Ineffective modification of an existing drug as a means of extending the validity of a patent is a widespread practice. This was possibly not the case here. But given that we are tolerant of such practices and defend them, it comes as no surprise to me that an established drug on the market has no effect on the symptom that it was meant to address.
back
2 comments
How does it follow that questionable patents derived by making small changes to existing drugs leads to drugs that have no effect? I think that's begging the question.
I think you got me wrong. I didnt say that questionable patents lead to drugs that have no effect. Infact if you read it again you will find that I explicitly pointed to that possible misinterpretation.
My point was that in an environment where it is possible to extend the duration of a patent by adding modifications to the parent molecule that are known to have no benefit, it does not surprise me that a marketed drug has no benefit either. My point was about my lack of surprise, not a cause and effect relation.
The entirety of your comment:
"Ineffective modification of an existing drug as a means of extending the validity of a patent is a widespread practice. This was possibly not the case here. But given that we are tolerant of such practices and defend them, it comes as no surprise to me that an established drug on the market has no effect on the symptom that it was meant to address."
I only see your explicit admission that the first situation (questionable patents derived by making small changes to existing drugs) might not even apply in this case. You do not "point" to a "possible interpretation", you were breezily suggesting a lazy and fallacious connection.
Privileges granted that you disagree with are a different matter than scientific dishonesty. We could remove the whole issue of chemical-tweak patents on drugs by allowing perpetual drug patents, or by ruling that new drugs must be chemically different to some particular degree to not be covered by a patent (expired or not), or by abolishing drug patents entirely, and none of those solutions would imply anything as to the efficacy of future drugs or the trustworthiness of drug research.
I still dont see where I made the connection that you ascribe to me. Nevertheless if such a connection is indeed visible in my comments, thats probably my lack of native english skills showing. Suspecting that my comment might be misinterpreted, I attemped to prempt that. Apparently not very effectively. So let me try again:
We are tolerant of, or inadequately vigilant of ineffective drugs. One such sign can be seen in a particular apect of the patent system I described. Given this environment, it does not surprise me that a particular drug was found to be ineffective.
Your downvotes came with an explanation, which is better than silent downvotes.
Well the article discusses a different issue - the drug passes objective animal-based anti-depression tests with flying colours but, for an unknown reason, is ineffective on people. This raises the question of how we should objectively measure anti-depression efficacy.
Thats not the full story though. The article mentions that the manufacturers were aware of the fact that it was ineffective on humans and hid that data. Discrepancy in animal and human efficacy isnt new by any means, thats why drugs go through a protracted human tests.