A few days ago I wrote about the drug whose cost was going from something reasonable $3.50 per pill to $750 because the new company owner wanted to. Due to pressure, they have now said they will reduce the price but didn't say when or by how much.
This same person has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits to interfere with FDA approvals and also hedging against the company stock. So he ends up making a bundle while slowing down drugs reaching the market. So this lovely gentleman has a history of doing this:
"Until this week, Shkreli was largely unknown beyond Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry.He gained sudden notoriety for jacking up the price of Daraprim, a drug used to treat life-threatening infections, just two months after his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, acquired the medicine.
Initially defiant in the face of an onslaught of criticism, the 32-year-old chief executive agreed on Tuesday to lower the price, although he has not indicated when or by how much."
But wait there's more!
"Shkreli employed a similar pricing strategy at Retrophin, another drug company he ran before its board of directors booted him from his executive position. Last month, Retrophin accused him in a lawsuit of using company funds to repay investors after his hedge fund became insolvent."
Isn't this illegal?
"Shkreli also has a track record of betting against pharmaceutical stocks — a practice known as short selling. And in at least two cases he pressed federal regulators to reject the companies’ product at the same time he was betting the stocks would go down."
I think I have a nasty name for him now.
"In 2010, while running his hedge fund, Shkreli wrote a letter to the FDA urging the agency to turn down an application from MannKind, a company he was shorting that was seeking approval for an inhaled insulin product, according to news accounts. The agency initially had multiple issues with the drug but eventually approved it last year."
And again:
"In 2011, Shkreli then turned his attention to Navidea and its cancer diagnostic, called Lymphoseek — this time going so far as to a file a “citizen’s petition,” a more formal kind of regulatory complaint. Shkreli has no formal medical or scientific training. But while shorting the firm’s stock, he argued there were problems with the design of clinical trials used to evaluate the radioactive agent.
He publicized his complaints and financial bets against Navidea, which caused the company’s stock value to drop by nearly half, to about $250 million, leaving the drug maker in turmoil.
By filing the petition, Shkreli “almost derailed the Lymphoseek program,” said Steve Brozak, who heads WBB Securities, which helped raise money for Navidea (which was known as Neoprobe at the time). “He created an illusion there was an issue [with the trials], but the only thing he did was make money by shorting the stock. Meanwhile, patients could have been penalized.”"
What a 'nice' guy. He is lining his pockets with complete disregard for the patients who might actually benefit from these medical developments. He is young (32), but I am not sure he will ever grow out of this, unless he ends up in jail.
It is people like this who contribute to the expenses of pharma companies who are trying to bring new life saving treatments to market.
Showing posts with label medical research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medical research. Show all posts
Oct 15, 2018
Aug 21, 2018
Animal trainers not doctors
Okay, this is getting to be a bit too much. I'm sorry but cancer detection by animals? Well, birds too.
This all seems to be going on in the UK. First of all, pigeons are being trained to read breast cancer imaging to diagnose breast cancer. Yes you read that right. Pigeons. You know the 'rats with wings' (as I call them) that populate many cities.
"Pigeons, with training, did just as well as humans in a study testing their ability to distinguish cancerous from healthy breast tissue samples."
I am so happy to hear that we no longer need radiologists to read our mammograms for breast cancer diagnoses. Instead of 3 years of medical school and four years of a radiology residency, we can have pigeons trained for a few weeks who can spend their lives reading mammograms.
"After two weeks of training, the pigeons reached a level of 85% accuracy. Because they successfully identified cancerous tissue from images they had not seen before, the researchers ruled out rote-learning of the images as an explanation."
Talk about a birdbrain.
Next we have dogs who sniff out cancer. I have heard of this before. We have Lucy's story. She failed guide dog school so her owners thought they should try medical detection instead.
"For the next seven years, Lucy learned to sniff out bladder, kidney and prostate cancer, and was even used in a study. Over the years, she has been able to detect cancer correctly more than 95% of the time. That's better than some lab tests used to diagnose cancer.
Now, Lucy is part of one of the largest clinical trials of canine cancer detection. A British organization, Medical Detection Dogs, has eight dogs sniff out 3,000 urine samples from National Health Service patients to see whether they can discern who has cancer and who doesn't."
Is this a good use of our medical research dollars? I am not so sure. I know people claim their dogs have sniffed out their cancer or stay very close when they are sick but again I do not think a dog is good substitute for a doctor. This research may make us think we need more animal trainers instead of doctors.
You think I make this stuff up? You can read about it the pigeons and the dogs.
This all seems to be going on in the UK. First of all, pigeons are being trained to read breast cancer imaging to diagnose breast cancer. Yes you read that right. Pigeons. You know the 'rats with wings' (as I call them) that populate many cities.
"Pigeons, with training, did just as well as humans in a study testing their ability to distinguish cancerous from healthy breast tissue samples."
I am so happy to hear that we no longer need radiologists to read our mammograms for breast cancer diagnoses. Instead of 3 years of medical school and four years of a radiology residency, we can have pigeons trained for a few weeks who can spend their lives reading mammograms.
"After two weeks of training, the pigeons reached a level of 85% accuracy. Because they successfully identified cancerous tissue from images they had not seen before, the researchers ruled out rote-learning of the images as an explanation."
Talk about a birdbrain.
Next we have dogs who sniff out cancer. I have heard of this before. We have Lucy's story. She failed guide dog school so her owners thought they should try medical detection instead.
"For the next seven years, Lucy learned to sniff out bladder, kidney and prostate cancer, and was even used in a study. Over the years, she has been able to detect cancer correctly more than 95% of the time. That's better than some lab tests used to diagnose cancer.
Now, Lucy is part of one of the largest clinical trials of canine cancer detection. A British organization, Medical Detection Dogs, has eight dogs sniff out 3,000 urine samples from National Health Service patients to see whether they can discern who has cancer and who doesn't."
Is this a good use of our medical research dollars? I am not so sure. I know people claim their dogs have sniffed out their cancer or stay very close when they are sick but again I do not think a dog is good substitute for a doctor. This research may make us think we need more animal trainers instead of doctors.
You think I make this stuff up? You can read about it the pigeons and the dogs.
Jul 30, 2018
We are still waiting!
I haven't nagged in a while but I would like to remind the world that all of us unhealthy people are waiting for that cure. We have aches and pains and doctor appointments and prescriptions (out the whazoo!). We would like those cures so we could return to our normal life as soon as possible.
Once diagnosed with something nasty, life changes (and we are told there is this new normal - that doesn't exist) and are stuck in a yucky limbo waiting for medical advancements to put us back together.
There are a lot of politics and corporate policies and big brother and much more involved in medical research. We don't really care. Take your billions and fix us.
K? Thanks.
PS I am whining and in a cranky mood today.
Once diagnosed with something nasty, life changes (and we are told there is this new normal - that doesn't exist) and are stuck in a yucky limbo waiting for medical advancements to put us back together.
There are a lot of politics and corporate policies and big brother and much more involved in medical research. We don't really care. Take your billions and fix us.
K? Thanks.
PS I am whining and in a cranky mood today.
Jun 11, 2018
There is a moral here somewhere
What is that moral I can't quite recall? The tortoise and the hare? But not the early bird gets the worm.
Once a new drug is developed, there is a rush to get it to the market to help as many as possible. Patients who are very ill who might benefit from the new drug are quick to request access to it. But time is telling us that:
Once a new drug is developed, there is a rush to get it to the market to help as many as possible. Patients who are very ill who might benefit from the new drug are quick to request access to it. But time is telling us that:
- Rushing drugs through approvals isn't necessarily the best idea. The side effects and additional issues caused to patients actually cause more cost to the health care system and do not necessarily help the patients.
- The drug developers are supposed to continue their research but do not always comply.
- The FDA is not equipped to monitor the drug developers and review their additional study results.
Apr 16, 2018
Medical research and me
Finally a study for me, sort of. In a recent study, they found that women with breast cancer were more likely to be diagnosed with thyroid cancer in the five years following their initial diagnosis. And vice versa, with thyroid cancer, you are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer.
So I am not really in the study because my cancers were 26 years apart. But its nice to get some logic for my medical crap.
The more complicated explanation is:
"The authors wrote that those second primary tumors detected within 5 years of the initial primary diagnosis show “favorable histopathological findings and prognosis,” especially in TC patients subsequently diagnosed with BC, and thus close monitoring for BC may be beneficial.
“Although the increased incidence appears to be principally due to increased detection rates, the greater expression of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor in BC in patients with co-existing TC suggests that a specific molecular pathogenesis might underlie this association,” they concluded."
So whatever a 'histopathological finding' is and 'molecular pathogenesis' might mean, there may be some kind of reasoning behind my cancers.
As a patient, I hear about studies and clinical trials and more and they never seem to relate to me very much. Because my medical history always is different from everyone else. Its nice to have a study that could explain some of my medical stuff.
I have always been the patient who was too young for cancer, not likely to have rheumatoid, etc. But since I got all them anyway, even though I 'wasn't supposed to', I often am outside all normal parameters.
So I am not really in the study because my cancers were 26 years apart. But its nice to get some logic for my medical crap.
The more complicated explanation is:
"The authors wrote that those second primary tumors detected within 5 years of the initial primary diagnosis show “favorable histopathological findings and prognosis,” especially in TC patients subsequently diagnosed with BC, and thus close monitoring for BC may be beneficial.
“Although the increased incidence appears to be principally due to increased detection rates, the greater expression of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor in BC in patients with co-existing TC suggests that a specific molecular pathogenesis might underlie this association,” they concluded."
So whatever a 'histopathological finding' is and 'molecular pathogenesis' might mean, there may be some kind of reasoning behind my cancers.
As a patient, I hear about studies and clinical trials and more and they never seem to relate to me very much. Because my medical history always is different from everyone else. Its nice to have a study that could explain some of my medical stuff.
I have always been the patient who was too young for cancer, not likely to have rheumatoid, etc. But since I got all them anyway, even though I 'wasn't supposed to', I often am outside all normal parameters.
Apr 2, 2018
Medical reversals
We all hate them. These are when you received a medical treatment and find out months, years, or even decades later we find out from new research it wasn't helpful or could have even been harmful. We justify it to ourselves that it is because the medical world was using the best information available to them at the time and they had no way of knowing.
I have found this out for myself numerous times with my medical history. Treatments that I received are no longer accepted practice.
Now there are a couple of doctors out there who wrote a book on how we need to change these 'flip-flops' in clinical practice. They are actually called 'medical reversals' (not the most aggravating thing you can find out about your medical treatments). Here is a quote from the article:
"...hormone replacement therapy as being sort of the seminal reversal for doctors of his generation.
The thing that really was seminal for me was the routine use of stenting for stable coronary angina. It's a very costly and invasive procedure, and it continued to be done in a very widespread fashion. The evidence for it was always unclear and then in 2007 with the publication of the COURAGE trial, a lot of the evidence was contradicted."
We all remember HRT was found that it was later shown to actually increase the patient's risk for breast cancer.
"In every case of our book, we found an example of something that was perfectly logical, it was incredibly plausible, it made perfect biological sense, but it was broadly accepted without those definitive confirmatory studies to really prove it actually does what you think it does. And in the years that followed, people over time became a little bit more skeptical of it and eventually some brave investigators said hey, you know what? Let's sort this out once and for all. Let's put this to the test.
Their point is that we need a huge overhaul of our medical system to prevent these 'reversals'. I couldn't agree more. The old way of doing things, based on traditional ideas and ways of doing things, needs some change.
"...we do advocate for a complete overhaul. A couple of chapters talk about how doctors are trained and how academics should work. A couple of chapters talk about how drug and device regulation should work. A couple of chapters talk about what our professional responsibilities are."
They advocate for a lot of change which will take a good deal of time. I think this sounds like a great first step in identifying how we are now able to say, and should say more often 'more research is needed' and 'are we really doing this the right way?' I know I get frustrated when I hear about a medical breakthrough that might help me and then hear that more research is needed. But now I understand better why this is said.
I have found this out for myself numerous times with my medical history. Treatments that I received are no longer accepted practice.
Now there are a couple of doctors out there who wrote a book on how we need to change these 'flip-flops' in clinical practice. They are actually called 'medical reversals' (not the most aggravating thing you can find out about your medical treatments). Here is a quote from the article:
"...hormone replacement therapy as being sort of the seminal reversal for doctors of his generation.
The thing that really was seminal for me was the routine use of stenting for stable coronary angina. It's a very costly and invasive procedure, and it continued to be done in a very widespread fashion. The evidence for it was always unclear and then in 2007 with the publication of the COURAGE trial, a lot of the evidence was contradicted."
We all remember HRT was found that it was later shown to actually increase the patient's risk for breast cancer.
"In every case of our book, we found an example of something that was perfectly logical, it was incredibly plausible, it made perfect biological sense, but it was broadly accepted without those definitive confirmatory studies to really prove it actually does what you think it does. And in the years that followed, people over time became a little bit more skeptical of it and eventually some brave investigators said hey, you know what? Let's sort this out once and for all. Let's put this to the test.
Their point is that we need a huge overhaul of our medical system to prevent these 'reversals'. I couldn't agree more. The old way of doing things, based on traditional ideas and ways of doing things, needs some change.
"...we do advocate for a complete overhaul. A couple of chapters talk about how doctors are trained and how academics should work. A couple of chapters talk about how drug and device regulation should work. A couple of chapters talk about what our professional responsibilities are."
They advocate for a lot of change which will take a good deal of time. I think this sounds like a great first step in identifying how we are now able to say, and should say more often 'more research is needed' and 'are we really doing this the right way?' I know I get frustrated when I hear about a medical breakthrough that might help me and then hear that more research is needed. But now I understand better why this is said.
Dec 5, 2017
How Generous!
Back in September, I blogged about the lovely 'gentleman' who bumped up the price of a drug from $3.50 per pill to $750 because they felt like it essentially. Because of a bit of ensuing 'bad press', they then announced they would reduce the price but never said how much.
Now they have finally made a decision on their price decrease. It will be a generous 50%. So since they raised the price somewhere around 5000%, the 50% decrease will really be about 2500% increase from the original price.
"Still, even a 50% discount would only bring the price for hospitals down to $375 per 25 mg pill.
The typical Daraprim dosage is between 50 mg and 75 mg a day for one to three weeks and can be followed by an additional 25 mg a day for four to five weeks if needed, according to the FDA. So even with the discount, a normal course of treatment for toxoplasmosis could cost between $5,200 and $36,700."
I still don't like this guy and don't think he's generous.
Now they have finally made a decision on their price decrease. It will be a generous 50%. So since they raised the price somewhere around 5000%, the 50% decrease will really be about 2500% increase from the original price.
"Still, even a 50% discount would only bring the price for hospitals down to $375 per 25 mg pill.
The typical Daraprim dosage is between 50 mg and 75 mg a day for one to three weeks and can be followed by an additional 25 mg a day for four to five weeks if needed, according to the FDA. So even with the discount, a normal course of treatment for toxoplasmosis could cost between $5,200 and $36,700."
I still don't like this guy and don't think he's generous.
Aug 22, 2016
Research hope and hopes dashed
I do follow the latest breast cancer, thyroid cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia medical research. Some inner child is waiting for the cure to all of these ailments. I have learned a great deal about these ailments through reading the advances and get hope that some day a cure will be there. I also welcome the access to medical and other research across the board.
When I was first diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 1981, if I wanted to find information I had to go to a university's research library and read medical text books. It was confusing to say the least. In those days research was left to scientists and published in technical journals that were dense and textbooks for those learning the science or medicine that were no easy read.
Times have changed and I can find research every where. I can browse scientific journals online, set up Google alerts to send me the latest news, review the disease information on association websites, and have access to advances as soon as they are announced. However they all seem to be followed with the disclaimers 'more research is needed' and 'FDA approval is 5-7 years away'. Which can be frustrating, to say the least.
Every so often, I read some research that makes me wonder if I am over thinking, and perhaps the rest of us are too. I read this article on the impact of stress hormones on breast cancer recurrence or progression due to treatment resistance. It starts out by saying progesterone may stimulate that growth of cells that make cancer resistant to estrogen based treatments. Then it goes on to talk about the role of CK5 and goes on from there...
I admit it, I got lost. My breast cancer was ER-/PR- so do I have to worry about this at all? Well once I read it three times, I figured it out and could follow along.
But it made me wonder (which can be a bad thing), should I try to NOT follow all this research? Am I over thinking the hope that there is a cure out there? Should I leave this research to the scientists and not get myself bogged down in the details? I mean I do get the sense of hope from all the research that some day that cure will show up.
But is it worth letting myself get excited about the potential in the research and then get let down by the fact that the ending is 'more research is needed' and 'FDA approval is 5-10 years away'. Am I contributing to my own emotional medical roller coaster by trying to follow the advances and ensuing waiting?
A big part of any medical ailment is the emotional roller coaster that becomes part of your life after diagnosis. Learning how to cope with the roller coaster can be very difficult. And am I aggravating my own stress levels by accessing all this research? I will have to do some more thinking on this.
When I was first diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 1981, if I wanted to find information I had to go to a university's research library and read medical text books. It was confusing to say the least. In those days research was left to scientists and published in technical journals that were dense and textbooks for those learning the science or medicine that were no easy read.
Times have changed and I can find research every where. I can browse scientific journals online, set up Google alerts to send me the latest news, review the disease information on association websites, and have access to advances as soon as they are announced. However they all seem to be followed with the disclaimers 'more research is needed' and 'FDA approval is 5-7 years away'. Which can be frustrating, to say the least.
Every so often, I read some research that makes me wonder if I am over thinking, and perhaps the rest of us are too. I read this article on the impact of stress hormones on breast cancer recurrence or progression due to treatment resistance. It starts out by saying progesterone may stimulate that growth of cells that make cancer resistant to estrogen based treatments. Then it goes on to talk about the role of CK5 and goes on from there...
I admit it, I got lost. My breast cancer was ER-/PR- so do I have to worry about this at all? Well once I read it three times, I figured it out and could follow along.
But it made me wonder (which can be a bad thing), should I try to NOT follow all this research? Am I over thinking the hope that there is a cure out there? Should I leave this research to the scientists and not get myself bogged down in the details? I mean I do get the sense of hope from all the research that some day that cure will show up.
But is it worth letting myself get excited about the potential in the research and then get let down by the fact that the ending is 'more research is needed' and 'FDA approval is 5-10 years away'. Am I contributing to my own emotional medical roller coaster by trying to follow the advances and ensuing waiting?
A big part of any medical ailment is the emotional roller coaster that becomes part of your life after diagnosis. Learning how to cope with the roller coaster can be very difficult. And am I aggravating my own stress levels by accessing all this research? I will have to do some more thinking on this.