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":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":1,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","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.laohunote.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、联邦官僚机构以及我所有（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% 的阿尔茨海默氏症新药已经获得批准--这是 FDA 近 20 年来首次批准--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>什么是道德上正确的数字？什么能免除他们 “贪婪 ”或 “诈骗 ”的指控？什么是“太多”？</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？数字是多少？</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来说，没有什么比新药的开发更重要的了。我亲眼目睹了阿尔茨海默氏症是如何摧毁人们的，有时甚至是五六十岁的年轻人。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、恶毒和不治之症，全世界有5000万。这相当于5000万次死刑判决。每年有一千万人得到它。</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>制药行业在一年内针对 COVID-19 开发了五种疫苗，这种疾病导致全球 370 万人死亡。阿尔茨海默氏症的治疗方法？哦，每20年一个。</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>说实话： 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，你的父亲、母亲、妻子或丈夫会得到它。或者兄弟姐妹或密友。这时，“嘿，也许我们应该把这作为一个更大的国家优先事项 ”的论点就会出现，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>当我们听到药品获得批准时，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 ”的药品时，这就是值得牢记的背景。也不仅仅是这种新型阿尔茨海默氏症药物。</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 “制药 ”公司像强盗一样大肆宣扬，那就真的得有人向我解释一下，为什么它没有出现在.股票价格中。在过去十年中，iShares U.S. Pharmaceuticals exchange Trading fundIHE,+0.61% 的投资者所获得的回报远低于他们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（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，就连百健本身的表现也远逊于更广泛的股市指数。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暗示的巨型免费油井。我查看了达特茅斯学院金融学教授肯尼斯·弗伦奇 (Kenneth French) 的数据，他几十年来一直按行业跟踪股市回报率。根据他的数据，追溯到 20 世纪 20 年代，制药行业的股票回报率勉强进入所有行业的前三分之一。本世纪到目前为止，主要制药公司的总回报比标普500指数低三分之一左右。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生产酒和香烟来赚取更多的钱时，我们如何才能获得数十亿美元的资金投入到治疗阿尔茨海默氏症、糖尿病和癌症上呢？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，监管也是一团糟，倒退。这个标题说明了一切： “尽管关于阿尔茨海默氏症药物是否有效存在激烈争论，但美国食品和药物管理局还是批准了该药物”。</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>这是坚果。也许新疗法会让情况好转，也许不会。显然人们并不确定。这并不奇怪： 这种治疗方法是新的，而且病情很复杂。但首先要问的问题不是它是否会让事情变得更好，而是它是否会让事情变得更糟。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从装有降落伞的飞机上掉下来，但犹豫要不要拉绳子，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>在批准一种治疗非致命疾病的新药时犹豫不决是一回事。你不想让人们病得更重，也不想造成不必要的痛苦或死亡。但对于这种疾病来说，这真的不适用。</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，如有必要，可以将这些新疗法推迟数年，以确保它们绝对 100% 安全 ”的人都是从特权的角度说话的。他们应该试着对看着亲人被疾病摧毁的人说这句话。当你或你爱的人没有遇到这种事时，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>翻看百健的公开文件，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 2015 年进入 3 期试验，距今已有六年。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，检查所有与开发这种治疗相关的成本。Biogen 于 2014 年与卫材达成合作协议，共同开发该药物。从那时起，他们两人在上面总共花费了11亿美元。如果该法案未获批准，将损失 11 亿美元。</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。我希望他们快点，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，降低回报率和更多的官僚主义并不是实现这些目标的途径。</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，这并不意味着对制药行业或定价的盲目、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，参与该业务的人每年向竞选公职的政治家捐赠近3000万美元。翻看委托书，你会发现很多大型制药公司的首席执行官都在以此为生<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·波斯纳更了解制药行业的渎职和贪婪，他写了一本书《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>“他告诉我：”大多数时候我都同意你的观点。“美国食品和药物管理局的繁文缛节缓慢且代价高昂，优秀的研发可能要花费一大笔钱，而且不能保证成功。因此，应该给冒险者，即制药公司提供经济激励。”</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。美国拥有所有主要经济体中最长的专利保护。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巨大的研究支持。</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>“他说：”从 2010 年到 2016 年，美国食品药品监督管理局批准销售的 210 种药物中，每一种都完全或部分由美国国立卫生研究院资助。他补充说，该基金的规模超过 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>都是好的。但我担心，只要投资香烟或酒比投资治疗阿尔茨海默氏症更有利可图，我们的晚年生活就只能剩下 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、联邦官僚机构以及我所有（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% 的阿尔茨海默氏症新药已经获得批准--这是 FDA 近 20 年来首次批准--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>什么是道德上正确的数字？什么能免除他们 “贪婪 ”或 “诈骗 ”的指控？什么是“太多”？</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？数字是多少？</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来说，没有什么比新药的开发更重要的了。我亲眼目睹了阿尔茨海默氏症是如何摧毁人们的，有时甚至是五六十岁的年轻人。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、恶毒和不治之症，全世界有5000万。这相当于5000万次死刑判决。每年有一千万人得到它。</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>制药行业在一年内针对 COVID-19 开发了五种疫苗，这种疾病导致全球 370 万人死亡。阿尔茨海默氏症的治疗方法？哦，每20年一个。</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>说实话： 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，你的父亲、母亲、妻子或丈夫会得到它。或者兄弟姐妹或密友。这时，“嘿，也许我们应该把这作为一个更大的国家优先事项 ”的论点就会出现，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>当我们听到药品获得批准时，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 ”的药品时，这就是值得牢记的背景。也不仅仅是这种新型阿尔茨海默氏症药物。</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 “制药 ”公司像强盗一样大肆宣扬，那就真的得有人向我解释一下，为什么它没有出现在.股票价格中。在过去十年中，iShares U.S. Pharmaceuticals exchange Trading fundIHE,+0.61% 的投资者所获得的回报远低于他们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（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，就连百健本身的表现也远逊于更广泛的股市指数。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暗示的巨型免费油井。我查看了达特茅斯学院金融学教授肯尼斯·弗伦奇 (Kenneth French) 的数据，他几十年来一直按行业跟踪股市回报率。根据他的数据，追溯到 20 世纪 20 年代，制药行业的股票回报率勉强进入所有行业的前三分之一。本世纪到目前为止，主要制药公司的总回报比标普500指数低三分之一左右。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生产酒和香烟来赚取更多的钱时，我们如何才能获得数十亿美元的资金投入到治疗阿尔茨海默氏症、糖尿病和癌症上呢？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，监管也是一团糟，倒退。这个标题说明了一切： “尽管关于阿尔茨海默氏症药物是否有效存在激烈争论，但美国食品和药物管理局还是批准了该药物”。</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>这是坚果。也许新疗法会让情况好转，也许不会。显然人们并不确定。这并不奇怪： 这种治疗方法是新的，而且病情很复杂。但首先要问的问题不是它是否会让事情变得更好，而是它是否会让事情变得更糟。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从装有降落伞的飞机上掉下来，但犹豫要不要拉绳子，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>在批准一种治疗非致命疾病的新药时犹豫不决是一回事。你不想让人们病得更重，也不想造成不必要的痛苦或死亡。但对于这种疾病来说，这真的不适用。</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，如有必要，可以将这些新疗法推迟数年，以确保它们绝对 100% 安全 ”的人都是从特权的角度说话的。他们应该试着对看着亲人被疾病摧毁的人说这句话。当你或你爱的人没有遇到这种事时，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>翻看百健的公开文件，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 2015 年进入 3 期试验，距今已有六年。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，检查所有与开发这种治疗相关的成本。Biogen 于 2014 年与卫材达成合作协议，共同开发该药物。从那时起，他们两人在上面总共花费了11亿美元。如果该法案未获批准，将损失 11 亿美元。</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。我希望他们快点，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，降低回报率和更多的官僚主义并不是实现这些目标的途径。</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，这并不意味着对制药行业或定价的盲目、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，参与该业务的人每年向竞选公职的政治家捐赠近3000万美元。翻看委托书，你会发现很多大型制药公司的首席执行官都在以此为生<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·波斯纳更了解制药行业的渎职和贪婪，他写了一本书《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>“他告诉我：”大多数时候我都同意你的观点。“美国食品和药物管理局的繁文缛节缓慢且代价高昂，优秀的研发可能要花费一大笔钱，而且不能保证成功。因此，应该给冒险者，即制药公司提供经济激励。”</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。美国拥有所有主要经济体中最长的专利保护。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巨大的研究支持。</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>“他说：”从 2010 年到 2016 年，美国食品药品监督管理局批准销售的 210 种药物中，每一种都完全或部分由美国国立卫生研究院资助。他补充说，该基金的规模超过 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>都是好的。但我担心，只要投资香烟或酒比投资治疗阿尔茨海默氏症更有利可图，我们的晚年生活就只能剩下 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":470,"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,"subscribersOnly":false,"subscribersOnlyAccessible":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/117543634"}
精彩评论