Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Should all drugs be generic? » Squiggles

Posted by Larry Hoover on July 28, 2007, at 12:51:03

In reply to Re: Should all drugs be generic? » Larry Hoover, posted by Squiggles on July 28, 2007, at 12:06:04

> I'm a layman, you sound like a doctor.

Then please speak without using jargon you don't understand. I could only sound like a doctor if I use the jargon properly, n'est-ce pas?

> Therapeutic index is primarily a toxicity measure,

Which is exactly what I just said.

> but bioequivalence will have to play a role in the making of copies of drugs as well as variability in generics.

Which is exactly what I just said, although more concisely than did you.

> So, some companies make generics for the poor, and they are bioequivalent to non-generics? Do you now of such a company?

They don't make generics for the poor. They make generics to try to maintain market share, after their patent expires. I do know of such a company, but I don't wish to become excessively tangential in this discussion. So, forget I said it.

> > Stealing away a portion of the generic market with what one would assume to be a high quality copy of the branded form makes good business sense.
>
> More good moral sense for those who cannot afford the non-generics; unless you mean good advertising and PR by good business sense.

It's about selling drugs. Generics are only on the market after a drug goes off patent.

> > And who is going to do any research thereafter?
>
> Is research that expensive?

Yes!

> Their profits are superflous when you compare them to the top companies in the world.

There are no more profitable companies than the pharmaceutical companies, within the realm of manufacturing as a whole. There are commodity companies (mining, especially), which are more profitable. I repeat, pharmaceutical companies are the most profitable among all manufacturing companies (earnings as percentage of revenue basis).

> I think that they could economizie by cutting down on the unnecessary number of drugs which share the same chemical composition and backround in neuropsychiatric research.

Your comment has no basis. A consumer need only choose from the least expensive drugs in a class, if your premise has any validity. However, supposedly similar drugs are not interchangeable in practise, so I cannot agree with you in any sense.

> > Your beloved lithium could not pass current clinical trial requirements, IMHO. Just be thankful it got approved before the lawyers could sue the makers for thyroid toxicosis and kidney damage.

> I don't understand the thyrotoxicosis point-- lithium lowers the thyroid hormone not elevates it. Infact, lithium is used to thyrotoxicosis.

You do understand. You're repeating what I just said. Lithium is thyrotoxic. End of story.

> As for kidney damage, barring dehydration and initial kidney problems, lithium does not affect the kidneys if you drink adequate fluids. It is a side effect that has an urban pharmacology legend history.

False! There are numerous nephritic complications of lithium prophylaxis in bipolar disorder. Just do a search on one of them, nephritic diabetes insipidus, and you'll know you're mistaken. Here, I'll even start you off:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11999908

Lar

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:Larry Hoover thread:772306
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070719/msgs/772546.html