A Hypothetical Question Regarding Government Regulation and the Free Markets...

So I came up with an interesting idea and wanted to find out some answers to a hypothetical question. Say Pharma, a major drug company, comes out with a drug to treat or alleviate the symptoms of a fictional disease that numerous people have. Their competitor, Medica, comes out with their own drug to treat or alleviate the symptoms of this same fictional disease, however the method of action is different. Numerous studies are done, and it turns out that Medica's version of the drug is superior, in addition to having fewer side effects. Pharma reacts to this news by, instead of the usual marketing pitches and sending out drug reps to hype up the drug, investing in research to come up with a compound to block Medica's drug's method of action. The research is a success, and Pharma includes this compound, which has no noticeable side effects other than rendering Medica's drug inert, in all the drugs it produces. The result of this inclusion is that patients either have to use Pharma's less effective drug if they need to take other Pharma drugs, or stop taking Pharma's other drugs in order to start taking Medica's superior drug.

Should Pharma's inclusion of this compound in their drugs be regulated?

If Pharma's inclusion of this compound is not regulated, Pharma will invest in research to see if they can make the effects of their compound permanent, ie. if you take Pharma drugs you will never again be able to use the new Medica drug, regardless of if you stop taking the Pharma drugs. Should this be regulated?

:noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

So I came up with an interesting idea and wanted to find out some answers to a hypothetical question. Say Pharma, a major drug company, comes out with a drug to treat or alleviate the symptoms of a fictional disease that numerous people have. Their competitor, Medica, comes out with their own drug to treat or alleviate the symptoms of this same fictional disease, however the method of action is different. Numerous studies are done, and it turns out that Medica's version of the drug is superior, in addition to having fewer side effects. Pharma reacts to this news by, instead of the usual marketing pitches and sending out drug reps to hype up the drug, investing in research to come up with a compound to block Medica's drug's method of action. The research is a success, and Pharma includes this compound, which has no noticeable side effects other than rendering Medica's drug inert, in all the drugs it produces. The result of this inclusion is that patients either have to use Pharma's less effective drug if they need to take other Pharma drugs, or stop taking Pharma's other drugs in order to start taking Medica's superior drug.

Should Pharma's inclusion of this compound in their drugs be regulated?

If Pharma's inclusion of this compound is not regulated, Pharma will invest in research to see if they can make the effects of their compound permanent, ie. if you take Pharma drugs you will never again be able to use the new Medica drug, regardless of if you stop taking the Pharma drugs. Should this be regulated?

:noob:

---

Should be and is. To get away with it, Pharma's compound has to actually provide at least a minor medical benefit of its own. Blocking other drug reactions is itself a negative side effect and if that's all it does, it isn't supposed to be getting past contemporary drug regulation. If it provides even a minor benefit of its own, things get a lot hazier, and it becomes more appropriate to leave it to people's diverse medical needs to determine what they use on the market.

Wrong forum

Yes and yes. As Fuzzy said, that's already regulated. Pharma putting the compound in all their other drugs, even if there's some minor positive effect, wouldn't pass combination requirements based on medical need/intended purpose.

Off-label use is still a problem for prescription meds, and it takes a long time for FDA to catch up (Ritalin etc). We also have issues with vitamins, herbals and dietary supplements, adding caffeine to so many things. Even Teen One-A-Days aren't evaluated by the FDA. :hmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Should be and is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Yes and yes.

---

So do you believe that something like this could be kept from happening without government regulation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Wrong forum

---

Its the right forum. It just looks wrong because a lot of other stuff is in the wrong forum (in my opinion at least, with the majority of it being created by three or less posters).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

(in my opinion at least, with the majority of it being created by three or less posters).

---

Can we have a list of names?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Can we have a list of names?

---

Its probably pretty easy to guess.

Hint: None of the names are Nessus.

But, but

:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

But, but

:(

---

You post good threads. They belong there.

What if the big pharma owned a food division, and this medblocking discovery was delivered in a form that wasn't considered medicine? Whats the difference in regulation between the two areas? Cause we already have lots of additives, oils, seasonings, raw foods, etc, that can claim to suppress or alter the effects of other items or bodily functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Its the right forum. It just looks wrong because a lot of other stuff is in the wrong forum (in my opinion at least, with the majority of it being created by three or less posters).

---

I may not get the distinction between the two forums, nor am I sure that many of us get the distinction. But isn't General fluffy fun stuff, like vids, pictures, how's it going, , movies, books, lookit this silly thing, etc, while Discussion is for things that are likely to invoke potentially intense debates? I could be wrong. But if I'm right, isn't this a potential debater thread, including potential intensity due to the business, regulation and free market implications?



On topic Aside: few bioactive small molecules are specific, and that is even less likely when it is a competitive inhibitor for a molecule known to have a strong pharmacological effect. It would actually be quite tough to design such a drug with no biological effects. So if you put it in a pill, you' have to show that it is effectively inert.

Aside 2: your hypothetical inhibitor has no purpose: why block the other companies drug? Since almost all parallel drugs like you describe target the same active site (a simplification, but let's go with it), you'd probably be inhibiting your own drug as well.

Not saying it isn't an interesting hypothetical, but implausible for more than one reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

What if the big pharma owned a food division, and this medblocking discovery was delivered in a form that wasn't considered medicine? Whats the difference in regulation between the two areas? Cause we already have lots of additives, oils, seasonings, raw foods, etc, that can claim to suppress or alter the effects of other items or bodily functions.

---

Hell, there are plenty of foods that interfere with drugs, either by cytochrome P450 metabolism in the liver, or absorption. Consider broccoli for coumadin, or grapefruit for the prograf that I'm on. Also, I can't use antifungals other than lamisil if I get athlete's foot. I can't take calcium supplements coincidentally with my prograf since Ca2+ blocks absorption. Natural calcium sources not large enough to matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

So do you believe that something like this could be kept from happening without government regulation?

---

No, I believe government regulation has a necessary purpose, to protect the general populace from harm. Whether intended and nefarious, or unintended and accidental. Your hypothetical scenario is a thoughtful example.

The next logical question is.......are our government reps beholden to the general public, or their campaign contributors? Are they representing general tax payer constituents, or their lobbyist benefactors? Are they concerned with their municipality/county/state/national best interest, or their own ego and getting re-elected?

If it all boils down to powerful money, then whose money and power matters most? If there are conflicts of interest, then we should try to eliminate them. If we want to be our government by-for-of The People, then we should revisit things like our two-party dominated system, campaign financing, term limits,, 'professional politicians', legislator retirement and health benefits packages, and even shorter legislative calendars.

Quote:

---

Its the right forum. It just looks wrong because a lot of other stuff is in the wrong forum (in my opinion at least, with the majority of it being created by three or less posters).

---

Now I'm feeling paranoid, because I start a lot of threads. If I put them in the wrong sub-forum you should tell me, since you're an Admin now. :D

Hours later and additional questions/thoughts:

Jekyll and Hyde type stuff, freee markets will always find a buyer. Plenty of things will always find a buyer or benefactor, even immoral or amoral things. We can keep moving the goal posts around about what's immoral or amoral, or too dangerous to pursue, but there will always be someone willing to pay. Often the most dangerous things command the most money, even if the most dangerous thing is government prosecution.

Isn't that part of our fascination with espionage and science fiction?

I'm not clever enough to write fantastic stories, and not smart enough articulate this very well, but I'm paranoid enough to wonder if.....neither freee markets nor government regulation are any answer to what will be our greatest problems. The kind of problems that could lead to our demise as a species, or the destruction of our whole planet mother earth.

I participate in the debates about social justice, scientific progress, legal definitions. Some tiny part in the back of my tiny brain tells me this is just what humans do, when we don't know what else to do. When our intellectual and emotional sides are fighting with each other, sometimes it's best to cede to the guys who've at least made up their minds. That's probably why I admire and loathe politicians at the same time, and wish they could do what I can't, but want----move forward and try to do good things, knowing that 9/10 of forward movement is really standing still, treading water to stay alive. Trying not to drown, or take others down while we sink.

I could never be an effective politician or diplomat, I'm too impatient and idealistic, too worried about pleasing everyone and being Just at the same time. Same holds true for not being a freeeee marketeer, I'm too skeptical about human greed and selfishness, too worried about victims or the vulnerable. Both politics and markets have too much concern for power and money, and not enough concern for what damage their opportunism does to others.

So, it seems all I can do is criticize both, and participate in neither. That's probably not the discussion you intended with this thread, Illusions. :(