backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 93 comment(s) - last by A Baker.. on Nov 21 at 11:02 PM
Former Intel CEO and co-founder Andrew S. Grove to speak at annual meeting of Society or Neuroscience

Former Intel CEO and co-founder Andrew S. Grove has some scathing words to say to the pharmaceutical industry. During Grove’s tenure with Intel, he saw transistors on a chip grow from 1000 to nearly 10 billion, but treatments for major diseases like Parkinson’s are exactly the same today as they were 12 years ago.

Grove tells Newsweek that he thinks something is deeply wrong with the biomedical research system in the country.

Grove isn’t alone in wondering why researchers are able to heal animals in tests of cancer, make paralyzed mice walk again and other feats, but nothing seems to translate over to humans, which is the point of the research.

One of the best points made by Grove in his Newsweek interview is that in the semiconductor industry, when a device can’t be made the same way twice; they investigate the cause. One such investigation led to a breakthrough that is now a main building block of all sorts of common household devices like cell phones and MP3 players. 

Had the original problem not been investigated, the breakthrough allowing the wealth of electronics devices we enjoy today may have never happened or would have at least been delayed greatly.

In the pharmaceutics industry, when a batch of drugs tested doesn’t provide results better than the results of a placebo group the entire batch is junked with no research into the cause of why the drug didn’t work. Grove says in a nutshell that the pharmaceutical industry is missing a huge amount of potential benefit by not being able to take the things in each failed medication that are good and roll them into one medicine that works.

The mere act of investigating failures in pharmaceutical research could lead to unforeseen breakthroughs that could potentially affect millions of lives worldwide.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:03:57 PM , Rating: 5
I can't say I disagree with anything that he said. The Pharma industry is probably just as bad as the RIAA/MPAA when it comes to clinging to obsolete business models. If they actually healed people, they'd be doing themselves a disservice.

Ever notice how most of the drugs on the market, especially the newer ones, do not actually cure anything? Instead these drugs just alleviate a few symptoms. The most profitable angle, the Pharma companies believe, is to keep sick people in a perpetual state of treatment - alive and more comfortable than they were before, but not healthy enough to actually say no to the drug they're using for treatment.

If I were an enterprising entrepreneur (and I am), I'd say this lack of innovation is a platinum opportunity. We have the technology to create cures for many of the ailments out there, it's just a matter of getting it done.




RE: True...
By lealwai on 11/6/2007 6:12:19 PM , Rating: 1
Again, i disagree with that. Do you HONESTLY think that all the pharmaceutical companies in the industry's main concern is to NOT cure diseases so we can earn profits from sales? This is not the technology sector. Granted, profits are a huge part of the pharmaceutical business. Also in most cases there is no such thing as actually healing people. Most diseases are chronic/genetic, and cannot be changed by simply administering a med. I'm sorry, your point is pretty much unfounded.


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:18:14 PM , Rating: 4
You can't really disagree with what I said, then admit that "profits are a huge part of the pharmaceutical business". Just think about how much business would be lost if there was a drug that cured the ailments that are currently only treated. Have you checked the recent treatment prices?

quote:
Most diseases are chronic/genetic, and cannot be changed by simply administering a med.


Absolutely right, and THAT is the problem. Lack of true innovation.


RE: True...
By lealwai on 11/6/2007 6:28:31 PM , Rating: 1
I truly think it will be impossible to "innovate" to the extent that you will be able to cure diseases. Unless you have more exposure to the pharmaceutical better than me (I'm a 5th year pharmacy student btw). The most we can do at this point is to slow progression of disease.

You also have to take into account that most disease modifying agents have been released within the last 10-15 years. And it takes approximately 10 years for a pharmaceutical company to research a drug and bring it to market due to FDA approval and such. So, in a sense, you could say that the industry is slow in adjusting, but that is mainly because of regulations. Technology is released with glitches all the time which are fixed through following iterations. You dont have that room for error when it comes to releasing a drug


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:40:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I truly think it will be impossible to "innovate" to the extent that you will be able to cure diseases. Unless you have more exposure to the pharmaceutical better than me (I'm a 5th year pharmacy student btw). The most we can do at this point is to slow progression of disease.


Let's get a round of applause for the FUTURE of the Pharma industry, folks!!! As I mentioned in a previous post, you're only building walls for yourself. You do realize that thinking something is impossible inherently makes it impossible for you to accomplish, ever. :)

quote:
Technology is released with glitches all the time which are fixed through following iterations. You dont have that room for error when it comes to releasing a drug


Ahaha...you're kidding right? Here, have some Vioxx. :)


RE: True...
By rudy on 11/6/2007 7:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
He is actually right, but that does not mean that there is no hope. The future of disease lies in non drug based treatments of enhancements of drug based treatments. Stem cells, genetics, and various other wide ranging fields will bring the next line of treatments and cures. pharmacologist will be helped with better targeting of drugs through technology. In fact I would say that mister grove is actually the main person who could do something but he is too busy playing the blame game. Technology can be used to target drugs to a specific point thus reducing or eliminating the side effects. Many drugs target receptors, the problem is you can only administer them several ways most of which result in the whole body getting a dose. But many receptors serve very different functions in different parts of the body or systems thus when ever you give a drug you can not give it in a high dose and you will get side effects. Targeting drugs through the use of technology will help propel the next generation of drug treatments and cures. This is how many advanced cancer treatments work, things like cyber knife are just an increasingly accurate way of hitting the problem and leaving the good cells alone.

The drug business is hard you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You develop a drug and every one cries about how much it costs, but they don't know how many drugs you spent 80 million on that failed and they don't know how much it cost you to bring that one to market. Then when you get it going they just rip if off in countries that do not respect IP laws like China and India and sell it back as generic under cutting you. But most of the worlds layman just don't get what is going on in the inside or how things even work, but thanks to blogs movie stars and idiots seems those people are the ones we hear the most from.


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 8:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
He is right if we're subscribing to the current way of thinking...but the solution is out there, and I do believe it is possible to fully cure a disease and/or heal someone.

I cannot think of any drugs that actually cure a disease...all the drugs do is mitigate a symptom or small group of symptoms, because they don't address the body as a system - they target a specific part of the body with no regard to the other components of the body.

We have antibiotics, but they are not a cure, they only assist the body's immune system. It is ultimately the body's ability to create antibodies that fixes the problem...and for diseases that the immune system cannot eliminate, we refer to those as "chronic ailments".

I don't think the solution lies in attacking diseases and ailments head-on, rather we should be looking for ways to boost the capacity and capability of our own natural immune system. How do we do that? Sharks don't get cancer...why not? Crocodile blood will kill most foreign bacteria and viruses including HIV...hmmm...


RE: True...
By lealwai on 11/6/2007 8:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
While that sounds all fine and dandy in your head. Its actually the drugs that are targeted to the specific areas of the body that are currently the best. True, if we could have a dream drug that would make ur entire system better as a whole that would mean the end of the pharmaceutical business, but targeting one organ/system by itself is better at least at this point in pharmaceutical research because it decreases the effects of toxicities on other unnecessary areas of the body, a point in which you have largely ignored. This is largely what happened with Vioxx, it was the best COX-2 inhibitor around at the time because it had the least GI side effects and renal toxicities among other agents of the same class. However initial studies did not adequately show that the risk of cardio-related events was increased (an issue in which all drugs in that class i.e. celebrex still have, just not to that extent). Toxicities cannot be ignored and will always be there in literally every drug on the market. Even if there was a cure to some said disease, there is gonna be a tradeoff to that.


RE: True...
By HeavyB on 11/6/2007 8:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
I'd like to politely point out some misinformation in your post.

1. Antibiotics do generally directly disrupt microbemetabolism and/or proliferation and have no positive effect on the body's immune system. Wanna know something really frigging scary? The number of large pharma companies worldwide that are aggressively pursuing new antibiotics to treat the increasingly drug resistant pathogens is less than 10 (maybe around 5). That's terrifying.

2. Diseases the immune system can't eliminate are called chronic ailments is a partial truth, but what about those diseases where the body's own immune system is causing the ailments. These are chronic ailments, too, and a couple of the most successful antibody therapies target these autoimmune diseases (Enbrel, an anti TNF-a receptor antibody treatment). This is a great example of how difficult it is to make the perfect drug. Take Enbrel to shut off your immune system from attacking you, but cross your fingers you don't get a serious infection, because, if you do, you're in big trouble.

I do like your out of the box thinking in the last paragraph. In general, drug companies want to treat symptoms, for a very long time to reap their profits.


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 10:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's more of a misunderstanding...antibiotics do not "boost" the immune system; they decrease the quantity of a particular bacteria within the body - with varying degrees of side effects. By reducing the quantity of bacteria, they are effectively relieving the body's immune system, allowing it to recover and create the necessary antibodies...the final blow is delivered by the immune system.

You are certainly right about the research into new types of antibiotics being lax. We're still using penicillin after all these years...that says something. I recall there being research into a type of peptide antibiotics. These antibiotics cause the proteins that encase bacterial cells to deteriorate, and eventually die off. Unlike current forms, peptide antibiotics were said to be safe from bacteria becoming resistant.

As for conditions where the body's own immune system is causing the problems, I'd say that is more of a disorder than a disease. IF the white blood cells in our body start attacking our "good" tissues, why does that happen? Are the white blood cells NOT working right, or is there a glitch in the regulatory systems that is instructing them to attack "friendly" organisms? There is certainly some way to revert the immune system back to proper function, but I doubt there is anything on the table today that can do that...which is why we do things like disable the immune system altogether.

One of the keys to maintaining health is to maintain an "equilibrium" of sorts within the body...and I think that a lot of people dismiss potential disruptors of that equilibrium our body tries to maintain. For example, the negative effects of constant stress, urgency (as you feel to get work done on a deadline), sadness/loneliness (as more people choose to be single), etc...these 'troubles' of the mind can have profound effects on the health of the body and result in seemingly unrelated "diseases or disorders".


RE: True...
By rudy on 11/6/2007 10:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
No one is subscribing to anything people are working on every angle they can, but there are 3 billion years of evolution and complexity to dig through. It doesn't happen over night. You only list basic lay concepts and don't even begin to go into the complications or show that we have achieved even the first steps of implementation. We barely know how the human body works and you want to take genetic abilities of 3 phylogenetically distinct organisms and merge them into 1 before we can even modify our own genome. Which goes back to my point, most people making comments have no clue what they are talking about or anything that goes on in the research subject. But they are quick to criticize.


RE: True...
By jtemplin on 11/7/2007 9:52:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
most people making comments have no clue what they are talking about or anything that goes on in the research subject. But they are quick to criticize


Amen.

Martello has some good ideas, but is perhaps putting too much weight on superficial connections between the ideas of Grove and that many current medical interventions are only able to treat the symptoms. Perhaps the pharamceutical industry isn't the most deserving of our trust, but it is also possible to over-estimate the possibilities of our current medical capabilities. It seems you are observing two things and drawing a very conspiracy-like connection between the two when you say that.
quote:
Ever notice how most of the drugs on the market, especially the newer ones, do not actually cure anything?
quote:
Instead these drugs just alleviate a few symptoms.


My "Occam's Razor" alarm goes off when you conclude, from this observation, that there is a strong chance the pharmaceutical company is actively trying to keep people from being cured.
First imaging of a carbon nanotube was done in 1952. The first imaging of DNA was in 1937, although as we all know the full mystery of the structure wasn't uncovered until 1953. However, we are just now beginning to see CNT in consumer products (sports equipment, heatsinks etc) and regarding DNA, the first approved gene therapy treatment happened in 1990. Why not 1960? I think the complicated nature of engineering solutions to the problems of the human body is not one to be underestimated.
My point is that highly technical discoveries take time to trickle down and unlike a nonliving piece of silicon, people are VERY reluctant to rush into anything with a direct risk to humans.

I want to reiterate that while I think you are on to a good idea that curing people may not be in the pharmaceutical companies best interests, I think you need to take into consideration just how difficult of a problem it is to cure people. There is no panacea waiting to be found. And ultimately I think are best bets for treating illness is in nanomedicine. The goal of nanomedicine according to Robert Freitas is the
quote:
comprehensive monitoring, control, construction, repair, defense, and improvement of all human biological systems


PS If you want to be taken seriously, please don't go around saying sharks don't get cancer, this just shows a lack of understanding aboutthe complexities of biological systems.


RE: True...
By NEOCortex on 11/7/2007 11:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
Grove is a smart guy, no doubt, but why does he think that pharma research should progress as fast as semiconductor research.

Silicon is to semiconductor research what the human body is to pharma research. However the human body is a much more variable, and I dare say, complex thing than a device on a silicon wafer. Not to mention its a much more difficult thing to probe the inner workings of, no joke intended.

On top of all that, lets not forget, silicon is not alive. If a device on a wafer doesn't quite work right, you've only lost some time and money, if a drug doesn't work quite right on a human, you have the possibility of doing a lot more damage. Hence the strict regulations and the long time frames for such research.

INTEL does do know how to research, so there might be ways of doing research that could be carried over from one field to the other, I just don't think things are going to speed up all that much


RE: True...
By crazydrummer4562 on 11/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: True...
By mlau on 11/7/2007 1:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
IMHO the medical future belongs to nanotechnology. Think
tiny robots cruising your bloodstream, looking for unfamiliar
substances/cells. Treating various ailments with chemicals
will be a thing of the past.


RE: True...
By maverick85wd on 11/6/2007 6:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't really disagree with what I said, then admit that "profits are a huge part of the pharmaceutical business".

According to my economics teacher, profits are a huge part of all business so I don't see why he couldn't

As far as it taking so long to make serious progress, consider also that you aren't just tinkering with electronic components until something works, you ultimately have to test drugs on humans and before it can get to that point CONSIDERABLE testing has to be done on animals, testing has to be approved, etc... just a much lengthier process in general.
quote:
Absolutely right, and THAT is the problem. Lack of true innovation.

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at cracking the human genome and curing said chronic/genetic diseases. It's just not the same kind of problem as increasing the number of instructions-per-second a processor is capable of or the bytes-per-second that can be read/written


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:56:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
According to my economics teacher, profits are a huge part of all business so I don't see why he couldn't


Did you need a teacher to tell you that? Making a profit is not a problem, but it is a problem to willfully stifle innovation in order to sustain profits. The bigger a company is, the less agile it tends to be to changes in the market.

quote:
As far as it taking so long to make serious progress, consider also that you aren't just tinkering with electronic components until something works, you ultimately have to test drugs on humans and before it can get to that point CONSIDERABLE testing has to be done on animals, testing has to be approved, etc... just a much lengthier process in general.


The transistors in CURRENT CPUs have gates so small that they're subject to the theories of quantum physics. For example, electrons appear in the same place at the same time, or vanish altogether. No, your C2D is not a quantum processor, but with die sizes getting ever smaller, electronics cease to function as predictably as you seem to think they do.

Oversimplifying the challenges of one industry to make your plights seem greater is just another excuse. Technology advances at a rapid pace because there is more profit in improved technology...faster CPUs, better memory, better visual displays, new kinds of human-machine interfaces...you name it.

quote:
Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at cracking the human genome and curing said chronic/genetic diseases. It's just not the same kind of problem as increasing the number of instructions-per-second a processor is capable of or the bytes-per-second that can be read/written


Yes, it's more like balancing out the system than it is making the system work faster. :) I will crack the human genome if it is necessary to reach my goals.


RE: True...
By dome1234 on 11/6/2007 7:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
rather true in some area, but...

faulty lot of chips, you could do pretty much anything you want to them for investigative purposes.

You can't expect all results from animal studies to translate to human. You can't cut open human any way you do with chips. Furthermore, even on animal tests, there are things you can't do.

Cost as well. Running a full blown clinical trial, which involves any long term carcinogenic tests isn't trivial.

Getting through the regulatory requirements, etc etc....

Having said all that, at the end of the day, all companies exist for profit. If what they do now produce the goods, why take extra risks?


RE: True...
By HeavyB on 11/6/2007 9:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
That minor detail of getting it done, lol. Hmm, I think I'll cure AIDs this week, and then cancer next week. The science behind drug discovery is a little more involved than what you've seen on CSI.

There certainly are examples of immunizations that could be commercialized that would effectively wipe out infections that are more lucrative to just treat. That point is very true.


GP's
By Felofasofa on 11/6/2007 7:01:13 PM , Rating: 3
Every single GP in the Western world has a cupboard over-flowing with "samples" provided by drug companies. The said companies aren't interested in curing people, they just want people on something - anything, as long as they are popping pills. They are effectively bribing doctors with the "conferences" in Hawaii, so long as they push the myriad array of pills that keep comming out of the labs. As soon as the patent lapses - bring out another one. They are not concerned with health, just profits.




RE: GP's
By Oregonian2 on 11/6/2007 8:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah! Those dirty scoundrels don't want to just live under bridges and eat at soup kitchens while they do work to save humanity. They don't want to just steal equipment they need in facilities they set up under those bridges. How dare they want to be paid for their work and to buy their equipment! Pathetic! Anybody who doesn't want to go to school for long years at great expense and then work for nothing the rest of their lives in order to help those who do get paid for their jobs is really a sorry state of society. Anybody who doesn't try their best to be Mother Teresa should be ashamed of themselves.

Tongue back in cheek, the work that pharmaceutical companies do is funded primarily by those who use their products. Nobody buys their stuff, no research by them. Likewise, nobody knowing about their great product will use it either. You're saying that FREE samples is a bad thing? Doctors requiring patients to pay for everything instead would be a lot better, especially when one or two pills is all they need?

The research that's closer to being "pure' is probably that done at medical schools.

But as good as long term society goals are, there are the short term things having to do with the people doing the work wanting to eat and the like -- as well as pay for those investigations that fail (even Intel has spent a lot of money that went down the drain but had to be paid for by those things that went well).

They're not charities, they are businesses. Some countries had or have 100% government ownership of things so probably all of the world's ills have already been solved there seeing as how selling product wasn't an issue. Sorry, tongue slipped into my cheek a bit there again.


RE: GP's
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 8:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah! Those dirty scoundrels don't want to just live under bridges and eat at soup kitchens while they do work to save humanity.


I think you're glorifying their work just a tad too much. What have they done to save humanity? While we're on that topic, how long has humanity been doomed to the point that we needed saving? I'd say the evolutionary process has served us well enough to date.

Now nobody is saying that medical research is free or cheap. Yes, it is absolutely expensive...but you know what, if we focused on developing new methods of research, new techniques along with improved equipment, costs would go down and results would surface faster.

Someone who chooses a medical profession solely because of the potential to make money is a tool...just as the person who gets a PhD or Doctorate just so they can massage their ego and feel good about themselves is ultimately no better than a rude Wal*Mart employee.

The people who matter are the ones who get the job done, regardless of whether they profit in the end or gain popularity among their peers. In fact, our great scientific community loves to scoff at the people who follow their own path and do their own thing...until that person discovers something the other fools had no clue about.

Basically it's just a matter of priorities for the people involved. Are you just looking for a job, a title, respect...or do you have a genuine desire to make changes in the world? The way a you answer that question largely determines how their life unfolds.


RE: GP's
By Oregonian2 on 11/6/2007 8:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... we focused on developing new methods of research, new techniques along with improved equipment, costs would go down and results would surface faster.


Which "we" are you referring to, who are paying their salaries and development expenses, and where is that money coming from? Is that money source sustainable?

Do folk think that the pharmaceuticals aren't in competition with one another and would not like to be zooming ahead of the others creating stuff that only they make which is heavily wanted by mass quantities of people?


RE: GP's
By Felofasofa on 11/6/2007 8:58:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
which is heavily wanted by mass quantities of people?

You make it sound as though the whole world is sick and we are all waiting for a cure from the drug companies. You have bought right into their methodology. Loads of peole are on stuff they shouldn't be, it is actually making them sick. Lipitol is a classic example of this. Sedating and drowsing out countless elderly. Anti-depressants are another. Zombifing people young and old, totally unnecessary. Cough medicines, absolute rubbish, do nothing, yet worth trillions. You can go on and on.


RE: GP's
By Noya on 11/6/2007 10:17:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Which "we" are you referring to, who are paying their salaries and development expenses, and where is that money coming from? Is that money source sustainable?


Stop making the drug companies sound poor, they've posted RECORD BREAKING profits for the last, how many years? 10+ ?


RE: GP's
By Oregonian2 on 11/7/2007 2:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, if they don't make profits they shrink and cut development programs. Yes, it's a GOOD IDEA that they make profits. "Record" profits means that it's larger than before, not necessarily "excess". If a company doubles sales but makes 40% less profit per item, they still have a 'record profit'. Record profits are GOOD, that means that they can expand their research for new products (and go through the very spendy process of getting it to a salable approved state). Do they pay dividends with those profits? If not (and it's probably not), where do those profits go to? The owners don't get them other than indirectly through selling their stock shares -- it gets plowed back into the company, expanding what it can do (or paying of debts for money borrowed in those years where they weren't profiting).

P.S. - Every pharmaceutical posted record profits? What percentage of total revenue was their net after tax profit?


RE: GP's
By Oregonian2 on 11/7/2007 2:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
P.P.S. - I'm not trying to make them sound poor but others have stated that they should operate in a way that would cause them to be poor. Being one who isn't still very young, feeling invulnerable, and feeling like I'll live forever -- I want them to prosper and develop new stuff, not doing a Mother Teresa act working purely off of donations as a small one-room apartment operation.


RE: GP's
By Christopher1 on 11/6/2007 8:03:27 PM , Rating: 1
I have to agree. The pharmaceutical companies are NOT interested in curing diseases (look at how long it took them to find a cure for chicken pox, when ONE GUY 80 years ago found a cure for polio in less than 1 year!), they are interested in keeping people popping pills.

That is the main reason why I say that the pharmaceutical and health care industries need to be governmentalized and made 'non-profit'.


RE: GP's
By tmouse on 11/7/2007 8:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really do not have a clue about biology do you? Check the literature MANY people were working on Polio for MANY years before the immunization therapy (NOT CURE) was developed. In the end TWO groups had a approach Salk and Sabin. I personally know another researcher who discovered that polio susceptibility is in fact a single mendelian trait which was used to test the safety of the treatments. In general NO ONE PERSON discovers the "cure" for anything. It is almost always a group effort built upon a lot of research of others.


RE: GP's
By Parhel on 11/7/2007 10:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
Anything nationalized immediately loses all ability to innovate and becomes a haven for all the people who can't get jobs anywhere else. The government can't even make public transportation break even nonetheless turn a profit, while taxi companies operate in every city and make money. If the drug companies were nationalized, we would never see any new drugs released, and eventually we would have to wait in line for 4 hours just to get an aspirin.


RE: GP's
By Oregonian2 on 11/7/2007 2:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Shoot, the guy who won the lottery millions just bought two tickets for $1 each. How hard could it be if one's focus is done right? Everybody should do it his way, not the stupid way of spending massive amounts of money and still not getting a lottery winner!

P.S. - Want medical research to be political? Want only those with political power to get their maladies worked on? Horrors...


Roll all the good into one package?
By lealwai on 11/6/2007 6:08:20 PM , Rating: 1
For some reason, this guy seems absolutely clueless when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry. Being a 5th year pharmacy student myself, I'm quite amazed how he can attempt to compare technology and drugs so easily. Every drug no matter how could it is will have a good amount of bad too. Rolling all of the good into one package will just keep adding on all those adverse events as well. Of course, I am oversimplifiying things too, it is obviously far more complicated. I say, leave the technology to the tech guys, and the meds to the pharmaceutical industry. They are simply not comparable in this sense.




RE: Roll all the good into one package?
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:34:19 PM , Rating: 1
So you've been a student for 5 years, what have you accomplished in that time? I'd venture to say, not much. What about when you finish school...what are your plans? Change the world or get a job at a CVS putting pills into a plastic bottle?

People who make changes do so because they want to...it is highly irrelevant what they have or have not done before. The point is, what you think you know (i.e. your education) becomes your limiting factor.

If there is a problem, there is always a solution...and a general lack of improvement for such a long time clearly shows that the Pharma industry isn't interested in raising the bar and finding solutions. Sooner or later, I can see technology eliminating the need for Pharmaceuticals altogether. :D


RE: Roll all the good into one package?
By lealwai on 11/6/2007 6:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
..i'm not sure i understand your point. All i can say is, the pharmaceutical industry is not as simple as this guy is making it seem.


RE: Roll all the good into one package?
By JustinChase on 11/7/2007 9:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
Nor is the semi-conductor industry as simple as you seem to think it is. They just have a much better handle on how things work, and when they get something unexpected in their trials, they evaluate why it didn't "work", and evaluate what (if anything) did work, and try again until they find a better solution.

That's the whole point. He's saying that in the Pharmaceutical industry, when something doesn't "work" they change directions, and look for something else (not completely of course) instead of finding out what did work, and continuing to fine-tune it into a better option.

And as far as the pharmaceutical industry only worried about profits, and not solutions. Of course that's obvious. Most businesses are only focused on profits, to the detriment of nearly everything else.

If the pharmaceutical industry was concerned about "solving" man's health problems, they'd be selling exercise, balanced diets and stress reduction; as that will solve nearly all man's ills. Sadly, there's no money in that.


By tmouse on 11/7/2007 3:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Guess you never seen any of the 1000's of infomercials. People make a ton of money, add in the organic and all natural stuff and theres plenty of money being made with NO investment. To avoid many ill's all it takes is common sence but alas that IS in short supply


By eshan001 on 11/7/2007 8:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, no reason to insult the guy. I'd venture that you've got no realistic plans to revolutionize the pharmaceutical industry or win nobel prizes in medicine, either. Get off the soapbox.


RE: Roll all the good into one package?
By kotix on 11/7/2007 2:05:42 PM , Rating: 3
could you be any more of a troll? this guy is pursuing a post-grad program and you have the audacity to say he hasn't accomplished anything. let me ask, what have you accomplished, what is your occupation and educational background? "I'd venture to say, not much," because clearly you have no grasp on basic nor advanced biology concepts, much less the pharma industry. glossing over some of your previous comments exhibits some pure ignorance on your part. are you ready to take some notes?

1) the reason why we have therapies instead of cures is simply due to the nature and dynamics of the industry. R&D and testing novel compounds are highly regulated, taking an average of 10 years for a drug to go from lab bench to a patient. additionally, a major % do not even make it that far. the inherent objective of therapy is to target a specific disorder and pathway, both to maximize potency and prevent cross-reactivity and negatively affecting other systems of the body. with every generation of therapy we get closer to a cure because the knowledge base of that particular disease/disorder is better understood and explored. the limiting factor for the development of cures is time, due to regulatory agencies for legal and safety reasons.

2) it is ironic that you ridicule vioxx because it was initially developed as a 2nd-gen therapy to reduce side effects associated with previous pain/arthritis medication. for as many drugs that have made it to market, how many of them had to be pulled off or recalled? compared that to the semiconductor industry? this is just another example of why improvements in medicine are slow due to complexity of the human body. futhermore arthritis (depending on type) is mainly an autoimmune disease. the only cure for such a disorder would be to alter someone's immune sytem which would involve some form of gene therapy or genome modification. this could include the use of stem cells. all of these being "innovative" in mechanism, but these so-called "innovative" solutions are hindered by political and regulatory bodies.

3) your description and attmpted retraction of antibiotics is laughable. if you had any knowledge of simple phonetics, you should be able to identify that antibiotics simply kill organisms (bacteria). also you claim they are not a cure, so if eliminating symptoms and disease is not a cure, what is? and before you can argue that the end result is due the immune system response, you're telling me without the aid of antibioitcs you would get the same results or conversely a cure would be to replace the immunes system?

4) if you had any idea of drug mechanisms, you would realize that they are developed on purpose to be site-specific to (as i mentioned earlier) prevent unintended adverse effects. using holistic approaches combat specific disorders is logially retarded especially if done as a therapeutic rather than prophylactic measure. the only holistic approach to all disease is to eat right and exercise. but even then a majority of the population can't even do that. so they have the blame pharma for their shortcomings and consequences of their unhealthy lifestyles.

5) your lack of knowledge in immunology is enough to disprove any credibility in all your previous posts.


By EricMartello on 11/8/2007 5:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
could you be any more of a troll? this guy is pursuing a post-grad program and you have the audacity to say he hasn't accomplished anything. let me ask, what have you accomplished, what is your occupation and educational background? "I'd venture to say, not much," because clearly you have no grasp on basic nor advanced biology concepts, much less the pharma industry. glossing over some of your previous comments exhibits some pure ignorance on your part. are you ready to take some notes?


You disagreeing with my point of view does not make me a troll, but it does make you a fool. :) There are thousands of people pursuing all kinds of degrees and the majority of these people never amount to anything. Will he? I dunno, that's why I asked. If you're going to stroke your peen about your credentials, you will fail to impress me. I only acknowledge results.

1) You make it sound like we've already developed a cure for something. We haven't...but you are right, it is about the dynamics of the industry - those dynamics being that a large amount of profit needs to be made and anything less is unacceptable.

2) Did I ridicule vioxx? Sure, it qualifies as a drug with "bugs", my counterpoint to his statement that drugs are not allowed on the market with flaws since they can't be patched or revised like electronics or software.

Once again you speak of cures...what is your claim to fame? A burning effigy and a bundle of turkey feathers on your head?

3) Phonetics...hmmm...I don't see how that comes into play but whatever. You see, for a disease to be CURED it has to NEVER COME BACK. If antibiotics cannot achieve a 100% kill rate, and even if they could, once the person stops taking them, the infection could return...hence, not a cure. The immune system is ultimately what keeps our body healthy, by means of antibodies.

4) They don't blame the drug companies for their problems, they look to the drug companies for an easy out. Unconventional medicine can work just as good as "modern" medicine...and I find it a bit ironic that someone who works in the medical industry, knowing how slow and inept they are when it comes to making real progress and gaining a greater understanding, would so easily dismiss alternative forms of treatment. Are you claiming that you suddenly have such an in-depth knowledge that allows you to disprove its effectiveness?

5) Someone is trying hard to make themselves feel smarter than they really are. Yay, you're slightly above average in one field and you think it makes you a genius. *clap* Oh, I know if you really were as smart as you're pretending to be you'd probably be doing something more important than trolling DailyTech.


By MrTeal on 11/6/2007 7:36:08 PM , Rating: 3
I think you might be missing the point of what he's talking about. I don't believe he's saying that Drug A has R, S, and T benefits, but X, Y, Z drawbacks, so we'll isolate the good, combine it with the good in other drugs, and cook them all up together.

What he is critisizing is the lack of urgency in getting drugs to market, and the lack of failure analysis. Obviously, if a company goes to the effort of creating a drug, doing testing on animals, and setting up a human trial, they have some reason to believe it should work. When it doesn't show the expected results in clinical trials, Grove is saying that they don't take enough time to analyse why, or try to separate the positives from the negatives.

At least, that's what I got out of it.


RE: Roll all the good into one package?
By marvdmartian on 11/7/2007 9:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but the only thing that gets most people is that most of the drugs you see coming out today (in other words, the new ones that the pharmaceutical companies push with their advertising) seem to cure (or relieve) one condition, but can potentially cause a dozen others!
Now I do realize that when they do the human testing on the drugs, they're required to give a certain percentage of the testers a placebo, and that they're required to report any side effects reported by the testers, whether it be from the drug being tested or the placebo, but still......

When you hear on tv, "Take our new drug, which will cure toe fungus", then, in a low voice, spoken really quickly, "may cause fatigue, sneezing, runny nose, growth of additional appendages, headaches, birth defects, achey joints, death......" Ummm...... WHAT???

Then my favorite part is when they tell you to ask your doctor about their medicine, oftentimes without ever telling you what their medicine is designed to cure! Yeah, I'm really gonna do that, uh-huh!


By Oregonian2 on 11/7/2007 7:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and doctors hate that too. But then the internet is bad in that respect as well because likewise, people will diagnose themselves and come up with prescriptions for themselves to which they'll demand signoff from their doctor. Bad doctors will just say yes. For prescription drugs, doctors choose if one is taking something or not. Not the pharmaceutical companies. For people taking things inappropriately, I put blame on the Doctor or on the patient if they are faking symptoms to get what they want.

I find it cool that he side effects are required in ads, especially when death is mentioned (may not have been caused by the drug, but if someone died during the trials, it has to count). There's one where the female voice makes death (or whatever) actually sound like a great thing to have! Makes me smile.

As much as I don't like the ads either, I also have trouble being against medical education, which is what it is. Could be restricted to only magazines/newspapers that doctors read (certainly they have to know about them!) but they probably read everything other than maybe the weekly reader (that still printed?).


Drug company problem
By wordsworm on 11/6/2007 7:48:32 PM , Rating: 1
I blame the drug companies for the drug war. They made drugs like cocaine illegal so that they wouldn't have to compete with drugs that can't be patented, thereby allowing them to come up with expensive synthetic drugs. Cocaine is one of the most effective pain killers in the world, and it's dirt cheap to make. The pharmaceutical industry doesn't care about people at all. They care about profits. If someone found a cure for cancer, they'd kill and/or legislate to keep it quiet, I'm sure. There's so much money in that industry. I think they're one of the lowest forms of humanity in the world, right along with blood diamonds.




RE: Drug company problem
By jinhamasaki on 11/6/2007 10:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Great so we should give cocaine as an anesthetic? It after all, is one of the most addictive drugs available, giving you a sensation of euphoria and an increased sex drive, only to lead you to depression and a a craving for more. Then you'll feed the pharmaceutical industry even more

It is also an intense vasoconstrictor which probably would lead to a longer duration of action than its intended use, requiring a prescriber to do careful calculations to take into account your body weight, body fat, etc. etc. That, and the fact that it is very toxic to your cardiovascular system. You have other options that are equally effective such as benzocaine, tetracaine, and lidocaine.

Just to let you know, I've prescribed cocaine for use in endoscopy in the hospital, so it's NOT illegal, just very limited use.


RE: Drug company problem
By wordsworm on 11/6/2007 11:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It after all, is one of the most addictive drugs available, giving you a sensation of euphoria and an increased sex drive, only to lead you to depression and a a craving for more.
This as opposed to the pharmaceutical drugs which never have side effects? As I recall, even aspirin has serious side effects:
quote:
It can cause ulcerations, abdominal burning, pain, cramping, nausea, gastritis, and even serious gastrointestinal bleeding and liver toxicity.
Benzocaine:
quote:
Side effects cannot be anticipated.
That sounds really disturbing. The fact is that most drugs are supposed to be temporary, and therefore the long term effects are of no concern.

I seem to recall seeing how maggots can be used in medicine, including breast cancer. Apparently they'll only eat the bad tissue and leave the good tissue alone. Check this article out: http://www.smtl.co.uk/WMPRC/Maggots/maggots.html .

When I see ads for prescription drugs, or even over-the-counter drugs, I have to laugh because it seems that you trade 20 problems for 1.

The medical community is there strictly for itself. It has built itself a monopoly by burning the competition (see what the governments did to witches) and making many of the natural, competitive products illegal.

Thanks for the information on its legal status. I guess I should have known that doctors are allowed to prescribe it. It seems to me, though, that cocaine has a worse rap than it deserves, generated by a community that is out to protect its insane income. It doesn't want to cure people, it wants to treat them. If someone came along with a cure for cancer that was cheap, imagine how much money doctors, nurses, drug companies, and hospitals would lose. It's a trillion dollar industry. Once upon a time, medical science came up with miracles like penicillin, which revolutionized world health. Now it only comes up with super expensive drugs that are only treatments. I don't believe this is a coincidence. It's an industry that knows what it has to do to make an enormous amount of money while enjoying demi-god status.

I once knew a pharmacist. She managed to sneak drugs to me that I asked of her. The doctors I saw were completely incompetent. So, I did my own research, took my own medications, and I overcame the problem. Recently (I've since moved from that place) I had the same problem but without the benefit of the pharmacist, I had to rely on incompetent doctors. After going through their prescriptions, I ended up with new, more serious problems. That's what doctors do: they cure you of one ailment, but you're trading a demon for the devil, jumping from the pan and into the fire. Those drugs they gave me had no discernible effect on the tonsillitis, but cleared my system of all beneficial bacterias. Right away, I started suffering from a candida infection. 2 weeks later, the candida infestation started being pushed back by other bacteria, followed immediately by Bell's palsy, which really sucks I can tell you. This is all good business for the doctors, at a price that I have to pay with my health. They fix one problem, but in fixing the problem cause another which is more serious.

Most people are incompetent at their jobs. This includes doctors. I'm forced to seek medical assistance from doctors because there are laws that prevent me from taking care of myself. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would make mistakes if we were allowed to take care of our own prescriptions, but at least it would be me paying for my mistake rather than because of the mistake an overpaid doctor made.

In any event, my original contention is that the medical community is making a fortune off of other people's misfortune, and it works with legislators to insure that their profits are protected.


RE: Drug company problem
By jajig on 11/7/2007 9:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most people are incompetent at their jobs.


You sound like a misanthrope making comments like that. The only people I have known to think along those lines are people that are generally incompetent themselves.

If all you see are vipers, you're probably a viper.


RE: Drug company problem
By Oregonian2 on 11/7/2007 7:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In any event, my original contention is that the medical community is making a fortune off of other people's misfortune, and it works with legislators to insure that their profits are protected.


Sounds like the ONLY solution is to just outlaw all drugs. Without profits there is no incentive to attract capital if one wanted to make one. Other than perhaps as an agency of the united way or perhaps gaining political power to get government money.

P.S. - The mortuary business makes their PROFITS off of people's DEATH. Think and complain about that one. Oh those evil morticians who instead of burying dead people for the fun of it want to do it for hard cash money! What is this world coming to?


RE: Drug company problem
By wordsworm on 11/8/2007 5:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds like the ONLY solution is to just outlaw all drugs.
I believe precisely the opposite. If people are ready to kill over recreational drugs, how do you suppose they'll react should they be denied what may be life saving drugs? I think people should be allowed to choose for themselves and their own bodies, with or without the blessing or advice of a doctor.

As far as your comparison to the mortuary business, they make a profit off of people choosing cemeteries and services. Everyone dies, so to kill people wouldn't increase their wealth.


RE: Drug company problem
By Darkskypoet on 11/8/2007 1:05:50 AM , Rating: 1
Well the prescription of cocaine straight out may be flawed as you indicate, the bigger issue is the lack of research on so called illicit drugs, and the demonization of such. Especially considering how perfect other pain therapies are in this day and age. No one gets addicted to morphine / vicadin / oxycotin /etc. Right?

A rather large problem here is the dichotomies imposed upon the discourse of drugs. Medicine vs drugs; medicine, while in many cases as dangerous and addictive / side affective as illicit drugs, is reified, while all other socially constructed 'drugs' are marginalized and demonized.

This unfortunately leads to a supreme lack of research into extremely promising substances that we don't honestly understand. Cannabis, LSD, MDMA, etc.

For instance, treatment of chemo wasting with Marijuana, combating certain types of arthritis, and glaucoma with same. I am not advocating freeing weed from the role it has been given (not here anyway) however for gods sake, research the f*** out of it to see why it is more effective then so many of our 'medicines' for same.

AS lay people, we are caught up in seeing big pharma parade drug commercials left right and center, and yet hear the pleas of same that drug research is sooo costly and that is why they can't be bothered to allow poor nations to mass produce aids medication for cheap.

We as laypeople hear the arguments against those evil non-IP respecting nations that seek to treat millions of dying people.

Regardless of just how hard it is to be big pharma; I for one see big pharma as being comparable to nazi's for their IP stance in regards to these poor dying people. With the exception, that the Nazi's were better at medical research.

Hell since I am going to be down rated for sure now, perhaps we must lobby the various governments to allow for people to sign on to the ludicrously dangerous approach of early human testing. You pay the person / family a certain fee, and said person with terminal illness / non treatable with standard practices gets a shot at clinical trials. Open it up, so that rather then 10-20 years to get and try meds/ procedures, we can do it in much shorter time frames, on a larger sample size.

Yes it raises issues of informed consent, but otherwise, legislation can easily be brought forward to shield pharma from lawsuits stemming from said trials. Can it be any clearer then "this is a trial of x substance/treatment, it may kill you, that is why you get x thousand for you and your family. Payment removes all liability from us, and hell we'll even cover your funeral costs."

Done.

Lastly, I swear, If I hear big pharma whine and bitch over IP issues for AIDS drugs while watching another gibberish Viagra commercial; I will rush out to find said offending exec and beat them to a bloody pulp with a bottle of said offending generic medication.

"Good Grief!"


Capitalism
By BruceLeet on 11/7/2007 4:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
He's a former CEO of Intel and he's questioning the progress of Biomedical Research in his home country of Capitalist USA?

Seriously I dont know what I just said, I just like sounding smart sometimes :D




RE: Capitalism
By tmouse on 11/7/2007 9:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yes pharmas in communist countries are doing sooooo much more.


RE: Capitalism
By BruceLeet on 11/8/2007 12:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
They dont have very large pharmaceutical companies in communist countries, everything of that nature comes from the US, they only have labs which research chemicals such as polonium 210 to assasinate people xD

(a little far with no pharmaceutical companies in communist countries, but my sarcasm is much more clever xD)


RE: Capitalism
By Darkskypoet on 11/8/2007 1:10:35 AM , Rating: 2
Actually you should see the biomedical strides Cuba has made... It seems forcing said communist (like any were actually communist anyway) country to develop a domestic biomedical field due to trade blockades can have some advantages.

Also, Soviet Union had a novel way of treating infections... As in not utilizing antibiotics. from what I recollect of the research, it was in designing viri-like things (organisms?) to directly counteract a type of bacterial. Initial work was costly in terms of life, however apparently they nailed it down quite well. (few if any other side effects; as in no associated mass murder of good bacteria)


RE: Capitalism
By tmouse on 11/8/2007 9:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
As a matter of fact I am well aware of the state of research from Cuba. Some is excellent but their research is VERY focused ONLY on those projects deemed acceptable to the government, those outside this click are left literally with nothing. Some of the highly focused vaccine work is exceptional and in fact is imported for use here in the US. However this is certainly NOT a useful model for science in general. They are FAR more dependent on others to provide virtually all of the basic ground work. Their biotech is almost exclusively applied, which works well given their limited financial situation however if their model was more widely applied it would rapidly fall apart (someone has to do the ground work). Pharmas DO ALOT of in house and collaborative groundwork, most of which does not yield direct product (it does yield more product than most academic work only because the projects are in their nature more product focused). As for the Russian work I believe you are referring to the use of bacteriophage for treatment of specific bacterial infections (if I am wrong you will have to give me more specifics). This can be effective and it is more specific however it is not a good general substitute for antibiotics. First there are a very limited number of types of phage so that limits their usefulness. Second not all are specific and finally, being a biotic they have the ability to mutate (In my opinion a very major problem even if it has a small possibility).By in large antibiotics are extremely effective and have saved the lives of hundreds of millions. Their only draw back is that they are over prescribed (if people would stop demanding them and physicians would grow some spine to just say No antibiotics are not useful for viruses like the cold) and improperly used (take the whole course even if you feel better, DO NOT save them for later) which has led to the problems of resistance.


RE: Capitalism
By BruceLeet on 11/9/2007 7:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
As we create antibiotics and vaccines viruses and such will always evolve and become immune, its been said over and over. MrRepublican GWB will reject any sort of stem cell research while he's in power so capitalism will triumph, now if he had some disease maybe he would be all for it


Lawsuits aren't helping
By Gumby16 on 11/6/2007 9:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
I can't off-hand disagree with any of the comments made regarding the pharmaceutical companies. Part of the reason it's difficult to translate research into practice is the American penchant for suing. If a person who was paralyzed underwent the procedure used for mice and something happened, that person would make a bundle by suing, claiming the procedure was flawed, wasn't thoroughly tested, etc. Also, a person is far more complicated than a lab rat. On top of that, you're looking at 20 years from research conception to final procedure and/or drug approvals. That's a hell of a mountain of paperwork to climb.

I'm not taking the sides of the drug companies or research labs. Their pace of innovation doesn't seem to match the money flowing in. Part of the problem is that there is no money in the cure. The research is where the money is. Hopefully, not all of this research is money driven, but at least some of it is. I mean, let's be fair. We've had a slew of depression drugs and penis drugs and increased sex drive drugs. Those seem to be our priorities.




RE: Lawsuits aren't helping
By Felofasofa on 11/6/2007 10:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
is the American penchant for suing.

You Guys did invent Ambulance chasing.
quote:
We've had a slew of depression drugs and penis drugs and increased sex drive drugs. Those seem to be our priorities.
Exactly, totally useless stuff, but highly profitable, and its been going on along time. My Mother and I suspect countless others spent the entire 60's and half the seventies on Valium. I always wondered why she slept so much. This was the drug companies pushing it on to doctors to push on to "patients" Drug Companies releasing drugs we don't need. Oil companies supressing alternative energy we do need. Software companies releasing software we don't need. Is there a pattern emerging here - corporate malfeasance?


RE: Lawsuits aren't helping
By Oregonian2 on 11/7/2007 7:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, yes and no. Viagra, at least, was developed as a blood pressure medicine. The ... um... side effect it's sold for now was something just noted during blood pressure trials. So it's sold FOR one of the side-effect list of things. :-)

P.S. - I had cancer about 30 years ago and had been pumped with
stuff including one that was on trial, but became a anti-cancer
standard in years after that. I'm happy they developed it and
hope they made big bucks with it. Side effects were very
very bad, but I'm here to be able to complain about it. Good stuff.


RE: Lawsuits aren't helping
By Oregonian2 on 11/7/2007 7:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
P.P.S. - Everything is useless unless you happen to be one of those who need it. You basically offend all those that do when something is put down. Viagra, for instance (despite what I mentioned above) is strongly needed by some, even if a large percentage of users really don't. Those who really need it probably don't appreciate fluff remarks toward it. Even a cancer cure is utterly worthless for those without cancer, but that doesn't mean it valid for other people w/o cancer to say it's worthless.


RE: Lawsuits aren't helping
By tmouse on 11/7/2007 8:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
Actually we are probably not much more complicated than a lab rat ...just different. Take , for example the research on anti-angiogenic therapy for cancer. The theory that as tumors grow they require more blood vessels to remain viable is both logical and correct. In mouse work these agents worked wonderfully, however in human trials they have not. Obviously we have back-up mechanisms that are not yet discovered.


Duh
By Oregonian2 on 11/6/2007 5:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting comparison, but probably ROL by those in the pharmaceutical business. If one reads the fine print in drugs, they usually don't even know how the working ones work. Or at least not exactly. I suspect humans when taken down to molecular levels are a bit more complex than semiconductors -- by a long shot. Plus, destructive teardown investigtions don't seem to go over as well. From what I read, they "kinda" know what's going on, but even that's a lot of theory. Even the role of the basic RNA from what I read is perhaps tremendously more than thought previously.

What's more interesting is that strong political forces don't even want animals to be testing grounds. Don't know if they want human testers to be used in place of the animals or if they just want to do away with medicine altogether. When I have a bottle of something that says "not animal tested!", it scares me. *I* am the first animal it's being tested on! This is good? I think not.




RE: Duh
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:13:24 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, on a molecular level the only differences would be the elements we're comprised of. The relative complexity would not be much different. On a cellular level, the functions of living organisms are more complex than current semiconductors.

Complexity of the subjects aside, it doesn't change the fact that the drug research that does not provide expected or desired results gets canned...a general lack of innovation for over 12 years is not due to difficulty, it is someone's conscious decision.


RE: Duh
By Pandamonium on 11/6/2007 7:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
On a molecular level, we're pretty different from other animals. IE: human hemoglobin is probably 90% (I'm not bothering to look this up) similar to mouse hemoglobin. Despite that similarity, hemoglobin isn't interchangable. That 10% difference is more than enough for our bodies to reject mouse hemoglobin.

The former CEO's comment is completely out of line. We've built transistors and have a good understanding of how they work. In contrast, we have little understanding of how a basic cell works. In general, we don't have a clue how proteins are folded, how cellular signals work, or even how a cell decides it should live or kill itself. We've figured out a few mechanisms, but there's a whole lot more that needs to be understood. Researchers in all these fields regularly publish papers that conclude "more research is needed". Building a complex chip from basic building blocks is a lot easier than figuring out how a complex cell works. Hell, nobel prizes were given out in the past ~50 years for breakthrough techniques that allow us to simply isolate certain molecules in a cell.


RE: Duh
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 7:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you can say the same thing about Socket 939 and Socket 940...there is a one-pin difference that renders both incompatible with each other even though the CPUs themselves are nearly identical.

If you were trying to understand how they work, it would be better to look for similarities rather than saying "it doesn't fit, forget it". That was the point of the original article, and it wasn't out of line. There has really been no major medical innovations in the way they treat the most common health problems...and how many diseases can we actually cure?

The fact of the matter is, we're not going to get a better understanding of how to make effective medicines if we deem it "impossible" based on current knowledge. We research because we DON'T know something, not because we do.


RE: Duh
By sinful on 11/6/2007 7:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The former CEO's comment is completely out of line. We've built transistors and have a good understanding of how they work. In contrast, we have little understanding of how a basic cell works.


Your point is also your counterpoint, and exactly what Andrew Grove was saying:
We can fly to the moon, create supercomputers on a chip, etc. but we have little understanding of how a basic cell works.

In other words, in one industry we went from nowhere to super advanced in 50 or so years; the other inudstry has been around since the dawn of man and yet little progress has been made.


Good point, bad comparison.
By zzzya on 11/6/2007 10:06:24 PM , Rating: 3
The pharmaceutical industry is not my favorite. I am a pharmacist and have been for years. The industry frustrates me with marketing tactics and the lack of innovative solutions. They tend to copy each other and improve existing products to prevent loss of revenue to lost market protection through expiring patents. These are common practices in many industries and I realize that, however when you capitalize at the expense of false sense of health and future benefit, I have a problem. It is one of the reasons I am a pharmacist.

Our biggest problem today is the fact that most medications are not needed at all. The industry is able to hide information from the public due to loop-holes in the system. The government and the FDA are not the solution as they profit heavily from the pharma companies. Even public education is affected as they receive heavy amounts of funding for research, materials and equipment. There was a time when this wasn't such an issue, but prescription coverage for medications made this a very different situation with a lot of revenue potential. If you think pharmacists have benefited, you would be mistaken. Pharmacists as they once were have either gone out of business or had to become very creative to stay in business because profits are hard to come by today. Yes, pharmacists are making good money working for large corporations, but not because filling prescriptions is profitable. It would take me all night to explain this situation so I will move on.

There are some companies out there making innovative medications. The problem is that testing on humans is not as ethical as testing on animals and even testing on animals is restricted. The comparison that the former CEO makes is oversimplified for this simple reason. Do we start valuing different humans differently? Do we pick people who are "inferior" and start using them as testing subjects. These are all things tried in past history and some of them started World Wars. Not going to happen.

In the end, the real problem is our american attitude toward health. We are one of the most unhealthy countries in the world. Many of the diseases we die from are not prevelant in other countries, why? They are not all overweight, siting in front of their TVs, computers, and gaming systems. Their eating habits are different and their food systems are not filled with as many highly processed foods that screw our bodies up. We eat high sugar content meals, snacks and drinks on a regular basis. Then we go out and smoke on break. Then we ask for a pill to help solve all of our problems. No pill is going to solve biochemical problems that are a result of bad health decisions over the course of ones life. Until we take accountability for our own health, the pharmaceutical companies will continue to capitalize on our laziness and desire for that almighty pill to solve our problems. As a pharmacist my goal is to help people realize why they do not need medications and to use them appropriately, but you may be surprised by how many people have no self control and want that pill rather than eating healthy or exercising.




RE: Good point, bad comparison.
By Felofasofa on 11/6/2007 10:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Beautifully put. Poor national health is also affecting productivity as well as the amount America has to spend on health care as a proportion of GDP, which is almost double that of other OECD nations. A diet of flap-jacks, hash-browns, hamburghers on sugary buns washed down by coke is not a recipe for good health.


RE: Good point, bad comparison.
By Darkskypoet on 11/8/2007 1:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
Here Here!!!

Add to that the way every god damned food on the shelf is stuffed full of short chain corn sugars, et cetera. The fact that all these highly processed foods are cheaper then fresh fruit and vegetables, whole grain products, etc. It makes a nasty situation fro those too poor to buy good food, and a far easier time for those with enough money to eat right, but prefer the artificial tastes and convenience of prepackaged crap.

Many of the major killers (diseases) today were not nearly as prevalent even 50-100 years ago on this continent.


sigh another one for the conspiracy theorist.
By rudy on 11/6/2007 6:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Stuff like this always annoys me, an old guy who doesn't want to die whining. We cannot kill or harm humans in experiments and that one single fact makes it impossible to compare animal studies to those in humans. I can slaughter thousands of mice if I can afford it. If one single mouse is cured of paralysis I can cure it in mice and write a paper in Science, but the same standard is not true in humans. If you mess up 50 humans and cure one, you get law suits jammed down your throat till you are gone. We don't have enough money in industry to investigate every single problem. I am sure they didn't really investigate every problem they had with CPUs. Any particular drug or procedure may seem to work in animal trials but it could just as easily fail in human trials.




By tmouse on 11/7/2007 8:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
Again WOW Dr. Rascher, Anyone who wants to CAN volunteer to participate in drug trials, there isn't a long line. I love it when people use this prison example, I for one wouldn't want to work with ANYONE who would like to "experiment" on people. Contrary to popular belief VERY LITTLE of ANY scientific merit came about from the Nazi tests using people. Our current system works just fine.


By HeavyB on 11/6/2007 9:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Rudy,
Even worse, if you cure 50,000 humans and mess-up one, say hello to class-action suit, the buffet for ambulance chasers.


Money, money, money..
By zsdersw on 11/7/2007 9:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
As with most things in business, sooner or later it comes down to money. It's just the way it is. Pretending it isn't is just idiocy.

There's no money in healthy people, and there's no money in dead people either. There's *a lot* of money, though, in keeping people somewhere in between. If you're healthy, they have to come up with a pill for a condition you may have or will develop without the pill (and that pill may make you sicker, a situation for which they have more pills you can buy). If you're sick, they have plenty of pills you can take that make you feel better, but probably won't cure anything.

Things like allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD used to be rare, but are now "mainstream". Exercise has been shown to be just as effective of a cure for depression as Paxil and Zoloft. Ask your doctor if "getting up off your ass" is right for you! .

Sanitizing gels, wipes, sprays, etc. are another thing we as consumers are buying far too much of. Kids are supposed to get sick and they're supposed to get dirty.. it's how their bodies' immune systems get used to the germs of everyday life. Here's a novel idea: let your body do some work, for a change, to keep you healthy; don't give it crutches all the time. Our immune systems learn, just like we do: by doing.

As I said earlier, there's no money for corporate America in you being healthy and content. There's also no money in you being dead. Where they make all their money is on keeping you kinda healthy, kinda happy, and not dead. Keep that in mind when you go to the supermarket and the pharmacy.




RE: Money, money, money..
By kotix on 11/7/2007 2:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
lol people have the power to cripple pharma altogether by simply eating healthy and exercising. but that's too much to ask from them.


RE: Money, money, money..
By Darkskypoet on 11/8/2007 1:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
Damn straight. Also, as it seems a good time to insert it here;

Ever hear of that drug that reduces anxiety in public settings? It is funny in that it seems to do the exact same thing as say 2 drinks, yet it causes constipation (or the runs), fever, headache, nausea, and in rare cases impotence... So you can talk to the girl, perhaps bravely tell a joke, but to no end as you'll be crapping, puking, or unable to perform anyway...

And some wonder why we laugh at and hate big pharma. Damn.

"Ask your doctor about exercise"
"Ask your doctor about a glass o red wine"
"Ask your doctor about vegetables"
"Ask your doctor about walking"
"Ask your doctor about drinking water"


Getting senile
By dsolecki on 11/6/2007 9:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Is Mr. Grove really trying to imply that an integrated circuit even remotely approaches the complexity of a single human organ?

I'm sure he was a lot smarter than that - once.




RE: Getting senile
By pdstruck on 11/15/2007 6:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
not as senile as one might think.
you be the judge AFTER you read what Grove really was saying:

http://pdpipeline.org/andygrove/agrove1.htm
or go to pdpipeline.org


the future
By old skool on 11/7/2007 2:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a regular reader but I've never posted before so here goes.

I think Mr Grove has made many valid points and probably has the most interest in what happens in the pharmaceutical sector. Eventually the Semiconductor Industry will meet Biology and biological cells will be used to contruct logic circuits. He probably sees drugs as tools for manipulating cell structures and like him I'm also perplexed at why not more is being done to understand why certain drugs behaved strange/wrong, why hasn't it worked, what changes occured at the cellular level. Biological computers such as our brains might be the future of computing.




RE: the future
By tmouse on 11/7/2007 10:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
This simply is not the job of pharma's. It is being worked on in other sectors but since we are in the early stages of understanding biology at a molecular level (molecular genetics is only 30 or so years old and a human genome sequence has only been known for 5 years or so. We have a long way to go.


Completely Agree
By anonymo on 11/7/2007 7:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
As an A/V tech I sit in many advisory boards for most major pharma companies (albeit just recording them) and I can completely agree that the pharma companies are interested in money primarily. I mean they spend $100,000 on just the room nights for the doctors they bring in for a single ad board meeting, let alone the kickback and conference services they use. Do you think these doctors (usually the best in the country) discuss possible cures and such? No, they discuss the best methods to market new drugs and how best to explain to their patients why they need the drug etc.

As long as big pharmaceutical companies are about making money they will never, ever cure diseases, it just doesn't make economical sense. A cure means an eventual end to the company's profits. You will only ever see treatments coming out of the big pharmaceutical companies.




RE: Completely Agree
By just4U on 11/7/2007 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps then it has to be taken out of their hands. I mean doesn't alot of funding for medical and drug research come out of government coffers and via private citizen donations?

Finding cures, and saving lives thru ground breaking drug's shouldn't be a "business" but rather a essential service. While they are entitled to making a comfortable living the bottom line should never be about their profits.


Stupid comment
By tmouse on 11/7/2007 9:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
I HATE it when reasonably bright people make such stupid comments. Grove clearly knows little about chemistry nothing about biology. First the pharmaceutical industry is NOT the only source of research into health issues. Academic research is, in many ways, FAR more responsible for cures than Pharmas. The semiconductor industry is NOT comparable in ANY way shape or form. We developed the semiconductor industry from the ground up we know ALL of the components since we invented them. We have a genome sequence but we haven't even identified most of the genes. We know little of there functions (for some genes we only have an identifier with no known function). Add to this many (most?) genes have small polymorphisms, some associated with disease others not but do they effect function (we do not have an answer- yet). Single gene work has provided some information but the combinational processes (ie: pathways) are (for the most part) poorly understood (except for certain enzymatic pathways). Add to this a plethora of regulatory mechanisms both genomic and epigenomic. The system is FAR more complicated than ANYTHING in the semiconductor industry. I have heard the useless statement that soon we will have chips with as many transistors as we have neurons. SO what? since we have virtually no knowledge how a neuron stores a memory how do you even begin to dream of making a comparison between the two; it is simply bad science to do so. This is like William Shockleys views on eugenics, he was brilliant in inventing the transistor but had no better understanding of biology than any other person. The notion that companies hold back cures is simple tin-foil hat thinking, money is money. Genetic diseases will always be with us (Barring some form of eugenics which I do not see happening), cure the current person and you still have to cure their offspring. Obesity with its plethora of associated disease conditions cannot be cured just treated ( the cure is already known don’t become obese, yet people do). Cancer will never be cured (some types maybe but cancer is more of a phenotype than a specific disease with many causes). People gripe about how much money and time has been spent and still no cure, well today you have the best chance of surviving than anyone before EVER (with early diagnosis). There are simply too many potential causes for unregulated growth we will never find a single cure. I can tell you for certain NO ONE could stop the publication for a cure the desire for fame is simply too powerful and in general scientists talk almost too much with each other (its in our nature) so the body count would ENORMOUS to silence a cure.




RE: Stupid comment
By wordsworm on 11/8/2007 5:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
He's questioning their scientific method. What does he need to know about chemistry and biology to comment on the method? If he fails to effect a solution, then his failure is no different from the failure of all those expert chemists and biologists.


ROFL Grove is an idiot
By kotix on 11/7/2007 12:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly this guy is treading territory he has absolutely no experience in. First blatant error is assuming the semiconductor industry and human body are of the same complexity. second is he has no idea of the investment and costs associated with clinical and pre-clinical trials. when things DON'T work, every pharma company does analyze the data especially when detrimental symptoms occur. companies have to evaluate what went wrong, what went right, and to see whether or not they should invest millions in another lead candidate. either way they DO take back this knowledge, and in some cases, unintended effects give rise to other therapies, viagra anyone?

the semiconductor industry doesn't bear the responsibility of a person's life when things go wrong in product testing. furthermore, you have to go through many agencies and bureacracies to even get permission to conduct studies, mainly for safety and legal reasons, all of which add to the existing time investment.

its funny how people fume at pharma for not developing cures for everything, whereas the number one treatment and therapy is to simply exercise and eat healthy. the no.1 cause of death in the US are cardiovascular-related diseases. no pill is going to ever cure an unhealthy lifestyle. what especially enrages me is all the publicity and controversy surrounding AIDS. the virus itself is not very resistant upon external exposure, and is often transmitted when in engaged multiple, high-risk activity. AIDS is easily preventable. people need to take responsiblity for their own actions, and stop blaming others for their mistakes. and if you want to get into the biology of it all, it is hard to develop a cure for a virus in general, since they constantly mutate. why do you think we still dont have a cure for the cold (rhinovirus) or the flu?

when all is said and done, I am embarassed that the common public believes pharma is all about making money. you think all the brilliant minds and scientists are only doing what they do to be rich? you should compare salaries between those in pharam/biotech and those in financial/business industries. given the difference in level and difficulty of education between the two, you'd be surprised who earns more, especially by how much too.




RE: ROFL Grove is an idiot
By zsdersw on 11/7/2007 1:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am embarassed that the common public believes pharma is all about making money. you think all the brilliant minds and scientists are only doing what they do to be rich?


The "brilliant minds and scientists" aren't the problem at Big Pharma. Their motives clearly aren't financial compensation. The problem is management. Management is out to make money, plain and simple.


I'd love to know
By FITCamaro on 11/7/2007 11:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
How many people here actually work/have worked for a drug company developing any kind of medication? My bet of the number of people posting (and not explicitly stating it. i didn't read every post), is none.

So for all these people who are like, "Oh we can create a super drug to cure all the world's illnesses, but we're just not innovating enough since there's no money in that." shut the hell up. The majority of you know absolutely nothing about how the body works. And the fact is, neither do many doctors and scientists.

I don't either. But you don't see me saying that a drug that cures illnesses instead of treats them is definitely possible. I don't doubt that certain things are curable. I just don't think we've figured out how to do it yet.

Some of you need to take off your tin foil hats.




RE: I'd love to know
By Darkskypoet on 11/8/2007 1:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
Sir; to you I take off my tinfoil hat, and say:

If drug companies really cared about us, they would stop the needless shoveling of pills to all and dog, and simply come forward with the truth. "Stop eating all the processed drinks, food stuffs and f**king exercise, and 90 percent of you won't need a goddamn pill for anything."

Then they would promptly go back to work, and through all those billions in resources at solving real biomedical issues that affect the 10% who need treatments.


Drugs and Cigeretts
By Bal on 11/6/2007 6:10:47 PM , Rating: 1
It will eventually end up where gigeretts are. I mean people are selling drugs just like they did packs back in the 60'-70's. Some health groups finally shows cig's are bad and the whole industry begins the down spiral.

Same will happen here, eventually something will break/kill/create permanant damage to a large section of the users and the industry will reorganize itself.




RE: Drugs and Cigeretts
By Bal on 11/6/2007 6:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
need an edit button arg


Lifestyle Decisions and Health
By kelman6969 on 11/7/2007 10:29:43 AM , Rating: 3
My wife is a primary care Physician(Family Practice) and I am the IT support for the system at her office(Electronic health record system). I come into contact with many other physicians both at her office and as I am invited to drug rep dinners and often help set up the A/V for the meeting. Since I am a guest I go with the flow of the meeting, but often get to ask questions to the presenters after the presentation is over and the meeting is breaking up. For the last 6-7 years I have asked this question to ~35 health care professionals----- What percentage of the health care problems that you face on day to day basis are the result of genuine health problems and what percentage are related to poor lifestyle decisions and non-compliance?

The percentage for poor lifestyle decisions/non-compliance have ranged from a low of 65% to a high of 95%(this was a presentation on type 2 diabetes that is highly correlated to weight and diet) with an overall average of ~80%.

Bottom line..... The drug companies need to discover/invent a pill for self-discipline so that we can fix ourselves.




more
By Oregonian2 on 11/6/2007 6:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - It's AMAZING how well placebos do! A great drug does maybe 20% better sometimes. :-)