Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(38,264 posts)
1. That's a very interesting note. I have been increasingly concerned about this.
Sat Apr 18, 2026, 04:34 PM
Saturday

Many years ago I worked peripherally on the development of a drug that was in an entirely new class of antibiotics, an oxazolidine.

The problem with it was that when it came to market, which it did, doctors were only prescribing it in relatively rare cases of VREs and MSREs, so sales were relatively low.

The company that developed the drug was eaten by a larger pharmaceutical company which marketed it not as a drug of last resort, but instead as a broad spectrum antibiotic.

Sales went up and with it, resistance to the drug, which was way over prescribed when not necessary.

The giant pharma company was fined a pittance, but they really didn't care.

In every case these days, money overrules decency.

This is an economic problem with drug resistance, and it's a big one. Pharma companies would rather make maintenance drugs, which generate prescriptions over long periods rather than drugs which actually cure diseases.

Thanks again. I'll try to find time to dig up the full paper, but I'm way, way, way behind on all my reading.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Why birds and foxes could...»Reply #1