Early medical treatment when Covid-19 is diagnosed

153 posts in this topic

Not for the first time, we are seeing a completely inactive account ("popotla was opened in 2011) suddenly start spouting CT, what's going on here?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, keith2011 said:

Not for the first time, we are seeing a completely inactive account ("popotla was opened in 2011) suddenly start spouting CT, what's going on here?

 

Check its posting history - it was a racist before it was a Covidiot.

 

The more things change...

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reluctant to jump on the bandwagon, however... i simply cannot resist pointing out that popotla is highly evocative of ARSE in this neck of the woods... Popotin being French for BOTTY and LA being the duminutive at the end of a word in Alsatian. Woof.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, optimista said:

Popotin being French for BOTTY 

 

Tu veux dire BOOTY?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben non, botty comme sweet little bottom.

 

For usage see that recent video of Myriam Margolhes in the laughs thread. Front botty, back botty - if my memory does not betray me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked up the Pfizer pill (Paxlovir/PF-07321332) - it's a protease inhibitor, a medication already well known from the treatment of HIV and hepatitis!

(I'm from the medical business and already had known that for over 10 years. Nothing new under the sun.)

Protease inhibitors have been around for years, they mess up the production/assembly of infectious virus particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease_inhibitor_(pharmacology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PF-07321332

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, keith2011 said:

 

I suspect they will claim it is just an expensive version of ivermectin. ;)

Sounds good to me just hope it does not wear off too quick!

 

 

Same, same... but different, around 600 USD different.

 

For your consideration:

 

 

And an update after 2 days:

 

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr.Bear said:

Same, same... but different, around 600 USD different.

 

For your consideration:

 

What I got from that is I need to eat scotch tape to wrap round the scissors the virus uses so it can't cut its self up which it needs to do to replicate!

Its quasi science for idiots and completely misses the fact that time and time again ivermectin has been shown not to be effective against covid!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pharmaceutical research and production does actually cost money. Funding can hardly be 100% charitable donations. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, keith2011 said:

Not for the first time, we are seeing a completely inactive account ("popotla was opened in 2011) suddenly start spouting CT, what's going on here?

It's almost like these accounts are entirely fake. This is something I really cannot abide. I have no problem with real people I disagree with arguing with me. As we often do Keith. However I do not like feeling that someone is making a mug out of me here with these deliberately controversial sleeper accounts that crop up from time to time to post stuff the puppet-master knows will get a reaction. I strongly suggest that people IGNORE these "users" because the person behind them wants us to engage with the garbage.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Metall said:

I just looked up the Pfizer pill (Paxlovir/PF-07321332) - it's a protease inhibitor, a medication already well known from the treatment of HIV and hepatitis!

(I'm from the medical business and already had known that for over 10 years. Nothing new under the sun.)

Protease inhibitors have been around for years, they mess up the production/assembly of infectious virus particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease_inhibitor_(pharmacology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PF-07321332

So it'll be a case of taking an old drug out of the cupboard, giving it a new name and tripling the price.

 

As an example of that is a drug called Revlimid used for the treatment of some cancers. It's really Thalidomide (the drug given to pregnant women in the 60's to prevent morning sickness and led to birth defects) and is now around 7,000 € for a pack of 21 pills compared to pennies for the original.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, optimista said:

Pharmaceutical research and production does actually cost money. Funding can hardly be 100% charitable donations. 

People think it is like growing tomatoes: you plant seeds, water, and collect vegetables. 

 

And then, the same people who complain about drug prices buy tomatoes in supermarkets, with the triple price of its production cost. 

 

12 minutes ago, French bean said:

As an example of that is a drug called Revlimid used for the treatment of some cancers. It's really Thalidomide (the drug given to pregnant women in the 60's to prevent morning sickness and led to birth defects) and is now around 7,000 € for a pack of 21 pills compared to pennies for the original.

It's an example of Economics 101, not about price-fixing. I am not saying there isn't one, but this is a bad example.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

It's an example of Economics 101, not about price-fixing. I am not saying there isn't one, but this is a bad example.  

 

Yeah, we learned about seeking monopoly rents in Econ 101 - as an argument against long patent protection periods, for example.

 

It's a textbook case of price-fixing/price-gouging. Do you even econ, bro?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, French bean said:

So it'll be a case of taking an old drug out of the cupboard, giving it a new name and tripling the price.

 

As an example of that is a drug called Revlimid used for the treatment of some cancers. It's really Thalidomide (the drug given to pregnant women in the 60's to prevent morning sickness and led to birth defects) and is now around 7,000 € for a pack of 21 pills compared to pennies for the original.

 

They did have to tweak it though:

 

"Lenalidomide, sold under the trade name Revlimid"

 

Quote

It has a chemical structure similar to thalidomide but has a different mechanism of action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenalidomide

 

Edit:

A bit about the economics

Quote

Economics[edit]

Lenalidomide costs US$163,381 per year for the average person in the United States as of 2012.[25] Lenalidomide made almost $9.7bn for Celgene in 2018.[30]

 

In 2013, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) rejected lenalidomide for "use in the treatment of people with a specific type of the bone marrow disorder myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)" in England and Scotland, arguing that Celgene "did not provide enough evidence to justify the GB£3,780 per month (US$5,746.73) price-tag of lenalidomide for use in the treatment of people with a specific type of the bone marrow disorder myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)".[31]

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

 

Yeah, we learned about seeking monopoly rents in Econ 101 - as an argument against long patent protection periods, for example.

 

It's a textbook case of price-fixing/price-gouging. Do you even econ, bro?

Nope, you missed it. 

 

Again, drugs are not tomatoes. Drug R&D costs the same regardless if you sell 1 dose or 1 million dose, first you have to spend a billion dollars to develop this drug, do animal testing and clinical trials on humans. Here, the academic part of drug development is not included, but this is also billions of dollars funded by your taxes. The academic part if public and can be used by anyone, yet this does not create enough competition because, guess what, you need people with PhDs  to make use of this and develop this drug, and there aren't many of them. 

 

If you can market this drug as "cough medicine" and fraud sell to people who do not need it, like it was with Thalidomide, you can sell it really cheap. 

 

But times have changed, and this is not legal anymore: drugs are controlled, the companies have limited options to "market" them. 

 

As a result, the price must rise, or there will be no drugs.

 

There is no communist solution to this problem, except raising taxes heavily and quadrupling funding for academic research. Whether this will make the end price of the drugs lower, I am not sure (it is above Economics 101). 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, as @Janx Spirit mentioned, this is one of many borderline-legal cases where the patent on the original drug/active ingredient has expired, so they tweak the formulation to extend patent protection. This requires minimal additional testing and enables them to reap another windfall based on research whose costs were funded and written off decades ago.

 

It has nothing to do with supply and demand (which is the main thing Econ 101 teaches you) and everything to do with how parts of our system for handling intellectual property are broken and increasingly being manipulated and exploited by unscrupulous market players, at the expense of society as a whole.

 

You can read about more examples here.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now