High probability that most Oncology drugs based on flawed research

[Anonymous]

ZKGG poster here - what intrigues me is somebody pointing a finger at somebody yelling fraud! - but can't defend profit, freedom, choice, and although I think he is quite stupid, can't defend smart people making stupid decisions either. That boy's got a bugs in his head - watch him.

OP here...so save the snarks.
"Defending" ???????
That's just bullshit.

 

[Anonymous]

The majority of branded drugs offer absultely no benefit above and beyond the generics that could be substitutued for them. That is a fact.

So, if you get cancer, say, luekemia, your company makes a branded drug Gleevec, which is well tolerated and has a great survival rate...you'd rather have the old generic, interferon, which is very tough on people and has at best a 25% survival rate...it's lots cheaper. Gleevec has been ackwnolged as being a wonder drug. We also offer lots of copay help etc....the other does not.

That is another fact.

 

[Anonymous]

Most of you miss the point. The way pharma and generics work is not fraudulent (in principle). Yes, some companies are actually breaking laws, but making me too's is totally legal. And yes, if I had leukemia (the type treatable by Gleevec), I would want Gleevec, and not another molecule less capable. I agree, 30% of resources are all that go to new innovation. The rest is mostly repetitive (not just me too's, but even different forms of the same molecule) but totally legal. Not fraudulent. Until the laws change, this corporate behavior will continue. It's all about the money.

The sad thing is that most companies behaviors are also driven by the greed of just a few. Even a company like Novartis has just a handful of institutional investors that have expectations. In privately held companies it is even worse. The decisions, like acquisitions and huge head count cuts are all to meet their expectations, with minimal focus on really delivering new therapies that "the people" need. That is just a side effect, and when you spend close to $10B on R&D, something is bound to come out, but nowhere near what it should.

If we want change and that "feel good" sense that you are always working on something that will truly help, then we need to change the laws that govern drug approvals. Until then, companies, driven by ruthless and greedy investors, will do exactly as they have been.

 

[Anonymous]

Please be assured that NVS Oncology drugs POC in Humans are based upon the highest level of standards. A recent Drug had POC declared based upon the FDG PET images that were part of a tertiary objective for exploratory biomarkers.

By the time the dust had settled and management realized that the FDG PET was not part of the primary objective in the protocol, it was too late. The awards had already gone out, the abstracts presented and a development plan was in place.