To be a bit more precise: 24% of the successful molecules. 16% transferred from Academia to biotech, 8%, transferred from Academia to Pharma, at which points the billion+ dollars per NDA comes into play. Numbers are 10 years old now though, so I can't say the pattern still holds true.
Well put. Drugs are a small part (10%) of health care costs. Insurance and benefit provider actuaries would compare the cost of any cure for a chronic condition to the total cost of continued therapy, not just the cost of the drugs involved in continued therapy. So paying $25k for a cure might look attractive to an insurance company looking at $35k in costs for treatments over 5 years.
I specificed Type 2 because >95% of the ~80 million diabetics in the US and the EU are Type 2. If the goal is to make trillions of dollars in a hurry, a cure for arteriosclerosis, Alzheimer's, or type II Diabetes would be a good bet. That said, a single cure or method of prevention for Type 1 does seem a lot more approachable than one for type 2; "a" cure for type 2 would be a bit like "a" cure for cancer.
1. Yeah, and? How is making $25k per patient x 80 million patients over the course of five years and then running out of patients worse than making $2k per patient x 10 million patients per year for 10 years and then running out of patent?
2. Yes it does - for one paying interest directly cuts your ROI. for a second you didn't take into account risk. The longer it takes your drug to turn a profit, the less of a chance it will have of doing so because other drugs will enter the market and cut your profit margin and market share. For a third, SG&A and production costs for delivering daily drugs to a patient for 10 years vs delivering it once?
3. Wrong on all counts. The market will bear much higher prices for cures than for treatments. NICE would pay much more for cures than treatments. Insurance companies will pay much more for cures than for treatments. Why? It's still cheaper for them. Drugs are only ~10% of health care costs. Curing a patient means cutting back on doctor visits, tests, hospitalizations, etc. The cure would be compared with the entire cost of treating a patient for 5+ years, not just the cost of the treatment.
do You think we don't have effective treatment for Cancer or HIV ?
Because it is more "economic" to keep sick people alive than to cure them... we wouldn't have penicillin if it was up to the medico to decide.
The one word answer to that argument is Sovaldi: The biggest drug launch EVER is a cure for Hep. C.
Here are three reasons why the "treatments are more profitable than cures" fails: Market share, time value of money, pricing power.
1. Market share. The first cure to enter a market full of treatments wouldn't have to fight it's competition, it would dominate from the get go.
2. Time value of money. A treatment, especially for a chronic disease, has the bulk of its revenue spread out over a decade to 15 years, during which time it might lose sales (competition, patient dies, etc). A cure would be sold to the existing patient base in just a few years. Even if a "me too" cure shows up in few years, the first cure will have already been sold to most of the patient base already. How much more would you pay for a low risk dollar today? How much would you pay for a high risk dollar 10 years from now?
3. Pricing power. Cures will always be more valuable to both patients, insurance companies, and governments. If a cure costs less than ~5 years of treatment insurance companies will want it. If it costs less than ~10 years of treatments they will be forced to pay for it.
Basically: if you want to make $50B over 10 years: create a kick-ass treatment for type II Diabetes and duke it out with Merck, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. If you want to make $2 TRILLION in 5 years: create a cure for type II Diabetes (80 million patients, $50k list price, $25k average price actually paid) and wipe the floor with them instead.
Tricky to draw the line. There can be a lot of for the public in having research results made public, which only happens under certain circumstances when the research is proprietary.
Year in, year out, about 25% of new drugs are invented in academic labs. On the other hand, virtually all new drugs are invented and developed by people who were trained to do research on a government's dollar. Mostly the US government's dollar.
Not really. In this case the best practice for the defense is to consider any match, even from the majority, to be statistically flawed and ask that the full sequences be compared directly. When you are fishing in a database it makes sense to only look for a few datapoints. If you want to prove the match is a false positive there's no need to look at the software results again, these days you can send the trace evidence and the suspect's DNA to a company that does full sequencing of genomes and do the full comparison with (open source) software like Blast or Last for less than it would cost to argue about the original software results in court. Would be difficult in evidence that has a mixture of DNA from different sources, but basically just look for a difference that makes the DNA in the evidence unlike that of the suspect's DNA, instead of looking for similarities between the evidence and the suspect.
Not buthurt - ratfuckers gonna ratfuck and all. More pissed at Gore for wimping out. Plus the transition from Clinton to Gore wouldn't have involved the White House actively ignoring intelligence on Al Qaeda from Clinton appointees - which could have negated the whole Bin Laden Great General moment.
I'd say the best general was probably Cheney or whichever aide decided to fly 20 campaign workers from DC to Florida to engage in a bit of "activism" - which shut down the recount and stole the presidency for Bush.
The surest way to gain privacy protections is to wait for the privacy of a high-ranking politician to be invaded. When it becomes a problem that makes our rulers' careers more difficult to manage, it becomes worthy of protection.
Except now Congress ensures those new protections are based on the speech or debate clause or national security - so the protections apply only to them.
The federal reserve sets monetary policy. The President decides whether the economy would best be served by going to the moon, a science fiction based arms race, or a perpetual war in the mid east. At least in the past that was true, now a president's legacy is determined by whether Congress will work with them or spend the entire term entirely focused on how to not work with them. Unfortunately, I think Sanders would wield even less influence over Congress than HRC.
Would you say a guitarist isn't innovative unless he invented a new pickup or effect pedal?
Innovation isn't limited to the first iteration of a new technology. It can also be the implementation, the combination of technologies and how they interact, the user interface, and the appearance of the device, all of which were strongly directed by Jobs.
Personally, I'd pick Trump easily. All the others are either religious wackos, Objectivism fans, or one of the worst CEOs in recent history. Trump is the only one of the bunch who's sane and connected.
Remaining personally rich while sending your corporations into bankruptcy describes both Trump and Fiorina. If either was elected I'm sure they would personally do just fine after a disastrous term.
Most importantly, on average Germans cannot afford kids (Fertility 1.7 per woman).
Pretty much the same rate as for white non-hispanic women in the US, where we replace the non-existent kids with random folks who are aggressive enough to move to the US.
In november if the ballot says Ghost of Ronald Reagan (D) vs Ficus Tree (R), the Tree will win the slashdot electorate by a landslide.
Considering how far (R) has shifted to the right since the 80's the party would immediately declare the Ghost of Ronald Reagan to be a Dem. That and declare him satanic.
Day doesn't even bother to speculate. His entire case is:
To recognize when a car was being tested and not driven, the defeat device required data from a range of sensors—sensors that a noncheating car might not need.
You can't do a one launch manned trip to Mars, land and relaunch back to Earth. Isn't going to happen.
It's going to take multiple launches with some construction in space. Might as well do the construction on the Moon which is easily reachable.
Creating fuel on Mars is fine for the return trip, but it does nothing for the trip from Earth to Mars, which is where using the Moon as a fuel depot comes in.
Yes, let's put all that down at the bottom of a gravity well instead of in orbit because?
The rest of your reasons are valid - as reasons for having a moon colony. Unless we got to the point where the entire Mars craft is built on the moon we'd send fuel and equipment from the moon to the mars craft (which would stay in orbit), as opposed to landing the mars craft on the moon for final construction and fueling.
I think the market for hypersonic planes would be more B.C. to Beijing than S.F./L.A to NYC. For one thing: the flights will probably have to be over water the entire time they are above the speed of sound.
No one in Boston was arrested and interrogated for hours, after they knew it wasn't a bomb.
Actually that is what happened in Boston. They were arrested and for charged with placing a hoax device to incite panic, and then jailed overnight until arraignment. Don't know how long they were interrogated though.
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?
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?
Slashdot Mirror
To be a bit more precise: 24% of the successful molecules. 16% transferred from Academia to biotech, 8%, transferred from Academia to Pharma, at which points the billion+ dollars per NDA comes into play. Numbers are 10 years old now though, so I can't say the pattern still holds true.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...
I specificed Type 2 because >95% of the ~80 million diabetics in the US and the EU are Type 2. If the goal is to make trillions of dollars in a hurry, a cure for arteriosclerosis, Alzheimer's, or type II Diabetes would be a good bet. That said, a single cure or method of prevention for Type 1 does seem a lot more approachable than one for type 2; "a" cure for type 2 would be a bit like "a" cure for cancer.
1. Yeah, and? How is making $25k per patient x 80 million patients over the course of five years and then running out of patients worse than making $2k per patient x 10 million patients per year for 10 years and then running out of patent?
2. Yes it does - for one paying interest directly cuts your ROI. for a second you didn't take into account risk. The longer it takes your drug to turn a profit, the less of a chance it will have of doing so because other drugs will enter the market and cut your profit margin and market share. For a third, SG&A and production costs for delivering daily drugs to a patient for 10 years vs delivering it once?
3. Wrong on all counts. The market will bear much higher prices for cures than for treatments. NICE would pay much more for cures than treatments. Insurance companies will pay much more for cures than for treatments. Why? It's still cheaper for them. Drugs are only ~10% of health care costs. Curing a patient means cutting back on doctor visits, tests, hospitalizations, etc. The cure would be compared with the entire cost of treating a patient for 5+ years, not just the cost of the treatment.
do You think we don't have effective treatment for Cancer or HIV ? Because it is more "economic" to keep sick people alive than to cure them... we wouldn't have penicillin if it was up to the medico to decide.
The one word answer to that argument is Sovaldi: The biggest drug launch EVER is a cure for Hep. C. Here are three reasons why the "treatments are more profitable than cures" fails: Market share, time value of money, pricing power.
1. Market share. The first cure to enter a market full of treatments wouldn't have to fight it's competition, it would dominate from the get go.
2. Time value of money. A treatment, especially for a chronic disease, has the bulk of its revenue spread out over a decade to 15 years, during which time it might lose sales (competition, patient dies, etc). A cure would be sold to the existing patient base in just a few years. Even if a "me too" cure shows up in few years, the first cure will have already been sold to most of the patient base already. How much more would you pay for a low risk dollar today? How much would you pay for a high risk dollar 10 years from now?
3. Pricing power. Cures will always be more valuable to both patients, insurance companies, and governments. If a cure costs less than ~5 years of treatment insurance companies will want it. If it costs less than ~10 years of treatments they will be forced to pay for it.
Basically: if you want to make $50B over 10 years: create a kick-ass treatment for type II Diabetes and duke it out with Merck, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. If you want to make $2 TRILLION in 5 years: create a cure for type II Diabetes (80 million patients, $50k list price, $25k average price actually paid) and wipe the floor with them instead.
Tricky to draw the line. There can be a lot of for the public in having research results made public, which only happens under certain circumstances when the research is proprietary.
Year in, year out, about 25% of new drugs are invented in academic labs. On the other hand, virtually all new drugs are invented and developed by people who were trained to do research on a government's dollar. Mostly the US government's dollar.
Not really. In this case the best practice for the defense is to consider any match, even from the majority, to be statistically flawed and ask that the full sequences be compared directly. When you are fishing in a database it makes sense to only look for a few datapoints. If you want to prove the match is a false positive there's no need to look at the software results again, these days you can send the trace evidence and the suspect's DNA to a company that does full sequencing of genomes and do the full comparison with (open source) software like Blast or Last for less than it would cost to argue about the original software results in court. Would be difficult in evidence that has a mixture of DNA from different sources, but basically just look for a difference that makes the DNA in the evidence unlike that of the suspect's DNA, instead of looking for similarities between the evidence and the suspect.
When the atmospheric pressure is less than 1% that of our own, the total forces are ... pretty underwhelming.
No worse than the way people in zero-G in the Hermes flew in curves instead of straight lines.
Not buthurt - ratfuckers gonna ratfuck and all. More pissed at Gore for wimping out. Plus the transition from Clinton to Gore wouldn't have involved the White House actively ignoring intelligence on Al Qaeda from Clinton appointees - which could have negated the whole Bin Laden Great General moment.
I'd say the best general was probably Cheney or whichever aide decided to fly 20 campaign workers from DC to Florida to engage in a bit of "activism" - which shut down the recount and stole the presidency for Bush.
The surest way to gain privacy protections is to wait for the privacy of a high-ranking politician to be invaded. When it becomes a problem that makes our rulers' careers more difficult to manage, it becomes worthy of protection.
Except now Congress ensures those new protections are based on the speech or debate clause or national security - so the protections apply only to them.
The federal reserve sets monetary policy. The President decides whether the economy would best be served by going to the moon, a science fiction based arms race, or a perpetual war in the mid east. At least in the past that was true, now a president's legacy is determined by whether Congress will work with them or spend the entire term entirely focused on how to not work with them. Unfortunately, I think Sanders would wield even less influence over Congress than HRC.
Would you say a guitarist isn't innovative unless he invented a new pickup or effect pedal? Innovation isn't limited to the first iteration of a new technology. It can also be the implementation, the combination of technologies and how they interact, the user interface, and the appearance of the device, all of which were strongly directed by Jobs.
Personally, I'd pick Trump easily. All the others are either religious wackos, Objectivism fans, or one of the worst CEOs in recent history. Trump is the only one of the bunch who's sane and connected.
Remaining personally rich while sending your corporations into bankruptcy describes both Trump and Fiorina. If either was elected I'm sure they would personally do just fine after a disastrous term.
Most importantly, on average Germans cannot afford kids (Fertility 1.7 per woman).
Pretty much the same rate as for white non-hispanic women in the US, where we replace the non-existent kids with random folks who are aggressive enough to move to the US.
In november if the ballot says Ghost of Ronald Reagan (D) vs Ficus Tree (R), the Tree will win the slashdot electorate by a landslide.
Considering how far (R) has shifted to the right since the 80's the party would immediately declare the Ghost of Ronald Reagan to be a Dem. That and declare him satanic.
So no different than most of Congress (both houses) these days.
To recognize when a car was being tested and not driven, the defeat device required data from a range of sensors—sensors that a noncheating car might not need.
You can't do a one launch manned trip to Mars, land and relaunch back to Earth. Isn't going to happen.
It's going to take multiple launches with some construction in space. Might as well do the construction on the Moon which is easily reachable.
Creating fuel on Mars is fine for the return trip, but it does nothing for the trip from Earth to Mars, which is where using the Moon as a fuel depot comes in.
Yes, let's put all that down at the bottom of a gravity well instead of in orbit because? The rest of your reasons are valid - as reasons for having a moon colony. Unless we got to the point where the entire Mars craft is built on the moon we'd send fuel and equipment from the moon to the mars craft (which would stay in orbit), as opposed to landing the mars craft on the moon for final construction and fueling.
I think the market for hypersonic planes would be more B.C. to Beijing than S.F./L.A to NYC. For one thing: the flights will probably have to be over water the entire time they are above the speed of sound.
Actually that is what happened in Boston. They were arrested and for charged with placing a hoax device to incite panic, and then jailed overnight until arraignment. Don't know how long they were interrogated though.
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?
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?
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.