapbox lecture

 

[Champakian]

PS - You're rare (as in gem) and you don't suck.


Well, , not in that way...

 

[dolf]

I'm an acquired taste.

What people don't get is that most modern vaccines could probably go through the process almost this fast, if it wasn't for red tape, applying for funding, waiting on permits, etc. A lot of waiting around for shit to move forward was eliminated, rather than a lot of scientific corners being cut. I can understand concern, but not the urge to assume that the worst explanation is the only explanation possible.

 

[Champakian]

I concur, but there is a strong societal undercurrent
of those who believe that regulations prevent accidents.
They can, of course, only prevent known accident and
when an accident is known, industry is pretty good at
correcting it; it's part of their branding...

But, I think that for some people there is
the faux satisfaction of banding together to
control that which they cannot possibly assist.




[Quit putting me on a soapbox. ]

 

[dolf]

Hmmm... i don't actually agree. I'm sure there's plenty of unnecessary red tape, but I don't trust industry to self regulate. There are famous, glaring examples of industry, having invested heavily in a product, then being very unwilling to acknowledge dangers and issues that might take it off the market.

Essure is one of the better known. Problems were found, then deliberately hidden. bodies were damaged, lives were destroyed. I suppose it's much like with faults in cars, where if a product recall would cost more than the law suits from the deaths, the fault remains.

I don't think we need more regulation, but I do think we need better regulation.

 

[rockcasbah]

I'm an acquired taste.

What people don't get is that most modern vaccines could probably go through the process almost this fast, if it wasn't for red tape, applying for funding, waiting on permits, etc. A lot of waiting around for shit to move forward was eliminated, rather than a lot of scientific corners being cut. I can understand concern, but not the urge to assume that the worst explanation is the only explanation possible.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oylxZuEySHM/TJJ-6Oiq0lI/AAAAAAAAAFY/1fBcLqe4MRU/s1600/black_thalidomide_victim_cnn_640x480.jpg

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

It makes sense since it's a very rare disease. The amount of money invested in the research and development of the drug as well as the costs for getting it approved for human use is probably between 1 to 5 billion. That money has to be recouped before the company's patents expire.

The story mentioned that only 80 infants have the disease in England. If that number was 800 with the disease, the cost would be around $247,000 instead of 2.47 million per dose.

 

[dolf]

*picture of two victims of thalidomide*

A classic example of why concern is understandable.

 

[rockcasbah]

A classic example of why concern is understandable.

You're welcome.

 

[dolf]

Yup, I imagine it took some very skilled, highly qualified professionals, and a shitload of expensive research, trials, red tape, etc. The price highlights the problem with developing treatments for orphan diseases. It's such a tiny market, it has to cost a lot to make any sort of profit.

Sucks to be rare!

It makes sense since it's a very rare disease. The amount of money invested in the research and development of the drug as well as the costs for getting it approved for human use is probably between 1 to 5 billion. That money has to be recouped before the company's patents expire.

The story mentioned that only 80 infants have the disease in England. If that number was 800 with the disease, the cost would be around $247,000 instead of 2.47 million per dose.

Did anyone order the mansplain special?

 

[Champakian]

Hmmm... i don't actually agree. I'm sure there's plenty of unnecessary red tape, but I don't trust industry to self regulate. There are famous, glaring examples of industry, having invested heavily in a product, then being very unwilling to acknowledge dangers and issues that might take it off the market.

Essure is one of the better known. Problems were found, then deliberately hidden. bodies were damaged, lives were destroyed. I suppose it's much like with faults in cars, where if a product recall would cost more than the law suits from the deaths, the fault remains.

I don't think we need more regulation, but I do think we need better regulation.

All valid points, but if a company is unscrupulous,
they will find, hide or bribe their way around them.

It reminds me of something that John Stossel (Libertarian)
wrote about, and this is a paraphrasing from memory, but he
made his reputation busting the bad players on the local level
and when he was noticed by the national media and elevated
when he went to hunt for the same kind of corruption, he couldn't
find it for the reason I spoke of above; protecting the brand.

The problem is that every time there is an accident or a mistake
gets past company inspection/quality control then there is a hue
and cry from the "champions of the victims" (usually disinterested
spectators who find relevancy in cause) and politicians love to
take advantage of the alligator-tear (crocodile-tear) outrage to
prove their relevancy, gain more power and increase contributions.

That's why so many smaller towns and bigger cities have so many
freaking stop signs, it's about the only power a city council has in
that case. Put that kind of power in a big city, e.g., N'Awlins and
the levies break because all of the corruption and siphoning of
moneys, despite a plethora of regulation, when you get a hard
rain, the levies break and as a politician you are in the position
of to absolve yourself of blame by crying for more regulation,
more funding, and pointing the finger at a political enemy to
try and give them the blame and absolve themselves of the blame.

A company that makes that big of a mistake in judgement has to
pay a steep price, financially, criminally, and in customer loyalty.
Government doesn't. The only thing government does to protect us
is to make the company relocate because of the burdensome cost
of compliance to nothing but the exercise of raw, political power.

Government cannot produce better regulation, only more and
as we see the leader/party that actually does reduce regulation
must endure the wrath of these invest in the regulation, e.g.
those who move from the industry being regulated to get more
to provide the expertise to write more regulation (not better
regulation, because all of their professional contacts are
still with the industry, otherwise, your experts are incompetents,
vastly ignorant, or even worse, academics...)

[/soapbox]

 

[dolf]

The companies caught out in these huge scandals don't suffer catastrophic repercussions, which is why they repeat the same behaviour over and over.

But I'm wary of comparison between American regulation with European/British regulation. I don't know details of differences, but there are frequently different results. My earlier example of Essure, for example, was banned o er here due to concerns, but was still pushed in America for many years after that. In that particular instance, regulation protected possibly millions from harm, but the law suits and bad publicity didn't stop American women being damaged for a very long time.

Enough doctors didn't stop using that product, let alone that company.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Did anyone order the mansplain special?

mansplaining = facts

 

[dolf]

mansplaining = repeating what you just said, as though educating you with something new

In this example, yes.

 

[CornusKousa]

Did anyone order the mansplain special?

Some prefer it over the whamanSplained special.

Thanks for your wahmanSplaining though.

 

[CornusKousa]

mansplaining = facts

You are just a male.....how dare you speak!!!

LoL....welcome to a feminist world bubba.

On the upside if history is a decent indicator it won't last long.

 

[CuttingEdge]

My most expensive medicine was a strong med, given as a last resort to save a limb that had an infection in it. It was $55,000 for a pint of it...

 

[dolf]

My most expensive medicine was a strong med, given as a last resort to save a limb that had an infection in it. It was $55,000 for a pint of it...

I honestly have no idea how much any treatment or medicine I've received has cost

That's a big number though!