So far this year, at least 180 drugs that are crucial for treating childhood leukemia, breast and colon cancer, infections and other diseases have been declared in short supply — a record number.

Prices for some have risen as much as eightyfold.

Therein lies the problem. Corporations are so incompetent and Greedy that the standards for quality are outweighed by the need for profit.

This could and should have been avoided.

Maybe the standards have changed. They often do.

Speculation without facts.

Speculation without facts? That matches up nicely with "Maybe the standards have changed."

What does that even mean?

Drugs, they're not just for the sick apparently.

This shortage points out the glaring fact that capitalism is not the end-all-be-all solution to all of the nation's problems. I will also accept the premise that government is not either after living for these last 58 years.

What I am sure of is that corporations are only concerned with profit and that limited liability and tort reform are bad things for this country because they make the people who profit from significant corporate ownership less accountable for the harms that are caused by poor management and unchecked greed.

Witchrunner, you nailed the issue. The solution proposed by the left to reduce health care costs is to reduce payments for care. This means payments to doctors, hospitals, medical device companies and yes evil pharmaceutical companies are forcibly reduced through price controls (such as formularies set up by Medicare/Medicaid). This is happening at the same time as a huge push by the left to force the FDA to increase oversight on those same companies. Both of these reduce the profitability of developing and manufacturing these drugs and devices.

Once a company no longer makes any money, they are no longer able to produce, develop new products or even stay in business.

The U.S. Pharma companies scream in unison when fingers are pointed at them. The fact of the matter is, the Pharma companies enjoy one best profit margins of most any other industry in the world. After expenses. Yes they spend millions and millions on research, testing, blah, blah blah. They don't like to mention their profits much though and only HAVE TOO tell us because it's required of them to do so if they are a Publically Traded company and have to reveal their profits and expenses to investors.

The government should pay the drug companies for these "orphan" drugs and produce them in government labs and production facilities so this sort of thing never happens. It SHOULDN'T happen. Especially in this country.

This shortage points out the glaring fact that capitalism is not the end-all-be-all solution to all of the nation's problems.

Nor is it the cause of them either.

I'm sure that the Socialist or Communist countries really are the workers paradise they say they are too.

Never a shortage of anything in those countries.

@witchrunner:

"Virtually all of the medical advancements of the past 5 decades have come from the US."

Can you back this up with some citations? And as mentioned coming from the us does not mean private cos, lots of public funds pay for research. And innovation is essential, but if it cannot be shared due to $$$ it is useless.

Didn't the article say that the other US producers were increasing capacity? And the largest supplier had quality issues and stopped production? The equipment to produce many of these drugs is complicated and expensive. Many are produces by E. Coli with a spliced gene, in large fermenters. When the batch is ready, the drug is rendered by a complex process. A small mistake can ruin a large and expensive quantity of a drug. This is rocket science folks and you don't want some slip shod company killing the patients you are trying to save. Give platelets at the Red Cross, they help cancer patients undergoing chemo. I did it 100 times.

Just curious here: Does anyone know what the "quality control" problems were at the plant that shut down in November? It's a rather nebulous term that could mean anything. No mention of what it is or if it is being addressed. Was it a real problem at the plant? If so, why not just address the issue and reopen it? Or, was it a problem resulting from the government changing the rules and they were forced to close because it didn't meet the new rules? It is funny how people jump to conclusions with so little or no facts.

My God you make it sound like they are just getting by......give me a break!

No, but their pricing is based on recouping their investment, as is EVERY business.

Your speculation had nothing to do with the article anyway.

except for the Salk polio vaccine, all drugs in the last 50 years were developed with NHI (fed. govt grants), and given to the drug company's free of charge; the drug company's were also given immunity from lawsuits, by the american taxpayer picking up the bill from any actions from the result of the drugs; that is still not enough, they want more money, the drug company's , all foreign owned , 90% foreign produced, immune from American taxes, liability and any loss, want more money, to pay their executives , some making several hundred million per year with bonus; put a end to this rip off, have America build it's own drug manufacturing facility's.

At least we still have plenty of Viagra for old white guys to sleep with women half thier age...

Coming from the old white guy..... LOL

Witchrunner, Thanks for keeping my viewpoint in check. All I have to do is understand that big pharma is entitled to make profits off dying people. And when they decide the profits should be more this year and then more next year I have to use reason and know that this is the way of business.....the job creators. People who cannot afford those medicines are probably a drain on society anyway and we'll adjust and be better off without them. snark.

How's that health care for profit thing working out now that your children are going to die because the drug companies can't make enough profit. To the idiot that said they need more than 7 year patents think about this Detroit makes hundreds of new models of cars for a profit every year. Guess where the new supplies are going to come from? Those awful countries with socialized medicine, Canada, England and France where health care is for patients and not for drug company profits. Wake up America before its too late. Socialize medical care now and vote against every encumbant in office.

Jack -- then you make the drug and assume the liability risks and pay for all of the massive costs associated with making such a difficult to produce drug and keep it safe and meet the demands of the FDA and a dozen other agencies. It's that easy, then anyone can do it, right? ... and at cost only, no profit, right? Of course, at that rate, that will be the LAST drug they bring to market, but who cares so long as it is made in mass quantity, at the highest standards, and for a dime a dozen doses. We'll worry about who will make future drugs in a market where there is no more profit motive, later.

Really ? - Sadly, anybody can throw out a number as fact without actually being right.

Patents in the US last 20 years ! Not 7. Granted, that is 20 years from invention, and then you add in about 8 years for clinical trials. But this is hardly 7 years of sales.

Government thinks that holding down costs sounds great. Until they realize that they just created 3 more problems that didn't occur before.

The President loves to talk about savings in Medicare waste of 200 billion etc, so they cut reimbursements to doctors for the 10 year budget projection. But they realize that if they did that doctors would quit. So in reality they don't actually make the cuts but advertise as if it is a savings for the next 10 years. They have been doing that for the last 8 years so it encompases both presidents.

I get heartburn a lot, I prefer pepcid complete. It's like a tums plus it shuts down more heartburn later. Obama's FDA has shut them down three times this year alone, because the individual lozenges had a variation i the active ingredient of over 3.2%. Come on, that ain't much. Meanwhile, if they build a factory in India, they avoid that rule. And everytime they get shut down, when they're not on the shelfs, more of thier market share goes to "equate" or whatever the store brand is.

I don't care for the government picking winners and losers in the market.

Dude's just bad for business, and that's just one thing...... really there's millions of stuff like that. What, The Prez picks what businesses will be successful???

That's the LAST thing we want, trust me.

Really?..... I'll stand by my informed comment on the major Pharma companies' profit and loss statements. I am a broad investor of U.S. and foreign stocks for almost thirty years. Most Pharma companies enjoy better than average profit and pricing margins. The ones that don't are either bought up or sold off. They make money. Real good money and they cry a river when their products go off brand. Like Pfizer's LIPITOR, which went generic at the end of November. Well before that happened, Pfizer was making plans to keep its stream of sales going. Pfizer bought Warner-Lambert and took total control of the drug who's sales topped over 130 BILLION DOLLARS during its lifetime run. ONE DRUG! So don't try to imply I have no idea what I am talking about. I have money in Pfizer and several other Pharma companies. And I certainly wouldn't invest in them if I had no idea what kinds of profits they were capable of.

Boy the trolls are out early today. The fact is that big Pharma spends more money on advertising and spiffs for doctors (Golf trips at exotic locations down to clocks and pens and paper) then they do on R&D. And when their seven year patent runs out they make a small and insignificant molecular change and voila! they have a new drug called a "me too" drug to extend their patent. Not much R&D involved there.

One comment says that it can cost a couple of billions to bring a drug to market. So what! they make hundreds of billions off of it during it's life time.

Fact is greed is what drives the industry, not just a return on investment, but however much they can extract from the sick and dieing. This industry can easily created a scarcity and then jack up prices 80 to 1000%. How much would you pay to stay alive? Well they are happy to charge you for it. And the ones who can't pay or just can't acquire the drug in the new auction atmosphere of drug buying?

People who cannot afford those medicines are probably a drain on society anyway and we'll adjust and be better off without them.

I just love the way this board brings out all the humanitarians out there.

Why is this happening ? Why the sudden need to voluntarily take production off line ? The answer is buried deep in the article:

Prices for some have risen as much as eightyfold.

So, for a drug which might normally cost $ 100 and ONE of the manufacturers suddenly takes it out of production and they are able to increase the selling price to $ 800. You tell me, is this profiteering ? If enough of these pharmaceutical companies figure this out, they can arbitrarily manipulate the market for their products at will.

And why aren't drug companies subject to the same anti-trust rules that apply to utilities, oil companies and any other natural monopoly ? You have a limited product with general need being manufactured by a small number of companies.

The U.S. Pharma companies scream in unison when fingers are pointed at them. The fact of the matter is, the Pharma companies enjoy one best profit margins of most any other industry in the world. After expenses. Yes they spend millions and millions on research, testing, blah, blah blah. They don't like to mention their profits much though and only HAVE TOO tell us because it's required of them to do so if they are a Publically Traded company and have to reveal their profits and expenses to investors.

The government should pay the drug companies for these "orphan" drugs and produce them in government labs and production facilities so this sort of thing never happens. It SHOULDN'T happen. Especially in this country.

Waldo,

I TOTALLY understand what you're saying and I sympathize with your point, but these "orphan drugs" HAVE to be tested in humans SOMETIME! This takes up most of the budgets of these manufacturers of "orphan drugs."

This drug is NOT the ONLY one used to treat leukemia, b.t.w. Actually, Danuorubicin, Prednisone, and VInctristine are the primary ones used to combat A.L.L. Methotrexate is a "sanctuary drug" used to kill off any leukemic cells that may be hiding in the spinal cord. These were once considered "orphan drugs" that were thought to be "useless" twenty years ago, but now they enable these kids to beat A.L.L.

It took MASSIVE amounts of money to conduct these clinical trials.

Change without hope.

I'm sure that the Socialist or Communist countries really are the workers paradise they say they are too.

Actually, Japan is pretty darn sweet.

And from what I hear, Germany is a pretty nice place to live. In fact, it's been called 'what America WANT's to be!'

The sad thing is... both of these countries have social medicine.

But socialism is bad.

This article was about medicine not meeting a quality standard. Was the corporation trying to cut corners to make a profit? I would believe so, but we need more info before we place blame.

@jack,

You're full of crap!

1) The government does not set prices or profits. This is entirely, by law, the function of drug companies. There are very rare circumstances where vaccines are subsidized in return for waiver of liability for the drug companies, but profits are still well above 300% even for those. The typical "target" profit for a drug company is 8000% of not just the production costs, but of all costs to buy the patent for the drug in the first place, and even the development costs that were actually paid by the American taxpayer.

2) It is simply a failure of critical thinking to make a statement, such as saying that the government wants to let you die, and then give an example of a drug that is usually a cure. That is just twisted thinking.

3) This is free market capitalism at its best. Drug companies are not interested in curing diseases or lives. They are interested only in profits. This is how America does business. People do not matter. Only profits. This is why free market capitalism has never been successful anywhere in the world. It kills its customers.

1. It costs a BILLION dollars to bring a drug to market.

... only if you count marketing it, which covers some 60% of those costs.

2. The patent on that drug is good for 7 years.

Patents are good for 19 years - and are routinely extended when there's a patent infringement lawsuit.

3. In order to make a profit, drug companies have 7 years to make up all the costs of bringing the drug to market first. A billion dollars in sales is hard to make in 7 years.

And the base research is funded by the federal government, you know through tax dollars.

4. Increasing the patent lifespan to 10-15 years would lower prices as it would give the companies longer to recoup their costs.

Or they can do what they did with one drug where the patent was re-applied and just increase the price 1500%.

Andy just caused dozens of strokes to occur in the heads of right wing delusionists.

Socialism may be bad, but we've been enjoying it's benefits for decades now. I know, it's terrible to be wrong, right wing, but you are.

The reason conservatives are radicalizing themselves out of contention in American politics is that you can only hold on to the lie so long before facts start to erode that grip beyond all credibility.

Most Americans think you guys are nuts, especially the younger ones. Just an observation that you may want to consider.

@witchrunner,

You are badly mininformed about who develops new drugs. It is NOT the major drug companies. It is the AMERICAN TAXPAYER.

Well over 90% of all new drugs are discovered by academic researchers using NIH grants of taxpayer money. Period. But when the drugs are discovered, the NIH is forbidden by law to do anything to assist the developer to bring the drug to market. So the academics have to seek out venture investors to provide the money to hire the skills to get it to human trials --- a very long and costly process. At the time when it has past initial trials, the venture investors generally sell the company to a major drug company. This is because small one-drug companies do not have the "connections" (read as bribes in place) in the FDA to actually get approval. (New drug companies occasionally are successful, but it is in less than 1 in 400 new drugs.) The major drug companies then sheperd the drug through the approval process and market it, often as close to illegally aspossible. About 30% of all new drugs approved by the FDA do no better than a placebo. Only about 20% of new drugs approved by the FDA are measurably better than existing drugs.

The old statement that drug companies make that it takes a billion dollars to bring a drug to market is a simple lie. When the CBO tried to check it out, the found that the most expensive drug ever cost only $167 million. That drug was Vioxx which required numerous trials be dropped and started because so many participants were dying of heart attacks and strokes (which the drug company called "voluntary disenrollments.)

There have been plenty of examples of nationalization of medical services and drugs and every one has been more successful at real measures of care, such as infant mortality, than the US. Yopu can bury your head in the sand, but the healthcare system in this country is a disgrace. Your overall chances of surviving any disease or injury are almost twice as high in the worst hospital in Cuba than in the best hospital in this country. This is the only country in the world where medical malpractice is in the top ten causes of death. You can kid yourself, but if you get really, really sick, head for France or Canada or Britain.

The 1%-ers have figured out yet another way to extort the middle-class.

Creating artificial shortages of critical medications until the price goes up 100-fold and then slowly release just enough to hold the prices at this level.

.

Waldo is on this one.

Anyone blaming Obama, Santorum, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington is an ignorant fool. It's closer to the truth to blame capitalism and I agree that a State run Pharma company is probably a bad idea.

Bottom line... drug companies make a killing off high volume products like birth control, statins (lipitor, etc), and erect penis pills. The claim:

"significant manufacturing and quality concerns" is shareholder-speak for "we lose money when we tie up production lines for a drug only a few people use"

Drug companies make money hand over fist. This is why anytime someone gets a job working for one, it's like winning the lottery. This is why investors flock to their stocks. However, no matter HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE, going backwards to make less is unacceptable. If you clear 10 billion in profit in 2010 and only 9.85 billion on 2011, then 2011 goes down as a "bad year" and people get fired for not keeping profit levels up to shareholders expectations.

How do you keep from losing your cushy big Pharma job? You make up lies about "significant manufacturing and quality concerns" so you can continue to keep the productions line pumping out the profitable drugs.

The problem is easy to see. The answer isn't quite as easy to come up with. We live in a capitalist country, and it's un-American to bitch about a company's profits. And it's STUPID to blame Obama or Romney/Santorum/Bush... none of those folks made us a capitalists.

In my mind, until the children of the top executives of big Pharma are affected by this, then those executives are going to listen to the shareholders, not the mother's of dying children. Forcing big Pharma thru legislation seems like the easy answer, but there's so many pitfalls. I'm a tried and true liberal, but if I owned a business, I would not like the government stepping in telling me I HAD to stop production of my most profitable product so that I could start making a product that I can't make money on.

Maybe the answer lies in tax incentives. We give big Pharma lots of tax breaks... maybe they need to earn some of those breaks by producing a meaningful percentage of "orphan" drugs as part of their overall production.

The drug is increasingly used to treat other things than cancer, its very possible with problems with quality that they are really just short, and that is a manufacturing issue. Blaming Obama, the FDA or any other politician is completely stupid.

I agree with your points Harold.

Busting your a$$ to get a PhD in biochemistry, immunochemistry or immunohematology in order to get into these drug companies to work isn't exactly hitting the lottery. It's called planning and hard work.

Anyone who wants to study for any of these advanced degrees only to want to work for eight bucks an hour is more than free to do so - at McDonalds.

For all of you in the north who think southerners don't care about our kids for 10 years the state of Texas provided free care for my childs medical problem. I had to drive 400 miles but if I couldn't afford the trip or the hotel they would have helped with that too. Liberals aren't the only ones who care for people who need lifesaving drugs.

This is off the subject a little but I wonder how many U.S. citizens know that China produces many of the ingredients or precursor chemicals for the drug companies also. The over the counter analgesic Tylenol is the only U.S. manufactured Acetaminophen produced totally in this country. This cheap supply chain from China only adds to the drug companies' bottom lines. The brain sends an instant thought process already confirmed by my reasoning; If they can't even produce dog food that doesn't kill our pets; poisons our kids with lead paint or the rest of us with tainted "Farmed Fish" products from China what else can we expect? And the bottom line IS the bottom line. Ain't Capitalism wonderful?

Hotticket - my "lottery" comment wasn't aimed at the Ph.D's doing the research. It was aimed at the production line workers, the janitors, and yes, the accountants, the MBA's doing business development, and the marketers.

I never meant to imply that working hard and getting a great job is somehow a bad thing. Big Pharma makes HUGE profits and getting a job with them is a wonderful thing. I know first hand. My old college roommate is a great guy, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I had to help him with his homework because he wasn't smart enough to do it on his own. His GPA wasn't high enough to declare "Accounting" as his major, so he declared "Finance" and took a few accounting classes. He got out of college and Wyeth hired him. After college, he made more money in his first 5 years than I made in my first 15. He's worked for Wyeth since the day he scored his job and he'll never leave that company. He'd be an idiot to. I hope someday he hires me (although I don't know what they'd do with a meteorologist).

because the individual lozenges had a variation i the active ingredient of over 3.2%. Come on, that ain't much.

And you're a medical doctor qualified to make that assumption I assume.

This whole dilemma makes perfect sense EXCEPT for the fact that they let it get down to a two weeks supply. From the article it looks like there's 5 domestic suppliers and it appears that they had set their production as close to the demand as possible.. standard practice for all manufacturers. But when one had quality problems, the others did not immediately step up... the question is "why not". It doesn't seem possible that all 4 of the other manufacturers were t 100% capacity, but I guess that's possible.

What seems most likely here is an "oil-like" supply shortage scheme designed to run up prices... but how would we know?

Drug patents, like most other US patents, are issued for 20 years, not 7 as has been claimed here. Since the application for patent is usually filed before clinical trials begin, considerable time passes before the drug hits the market. Typical patent monopoly for a drug on the market lasts 8-10 years, but can be extended another 5 years if the drug was subject to FDA approval before release. That results in a patent protection lifespan of 13-15 years.

Harold.....your comment is a good analysis of the situation. HOWEVER...you just know there's always a however, when business can't or isn't willing to do things that are in the category of providing life saving services or products to people who need them maybe it's time to start to re-examine the system.

Think about the things you use everyday and would be hard pressed to continue on with your life without that are provided by the government. The reason the government provides those things is because while they are very critical for the country, they would be a country killer if they were operated as a stand alone busines. Roads and bridges comes to mind first as an example.

With the Pharma, as was pointed out quite a few times in this thread, there was considerable input from government in these very profitable products. If the drug companies aren't willing to provide these medicines AFTER receiving the benefits of government assistance to develope them unless they are guaranteed an astronomical dollar return, then maybe...just maybe, the government might want to consider doing the job that business can not or will not do.

We've apparently been backed into a corner on this issue by the drug companies. To allow ourselves to be put into a similar situation again would start to suggest that these companies are playing hardball with peoples lives. This type of behavior doesn't usually bode well for anyone involved. This issue may be bringing us closer to critical mass than people would like to believe. It's starting to shape up a trial of capitalism itself.

Jack

This is the pharmaceutical industry and the government playing games with people's lives.

I almost agree - this is Obama's doings.

We almost never have experienced drug shortages. Only one was from bad production batch in the last 10 years. The others were from Federal demands that exceeded production capability.

Did you not know that twice in the last 3 years Obama has arm twisted price reductions out of Pharmaceuticals?

Do you know what the pharmaceuticals did to get those cost reductions?

I do!

Here's a run down - Pharmeceuticals

-laid off 2/3's or R & D and Closed all now unneeded labs

-reduce levels of the drug supply they kept on hand. This eliminates waste of drugs that expire, space to store the drugs, and staff to maintain, package and ship.

-with less drugs to keep and less staff to pay, they slimmed down the distribution system by closing warehouses / distribution centers.

-eliminated all overtime for production of drugs. With a lower supply being kept, production has to be scheduled far in advance of pending shortages to meet the varying lengths of time required to produce the drugs.

There have been shortages for over 2 years now, and it would surprise most people on what. For some drugs of a less critical nature, the Pharmeceuticals won't even schedule production until they get enough requests to warrant it - forcing doctors to go without or choose the next best thing

Again, this did not happen until Obama started arm-twisting the drug companies.

We had the same kind of problems in the late 70's when we had the second Oil Embargo. It happened just at the start of summer vacation. The media went overboard about how much gas was going to cost and that if you traveled you probably wouldn't have the gas to return. Meanwhile the bureaucrats were regulating where industry was to send fuel and how much.

What happened was Tourism dropped like a rock because people stayed home. The fuel was shipped to the tourist spots in less quantites to the normal proportion for the summer. The tourist spots had lots of fuel and where everybody stayed home ran out of fuel.

for 10 years the state of Texas provided free care for my childs medical problem

lonereb - why you little socialist, you!

The pharmaceutical industry needs to be broken up into R&D and Manufacturing, into a pure tech sector who will hold the patents and a broad manufacturing sector that competes on every drug.

In a nation-wide poll, people were asked:

"What's the point of creating medicines and then denying them to the sick and elderly?"

99% said there was no point and the 1% said "Another new Mercedes".

: )

;..(

Pedestian....it seem like lonereb is in some sort of identity crisis on the issue of healthcare. A crisis hitting close to home has a way of changing a persons thoughts about things.

Drug patents should be use it or lose it. This company should have its patent seized. Further, the middleman distribution industry which has raised the prices for these medication needs to be outlawed. Those of you who can't discern between capitalism and racketeering are cordially invited to pay for it all.

This is obviously a man made, artificially induced, shortage for fear and profit.

eliminated all overtime for production of drugs. With a lower supply being kept, production has to be scheduled far in advance of pending shortages to meet the varying lengths of time required to produce the drugs.

Which is exactly why my old production facility went from a 24/7/365 facility to a 24/7/365 facility. Try again.

So everyone is upset because someone has decided that it's just not cost effective or efficient to save these patients. This is nothing compared to what you will be denied when ObamaCare fully kicks in. There will be no pre-existing condition exclusions and all you dead beats will have insurance for free that supposedly covers everything. But the joke is on you. You won't be able to get the care that your "covered" for because Obama's health panels will decide you just aren't worth wasting money on you.

While this article paints a sad picture, and I've read the above comments with interest, there is a lot more to this story than is presented.

Methotrexate is an old drug, initially developed in the 1940's and used for the treatment of leukemia. In the early 1950's is was found to be useful in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and more recently in other arthritic conditions. The author of this article needs to go further to see if there is really a shortage of methotrexate for treating leukemia, or if it is being overused in the treatment of arthritic conditions. I suspect there is plenty of this drug out there, but it is being largely consumed in treating arthritis. While it would probably be considered socialism to direct this medication to saving children's lives, it needs to be considered. I'm not unsympathetic to arthritis sufferers, but there are many new, effective medications available for this patient population.

First the government shuts down a number of pharmaceutical manufacturing plants for reasons of "safety" thus causing the shortages and then the government offers to step in to socialize the industry to solve the problems that it caused.

This is the same trick that is causing our vaccine shortages.

Zathrose save me the obama care paranoid BS...

Nothing like foolish scare buzz tactics to drive home a non existent reality.

When right wingers start spouting off this type of BS it just makes the conservative movement look foolish

The largest hold back on newer and better drugs is the fact that the producers will not bring them forward until they have ran their patents dry on the less effective drugs first. They use drugs in the very same manner that the oil speculators use oil to double and triple their profits at any given time on using the wisp of a wind as their reason.

No patent should ever be given to any corporate that used public funds or grants in their research and production. They use public funding then they are working for the public sector and the patent belongs with the public sector. If they decide they do not want to work off public grants and fundings, then great, don't! Their spots will be filled in a heartbeat by the competitors they use patent laws to keep at bay. Companies that produce the very same products in their generic forms seem to be able to thrive so change the patent laws and move on with it.

Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., ("Ben Venue") has announced its decision to extend the voluntary suspension of manufacturing at its Bedford, OH facility, originally announced on November 19, in order to uphold its commitment to providing the highest attention to quality and product safety, and to permit the implementation of lasting corrective actions. The original suspension took place after an internal review indicated that routine preventive maintenance and requalification of some manufacturing equipment was overdue. These issues have also been noted in recent inspection findings by the FDA, EMA, and other global regulatory agencies.

bedfordlabs.com/news/news/news_archive/2011/enter_date.html

informed by the manufacturer that the active drug substance used to create this lot contained low levels of ethylene glycol, a solvent used in antifreeze among other products.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4393/is_2_37/ai_n29281643/

Ethylene glycol forms acidic chemicals in the body, which can change the body's acid/base balance and affect your nervous system, lungs, and heart. Methotrexate is often injected into the spine in cancer treatment.

I suspect there is plenty of this drug out there, but it is being largely consumed in treating arthritis. While it would probably be considered socialism to direct this medication to saving children's lives, it needs to be considered. I'm not unsympathetic to arthritis sufferers, but there are many new, effective medications available for this patient population.

The medication can not just be redirected to children because of the presence of a preservative in the medication used for treatment of arthritis.

@Chris749391 When CMS approves a drug for use by Medicare patients they set the amount they will pay for it as well. They do not allow medical offices or hospitals to charge more than the amount they set as the value of the drug and medicare reimburses 80% of that amount with the remaining 20% to be paid by the patient out of pocket or by their supplemental insurance. IF THAT IS NOT SETTING THE PRICE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. ALSO, IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAYS, TRY TO BE AMICABLE IN YOUR DISAGREEMENT RATHER THAN INSULTING!

Another thing: The FDA is made up of people who are NOT elected. They are appointed and members of both parties in the Senate and the House have complained about the fact that people working in CMS and the FDA often do not respond to legislative requests and recommendations. If you believe that these agencies can cause a company to stop producing a chemotherapy drug for little or no reason, then you are not aware that a drug called Doxil has been off the market for almost a year because the FDA inspected a lab that produced an entirely different drug and shut down production of both drugs. There was never a problem found in the production of Doxil and there was no reason given why its production should have been halted. Doxil might be back on the market by July or August of this year.

Another point: This company produces preservative free Methotrexate. This is so the Methotrexate can be injected into the spinal fluid. Methotrexate that contains a preservative cannot be injected into the spinal fluid but it is used as intravenous chemotherapy for other types of cancer and for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Other companies produce Methotrexate that contains preservatives.

The reporter writing this piece obviously does not understand that the drug is injected into the cerebrospinal fluid and not just into the bones or muscles of the back.

@witchrunner

The drug companies do not directly pay for the research and development of the drugs. The get money from the government, much of the research is done in educational institutions and then there are the tax credits for the money they do spend.

They do not spend their own money.

The drug companies do not directly pay for the research and development of the drugs. The get money from the government, much of the research is done in educational institutions and then there are the tax credits for the money they do spend.

Sorry, but this is categorically untrue. Over 90% of all drugs are completely funded via pharma R&D alone, with the remainder of less than 10% being discovered via university research & NIH grants. What you're referring to is the basic technological research (test methods, etc.), not discovery and testing of new molecular entities. What, do you think that the gov't creates the next Viagra then auctions it off to the highest bidder? Really?

The R&D spending is there in black and white for all publicly-traded companies. The idea that they're making bank off gov't research is patently (forgive the pun) false.

Did anyone notice this:

largely curable disease

You cant cure cancer. treated and removed for a time, yes. but not cured.Also there are other treatments for cancer like rad therapy.

Mabey if you knew what free market was you would have a better idea what controls prices. It is profitable to lower prices to as low as they can go because we have free will. We can chose wether or not to buy the expencive drug or a cheaper version.

free mar·ket

Noun:

An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

cortesy of google

What silly people can't get into their heads is that these companies who make these drugs do so FOR A PROFIT; if it's not profitable, they stop making it. It's that simple. And since the socialist-in-chief has regulated the profit out of making the drug, he's responsible for them stopping making it. When will this fool learn about the free market and capitalism.

agreed, without profit you cant buy the ingredients to MAKE the drug.

It's a catch-22: If they make & release it with quality problems, people are upset. If they stop making it because of quality problems, people are upset. Lose-lose.

That being said, it takes an awful lot to close a plant. The problems must be dire, especially in light of the growing issue. If you could just throw money at it to quickly fix it, as someone requested above, it would've been done already.

Look at J&J -- they closed their PA plant 3 years ago due to quality issues and still haven't really re-opened. And that's a company with a lot of money to throw at it.

Dung Work-

Wait for it! It's coming and if there is any karma it will be people like you that get screwed by it first. When left wingers choose to ignore reality it shows how foolish the liberal movement is.

Zathrose:

I would have to agree. This is something that we should spend our money on, not something like whether women should get insurance to cover birth control pills. The govt. priorities are so far out of whack that they can't recognize an emergency when they see it.

"these companies who make these drugs do so FOR A PROFIT; if it's not profitable, they stop making it. It's that simple" "since the socialist-in-chief has regulated the profit out of making the drug, he's responsible for them stopping making it. When will this fool learn about the free market and capitalism" - kraussk

You admit that medicine is a for-profit business. Then you blame the president - whose health care law isn't even in effect yet - for the pharma comanies production "problem" which will, eventually, kill kids. Basically you admit that the Fox News beloved "free market" system will end in the death of anyone who can't pay the price for whatever drug they're selling at whatever price they ask. If you were a doctor or nurse, and had the knowledge and/or tools to save the life of someone in an emergency, and you didn't try, you would be held accountable. But when we elevate the scenario to a corporate level, somehow the 'profitability' is more important? Since the Supreme Court has held that corporations have rights like a real citizen, they should also have the responsibility to save a life like a real citizen - stockholders be damned.

This is all part of the corporate world's strategy to get rid of Obama and regulations.

Please note: Methotrexate is a drug that destroys folic acid, and that is how it works.

Folic acid is usually good, but if a person has cancer, it helps the cancer grow.

Bread, cereal, pasta, and most flour now have folic acid added. Tell the FDA to stop that NOW. And please, folks, if you have a Methotrexate shortage and need the drug, do not eat sources of folic acid (or take the drug leukovorin) until there is more of a supply.

My rheumatologist gave me Methotrexate for RA, and it is a very common drug, so this is serious, and it should have been something that was a priority months ago. I would be glad to donate my medicine to a leukemia patient, but I don't know if it is in the right form, and the bottle has been opened, so it could not be injected.

One word... Gerson. (i.e., Max Gerson, Charlotte Gerson)

These drugs are not the answer anyway... so I don't see the problem. Search & you shall find.

Elizabeth, methotrexate blocks the metabolism of folic acid to folinic acid. That's how it works. A person cannot take methotrexate for indefinite periods or it will be lethal. Folic acid is a necessary vitamin and if you do not get enough you will become anemic among other things. As a matter of fact patients who are given methotrexate are sometimes "rescued" by being given folinic acid (Leucovorin). Folic acid occurs naturally in a lot of vegetable including the ones you mentioned as well as greens. It would be hazardous to the public to remove all folic acid.

As for "curing" cancer, most of these children go on to live lives in which they are not found to have a recurrence of their leukemia. They reproduce offspring that are not at increased risk of developing cancer either. However they do often have some immune deficieny and frequently acquire unusual infections. So "cure" is subjective but when a cancer never comes back, I consider it cured.

Oh, one other bit of information: There is also a shortage of Methotrexate injectable that contains preservative. The only Methotrexate that is currently available is the tablet form.

50mg. of generic methotrexate with preservative is listed as costing $14.99 in Epocrates. The usual dose is no more than 100mg. but can be higher.

Another bit of info. that I have first hand experience with: If Medicare/CMS is involved in the investigation of an issue they will often threaten a provider with sanctions of $1,000 dollars per occurrence for every perceived infraction. A medical laboratory in my area used the wrong code for running CBC's. When it realized it was using the wrong code, it self-reported and offered to reimburse the difference. CMS refused and threatened a fine of $1,000 dollars for each CBC. A CBC (complete blood count) costs far less than $1,000 to run and is reimbursed at a far lower rate than $1,000. The feds then basically extorted a settlement for a couple of hundred thousand in fines.

Bottom line: The drug manufacturer may have voluntarily shut down production, but there could easily have been pressure from the FDA to force it to do so. That makes the FDA look less like a bunch of thugs and the new media does not ever know what really happened.

@ Zathrose

Sarah is that you?

You can stop with the "death/health panels" scare tactic you are trying to project onto the new HC bill. That dog don't hunt.

The current and past HC industry and insurers have already been picking and choosing who gets more expensive treatments and who gets generic medicines and procedures, based on how much $$ they have.. There already are claim deniers working for EVERY HC company, that deny many quality treatments(to make their top execs and shareholders more profit).

You may call that type of capitalism "American", but I call it disgusting.

Yes the government can have umpteen billion of my tax dollars to make bombs to kill umpteen thousands of people all over the world, but don't you dare use it to develop and save lives for my neighbours kids. There seems to be one H of a difference in the opinion of profit. Not one person is against another making a fair profit for anything. The key word is a fair or respectable profit, the new entrepreneur seems to like the phrase, all the market can bare, and just loves to control the total supply so he has complete control of both the supply and profit margin. The deaths of a few thousands of children is just considered collateral damage for a future bargaining tool. The oil companies, the bankers, insurance, pharmaceutical, unions, etc. are all sort of in the same category, me first and will all contribute to the inside destruction of any country.

Only 2 countries in the world allow Pharma to advertise on TV

The U.S. and Australia.

So instead of the doctor prescribing what he feels is best, the patient comes in asking for a specific drug because the commercial made them feel like they "need" it.

The number one source of ALL advertising revenue in the US last year and the three prior years was Pharma.

The Pharma industries are so powerful that they were able to get a law passed by The House and The Senate, and signed by The President (Bush at the time)

That law makes it Illegal for our Citizens to go and buy drugs in Canada for a tenth of the price. The exact same drugs.

Through the healthcare act, Insurance companies, and through them Pharma,

Will have a direct pipeline into our tax dollars.

Makes me wanna holler.

That law makes it Illegal for our Citizens to go and buy drugs in Canada for a tenth of the price. The exact same drugs.

The label may claim that they're the "exact same drugs", but unfortunately 90% of those shipments from Canada and other countries contain counterfeits. I'd rather pay a bit more and absolutely know I'm getting the real thing than to gamble on prescriptions from overseas (or over-border, as the case may be). Would you rather pay 5 bucks more or risk dying because that unscrupulous middleman up in Canada bought a shipment of drugs that wasn't legit because it cost less? They are NOT the same drugs. We passed that law to PROTECT our citizens from bad drugs...sorry, keeping the supply chain free of bogus drugs is more important than that extra 5 bucks in your wallet. Nevermind that if you're really desperate these companies just give the product away to the needy and less fortunate...but continue to blast them for making sure you get the right drugs to keep you alive. You really want to gamble with your health? Than get those drugs overseas...better hope you're on a lucky streak!

unfortunately 90% of those shipments from Canada and other countries contain counterfeits.

[citation needed]

Penguin 60 minutes went to Canada and bought drugs, then compared them to the ones bought here. They usually had the same lot numbers, meaning they were made the same day in the same factory by the same workers.

I would buy drugs from Canada. China or Mexico, no way. But Canada?

Alil,

So 60 Minutes' investigation means ALL drugs in Canada are the same? Nope. Cipher, here ya go: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071101/consumers-still-buying-risky-imported-drugs-online-fda.htm

I did find this as well, explaining the thought process:

http://www.phrma.org/issues/open-letter-public-john-j-castellani

The problem with Canada, Alil, is that Canada imports their drugs from countries like China and Mexico. See the following post written back in '04 when this importation issue was coming to a head: http://heartland.org/press-releases/2004/04/19/pros-and-cons-importing-drugs-canada

(2) Canadian drugs were safe, but they aren’t anymore. Imports of drugs into Canada from Brazil, Bangladesh, China, South Africa, and even Saudi Arabia and Iran have all increased dramatically in the past year. Health Canada admits it does not inspect drugs entering the country, and the FDA says it lacks the manpower to ensure the safety of drugs that cross the border from Canada to the U.S. Consequently, Canadian drugs are no longer as safe as drugs manufactured and purchased in the U.S.

We have a closed system in the U.S. to protect people from the unscrupulous people around the world looking to make a buck by making knock-off drugs with only-God-knows-what ingredients. You want to take your life into your own hands to save a buck or two, be my guest. But I'm glad our gov't is looking out for our safety, especially when most of us in this country are too stupid to realize that if it's too good to be true, it usually is.

And just how would "the government" profit by regulating the pharmaceutical industry?

Did you even read that they suspended the production because of quality concerns? People like you and the liberals that want people to sue for tens of millions in dollars help cause these issues. I work for a company that produced a morning sickness durg about 30 years ago. Never once was there a study the linked it to any malformed babies, but the plaintiffs hauled the malformed babies in to court. The company I work for lost seven cases. All but one was overturned within the first few years, then the last was. But our company, even after being begged to produce it again, would not because of the lawsuits.

Yeah, blame the drug companies. They could decide to make coffee flavorings instead.

Wait till we have European style healthcare.

How many medical breakthroughs have you seen coming.out of Europe lately?

Yeah, the thing is that this is an old drug. I work for a hospital, and as drugs get older and cheaper, manufacturers are choosing to produce more profitable drugs instead. So people die, but it's cool because the shareholders are happy. This is why capitalism doesn't work, ethics get thrown under the bus to make the bottom line look better.

That's ok, Obama issued an executive order. He will force those companies to make those drugs.

Capitalism isn't the issue, in that FDA manufacturing standards must be maintained and the story plainly States that there was a problem.

This drug has been in production a long time. I'll bet any sales are pure profit. The big problem here, which no one has mentioned, is that there are no preservatives in the drug - so I would imagine it can't be stockpiled. No one is going to make a bunch just to have it sit on the shelves and spoil. So if the production equipment or process is messed up in some way, and there is no excess capacity, then there will be a shortage. All this ranting and raving, above and below, does not really apply here at all. It seems the only solution would be to have excess production capacity, and then people would complain about the added cost this added to the price of the medication.

Wow, Mark, I notice you did not name the magical morning sickness drug. Please tell me it was not Thalidomide or DES. I assume you are talking about Benedictine. Well just because it didn't cause birth defects in other species does not mean it did not cause them in the cases where suit was filed. In any case, quality control concerns in drug manufacturing is vital, so your rant about lawsuits isn't relevant. If you believe an improperly tested or manufactured drug harmed you or a loved-one, especially if there were FDA concerns that were ignored, you would not simply shrug your shoulders and let it go, would you?

Mark - what??? Liberals? I worked in this industry some years back and can tell you that R&D has deep pockets and had some pretty big parties and wasteful spending. Those at the top are as greedy as anyone can imagine. Those business plans and forecast numbers (crazy, elevated figures) exert pressure on those execs to perform or else. People have lost jobs in the U.S. at the expense of fat profit margins? Then, once the drugs go generic, guess who makes most of it? Yep, China and India and now is resulting in quality issues on top of everything else! Once the patent runs out, they don't make as much money on it and focus on the new, expensive stuff. You figure it out. Everyone suffers for this and shortages are calculated as no one wants to carry inventory or have waste. As far as lawsuits? That is what insurance is for. As for insurance companies, they are evil, too. Now, they simply don't cover as much or outright deny coverage, then raise your premiums, deductibles and out of pocket costs for (if you're among the lucky that actually have coverage these days). When you're sick and need help, these days it's about who has money to pay for the drugs and services that live to tell the tale. Everyone else? Oh well. Even the state-run insurance venues are not accepting new people into their plans. Also, you can't blame Obama for everything when we have a house where Republicans continue to fight to keep things just as they are (look up - "The Pact")?? Seriously, they got us into wars that we are still paying for at the expense of our own people. We won't dig out overnight. Don't get me wrong, I like Obama, but at times, I feel he does wimp out such as extending the waiting time before the rich "kick in" their fair share. I really think that was a big mistake. As a result of the lack of tax dollars to fuel our system (while the rich get the breaks), we have now suffered in all areas - education, medicine, social services and the list goes on and on. If the rich (to include the corporations) were not allowed the tax shelters they have, the $$$ would start fueling the economy again and help to balance things out. All of this disturbs me to no end and I've never seen such a thing in my lifetime. Mark, I will give you one thing - this is a very sue-happy culture and sickening in my opinion. These wins over the years have results in ridiculous legal precedents to piggy-back yet another and another ridiculous lawsuit and has all snowballed into one, big fat mess. Let's put the blame where it belongs, folks. Take off the blinders and really LOOK. How many kids, seniors and the uncovered have to die first?

Yeah, blame the drug companies. They could decide to make coffee flavorings instead.

Wait till we have European style healthcare.

How many medical breakthroughs have you seen coming.out of Europe lately?

Europe? Not sure...but here's a list of the hundreds of innovative drugs from Canada which has a health system not unlike the European healthcare models.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/regist/reg_innov_dr-eng.php

The situation discussed in the article we are commenting on demonstrates the need for government sponsored/nonprofit research and manufacture of critical drugs. I see it possible that the public could purchase outright the rights to generically manufacture critical life saving drugs from the for-profit companies. It is simply unacceptable that companies can withhold production of such drugs based on fear of lawsuits or any other consideration that would impede their profitability motive.

Companies in Europe are responsible for a great deal of research. The reason most of the companies have a base in the US is that they can sell their drugs for more money. The same drugs are sold all over the world at a much smaller profit margin. The profits go mostly to the shareholders and governors of the companies not to research. By trading on the markets here, the multiply their profits by huge amounts. Most of you seem to be brainwashed by the whole stock and commodites trading thing. Are all of you in to your eyballs or living under a rock. This country is being taken for a ride where health care is concerned. Remember that once there was a time that people went into health care professions for altruistic reasons not the big bucks. The love and worship of material goods has brought about this age of evil, nothing else. No conscience, no caring for anyone or anything. The country is more interested in the Kadashians and Housewives than what is important...and I forget the new Swamp People.

Europe? Not sure...but here's a list of the hundreds of innovative drugs from Canada which has a health system not unlike the European healthcare models.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/regist/reg_innov_dr-eng.php

Nearly every one of these is a Canadian subsidiary of a US company!

Countries with socialized medicine do not engage in research. They are not "for profit" entities so there is no incentive for them to do so.

Yeah, more government is the answer. Can they manufacture drugs? No way.

Even the FDA is incapable of following their own rules set by congress, so how is another government agency going to produce drugs cheaper than a private company and meet all quality requirements? They can't.

The problem with generics is that the prices are driven so low that there is not enough money to pay for updating systems to comply with new regulatory requirements such as costs for filings which were just doubled. In some cases like this one, it was likely discontinued because it is an overall money loser for the company to comply with FDA. The overhead due to regulatory costs is huge.

armurry, again this is about government control of private industry. Never mind that government fails every time it tries to get into the private economy. Profits is why we have the drugs in the first place, and the liberals want to destroy the means to a profit.

I lived in maine a few years ago. the gov at the time attempted to place caps on the amount the drug companies could charge for various medications. Mostly to keep people from going to Canada for meds.

Those same companies suddenly could no longer distribute medications to Maine.

We were held hostage.

From the person that invented the drug to the manufacturer, to the transporter, to the pharmacist, to the insurers for the above and their lawyers and accountants and anyone or entity I missed, everyone in the industry makes a profit.

If the United States suddenly took the monstrously huge profits out of the pharmaceutical industry, would it suddenly shut down ? No, it wouldn't, simply because there is no other market. The rest of the world regulates the profits made. It is only in the US that government (which decides the regulation) is owned by corporations artificial people.

Really,

You are mistaken, doctors and researchers in countries with socialized medicine get decent pay and companies like Bayer(headquartered in Germany) do quite a lot of research.

Pfizer(American) pleaded guilty in 2009 to the largest health care fraud in U.S. history and received the largest criminal penalty ever levied for illegal marketing of four of its drugs:Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica. Called a repeat offender this was Pfizer's fourth such settlement with the U.S. Dept. of Justice in the previous ten years. They then turned around and bought Wyeth. Will Merck be next as they headquartered in the states only to milk the people? It is originally a subsidiary of the German company. We seem to welcome everyone who wants to empty our pocketbooks. Wake up and smell he roses.

And for cryin' out loud, people in Cuba have a longer average life span than we do. Something wrong with this picture in a country that says it has the best health care on the planet. If you can't afford it then it doesn't do you much good, does it?

And just how would "the government" profit by regulating the pharmaceutical industry?

Well, how about all the faceless bureaucrats that live very well without contributing anything of value to society? You know, the ones who tell the dying patients that it's for their own good that they aren't allowed to use experimental drugs.

How about all the taxes and fees collected from the companies to support those drones?

@Buzz,

The major drug companies do not develop new drugs. In fact, they long ago lost the capability to do anything except minor molecular arrangements of existing drugs. They have neither the facilities nor the staff to do more than that.

NIH grants (taxpayer money) are what develops new grants. And I will agree that the drug companies throw roadblocks into the process by having laws passed by their congressional hirelings to keep the NIH from giving grants to bring important drugs to market, or in setting up the understaffed FDA so that it only looks at "safety" and never at effectiveness or whether the drug is actually better or cheaper, or both, than existing drugs.

30% of our new drugs are no better than a placebo. Less than 20% of new drugs are measurably more effective than existing drugs.

The taxpayer funds the development of drugs and then the big pharma drug companies shoot for an 8000% profit on drugs that the taxpayer developed. Sound right to you? And the academic researcher that discovered the drug doesn't get squat --- just "honors" and "publication rights" and various accolades that do nothing for his income.

I have long suggested that no drug company should make more than 25% profit until every dime of taxpayer money has been repaid to the taxpayer. This money could not opnly be put into new research, but could be used to fund the purchase of the drug for the indigent.

The FDA should approve no drug unless it is significantly better than a placebo and is more effective or cheaper than existing drugs.

Right now R&D money is drying up. Corporations have cut backon R&D long ago and now the government is slashing research money. Research is at its lowest point, as a percentage of the GDP, since before WWI. There are fewer and fewer new drugs in the pipeline because the taxpayer-funded teat that the drug companies suck is drying up.

Thank you Chris, you said it much better than I. I got carried away and didn't read you post first!

Okay, let me get this straight. Pharmaceutical companies can basically manufacture gross amount of dangerous, addictive drugs, like oxycodone, without repercussions, questioning the demand, or even have real regulations, but the manufacturing of life saving medication is experiencing technical difficulties since November? I bet all the tea in China, that if they were having quality control problems making oxycodone, that problem would be fixed within the week!

Chris - I think that won't fly with Toxic Chemist - a fellow viner. He was working for a pharmeceutical for cancer R & D in 2010 when his company shut down 2/3's of their labs to cut R & D costs in response to Obama twisting the companies arms over. It took him a couple of months, but he got a new job.

Really - a czech doctor named Antonín Holý has created a drug to treat AIDS - it is being used all over the world now. And profesor Holý has declined to accept ANY profit from this drug so this drug could be available to people in developing coutries. How COOL is that ?????

Just one more quick note -Prof. Mgr. Antonin Holy, MD., Dr.h.c. mult. (* 1 September 1936 in Prague) is a Czech chemist and one of the leading Czech scientists on the 20th century. He discovered a number of antiviral drugs used to treat HIV / AIDS, hepatitis B and herpes. Viread, which was based on the Holy research, it is currently the most effective drug available to treat AIDS.
So - it was not just one drug :)

Never once was there a study the linked it to any malformed babies, but the plaintiffs hauled the malformed babies in to court. The company I work for lost seven cases.

I wouldn't be blaming "liberals" for this situation. Blame the jurors. All they see is an adverse outcome and they feel that someone must pay. For the most part, they're not smart enough to wade through the literature (even if it is presented to them) to make a truly informed decision. Not that I'm putting down the intelligence of people on juries. Statistics is a tricky area that often needs a well-trained expert to decode. As a result, the verdict is made at the emotional level rather than the factual level.

The shortages is just pure greed on the part of big pharma. Whats even more shameful is that Big Pharma has sent their thugs to Newsvine forums to squash people who point out that Big Pharma is the problem. Not only is Big Pharma the problem, they are also creating the problem and they are making the problem worse.

Its time for the Federal Government to, 1) Jail all CEO's of Big Pharma, and 2) To nationalize every single Pharma company in the United States.

Once the government Nationalizes Big Pharma, just watch in the next few months as the supplies of drugs, which Big Pharma said were impossible to make in any sort of supply, suddenly are produced in enough numbers to help everyone.

This is pure evil. Big Pharma is doing this because they are Greedy. No other reason. They control the supply they control the production. Greed Greed Greed that's all that's at the heart of this is greed.

And thats my opinion.

The shortages is just pure greed on the part of big pharma. Whats even more shameful is that Big Pharma has sent their thugs to Newsvine forums to squash people who point out that Big Pharma is the problem. Not only is Big Pharma the problem, they are also creating the problem and they are making the problem worse.

The problem as you put it is over regulation. how are they sending thugs here??? If that is all you have to combat logic, then your out of luck.

Laughable

Regulation my eye!!!

What Big Pharma is doing is one step below racketeering. The Federal Government needs to Nationalize them at once before more people die!!! This has absolutely nothing to do with regulation and all to do with a racket to prevent the supply of needed medications from going out in order to gouge the price of meds through the roof!!!

And that once again is my opinion.

Nationalize them at once before more people die!!!

How do you nationalize international companies (AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis)?

This has absolutely nothing to do with regulation and all to do with a racket to prevent the supply of needed medications from going out in order to gouge the price of meds through the roof!!!

You want to take the first capsule from a facility with quality problems, be my guest. I wouldn't.

If your grandma, no, better yet your 5 year old child, had some symptom that the doctor said would be terminal unless you took this new pill I had in my warehouse, what would you pay for it? If this symptom was common and there were thousands of kids who needed my pill but I only had enough for the first 200, what would you pay? What if you didn't have anymore than your next month's rent or mortgage to give me, but the guy in the next town could give me millions? Does capitalism give me the right to let your kid die? Would you be OK with that as long as you didn't stoop to socialized medicine? What if I had enough stock for everyone who needed it, but you still didn't have any money? All these conservative arguements for free market are meaningless when the person who will die without a known, proven medicine (not a miracle, something that is already here) is your immediate family.

Countries with socialized medicine do not engage in research. They are not "for profit" entities so there is no incentive for them to do so.

Blatantly false. What on earth would make you suppose that a country with socialized medicine would not have for-profit pharmaceutical companies?

Sources please.

What on earth would make you suppose that a country with socialized medicine would not have for-profit pharmaceutical companies?

I think a lot of people think that sanofi, Novartis, Glaxo, Bayer, etc. are American companies just because they do business here, when they're actually international (mostly from Europe).

Really?-1739570 : I attend the University of Western Ontario, and one of my professors has just begun clinical trials on an HIV vaccine. He doesn't work for a US company, but can you imagine the years of hard work it has taken to get this far and the promise this holds for the future? Just because we have better healthcare doesn't mean we can't make medical breakthroughs.

These drugs are not the answer anyway so why all the fighting? You don't need the drugs. Please use a search engine and learn about what Gerson therapy is.

There already is a cure for cancer. Ancient people didn't have it. Why? Because they lived a clean and healthy life & ate clean plant based diets. There is your cure. Problem solved.

smarty_cat-

I watched the documentary on Gerson on Netflix several months ago. We truly are what we consume, and if you read the content labels of the food you purchase at the store, it's easy to imagine how all of these diseases have come into existence. Notice how no one has even commented on your Gerson post. People believe that the answer to "organic" diseases are "inorganic" in nature, and that to me is the foundation of the problem.

Notice how no one has even commented on your Gerson post. People believe that the answer to "organic" diseases are "inorganic" in nature, and that to me is the foundation of the problem.

A) No one comments on the ridiculous posts about Gerson because he's been proven as a fraud. Only those who believe in "magical beans" even think this sort of thing could be reality.

B) People like you believe that just because it says "organic", it'll heal us from the health issues we face. The fact that you believe this con artist without any tangible proof (outside of made-up stories on the Internet) says all that we need to know. If you believe in Gerson because of something you watched on Netflix, I really don't think you're of the belief structure to actually discuss science.

I have to agree part of the problem is these lawsuits. Whenever I watch tv I see a barage of commercials about lawsuits against the drug companies for a lot of drugs. These lawsuits basically cover almost any bad reaction one my have experienced while taking a drug. Some lawsuits are justified but many are not and the scumbag lawyers are looking for another way to screw the system.

Peopl also need to remember that every single persons body is different. One person can smoke 3 packs a day and live until 90 and another person can look at a cigarette and get lung cancer. Our bodies were never meant to have drugs put in to them. Whether we like it or not, the reason there are side affects in some people and not all, is because each of our body chemistries are different.

1-800-BAD-DRUG

Their ads run 24/7 and cover so many drugs and medical equipment that I lost count.

Lawyers never should have been allowed to advertise. Things were better when they couldn't.

@mark, I understand what your saying, but Looking at one cigarette and they get lung cancer?

His point was people can get lung cancer and not even smoke. Look at George Burns, he smoked just about all his life and lived for 100 years. He was just trying to make a comparison. Lol

mcalleyboy,

No, it turns out that not even the lawyers can run the drug companies out of America. America is the last place in the world where it is possible to turn a profit developing new drugs. But don't worry, when our government (and many of the posters here) get their way, the drug companies will quit making their "obscene" profits. They'll also quit developing new drugs.

Every one of those lawyers that is suing drug companies on those TV ads has one thing in common: They are calling out a drug company that has been found to have hidden serious side effects from physicians and patients. A handful were efects that were discovered late because of poor testing (or no testing) but the vast majority were, like Vioxx, purposefully hidden from both the FDA's weak regulation and the public.

But it doesn'ty get any better. The big corporations just admit that they screwed up and then some judge sets up a trust fund that pays for all current and future cases and the drug company goes right on with its bad practices. If you are late in getting a suit in, you get nothing.

And even when you get that million-dollar settlement because your company failed to give you clean rooms and respirators when working with asbestos, that million-dollar settlement turns out to be an annuity. If you were on contingency, you have to mortgage the annuity to pay your lawyer his part. That is when you discover that the annuity only will give you less than $50,000. In these lawsuits, everyone wins except the victim.

George Burns was a very low probability exception , not the rule. Plus, George Burns smoked cigars and probably didn't inhale.

For every cigar smoking George Burns that makes it past 90, there are 1000 cigarette smokers who die of cancer before age 60. I know a 58 year old woman right now dying of lung cancer.

Yeah, sure economan. The sky is falling too. Big Pharma has survived plenty of democratic administrations in the past and done JUST FINE profit-wise. Your claim that liberals will drive their profits so low they'll have to fold up the R&D activities is just scare tactic nonsense with zero precedent to back it up.

Economan,

Tell that to my investors. They wear suits and take themselves pretty seriously and keep writing my start-up company checks to develop drugs.

Chris - it doesn't matter what warnings are put on labels - people don't read them. It doesn't matter what warnings are explained to them - they either don't hear them or don't understand them. It doesn't matter what you make them sign off on - you still didn't tell the truth.

All the lawyer has to do find an unrelated note or misplace email in a file and they get huge settlements.

We live in the most litigious society on earth. The only ones who really make money - is the lawyers.

You are believing too much of what you read.

Phragmatic,

Right. For now... Unfortunately, there's a bad trend forming. The government is slowly but surely taking over health care. And the government can't afford to pay for it. The bureaucrats will gradually decide that they can't afford expensive drugs. Then they're just quit paying for expensive drugs. Then there won't be new drugs.

I'm not one of the drug company haters. I've got a pretty good idea of their economics, and I'm in favor of "better living through pharmaceuticals". But the trend is ugly...

One word... Gerson

As in Max Gerson. Learn who he is and what he did and you will see that this entire argument & issue is senseless. Ancient people never got cancer. Have you ever asked yourself why? Max found out why. You can too.

You will never find the cure to cancer in a medical community that is profit based.

smarty:

were you around back then, and able to do autopsies on "ancient people who never got cancer"? Lots of people died of unknown ilnesses in the past, when medical sciences couldn't determine an exact cause.

People died at very young ages from a variety of diseases since the beginning of time.

Before vaccinations, a heck of a lot more people died of things like polio, smallpox, malaria, and TB.

Mother nature uses sickness and disease to keep the population down.

Were there less cases of cancer in the past? Probably.

That doesn't mean that there weren't people who drank and smoked and had occupations(like miners) that contributed to cancers.

I do agree with you, that the money is in the treatment and not the cure.

Some things(like curing sick people), shouldn't be all about profit.

Dudesickle hit the nail square on the head!! As soon as the price reaches whatever it is that the manufacturers are going for, instantly there'll be plenty of the medicine for everyone! Watch this one people because that's exactly what's happening and no one is going to do anything about it.

...and when enough lawmakers are taken on "fact finding missions" to resorts.

Did you not read that they suspended the production because of quality issues? If they produced the drug and had these issues, the lawyers would be climbing all over them, suing them, and putting them out of business. How pathetic that many of you say sue the heck out of them, then complain when they are trying to get manufacturing correct so they are not sued.

When enough one of those lawyers relatives needs a drug and its no longer available because of lawsuits, then you will see a change.

Till then, let the good times roll!

Did you not read that they suspended the production because of quality issues?

So they claim. The electrical supply companies in California during the good old days of Enron manufactured limited supply in order to boost profit by claiming the need to shut down some producing plants for "maintenance". It was a complete lie.

But who am I to suppose that the pharmaceutical companies responsible for the manufacture of critical life saving drugs would stoop to such tactics?

Speculation.....

I guess it could be because of UFO abductions too.

Really, you must be living on an UFO, or perhaps you are heavily invested.

But who am I to suppose that the pharmaceutical companies responsible for the manufacture of critical life saving drugs would stoop to such tactics?

Given that the FDA is involved, they must be out of compliance with the law, or very nearly so. The company doesn't stand to profit from reducing supply and being unable to manufacture the drug. Their competitors stand to profit most from that situation. Plus their competitors get free good press. Pretty much the only way they can gain is if they are getting enormous kickbacks from their competitors or have an obscene amount of stock in their competitors.

The quality issues could be real or it could be a matter of the quality of their profits declining. It sounds a bit like back in the days of the Enron power crisis, when generating plants would be shut down for "unscheduled maintenance" whenever demand was highest on hot summer days.

Taking drugs won't cure cancer anyway. This entire article is a moot point.

One word... Gerson... as in Max Gerson. Anyone who really wants to cure cancer will educate themselves about this man & his experiences. You don't need a bunch of money, insurance, drugs and doctors. You just need knowledge.

Do you have inside information that proves that quality and safety issues weren't behind the shutdown? If so, please share it with the rest of us.

Do you have inside information that proves that quality and safety issues weren't behind the shutdown? If so, please share it with the rest of us.

Do you have independent information to support the drug company claim is true?

What we do have is the author's assertion of that.

Any company, in any industry better be most concerned about making a profit, Otherwise, there will be, at some point, no production of a product. Funny how that works, isn't it? But , in the liberal world, people should just stay in business, regardless of making a profit or not. That is the only "fair" thing to do in a liberal's mind..

Dasvet,

I don't believe in keeping anyone from making an honest profit. The point here is that we are the only country paying these prices for drugs and are held hostage by these companies. Very little profit is used for research, I read a while back that there has not been a real advance in cancer drugs in 30 years. The only difference is the way they are used. You need to do some research. Many drugs are altered slightly and remarketed for other uses. Research is done by many doctors and other medical professionals who are paid much less than most in private practices. The research done by drug companies is only done for profit purposes. Most of the money goes back to shareholders and CEO's etc., when a "new" drug is sold. Marketing campaigns are a huge expense for these companies. Frankly, perscription drugs should not be advertised as most patients are not in a position to diagnose themselves. Other profits are used for kickbacks and samples for doctors and clinics. By the way, most doctors have less than one year of pharma training and should consult with pharmacists to perscribe drugs as most do in hospital settings.

An uninformed public and untrained doctors are responsible for most of the scams big pharma pulls on us. Often, older drugs are more effective than the so-called "new" drugs currently being prescribed. The reason docs prescribe them so often is that the patient has been led to believe by large media campaigns that they do a better job and the doctors, who are getting kick-backs, buy into that also.

Research is done by many doctors and other medical professionals who are paid much less than most in private practices.

When I used to be a technician manufacturing drugs, my wife was working for an academic researcher developing new cancer drugs. I have a bachelor's degree. He has a PhD in some really hard to pronounce field and an MD. The researcher with 2 advanced degrees was making the same amount I was as a button pusher on the manufacturing line.

Do you have independent information to support the drug company claim is true?

Although this isn't a criminal issue, the standard is still "innocent until proven guilty." A person's word (or that of a company) should be accepted as true unless there is evidence to the contrary.

None of this matters because drugs aren't the answer. Ancient people never got cancer. We already know why that is. There is your solution. Anything else is a con game. Modern medicine is not going to find a magic medicine that allows you to live a dirty life and avoid cancer. It's simply never going to happen. Clean living cures cancer and prevents cancer. Problem solved.

Although this isn't a criminal issue, the standard is still "innocent until proven guilty." A person's word (or that of a company) should be accepted as true unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Sure, two words: Enron and WMD.

So I am afraid the behavioral history of both corporations and government has altered that standard of presumed innocence you wish to evoke.

You mean like how all the rich peopel disappeared when Clinton was in office. Like, when the DJIA and Wall Street EXPLODED and more millionaires were created in the 90s than at any other time in our history.

Moron, dude. Total moron, you are.

Obama is working a a new "commission" at the moment that will solve the problem. Hurry November, America needs to rid ourselves of this albatross, B(a)roke Obama, in the White House forthwith.

A reasonable profit is necessary to keep any private industry in business. Nothing is really free, somebody pays for it. The drugs that are given so called freely are paid for by higher costs to others of other drugs the company makes. Yes before going to Mexico required a $50 crossing card and a bullet proof vest I used to go to get the generic form of a drug brand name 1 month US $125 generic Mexico 2 month $9.99. US companies are so regulated it takes longer to get something marketed and they pass those costs on to the consumer in the US.

-

So lonereb......those same products in Mexico some how got to be worth 4 cents on the dollar in a country that provided little if anything in its production? What's the explanation for that? I'll bet it's very interesting! Wait!! I know what it is!! It must be in the exchange rate!!

Cancer affects all income groups and the survival rates are just about the same for poor & wealthy when those people turn to conventional medicine. So the statement that the rich get richer as if they don't get cancer is false... and your comment about the poor dying more from cancer as if they die more frequently than rich people from cancer is also false.

The only people who have had a high success rate of curing cancer are people who underwent a total lifestyle change to clean & healthy living as chemical free as possible... such as Gerson therapy. You don't have to be rich to stop polluting your body.

How long are you going to flog this same dead horse? Google Gerson and find out how unsuccessful his theory actually was.

@ not so smarty cat;

the poor and sick get deader

Umm I said, and the sick,which would include all who are sick, AND the poor. I specifically put the sick to include all who suffer from this shortage, not just the poor,hence, AND sick.

Those with lower incomes are less likely to afford the care they need, which increases their mortality rate. The rich get richer phrase comes from the eighty fold increase, not the rate they acquire cancer, you should really change your name.

Really? Alarmist statements without facts backing them are what?

Plant food.

Try we don't die at 40 anymore.

Most of us anyway.

Yes.. a lot of people are questioning it and the fact that we are living longer might explain some of the increase but certainly not all of it. As we age, our immune systems breakdown and cancer is an opportunistic disease. Unfortunately, there are so many different types of cancer and cancer doesn't discriminate.. young, old, middle aged. I think a lot of it boils down to genetics, stress, and certainly lifestyle choices. But I also think (just my opinion) a lot of it is the drugs we're taking (OTC and prescription), hormones (birth control pills, and HRT), pollution, food additives, our sedentary lifestyles and so on . No simple answers.

Easy answer... filthy living with chemicals & pollutants.

Ancient people did not get cancer. Why? Because they lived clean lives and ate predominantly plant based diets.

Do a search on Max Gerson and you will get all your questions answered.

No conspiracy just good old greed. This is what happens when healthcare is for profit.

Nettle ... just how effective do you think drug companies would be at developing new drugs and meeting demand if they were government-owned? Government-owned mortgage companies can't even do something as simple as lend money and collect it. They don't even have to innovate.

Barry, Nettle said FOR PROFIT not GOVERMENT..... The biggest problem with the medical field is the Non-Profit Organizations have been muscled out.

You can have for profit and still have regulations. The electric utility industry is "for profit" and those profits are regulated. The amount of those profits is limited. When you take away those regulations, you get Enrons. That is the reality of the "free market." When you take away regulation, you get profiteering and overextended greed.

Nettle, you are absolutely correct.

I'm reading this while sitting north of the 49th parallel, and there are not stories about drug shortages here, save for the occasional story about low supplies of medical isotopes when a reactor producing them is shut down, temporarily, for inspections, repairs, etc.

Although prescription meds aren't a part of the universal health insurance plans in any province, there are plans available for low income families and individuals. Further, cancer meds are free here, as are all of the health-related costs of cancer treatment. The ancillary costs to families, money to come from different city to see their loved one who is undergoing treatment, even parking fees, must be paid by the loved ones of the patient.

Now, why is it that universal health care is seen as such a horrid choice in your country? Yes, you'd be paying more in taxes in order to fund such a system for everyone, but the increase in taxes would be far more than offset by the fact that you would no longer be paying exorbitant premiums to third party insurers who then refuse to pay out when you need it. Universal health care means that you get what you need, no questions asked and no refusals of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. The children being treated by MTX will never, under the current conditions in the US, be able to purchase any degree of private insurance, and will remain uninsured, through no fault of their own, without universal health care.

rpearlston,

Now, why is it that universal health care is seen as such a horrid choice in your country?

Because universal health care is a communist socialist plot to make the masses dependent on government and it's a bad thing because.... death panels! Nazi's! Soviets! BOOGA BOOGA! Vote for me. I'm Pragmatic-3918582 and I approved this message.

Barry, the drug companies are not the ones developing the drugs, they only manufacture them. Do you read?

jb ... perhaps you need to learn how to read. Drug companies (at least the ones making brand name drugs) do develop drugs. They spend billions on developing drugs that often never make it to the market. Its like venture capital. For every blockbuster, there are nine failures.

Nettle still hasn't answered my question. Any claims that heath care used to be non-profit are bogus. Doctors made profits, drug manufacturers made profits, device manufacturers made profits, the companies that manufactured everything need to equip a hospital made profit, etc....

It can cost tens of millions to establish a new production line for a drug. Are you really expecting non-for-profits to be able to marshal that kind of capital for a product that might not even sell.

No one needs the pharmaceutical companies to get well anyway so why does it matter what they do? They can't cure what ails you. They are not in business to help people get well. If they cure cancer they go out of business.

There already is a cure for cancer. Everyone knows what it is. Ancient people did not even know what cancer was because they never got it. There is your answer.

It's sad that you stayed up til all hours of the night to post garbage from a guy who's known to be a fraud. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

You wouldn't have to go far. Just cross the 49th parallel (or whatever the latitude may be closest to you) and come to the country in which insulin was discovered and first refined and produced. Researchers in Canada are still working on further developments in diabetes and in all other diseases. In fact, the most power drugs available to help to manage some types of inflammatory arthritis and other auto-immune illnesses are the direct result of research done in Canada, research that netted the leader of that study a Nobel Prize in medicine. So much for the idea that no country of than the US is doing any research or developing any new drugs.

One word... Gerson... as in Dr. Max Gerson.

He learned that ancient man didn't have any of our modern diseases & never got cancer. He found out why that is. But when he tried to share his findings and implement his therapy he was savagely attacked by the medical community. He was literally poisoned with arsenic twice until he finally died. That is how much they wanted him to shut up and go away.

There already is a cure for most diseases, even the most deadly ones. They just don't want you to know what it is. Until people realize why ancient man were free from these illnesses there will be no progress and kids will suffer. Stop trusting an industry who has everything to gain from keeping people sick and everything to lose from curing them.

What sort of regulations would you favor? Regulations that force drug companies to manufacture drugs whether or not they wanted to or were qualified to do so?

Liberals are funny.

They want everything regulated to death and when their regulations, in this case FDA manufacturing standards, cause a shortage they want to make a political statement.

In typical fashion, this liberal rant relies on moral equivalence. That's what liberals do, they try to rationalize instead of looking at the facts.

1. This drug HAS to be preservative free. Therefore it wont be mass produced as it obviously has a limited shelf life.

2. The article clearly stated that there were quality issues that conflicted with.FDA regulations. Would you have them ignore the FDA regulations Mr. Liberal?

3. There are other manufacturers making this same drug. Therefore, the affected manufacturer is losing money to their competitors. So how is that gouging?

Speculating and moral equivalence are the stock and trade of the alarmist.

Facts are the rhelm of the informed.

Read into it what you will Liberal, you can usually be counted on to toss around a lot of manure before exiting.

Conservatives. Love the fetish, hate the child.

Facts are the bane of the liberal.

Like garlic to vampires, facts without speculation make them flee.

Olddude50, last I saw, it's the liberal Democrats who hate children, especially the unborn. Abortions in the US are vastly a majority of convenience and lifestyle choice, not the "scary mantra of rape and incest" militant womens organizations tout.

That is exactly what I said. Conservatives. Love the fetish, hate the chiild, and from your own hand, too.

This really is too easy.

Less regulation of drug companies would lead to less shortage. But if you liberals can't figure that out no wonder this country is in such sad shape.

A regulation that would cancel a patent if the covered product is no longer produced in sufficient quantities to meet demand would stimulate companies to solve these problems in short order. In this case, the story states that the company voluntarily stopped production due to unspecified quality issues. It would be helpful to know what those issues were, but that info is probably a company secret.

From the article..,,

the company voluntarily suspended operations at its plant in Bedford, Ohio, in November because of “significant manufacturing and quality concerns,”

Looks like the company understands all to well the issue of liability.

LWWN's tout greed, profits and the need for more regulations to ensure higher production. I would bet that these fools would also argue against government subsidies as well. I would even bet that they would scream that the drug companies should be held liable for any real or imaginary errors they may have made, regardless of misuse by the patient.

Drug companies are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The WH does little to clarify their position on the costs or to educate the populace on the generation of new drugs. After all a politician only looks as far as the next election, be they L or R.

Yet many lwwn's cling to the concept of "I am from the government, and I am here to help". It wasn't true years ago when I first heard it and is just as false today, especially when we have abandoned the KISS principles in generating regulations and tax codes.

In this case, the story states that the company voluntarily stopped production due to unspecified quality issues.

The company didn't stop production, it suspended it. It would unfair to take away its patent simply because it has production problems. If an inventor of any other product had trouble with the production line, would you cancel his patent, too?

However, since there are other companies that are making this drug, patents aren't at issue here. The problem is that the company having the problems is the largest manufacturer of preservative-free methotrexate and the other four companies haven't been able to ramp up their production to fill the gap.

On this issue I completely disagree with both liberals and conservatives. You want magic science to give you a magic drug so you can keep living polluted lives free of disease. Neither one of you wants to prevent disease and heal the body the way it was meant to. You make the same mistakes over and over but expect a different result.

We already know the cure to cancer... you just won't do it.

Remember FDA power was expanded after the thalidomide disaster in the 1950s (I suppose you think that it was terrible that the government stepped in there) and then again in the 1970s when it was revealed that drug testing laboratories companies were hiring completely untrained people to test the quality of the drugs and release them for use. Over the years, the number of drugs being manufactured have increased enormously and the drugs themselves have become more complex (genetically engineered, combinations etc) necessitating . Most responsible drug company employees appreciate the need for regulations and welcome them to some extent (keeps the playing field level among manufacterers, plus employees and their family members use drugs too so we want them to be safe) so we wish the " I'm a do-gooder, yipee yi ya let's all be cowboys, I'm stupid and proud of it" conservatives like you would just sink back into your caves.

thalidomide was NEVER approved by the FDA. There were approx 20,000 samples distributed here in the US for clinical trials. Most of the birth defects were in Britain and Germany in the early 1960s. I might live in a cave but I have enough sense to google something before I comment on it

Thalidomide is currently being used in the USA for specific cancers.

Well birth control pills have sent many people into lifelong medical problems but since they are the darlings of the liberals I don't see the FDA pull them off the shelf. Before you say I don't know what I'm talking about there are 2 hospitals that would like to see you about the bills I couldn't pay.

@13.4 - Some people also have bad reactions to penicillin and people die from Tylenol. I'm sorry you had a bad reaction to a medication, but that is no reason to discontinue it for ALL people. Some people also have bad reactions to peanut butter, but we also still sell that.

Meanoldbastid .. I think that Firedup WAS referring to the thalidomide disaster in Europe. At the time that it was introduced, the FDA was under considerable pressure to approve it in the US, but it waited. After the epidemic of birth defects in Europe, the FDA was hailed as a hero. I think that the FDA is still cautious, sometimes too much so, as a result of that experience.

Seriously, it never stops amazing me at how brainwashed & blinded everyone is about modern medicine and the drug culture we live in. The FDA kills & harms countless people & still people praise it. Tylenol is a liver poison & still people defend it... there is no safe amount to take. Peanuts are not nuts they are legumes and some legumes are very toxic. You can't just eat any plant on the planet safely no matter who is selling it, but they all have their uses. Thalidomide deformed children in the USA during clinical trials where 20k patients were given the drug by their doctors. Birth control pills have come with warnings about the deadly risks for over 40 years but women simply refuse to listen until they suffer the consequences. Then they want to blame someone else.

There is the key... blame someone else other than yourself.

You want to know precious little about how your body operates or the natural world you live in... you just want magic science people to do all that for you & give you magic drugs so you can keep living unclean lives without any bad consequences. The words "grow up" spring to mind.

Glad you left, also. Malcontents and whiners like you need to leave.

Good for you! I guess you showed us, didn't you?

How ail we ever get along now?

We are all glad you're gone too. Just stay away.

After reading the comments from those left behind, it makes glad you left all over again, doesn't it?

I haven't missed you.

Jordan, you will not be missed.

Good for you. I'm glad you are happy. I'm a bit jealous but I am anchored here for various reasons. I applaud your decision but I don't think you can escape the planet which is what you really have to do to escape the problems that plague us today.

@15 - Try googling "Gray Market drug" and you'll see some examples. Or "drug prices soar". Or look up ashp.org/shortages which is the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists' explanation of current drug shortages.

For others, methotrexate was used back in the 1950's. The pill form is not in shortage, but it is terribly hard on the stomach and other systems. The injectible in the glass syringe had some issues with glass particles. That is not good for injecting into the spine or just sub-cutaneously.

Letusreason - There is no "one right" answer, but the biggies may very well lie with liability, torte reform, developmental costs and demand on one side vs a false sense of entitlement on the other.

Your question is extremely easy to answer. The success of our medical industry is based on illness rather than health. The end.

Maybe preparing you for obamas healthcare death panels? You will have people deciding whether you deserve a drug or treatment, or not. It is in there.

I might believe that if they were the only company making the drug, but they are not. They are losing business to the other companies that are making the same drug.

Have they raised their prices?

Speculating is fun isn't it? But without facts, it makes great fertilizer.

@Mark-384387: Wow, nice example of illoigical. The "death panels" are already here, they are called private insurers, who deny deny deny, and free market driven medical care, as in we haven't had a shortage of erectile dysfucntion drugs, not once.

"you will have people deciding whether you deserve a drug or treatment,"???

We already have that. Read your insurance policy. Who would you rather have making these decisions, a for profit company whose only obligation is to their shareholders, or an imperfect gov't with no profit motive?

@jamesbrummel

Yeah, cause Medicare/Medicaid NEVER say no do they?

10 years ago a private insurer refused to pay for treatment for me that was standard under medicare. The death panel has been here a long time.

@ Paulette

Your statement presumes that drugs are the only answer to illness & health.

It also implies that people have no responsibility for becoming ill to begin with.

I would say that both of those suppositions account for maybe .99% of the population. I don't think that that few rare cases are significant enough to support your argument.

We already have a cure for most diseases but we just don't want to do what it takes to get it. We also know how to prevent most illnesses but we don't want to do that either. That's not the drug companies' fault. That is societies' own fault. Do a search on Gerson therapy. Case closed.

Wait... wait...

I thought socialism was a bad thing. Why do the drug companies owe us any explanation about their supplies for sale? If people don't like it they can make their own drugs. Or stop getting sick. It's not the drug companies' faults.

AMAZING... the hypocrisy of hating socialists then being outraged about people dying because private companies are not voluntarily behaving as socialists and turning out drugs to save a society from it's self-induced diseases. Make up your minds people! Do you want everyone to work together for the common good or not?

Really? Has the price risen?

I'm sure it will. Wanna bet on that?

If it does, it will be due to an increase in manufacturing costs, rather than gouging.

There is competition in the manufacturing of this drug.

Competition keeps prices lower.

Really? Your wasting your words on these morons. Facts are not something their akin to. Better to ramble on with accusations and hyperbole then look at facts. Fact if they don't have the drug and others are making and selling it they lose money they will never recoup. Understanding that you can't mass produce a drug that has zero preservatives in it is beyond their comprehension. It's easier to spew blame then to think about the why and how.

It is amazing isn't it?

No wonder we are in the shape we are when these people vote.

Perhaps you would care to explain how there is competition in this particular drug when ALL of the drug companies involved have back-order or selected dose unavailability issues. That looks like collusion to me. Your Big Pharma shilling is strong today.

"Perhaps you would care to explain how there is competition in this particular drug when ALL of the drug companies involved have back-order or selected dose unavailability issues. That looks like collusion to me. Your Big Pharma shilling is strong today."

You don't understand the drug making process. You don't just knock on a door and demand 2000 extra cases and get it the next day. It's not like opening a kool-aid stand. "Preservative free" means a lower shelf life, so no, there won't be stacks of it lying around in a basement.

As soon as the price goes through the ceiling there will suddenly be enough drugs available.

WOW seems Big Pharma has their Plummers out on all the forums tonight trying to slam anyone who denounces this ploy of theirs to Price Gouge medication.

The only way this will stop is if the Federal Government Nationalizes Big Pharma.

And thats my opinion.

Magnum ... it is interesting that you consider anyone who opposes your view of the world to be stooges of "big pharma" (not all of the companies making this drug would be classified as "big", btw).

Unless you have PROOF of a price-fixing collusion, then we're all free to posit alternative explanations. You know, sometimes the simplest explanation (production problems at the largest of five manufacturers) is, indeed, the correct one.

People who view everything in this world as being part of a conspiracy -- and Newsvine seems to attract them like flies -- really need to get some help.

Juicing countless pounds of fresh produce every day & drinking 13 glasses of yucky tasting fresh pressed veggie juice followed by coffee bowel cleansing suddenly seems extremely affordable & attractive doesn't it?

Or you can leave your fate in the hands of chemical pushers, an apathetic society, and monetary limitations.

I know which one I am choosing. And that my friends takes me out of the equation entirely so I'm not the slave of the medical industry & I'm healthier than I have ever been in my entire life. Win / win. Gerson therapy rocks.

It was the FDA inspection that led to the company suspending manufacturing.

FDA oversight doesn't mean that it supervises each and every batch of drugs. It can't, unless you want to start paying much higher taxes.

Drug companies and other FDA-regulated industries are required to develop proper manufacturing practices and procedures and to adhere to them rigorously. Periodic audits, and monitoring of reports submitted by physicians, hospitals and even patients are among the tools used by the FDA to ensure that those practices are followed. When they are not, the manufacturer can be shutdown and the product recalled.

Manufacturing a "preservative free" drug obviously means that it is not massed produced. You cant have large supplies sitting on shelves to spoil.

So how is that price gouging?

These people do not understand the fact that if there isn't a supply it can't be given out immediatly. Wait a year when beef prices rise because the US has the smallest cattle herds in decades because of the drought these people will call McD's a price gouger when they raise the price of a Big Mac.

The shelf life of Methotrexate 500 (-1000-) Solution for Infusion medac is 3 years.

Lonereb - what do you mean "when"?

pog8 - Thank you, refridgerated insulin is in the same ballpark as long as it is unopened. Once tapped the shelf life is only 30-60 days tops. IE are you talking about a one time infusion amount vial or a vial for multiple treatments?

Based on the article it seems that the supply has fallen far short of demand. Failure by the drug manufacturesrs to project demand or failure by the CDC or FDA in their projections, either seems reasonable.

@19.6 - See ashp.org/shortages and it will show that pharmacists track this. Also fda.gov/drug. This preservative-free Ben Venue case is a little beyond me. I know they posted in 2005 problems with ethylene glycol contamination. Another company has had problems with glass particles in syringes.

I am more familiar with injections for individual use, with preservative, which also have shortages of 2 mL, 10 mL and 50 mL vials and 250 and 500 mL containers. And I realize the infusion med is different again and those can't be injected into the spine.

My understanding is that the FDA is setting up requirements that companies notify them if production will be discontinued or shortages are anticipated, so other arrangements can be made. In 2004 the gov't allowed importation from Canada to cover a shortage. But some groups want to decrease FDA control (along with CDC and NIH and EPA) or dismantle it, so it becomes a tricky political issue about gov't interferring with business and profits.

On another note - I have read of those with insulin pumps having new problems finding supplies covered by their insurance. That is also a scary issue.

@ btcoates

Wait... what? Have you been living under a rock? The FDA is responsible for the deaths of millions of people since it's creation and you just now are wondering what they are doing? How about that drug used in heart operations that killed hundreds of thousands around the world while they slept during surgery? Yet not one of these human beings responsible is prosecuted for mass murder.

It's all just a big mistake and considered white collar misconduct... not even a crime. Just simple incompetence. It's really not their faults all those people died. Get with the program! What are you a liberal socialist or something?

We don't need no stinking FDA! It's all caveat emptor around here don't ya know?

If it is all about money, lets just tell the drug companies to shut their doors, end of money and greed issues, right? Heck we can then let the government take over research and production. We all know how efficient our government bureaucracy is.

So... american-2051576 is saying the drug companies are actually volunteer socialists who provide a service to our nation by producing their products whenever it suits them to the detriment of the sick but that is superior to a government run social program.

Either way it's socialism. The only difference is... we have no control over volunteer socialists being charitable but we do have some measure of control over government programs.

We have the facility, the supplies and the employees. Just do it! Second, I don't know about you, but the thought of getting meds from another country makes me nervous. My first thought was China, ...

Hmm ... "just do it" sounds so easy. We don't know the problems at this manufacturing facility. The whole production line may be wrong, the building might be crappy, the people just plain unqualified for their jobs and so much more. Depending on how long it takes the manufacture the drug, which could be weeks, the validation processes to confirm that the facility is back into condition could take months to complete.

To expect an immediate turnaround is like saying that a failing school should start turning out Ivy-league quality students next week because someone said "just do it."

As for importing drugs, I hope that you're aware that European drug companies turn out high quality medications, too. Some of the biggest drug companies operating in the US are European-based.

Barry of NJ - true. Perhaps the following analogy will be helpful in pointing out potential concerns.

In iowa, during deer season, local butchers won't process beef at the same time as venison. Cross contamination. Same type of restrictions might apply in the production of drugs.

Where is your evidence that this has anything to do with a new healthcare plan? This has been an ongoing problem, since before the Obama administration. Let's not bring politics into this tragedy.

prove it moth!

Redmoth - the tragedy is that we have become enamored with entitlements and that politicians have done little to tell the populace the truth as in... the poor will always be with us, that everyone dies and SS and medicare have been underfunded ever since contributions were merged into the general fund in the 60's.

What makes you think that obamacare doesn't also have a financial impact on drug availability? How hard is it to see that political policy creates regulations and that regulations impact the market place. Obama is the current politician in charge. He doesn't get a free pass, he is the defacto leader of all government branches that the executive branch of the government presides over.

Wait what? Both of you need to make up your minds... ssmike & american.

Are you socialists or not? You are blaming others for the lack of supply of a product. Free market capitalist companies don't have any responsibility to supply anything at any time. So there is no blame when something simply isn't available.

To assign blame assumes that you have expectations that our society owes you access to that drug and that is SOCIALISM.

Until you guys are combing your hair with a twig and hunting animals with rocks and sticks for your supper... You are dependent on society... like it or not. You can't have it both ways.

The insurance companies have been denying treatment for a long time. The CEO and stockholders make money by refusing treatments that a doctor has stated as medically necessary.

Pog8 - if that is all it is, then let's dissolve all private insurers and drug companies, problem solved.

@ american... first thing you have said that I agree with.

But you are being sarcastic so it means you don't think insurers make money off denying claims. So now you are claiming that insurance companies are secretly doing socialist acts voluntarily by applying morality to their business practices that cost them money they don't really have to pay if they didn't want to.

For someone so cynical and anti-socialist you sure do like to accuse a lot of businesses of secretly operating with a socialist agenda.

Nice to see that you recognize sarcasm, however you are trying to connect dots that don't exists. I can see where I could be considered as either a cynic or even being pragmatic. Above all else I realize that there are many attributes of being human that enter into an equation as well as what is physically/technologically possable.

To answer your assumptions you make about me, Why not specifically point out where I said or implied them, sarcasm aside?

Fundamentally, I recognise that the poor will be with us always, there will always be a minority that will have more than the majority as both fall within the concepts of human individuality. Furthermore no one lives forever.

Actually I favor pragmatism over cynicism.

Most of the drugs on the market today cost millions to develop. These aren't government owned labs and they are allowed to make a profit. I love it when people rail against "BIG" Pharma or Oil or what ever, because most of the money on Wall Street is from retirement accounts. Even the Union's retirement accounts are invested on Wall Street.

Redmoth - why not just nationalize these businesses? Think of all the savings that could be realized.

Wait... huh? I thought socialism is bad.

Why is it that when it comes to terminal illnesses all of a sudden conservatives change their minds about a whole lot of things?

All of a sudden it is their right to have whatever medical care they need & have it immediately no matter what... even when they've exhausted their insurance & are out of pocket into bankruptcy so essentially they are indigent living off society like all the people they condemn.

All of a sudden they LOVE evolutionists and all the nifty medical advances that were developed on the basis that evolution is a fact. Suddenly the fact that their surgeon or anesthetist is an aetheist doesn't make any difference to them.

Miraculously they develop a social conscience and start bellowing loudly about the sorry state of health care and how unfair everything is in our system.

But for decades before their own mortality is at issue these same people have absolutely no empathy for anyone else on the planet whatsoever, they want to exterminate everyone who isn't their clone, they insist that God condemns science on the whole.

Well, what did you expect from a business? Socialism? Moral conscience?

That's not the American way.

Fortunately, there are better alternatives like Gerson therapy that have higher success rates. So all is not lost.

This greed you speak of is the Republican Party's dream child that is the type of people they dream of they only care about the one in the mirror

If anyone truly believes that Republicans want to kill children by with holding life saving drugs, you really are out of touch. Do you think the conservatives don't get sick children??? I really despise people who paint with a broad brush and point at a single entity. This problem is caused by many issues, the government, poor health care planning, wanting to make more profit on the part of the manufacturers, medical centers wanting to increase profits, and so and so on. So get off the political kick and look at the broad issue. Did you read any of the material before you made your comment??? UAW....United Auto Workers???? Figures....another group trying to steal from everyone else. Look in the mirror and point the finger at yourself.

The drug company been killing people for years. Have you ever listened to their commercials. It's almost safer not to get their drugs. They also limit production on Malaria drugs for other countries, basically allowing for people to die even though the disease is very treatable.

@ slurandblur

Almost? LOL It is much safer not to take any of those drugs.

That said... The drug companies have no obligation to save lives. They are not socialist programs.

Prevention and natural methods are your ticket out of the death spiral modern medicine is in.

You bring up such an interesting point. I wonder if there has ever been a study to see how many kids WITH a Dx of A.L.L. have either never been or are minimally vaccinated. I bet very few kids who have not been OVER vaccinated get A.L.L. or other childhood cancers. Now I wonder who would like to fund a study like that???? LOL- certainly not any drug co. and CERTAINLY not the government - since vaccines are government mandated. Do all of you realize the government takes the recommendations of the drug co. on the # of vacc.'s your kids should get????????? Up to #46 by the time they are 3 years old. Do the math. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out this messes with their immune systems and for SOME leads to cancer!!!!!! Get their titers drawn- dont just assume they need YET ANOTHER vaccination. Do your homework- for your childs (SAKE) health. :::)))