Creating Medicines With Less Side Effects Through a New Chemical Dividing Process

Overall, medications today have way too many harmful side effects, and so this breakthrough technological process should be helpful in reducing them. It also has the potential to “produce better medical and agricultural products, including medicines, food ingredients, dietary supplements and pesticides.”

Chemical compounds are made up of molecules. The most important molecules in biology are chiral molecules. “Chiral,” the Greek word for “hand,” describes molecules that look almost exactly alike and contain the same number of atoms but are mirror images of one another — meaning some are “left-handed” and others are “right-handed.” This different “handedness” is crucial and yields different biological effects.

Understanding chiral differences was made painfully clear by the drug thalidomide. Marketed to pregnant women in the 1950’s and 1960’s to ease morning sickness, thalidomide worked well under a microscope. However, thalidomide is a chiral drug -its “right” chiral molecule provides nausea relief while the “left” molecule causes horrible deformities in babies. Since the drug company producing Thalidomide did not separate out the right and left molecules, Thalidomide had disastrous results for the children of women who took this medication.

Though a crucial step for drug safety, the separation of chiral molecules into their right- and left- handed components is an expensive process and demands a tailor-made approach for each type of molecule. Now, however, following a decade of collaborative research, Paltiel and Naaman have discovered a uniform, generic method that will enable pharmaceutical and chemical manufactures to easily and cheaply separate right from left chiral molecules.

Their method relies on magnets. Chiral molecules interact with a magnetic substrate and line up according to the direction of their handedness — “left” molecules interact better with one pole of the magnet, and “right” molecules with the other one. This technology will allow chemical manufacturers to keep the “good” molecules and to discard the “bad” ones that cause harmful or unwanted side effects.

“Our finding has great practical importance,” shared Prof. Naaman. “It will usher in an era of better, safer drugs, and more environmentally-friendly pesticides.”

While popular drugs, such as Ritalin and Cipramil, are sold in their chirally-pure (i.e., separated) forms, many generic medications are not. Currently only 13% of chiral drugs are separated even though the FDA recommends that all chiral drugs be separated. Further, in the field of agrochemicals, chirally-pure pesticides and fertilizers require smaller doses and cause less environmental contamination than their unseparated counterparts.

The Amazing Treatment for Drug Addiction (Medication-Assisted Treatment) Too Rarely Used

Drug addictions need to be treated as health problems instead of as crimes, and in any case, it’d be valuable to direct more resources towards helping people with addictions. That could be rather than using the resources on a senseless or harmful pursuit such as building even more nuclear weapons systems that threaten to cause disasters.

The death toll from the opioids epidemic continues to soar – nearly 64,000 people died in 2016 alone.

Scientists are working to find creative tools to fight it, and President Donald Trump has called the overdose crisis a public health emergency. But he has not yet outlined any targeted solutions aside from calling for drug dealers to be given the death penalty.

A growing cadre of health professionals say we already have a science-backed treatment that works. It’s called medication-assisted treatment, or MAT, and it involves administering FDA-approved medications that help curb cravings and reduce the excruciating symptoms of withdrawal.

“Medications are an effective treatment for opioid addiction,” Kelly J. Clark, president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, told Business Insider.

The problem is that very few people can get those medications.

Only about half of private-sector treatment programs for opioid use disorder currently offer access to MAT, and of those that offer it, only one third of patients actually receive the medication, according to a study published in the Journal of Addiction Medicine.

There are many reasons for this lack of access to medication. Some stem from a misconception about how the treatments – which can include buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone – work.

The stigma surrounding drug use and addiction plays a role, too. Still other issues include federal and state laws that restrict the availability of the medications.

“It’s more of an implementation problem than a basic science problem,” Clark said, “because we know what works.”

Medications do not ‘substitute one drug for another’

In someone with opioid use disorder, using the drugs is often not a pleasurable experience, but rather a practice that has become a necessary fact of life. Being without the drugs leads to painful symptoms that can include severe nausea, shaking, diarrhoea, and depression.

The need to use is simultaneously a physical and emotional compulsion – the lines between those kinds of pain are blurred.

One of the main misconceptions about medication-assisted treatment is that medications simply replace the drugs that hooked users – leading to more highs and fuelling a pattern of repeated use.

But that view is outdated and ill-informed, experts say. Instead, the drugs work by staunching cravings and reducing or preventing withdrawal and relapse.

Buprenorphine and methadone help suppress cravings, while naltrexone blocks the euphoric and sedative effects of opioids so users don’t experience a high.

“People ask me all the time, ‘well, aren’t they just substituting one drug for another?’ The answer is no. These are evidence-based treatments and they work,” Patrice A. Harris, the former president of the American Medical Association and a board certified psychiatrist, told Business Insider.

Several large studies suggest that as access to MAT rises, drug overdose deaths fall.

A study of heroin overdose deaths in Baltimore between 1995 and 2009 published in the American Journal of Public Health, for example, found a link between the increasing availability of methadone and buprenorphine and a roughly 50 percent decrease in the number of fatal overdoses.

“These treatments are life saving and they work,” Sarah Wakeman, the medical director of the substance use disorder initiative at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor at Harvard, told Business Insider.

From jail to court to rehab, medication-assisted treatment is hard to find

Despite the evidence demonstrating MAT’s effectiveness, it is surprisingly difficult to obtain.

One of the hardest-to-access forms of medication for recovery is methadone. In the US, the medication can only be accessed in specialised clinics; because of the way the treatment works, people on MAT must come to a facility to be injected daily.

But those facilities typically have negative reputations because of policies that restrict them to locations considered seedy or run-down.

And patients who come for treatment often have to push past active drug users – a big trigger for someone with substance use disorder – on their way to and from the clinic.

“You can access heroin pretty easily, yet we make it really hard to get a treatment that’s life-saving and allows you to live healthily,” Wakeman said.

On Friday, the US Food and Drug Adminstration issued a new set of guidelines aimed at underlining the important role MAT should play treating opioid use disorder.

“Unfortunately, far too few people who suffer from opioid use disorder are offered an adequate chance for treatment that uses safe and effective medications,”commissioner Scott Gottlieb said.

Other countries take a very different approach to medication-assisted treatment that makes the treatments easier to obtain. In Canada, for example, methadone is distributed in pharmacies.

Rehabilitation facilities and courts in the US often don’t offer medication-assisted treatment either. Instead, most operate on an abstinence-based model, in which patients must detox and then are offered counseling.

They’re encouraged to attend 12-step meetings like Narcotics Anonymous, which remains opposed to MAT despite the growing body of evidence behind it.

Patents and Copyrights as Plutocratic Tariffs That are Relics of the Medieval Guild System

A useful analysis rarely seen in the debate.

Many pundits have attacked Trump’s focus on steel and manufacturing because they argue, we should be more concerned about protecting US corporations’ patents and copyrights overseas. This doesn’t make sense.

At the most basic level, stronger and longer patent and copyright protection means that people in other countries have to pay more money. These government-granted monopolies often allow companies to raise the price of the protected items by a factor of 10 or even a 100. In this way, they are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent.

Just to be clear, this is not a point that can be honestly disputed by economists. If a government barrier raises the price of a good, it doesn’t matter whether we call that barrier a “tariff” or a “patent,” the impact on the market is the same.

This means if Pfizer’s patent protection on a drug allows it to raise the price it charges for a drug in China or some other developing country by a factor of 10 over the free market price, it is equivalent to imposing a tariff of 1000 percent on the drug. The difference is that instead of the tariff revenue going to the government, it goes back to Pfizer as higher profits.

It’s obvious that higher profits for Pfizer are good for its shareholders and top executives, but why should the rest of us be happy about people in developing countries paying more money to Pfizer for its drugs? Many of us care more about poor people being able to get drugs than Pfizer’s profits.

The story gets even worse. The more money that Pfizer and other US companies collect overseas for their patents and copyrights, the less these people have to spend on other goods and services. In effect, because Pfizer can charge more for its drugs, people in China and other countries have less money to spend on US-made cars and planes. How is this good for most of the people in the United States?

The pushers of stronger and longer patent and copyright protection will undoubtedly claim that higher profits will provide more incentive for research and creative work. This is true, but what are the numbers? If Pfizer gets another $1 billion in profit will they invest one percent of it in research?

That would be an increase, but that means the world would be spending $1 billion in higher drug prices to get an additional $10 million in research. That’s not a very good deal. And, even this research could be largely wasted on developing copycat drugs that are intended to gain a portion of a competitor’s patent earnings by duplicating a successful drug. Again, that could be good for Pfizer, but it is not especially helpful for the rest of us who want to see research focused on developing treatments for conditions where there is not already an effective drug.

To be clear, we do need a mechanism for financing research and creative work, but there is little reason to believe that patent and copyright monopolies are the most effective tool. These are relics of the Medieval guild system. We can do better in the 21st century.

Study Shows a Bigger Pharmaceutical Industry is Linked to Worse Health Outcomes

The ridiculously extreme profits of pharmaceutical corporations has allowed them to lobby legislatures and enact laws that further boost their profits — while being detrimental to the public interest. Much of this is due to drug patent monopolies, which are regularly equivalent to harmful, regressive tariffs of hundreds or thousands of percent.

drugincome

While Americans debate the rising cost of health care, a new study of 30 countries over 27 years found that medical expansion has improved overall health — with one major exception.

Researchers found that increased spending on health care and increases in specialized care were both associated with longer life expectancy and less mortality in the countries studied.

But pharmaceutical industry expansion was linked to negative health effects.

“This study isn’t the first to suggest prescription drugs can pose a health risk. But it is the first to find that the growth of the pharmaceutical industry itself may be associated with worse rather than better health,” said Hui Zheng, lead author of the study and associate professor of sociology at The Ohio State University.

[…]

Two measures of expansion in the pharmaceutical industry — increased sales and more money spent on research and development — were linked to lower life expectancy among women aged 65 and older, and with increased mortality rates. The pharmaceutical measures were not associated with the other health outcomes studied.

The researchers ran tests to confirm that it wasn’t the other way around — that lower life expectancy and increased mortality were causing an expansion of the pharmaceutical industry. But that wasn’t the case.

That wasn’t the only negative finding about the growing drug industry.

“We found that as the pharmaceutical industry expands, there is a decrease in the beneficial impact of medical specialization on population health,” Zheng said.

This study can’t say why expansion in the pharmaceutical industry is leading to negative population health effects, Zheng said.

“It could be due to toxic side effects of drugs, doctors’ prescribing practices, patients’ misuse of prescription drugs, reasons related to pharmaceutical industry’s marketing strategies or some combination of these factors,” he said.

New Bill to Lessen the Pain of the Dysfunctional U.S. Healthcare System is a Reminder of Its Critical Flaws

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has introduced a bill that attempts to “curb pain” emanating from the corrupted for-profit healthcare system of the United States. Among other things, the bill’s provisions would implement helpful but admittedly inadequate measures, such as making it illegal for insurance companies to revoke a patient’s plan during their course of treatment. There could of course be many reminders about the more critical flaws of U.S. healthcare made in relation to this.

For one, the U.S. spends about twice as much on healthcare compared to other wealthy countries such as Canada, Britain, and Germany. If that spending — which is annually $3.4 trillion ( about 18 percent of annual U.S. GDP) — was reduced by around half, it would be an enormous savings that (all else unchanged) would actually have the U.S. running substantial budget surpluses.

That isn’t to say that budget surpluses are necessarily good (budget deficits can be helpful and natural), but it’s to point out that subtracting the almost $700 billion ($5550 per U.S. household) in budget deficit totals that the U.S. ran in fiscal year 2017 from a $1.7 trillion in healthcare savings would still be about a trillion dollars of budget surplus. It’s strange how rarely this simple point enters the mainstream press, what with the irrational and even harmful attention corporate media such as the Washington Post has given to budget deficits. More importantly though, it’s over a trillion dollars that could be spent productively elsewhere in the economy instead of harmfully allowing health insurance corporations receive it.

Interestingly enough, Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon, and JP Morgan Chase announced plans earlier this year to jointly form a healthcare company for their employees that’s “intended to be free from profit-making incentives.” This is another revealing insight into why a for-profit healthcare system is too flawed to function well — building a healthcare system around corporate profits simply raises the costs too much. The executives at those three corporations aren’t the only parts of the business community to understand this as they seek to reduce their own expenses.

Businessman Warren Buffett has even admitted that single-payer is “probably the best” healthcare system for the U.S. He has made a comparison between U.S. healthcare in 1960 and in 2017 — in 1960, U.S. healthcare spending was only five percent of annual GDP, and almost 60 years later there’s been almost a four fold GDP-based increase in healthcare spending. This reveals again that the amount of resources being devoted to the overall mediocre U.S. healthcare system is excessive.

The for-profit element of the system has other consequences outside of direct economic costs though. One of them is unnecessarily lost lives, with strong evidence finding that over 20,000 people die a year in the U.S. due to being unable to afford health insurance. It is simply a major moral disgrace that world history’s wealthiest country suffers from such a problem.

Also disgraceful is the staggering number of medical bankruptcies per year in the United States. The amount of those per year has been estimated at hundreds of thousands in the U.S. alone (far more than other wealthy countries) and medical bills have been a leading cause of Americans filing for bankruptcy for years. All other OECD countries besides Mexico have universal healthcare and have a much more efficient healthcare system to prevent many of those problems to begin with.

For a practical example, Medicare (a predominantly single-payer healthcare service run by the government) has administrative overhead costs of about 1 to 2 percent, which is usefully contrasted to the 12 to 20 percent overhead costs typically run by the for-profit health insurance industry. This is because inefficiently having thousands of different healthcare payer plans necessitates higher bureaucratic costs with too much paperwork.

And another notable part of the high U.S. health costs is due to the ridiculous prices of prescription drugs there. In 2017, the U.S. spent $450 billion (2.4 percent of GDP) on prescription drugs, an amount that could almost certainly be reduced by about $370 billion ($2930 per U.S. household) by having prescription drugs sold without patent monopolies and other unjust protectionist measures. In a time when at least nearly one in five Americans are unable to afford their medications adequately, this proposal for savings should be considered much more.

It should also be noted what happens an extreme amount of undeserved resources are diverted to harmful corporations such as the pharmaceutical ones. Pharmaceutical companies — such as Purdue Pharma — have used their excess profits to manufacture an opioid crisis (to seek even more profits) through flooding economically downtrodden communities with highly addictive opioids. This has resulted in opioids becoming the leading cause of death for Americans under 50, and it’s also largely been what’s resulted in a decline in the average U.S. life expectancy rate, a phenomenon that’s probably otherwise unheard of in other wealthy nations in the 21st century.

In all, the U.S. healthcare system suffers from significant problems that will require more than tweaking around the edges to solve. Its system requires a major alteration, and the sooner that happens, the less health-based suffering among its people there can be.

Latest Price Gouging as Cost of Gleostine Drug is Hiked 1400%

Drug patent monopolies have long been detrimental to the general population. In 2017, the U.S. spent over $450 billion (2.4 percent of annual GDP) on prescription drugs, an amount that would probably have been one fifth of that total if there were no government-granted drug patent monopolies. Furthermore, in world history’s richest country, it is absurd that about 20 percent of seniors regularly cannot afford their medication. That happens as the top five biggest pharmaceutical corporations made a combined $50 billion in profits for the year too.

Gleostine, which had its patent expire recently, is the latest example of this systemic pharmaceutical failure. The drug companies must be reined in, or these outrages will keep continuing into the future.

Critics of the pharmaceutical industry have expressed outrage over a Wall Street Journal analysis that found the owner of a 40-year-old cancer drug used to treat brain tumors and Hodgkin’s lymphoma has hiked the cost of the medication by 1,400 percent since acquiring it in 2013.

Lomustine, which was introduced in 1976, “has no generic competition, giving seller NextSource Biotechnology LLC significant pricing power,” the Journal reports, noting that lomustine is just “one of at least 319 drugs for which U.S. patents have expired but which have no generic copies, according to a list the agency published earlier this month.”

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reportedly working to speed up the approval process for generic versions of these drugs, some critics say the report demonstrates a need for a broader overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system, with the Robin Hood Tax campaign citing it as evidence for “why we need” Medicare For All, which has been promoted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and a growing number of Democrats in Congress.

[…]

“This is simply price gouging, period,” concluded Henry Friedman, a neuro-oncologist at Duke University who wrote an editorial criticizing the lomustine price hikes earlier this year. “People are not going to be able to afford it, or they’re going to pay a lot of money and have financial liability.”

Opioid Crisis Killing More People Than Breast Cancer

The opioid crisis is largely a result of greedy, profit-driven pharmaceutical corporations such as Purdue Pharma mass producing highly addictive opioids and then flooding economically weak (and thus despairing) communities with them. The problem must be attacked at the root — significantly alter the function of the pharmaceutical industry and fix much of the economic weakness that it thrives on. If neither of those solutions are applied, the problem will keep becoming worse, with all the innocent lives lost that go with it.

More than 63,600 lives were lost to drug overdose in 2016, the most lethal year yet of the drug overdose epidemic, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most of those deaths involved opioids, a family of painkillers including illicit heroin and fentanyl as well as legally prescribed medications such as oxycodone and hydrocodone. In 2016 alone, 42,249 US drug fatalities — 66% of the total — involved opioids, the report says. That’s over a thousand more than the 41,070 Americans who die from breast cancer every year.

Much of the increase was driven by the rise in illicit synthetic opioids like fentanyl and tramadol. The rate of deadly overdoses from synthetic opioids other than methadone has skyrocketed an average of 88% each year since 2013; it more than doubled in 2016 to 19,413, from 9,580 in 2015.

Heroin also continues to be a problem, the report says. Since 2014, the rate of heroin overdose deaths has jumped an average of 19% each year.

The opioid crisis has raised significant awareness of prescription painkillers. Between 1999 and 2009, the rate of overdoses from such drugs rose 13% annually, but the increase has since slowed to 3% per year.

In 2009, prescription narcotics were involved in 26% of all fatal drug overdoses, while heroin was involved in 9% and synthetics were involved in just 8%. By comparison, in 2016, prescription drugs were involved in 23% of all deadly overdoses. But heroin is now implicated in about a quarter of all drug fatalities, and synthetic opioids play a role in nearly a third.

These increases have contributed to a shortening of the US life expectancy for a second year in a row.

The states with the highest rates of overdose in 2016 were West Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire, the report said. The rate of overdose in West Virginia was over 2.5 times the national average of 19.8 overdose deaths for every 100,000 people.

While the outlook nationwide is fairly bleak, it’s particularly bad in some states. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia had overdose rates significantly higher than the national average.

While overdose rates increased in all age groups, rises were most significant in those between the ages of 25 and 54.

Provisional data for 2017 from the CDC show no signs of the epidemic abating, with an estimate of more than 66,000 overdose deaths for the year. “Based on what we’re seeing, it doesn’t look like it’s getting any better,” said Bob Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch at the National Center for Health Statistics.

[…]

According to the 2016 Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health, 30% of Americans do not seek any sort of addiction treatment because they do not have insurance and cannot afford treatment.

The opioid epidemic is of course worst in West Virginia because of how economically ravaged the state has been by decades of neoliberalism, the increase in deaths being worst among those 25 to 54 notably follows the ages that are regularly considered to be those of prime age workers, and the lack of a national single-payer healthcare system shows itself as a flaw yet again.

Norway to Decriminalize Drugs

Automatically treating addictions as crimes (instead of as health problems) is stupidity in public policy. Helping people receive treatment for drug problems is far superior to locking them up in a cage.

Norway is to become the first Scandinavian country to decriminalise drugs as it focuses on treatment rather than punishment.

The majority of the Norwegian parliament, the Storting, backed the historic shift which was supported by the Conservatives (Hoyre), Liberals (Venstre), the Labor Party (Ap) and the Socialist Left (SV).

They directed the national government to reform its policies on drugs.

Sveinung Stensland, deputy chairman of the Storting Health Committee, told Norwegian publication VG: “It is important to emphasise that we do not legalise cannabis and other drugs, but we decriminalise.

“The change will take some time, but that means a changed vision: those who have a substance abuse problem should be treated as ill, and not as criminals with classical sanctions such as fines and imprisonment.”

The Norwegian Health Committee is planning a trip to Portugal in February, which decriminalised personal possession of drugs in 2001. The country made the move following a heroin epidemic and the highest drug-related Aids deaths in the European Union (EU).

It now has the second lowest drug-related deaths in the EU.

Norway could join other countries such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Uruguay, and certain US states including California and Colorado, which have liberalised drug laws.

Opioid Epidemic Cost Revised to a Staggering $504 Billion Annually

The roots of the crisis are found in the criminogenic pharmaceutical corporations and the dysfunctional U.S. economic system. More Americans die every year (about 60,000) as a result of the opioid crisis than the number who died in the Vietnam War. With $500 billion in annual costs, it also means that two years of the opioid crisis will roughly equal the direct costs of fighting the Vietnam War.

The opioid epidemic sweeping the U.S. is far costlier than once thought, with the economic impact of the crisis exceeding half a trillion dollars, according to a new report by White House economists.

The epidemic cost the American economy $504 billion in 2015, which was the equivalent of 2.8 percent of gross domestic product that year, according to the report by the Council of Economic Advisers, or CEA. The White House’s figures are more than six times larger than a previous study because it incorporates the value of lives lost to the epidemic.

The findings come less than a month after the Trump administration declared widespread opioid abuse a public health emergency while stopping short of freeing up federal disaster funds to tackle the problem.

A study released last year estimated the cost of the opioid crisis in 2013 at $79.9 billion, adjusted to 2015 dollars. The White House economists said prior research (see table) didn’t capture the full impact because it at times only measured health-care expenditures or earnings lost from those who die — which overlooks “other valuable activities in life besides work.”

The CEA also said it made adjustments to more accurately measure the number of opioid-related deaths, which often go underreported, and focused on illicit opioids as well as prescription drugs.

“This is the first but not the last publication CEA plans to issue on the opioid crisis,” according to the report. “A better understanding of the economic causes contributing to the crisis is crucial for evaluating the success of various interventions to combat it.”

Financing Prescription Drugs Using a Different System Without Harmful Drug Patent Monopolies

A new study finds that scientific breakthroughs are significantly as a result of collaboration. It used the development of five anti-cancer drugs to show how important researchers sharing information was, and it also strengthened the notion that beneficial scientific research tends to advance fastest when the results are fully open to view.

The study is evidence against the pharmaceutical research financing failure that is drug patent monopolies. Pharmaceutical corporations have an incentive to share as little of their research as possible to be granted their drug patent monopolies, as doing otherwise would risk threats to their profit margins through not receiving the patent. If the research findings are kept hidden from the public in this type of example, there is also a waste of resources to develop another similarly effective drug. This is notably seen with the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi, which costs $84,000 for a 12 week course of treatment because the Gilead Sciences corporation has a patent monopoly on the drug. This is usefully contrasted with a high quality generic of Sovaldi selling for only $200 for the same three month course of treatment in India.

The U.S. government has the power to arrest people who sell Sovaldi in competition with Gilead Sciences, so the Abbvie corporation developed its own Hepatitis C cure drug known as Mavyret. Sovaldi was already an effective drug at curing Hepatitis C though, so the researchers that developed Mavyret could have been focused on other important research. This is, of course, a phenomenon that is continuously repeated with other drugs, and it prompts the logical conclusion of using a different system to finance pharmaceutical research.

A more ideal system would be to make drug patent monopolies illegal and have the U.S. government directly finance pharmaceutical research. The U.S. public already funds the National Institutes of Health with $30 billion annually, and even the pharmaceutical industry admits that is money well spent. PhRMA, the industry trade group, puts the amount that the pharmaceutical corporations spend on yearly research and development at only a somewhat higher total of $70 billion. This is in light of an important study revealing that pharmaceutical corporations spend more on stock buybacks that benefit the wealthy than they do on research and development. That is in light of the U.S. set to spend $450 billion (2.4 percent of GDP) on prescription drugs in 2017, an amount that would be $370 billion — half of the latest U.S. military budget approval — less if the patents and related unjust protections were removed from the pharmaceutical industry.

These large expenditures are especially significant considering that it’s been estimated that the U.S. will spend an even higher $610 billion a year on prescription drugs by 2021. With the current pharmaceutical system, that will mean that the U.S. could be spending about $120 billion on prescription drugs in 2021 instead of $610 billion.

The $370 billion possible to save currently though could be used in a variety of more productive ways than granting it to the pharmaceutical industry under the current financing system. For one example, the budget of the NIH could easily be boosted by a factor of five, making it $150 billion a year. What money remains is possible to spend on productive investment programs, such as an infrastructure project for clean and renewable energy. The U.S. economy is not doing that well for most of its people, but a significant improvement to that should be well-known — government investment to stimulate more demand.

The research done by the NIH could of course remain fully open for pharmaceutical companies and other organizations to use to develop drugs. Developed drugs could then be sold inexpensively without patent monopolies and the other unjust protections, which is how it should be done considering that prescription drugs are usually cheap to produce after their research process is completed. The firms developing valuable drugs should be rewarded for their innovative efforts, and they could be through the combination of governmental contracting, a publicly-funded prize system, and the demand of markets. That would almost certainly be a more beneficial system for the public interest than the current drug patent monopoly scandal, which is inefficient at advancing vital research and leaves many millions struggling to afford unnecessarily costly prescription drugs.

Thugnificently

In his own (admittedly questionable) way, Thugnificent wasn’t a sucker for the pharmaceutical industry’s tricks. You shouldn’t be a sucker for their tricks either. [Image is from S3E12 of The Boondocks.]