What Is Open Source Pharma (and Why Should You Care)?

Andy Updegrove writes: Humanity today is almost completely dependent on huge pharmaceutical companies to create the drugs we need. But these companies focus exclusively on drugs that can be sold at high prices to large populations — in other words, to patients in developed nations. This means that those who live in the emerging world that suffer from the remaining 'neglected diseases,' like Malaria and drug resistant TB, have no one to depend on for relief except huge charities, like the Gates Foundation. They also have no way to afford many of the patented drugs that do exist. But there is another way, modeled on open source software development, which relies on crowd sourced knowledge, highly distributed, volunteer efforts, and advanced open source tools. That methodology is called Open Source Pharma, and it has the potential to dramatically drive down drug development while saving millions of lives every year.

Comments

This will be stopped

[Anonymous Coward]

Once TPP is signed into law.

TPP has to be the worst evil the world has ever seen!

Re:This will be stopped

[ihtoit]

TPP will have no teeth as long as BRICS is allowed to continue.

Re:This will be stopped

[Anonymous Coward]

What in god's name did this get down modded for? Seriously?

Re:This will be stopped

[rs79]

We know why.

Re:This will be stopped

[Anonymous Coward]

We know why.

Do tell, or are you playing mind games?

Re:This will be stopped

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Probably for being off-topic, like the mod category says.

malaria is not negected

[turkeydance]

melinda gates doesn't,anyway.

Re:malaria is not negected

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, as TFS says.

Re:malaria is not negected

[pepty]

The summary and the article don't entirely impress.

But these companies focus exclusively on drugs that can be sold at high prices to large populations

The FDA created incentives for Pharmas to pursue orphan drug indications and guess what? Pharmas pursued orphan drugs: http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot...

Specifically, there were 467 requests for orphan designation last year by the pharmaceutical industry, which represented a nearly 35% increase from 2013, and 293 drugs were granted orphan status by the FDA Office of Orphan Product Development. This amounted to a nearly 13% increase. Ultimately, 49 orphan drugs were approved by the agency, up 53% from 2013. A designation, by the way, means the FDA has decided a drug qualifies for orphan status.

The article:

Most of this anecdotal evidence ends up going nowhere, because there is no easy way for overworked physicians to post and aggregate such possibly random, but occasionally very significant observations. The possibilities here are enormous, because so many of these drugs are already generic, and they have already been approved by the appropriate authorities. Such “off label” uses of very inexpensive, repurposed drugs can be immediate, and lifesaving.

Be very careful what you wish for. For one thing, as you can read everywhere, the aggregate of anecdotes != data. It is very hard to separate the signal from the noise, especially when you are desperate to see a signal in the noise. Andy Groves is infamous for not realizing this and many other differences between the semiconductor and the pharma industries.

For another, if the open source effort succeeds in datamining a possible new indication for a generic drug the prime beneficiary will be (Surprise!) the most predatory pharma companies. Exclusive marketing rights don't start or end with a patent. In the US, you can get exclusive rights by running a trial that finds a new indication for a generic drug. So while the open source folks are begging on GoFundMe, some outfit like URL Pharma will have looked at the open source data, run a trial, gotten approval, and run up the price on the drug 1500% while preventing anyone else from selling it for at least three years. See: Colchicine

Big Pharma is both much more asinine and much more useful than folks give them credit for.

Power to the people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's to the death of the rent-seeking, lobbying, drug cartels!

The Republicans want us to die

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why their kind will never allow this. They hate us.

Re:The Republicans want us to die

[Anonymous Coward]

They have fought so hard for closed drugs. So hard. That is why nearly 90% of Americans are not allowed to see a doctor. On the rich and powerful can in the US. They hate us and are denying healthcare.

There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[ScentCone]

Crowd sourcing years of clinical trials. What could possibly go wrong.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[ArmoredDragon]

This.

Not only that, but what happens when you end up with drugs that work incredibly well, only they include a very nasty (and deadly) side effect that wasn't found in the clinical trials? (See Fen-Phen.) Who pays in that case? This is why drug companies want patents. They HAVE to charge a high price and make big profits, otherwise the risk is NOT worth the reward.

I'm not opposed this kind of movement, but I'm going to remain skeptical about its viability until the above two problems can be solved. Not only that, but in many cases you're looking at costs that range in the billions of dollars before you'll see even a dime worth of profit, and even then, profit isn't guaranteed.

Open source tends to work because just anybody can pick up a programming book and learn to code, and know really quickly whether or not it will work. But nobody can very quickly tell if a drug they're developing has no dangerous side effects, and doing so often involves risking somebody else's life and not necessarily your own. Medical professionals don't experiment like this because it goes against their code of ethics.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fen-phen did not work incredibly well by any measure for obesity.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[currently_awake]

Reasons for government to do all drug research: #1-drug companies do research for profit only, unprofitable drugs don't get developed no matter how many lives it would save. #2-high cost and risk of developing new drugs. #3-developing a cure is less profitable than a treatment, so corporations would only make the treatment. The drug companies should only do production and distribution.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I'm not opposed this kind of movement, but I'm going to remain skeptical about its viability until the above two problems can be solved

This. We want "Big Pharma" inventing drugs. Expensive new drugs are better than none, which is the only real choice. We want government doing basic research, even though it is a fraction of private investment. We want tesing of folk remedies, and ass sweat from some monkey in South America, and some frog venom that wasn't discovered until three weeks ago.

The prime problem for humanity is, always has been, and continues to be, death. Not this or that right, or political system, or whatnot. Death. And the vast bulk of that is disease and natueal process.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[the gnat]

Crowd sourcing years of clinical trials. What could possibly go wrong.

I don't disagree with this point - pharma industry critics tend to be very ignorant of what the process actually looks like, and how much it costs - but one of the points made by the article was that Big Pharma might not waste so much time and money on failing drug candidates if they had access to more complete information*, i.e. if data sharing was the norm rather than the exception. Crowd-sourcing the clinical trials sounds like a recipe for disaster, but crowd-sourcing the early discovery process might have some real benefits. It's not like the entire process could get any less efficient, and even just keeping the number of failed clinical candidates to a minimum would be a huge improvement.

(* Granted, the fact that most academic research is stuck behind publisher paywalls makes their job far more difficult than it should be. I get nauseous every time I think about how much damage our publication practices have done to modern science.)

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Kohath]

#4 When your government drug has a crippling side-effect, you can't sue them. No one at the government has anything to lose.
#5 When you have a disease that you need treatment for, you get research and treatment based on how politically powerful (usually meaning how popular and fashionable) you and your fellow disease-sufferers are. You're a popular political heavyweight, aren't you?
#6 You compete for budget resources with retirees on benefits and children who need schools. You're more powerful than retirees on benefits and more sympathetic than young children, aren't you?
#7 Companies have to hurry to bring drugs to market before the patent expires. Governments can take their time. You don't want to be cured or treated soon, do you?

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[tsotha]

Yep. Excitement over this sort of thing is based on a false assumption - that drug targets are the expensive part. They're not.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[rtb61]

#8 The drugs researched by government can be produced by any suitable company and they must compete on price. This eliminates patent extortion, pay 10,000% margins or suffer die, when done by truly psychopathic corporations. If fact a huge proportion is done by government at taxpayer expense only to see that research sold to private corporations for cents on the dollar. Stop the bullshit, the only thing private does better than government is feed the greed of psychopaths.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[ArmoredDragon]

Reasons for government to do all drug research: #1-drug companies do research for profit only, unprofitable drugs don't get developed no matter how many lives it would save. #2-high cost and risk of developing new drugs. #3-developing a cure is less profitable than a treatment, so corporations would only make the treatment. The drug companies should only do production and distribution.

Ok I'll need you to take off your rose tinted government issue glasses for a minute. Consider the fact that the US has a smaller GDP than the combined EU, and the EU governments take in more taxes than the US government.

Now ask yourself, why is it that the world's most advanced medications always come from for profit corporations in the US, and nowhere else? Why is it that the US is by far the most popular destination for medical tourism, even though in the US, hospitals are owned by private, for profit corporations?

Clearly because government run medicine is so much better, right?

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Kohath]

In other words, you were cured of your deadly disease and you get to live another 40 years, but someone made a profit so it wasn't worth it.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[rtb61]

Hey, psychopath dude there is a world of difference between 10% profit and predatory margins of 10,000%, I know you always have to be reminded because you can not see beyond your own ego.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Kohath]

Yeah, I get it. It's too much profit, so nevermind being cured of your deadly disease. Those extra 40 years you get to live are an obscenity because the guys who cured you got paid way too much.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[davester666]

You only live those 40 years if you happen to be rich enough to afford it.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[sjames]

No, you died because you couldn't afford it. Or you were left unnecessarily bankrupt and died years early because THAT kept you from getting decent healthcare.

There's profit and then there's obscene profiteering.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[sjames]

I find you dying in the desert so I drive up in my water tanker (filled to capacity) and sell you just enough water to keep you alive in return for everything you own and a promissory note for the rest. Seem fair?

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[sjames]

Too bad you're wrong. India and Singapore are the hot medical destinations. Mexico is popular for Americans who need expensive dental work. There ARE people who travel to the U.S. for medical care, but more people travel FROM the U.S. to get medical care.

I have no idea where you got the idea that all of the drug development happens in the U.S.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Kohath]

But someone else was cured, and it's not fair, so the disease should never have been cured to begin with. (Even though the patent runs out in 8-12 years and then everyone who ever gets the disease from that day until the end of time can get a cheap cure for it.)

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Kohath]

No. Dying in the desert is never fair. Getting sick or hungry isn't fair. Everyone should live forever in perfect health or it's not fair. Why does President Obama let all this unfairness keep happening?

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[sjames]

OH, you're a KOOK! You should have said so and saved me the trouble of replying.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[sjames]

No, it should have been offered at an affordable price.

It's funny how they magically find a way to do that when the drug is at all optional.

Re: There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[koomba]

I think rtb kind of has a point, some medicine costs are just obscene, particularly in a hospital setting. My dad is an ER pharmacist, so I get to hear all kinds of stuff about insane drug prices. One example: someone came in recently that had been bitten by a dog, and they didn't know if it had rabies or not. He didn't have insurance. And with rabies, you can't just wait and see if symptoms appear, if you have contacted it, the antidote must be given long beefier symptoms appear, or you could be in trouble. And the price for the antidote paying with no insurance? $40,000. So hmmm, just pray the dog didn't have it? Blow 40k incase it did? No good choices there.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Kohath]

I hope you can sleep tonight knowing companies are still out there making large profits by curing people of deadly diseases.

Re: There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Kohath]

Obviously the good choice is to have insurance. This is exactly what insurance is for, to protect you from financial loss in case of an unlikely mishap. It's the same as if your house caught on fire.

A dog bite isn't an emergency. For $40k, you take a few hours to find the dog to get it tested for rabies, and failing that, you'd shop around for someone who might charge less than $40k. If you had to pay the $40k, you'd still want to find the dog afterward and get his owner (or his owner's liability insurance provider) to pay you back.

Re: There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why everybody should have insurance, paid by the state if they can't afford it themselves. (Or more to the point, basic health care should be free -- treat diseases as soon as they appear, give out free vaccines, prevent epidemics. Didn't we learn anything from the Ebola disaster?)
Similar answer to "who pays for unforeseen nasty side effects": when no negligence or malpractice can be shown, there should be an insurance to cover these risks.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[sackvillian]

Clearly because government run medicine is so much better, right?

The US pays its doctors some of the highest salaries in the world, publishes the most and best medical research in the world, and also charges its patients the most in the world.

You can find the best and worst care in the US. For the rich who want the best care -- American or not -- the US is their destination of choice. It's just that the rest of the developed world gives a damn about providing decent care to the vast majority of citizens who are not rich. By focusing on that, they take care of the rank and file and still leave the opportunity for the richest to travel abroad to pay through the nose for better care, so nobody really suffers.

And as the poster below points out, medical tourism is not exactly the best metric of your system's quality. India and Mexico aren't exactly shining models of medical care.

Re: There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Billy the Mountain]

Rabies vaccine is only $40k? What a bargain Hepatitis C drugs cost $80k.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

If these profits are so high and it's nothing but a cash cow why don't YOU invest YOUR money into these companies and use YOUR returns to fund open research to save all the people YOU claim to care so much about instead of holding a gun to my head and making me pay for YOUR charity of choice?

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite?

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[currently_awake]

What is worse: dying of an incurable disease, or dying because you can't afford the 1 million dollar cure? The COST isn't just lefty hand waving, it's a matter of who can get the cure.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Stan92057]

ya know darn well its about those who cant get the drugs. A living patent poor or otherwise is a taxpayer until they die. A dead person pays no taxs buys nothing. The profit margins are insane, a pill made for a horse that can be broken into 10 pills is 99% cheaper the 1 pill for a human, that's is a fact, and your ok with that? That not about profits that is pure greed.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[sjames]

Here's one.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Kohath]

Buy insurance, so you can get the cure and only pay the deductible.

Everybody wins. Sick people get cured. Healthy people are already winners because they're healthy. Drug companies get paid and get a really nice incentive to keep finding disease cures. The insurance company tries to negotiate costs down so they can make a profit. Insurance buyers force the insurance companies to compete for their business.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[tgrigsby]

I believe sjames just took off your Fox "News" color sunglasses. Blink a few times -- the sudden glare of truth can be blinding at first...

Yes, drug development happens in the U.S., but inexpensive treatment happens everywhere BUT the U.S, largely because of the obscene profit margins on medicine, medical procedures, etc.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[wv5k]

How about a link containing something a bit more current than seven years ago??

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[exomondo]

Not only that, but what happens when you end up with drugs that work incredibly well, only they include a very nasty (and deadly) side effect that wasn't found in the clinical trials? (See Fen-Phen.) Who pays in that case?

If it's based on the Open Source model then nobody pays because nobody is directly responsible. The idea is the information is available free and the end user is the one that has to make the decision because they have all the information.

I'm not opposed this kind of movement, but I'm going to remain skeptical about its viability until the above two problems can be solved.

It's all really going to have to come with an Open Source Software -style "no warranty" disclaimer and when it comes to healthcare you can bet if something goes wrong the first thing will be the question of "who can we blame and sue for millions of dollars". I'm sure it will be a legal mess to have a drug manufacturing company that is completely absolved of responsibility - and of course needs to be due to the low profit margins - or even worse for everybody to have a pill press and make their drugs themselves.

Open source tends to work because just anybody can pick up a programming book and learn to code, and know really quickly whether or not it will work.

And even if it works most of the time but has some critical crash in a few niche cases it's going to be useful and can potentially be patched, the consequence of a drug working most of the time but having some critical side effect in a few niche cases is much more severe. You can't just say "hit 'save' more frequently and if something goes wrong just restart your system".

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[exomondo]

No, it should have been offered at an affordable price.

Then get cracking on starting a research center and clinical trials, patent your results, freely license them and let's see if it's sustainable. There's always a bunch of keyboard warriors telling everybody that the experts in the field are doing it wrong and that *this* is how it should be. Maybe if you SJWs actually *did* something rather than just whining about it you might succeed or perhaps you might realize that reality doesn't quite match your idealized view of what it should be. Either way you're not going to find out until you try.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[pepty]

You are discounting the Wisdom of Crowds. Just hand 10000 people the data and ask them "Does this drug show efficacy for non-Hodgkins Lymphoma?". The answer will surely be correct to within +/- 10 jellybeans.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[pepty]

#1. If the drug would theoretically save many lives (in the US) at all, it would be profitable. #2. So Congress, with its great respect for science, will be a great arbiter for deciding which drug research projects should get billions of dollars? #3. NO. This is a common fallacy. A cure for any serious ailment would be an absolute goldmine for a pharma. They would price it much higher than any treatment and drive out almost all competition in the market (the ones selling treatments, not cures) in months. Plus, they would get all of their revenue NOW, as opposed to having to sell it for a decade or more.

Want to book $10B in revenue in five years? invent a good diabetes treatment. Want book two trillion dollars in revenue? Invent a cure for type II diabetes. Seriously. It would have a stated price of $50k+, sell for an average price of ~$25K, and easily sell 80 million doses in five years.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[pepty]

Year in, year out, about 25% of new drugs (NCEs) are invented by public research. 75% are invented by pharmas/biotechs.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[pepty]

Sometimes it is an obscenity. Price of your asthma inhaler (albuterol) goes up 1000% because of a patent on a new CFC-free formulation that's no better (for the patients) than the now banned version that has CFCs? Run a quick trial on a generic drug (colchicine) and run the price up 1500% for three years because the FDA gave you exclusivity? Use FDA legal gamesmanship to prevent generic manufacturers from getting the samples of your drugs (Lenalidomide, Bosentan) necessary for them to get approval of their generic version of your drugs?

All seem pretty obscene to me.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[pepty]

1. Your first paragraph doesn't inform your second paragraph at all.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[pepty]

Now ask yourself, why is it that the world's most advanced medications always come from for profit corporations in the US, and nowhere else?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but three of the top 5 Pharma companies (global sales 2014) are Roche, Novartis, and Sanofi.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[pepty]

and the end user is the one that has to make the decision because they have all the information.

And a strong background in pathology, statistics, pharmacology and a few months free to review the information and make an informed, rational choice not clouded by desperation or painkillers?

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[sjames]

Two separate thoughts in two separate paragraphs. Where's the confusion?

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[exomondo]

Exactly! It's very much like Open Source software, the advocates tell you it's great because you can see the source and see what it does but that is completely disingenuous argument given that very few people are going to understand the full breadth and consequences of what they are seeing. Now of course in pharmaceuticals the consequences of not understanding it are likely much more dire.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

#4 When your government drug has a crippling side-effect, you can't sue them. No one at the government has anything to lose.
#5 When you have a disease that you need treatment for, you get research and treatment based on how politically powerful (usually meaning how popular and fashionable) you and your fellow disease-sufferers are. You're a popular political heavyweight, aren't you?
#6 You compete for budget resources with retirees on benefits and children who need schools. You're more powerful than retirees on benefits and more sympathetic than young children, aren't you?
#7 Companies have to hurry to bring drugs to market before the patent expires. Governments can take their time. You don't want to be cured or treated soon, do you?

You must be living in la-la land. It is certainly not that way where I live. Actually, our provincial governments look at expired patents, ask physicians to evaluate if a generic version of that expired drug is as good as the candy wrapped new version and if so.. its one they group buy, based on recommendations from physicians. And trivially based on recommendations of pharmacologists. Canada has a single payer medical system, and I say, thank you over and over for having our universal medicare.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[david_thornley]

Market economics generally works better for distributing applied development resources, like the pharma companies do. We definitely want government-supported basic research, because market economics sucks at encouraging that.

A drug that saves a lot of lives is profitable. We can have programs for government support of drug R&D for drugs that will help a relatively small number of people (IIRC we have one already), but there have to be limits.

I fail to see how government-controlled research is gong to be cheaper than private-sector research, and we want drug companies to take risks in developing new drugs, since some of them pay off big. If you mean the government should help individuals with the cost of expensive drugs, I'm completely with you.

If drug company A has a treatment for something, and drug company B comes out with a cure, who's going to get the sales? As long as we have competing companies, we don't have to worry about a cartel manipulating pharmaceutical research for evil ends.

Re:There's more to it than developing the drugs.

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

When you say "predatory margins of 10,000%", are you comparing sale price and cost to produce? Because that's incredibly disingenuous; you have to include R&D costs as well, and not just for that drug, but for all the drugs that they put money into but failed clinical or preclinical trials.

This won't be allowed to happen

[ihtoit]

For good reason:

Natural medicine is the best medicine. I'm not one of those nutjobs, I believe that a balanced diet free of processed crap (or as free from processed crap as it's possible to get, and it is very possible) and knowledge of local flora goes a long way to freedom from dependence of synthetics. For example, did you know that aspirin is found naturally in willow bark? Or that garlic oil is an oral antiseptic? Or that spearmint oil is a great treatment for asthma? I'm about to break the law now (Cancer Act 1939) and tell you that cannabis cures CANCER. The Chinese have known about ALL of these things for six thousand fucking years, I have Chinese neighbours and they're showing me new (to me) stuff all the time. Yesterday they showed me how to make twine from banana skins. Awesome.

Re: This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Please give peer reviewed citations for your claims. And no, blogs don't count, anti-pharma websites don't count, I want proper articles in journals like the lancet or bmj.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural medicine is the best medicine

how do you cure malaria or TB with natural medicine? you forgot to tell us.

cannabis cures CANCER

tell that to all the stoners who died of cancer

Chinese have known about ALL of these things for six thousand fucking years

man i didn't know that the Chinese never got sick because they know about natural medicine. learn something every day, I tell ya.

I'm not one of those nutjobs

no one said you were, no one has to.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[ScentCone]

cannabis cures CANCER

Man, the stoners really will pitch any ridiculous meme they can latch on to, won't they?

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[ScentCone]

I have Chinese neighbours and they're showing me new (to me) stuff all the time

You mean like how grinding up the horn of a rhinoceros and eating it will fix erectile dysfunction because, you know, horns are sort of phallic looking, and if there are only a few of the animals left in the world, it's a sure sign that their horns must be really really effective? Yeah, that's how Chinese medicine operates. It's almost entirely placebo effect, and ... shocking! ... Chinese people die of cancer every day.

Re: This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Tommy chong has ass cancer...

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[EETech1]

I know someone that the medical community gave 3 months to live that recovered.

Phoenix Tears

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

how do you cure malaria or TB with natural medicine? you forgot to tell us.

Quinine. Tonic water tastes a little grating, so mix some gin in it. Which reminds me, a cold G&T is a great cure for the oppressive heat, too.
*scurries away*

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Yep, this is true across large swaths of SE Asia...Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, etc etc etc. They DO have some actual doctors and Vietnam has some excellent hospitals that do top-notch work, but sadly much of the population believes in magical medicine and "herbal cures" that have no effect (other than as a placebo).

Got a chest pain? "Wear this copper key on a leather thong around your neck for 2 weeks and you'll be cured." That's often the level of "medicine" you'll encounter among neighborhoods both poor and rich.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[Applehu Akbar]

Investigation of folk botanicals as new soutrces of medicine is routine in pharma and always has been. That's how willow bark tea became aspirin. How many liters of tea would be the equivalent of one 325mg pill, anyway?

Meanwhile, how many endangered species are your Chinese neighbors making disappear in their fruitless search for the elusive senior boner? Viagra saves species that Greenpeace can't be bothered with.

Re: This won't be allowed to happen

[Applehu Akbar]

Undoubtedly from serving time in PMITA prison for selling glass pipes in the first degree.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[ScentCone]

Let me guess. That person also works from home and makes $10,000 a month using one simple trick, right?

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[the gnat]

The Chinese have known about ALL of these things for six thousand fucking years

And the Chinese also had the same god-awfully poor standard of living and short life expectancy as everyone else, until they adopted modern standards of sanitation, public health, and medical care.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Asprin is in willow bark... Unfortunately, to get enough for a significant treatment would kill most of the trees.

And spearment oil doesn't work for most asthma sufferers either - it can destroy your stomach.

Cannabis cures CANCER? it also kills the brain.... Now, do one without the other.

Guess what - DEATH kills all known diseases too.

As for the Chinese - no, they didn't know about it for 6,000 years. They have had about 3,000 years to find out what kills patients so those got left out. What is left doesn't always work (and some no better than a placebo).

Twine from bannana skins? Did you know you can make twine from ANY kind of fiber? The Native Americans have been making it for about 14,000 years.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[tmosley]

Cancer can spontaneously go into remission. Anecdotes aren't evidence. Show me the paper that says that potheads get less cancer, or are more likely to survive it, or have decreased mortality in any way.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder if it is coincidence that the Asians on average has a SMALLER penis than anyone else.

Perhaps they have been using powdered horn for so long that it is now changed their DNA and having a small cock is the norm.

Re: This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

You want, you want. Even if you got them, you wouldn't understand the language used, so stop kidding yourself. Go do your own research, or continue to be a pawn of Big Pharma. Tool.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they gave you that paper, I'm willing to bet you'd say it's discredited, or you don't like the source, or it's just one paper and you need more before you'll be convinced, and that's assuming you'd even understand such a paper.

Yet if someone told you a $10000/pill drug from a big manufacturer cured cancer, you'd probably believe it immediately, no questions asked.

Re: This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

The alcohol is not for the taste, it's a disinfectant. And you forgot to add lime for the scurvy.

Re: This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a 17 year old Nigerian prince who wants to date you and share his inheritance.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Ancient Chinese remedies .. Oh God, the idiocy ... That's the oldest scam in the book. In fact, before books even existed.

The drugs today are made from plants, but that's because the plants in their original form add a lot of side effects, and the "processing" removes them, even combines them with other drugs to make a more complete solution.

As for the Chinese remedies, look into the studies that were made from them, finding them to be silly concoctions, useless at best, harmful and even deadly at worst.

Also, let me point out that with modern medicine average lifespan shot up in the 80s, in "ancient" times reaching 40 was rare.

PS willow bark will ruin your kidneys and mess with blood coagulation. Spearmint oil will ruin your kidneys and liver. That's a high price for short term comfort.

Signed
Just a guy who suffered 25+ years of daily headaches and asthma (and rheumatism)

Re: This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you get your daily chemtrail dose from UFO moon conspirators coming from the Illuminati Agarthi base in the hollow earth?

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[elgatozorbas]

For example, did you know that aspirin is found naturally in willow bark?

This is not such secret knowledge. The chemical name of aspirin, Acetylsalicylic acid even derives from salix alba, the willow.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[EETech1]

The person who makes the Phoenix Tears brings in about $50,000 a month and spends most of his time traveling and helping cancer patients. He does not charge them anything, and supports the whole thing out of his pocket.

He has seen it help enough people (starting with his wife) that he has decided it is something he needs to do to help as many people as he can, and it is now his full time job.

Considering he used to spend most of his time on the beach in California, or skiing in Colorado, or on vacation in Hawaii, and he is well past the point where he ever needs to work again, there must be some reason he feels it rewarding enough to come out of retirement.

After 3 of years of doing this he won't say how many people he has helped, he doesn't walk around claiming to have the magical cure, but I have heard from plenty of people he has cared for that they in fact do believe that his care was essential in their battle against cancer.

Cheers

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[ScentCone]

After 3 of years of doing this he won't say how many people he has helped

Of course not. Quacks selling snake oil really dislike leaving a trail that can be examined by actual people who employ critical thinking and the scientific method to establish the efficacy of drugs.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[EETech1]

I believe it is a matter of modesty, not knowing for sure if he was the reason, and being the kind of person who is very confidential by nature.

Most places the extracts are still illegal and fall under manufacturing instead of possession, as well as having harsher penalties. For him to walk around and basically say "I've made and transported enough illegal hemp oil to treat X cancer patients" could have repercussions for his legitimate businesses as well.

He's the kind of person who might be talking to you about your best friend but would never say his name to you out of respect, and the fear of loose lips sinking ships.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

With a blanket statement such as that, your American westernism is showing.

Dear god, /. is turning to shit if this is at +4.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[ScentCone]

Yes, yes. I man with a miracle cure who could save millions of lives, but he's just too modest to let actual scientists study it or demonstrate its actual efficacy.

So, he'll go down as the Modest Guy Who Let Millions Of People Die Because He's Just So Darn Humble.

Occam's Razor says: quack.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[uninformedLuddite]

and the US government has had a patent on cannabis for decades due to its ability to help and heal many different forms of disease. It's easy enough to find the information on this but an old wrinkly drug warrior like yourself probable couldn't give a flying fsck.

Re:This won't be allowed to happen

[pepty]

Did you know that aspirin is actually acetylsalicylic acid (not salicylic acid, which is what is found in willow bark and meadowsweet) and that it was popularized because the salicylic acid in willow bark has much harsher side effects on many people's stomachs?

Crap crap crap

[Hognoxious]

Humanity today is almost completely dependent on huge pharmaceutical companies to create the drugs we need.

No it isn't. Most people don't have access to modern medicine at all.

Oh, and for fuck's sake stop referring to anything other than software as open source.

Re:Crap crap crap

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. But we need new pharmaceuticals to treat our open sores.

Re:Crap crap crap

[Ungrounded Lightning]

[intensifier] stop referring to anything other than software as open source.

I'm perfectly happy to also use (as the spook community does) "open source" to apply to intelligence gathering by scraping and analyzing the net, news media, government publications, and other generally available information rather than limited-access stuff brought in by spy networks.

It's a slightly different meaning of "source", but an entirely apt usage of the two-word string.

Re: Crap crap crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd still be reluctant to get Open Source Cancer.

Good luck...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Open Source Pharma works out like a lot of the Open Source (insert thing) projects I've seen lately where money is involved. The people in a position to make the money will do so while milking the community and then inexplicably decide to go closed source and then sell out to a larger established corporation.

Maybe find a cure for cancer and more

[kbsoftware]

The pharmaceutical industry is not very motivated to find cures for diseases as it would mean less money after a year of so of finding the cure. Just look at cancer research something like $125 billion dollar a year industry. Can you imagine how much money some of the board members are making. So I'm hoping the open source pharma movement will be that movement that will be truely motivated to find cures for diseases like cancer. A problem I do see here is like I say the pharmaceutical industry would feel the impact of someone else finding the cure so I suspect if they even think just a little bit that the open source pharma could find cures that the industry will start lobbying politicians big time to make open source pharma illegal and oh can't wait to hear about all the lawsuits they will bring to try and destroy the movement. So I'm hopeful but I do expect the pharmaceutical industry to do everything in their powers to destroy the open source pharma so tough times ahead.

Actually no

[rsilvergun]

most of the (expensive) basic research is still done on the public dime. Then big pharma comes in, runs a few (cheap) clinical trials, patents the whole shabang and blamo, new drug. You didn't think mega corps actually paid for things like us little people, did you?

Re:Actually no

[ShanghaiBill]

Then big pharma comes in, runs a few (cheap) clinical trials

Clinical trials are not "cheap". They are usually the most expensive part of bringing a new drug to market.

Re:Actually no

[LetterRip]

Clinical trials are not "cheap". They are usually the most expensive part of bringing a new drug to market.

The expensive trials are when we have a drug that treats the problem extremely well, the new drug appears to offer little or no benefit, and thus they have to offer people ridiculous sums of money to be recruited into the trial, and they have to have a enormous number of people enter the trial to show an effect size.

For trials where there is no effective treatment, and the new treatment should be highly effective, the cost of trials is quite modest.

Re:Actually no

[Anonymous Coward]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Actually no

[the gnat]

For trials where there is no effective treatment, and the new treatment should be highly effective, the cost of trials is quite modest.

The problem is that a lot of the proposed new treatments turn out not to be highly effective, but companies don't find this out until they've already sunk tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into it. So the cost of every new FDA approval needs to be balanced against all of the bets that failed.

This is true even for diseases where there isn't an effective treatment - clinical trials for Alzheimer's drugs (a sure money-maker, if they worked) have been notoriously failure-prone.

Re:Actually no

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. They are hella expensive and can take years to complete. It's THAT part that "Big Pharma" usually pays for, and for every really expensive drug that comes to market, there's a lot of really expensive drugs that racked up a lot of debt and never made it past the clinical trials.

Re:Actually no

[RandCraw]

Yes. Clinical trials are famously expensive -- no less than $100 million US for any drug that is not fast tracked, which reduces development time (and cost) by no more than half.

In general only untreatable mortal diseases like cancer or infection can fast track a drug. The other 95% of drugs go through probably 5 years of compound identification, tuning, and testing, then 5 years of preclinical trials in multiple animal species, then another 5 years in humans before approval. (Yes, that's about 15 years.)

The last phase of development (clinical trials) is unavoidably very expensive (80% of the overall cost). And no amount of free software or volunteerism is going to change that appreciably. Even now, all patient participants in clinical trials are already volunteers.

The cost of a new drug lies in planning, testing, write up, peer review, and great gobs of regulatory oversight and process. Open source cannot change that.

Re:Actually no

[CanadianMacFan]

Once it comes to human testing there are three stages. The first is with healthy people and they are given the medication in various doses to ensure that it isn't dangerous (or at least cause problems greater than what they expect). The second stage tests how effective the medication is. This is done in patients with the disease/ailment and in this stage they fine tune the dosages. The third stage is the one in which it compares the new medication with the best existing treatments, if possible, and a placebo treatment. If a drug or treatment offers little to no benefit then it won't be approved. However, the definition of providing benefit does seem to be pretty loose sometimes.

Re:Actually no

[sjames]

A real question, what's so damned expensive about giving people a drug and seeing if they get better or not? Particularly after phase I where you have already determined that it is more or less safe for human consumption.

Re:Actually no

[RandCraw]

I know more about nonhuman studies than clinical, but according to the US HHS (who runs FDA), the breakdown of costs are these:

- $15k/patient for phase I
- $20k/patient for phase 2
- $25k/patient for phases 3 and 4

The cost of the average trial:

- phase 1: $4 million
- phase 2: $13 million
- phase 3: $20 million
- phase 4: $20 million

Some phase 3 trials can be larger and last longer than average, like 20,000 patients over 5 years. Obviously at the average cost of $25k/patient, such a trial would cost $500 million, well over the average. In fact, a long study can greatly increase the per patient cost as well.

Because multiple trials are run in each phase for each drug, these trial costs are multiplied.

The principal cost in any trial are the medical procedures (~25%): drug administration, tests (lab, imaging, biopsy, etc), exams, etc. These are repeated multiple times on each patient during each trial to monitor changes in both efficacy and safety.

Here's a thorough accounting from US HHS:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/report/exa...

These costs are set by FDA regulatory standards and the medical laws of each country where the trial is performed. Of course if you want approval for your drug in another country, you must comply with all their rules as well, often repeating studies using their residents (e.g. Japan).

This 2012 Forbes article by Avik Roy offers further insight on why clinical trial costs are rising:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ar...

Pharmas must play by these rules, but they don't write them. Lawmakers do that.

Re:Actually no

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like those whining, sniveling, thieving sacks of shit sports teams that make hundreds of millions of dollars and then screw city taxpayers for the cost of a new stadium. Corrupt politicians that are party to these scams should be tried for treason.

Re:Actually no

[Anonymous Coward]

Which, if you actually examine the cost structure, is a sefl-fulfilled money sink. It's inexplicably set up, as to not be cheap. Can't have new pharma startups and actually come in and compete, since that threatens the monopoly holders. If you look at the history of pharmaceuticals in the US, it has always been about, money first, health second.

What a crock

[tomhath]

Imagine, for example, a non-profit entity that would assemble and maintain the IT infrastructure and databases needed to support the entire end to end process, and make it available free of charge,

Sure. Free as in beer. Just imagine it and the billions of dollars and specialized training it takes to develop a new drug just magically appear for free.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have citations for these numbers? Penicillin and phage were basically fortuitous discoveries. Most of the "specialized training" is rote work, easiy automated. We also need to get rid of the "theater of education" as sold by universities.

Re:What a crock

[tomhath]

Citation? How about you RTFA:

Counting in the costs of failures as well as successes, major pharmas estimate that it takes about $1.5 billion dollars to bring a new drug to market

Re:What a crock

[Antique Geekmeister]

Don't forget the insurance. One mistake, even a purely accidental one or a malicious one from a third party, and the lawsuits can bankrupt such a group in moments. I'm old enough to remember the thalidomide birth defects, and the malicious poisoning of Tylenol. The manufacturers of both drugs were _horrified_ at these tragedies, and did their best to protect the public after the problems were discovered.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

They would say that, wouldn't they?

Re:What a crock

[tehcyder]

Don't forget the insurance. One mistake, even a purely accidental one or a malicious one from a third party, and the lawsuits can bankrupt such a group in moments. I'm old enough to remember the thalidomide birth defects, and the malicious poisoning of Tylenol. The manufacturers of both drugs were _horrified_ at these tragedies, and did their best to protect the public after the problems were discovered.

The Thalidomide tragedy was caused primarily by inadequte testing. The "horrified" drugs manufacturers spun out compensation claims for decades.

It is a very bad example to use if you're trying to provoke sympathy for big drug companies.

Re:What a crock

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm not trying to create sympathy for drug manufacturers, but a real understanding of the economic risks for them. I'm noting real risks of drug manufacture. Thorough human testing is very expensive and lengthy, and it's possible to make horrific mistakes that would bankrupt a non-profit very easily.

Republicans love you greenwow

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to hold you in their soft hands, caress your chubby cheeks, nibble on your earlobes. Give them a chance, you'll see.

Sorry but I'm going to have to cite Dara O'Brian

[Sycraft-fu]

"Oh herbal medicine has been around for thousands of years. Indeed it has and then we tested it all and the stuff that worked became 'medicine' and the rest of it is just a nice bowl of soup and some potpourri."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Your statement about pot curing cancer also has to be one of the stupidest, most easily disproven thoughts I've seen in awhile. Turns out that when people get cancer often they need help managing pain and apatite and marijuana DOES help with those, so a good portion use it. Guess what? They don't get cured. I've had two people close to me who got cancer and died, both who use marijuana to manage symptoms.

You dumbass potheads do more harm to getting it legalized than any of your opponents could by making shit up. The more you lie about what it actually does, how it actually works and the actual risks (yes there are risks, everything has risks) the less people are going to listen to you about the real benefits.

Grow up.

Pharma development is hard and expensive

[hawkeyeMI]

Here's approximately how the drug development process works, to the best of my knowledge. I'm not in pharma but I've discussed some research projects with pharma folks and done a few projects on contract with them. I am not a pharmacologist or chemist. I am involved in medical device development and clinical trials for that purpose.

1. Pick a target condition (based upon need, existing treatments, size of market, whatever)
2. Based upon pharmacology, look at possible pathways to address said condition
3. Develop/find compounds that might address those pathways
4. Do whatever possible to narrow down these compounds by screening for safety before doing any trials, animals or otherwise. Select very carefully for screening techniques that won't give you false dangerous results becuase even if the compound is actually safe in the end, if you have a screen that looks bad at this stage the FDA is not going to like it down the road and it exposes you to liability.
5. Do animal trials with the promising compounds and hope some both work and don't cause harmful effects. Depending on the animal model this can get very expensive and time consuming.
6. Do human trials with promising compounds. A well-powered study will be VERY expensive (easily tens of millions of dollars or more), and depending on the condition being targeted, may also be very time consuming. Hope that what worked in animals works in humans, and no harmful effects crop up.
7. Assuming you make it through FDA approval, and they don't make you do more trials or enroll more patients before you get it, now you can produce the drug.
8. Try to sell enough of the drug to recoup your R&D expenses on ALL the compounds you checked out for the condition, all the trial expenses, etc, before the IP protection expires and the drug goes generic.

This "open source" model is neat and it may help a lot, especially in places where you can get away with less regulatory approval, but the way it's done is not because pharma companies are evil. It's because drug development is hard and expensive, and anything less than a blockbuster drug carries a high risk of never recouping the R&D expenses.

I think there's a lot of hubris to the idea that it can be done so much better this other way, but I will be happy to be proven wrong, because it really is a problem that needs solving.

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[shentino]

It's expensive on purpose to make sure only Big Pharma can afford the R&D to begin with.

Big Pharma has the FDA set up expensive hurdles only they can afford to jump.

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[RandCraw]

Nonsense. Why should all pharmas conspire to raise the cost of clinical trials? Why would the FDA agree to this? Why would every other country and their version of 'FDA' play along, when a single dissident would cause such a house of cards to crash instantly?

As it happens, I *do* work at a giant US pharma, so I know how unworkable such a scheme would be.

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

This is wrong. If you have a piece of software, and it has a bug, its bad. In the worst case, you have to pay money to russian hackers in order to get your pictures and other important data not deleted. But even here you can defend with backups. Drugs, on the other hand, affect your body. You can't change it. If it has a negative side effect, you want to know it. And we do need clinical trials, because otherwise, big pharma might push their result to the market, while knowing or suspecting it causes harm, just to get some the money back in. And yes, humans can be this ruthless, although I don't want to say it was the sole fault of the pharma company that marketed thalidomide, it were also the missing tests.

If you pay millions for these studies, you do need IP protections, even though the base research was done by public universities. Because someone has to pay for it, and without iP protections, nobody does.

In some places, I think we need more regulation. In others, we need less. But I think these strict regulations when a drug can be released are fine.

One way of defeating these diseases in development countries is by conducting the expensive studies in the development countries themselves, where wages are lower.

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[RandCraw]

I do work in pharma, and your sequence of steps sums up the process nicely.

I'd add that for every drug that succeeds, roughly another 20 fail, often after 5 or 10 years of development and costs incurred. That's why the estimated development cost of each new drug is widely acknowledged to be a minimum of $1 billion US (though most cite $2B as the norm). However after you include the cost of all failed drugs, the cost of producing each drug that succeeds effectively rises to between 4 and 5 billion. This is why each new drug needs to be a big selling blockbuster. It has many mouths to feed.

Obviously open software and volunteerism has their work cut out for them if they are to make drugs affordable. But I *would* be curious to know where their advocates believe these forces could have significant impact. It'd have to be in the clinical trial phase, where 80% of cost is incurred.

(BTW, to compute the net average cost of each new drug, you divide pharma company annual R&D budgets by the number of approved drugs/year. Matthew Herper of Forbes has covered this topic extensively, as has pharma chemist chemist Derek Lowe in his blog "In the Pipeline").

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Obviously open software and volunteerism has their work cut out for them if they are to make drugs affordable. But I *would* be curious to know where their advocates believe these forces could have significant impact. It'd have to be in the clinical trial phase, where 80% of cost is incurred.

For diseases with too small a community of sufferers to pay off that several-billion-dollar price tag, the alternative drug development/deployment system will have to cover all the steps, one way or another, because a pharma company would normally not be able to profitably perform the steps necessary to develop, test, obtain approval, and deploy. a new drug or treatment. Ditto for new uses of existing drugs or common compounds (such as DMSO) that are beyond IP protection. (Even if they COULD get IP protection on a new use, it would be virtually impossible to enforce.)

Big Pharma is out of the loop unless treating an "orphan disease" falls out as an off-label use of something new they've developed for a more pervasive condition, or there's big-time PR to be had.

Once omething like Open Source Pharma is up and running, Big Pharma companies might be able to harvest some PR benefits, and help out sufferers of orphan diseases, by announcing signs they find that some compound might help some particular orphan disease that they can't afford to pursue, and sign off on others proceeding further with it. That could help Open Source Pharma by relieving them of the costs of the initial search for possibilities (and also distract them from competing with the Big Pharma companies on potential new cash-cow drugs.)

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[tmosley]

>He doesn't understand the concept of regulatory capture.

They can hide behind "trying to make the process safe for everyone" any time anyone complains. Human testing really shouldn't be required to bring a drug onto the market. Just label it as "untested on humans" and let the one taking it assume liability (ie it is for people who are close to death or with diseases they consider to be bad enough to take the risk of taking the drug). Phase IV clinical trials are already like this. There are a LOT of good drugs and treatments, even entirely new approaches to curing diseases that are languishing in laboratory freezers because there simply isn't anyone with enough money who is willing to take the risk.

I know because I happened to be a member of a lab that found a new method of directly oxidizing cells or viruses in a targeted way with a catalytic center attached to a peptide created via phage display library targeting. In theory, it could cure all communicable diseases (except prions) and cancer. It's an absolute fucking shame, and every time I hear about someone who died of cancer, I die a little on the inside.

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you quoting? I can't find your quote in the post by the grandparent (RandCraw).

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[clovis]

It's expensive on purpose to make sure only Big Pharma can afford the R&D to begin with.

Big Pharma has the FDA set up expensive hurdles only they can afford to jump.

Nope.
Those rules went into place to make sure as possible that we didn't have another Thalidomide fiasco.

Here's an interesting story about Frances Oldham Kelsey who had the kind of heroic stubbornness that so seldom happens now a days. She and the people she worked with, probably saved the lives of tens of thousands of people from Thalidomide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And here's some about the big pharma stooges and similar assholes.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/...

Re:Pharma development is hard and expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

">" isn't a quote, though it can be used that way. In this case, it was used to indicate something about Randclaw, IE he doesn't understand the concept of regulatory capture.

I care

[DaMattster]

Since Big Pharma isn't really interested in finding a cure for anything, I'm all for open source pharma! Big Pharma isn't interested in a cure because a cure would kill profit models.

Re:I care

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Big Pharma isn't really interested in finding a cure for anything, I'm all for open source pharma! Big Pharma isn't interested in a cure because a cure would kill profit models.

Which is exactly why open source pharma is doomed to fail, at least in the first world nations controlled by corruption. As soon as it looks like it might start affecting Big Pharma's bottom line they will pay off some corrupt government official to make open source drugs illegal. Just like Big Pharma paid for laws making Americans buying cheap drugs across the border in Canada illegal even though those people have valid prescriptions.

Need Cheap Ritalin First

[Sam36]

Before us engineers begin working on solving this problem, lets work on getting cheap ritalin first. Then we'll be able to solve this problem better and quicker.

Re:Need Cheap Ritalin First

[KGIII]

$0.50/mg on the black market and can (should not) be ingested via IV. Less if you buy in bulk.

Re:Need Cheap Ritalin First

[Anonymous Coward]

Not being a drugs nerd, I had to look ritalin up. It's the drug they use to treat the largely imaginary complaint of ADHD (or "being a badly behaved little arsehole" as it was known when I was young).

I suppose you gimps mainline it along with your anti-Aspie vitamin pills?

dramatically drive down drug development

[Threni]

Why would anyone want to do that?

If pharma is so hated

[Trachman]

Then their stocks should not be held by Calpers, and other pension funds of public employees. Those, so called, profits earned by Big Pharma first and foremost are used to pay to FDA, and, in essence, compliance with FDA rules. Big Pharma Companies generate dividends, which enrich many of the people who sincerely don't like pharmaceutical companies, while forgetting that Obamacare in essence legalized the monopoly, and monopoly to get the profits, of the very Pharma companies.

WTF is a "developed" nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean 'people with superior IQs'...

But lets keep pretending that Africans are just as intelligent as the other races...

TV show

[JeffOwl]

Wasn't there a TV show about open source pharma? I think it starred Bryan Cranston.

Orphan Drugs

[Kohath]

But these companies focus exclusively on drugs that can be sold at high prices to large populations...

This isn't true. Do a Bing search for "orphan drugs".

Orphan drugs:

An orphan drug is a pharmaceutical agent that has been developed specifically to treat a rare medical condition

Stop replying to your own posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot

Oh boy, crowd sourced medicine

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Crowd sourced medicine and pharmaceuticals, what could possibly go wrong?

I mean, there's no way that spammers and scammers would ever abuse this. They already sell fake penis pills so this whole industry will be a natural for them to invade and infest.

not happening

[shentino]

The FDA is in bed with big pharma and will never approve small fry drugs.

Re:not happening

[Anonymous Coward]

The FDA is in the USA. There are over 190 other countries in the world. That's not the point. The point is that it's stupidly expensive to develop a drug, with major hurdles being the clinical trial stage.

Meth Labs

[Anonymous Coward]

Been at it for years.

LARGER ESTABLISHED CORPORATION

[rawtatoor]

[CAPS]this is about profit? this is about druugs. show me the profit you little pussy. they don't care about gangrene nahmen? gnaa dont mean nothing son -- so when you gonna get that fixed? idiots are gon get stupid ideas like this -- its like this -- when you gon lie? ho? when violence is involved be sure to get paid breaker breaker over over i keep repeating it like this but its a little bitch come get paid you little bitch see you on mars see that thats mission to mars ima make you bite my dick you little hos ima make you see that i'm fresh till the cows come home ima then kill your motherfucking mother with my fresh french bread ima eat breathe live and kill just to make you pay and you owe you fucking owe so come fucking pay and you're just like 'we could lose 21 lines over this' i'd teach you what i just did -- but i'd have to kill you and i don't like you at all this is about HYPNOTISM and i'ma kill you for disrespect c mut i mean na? my shits incorrect like the vainglorious and ima take a to court fur my mom na mean p-nut butta? ima kill ya ma [/ALLCAPS] SUPREME CIVIL WAR --TRUE

Re:LARGER ESTABLISHED CORPORATION

[rawtatoor]

Did you make sure to read it literally so as to check whether my mother is allright?

my mom

[rawtatoor]

my mom banging pots and pans into my left brain. can we do that one? the evil hypmotist

what are we gonna do

[rawtatoor]

they're poking holes in my packages. The whole world knows this shit.

Re:what are we gonna do

[rawtatoor]

The GNAA man.. I ain't even anonymous.

Re:what are we gonna do

[rawtatoor]

Tell me this. What is my model for this. In my brain. What is my model for what is going on?

Re:what are we gonna do

[rawtatoor]

They're the cops but they're selling girl scout cookis. Don't play with my mom son she's got a gun.

Re:what are we gonna do

[rawtatoor]

Then why didn't they do something then? Ho

Re:what are we gonna do

[rawtatoor]

cuz you get paid to read slashdot

Re: Sorry but I'm going to have to cite Dara O'Bri

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you treat cancer with apatite? Do you grind it or just swallow the rocks?

Open-source pharma already exists

[Rotaluclac]

Open-source pharma already exists. It's called homeopathy. Though it's still around and amazingly popular, it does not work.

Why should we expect open-source pharma to be different from homeopathy, or from phytotherapy at best?

Re:Open-source pharma already exists

[tehcyder]

Homeopathy, like any other "alternative" medicine (Chinese powdered tiger bollocks, acupuncture, crystal therapy, praying to god) does work, but it's entirely through the placebo effect.

Why not..

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a NASA for medicine? 3-4% of GDP into medical and pharmaceutical research that benefits all! If they can produce rockets they can make drugs! (And none of this recoup 10 years of R&D cost + clinical trials before the drugs go generic bs!)

The article is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

But these companies focus exclusively on drugs that can be sold at high prices to large populations â" in other words, to patients in developed nations.

Companies usually develop products that can be sold to somebody.

This means that those who live in the emerging world that suffer from the remaining 'neglected diseases,'

Many developing countries still suffer from diseases where the cause & treatment are well known. Treatment is a matter of education, some effort, and a small amount of money. Such as eradicating polio or river blindness.

like Malaria and drug resistant TB, have no one to depend on for relief except huge charities, like the Gates Foundation.

Universities & govts often do research in those areas.

And drug resistant TB is a growing problem in the USA too.

They also have no way to afford many of the patented drugs that do exist.

Also false. These are developing countries, but they do have some resources.

And being a sovereign govt, they can do what they want. The big cost for new drugs is the R&D costs, the ongoing manufacturing cost is a pittance. A country can ignore the patent rules and manufacture it anyway.

And even wealthy countries like Canada have price controls on new prescription drugs.

modeled on open source software development,

Hey, I like open source software, I use it every day. But the notion of open source pharma is ridiculous.

R&D and M

[Anonymous Coward]

Research Development and Marketing with the latter the #1 goal.
If only people knew which country sells dependable drugs the cheapest.

This assumes you can import personal use supply - but some countries resort to blatant trade protection and ever-greening.
Yet some cross the border and do buy ups.

Certainly if one got cancer of something horrible that only came at an unaffordable price- I would get on Google and send an original sample away to China microlabs to clone, then another lab for purity analysis. Or find a good vet willing to supply new treatments for dogs not yet approved for humans.

Lastly drugs are expensive because of flat out non-cooperation or because theoretical patent brackets on a non-produced compound kill off timely research. We are running out of antibiotics, yet there is no reform for true innovators with the first physical sample.

Re:Sorry but I'm going to have to cite Dara O'Bria

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, your N=2 anecdotal evidence is a statement of absolute truth and veracity and applies to all cancers in all people everywhere.

Marijuana actually does have a degree of anti-tumor activity in some cases. There isn't a lot of research on it because, you know, the stuff is generally illegal. The fact remains. It is not a cure-all, but it does have efficacy in certain situations beyond symptom management.

Marketing ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only competition in the drug industry is in marketing their drugs to doctors. That is because a drug does not have to be better than available interventions, it just has to be better than a placebo.

So if you want to see less "me too" drugs and more serious progress we need to pit one pharma against another in their R&D not just marketing. To do that we need new drugs compared for safety and effectiveness to not just existing drugs but to any intervention (pharma, herbal, surgical etc).

This would also generate a peer review that would eviscerate any shoddy science (which we are plagued with currently). Image each pharma trying to find holes in their competitor's research. Imagine drugs having to be compared for safety and effectiveness to purified fish oil, curcumin, etc?

Until then we have the Life Extension Foundation which has been piling money into R&D of new treatments for decades. Check out the research they are doing already http://www.lifeextension.com/about/lef-funding-scientific-research

Re:Marketing ?

[rs79]

Well said and entirely correct.

U wanna kill us all?

[rs79]

Bad idea. You're making the assumption these things work. The idea is well intentioned, "oh those poor people that have no access to modern western medicine".

Pity the poor Baku in the coastal forest of west Gabon who have a natural immunity and cure for Ebola (There are tribes of Indians in the amazon in Bolivia too. Why? Riddle me this: what does the soil in Bolivia have in common with Senegal? That's the key to Gabon. Wouldn't you rather that than 40 years of trying to make a vaccine that at it's best is 25-75% effective. Note the death rate outside africa. Other than 2 (3?) we didn't hear about, or heard about when their liver had turned to soup, nobody else died of a disease that's up to >99% fatal (WHO).

http://en.ird.fr/the-media-cen...
I think its safe to say it's no longer a "possible" immunity. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and immunization technology from 1720 from the school of homeopathy ("like protects against like"; this remains unacknowledged but unverifiable) is one way but not the only way.

"29 January 2015 Last updated at 00:55 - We've now seen several cases that don't have any symptoms at all, asymptomatic cases," said Anavaj Sakuntabhai who suggested the virus might be mutating.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health...

Giggle. The virus didn't change. People did.

British nurse cured of Ebola credits new drug - and strawberries
"Back in Britain, the decision to try MIL 77 was not difficult. “I said ‘I have Ebola, so, yes, I’d rather have that than high-dose vitamin C,’” she said"
"“I reckon I’ve had 10 punnets,” joked Corporal Anna Cross, who smiled nervously as she talked for the first time after her treatment at the Royal Free Hospital in north London." (10 punnets would be about equal to two 1000mg injections a day)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

April 2015 - semen found infected after 175 days, twice the previous record.
http://io9.com/ebola-survivors...

The Ebola outbreak in Liberia is over
9 May 2015 -- Today marks 42 days since the last confirmed case of Ebola in Liberia was safely buried — the period of time set by WHO to declare an outbreak over. WHO now considers Liberia free of Ebola transmission.
http://apps.who.int/ebola/libe...

Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - Ebola Not Mutating Beyond 'Normal' Rate, Scientists Say
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline...

28 May 2015 | Did real-time epidemic modeling save lives in West Africa?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/compu...

Ask yourself what might have happened on October 17 2014.

"Pity the tribes in South America and North America who never suffer the effects of influenza.
"Folklore of past civilizations report that for every disease afflicting man there is an herb or its equivalent that will effect a cure. In Puerto Rico the story has long been told "that to have the health tree Acerola in one's back yard would keep colds out of the front door." 1 The ascorbic acid content of this cherry-like fruit is thirty times that found in oranges. In Pennsylvania, U.S.A., it was, and for many still is, Boneset, scientifically called Eupatorium perfoliatum 2. Although it is now rarely prescribed by physicians, Boneset was the most commonly used medicinal plant of eastern United States. Most farmsteads had a bundle of dried Boneset in the attic

Re: U wanna kill us all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, interesting.
Let's talk about your mother now ...

Re: U wanna kill us all?

[rs79]

Let's talk about how you haven't checkout out any of the claims. Your fallacy is: the argument from ignorance.

Why don't you go count how many times I've been wrong, son. if you can find one thing wrong I'll give you my house. If you can't find anything wrong you give me yours. We on here?

Re: U wanna kill us all?

[Anonymous Coward]

When he arrived back in Paris with news of the cure he was told by everyone in the medical community they have no use for the words of savages and was in fact not until 1933 that we isolated vitamin C, enabled by Linus Pauling's 1931 paper (that Einstein could not make head nor tails of) that explained the atom in terms of living things enabling the fields of molecular biology and quantum chemistry and leapfrogging the infancy of biochemistry to the next quantum level.

"Explained the atom in terms of living things"? No, this is just babbling.
Also, it is not true that Einstein could not make heads or tails of the paper. I know what you're referring to, and you got it wrong.

Here's an example. You wrote:

"29 January 2015 Last updated at 00:55 - We've now seen several cases that don't have any symptoms at all, asymptomatic cases," said Anavaj Sakuntabhai who suggested the virus might be mutating.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health... [bbc.com]

Giggle. The virus didn't change. People did.

That is wrong. The virus does and did change. Here are some details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Rates of genetic change are 8*104 per site per year and are thus one fourth[20] as fast as influenza A in humans. Extrapolating backwards, Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus probably diverged several thousand years ago.[21] A study done in 1995 and 1996 found that the genes of Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus differed by about 55% at the nucleotide level, and at least 67% at the amino acid level. The same study found that the strains of Ebolavirus differed by about 37-41% across the nucleotide level and 34-43% across the amino acid level. The EBOV strain was found to have an almost 2% change in the nucleotide level from the original 1976 strain from the Yambuki outbreak and the strain from the 1995 Kikwit outbreak.[22] However, paleoviruses of filoviruses found in mammals indicate that the family itself is at least tens of millions of years old.[23]

And this:
http://www.nature.com/news/ebo...

Crick and Watson wrote it up (they didn't discover jack shit, they literally did acid all the time, bored, looking for a grad school thesis and literally pocketed Roz's notes when she was at lunch. Nice Jewish girl doesn't get the credit and this is why people hate England, prats like this. But I digress.

I already knew the Franklin, Wilkins, Watson and Crick story. Your version is gross mis-statement of the events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Read the section on DNA
http://www.nature.com/scitable...