xiaoniu2021
2021-06-08
Nice
Opinion: Only ‘greedy’ drug companies will cure Alzheimer’s<blockquote>观点：只有“贪婪”的制药公司才能治愈阿尔茨海默病</blockquote>
免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
2
1
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":117543634,"tweetId":"117543634","gmtCreate":1623153771328,"gmtModify":1634036407976,"author":{"id":3582279635767115,"idStr":"3582279635767115","authorId":3582279635767115,"authorIdStr":"3582279635767115","name":"xiaoniu2021","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2b48490ff89e888e7ae9323ab94ce117","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":1,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Nice</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Nice</p></body></html>","text":"Nice","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/117543634","repostId":1127979401,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1127979401","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623153568,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1127979401?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-08 19:59","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Opinion: Only ‘greedy’ drug companies will cure Alzheimer’s<blockquote>观点：只有“贪婪”的制药公司才能治愈阿尔茨海默病</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1127979401","media":"marketwatch","summary":"Here’s a question for everyone in Congress and the White House, the federal bureaucracy, and all my ","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/783580e857537ceb68ca7c6330ee4132\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"736\">Here’s a question for everyone in Congress and the White House, the federal bureaucracy, and all my fellow members of the (ahem) “mainstream media.”</p><p><blockquote>这里有一个问题要问国会和白宫的每个人，联邦官僚机构，以及我所有的（咳咳）“主流媒体”的同事们。</blockquote></p><p> Now that BiogenBIIB,+38.34%has got approval forits new Alzheimer’s drug—the first approved by the FDA in almost 20 years — how much should they be allowed to charge for it?</p><p><blockquote>既然BiogenBIIB，+38.34%的新药已经获得批准——这是近20年来FDA批准的第一种药物——他们应该被允许收取多少费用？</blockquote></p><p> What’s the ethically correct figure? What will exempt them from charges of “greed” or “gouging?” What is “too much?”</p><p><blockquote>伦理上正确的数字是多少？什么能免除他们“贪婪”或“欺诈”的指控？什么是“太多了？”</blockquote></p><p> The manufacturing cost per pill? The cost plus a small margin? What’s the number?</p><p><blockquote>每粒药丸的制造成本？成本加上一点利润？号码是多少？</blockquote></p><p> I bring this up because few things matter as much for the lives of senior citizens in America—and seniors in the rest of the world—than the development of new drugs. I have personally seen up close how Alzheimer’s destroys people, sometimes as young as their 50s and 60s. This has included close members of my family.</p><p><blockquote>我提出这个问题是因为对于美国老年人——以及世界其他地方的老年人——的生活来说，没有什么比新药的开发更重要的了。我亲眼目睹了老年痴呆症是如何摧毁人的，有时只有五六十岁的人。这包括我的近亲。</blockquote></p><p> Some six million Americans already have this cruel, vicious and incurable disease, and ahorrific 50 million around the world. That’s 50 million death sentences. Ten million more get it every year.</p><p><blockquote>大约600万美国人已经患有这种残酷、恶性和无法治愈的疾病，全世界有5000万人患有这种可怕的疾病。那是五千万个死刑判决。每年还有一千万人得到它。</blockquote></p><p> The drug industry developed five vaccines in one year for COVID-19, a disease associated with the deaths of 3.7 million people world-wide. Alzheimer’s treatments? Oh, one for every 20 years.</p><p><blockquote>制药行业在一年内为COVID-19开发了五种疫苗，这种疾病导致全球370万人死亡。老年痴呆症的治疗？哦，每20年一次。</blockquote></p><p> Let’s be honest: Many people subconsciously shrug off this issue on the principle that Alzheimer’s will only happen to someone else. Alas, many of the people reading this article are going to get this disease. For many more, your father, mother, wife or husband will get it. Or a sibling or close friend. At which point, the “hey, maybe we should have made this a bigger national priority” argument will strike, but too late to help.</p><p><blockquote>老实说：许多人下意识地对这个问题不屑一顾，认为阿尔茨海默氏症只会发生在别人身上。唉，很多读这篇文章的人都会得这种病。对于更多的人，你的父亲、母亲、妻子或丈夫会得到它。或者兄弟姐妹或密友。在这一点上，“嘿，也许我们应该把这作为一个更大的国家优先事项”的论点将会出现，但为时已晚。</blockquote></p><p> This is the context worth bearing in mind when we hear about drugs getting approved—and, just as importantly, when we hear people demagoguing about “greedy” drug companies and “overpriced” drugs. It’s not just this new Alzheimer’s drug, either.</p><p><blockquote>当我们听到药物获得批准时，同样重要的是，当我们听到人们煽动“贪婪”的制药公司和“定价过高”的药物时，这是值得记住的背景。也不仅仅是这种新的老年痴呆症药物。</blockquote></p><p> If “drug” companies are making out like bandits, someone really has to explain to me why it doesn’t show up in the…er…stock prices. In the past decade, investors the iShares U.S. Pharmaceuticals exchange-traded fundIHE,+0.61%have made far lower returns than they could have done just by randomly picking a bunch of non-pharmaceutical stocks out of the newspaper. These companies have been worse investments than a simple S&P 500SPX,-0.08%index fund like the SPDR S&P 500 ETFSPY,-0.10%,or the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETFRSP,-0.18%.</p><p><blockquote>如果“毒品”公司像强盗一样亲热，有人真的必须向我解释为什么它没有出现在…呃…股票价格中。在过去的十年里，iShares美国制药交易所交易基金的投资者获得的回报远低于仅仅从报纸上随机挑选一堆非制药股票所能获得的回报。这些公司的投资比简单的标准普尔500SPX，-0.08%指数基金（例如SPDR标普500 ETFSPY，-0.10%）或景顺标普500等权重ETFRSP，-0.18%）更糟糕。</blockquote></p><p> Even Biogen itself had substantially underperformed the broader stock market index for a decade. Until Monday.</p><p><blockquote>十年来，甚至百健（Biogen）本身的表现也大幅落后于大盘指数。直到星期一。</blockquote></p><p> No, the industry returns aren’t terrible. But they are hardly the giant free oil well that critics sometimes suggest. I checked out the data from Dartmouth College finance professor Kenneth French, who has tracked stock market returns by industry going back decades. Going all the way back to the 1920s, according to his numbers, the pharmaceuticals industry barely cracks the top one-third of all industries by stock returns. So far this millennium, the total returns from major pharmaceutical companies have been about a third less than those from the S&P 500 index. Biotechs have done much better, but they were a much smaller sector. And even biotech has trailed the returns of alcohol and tobacco companies.</p><p><blockquote>不，行业回报并不可怕。但它们并不是批评者有时所说的巨大的自由油井。我查阅了达特茅斯学院金融学教授肯尼斯·弗伦奇的数据，他几十年前就按行业追踪了股市回报。根据他的数据，追溯到20世纪20年代，制药业的股票回报率勉强跻身所有行业的前三分之一。本世纪迄今为止，大型制药公司的总回报比标普500指数低约三分之一。生物技术做得更好，但它们是一个小得多的行业。甚至生物技术公司的回报率也落后于酒精和烟草公司。</blockquote></p><p> How are we going to get billions of dollars more capital invested in curing Alzheimer’s and diabetes and cancer when investors can make more money investing in making booze and cigarettes? This is upside down.</p><p><blockquote>当投资者可以通过投资制造酒精和香烟赚更多的钱时，我们如何获得数十亿美元的资本投资于治疗阿尔茨海默氏症、糖尿病和癌症？这是颠倒的。</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile the regulation are all messed up and back to front as well.This headline says it all: “FDA Approves Alzheimer’s Drug Despite Fierce Debate Over Whether It Works.”</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，规则也被颠倒了。这个标题说明了一切：“尽管对阿尔茨海默氏症药物是否有效存在激烈争论，FDA还是批准了该药物。”</blockquote></p><p> This is nuts. Maybe the new treatment makes things better, maybe it doesn’t. Apparently people aren’t certain. It’s hardly a surprise: The treatment is new, and the disease is complicated. But the first question to ask isn’t whether it makes things better, but whether it makes things worse. The current situation is catastrophic for anyone with the disease. People are dying. Lives are being destroyed.</p><p><blockquote>这太疯狂了。也许新的治疗方法让事情变得更好，也许没有。显然人们不确定。这并不奇怪：治疗方法是新的，疾病也很复杂。但首先要问的问题不是它是否让事情变得更好，而是它是否让事情变得更糟。目前的情况对任何患有这种疾病的人来说都是灾难性的。人们正在死去。生命正在被摧毁。</blockquote></p><p> Waiting to be sure treatment works would be like falling out of a plane with a parachute on, but hesitating to pull the cord because, well, it might not work. It suggests a basic misunderstanding of game theory. (Or common sense.)</p><p><blockquote>等待确定治疗有效就像带着降落伞从飞机上掉下来，但犹豫着要不要拉绳子，因为，嗯，它可能不起作用。这表明了对博弈论的一个基本误解。（或常识。）</blockquote></p><p> It’s one thing to hesitate about approving a new drug for a nonfatal illness. You don’t want to make people sicker, or cause needless suffering or death. But with this kind of illness that really doesn’t apply.</p><p><blockquote>对批准一种治疗非致命疾病的新药犹豫不决是一回事。你不想让人们病得更重，或者造成不必要的痛苦或死亡。但是这种病真的不适用。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Anyone who says “oh, no, we need to be really careful, and if need be delay these new treatments for years to make sure they are absolutely 100% safe” is speaking from a position of privilege. They should try saying that to someone watching a loved one be destroyed by the illness. It’s easy to play that card when it’s not happening to you, or someone you love.</p><p><blockquote>任何说“哦，不，我们需要非常小心，如果需要，将这些新的治疗方法推迟数年，以确保它们绝对100%安全”的人都是站在特权的立场上说话。他们应该试着对看着亲人被疾病摧毁的人说这句话。当这张牌没有发生在你或你爱的人身上时，很容易打出这张牌。</blockquote></p><p> A look through the Biogen’s public filings tells the sorry story. This new Alzheimer’s treatment entered Phase 3 trials in 2015—six years ago. Did I mention it took one year to get COVID vaccines to market?</p><p><blockquote>浏览一下百健(Biogen)的公开文件就会发现这个令人遗憾的故事。这种新的阿尔茨海默氏症治疗方法于六年前的2015年进入3期试验。我有没有提到COVID疫苗上市花了一年时间？</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, check out all the costs associated with developing this treatment. Biogen struck a collaboration deal with Eisai to work on this drug in 2014. Since then the two of them have spent a total of $1.1 billion on it. If it hadn’t been approved, that’s $1.1 billion down the drain.</p><p><blockquote>同时，检查与开发这种疗法相关的所有费用。Biogen于2014年与卫材达成合作协议，开发该药物。从那以后，他们两人总共为此花费了11亿美元。如果没有获得批准，11亿美元将付诸东流。</blockquote></p><p> I want more of these treatments. And I want them quickly, not every two decades. I want trillions pouring into this industry. And I know that lower returns, and more bureaucracy, aren’t the way to get them.</p><p><blockquote>我想要更多这样的治疗。我想要尽快，而不是每二十年一次。我希望数万亿美元涌入这个行业。我知道更低的回报和更多的官僚主义并不是实现这些目标的方法。</blockquote></p><p> None of this, of course, means blind, passive or foolish naiveté about the drug industry or pricing. Drug manufacturers spend about $160 million a year on lobbying, and people involved in the business donated nearly $30 million a year to politicians running for office. Look through the proxy statements and you’ll see plenty of Big Pharma CEOs living off<i>the fatta the lan</i>(like lots of other CEOs).Yes, of course Medicare should have greater freedom to negotiate drug prices.</p><p><blockquote>当然，所有这些都不意味着对制药行业或定价盲目、被动或愚蠢的天真。药品制造商每年在游说上花费约1.6亿美元，参与该行业的人每年向竞选公职的政治家捐赠近3000万美元。浏览一下委托书，你会发现许多大型制药公司的首席执行官靠<i>法塔局域网</i>（像许多其他首席执行官一样）。是的，医疗保险当然应该有更大的自由来谈判药品价格。</blockquote></p><p> Few people know more about malfeasance and greed in the drug industry than investigative journalist Gerald Posner, who literally wrote the book on it —Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning Of America.</p><p><blockquote>很少有人比调查记者杰拉尔德·波斯纳更了解制药业的渎职和贪婪，他写了一本关于制药业的书——制药：贪婪、谎言和美国的中毒。</blockquote></p><p> “Most of the time I agree with your take,” he tells me. “FDA red tape bureaucracy is slow and costly and good R&D can cost a fortune, all with no guarantee of success. So risk takers, i.e. drug companies, should be rewarded with financial incentives.”</p><p><blockquote>“大多数时候我同意你的观点，”他告诉我。“FDA的繁文缛节缓慢且成本高昂，良好的研发可能会花费大量资金，而且无法保证成功。因此，冒险者，即制药公司，应该获得经济激励。”</blockquote></p><p> But, he adds, U.S. drug companies are already getting plenty of help. The U.S. has the longest patent protections of any major economy. He adds that big U.S. pharma companies get huge research support from taxpayers through the National Institute for Health.</p><p><blockquote>但是，他补充说，美国制药公司已经得到了大量帮助。美国是所有主要经济体中专利保护时间最长的国家。他补充说，美国大型制药公司通过美国国立卫生研究院从纳税人那里获得了大量的研究支持。</blockquote></p><p> “From 2010 through 2016, every one of the 210 drugs approved for sale by the FDA were completely or in part funded by the NIH,” he says. The fund came to more than $100 billion, he adds.</p><p><blockquote>“从2010年到2016年，FDA批准销售的210种药物中的每一种都完全或部分由NIH资助，”他说。他补充道，该基金规模超过1000亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> All good points. But I fear that as long as it’s more profitable to invest in cigarettes or booze than it is in curing Alzheimer’s, we will all be left with Plan B for our old age: Hoping and praying we don’t get Alzheimer’s.</p><p><blockquote>都是优点。但我担心，只要投资香烟或酒比治疗阿尔茨海默氏症更有利可图，我们都会为晚年留下B计划：希望并祈祷我们不会得阿尔茨海默氏症。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Opinion: Only ‘greedy’ drug companies will cure Alzheimer’s<blockquote>观点：只有“贪婪”的制药公司才能治愈阿尔茨海默病</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOpinion: Only ‘greedy’ drug companies will cure Alzheimer’s<blockquote>观点：只有“贪婪”的制药公司才能治愈阿尔茨海默病</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">marketwatch</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-08 19:59</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/783580e857537ceb68ca7c6330ee4132\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"736\">Here’s a question for everyone in Congress and the White House, the federal bureaucracy, and all my fellow members of the (ahem) “mainstream media.”</p><p><blockquote>这里有一个问题要问国会和白宫的每个人，联邦官僚机构，以及我所有的（咳咳）“主流媒体”的同事们。</blockquote></p><p> Now that BiogenBIIB,+38.34%has got approval forits new Alzheimer’s drug—the first approved by the FDA in almost 20 years — how much should they be allowed to charge for it?</p><p><blockquote>既然BiogenBIIB，+38.34%的新药已经获得批准——这是近20年来FDA批准的第一种药物——他们应该被允许收取多少费用？</blockquote></p><p> What’s the ethically correct figure? What will exempt them from charges of “greed” or “gouging?” What is “too much?”</p><p><blockquote>伦理上正确的数字是多少？什么能免除他们“贪婪”或“欺诈”的指控？什么是“太多了？”</blockquote></p><p> The manufacturing cost per pill? The cost plus a small margin? What’s the number?</p><p><blockquote>每粒药丸的制造成本？成本加上一点利润？号码是多少？</blockquote></p><p> I bring this up because few things matter as much for the lives of senior citizens in America—and seniors in the rest of the world—than the development of new drugs. I have personally seen up close how Alzheimer’s destroys people, sometimes as young as their 50s and 60s. This has included close members of my family.</p><p><blockquote>我提出这个问题是因为对于美国老年人——以及世界其他地方的老年人——的生活来说，没有什么比新药的开发更重要的了。我亲眼目睹了老年痴呆症是如何摧毁人的，有时只有五六十岁的人。这包括我的近亲。</blockquote></p><p> Some six million Americans already have this cruel, vicious and incurable disease, and ahorrific 50 million around the world. That’s 50 million death sentences. Ten million more get it every year.</p><p><blockquote>大约600万美国人已经患有这种残酷、恶性和无法治愈的疾病，全世界有5000万人患有这种可怕的疾病。那是五千万个死刑判决。每年还有一千万人得到它。</blockquote></p><p> The drug industry developed five vaccines in one year for COVID-19, a disease associated with the deaths of 3.7 million people world-wide. Alzheimer’s treatments? Oh, one for every 20 years.</p><p><blockquote>制药行业在一年内为COVID-19开发了五种疫苗，这种疾病导致全球370万人死亡。老年痴呆症的治疗？哦，每20年一次。</blockquote></p><p> Let’s be honest: Many people subconsciously shrug off this issue on the principle that Alzheimer’s will only happen to someone else. Alas, many of the people reading this article are going to get this disease. For many more, your father, mother, wife or husband will get it. Or a sibling or close friend. At which point, the “hey, maybe we should have made this a bigger national priority” argument will strike, but too late to help.</p><p><blockquote>老实说：许多人下意识地对这个问题不屑一顾，认为阿尔茨海默氏症只会发生在别人身上。唉，很多读这篇文章的人都会得这种病。对于更多的人，你的父亲、母亲、妻子或丈夫会得到它。或者兄弟姐妹或密友。在这一点上，“嘿，也许我们应该把这作为一个更大的国家优先事项”的论点将会出现，但为时已晚。</blockquote></p><p> This is the context worth bearing in mind when we hear about drugs getting approved—and, just as importantly, when we hear people demagoguing about “greedy” drug companies and “overpriced” drugs. It’s not just this new Alzheimer’s drug, either.</p><p><blockquote>当我们听到药物获得批准时，同样重要的是，当我们听到人们煽动“贪婪”的制药公司和“定价过高”的药物时，这是值得记住的背景。也不仅仅是这种新的老年痴呆症药物。</blockquote></p><p> If “drug” companies are making out like bandits, someone really has to explain to me why it doesn’t show up in the…er…stock prices. In the past decade, investors the iShares U.S. Pharmaceuticals exchange-traded fundIHE,+0.61%have made far lower returns than they could have done just by randomly picking a bunch of non-pharmaceutical stocks out of the newspaper. These companies have been worse investments than a simple S&P 500SPX,-0.08%index fund like the SPDR S&P 500 ETFSPY,-0.10%,or the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETFRSP,-0.18%.</p><p><blockquote>如果“毒品”公司像强盗一样亲热，有人真的必须向我解释为什么它没有出现在…呃…股票价格中。在过去的十年里，iShares美国制药交易所交易基金的投资者获得的回报远低于仅仅从报纸上随机挑选一堆非制药股票所能获得的回报。这些公司的投资比简单的标准普尔500SPX，-0.08%指数基金（例如SPDR标普500 ETFSPY，-0.10%）或景顺标普500等权重ETFRSP，-0.18%）更糟糕。</blockquote></p><p> Even Biogen itself had substantially underperformed the broader stock market index for a decade. Until Monday.</p><p><blockquote>十年来，甚至百健（Biogen）本身的表现也大幅落后于大盘指数。直到星期一。</blockquote></p><p> No, the industry returns aren’t terrible. But they are hardly the giant free oil well that critics sometimes suggest. I checked out the data from Dartmouth College finance professor Kenneth French, who has tracked stock market returns by industry going back decades. Going all the way back to the 1920s, according to his numbers, the pharmaceuticals industry barely cracks the top one-third of all industries by stock returns. So far this millennium, the total returns from major pharmaceutical companies have been about a third less than those from the S&P 500 index. Biotechs have done much better, but they were a much smaller sector. And even biotech has trailed the returns of alcohol and tobacco companies.</p><p><blockquote>不，行业回报并不可怕。但它们并不是批评者有时所说的巨大的自由油井。我查阅了达特茅斯学院金融学教授肯尼斯·弗伦奇的数据，他几十年前就按行业追踪了股市回报。根据他的数据，追溯到20世纪20年代，制药业的股票回报率勉强跻身所有行业的前三分之一。本世纪迄今为止，大型制药公司的总回报比标普500指数低约三分之一。生物技术做得更好，但它们是一个小得多的行业。甚至生物技术公司的回报率也落后于酒精和烟草公司。</blockquote></p><p> How are we going to get billions of dollars more capital invested in curing Alzheimer’s and diabetes and cancer when investors can make more money investing in making booze and cigarettes? This is upside down.</p><p><blockquote>当投资者可以通过投资制造酒精和香烟赚更多的钱时，我们如何获得数十亿美元的资本投资于治疗阿尔茨海默氏症、糖尿病和癌症？这是颠倒的。</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile the regulation are all messed up and back to front as well.This headline says it all: “FDA Approves Alzheimer’s Drug Despite Fierce Debate Over Whether It Works.”</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，规则也被颠倒了。这个标题说明了一切：“尽管对阿尔茨海默氏症药物是否有效存在激烈争论，FDA还是批准了该药物。”</blockquote></p><p> This is nuts. Maybe the new treatment makes things better, maybe it doesn’t. Apparently people aren’t certain. It’s hardly a surprise: The treatment is new, and the disease is complicated. But the first question to ask isn’t whether it makes things better, but whether it makes things worse. The current situation is catastrophic for anyone with the disease. People are dying. Lives are being destroyed.</p><p><blockquote>这太疯狂了。也许新的治疗方法让事情变得更好，也许没有。显然人们不确定。这并不奇怪：治疗方法是新的，疾病也很复杂。但首先要问的问题不是它是否让事情变得更好，而是它是否让事情变得更糟。目前的情况对任何患有这种疾病的人来说都是灾难性的。人们正在死去。生命正在被摧毁。</blockquote></p><p> Waiting to be sure treatment works would be like falling out of a plane with a parachute on, but hesitating to pull the cord because, well, it might not work. It suggests a basic misunderstanding of game theory. (Or common sense.)</p><p><blockquote>等待确定治疗有效就像带着降落伞从飞机上掉下来，但犹豫着要不要拉绳子，因为，嗯，它可能不起作用。这表明了对博弈论的一个基本误解。（或常识。）</blockquote></p><p> It’s one thing to hesitate about approving a new drug for a nonfatal illness. You don’t want to make people sicker, or cause needless suffering or death. But with this kind of illness that really doesn’t apply.</p><p><blockquote>对批准一种治疗非致命疾病的新药犹豫不决是一回事。你不想让人们病得更重，或者造成不必要的痛苦或死亡。但是这种病真的不适用。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Anyone who says “oh, no, we need to be really careful, and if need be delay these new treatments for years to make sure they are absolutely 100% safe” is speaking from a position of privilege. They should try saying that to someone watching a loved one be destroyed by the illness. It’s easy to play that card when it’s not happening to you, or someone you love.</p><p><blockquote>任何说“哦，不，我们需要非常小心，如果需要，将这些新的治疗方法推迟数年，以确保它们绝对100%安全”的人都是站在特权的立场上说话。他们应该试着对看着亲人被疾病摧毁的人说这句话。当这张牌没有发生在你或你爱的人身上时，很容易打出这张牌。</blockquote></p><p> A look through the Biogen’s public filings tells the sorry story. This new Alzheimer’s treatment entered Phase 3 trials in 2015—six years ago. Did I mention it took one year to get COVID vaccines to market?</p><p><blockquote>浏览一下百健(Biogen)的公开文件就会发现这个令人遗憾的故事。这种新的阿尔茨海默氏症治疗方法于六年前的2015年进入3期试验。我有没有提到COVID疫苗上市花了一年时间？</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, check out all the costs associated with developing this treatment. Biogen struck a collaboration deal with Eisai to work on this drug in 2014. Since then the two of them have spent a total of $1.1 billion on it. If it hadn’t been approved, that’s $1.1 billion down the drain.</p><p><blockquote>同时，检查与开发这种疗法相关的所有费用。Biogen于2014年与卫材达成合作协议，开发该药物。从那以后，他们两人总共为此花费了11亿美元。如果没有获得批准，11亿美元将付诸东流。</blockquote></p><p> I want more of these treatments. And I want them quickly, not every two decades. I want trillions pouring into this industry. And I know that lower returns, and more bureaucracy, aren’t the way to get them.</p><p><blockquote>我想要更多这样的治疗。我想要尽快，而不是每二十年一次。我希望数万亿美元涌入这个行业。我知道更低的回报和更多的官僚主义并不是实现这些目标的方法。</blockquote></p><p> None of this, of course, means blind, passive or foolish naiveté about the drug industry or pricing. Drug manufacturers spend about $160 million a year on lobbying, and people involved in the business donated nearly $30 million a year to politicians running for office. Look through the proxy statements and you’ll see plenty of Big Pharma CEOs living off<i>the fatta the lan</i>(like lots of other CEOs).Yes, of course Medicare should have greater freedom to negotiate drug prices.</p><p><blockquote>当然，所有这些都不意味着对制药行业或定价盲目、被动或愚蠢的天真。药品制造商每年在游说上花费约1.6亿美元，参与该行业的人每年向竞选公职的政治家捐赠近3000万美元。浏览一下委托书，你会发现许多大型制药公司的首席执行官靠<i>法塔局域网</i>（像许多其他首席执行官一样）。是的，医疗保险当然应该有更大的自由来谈判药品价格。</blockquote></p><p> Few people know more about malfeasance and greed in the drug industry than investigative journalist Gerald Posner, who literally wrote the book on it —Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning Of America.</p><p><blockquote>很少有人比调查记者杰拉尔德·波斯纳更了解制药业的渎职和贪婪，他写了一本关于制药业的书——制药：贪婪、谎言和美国的中毒。</blockquote></p><p> “Most of the time I agree with your take,” he tells me. “FDA red tape bureaucracy is slow and costly and good R&D can cost a fortune, all with no guarantee of success. So risk takers, i.e. drug companies, should be rewarded with financial incentives.”</p><p><blockquote>“大多数时候我同意你的观点，”他告诉我。“FDA的繁文缛节缓慢且成本高昂，良好的研发可能会花费大量资金，而且无法保证成功。因此，冒险者，即制药公司，应该获得经济激励。”</blockquote></p><p> But, he adds, U.S. drug companies are already getting plenty of help. The U.S. has the longest patent protections of any major economy. He adds that big U.S. pharma companies get huge research support from taxpayers through the National Institute for Health.</p><p><blockquote>但是，他补充说，美国制药公司已经得到了大量帮助。美国是所有主要经济体中专利保护时间最长的国家。他补充说，美国大型制药公司通过美国国立卫生研究院从纳税人那里获得了大量的研究支持。</blockquote></p><p> “From 2010 through 2016, every one of the 210 drugs approved for sale by the FDA were completely or in part funded by the NIH,” he says. The fund came to more than $100 billion, he adds.</p><p><blockquote>“从2010年到2016年，FDA批准销售的210种药物中的每一种都完全或部分由NIH资助，”他说。他补充道，该基金规模超过1000亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> All good points. But I fear that as long as it’s more profitable to invest in cigarettes or booze than it is in curing Alzheimer’s, we will all be left with Plan B for our old age: Hoping and praying we don’t get Alzheimer’s.</p><p><blockquote>都是优点。但我担心，只要投资香烟或酒比治疗阿尔茨海默氏症更有利可图，我们都会为晚年留下B计划：希望并祈祷我们不会得阿尔茨海默氏症。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/only-greedy-drug-companies-will-cure-alzheimers-11623152892?mod=newsviewer_click\">marketwatch</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/only-greedy-drug-companies-will-cure-alzheimers-11623152892?mod=newsviewer_click","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1127979401","content_text":"Here’s a question for everyone in Congress and the White House, the federal bureaucracy, and all my fellow members of the (ahem) “mainstream media.”\nNow that BiogenBIIB,+38.34%has got approval forits new Alzheimer’s drug—the first approved by the FDA in almost 20 years — how much should they be allowed to charge for it?\nWhat’s the ethically correct figure? What will exempt them from charges of “greed” or “gouging?” What is “too much?”\nThe manufacturing cost per pill? The cost plus a small margin? What’s the number?\nI bring this up because few things matter as much for the lives of senior citizens in America—and seniors in the rest of the world—than the development of new drugs. I have personally seen up close how Alzheimer’s destroys people, sometimes as young as their 50s and 60s. This has included close members of my family.\nSome six million Americans already have this cruel, vicious and incurable disease, and ahorrific 50 million around the world. That’s 50 million death sentences. Ten million more get it every year.\nThe drug industry developed five vaccines in one year for COVID-19, a disease associated with the deaths of 3.7 million people world-wide. Alzheimer’s treatments? Oh, one for every 20 years.\nLet’s be honest: Many people subconsciously shrug off this issue on the principle that Alzheimer’s will only happen to someone else. Alas, many of the people reading this article are going to get this disease. For many more, your father, mother, wife or husband will get it. Or a sibling or close friend. At which point, the “hey, maybe we should have made this a bigger national priority” argument will strike, but too late to help.\nThis is the context worth bearing in mind when we hear about drugs getting approved—and, just as importantly, when we hear people demagoguing about “greedy” drug companies and “overpriced” drugs. It’s not just this new Alzheimer’s drug, either.\nIf “drug” companies are making out like bandits, someone really has to explain to me why it doesn’t show up in the…er…stock prices. In the past decade, investors the iShares U.S. Pharmaceuticals exchange-traded fundIHE,+0.61%have made far lower returns than they could have done just by randomly picking a bunch of non-pharmaceutical stocks out of the newspaper. These companies have been worse investments than a simple S&P 500SPX,-0.08%index fund like the SPDR S&P 500 ETFSPY,-0.10%,or the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETFRSP,-0.18%.\nEven Biogen itself had substantially underperformed the broader stock market index for a decade. Until Monday.\nNo, the industry returns aren’t terrible. But they are hardly the giant free oil well that critics sometimes suggest. I checked out the data from Dartmouth College finance professor Kenneth French, who has tracked stock market returns by industry going back decades. Going all the way back to the 1920s, according to his numbers, the pharmaceuticals industry barely cracks the top one-third of all industries by stock returns. So far this millennium, the total returns from major pharmaceutical companies have been about a third less than those from the S&P 500 index. Biotechs have done much better, but they were a much smaller sector. And even biotech has trailed the returns of alcohol and tobacco companies.\nHow are we going to get billions of dollars more capital invested in curing Alzheimer’s and diabetes and cancer when investors can make more money investing in making booze and cigarettes? This is upside down.\nMeanwhile the regulation are all messed up and back to front as well.This headline says it all: “FDA Approves Alzheimer’s Drug Despite Fierce Debate Over Whether It Works.”\nThis is nuts. Maybe the new treatment makes things better, maybe it doesn’t. Apparently people aren’t certain. It’s hardly a surprise: The treatment is new, and the disease is complicated. But the first question to ask isn’t whether it makes things better, but whether it makes things worse. The current situation is catastrophic for anyone with the disease. People are dying. Lives are being destroyed.\nWaiting to be sure treatment works would be like falling out of a plane with a parachute on, but hesitating to pull the cord because, well, it might not work. It suggests a basic misunderstanding of game theory. (Or common sense.)\nIt’s one thing to hesitate about approving a new drug for a nonfatal illness. You don’t want to make people sicker, or cause needless suffering or death. But with this kind of illness that really doesn’t apply.\nAnyone who says “oh, no, we need to be really careful, and if need be delay these new treatments for years to make sure they are absolutely 100% safe” is speaking from a position of privilege. They should try saying that to someone watching a loved one be destroyed by the illness. It’s easy to play that card when it’s not happening to you, or someone you love.\nA look through the Biogen’s public filings tells the sorry story. This new Alzheimer’s treatment entered Phase 3 trials in 2015—six years ago. Did I mention it took one year to get COVID vaccines to market?\nMeanwhile, check out all the costs associated with developing this treatment. Biogen struck a collaboration deal with Eisai to work on this drug in 2014. Since then the two of them have spent a total of $1.1 billion on it. If it hadn’t been approved, that’s $1.1 billion down the drain.\nI want more of these treatments. And I want them quickly, not every two decades. I want trillions pouring into this industry. And I know that lower returns, and more bureaucracy, aren’t the way to get them.\nNone of this, of course, means blind, passive or foolish naiveté about the drug industry or pricing. Drug manufacturers spend about $160 million a year on lobbying, and people involved in the business donated nearly $30 million a year to politicians running for office. Look through the proxy statements and you’ll see plenty of Big Pharma CEOs living offthe fatta the lan(like lots of other CEOs).Yes, of course Medicare should have greater freedom to negotiate drug prices.\nFew people know more about malfeasance and greed in the drug industry than investigative journalist Gerald Posner, who literally wrote the book on it —Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning Of America.\n“Most of the time I agree with your take,” he tells me. “FDA red tape bureaucracy is slow and costly and good R&D can cost a fortune, all with no guarantee of success. So risk takers, i.e. drug companies, should be rewarded with financial incentives.”\nBut, he adds, U.S. drug companies are already getting plenty of help. The U.S. has the longest patent protections of any major economy. He adds that big U.S. pharma companies get huge research support from taxpayers through the National Institute for Health.\n“From 2010 through 2016, every one of the 210 drugs approved for sale by the FDA were completely or in part funded by the NIH,” he says. The fund came to more than $100 billion, he adds.\nAll good points. But I fear that as long as it’s more profitable to invest in cigarettes or booze than it is in curing Alzheimer’s, we will all be left with Plan B for our old age: Hoping and praying we don’t get Alzheimer’s.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"BIIB":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":340,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":4,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/117543634"}
精彩评论