The cost of Developing new drugs

Everyday living
46

Er… no. You have not cleared up any misunderstanding for the simple reason that you still haven’t clarified your logic behind, or provided evidence to support, your statement that the MSS gives money to drug companies.

Also, the fact that the proposal for the MSS to invest more money on research was only narrowly carried says absolutely nothing about why people voted in this way. I would happily bet my mortgage that you were one of a tiny number (perhaps even 1) who did this because they felt that the money would go to a drug company and/or end up bolstering a drug company’s profits.

47

I believe that the relevant expression here is “economical with the truth”.

In 2010 I voted against the MS Society providing more money for research - if it was at the expense of closing the respite care centres. That was the choice. A dichotomous choice between more money for research, and, closing the respite care centres. That the vote was apparently quite close, is an indication of how people felt about closing the respite care centres, and not neccessarily about funding for research

Since the centres have now been sold, or transferred, Society members cannot be asked to vote on the same proposition again.

So, Chris, we really do not know where you stand.

Geoff

48

Being in Australia I am not totally familiar with all the ins and outs of the UK MSS but the Australian MSS has similar issues regarding funding for research.

Being a not for profit charity means the MSS is limited in the amount of money available to them. And there will always be conflicting demands for the best use of that money.

MSS’s world wide are needing to balance the ability to offer direct support and assistance to those currently needing it against the need to support research into treatments that will improve MSers lives for all.

Personally I would be devastated if the research arm of the MSS was dropped. Without ongoing research how will we EVER find a way to effectively treat, prevent and cure this disease?

Due to a chronic shortage of funds MSS cannot fully fund all the research require so without the profit driven motivation of Pharmas where would the money come from?

Chris, your logic makes no sense. You don’t want MSS to fund research for fear of adding to the profit margins of pharmas (which you cannot substantiate anyway) and you also seem to have an axe to grind about the capitalist economy which drives all businesses.

Do you really see the best way forward as being that there is NO research at all into MS???

What other alternatives do you see to charity-funded research to academic institutions and pharmas running research for profit?

Belinda

50

lang=“EN”>The amazing thing is, there was a post a couple of weeks back, regarding MS help cards. I made a comment that these cards would be better, if they were user specific with an ID photo. Which a number agreed would be a good idea.

I realised that such a scheme would have an admin cost, so offered my services as a volunteer to carry out this admin work from home, which would then only involve the MS Society, with a nominal cost, which could be paid by the person requesting the card.

Did this evoke any response, from other members of the forum or the MS Society, no, of course not.

Chris R.

I. El. (Eng). (Rtd).

[/quote] DEVIATION! Can you stick to the point please. Substantiate your claim that the MSS funds drug companies, or if you can’t then withdraw the allegation.

51

Chris, the AGM you refer to was the 2010 one where the resolution was

"5.7 Increasing research expenditure

Members’ resolution

Proposed by: Sean Gibson

MS Society interim Northern Irish council member

Seconded by: Anthony Wiggins

The Board should seek to continue to increase investment in research and not be bound to spend a set percentage of the Society’s income on research each year.

Sean Gibson proposed this resolution, and Anthony Wiggins also spoke in support.

John Miller, Trustee, responded on behalf of the Board of Trustees in favour of this resolution.

Result of the Ballot

For: 5568 Against: 741

This resolution was declared as carried"

Chris, again I quote you, "I understand that this proposal was only narrowly carried, so I say again there must be a great number of MS Society members, who voted the same as me."

Umm, NO Chris only 13% people voted against increasing funding. A whopping 87% voted FOR incresed funding. Bit of a landslide in favour of the MSS funding research wouldn’t you say?

Do tell the truth…

Belinda

52

[quote=“HKFooey”] lang=“EN”>The amazing thing is, there was a post a couple of weeks back, regarding MS help cards. I made a comment that these cards would be better, if they were user specific with an ID photo. Which a number agreed would be a good idea.

I realised that such a scheme would have an admin cost, so offered my services as a volunteer to carry out this admin work from home, which would then only involve the MS Society, with a nominal cost, which could be paid by the person requesting the card.

Did this evoke any response, from other members of the forum or the MS Society, no, of course not.

Chris R.

I. El. (Eng). (Rtd).

[/quote] DEVIATION! Can you stick to the point please. Substantiate your claim that the MSS funds drug companies, or if you can’t then withdraw the allegation.[/quote]

Ok here we go, the same statement but re worded if this will make you happy, but I don’t know why I am bothering.

I am against the MS Society, funding research to who ever that organisation might be, when I consider that this is also being carried out commercially, therefore duplicating the same work.

The motivation to carry out this work commercially. The first company to find a cure/prevention for MS, then virtually has a licence to print money.

Right or wrong, this is my opinion, and I consider I am entitled to it.

Deviation

No, it was to make a point of how inconsistent this forum is, with response to different topics.

This is no more a deviation than the comment, regarding the closure / removal of funding by the MS Society, for respite care homes, wish I had thought of that one. As I read it that was another vote against money for research.

To answer another question, no I am not against the capitalist system, I was in management for a number of years, and the only way for me to get paid a decent income / bonus, at the end of the financial year was to make a good level of profit for the company, by what ever means. So to repeat, I have no problem with a capitalist system.

Chris R.

I. El. (Eng). (Rtd).

Sorry there is only a quote to one post, dont know how to do multiple quotes.

53

I have to bow to your greater knowledge, regarding these figures, I did not have access to this information,

87% to carry the motion, 13% against is a convincing number, but 13% is still a great number of members, against, but it looks as If I am one of a few that are prepared to stand up and be counted.

Right or wrong, I stand by my decision.

Chris R.

I. El. (Eng). (Rtd).

54

If you didn’t have access to the information why post yet more unsubstantiated claims?
Stick to the facts. If you don’t have the facts, research them. I did. That is why I have “greater knowledge” than you, it isn’t difficult with Google…

Belinda

55

Oh dear, oh dear, Chris,

You really do not have any idea how research is funded in this country, do you? Most research is funded directly by government (usually through one of their Agencies) or indirectly via one of the Research Councils. In either case, the very first question that will be asked is: “Is anyone else doing this work?”, followed by “Has anyone else just done this?”. In either case, there is a huge amount of work to be done in preparation for the bid for a grant, and that grant will probably not be forthcoming. Some is funded by the EU, in which case all the foregoing applies.A small amount is funded by the relevant Societies (eg MSS, BHF, etc) and i would imagine that they have a set of criteria that are just as hard before they will even part with a penny. The comment about “duplicating the same work” just indicates your lack of exposure to the research funding process.

If a pharmaceutical company - large or small - decides to reinvest a large amount of its profit into research so that it may develop a new product, which may help it stay in business, then I say “Good Luck”. Good luck, because they will still need this to stay in business. Take a litle time to research (ie Google) some of the companies listed at the start of this thread, and you will find out how many of them did not go on making huge profits year after year - and ended up being taken over.

I go with whammel on the marketing methods that some of the big firms use, and would add that I believe that their HR policies are just as bad. But, it is not just the big pharmaceutical companies that are like this. The Kraft Foods takeover of Cadbury will make a nice example of this (that is, unless you worked for Cadbury).

If, of course, if you can substantiate your claim that the MSS has funded research that was also being carried out commercially, then that would appear to be a clear misuse of MSS funds and should be made public. Your call …

Geoff

56

Funny, is it not, that the vote about research funding (you know the one - 87% for research, 13% against) was in the same AGM as the one that I quoted about about closing the respite care homes -vs- research funding. Now I consider that to have been a vote against the withdrawal of funding from the respite care homes. That Is my opinion and I have just as much right to it as you have to yours.

If you consider that the forum response is inconsistent with regard to different topics, then you should accept that this is a function of the differences in member interests. Otherwise, how do you explain the difference in the votes on the two propositions in the 2010 AGM?

Geoff