![]() |
Originally Posted by enigmaT120
(Post 17254425)
Since one of the symptoms of depression is the lack of desire to do anything, how is a depressed person going to start exercising? I get a mental picture of picking yourself up by the scruff of your own neck.
But just like being sedentary creates its own momentum, so does making that choice to get out and get active. Once you do it a few times, ideally, it becomes self sustaining. Or worst, once you hit rock bottom in your depression, and you'll try anything to get out of it, that can spur you to get active too |
Originally Posted by jyl
(Post 17255776)
Antibiotics are used in sick people. They are profitable drugs and being actively developed. There was a lull in new antibiotic drug development, because the existing ones worked fine. That is changing.
|
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 17255815)
Actually, they're not profitable (not even close) and no they're not being actively developed as they result in huge losses as they're not used in chronic patients (10-14 days max on a €1-5B investment leads to crappy fiscal returns.) Over here, the only viable solution being discussed is nationalised screening and production.
FWIW, this is my current major research avenue. |
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott
(Post 17256656)
Is it true that governments (such as mine) also put price caps on antibiotics, so there's even less motive to develop them? That's what I heard somewhere.
|
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 17256674)
Honestly, the time course is way to short to recover the initial investment. Chronic diseases are much more profitable. Currently, a large chunk of my research is dedicated to clever methods to reduce those costs.
|
I have strong opinions on how a health care system should be run, just like everyone else here. But this thread might get moved into P&R soon if we keep it up.
But as far as the original post goes, there's no question about excercise being a good thing. One good way tobreak the vicious circle is to get yourself in a situation where you have absolutely no choice (like going car-free by junking your car). |
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 17255815)
Actually, they're not profitable (not even close) and no they're not being actively developed as they result in huge losses as they're not used in chronic patients (10-14 days max on a €1-5B investment leads to crappy fiscal returns.) Over here, the only viable solution being discussed is nationalised screening and production.
FWIW, this is my current major research avenue. US companies are doing okay on antibiotics. CBST (using stock tickers here) does $1BN sales and $200MM operating income, almost all of their business is antibiotics (daptomycin) and if you take out the R&D spend for their next antibiotic programs, the daptomycin business is very profitable. Antibiotic drug development is fairly inexpensive compared to many other drug classes. TSRX developed tedozolid through phase 3 clinical trials for $280MM total spend over 5 years, maybe 2/3 of that was actual R&D. This is because the clinical trials are relatively short (1-2 weeks dosing), not very large (few hundred patients), and success rates not too bad (if a drug succeeds in phase 1, odds decent for success in phase 2, etc). TTPH is valued at $720MM and DRTX at $650MM, both have antibiotic drugs in development. The generic drug companies make decent profits on generic antibiotics here. The US has increased incentives to develop new antibiotics - fast track approval by FDA, extended patent life. In general, drug development/sales is much less profitable in Europe than in the US. In the US, drugs are priced much higher than in Europe. US profits largely subsidize drug development for Europe and the rest of the world. The US arguably overpays for drugs, the rest of the world arguably underpays. At the same time, the US really overuses antibiotics. Human medical use isn't even the biggest problem. Antibiotics are regularly used in meat animal production, in animals (chickens, hogs, etc) that are not sick. The most profitable areas for drug companies here (in the US) are chronic diseases (diabetes, etc), cancer ($100,000 drug cost per course of treatment isn't unusual), and orphan diseases (get 2,000 patients with a rare genetic disease and charge $250,000 per year). |
Originally Posted by jyl
(Post 17256814)
Maybe a difference between Europe and the US.
US companies are doing okay on antibiotics. CBST (using stock tickers here) does $1BN sales and $200MM operating income, almost all of their business is antibiotics (daptomycin) and if you take out the R&D spend for their next antibiotic programs, the daptomycin business is very profitable. Antibiotic drug development is fairly inexpensive compared to many other drug classes. TSRX developed tedozolid through phase 3 clinical trials for $280MM total spend over 5 years, maybe 2/3 of that was actual R&D. This is because the clinical trials are relatively short (1-2 weeks dosing), not very large (few hundred patients), and success rates not too bad (if a drug succeeds in phase 1, odds decent for success in phase 2, etc). TTPH is valued at $720MM and DRTX at $650MM, both have antibiotic drugs in development. The generic drug companies make decent profits on generic antibiotics here. The US has increased incentives to develop new antibiotics - fast track approval by FDA, extended patent life. In general, drug development/sales is much less profitable in Europe than in the US. In the US, drugs are priced much higher than in Europe. US profits largely subsidize drug development for Europe and the rest of the world. The US arguably overpays for drugs, the rest of the world arguably underpays. At the same time, the US really overuses antibiotics. Human medical use isn't even the biggest problem. Antibiotics are regularly used in meat animal production, in animals (chickens, hogs, etc) that are not sick. The most profitable areas for drug companies here (in the US) are chronic diseases (diabetes, etc), cancer ($100,000 drug cost per course of treatment isn't unusual), and orphan diseases (get 2,000 patients with a rare genetic disease and charge $250,000 per year). Here's a recent newspaper article stating £550M (or around $1B) which is optimistically low. New antibiotics are a matter of life or death - Telegraph No interest in generics as they're dead in the water already. |
OK, that's it. It's time for me to schedule in some fun rides for myself, for this purpose. I almost never get on my bike just for the sake of it, because I feel undeserving, if that's the word for it. I ride for transportation mostly, and that's fun, and it's good for my mood, but I need more. Not only that, getting away from the rest of life can give me a fresh and brave perspective for when I get back to it.
|
Originally Posted by enigmaT120
(Post 17254425)
Since one of the symptoms of depression is the lack of desire to do anything, how is a depressed person going to start exercising? I get a mental picture of picking yourself up by the scruff of your own neck.
|
If you're depressed while you're riding your bicycle then a) you've got a bad case and b) you're not pedaling hard enough.
|
Originally Posted by enigmaT120
(Post 17254425)
Since one of the symptoms of depression is the lack of desire to do anything, how is a depressed person going to start exercising? I get a mental picture of picking yourself up by the scruff of your own neck.
- Andy |
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 17256873)
Those numbers seem extremely low ... I'd be surprised if total cost through trails was lower than £1B (or $1.6B).
Here's a recent newspaper article stating £550M (or around $1B) which is optimistically low. New antibiotics are a matter of life or death - Telegraph No interest in generics as they're dead in the water already. Can also pull opex spend for TTPH ($160MM last 5 years, and they've started phase 3 trials, first will have data mid 2015 so total opex throgh phase 3 data will be <$250MM) and DRTX ($220MM last 5 years, got its antibiotic through all clinical trials and filed in Europe/US with approval expected mid 2015). I don't know who is spending $1BN to develop an antibiotic - maybe big dysfunctional bureaucratic pharma companies would. Increasingly their model is to let small lean companies do the development, and then buy those companies for about $600-700MM after the drugs are successful in phase 3 trials and look ready for approval. I guess you could that that antibiotic development thus costs $600-700MM, since that's what the big pharma pays to buy the small company. But at that point the drug is largely derisked and less than a year from commercial launch, which is so much better than spending big money for the chance to fail 3 or 5 years down the line. And these small companies and their drugs keep getting snapped up, so the big pharma companies clearly expect profits. |
Originally Posted by jyl
(Post 17257440)
Those are the right numbers for TSRX - pulled from their financials. I'm involved in investing in (err, trading) drug stocks, and we owned TSRX during most of that period, they didn't have any major R&D expense off the income statement.
I mean novel as in novel mechanism of action. Anyone can make an analogue of an already existing family. edit: I do like Cubist as a company though. |
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 17257457)
Yes, but it's just a derivative of an already existing class. That's not particularly useful as it's based off a 2002 compound from AZ.
I mean novel as in novel mechanism of action. Anyone can make an analogue of an already existing family. edit: I do like Cubist as a company though. |
Originally Posted by jyl
(Post 17257643)
Point taken, but the non-novel antibiotics work for their purpose, cure rates are high, and they will be profitable.
Personally, I think they're a waste of limited resources, as do most other bacteriologists. |
Diet in staying fit, is so good for your mind and body.
Keeping your life balanced, is the key to staying happy and positive/bike riding/working out/running to name a few X |
Originally Posted by KYMISTWALKER
(Post 17257677)
Diet in staying fit, is so good for your mind and body.
Keeping your life balanced, is the key to staying happy and positive/bike riding/working out/running to name a few X |
All this debating about drugs is depressing.
|
Originally Posted by AbsurdChalk
(Post 17257712)
All this debating about drugs is depressing.
|
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 17257741)
Seriously, you should be concerned. This is perhaps the only metric that the UK is leading on the planet and it's absolutely critical for our long-term survival as **** sapiens. Until 5 years ago, extraplanet colonisation was at the top of my list, but this has escalated beyond this, although what's going on in the states right now toward extraterrestrial inhabitation is very impressive with privately funded firms.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by AbsurdChalk
(Post 17257784)
Bicycle rides are nice.
However, default mode is a bicycle as seen in this photo ... so I don't think bike rides are going anywhere. (Third person from left is on a bicycle.) http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=414569 |
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 17257812)
Everyone should should enjoy them while they can.
However, default mode is a bicycle as seen in this photo ... so I don't think bike rides are going anywhere. (Third person from left is on a bicycle.) http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=414569 |
Originally Posted by AbsurdChalk
(Post 17257821)
Everyone should enjoy.
not possible ... life is a zero-sum game in the given local environmental, however, all boats rise with the tide of global economic prosperity. |
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 17257840)
o_O
not possible ... life is a zero-sum game in the given local environmental, however, all boats rise with the tide of global economic prosperity. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:17 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.