Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!Rob.Carr@f81.n129.z1.fidonet.org
From: Rob.Carr@f81.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Rob Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: AZT
Message-ID: <29322@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 18 Nov 89 21:35:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: shemp.29322
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/81 - NorthStar Pitt, Whitehall PA
Lines: 24
Approved: aids@cs.ucla.edu
Archive-number: 1490

I keep hearing criticisms of the drug companies regarding the cost of AZT,  
Pentamidine, or even some of the newer heart medicines.  Now my understanding  
of the whole business is that the initial price is high because the drug  
companies are attempting to recoup the cost of development and getting FDA  
approval.  If this were not done, then we'd never see a new drug because no one  
can afford it.
 
A buddy of mine, a nice guy in my opinion, invented a medical device. His  
accountant just gave him an estimate of the price this thing will go for.  He  
was horrified.  Now he can't afford to spend all the money for the trials and  
etc. out of his own pocket, but he doesn't think the thing has a decent market  
potential at the cost he would need to charge just to break even over the life  
of the patent.  So this rather nifty gadget (that I would like to have in my  
ambulance) may never see the light of day.  Who's fault is that?  My friend's,  
because he's not independantly wealthy, the FDA because they want to protect us  
from crap that doesn't work, or who's?
 
Is this truly the way it works with AZT, or is the company adding on?

65/7 103/501

--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!129!81!Rob.Carr
Internet: Rob.Carr@f81.n129.z1.fidonet.org