https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-unapproved-...
The root problem is US taxpayers should be directly paying for these studies to prove and disprove medicines, but apparently, the budget for that is not politically possible, and instead we have politicians giving away monopoly rights so the burden of the study will fall mostly on afflicted people who need the medicine.
It is crazy how there is so much crowing about high medicine prices, when the US already has world class research in the form of higher education facilities, and it could just officially research and develop medicines and put them in the public domain.
In case you're not kidding though, no. A politician who pisses off big business in America loses even the support of their own party.
The media ignores them, smears them, then grinds them into dust to make an example of them. Their social media pages are de-ranked, and an army of bots highlights their weak points while attacking their strong points.
Their opponents in every election get funded just enough to win, however much that is; even elections against others in their own party.
And if they're still somehow successful after all that, there's other, darker things that can happen.
They are not on the ballot because successfully getting attention when running for office requires huge amounts of money.
Most of the power from these organisations is just from having politicians attention and ears: if you constant hear viewpoint A from people you like and respect and rarely or never hear opposing viewpoints, then, well, don't be surprised if politicians lean towards viewpoint A. This is basically what "lobbying" is. The problem is that talking to democratically elected representatives is a basic right, and not something you can (or, IMHO, should) take away.
What we do need is better representation of the public interest and balance things better, somehow...
I think you are right people should pay for it? I could pay for it, but who would run the study? Are they going to be efficient? Or is it going to be a waste of money? Could EU pick this up? They are trying to be a bastion of science.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I might very well be.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/10/politics/aduhelm-alzheimers-d...
Drug companies have the second or third highest profits and profit margins after tech companies. Sounds like a lot of “efficiency” could be gained by taxpayers taking the risk of R&D themselves.
For the other drugs, we have no clue how much FDA rules are raising the prices by. That’s scary.
It did exactly that, until the Bayh-Dole act in the 1980s.
I don't think that's true. At least not for rare diseases. There are thousands of them and they impact very small populations. The current cost to develop a drug and get it through trials is > 1 billion dollars.
I wish this were true, however history paints a different picture
Although it is other way round: the world stopped trusting US certification.
Anyhow, in Germany there is something loosely translated as "traditional remedies", which are basically phyto-pharmaceuticals known for generations. If they match a few criteria, esp. clinical efficacy (ie. empirical proof, this is not homeopathy we are talking about), those are written down in a "book of remedies". Once written down in this book, the remedy can be produced by anyone. Most of them may only be sold in pharmacies and sometimes they are so potent and dangerous that they require prescriptions (Colchicine is easy to overdose, but does not require a prescription). By virtue of being public, your pharmacist could mix them up (most do not do this anymore), or they can be produced as generics -- and they are.
This sometimes creates weird situations. For example, there is a common stomach remedy best known under the trademark name "Iberogast". The traditional remedy is a concoction of nine herbs and written down as such. Now, a few decades ago independent studies showed that three of these nine herbs are basically contra-effective and should be removed. Doing that, however, creates a new remedy, which is not recorded in the book and therefore may not be produced freely.
The main producer of Iberogast, Bayer, went to great length to create a new, improved formula, with clinical trials and all that jazz. Obviously, Bayer has the exclusive rights to this improved formula before it can be written into the book of remedies again. It is selling it under the name of "Iberogast Advanced". You probably should prefer this "advanced" version, but you can still go to your pharmacist and get a "classic" concoction mixed up, or buy one of the generics.
Colchicine does require a prescription in DACH.
Under American law, such a traditional (or innovative) remedy can be produced and sold by anyone. It would be an unregulated supplement instead of a regulated medicine. The effect is that doctors can't prescribe it.
Doctors are still free to tell you that you might be interested in independently obtaining and taking a supplement.