LibDem funding own thread.

[Cismyfatarse1]

Hopefully, this works as a share token.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/puberty-blocker-drug-firm-donated-cash-to-lib-dems-cf3x77nh3?shareToken=5ac14da89a7a4d69ca77cce33d7421f6

Shocking, as I said on the other thread. I wasn't going to vote for them after all they have said but this made DH reconsider too.

As I mentioned earlier, vast majority of hormone preparations used by trans people including testosterone gels and injections are all off patent (ie cheap) and multiple manufacturers with generic formulations, so no payday for Ferring. Link to the BNF below for gels

bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/testosterone.html

Their stance makes a hell of a lot more sense now..unbelievable..

I would assume that the grass roots members know nothing about this. They have just been told the party line and to get on with it.

What a shower...

As I mentioned earlier, vast majority of hormone preparations used by trans people including testosterone gels and injections are all off patent (ie cheap) and multiple manufacturers with generic formulations, so no payday for Ferring.

As I mentioned earlier, Ferring are working on more products all the time, so ££££ for Ferring.

Well, the NHS in Sunderland don't seem to know they can buy a generic gel dirt cheap.

And it appears not all gels are the same

" Testim’s superior pharmacokinetic properties."

www.pharmoutsourcing.com/Featured-Articles/346924-Androgel-Testim-and-Axiron-Comparison-of-Three-Topical-Testosterone-Gels/

There is clearly a significant market otherwise why is Ferring paying for the licence to market it in Europe? Why aren't they simply making the generic version? And it's a growing market treating FtM transitioners as we know.

Vernon Here is the NICE page for triptorelin. The only forms of this drug listed are those made by Ferring. No mention of generics or other manufacturers.

bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/triptorelin.html

I never said there were generic competitors for triptorelin, merely that the patent had expired, therefore if there was suddenly a big uptick in prescribing and plenty of cash to be made there'd be no advantage for Ferring because anyone could come in and make it. There are also several other GnRH analogues to choose from so competition to keep prices low(er).

I'm just explaining how pharma works - once a drug has lost patent protection the price tumbles because anyone can come in with their version, so generic manufacturers just pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap, no frills, no marketing, small margins, big volumes.

The only time pharma has an incentive to spend big on promotion/trials is when the drug's patent prevents anyone else from making it. Additionally there is simply no incentive to do trials in new patient groups once the patent has expired because generic competitors will just undercut on price and you'll never make your investment back.

In general, hormones used to treat trans people are cheap and off patent. There may well be costly registration trials going on to make totally new versions of these hormones but I sincerely doubt it - it takes ~10 years to get from molecule to license and costs millions and millions of dollars. I just can't see how Ferring or any other drug manufacturer would make such a huge investment because the cheap generic versions work perfectly well.

In general, hormones used to treat trans people are cheap and off patent. There may well be costly registration trials going on to make totally new versions of these hormones but I sincerely doubt it - it takes ~10 years to get from molecule to license and costs millions and millions of dollars. I just can't see how Ferring or any other drug manufacturer would make such a huge investment because the cheap generic versions work perfectly well.

New drugs are being developed all the time. Pharmaceutical companies are constantly trying to develop drugs which are better tolerated by more people/have fewer side effects/simply work better etc. But of course you know this because of your understanding of the pharmaceutical industry.

Here's a paper about degarelix, one of Ferring's newer GnRHa drugs.

Unfortunately, our patient developed a testosterone surge that can occur with GNRH agonist therapy due to an intial increase in LH and FSH levels. Due to her discomfort with this effect, we started her on degarelix, a GNRH antagonist with no associated gonadotropin surge. She was able to tolerate degarelix and achieve goal testosterone levels. Unfortunately, there is no insurance coverage for the medication, and it was quite costly for the patient.

www.proceedings.med.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/A151211AA-WH-edited.pdf

Degarelix is still under patent, so it can still make large sums of money for them. If it is proven to be better in some ways than Lupron or Triptorelin they stand to make a lot of money from it.

Thanks for chipping in your knowledge Vernon square and hope fussy baby soothes itself soon. I would guess in general pharma companies would do better "investing" in US politics than UK, as the UK has NICE to bear down on costs, so political bungs to pharmas would be harder to deliver in the UK. It seems more likely that the Lib Dems are caught in the general cultural vortex about this issue, just like Amnesty, the Girl Guides and the police, rather than being specifically influenced by one pharma.

Sometimes, on mumsnet, one gets the impression that pharmaceutical companies are philanthropic organisations. Anytime you talk about the money they are making someone comes on explaining that it is hardly worth their time producing drugs.

Sometimes, on mumsnet, one gets the impression that pharmaceutical companies are philanthropic organisations. Anytime you talk about the money they are making someone comes on explaining that it is hardly worth their time producing drugs.

I don’t think Vernon is saying pharma is philanthropic at all, as I understand it she is saying in this instance they cannot make big money from these drugs so this cannot be the main motivation for the Lib Dem funding. It’s ok to have concerns about the use of these drugs but to accept the evidence that this isn’t an example of a political conspiracy. I mean it is, in that so much of world politics are controlled by a tiny number of rich people, who fear losing their riches.

I don’t think Vernon is saying pharma is philanthropic at all, as I understand it she is saying in this instance they cannot make big money from these drugs so this cannot be the main motivation for the Lib Dem funding.

But they're developing new drugs all the time, like degarelix. It's the new ones, which work better/have fewer side effects/are better tolerated by more people/ are easier to administer etc. which make the money. They also launched a new testosterone gel, Testavan, last year.

www.pharmatimes.com/news/uk_launch_for_ferrings_new_testosterone_replacement_therapy_1253406

About the cheapness of puberty blockers, this documentary from 2017 says different, minute 11:50

Transcript of that section of the USA video posted by Coyoacan - it actually misrecognised "Vantis" as "Fantasy"

"The medications are very expensive . And so they can be 15 to 25 thousand dollars a year for some of these things which is cost prohibitive for most people so we have been, we have worked on an option that that we have, we can offer here now, actually which is called "VANTIS" and it's FDA approval is for men with prostate cancer but this has been used successfully by a pediatric endocrinologist taking care of kids like Daniel and it seems to work just as well and it is a lot less expensive. And so, you know, VANTIS is not, it's not approved for children but none of these medications are actually approved for use in this situation and for any of these. Oh okay, we we have a lot of experience in pediatric endocrinology using pubertal blockers and from all the evidence we have they are generally a very safe medication but the concerns with this population are just different because we're using them at a little different age and for a different purpose. So, whether it is having any negative effect on their adult bone density or their neurologic development, I think is, we don't know. I much prefer to take care of conditions that have been well researched and well studied for 50 years and that is not the case here. We we just really need good research that we don't have yet."

I know not on the main topic but as well as drug costs there is the reminder that this is all about experimenting on children.

There is no excuse for the NHS continuing to commission GIDS as a clinical service rather than a long-term research-only study, including access to Adult Gender Identity Services conditional on remaining part of the research.

The only way they could do this within NHS Research Ethics would be to:

• de-commission GIDS as a clinical service as far as prescription of puberty blockers is concerned and

• ban their prescription for children across the NHS in any other circumstances

• decommission Adult Gender Services as clinical services and recommission as Research-only.

They could find some money by diverting funds earmarked for the establishment of "Trans Heath Care Services" as per the Manchester pilot.

WTF is the NHS doing continuing to fund experimental, invasive, life-changing interventions for children, ie. puberty-blockers, without an evidence base of risks and benefits??