>>>>How the Pharmeceutical Industry Tamed HIV
>>>>Presented by the American Council on Science and Health
>>>>
>>>>Summary :
>>>>The campaign against HIV was waged mainly by the pharmaceutical industry. Although there were significant contributions from universities and the government, neither of these has the knowledge, resources or ability to develop drugs. Drug companies are often portrayed as “evil” or “greedy”, but this could not be further from the truth. As late as 1994, AIDS was a certain death sentence. Within a few years this was no longer the case, thanks to the dedication of a dozen or so companies working for a decade, often for little financial gain. Now, there are more than 20 AIDS medications on the market, and with improved modern therapies, life expectancy has increased markedly and hospitalizations have likewise decreased.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.acsh.org/docLib/20110214_AIDSFullText.pdf
>>>
>>>I've never thought of the pharma industry as "Evil". Greedy, maybe. They are in business for profit. That article and the summary makes it seem like the whole industry is comprised of good samaritans clamoring to rescue the afflicted.
>>>
>>>HIV is a global problem and those medications on the market are pulling in manifold billions of dollars. Where is all the clamoring on some of the smaller problems like the incurable and mostly fatal cystinosis from which only about 500 people in the U.S. suffer and only about 2000 world wide. Under the Orphan Drugs Act, somebody had to take it on, so there is one company working on it. No huge future profits like there was going to be with AIDS.
>>>
>>>I'm not knocking them. Pharma shouldn't be portrayed as any more evil than any other business that is supposed to be profitable. But certainly pharma should also not be portrayed as an altruistic industry. I mean "this could not be further from the truth"? A little over the top, I thought. And "often for little gain"? Sure, at that moment in time, but they weren't stupid. They knew what it would eventually be worth. And they were right.
>>
>>They knew what it would be worth, if they were successful. They also knew that they would be spending billions on research and the approval process with major losses if the results were not positive, as is the case with the majority of compounds. For all this work they get to enjoy their patents for 20 years (7-12 years on market after clinical trials and FDA approval). That's not greed, that's risk/reward.
>>
>>I've got an idea to lower drug costs. Speed up the approval process and let the companies who create the compounds keep their patents longer. I say treat them like a certain cartoon mouse, 75 years after the creator's death.
>
>I don't really have any issues with that except to say that I'm not real sure about speeding up the process while still retaining the confidence that the product is truly safe and that the information from the manufacturer is absolutely honest. Because speeding up the process means relying more heavily on the information from the manufacturer, and I guess I have a little less confidence in their honour where billions of dollars are at stake.

In regards to the bolded item, that is impossible and there are many examples that the existing process allows bad componds through while delaying beneficial ones. The process cannot be perfect but it can be more efficient.

>On the other hand, nobody's life depends on that certain mouse regardless whether they can afford to access him or not.

The vast majority of compounds developed are not "life-saving" but life-improving. My more important point is that if a drug maker had 75 years to exclusively market their compound as opposed to 20 (give or take 8-12 for the current approval process), the cost to the consumer would plummet. In addition, we'd likely see many more of the orphaned drugs being developed as they would have a much better chance at profitability.