Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (17416)	7/13/2002 7:13:33 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Of course it's understandable that the drug companies wouldn't want to subsidize a med that patients could get cheaply when they have one that patients will have to pay an arm and a leg for. Companies sometimes buy the patent on competition meds (and other products) just to suppress them, I understand. But don't be surprised if they ignore you and also don't appreciate it. No one should be surprised, obviously. There ought to be some way out of the moral dilemma, though, of drug companies blocking research on competition drugs so that they are not available to the people who need them. How could the problem be addressed? I have no idea. Do you have any ideas? This phenomenon always amazes me: -minocycline significantly reduced joint swelling and tenderness in more than half of patients, although a dummy pill caused similar improvement in about 40 percent.- So the minocycline was only 11 or 12 percent more effective than a placebo! And the striking thing is that the placebo wasn't only effective for "tenderness," which is a subjective symptom, but also for "joint swelling," which was presumably measured objectively.