Since the SARs virus sample was stolen with the idea of profiting from the theft, Saudi Arabia should sue for the transfer of the ill-gotten patent to Saudi.

I get that companies need to monetize their investments after the fact. I do. Now tell me why psychiatric medication, that is patented, is sold with retail pricing of upwards of $800 a month. These medications are so over-prescribed that big pharma is raking in billions on them. These drugs are so profitable they are then re-approved for use in other conditions which then extends their patent.

Astra-Zenica has made $31BN since 2006 on just one drug – seroquel. It went from being considered a “powerful antipsychotic” to an anti-depressant. This change widens, significantly, the market for the drugs.

We do have to consider the class actions upheld against Astra-Zenica and other companies which have chipped a few billion away from their P&L. We should also consider, then, the ecosystem under which these “powerful” medications are actually approved.

A drug company does research and intentionally or accidentally finds a treatment for something (Viagra was an accident for example). They perform their own clinical trials and then take the data they are happy with and submit that to the FDA. This is an important distinction because AZ and other companies can choose to hide adverse effects from the FDA and the consumer.

In the case of Seroquel it was found that AZ knew the drug caused, among other things, hyperglycemia and diabetes. This was not submitted to the FDA and, until class actions were pursued, the FDA had no labeling requirements.

Additionally these drugs are marketed, not to patients, though we do see commercials for some on television and in print ads and other places, but, rather, to doctors. Often times these doctors do little else than write a prescription on their quarterly 15 minute visit.

Frequently these drugs are prescribed to treat a condition such as bioplar disorder or schizophrenia. The assessment for these illnesses is subjective reporting by the patient.

Because some doctors are given big incentives by the drug companies this is the extent of the diagnostics and the patient is sent away with expensive medication that is paid for by either insurance or medicare/medicaid. Either way that cost is passed along to you and me in the form of insurance premiums.

Frequently, the patient seeking help is diagnosed with a serious mental illness without any attempt to check for organic illness or injury.

A person can seek help for hearing voices, seeing things, erratic behavior, etc. Those symptoms can be for life-threatening illness other than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Because of the ecosystem under which doctors and pharma work the patient is not given any tests to check for tumors, lesions, previous head injury, infection, etc. They are merely sent on their way with expensive medication which most doctors will then tell them they must take for life.

Extending patents on drugs merely extends the influence the drug companies have on doctors. When a medication goes generic their is no longer incentive for a doctor to push for the brand name as most insurance will no longer pay for it.

In 2006-2006 a study was done by the National Institutes for Mental Health which compared effectiveness versus side effects of three drugs: Risperdal, Zyprexa and perphenazine. At the time the first two were under patent and expensive, Zyprexa being the most expensive. What this study determined is that the side-effects of these drugs had similar levels of tolerance. While some of the effects were different the overall side-effect tolerance was the same. Of the three drugs only the patented drugs were more likely to cause diabetes. The conclusion of the study was that first-generation drugs like perphenazine were as effective as the second-generation drugs like Risperdal and Zyprexa, had the same tolerance of side-effects but the first-generation drugs were much less expensive.

It is important to note that all of these drugs are very dangerous but often their benefits outweigh those dangers.

From gaining approval to marketing to prescribing their is a strong element of self-service by these companies. I understand that Astra-Zenica, Janssen, and even Patriot (a generic manufacturer) have profits to make. They have responsibilities to their stockholders. They also, by way of putting themselves up as drug companies, have a responsibility to their consumers. This responsibility has fallen flat, as has been proven time and again in courts.

One final, anecdotal note, when discussing with a biotech scientist at a large cancer drug company near Seattle, Washington, I found that the researchers are specifically told not produce cures, only treatments.

Say a cure might cost a patient $50,000. If it costs, over the patient’s life, even twice that for treatment, then the corporation’s responsibility to the stockholder is met by that treatment rather than producing a cure. The stockholder wins but the patient loses out.

This, to some extent, oversimplifies the issues and problems with drug production and marketing in the US and granted doesn’t take into account the long-term viability of companies who produce only cures. These companies do provide treatment where there might otherwise be none but there needs to be some changes in the way drugs are marketed to physicians and pressed onto patients. There also, as evidenced by way of multiple class actions, must be changes in the way drugs are approved where there is more objectivity and we simply do not let the fox guarding the henhouse make those decisions.

Like in other industries there needs to be medical patent reform. Companies do need to protect their bottom lines but not at the cost of patient welfare and not when their bottom lines so effect ours that the rest of our care becomes more expensive too.