It is extremely expensive to develop a new drug and as antibiotics are not frequently taken ones, they are way less profitable than other drugs that people need on a day to day basis. That is the reason why the pharma industry usually prefers to focus on more profitable drugs like pills for cholesterol or high blood pressure, for example.
Developing a new medicine costs a lot of money. There have to be done a lot of experiments (with a lot of phases of clinical trials) in order to discover a drug that is effective. The development of a new antibiotic is more expensive than the devolupment of other drugs and its very risky because at the end the bacterias can develop resistance to that antibiotic and it is not profitable for the company. So, some industries chose not to spend (risk) their money in the research for new antibiotics.
They are less profitable, because patients require less doses of it. Opposed to other treatments that demand a daily or weekly dosis, that are prolonged for a long time, antibiotics are usually taken during a shorter period, therefore, the consumption of these products have a lower number compared to other drugs.
it is rarely profitable to research, develop, and bring new antibiotics to market. That is in large part because most people take antibiotics for a very short period of time until their infections are cured. I think that's a big problem in society!
Because it is expensive and requires time to get an effective antibiotic. Besides that, new antibiotics may have no significant impact on the market - since multiresistant bacteria is still not very common- and the companies have no proffit.
I'd like to give my opinion on this subject and I'd say that this is completely immoral. The pharma industry "salesman" that appears in the video justifies it by saying that if there is no proffit there are no new medicines. I agree with Jim Kim when he says that the money must be soent now or otherwise the investment needed will be much higher. A formula should be found in order to produce new drugs that benefit the people rather than the stock market. Wether a non-proffit production or maybe the resarch should be completely financed by governments.
I hope my point of vision is not too naive, does anyone agree or disagree?
I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree with the idea that everyone's health and survival should be before money. But, unfortunately, governments have many sectors of concern: health, education, economics, food, etc. It's like a "house of cards": if they stopped investing in one of them, all the others would go down the drain.
Antibiotics are gaining more and more resistance to the human body, which makes it very difficult to find an effective antibiotic for a disease, and in many experiments, like they said, 99% of them go wrong, requiring a lot of time and money.
I totally agree with you, regarding the position of creating new medicines, compared to money, but it's all a range of investments and not a single investment in the medicine area, unfortunately.
It is extremely expensive to develop a new drug and as antibiotics are not frequently taken ones, they are way less profitable than other drugs that people need on a day to day basis. That is the reason why the pharma industry usually prefers to focus on more profitable drugs like pills for cholesterol or high blood pressure, for example.
Because antibiotics have to be consumed for a short period of time and in low doses.
Developing a new medicine costs a lot of money. There have to be done a lot of experiments (with a lot of phases of clinical trials) in order to discover a drug that is effective. The development of a new antibiotic is more expensive than the devolupment of other drugs and its very risky because at the end the bacterias can develop resistance to that antibiotic and it is not profitable for the company. So, some industries chose not to spend (risk) their money in the research for new antibiotics.
They are less profitable, because patients require less doses of it. Opposed to other treatments that demand a daily or weekly dosis, that are prolonged for a long time, antibiotics are usually taken during a shorter period, therefore, the consumption of these products have a lower number compared to other drugs.
it is rarely profitable to research, develop, and bring new antibiotics to market. That is in large part because most people take antibiotics for a very short period of time until their infections are cured. I think that's a big problem in society!
Because it is expensive and requires time to get an effective antibiotic. Besides that, new antibiotics may have no significant impact on the market - since multiresistant bacteria is still not very common- and the companies have no proffit.
I'd like to give my opinion on this subject and I'd say that this is completely immoral. The pharma industry "salesman" that appears in the video justifies it by saying that if there is no proffit there are no new medicines. I agree with Jim Kim when he says that the money must be soent now or otherwise the investment needed will be much higher. A formula should be found in order to produce new drugs that benefit the people rather than the stock market. Wether a non-proffit production or maybe the resarch should be completely financed by governments.
I hope my point of vision is not too naive, does anyone agree or disagree?