Home Secretary (finally) allows CBD oil for Billy Caldwell.

Energize said:
I don't think the public should pay for clinical research, I believe in small government.
Click to expand...

OK, that's consistent. I disagree on the appropriate size of government, but that's fine.

There is another issue, though. You specifically referenced Cancer Research UK as a private company ("private companies like cancer research UK"). Cancer Research UK is a charity and almost entirely funded by the public. It's private in the sense that it's not part of the government, but it's publically funded and it's not a for-profit drug development business. It has developed a number of drugs for cancer treatment that have then been sold for profit by drug companies. So public money is being used to benefit drug companies. Drug companies also use the results of publically funded research. So what we have now is drug companies profiting from publically funded drug development and other medical research. I think that's an inefficient and unethical way to go about medical research and drug development.
 
Yes it's private in the sense that it's free from the government, that's what private means. People voluntarily choose to give their money to Cancer Research, it isn't compelled taxation which is what I take ethical issue with.

All scientific advancement is built on the work of others, I don't think it's unethical for a pharmaceutical company to build on what is a private companies research to create a life saving drug because there's a profit factor involved.
 
Last edited:
if you don't think it's unethical for a private company to profit from a publically funded research institute, why do you think it's unethical to cut out the middleman and have the publically funded research institute sell products based on their own research? Even from a completely mercenary point of view, that's still a better method because it's more efficient.

Let's say I concoct a recipe for some sort of food. A really nice chocolate cake, for example. You want to buy some chocolate cake. People have given me money to devise new chocolate cakes. Which is more efficient and more ethical? Me selling chocolate cake to you for £5 or me being required to give the recipe to a company so they can make chocolate cake for £1 and sell them to you for £30?

Also, how is it ethical to prevent medically useful drugs being developed because there isn't a large enough and reliable enough amount of profit in them? That's what happens when drug development is only allowed to be about profit. Why would a business spend any resources on something that isn't profitable? They exist to make profit, not to benefit society.
 
I don't think it's particularly unethical for a public body to produce it's own pharmaceuticals, where did I say that?

Who is preventing useful drugs from being developed? Have I missed something here?

Drug development isn't only allowed to be about profit, we have private organisations like Cancer Research which have done some fantastic work on drug development and with the efficiency that a public organisation could only dream of.
 
Energize said:
I don't think it's particularly unethical for a public body to produce it's own pharmaceuticals, where did I say that?
Click to expand...

Posts 147 and 149.

Who is preventing useful drugs from being developed? Have I missed something here?
Click to expand...

If public bodies aren't allowed to do so (you described public bodies developing drugs as a breach of patents and a surefire way to kill medical research and drug development) then the only motive for drug development is profit. Which prevents drugs being developed unless people at decision-making levels in drug companies decide there's enough chance of enough profit in them.

Drug development isn't only allowed to be about profit, we have private organisations like Cancer Research which have done some fantastic work on drug development and with the efficiency that a public organisation could only dream of.
Click to expand...

It's a publically funded charity.

So we currently have publically funded research being given to private profit-driven business to make money from drugs discovered or created by that research. Why not cut out the middleman to improve efficiency? Why should profit-driven businesses be allowed to profit from publically funded research? Why should medically beneficial but unprofitable drugs be unavailable?

Your idea of allowing routine use of unprofitable mixtures of drugs and other chemicals on patients without adequate testing is a solution to a problem of your own making. It's a problem caused by drug development being about profit (even going as far as profiting from charities!) rather than benefits to patients or society in general.

Also, of course, publically funded drug companies would cut costs to the NHS. But I'm assuming that you're opposed to the NHS, so I haven't brought that up as an argument.
 
Angilion said:
Posts 147 and 149.
Click to expand...

How do you get "it's unethical for a public body to produce it's own pharmaceuticals" from "it's unethical to breach patents"?

Public bodies producing drugs isn't objectionable (leaving aside the ethics of taxation for the moment), but your suggestion of a public body that breaches patents in order to get around the costs of big pharma drugs pricing was.

If public bodies aren't allowed to do so (you described public bodies developing drugs as a breach of patents and a surefire way to kill medical research and drug development) then the only motive for drug development is profit. Which prevents drugs being developed unless people at decision-making levels in drug companies decide there's enough chance of enough profit in them.
Click to expand...

Well it isn't because charities don't do it for profit and they are not public bodies.

It's a publically funded charity.

So we currently have publically funded research being given to private profit-driven business to make money from drugs discovered or created by that research. Why not cut out the middleman to improve efficiency? Why should profit-driven businesses be allowed to profit from publically funded research? Why should medically beneficial but unprofitable drugs be unavailable?

Your idea of allowing routine use of unprofitable mixtures of drugs and other chemicals on patients without adequate testing is a solution to a problem of your own making. It's a problem caused by drug development being about profit (even going as far as profiting from charities!) rather than benefits to patients or society in general.

Also, of course, publically funded drug companies would cut costs to the NHS. But I'm assuming that you're opposed to the NHS, so I haven't brought that up as an argument.
Click to expand...

It's a charity so what? The pertinent fact is that it's an NGO funded voluntarily by private individuals, not a statutory (public) body, thus completely undermining your argument that the only motive for drug development is profit.

I firmly believe that the primary reason we are now in a situation where the only option is to prescribe a plant to patients is because of drug prohibition which has until recently stifled research and development into cannibinoids, in the same way it destroyed research into the therapeutic use of drugs such as MDMA and psychedelics.

I'm not convinced that a drug development company would be a net saving, the startup costs of a pharmaceutical company are huge, the drug development process takes years and it's quite risky, I can see huge amounts of money being sunk into drugs that don't make it to market (one of the reasons drugs are so expensive).
 
Energize said:
How do you get "it's unethical for a public body to produce it's own pharmaceuticals" from "it's unethical to breach patents"?
Click to expand...

Because you wrote the latter as an objection to a public body producing its own medical drugs.

Public bodies producing drugs isn't objectionable (leaving aside the ethics of taxation for the moment), but your suggestion of a public body that breaches patents in order to get around the costs of big pharma drugs pricing was.
Click to expand...

A suggestion I didn't make, so it's not mine.

Well it isn't because charities don't do it for profit and they are not public bodies.
[..]
It's a charity so what? The pertinent fact is that it's an NGO funded voluntarily by private individuals, not a statutory (public) body, thus completely undermining your argument that the only motive for drug development is profit.
Click to expand...

What volume of drugs did Cancer Research UK make last year? Or any year? Are they even allowed to do so?

The only reason any of the drugs discovered or made by Cancer Research UK or as a result of their research is available to treat patients is because people at a decision-making level in a drug company deciding there was enough chance of enough profit in it. So yes, the only motive is profit. The existence of publically funded research that is given to drug companies to profit from doesn't change that.

I firmly believe that the primary reason we are now in a situation where the only option is to prescribe a plant to patients is because of drug prohibition which has until recently stifled research and development into cannibinoids, in the same way it destroyed research into the therapeutic use of drugs such as MDMA and psychedelics.
Click to expand...

I think that was a factor. Maybe the primary one, maybe not. How does a business go about getting a patent for something that's nothing more than a plant extract? And why should it be possible at all?

I'm not convinced that a drug development company would be a net saving, the startup costs of a pharmaceutical company are huge, the drug development process takes years and it's quite risky, I can see huge amounts of money being sunk into drugs that don't make it to market (one of the reasons drugs are so expensive).
Click to expand...

Drug companies make a profit. So there's a net saving to be made - that profit.
 
Angilion said:
What volume of drugs did Cancer Research UK make last year? Or any year? Are they even allowed to do so?

The only reason any of the drugs discovered or made by Cancer Research UK or as a result of their research is available to treat patients is because people at a decision-making level in a drug company deciding there was enough chance of enough profit in it. So yes, the only motive is profit. The existence of publically funded research that is given to drug companies to profit from doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Their website lists many of the drugs they developed and got to market, a bit clunky though you have to go into the clinical trials page to see all of them.

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ou...earch-into-cancer-drugs#Cancer_drug_progress0

It's simply not all about profit, some of the drugs marketed have little prospect of profit, despite pharmaceutical companies wanting to make money they are run by humans that are affected by cancer themselves and do actually want to make effective treatments available.

Also I think you need to realise that if a drug isn't profitable it's generally because it's not something that is going to bring a large benefit to many people, so you don't really want to have a public company developing these non-profitable drugs. Pharmaceutical companies aren't sitting on the cure for cancer.

I think that was a factor. Maybe the primary one, maybe not. How does a business go about getting a patent for something that's nothing more than a plant extract? And why should it be possible at all?
Click to expand...

Companies basically create specific combinations of cannabinoids which enables them to patent it as a formulation, this is what happened with Sativex. Why should it be possible at all? There's the pragmatic view that without the ability to patent any formulations we would see no research and development of natural cannabinoids from the private sector, we wouldn't even have Sativex.

Drug companies make a profit. So there's a net saving to be made - that profit.
Click to expand...

Net profit margin for a pharmaceutical company averages 14% so a small saving to be made.

While they do make a profit from a select few drugs that make it to market most drugs end up being tossed aside before they hit the market because they can't meet the regulatory bodies arbitrary efficacy endpoints. While there is a theoretical saving to be made, I would estimate the actual probability of a government operation successfully producing a blockbuster drug which would realise those savings are slim to none and the venture would end up being a huge money sink.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom