Patented Vitamins

[PainRack]

The standard argument against critics of supplementation is that you can't patent natural products.
Balls.

http://www.niaspan.com/

Patented Vitamin B.

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080207748
http://www.lifezone.com/
(I think this is the same patent, but I'm not very sure. Nevertheless, the company DOES provide patented Vitamin C.)

http://www.chemocare.com/bio/atra.asp
ATRA is nothing more than Vitamin A modified by SCIENCE.

BTW, with regards to side effects, I would like everyone to see this
http://www.drugs.com/cdi/tretinoin.html
Yeah. So, apparently, the acid component of Vitamin A is a tetragon.

I know there is a patent out for Vitamin D... but can't find anything other than this.
http://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Science-Un ... B0008DCS4A

As can be seen clearly, the profit motives of Big Pharma knows no bounds. Those fiends.....

[Ziggy Stardust]

So ... wait, what this in response to something? I honestly have no idea what you are mumbling about.

[Oskuro]

Mumblings about Big Pharma and a lot of links about drugs. I think his motivation is self-evident

[Admiral Valdemar]

Patented formulations? That's CRAZY!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

He's referring to the fact that alternative health people claim that the reason their wonder cures aren't used as drugs is because big pharma can't patent them since they're natural, which is, as he showed, completely false.

[PainRack]

So ... wait, what this in response to something? I honestly have no idea what you are mumbling about.

I recently.... well, ok, two weeks ago got hit again with the same argument that the only reason why nobody is advocating research into cancer fighting vitamins is because they CAN"T be patented.

Its balls. As can be clearly seen, the tentacles of Big Pharma extends everywhere. Sooner or later, they're going to patent prune juice for its anti-constipation effects, mark my words.:D:D:D:D

ATRA is a beef of mine because months ago, a Singaporean poster on another forum made the claim "what if scientists found out that vitamin C could cure cancer, do you think the doctors, drug companies would use it?"
This even though I just pointed out to him two posts ago that Vitamin A is used to treat APL. I wonder what would have happened if I pointed out the side effects......

[higbvuyb]

So, what is actually being patented here?
The use of the substance? The formulation? Something specific to their product?
It would be pretty hilarious if you could sue someone for eating more food with niacin in it because someone patented using it to treat X.

[Atlan]

The standard argument against critics of supplementation is that you can't patent natural products.
Balls.
-SNIP BULLSHIT-

At least one of those is a patent for a release and penetration mechanism, allowing vitamin C to better penetrate cell walls, and stay active longer in the blood without oxidizing. Of course they're gonna patent that, dumbass.

They didn't patent vitamin C itself.

As for the modified vitamins, why not patent them? Somebody had a bright idea, worked on it, and made it happen. Hard work went into those. It's not like it's the "natural, original" vitamin they're patenting. They're patenting the modifications.

But apparently Big Pharma is out to own your ignorant ass.

[Redleader34]

A good example is Aspirin. Aspirin is a drug that had its patent expire when my GRANDMOTHER was a young child, and yet Bayer still has commercials, on NATIONAL TELEVISION for it even today. If the thing works, they will push it forever, and ever.

[Admiral Valdemar]

A good example is Aspirin. Aspirin is a drug that had its patent expire when my GRANDMOTHER was a young child, and yet Bayer still has commercials, on NATIONAL TELEVISION for it even today. If the thing works, they will push it forever, and ever.

Anyone would think Big Pharma were a charity. They are not, and contrary to the blatherings about people who point at retarded pharma advertising in the US, the industry is up shit creek with respect to NCEs, which is why there's a mad dash to biopharmaceuticals. Getting as many pennies from the fundamentals of the market doesn't hurt anyone. There's only so much innovation one can do e.g. look at Pfizer still peddling that Viagra shit. It made them a world player all on its own.

It's not like we don't see this exact practise elsewhere in other industries. Intel doesn't have a monopoly on multiple core processing, but it won't stop them claiming how revolutionary their chips are. Energy efficient programming in combustion engines? Better believe Toyota and BMW will push their totally unique systems there.

So long as no one is pushing something like patenting natural compounds that require no R&D input or have already been out in the public domain since time immemoria, then this is perfectly fine. The mugs who buy into REVOLUTIONARY SUPER TURBO VITAMIN C+ IV are the people who P.T. Barnum talked at length on.

Given some of the hilariously ineffective shit I've been analysing lately, I'll be surprised if the whole industry doesn't say fuck it and go with homoeopathy from now on. But it'd make me cry myself to sleep.

[PainRack]

At least one of those is a patent for a release and penetration mechanism, allowing vitamin C to better penetrate cell walls, and stay active longer in the blood without oxidizing. Of course they're gonna patent that, dumbass.

They didn't patent vitamin C itself.

As for the modified vitamins, why not patent them? Somebody had a bright idea, worked on it, and made it happen. Hard work went into those. It's not like it's the "natural, original" vitamin they're patenting. They're patenting the modifications.

But apparently Big Pharma is out to own your ignorant ass.

I was thinking about IV Vitamin C when I said that.
Furthermore, you utterly missed the point. The argument proposed is that because vitamins and supplements are unprofitable because they can't be patented, drug companies will refuse to sponsor research or actually sell such items.

Niaspan shows that this is an utterly bollocks argument. Geez, selling vitamin B to lower cholesterol and prevent heart attacks...... what does THAT mean? Oooh. And its PATENTED.

[PainRack]

Anyone would think Big Pharma were a charity. They are not, and contrary to the blatherings about people who point at retarded pharma advertising in the US, the industry is up shit creek with respect to NCEs, which is why there's a mad dash to biopharmaceuticals. Getting as many pennies from the fundamentals of the market doesn't hurt anyone. There's only so much innovation one can do e.g. look at Pfizer still peddling that Viagra shit. It made them a world player all on its own.

It's not like we don't see this exact practise elsewhere in other industries. Intel doesn't have a monopoly on multiple core processing, but it won't stop them claiming how revolutionary their chips are. Energy efficient programming in combustion engines? Better believe Toyota and BMW will push their totally unique systems there.

So long as no one is pushing something like patenting natural compounds that require no R&D input or have already been out in the public domain since time immemoria, then this is perfectly fine. The mugs who buy into REVOLUTIONARY SUPER TURBO VITAMIN C+ IV are the people who P.T. Barnum talked at length on.

Given some of the hilariously ineffective shit I've been analysing lately, I'll be surprised if the whole industry doesn't say fuck it and go with homoeopathy from now on. But it'd make me cry myself to sleep.

I guess the problem is whether new forms of regulations should be promoted so that both efficiency and fairness exists. Frankly, I would argue that a revamp of patent law to licensing would be more competitive and remove the monopoly grip of new drugs, while allowing researchers and companies to benefit from actually doing the research.

So, you get a new drug out on the market, whoopee, the company/uni/insitution that researched it gets to auction various licenses to produce and sell said drug in various markets(US market goes to Merck, Euro goes to Pfizer).....

Afterall, isn't competitiveness= lowering entry barriers? A much better idea than weakening current regulatory and FDA laws regarding Clinical Phase III trials.

[montypython]

Criticizing the relative investment level of stuff like malarial vaccines by Big Pharma is a much more legitimate criticism than saying Vitamins are ignored/downplayed because of patent issues.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I guess the problem is whether new forms of regulations should be promoted so that both efficiency and fairness exists. Frankly, I would argue that a revamp of patent law to licensing would be more competitive and remove the monopoly grip of new drugs, while allowing researchers and companies to benefit from actually doing the research.

So, you get a new drug out on the market, whoopee, the company/uni/insitution that researched it gets to auction various licenses to produce and sell said drug in various markets(US market goes to Merck, Euro goes to Pfizer).....

Afterall, isn't competitiveness= lowering entry barriers? A much better idea than weakening current regulatory and FDA laws regarding Clinical Phase III trials.

You can get instances where a new drug compound is produced while the older generation is made generic i.e. Escitalopram being an improved formulation worthy of a new patent, while citalopram expires and is made by everyone else now. Patents in the US, where most drugs are patented anyway, could do with a total overhaul, not just in pharma. However, as I say, the FDA will grant extensions on unique products if they find the company cannot recoup the cost over the usual ten year licence.

In general, though, reducing red tape won't change the playing field much. There are few companies that can afford to work in the industry of drug discovery, it's about as expensive and specialised as nuclear technology or advanced microprocessors, so it's not like every little start up will get in on the action.

[Jalinth]

So, you get a new drug out on the market, whoopee, the company/uni/insitution that researched it gets to auction various licenses to produce and sell said drug in various markets(US market goes to Merck, Euro goes to Pfizer).....

Afterall, isn't competitiveness= lowering entry barriers? A much better idea than weakening current regulatory and FDA laws regarding Clinical Phase III trials.

I don't follow your entire argument here. But the entire purpose of patents is to set-up barriers of entry via a government enforced monopoly. The system is designed to allow those who do the basic and/or applied research to reap enough benefits to encourage others to do the same. Whether the current trade-off makes sense is another matter, but the basic premise is important since reproducing a drug is trivial compared to the cost of the initial research.

My biggest beef isn't with patents (barring the whole concept of a business patent. Just because someone uses a computer to do something for the first time doesn't make it automatically "innovative" and deserving of a monopoly) but with copyrights. Right now, they can let someone's great-great grandchildren continue to earn royalty income. Not sure this really provides any incentive for the next genius playwright/composer/writer/artist to produce any more works than they'd otherwise do and prevents works from coming into the public domain. I think the unofficial US name for the life plus 70 years was the Mickey Mouse Revenue Enhancement bill.