1. Like the concept that we don't have a new drug until it manufactured at scale - could vastly reduce the hype of discovery, which pressures approval processes and hence rough and ready drugs are brought to the market. This discovery hype will only get worse with AI
2. I question whether we need more medicines - they are going to bleed the nation dry, given the cost of new medicines.
3. Re-purposed drugs - I like - but pharma is not going to pay for testing.
Point 1 - it always was like that up to the end of the 1970s. Patents were awarded for the process at the scale intended for the market. Then, Glaxo changed the game for the industry, to 'discover' molecules to address 'unmet medical need' aka blockbusters, created by Sales & Marketing. It's been a race to the bottom ever since.
Yes, AI is going to add fuel to the already blazing fire.
Point 2 - Agree, we don't need more medicines, especially the $475,000 ones. Not even the over-the-counter ones where marketing blinds people to more natural solutions.
Point 3 - Remember ivermectin? Many physicians tried to use it off-label for respiratory issues during the scam, but were prevented. So, we give physicians the skills (mainly supply chain compliance matters), so they can repurpose medicines they think will work in a different indication, based on real-world evidence.
Big pharma wouldn't be involved.
I like the length too!!!
That's all written up in my latest book for Wiley.
Well corticosteroids and antibiotics might be examples of useful drugs. One mimics a natural hormone, the other also has natural origins. But we might be better making best use of what we have already, and using new therapies such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy more widely; healthier lifestyles and nutrition. Have the pharmaceutical industry had their day? Unfortunately governments are going to be propping up what appears to be a self serving predatory industry.
Great comment, Sandra! We mustn't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are important, effective drugs out there, but Big Pharma (BP) doesn't have any of them.
They are all marketed by generics companies and produced by contract manufacturers.
In U.S. and UK, 90% of drugs are generic - the ones BP threw away many years ago!
Big Pharma has shown its hand this time, in a very public way, and since the only drugs they have are gene therapies for rare diseases costing $500K to $4million per treatment, they are a busted flush!
In a discussion with Debi Evans on UK Column you said biologics were incredibly difficult to make and keep safe. And yet vaccines seem to have had less scrutiny than drugs. I’ve actually heard Aaron Siri say that the Covid vaccine trials were more robust than most vaccine trials. He gave an example of a trial of the Hepatitis B vaccine trialled on 147 babies that had only 5 days of follow up.
I wouldn’t listen to a lawyer, if I were you Sandra!
Siri is barking up the wrong tree. The jabs were not vaccines at all, they were gene modified cell therapies (using CRISPR gene editing) that were already on the market for rare diseases. The first, approved by FDA in 2017, was Novartis’ Kymriah, costing $475,000 at launch.
There are about 9 on the market now. They contain a small strip of DNA made from animal cells, known as a plasmid. I consulted on the Kymriah manufacturing supply chain in the early stages of development (2013), as part of a UK Government funding call. Little did I know it was going to be called safe and effective just 4 years later!
This is the Kymriah package insert - check the side effects, and feel free to make more comment or ask questions
Thankyou. Great information. But the question I wanted to ask: based on your saying that biologics are more difficult to make and keep safe, shouldn’t vaccines have had greater scrutiny than appears to have been the case over the years?
When Andrew Wakefield alerted the authorities to a possible link between the MMR, bowel disease and autism, he was marked as a pariah, rather than investigation and evidence to prove his observations as incorrect. And autism has risen over the years, with authorities showing little curiosity as to why.
An FDA/CDC whistleblower who noticed black boys under 18 months were particularly at risk was also silenced. My point is that supply chains are not the only thing wrong with the system.
Comments of the video
1. Like the concept that we don't have a new drug until it manufactured at scale - could vastly reduce the hype of discovery, which pressures approval processes and hence rough and ready drugs are brought to the market. This discovery hype will only get worse with AI
2. I question whether we need more medicines - they are going to bleed the nation dry, given the cost of new medicines.
3. Re-purposed drugs - I like - but pharma is not going to pay for testing.
I like the length.
Great feedback Brian, thanks!
Point 1 - it always was like that up to the end of the 1970s. Patents were awarded for the process at the scale intended for the market. Then, Glaxo changed the game for the industry, to 'discover' molecules to address 'unmet medical need' aka blockbusters, created by Sales & Marketing. It's been a race to the bottom ever since.
Yes, AI is going to add fuel to the already blazing fire.
Point 2 - Agree, we don't need more medicines, especially the $475,000 ones. Not even the over-the-counter ones where marketing blinds people to more natural solutions.
Point 3 - Remember ivermectin? Many physicians tried to use it off-label for respiratory issues during the scam, but were prevented. So, we give physicians the skills (mainly supply chain compliance matters), so they can repurpose medicines they think will work in a different indication, based on real-world evidence.
Big pharma wouldn't be involved.
I like the length too!!!
That's all written up in my latest book for Wiley.
Exactly why should we care about drugs? Show me even one that is not a toxin or poison.
Well corticosteroids and antibiotics might be examples of useful drugs. One mimics a natural hormone, the other also has natural origins. But we might be better making best use of what we have already, and using new therapies such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy more widely; healthier lifestyles and nutrition. Have the pharmaceutical industry had their day? Unfortunately governments are going to be propping up what appears to be a self serving predatory industry.
Great comment, Sandra! We mustn't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are important, effective drugs out there, but Big Pharma (BP) doesn't have any of them.
They are all marketed by generics companies and produced by contract manufacturers.
In U.S. and UK, 90% of drugs are generic - the ones BP threw away many years ago!
Big Pharma has shown its hand this time, in a very public way, and since the only drugs they have are gene therapies for rare diseases costing $500K to $4million per treatment, they are a busted flush!
In a discussion with Debi Evans on UK Column you said biologics were incredibly difficult to make and keep safe. And yet vaccines seem to have had less scrutiny than drugs. I’ve actually heard Aaron Siri say that the Covid vaccine trials were more robust than most vaccine trials. He gave an example of a trial of the Hepatitis B vaccine trialled on 147 babies that had only 5 days of follow up.
I wouldn’t listen to a lawyer, if I were you Sandra!
Siri is barking up the wrong tree. The jabs were not vaccines at all, they were gene modified cell therapies (using CRISPR gene editing) that were already on the market for rare diseases. The first, approved by FDA in 2017, was Novartis’ Kymriah, costing $475,000 at launch.
There are about 9 on the market now. They contain a small strip of DNA made from animal cells, known as a plasmid. I consulted on the Kymriah manufacturing supply chain in the early stages of development (2013), as part of a UK Government funding call. Little did I know it was going to be called safe and effective just 4 years later!
This is the Kymriah package insert - check the side effects, and feel free to make more comment or ask questions
https://www.fda.gov/media/107296/download
Thankyou. Great information. But the question I wanted to ask: based on your saying that biologics are more difficult to make and keep safe, shouldn’t vaccines have had greater scrutiny than appears to have been the case over the years?
When Andrew Wakefield alerted the authorities to a possible link between the MMR, bowel disease and autism, he was marked as a pariah, rather than investigation and evidence to prove his observations as incorrect. And autism has risen over the years, with authorities showing little curiosity as to why.
An FDA/CDC whistleblower who noticed black boys under 18 months were particularly at risk was also silenced. My point is that supply chains are not the only thing wrong with the system.