Schering-Plough Corp. (SGP)

All Comments on SGP

  • commenter
    truthinvesti
    ng
    Jun 03 06:24 AM
    My Website
    Saut: It's Time to Reduce 'Stuff' Stocks, Buy High Yielders [view article]
    Altria's 5.3% dividend is powerful here Reply
  • commenter
    BioInvestor
    Jun 01 05:23 AM
    My Website
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    d_teller, there's so much to address in your post--a lot of isn't accurate!

    First off, I am not talking about food or pet products; I am talking about branded drugs. For the most part, these are manufactured in the US or Canada. About 80% of active ingredients for drugs come from overseas; closer to 90% of intermediates or the chemical building blocks for those drugs are imported. A large percentage of "generic drugs," with the exception of those regulated by DEA, are imported. Pet food, toothpaste and macromolecules are a different issue.

    Interestingly, major pharma has started to shut down manufacturing capacity. So, it's likely that, in the future, a greater percentage of active ingredients will be imported.

    My guess is that when you state that the FDA and USDA aren't up to the moral challenge of their charters, you're just expressing a personal opinion without supporting evidence for the claim.

    I don't understand the reference to AAOAC. Pharmaceutical companies or contract manufacturers create the quality requirements for intermediates or active ingredients, assuming there is nothing in the USP. If you meant to say AOAC, that professional body doesn't have any statutory authority. Analytical chemists in pharma tend to be members of the ACS rather than the AOAC. AOAC doesn’t set mandatory standards.

    A blanket statement about carrying out GC-MS doesn't make sense. GC-MS isn't able to address all problems. There needs to be a scientific rational for testing; it doesn’t make sense to talk about GC-MS as a blanket approach to guard against “doping.”

    I assume that you don't have evidence to support the claim of pharma companies "sequestered"... natural treatments. If it’s a rant, that’s fine. If it’s meant to be serious, then the statement sounds like nonsense. I'd be interested in hearing any evidence to support some of the claims that were made. What exactly is a "systematic standards base"?

    You have some (actually perhaps all!) of your facts wrong on the topic PMA lobbying group. You might have meant the PhRMA. The person who heads that association actually retired from the House and not the Senate. Rather than "torpedo" the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, he actually worked to move the legislation through the House. He was a very strong supporter of the Bill.     Reply
  • commenter
    d_teller
    May 31 08:37 PM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    To BioInvestor...the pet food and heparin that caused so many deaths were "branded"... and so was the "fake" Colgate that contained a diethylene glycol as a sweetener. Neither the FDA or the USDA is up to the moral challenge of their charters, so it behooves the intermediate importer to spec. and test, beyond what AAOAC requires, because "smart & greedy" chemists overseas can pull a fast one, when the test is indirect. I would require GC-MassSpec for any intermediate, to prevent doping.

    With regard to the Rx companies' spending on R&D vs Marketing & Lobbying, there are many natural treatments that don't have a systematic standards base...and a lot were sequestered by Big Pharma, because they couldn't isolate and rebrand the "active" intermediate. In other cases, they bought the company - or researcher - and shut them up...which might be "good business", but like hiring the guy who torpedoed the Medicare Rx plan and then retired from the Senate, and is now head of the PMA lobbying group...it's not very ethical.

    Reply
  • commenter
    BioInvestor
    May 31 01:20 AM
    My Website
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    Here are a few observations on the discussion. Reduction of the time to market is certainly a concern for pharma and elimination of candidates earlier is an inviting goal. The problem here is that, for all the discussion on the topic, not a lot seems to been done to accomplish this goal. Put another way, productivity in the field has dropped over the past few years. Productivity can be measured by a return on the investment as measured by marketed drugs.

    Drug discovery is essentially a multi-variant problem that has to be approached in a linear fashion. The real value would be to work on technologies that extract much more information earlier. While rational drug design sounds inviting—and I am a fan—there are precious few examples of drugs brought to market that have really followed this approach.

    The comment on DeCode Genetics is, at best, confusing. On a related topic, I had great hope for the knock-out mice companies. To date, at least, this area has been disappointing, but I remain hopeful. Identifying a gene is important, but that’s only a starting point: there are a few more steps involved—pretty complicated steps—before a drug can be produced. I don’t understand the reference to both Genentech and Amgen. For what it’s worth, both companies follow a similar drug discovery/development paradigm as the legacy pharmaceutical companies, albeit with macro instead of small molecules. However, interestingly, both companies have, in the past few years, introduced small molecules into the pipeline.

    There’s no question that many drug candidates come from both government labs and academe. In fact, if you go back and look at the pipeline of BMS for the past fifteen or more years, the company has pretty much discovered nothing: academe and federal labs has been the friend of the company. It is, however, important not to overemphasize the role of government labs. They often get candidates off the blocks; the main expense in development, scale-up, etc. is carried out by the company which licensed the drug.

    With regard to the comment on generics, I guess the poster is asking why big pharma just doesn’t lower the price to compete with generic competition. It is an appropriate marketing response; however, it seems that pharma companies what to compete on some form of differentiation—brandi... than on price. Legacy pharma sometimes enters into manufacturing agreements with companies that produce a generic version of a branded drug.

    Regarding the equivalence of a generic to the original drug, it is true that they are not the “same.” They are similar. There are a few requirements, but the big issue is bioavailability, which has to be +/-20%. The drug—the active ingredient—has to match the impurity profile of the original. However, the synthetic route can be different, which isn’t a huge issue. The big problem for me is how the FDA handles the manufacture of generic versions of drugs, specifically, if these active ingredients are manufactured overseas. A lot of people are picking on China right now—sometimes unfairly. In the drug industry, the average time between FDA inspections of a US production facility is just over two years; it’s over thirty years in China. There’s an interesting presentation on the issue on the GAO website. I seldom need to take drugs, but, having read company inspection reports from overseas facilities, I insist on branded drugs—not only for me, but for my dogs!     Reply
  • commenter
    AJ30
    May 30 12:23 PM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    I am also told that sometimes generics do not exactly parallel the original in aspects such as absorbtion by the body. Is this true? Reply
  • commenter
    AJ30
    May 30 12:20 PM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    I cannot understand why "Big Pharma" doesn't just start making a generic of their own, at the normally knocked-down price for generics. This would quickly flatten their generic compettitors. They could still market the original for as long as it lasts.
    Reply
  • commenter
    DB, MD
    May 30 08:16 AM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    I find it humorous how many of the posts above consider big pharma to be the low profit, risky businesses. This is an industry that spends collectively 12% on R&D and 30% on marketing. It is an industry that pushes out drug after drug for hypertension when there are already over 50 drugs that accomplish the task well, because even capturing 1% of the market will pay off on the low R&D required for a "me-too" drug.

    You have drug reps flooding physician offices pushing one "me-too" after another. This is a recipe for disaster when the industry chooses to reinvest into marketing crap and into being the largest lobby in Washington rather than on truly innovating. More money is likely spent on lawyers fighting expiration of patents than on problem-solving, as this adds more to the bottom line.     Reply
  • commenter
    Sh
    May 30 03:14 AM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    All the numbers listed above are known facts. Pharmaceutical industry is facing tremendous challenge never seen before. High risk along with low return is keeping investors from putting more money into pharmaceuticl section. To develop a drug could take 10 years. Not so many people have these kinds of patience. After entering into market, generic competition is anothe serious issue. There is a limited time period that the exclusivity can be granted. After the patent is experied, generic drug could compete with much more advantages especially lower prices. No single drug could dominate forever. For example, Zantac used to be the no. 1 selling drug in the world until 1993. Now Lipitor from Pfizer the best selling drug with an annual sales of $13 billions. After 2011, the revenue could be plumpted since the generic will be available. Which drug will be the biggest blockbuster? A CNS drug or a metabolic drug? It's not clear yet. To get a new dug is more difficult that ever. First, the bar for innovation is higher than before. To meet unmet medical needs, a truely innovative medicine is required. There are only limited chances left including cancer therapy, diabetic disease and neurologic illness. Almost all the major biotech and pharme companies are focusing on these areas. Any breakthrough could result in a money making blockbuster. But this has never been an easy case. The recent withdrawal of several medicines indicates we can't just focus on the therapeutic efficacy anymore. The toxicity is more important than anything else. The bar is much higher. To get a nice drug is going to be more and more challenging. As a scientist focusing on finding new drugs, I feel I am obligated to devote myself to this research just like many other scientists. It can be highly rewarding if someday I can find a drug to help many people who need the help most. All I can say as a human being, we all want to contribute a little to the whole human being. We might nor succeed to generate a good medicine in our lifetime, but the knowledge could be useful for the next generation. We can pass on there useful technology and knowledge to the next generation though we might not benefit ourselves. We might need take a step back in order to move one step forward. Just don't give up during the time of hardship. Also finding truely innovative medicine depends on serendipity. One guy said luck is more important than smart to find a drug. I fully agree. With all the technology available, we still couldn't be very successful. It's not we are not smart. Probably it's because we are not lucky. But please lose your faith in pharmaceutical industry since it's not just making profits. Serving is equally important. I make a few suggestions to everyone who cares the pharm industry:
    Work smart, keep good faith in yourself, admire what we are doing.
    My final word is we are doing good.     Reply
  • commenter
    Neers87
    May 29 07:55 PM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    "'try a million combinations of everything' approach to drug development traditionally followed by big pharma."

    Exactly my point! Drug modeling allows this approach to be teased out with significant reductions in time and obviously expense.

    As for "Enter Biotech and rational drug design", Agreed!!! And big pharma is well positioned financially as the young limber unencumbered companies will need partners to bring these entities to market. Much like the NIH as mentioned above. Think AZ-MedImmune.


    Disclosure: Long AZ     Reply
  • commenter
    JW, PhD
    May 29 06:33 PM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    As a researcher I can safely reply to DB, that the cost of drugs like the one mentioned for Gaucher's disease (a niche illness) must be passed on to consumers due to the great expense incurred by big pharma during clinical trials. I don't doubt that NIH and other taxpayer-funded R&D contribute greatly to the discovery process, but they don't typically have the financial resources to "prove" that a new compound is efficacious and safe enough to be used in the population at large. Reply
  • commenter
    DB, MD
    May 29 02:57 PM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    As a physician I can safely reply to CLH, that the theft is more often the other way around. Typically, the researchers at NIH will develop a compound, prove it works and then license it to a pharma company. Case in point look at the treatment of Gaucher's disease, yearly treatment cost over $100K, for a treatment developed by public research. Reply
  • commenter
    CLH
    May 29 01:33 PM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    Thanks for showing people how difficult finding new drugs is. I guess thats why the gov is unable to do anything but steal from industry. Reply
  • commenter
    home
    May 29 01:12 PM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    DeCode Genetics makes more genetic discoveries than the rest of the world combined. Gene discoveries lead to better transgenic animals that exhibit human diseases. These better transgenic mice lead to the root causes of many diseases.
    These genetic discoveries have led to DeCode develop a new drug that's better than Plavix. More exciting genetic discoveries by others include Genentech and Amgen.
    This has changed the way pharmaceuticals develop compounds and will lead to better drugs for all mankind.     Reply
  • commenter
    impeder
    May 29 11:35 AM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    The root of this problem is the FDA. Like OSHA, they are a federal agency completely out of touch with reality. If someone has a terminal illness, they don't need the same level of protection from harmful side effects as a person being treated for Erectile Disfunction which, if we we believe the drug industry, affects half the population (presumably the male half!) Reply
  • commenter
    Marusa
    May 29 10:21 AM
    Pharmaceutical Facts Investors Should Know [view article]
    I notice they didn't mention marketing expenses. I wonder how the marketing number would compare to R&D? Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: