新冠疫情如何影响了你对制药业的看法？
对一些人来说，制药和生物技术企业是疫情中的英雄。对另一些人来说，这些企业应该为世界目前面对的如何终止疫情的巨大挑战而负责。
你对该行业的看法如何，你的看法是否因为疫情而改变？你认为制药业应该进行那些改变？我们对这一工业应该抱有何种期望？
阅读文章 瑞士制药公司的前世今生与未来
制药行业本身不是问题，政府的监督或缺乏监督才是问题。国会应该是人民的防线，防止特定药物的价格上涨，甚至更重要的是，防止向广大公众发放未经测试的药物。社会对病毒大流行的整体反应彻底动摇了我的信仰体系。我不再相信政府本身、其执法机构、其 "科学 "机构、我在国会的代表（RINO）、媒体、医疗保健专业人士等--这是一个巨大的内在腐败的泡沫。我在瑞士度过了2021年的全部时间，那里的情况同样糟糕，如果不是更糟的话。在美国，人们没有机会对侵入性和压迫性的贪污措施进行投票，而在瑞士，人们有机会投票--大多数人选择了压迫，即使所有的统计资料都可以得到。他们关闭了大脑，向不合理的恐惧屈服。瑞士在大流行病中死亡；我的家乡，我长大的地方，我生命中的前30年都是在这里度过的。讽刺的是，欧盟不应受到指责；我的瑞士同胞自己做了这一切。
The pharmaceutical industry isn't the problem per se - the government oversight, or lack thereof, is. Congress should be the people's line of defense against price hiking of particular medications and, even more importantly, against issuing untested medications to the broad public. The overall response by society to the covid pandemic utterly shook my belief system. I no longer trust the government itself, its enforcement agencies, its "science" agencies, my representatives (RINOs) in Congress, media, health care professionals, etc - it's one huge inherently corrupt bubble. I spent the entirety of 2021 in Switzerland where things were just as bad if not worse. In the US, the people didn't get to vote on intrusive and oppressive covid measures whereas in Switzerland the people did - the majority chose oppression even with all the stats widely available. Turned off their brain and gave in to unreasonable fear. Switzerland died during the pandemic; my home country where I grew up and spent the first 30 years of my life is gone. The irony is that the EU isn't to blame; my fellow Swiss people did it all themselves.
事实证明，将药品的生产交给公司是有风险的。
政府从制药公司购买昂贵的药物并免费提供。那么，如果政府生产这些药物，提供这些药物的成本可能会更低，而且更快。
人的生命不应该被用于商业。
薬を製造することを企業に任せることはリスクがあることが分かった。
政府は、製薬会社から高額の薬を買い、無料で提供している。だったら、政府が薬を作るほうがコストがかからず、早く提供できる可能性もある。
人の命が商売に利用されてはならない。
对我来说，作为一名古巴移民，我的母亲现已在波多黎各去世，自1996年起与家人一起生活在美国佛罗里达州，我认为BiG制药公司不是大流行病的英雄，而是那些利用大流行病两手抓的人。大流行病的真正英雄在古巴，在那里，由于向岛上所有人口免费提供国家疫苗，他们的发病率比美国低得多，目前已经控制了病毒，没有义务使用口罩，在初级保健中加强了自然和传统医学（整体）的处方，但由于纯粹的意识形态原因，这被国际媒体审查。
Para mi, como cubano emigrado por reclamacion de mi madre, ya fallecida en Puerto Rico, viviendo con mi familia en Florida, Estados Unidos desde 1996, considero que la BiG Pharma no son los heroes de la pandemia sino que son los que se aprovecharon de la pandemia para lucrar a las dos manos, los verdaderos heroes de la pandemia estan en Cuba donde con vacunas nacionales gratuitas a toda la poblacion de la isla tienen una mucho menor tasa que las de Estados Unidos y actualmente han controlado el covid sin obligacion de usar mascaras reforzando la atencion primaria con la Medicina Natural y Tradicional (Holistica) de prescripcion en la atenion primaria, pero eso lo censura la prensa internacional por razones netamente ideologicas.
我认为在大流行期间迅速创造出有效的疫苗是一个优点。它可能帮助许多人以轻度的形式从病毒中存活下来，这很难说，因为大多数人在疫苗创造出来之前就得了这种病。
я считаю, что в пандемию быстрое создание работающей вакцины было плюсом. скорее всего она помогла многим пережить ковид в легкой форме. сказать трудно, потому что большинство переболело им еще до создания вакцины. я сама переболела в легкой форме, с 25% поражением обоих легких. но, думаю, что сейчас вакцина уже не актуальна.
我一直以怀疑的态度看待制药公司。他们的目标不是人类福利，而是利润，以至于那些奇迹般有效的药品，至少可以说是由于 "市场短缺 "而被停止生产（也就是说，患某种疾病的人太少，也许是非常严重的疾病，值得治疗）。
在美国，食品和药物管理局太容易腐败了。人们为了治疗而举债，而制药公司则发了财。纪录片《Dopesick》在今年早些时候问世。我对制药公司（是的，甚至是这种疫苗）的信心直线下降。
Ho sempre guardato alle case farmaceutiche con sospetto. Il loro fine non è il benessere umano, ma il lucro, tanto è vero che medicinali a dir poco miracolosamente efficaci sono stati messi fuori produzione per "scarsità di mercato" (che equivale a dire che le persone che soffrono di una determinata malattia, magari gravissima, sono troppo poche per meritare una cura).
In America la FDA è troppo corruttibile. La gente si indebita per curarsi e le farmaceutiche ai arricchiscono. Dopesick, il docu-film, è uscito ad inizio anno. Il mio tasso di fiducia nei confronti delle farmaceutiche (si, anche di questo vaccino) è precipitato.
对研究的表现表示热烈祝贺。然而，人们不应夸大工资和成本。这正在成为一个问题，因为所有数十亿的利润。
Un grand bravo pour les performances de la recherche. Toutefois, il ne faut pas exagérer avec les salaires et les coûts . Cela devient problématique, avec tous ces milliards de bénéfices.
这并不奇怪。阿片类药物的流行，对大药厂的医疗和科学欺诈的数十亿美元的诉讼并不新鲜。特别是现在，我已经对辉瑞和Moderna产生了反感。这些机构利用我们的健康进行交易和赚钱，对治愈疾病没有真正的兴趣，只是不断进行治疗。这就是今天的世界。
It is not a surprise. The Opioids epidemic, the billion dollar lawsuits against big Pharma for medical and scientific fraud are not new. And specially now, I have developed aversion against Pfizer and Moderna specially. These institutions trade and make money with our health with no real interest in a cure but continuous treatments. That’s the world today.
说到辉瑞公司：我认识一些在制药行业工作的人，他们在科维问题出现之初（大约在 2020 年 3 月）就已经打赌辉瑞公司会成为疫苗案中最大的原告。原因很简单：他们必须在针对他们的集体诉讼（医疗史上最大的集体诉讼）中支付 23 亿美元后清理国库。(https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history)
A proposito di Pfizer: conosco persone che lavorano in ambito farmaceutico che già all'inizio del problema covid (intorno a marzo 2020) avrebbero scommesso qualunque cifra sul fatto che Pfizer sarebbe stata la maggiore attrice in caso di vaccino. Il perché è presto detto: dovevano risanare le casse dopo l'esborso di 2.3 miliardi di dollari dovuto per la class action contro di loro, il più ingente della storia medica. (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history)
药品行业总是会得到不好的评价，因为它让我们为病人的生命定价，并提醒我们在我们自己的国家和全世界的健康不平等。 然而，药品公司既没有设定新药的价格，也没有制造健康不平等--这主要是政府的决定，是由经济因素驱动的。如果药品行业不能吸引股东资本，它就无法将所有在上个世纪拯救了数十亿人生命的药品推向市场，这些生命是被结核病和艾滋病等疾病夺去的。而在大约10年后，允许药品公司从其创造性中获利的垄断权力就会消失......但即使如此，许多药品的价格对世界上的穷人来说仍然太贵。说我们应该公平地按成本配给牛痘疫苗是很好的，但是第三世界也需要医生来治疗病人，需要护士为他们接种疫苗，需要诚实的行政人员来防止腐败行为，需要医疗级冰箱来运输和储存mRNA疫苗。
The drug industry will always get a bad press because it makes us put a price on patients' lives and reminds us of health inequalities in our own country and across the world. However drug companies neither set the price of new drugs nor create health inequalities - that is largely a government decision and is driven by economic factors. If the drug industry was not able to attract shareholder capital, it would not be able to bring all the medicines that have saved billions of lives in the last century to market, lives lost to diseases like tuberculosis and AIDS. And after around 10 years, the monopoly powers that allow drug companies to profit from their inventiveness disappears... but even then many drug prices remain too expensive for the world's poor. It is all very well saying that we should ration covid vaccines equitably and at cost, but the third world also needs doctors to treat ill patients, nurses to inoculate them, honest administrators to prevent corrupt practices and medical grade refrigerators to transport and store the mRNA vaccines.
很抱歉，您有一句话说错了：是制药公司，而不是政府，决定了其产品在各个市场的价格。
Mi dispiace una delle tue affermazioni non è corretta: sono esattamente le case farmaceutiche a stabilire il prezzo dei loro prodotti su ciascun mercato, non i governi.
医药公司是为了盈利。这是他们的首要任务。 政府有责任确保公司公平竞争，在国家紧急状态下，政府应强制执行透明行为。
另外，既然mRNA疫苗是一种风险未知的新技术，为什么瑞士政府只批准了这种疫苗？那么传统开发的C. 19疫苗，如印度的疫苗呢？这些疫苗由死亡的Covid 19细胞组成，而不是由DNA设计的。
Pharma companies are for profit. This is their priority. It is the responsibility of governments to ensure that companies play fair and in times of national emergency, governments should force transparent behaviour.
Also, why did the Swiss govt. only authorse mRNA vaccines given that they are a new technology with unknown risks? What about traditionally developed C. 19 vaccines such as the Indian one? These consist of dead Covid 19 cells rather than being DNA engineered.
我一直在想，为什么印度能研制出自己的疫苗，而瑞士却要花费数百万美元购买国外的实验药物呢？
I always wondered how come India came up with their own vaccine but Switzerland spent millions in foreign experimental drugs.
我姑姑的丈夫在一个研究小组工作，该小组正在研究一种治疗糖尿病的药物，他告诉我以下情况。
1.他们继续工作，尽管药物已经开发出来，而且他们在这方面取得了成功。即使一个人已经完成了研究，无论成功与否，都要继续研究）。
2.该药物还没有被带到公众面前。
3.该团队因领导人退休而被解散。
发现错误
Der Mann meiner Tante arbeitete für ein Forschungsteam, das an einem Medikament für Diabetiker arbeitete und hat mir folgendes erzählt:
1. Man arbeitete weiter, obschon das Medikament bereits entwickelt wurde und man damit Erfolge erziehlt. (Ähnliches habe ich schon über andere Forschungsarbeiten gehört - überschüssiges, zugesprochenes Geld wird verschwendet im Sinne von: Auch wenn man bereits fertig geforscht hat, ob erfolgreich oder nicht, forscht man eben weiter daran)
2. Man hat das Medikament nicht an die Öffentlichkeit gebracht.
3. Das Team wurde aufgelöst weil der Leiter in Pension ging.
Finde die Fehler
谢谢。你能说得更具体一些吗？是公共机构还是私营公司？
Danke. Können Sie das konkretisieren? Was das an einer öffentlichen Institution oder einem Privatunternehmen?
没有任何改变，我一直讨厌它的贪婪、不道德的做法和对大众媒体的剥削和影响。
我现在仍然如此
辉瑞公司赞助了大多数巨型媒体机构
Nothing changed, i always hated it for its greed, unethical practices and exploitation and influencing of mass media
And i still do
Pfizer sponsors most giant media outlets
想象一下，如果每个人都注射了疫苗并且成功了......那么制药业还会是邪恶的吗？
医药公司可以帮助做更多的工作，把疫苗送到发展中国家，但政府也可以。
Imagine if everyone took the vaccine and it worked… then would pharma still be evil?
Pharma could help do more to get vaccines to developing countries but so can government.
是的，确实是想象，因为想象是合乎逻辑的，是以事实为基础的！！！
Yes, imagine indeed, because imagination is logical and fact based!!!
根据世界银行的数据，美国和中国的人均医疗支出 "领先 "于世界。 其他发达国家（德国、澳大利亚、以色列等）是如何以低得多的支出提供类似的结果（平均寿命）的？
According to the world bank, the US and CH "lead" the world in per capita healthcare spending. How are other developed nations (Germany, Australia, Israel, etc.) able to provide similar outcomes (average lifespan) with much lower spending?
这是一个综合因素。这两个国家都有以保险为基础的制度，而这种制度通常更加昂贵，因为要承担额外的管理负担。与其他国家相比，这两个国家都倾向于更早、更彻底地对疾病进行干预，而且往往是在对病人的整体健康益处微乎其微、从卫生经济学角度看效果不佳的情况下进行干预，这主要是因为医生可以从更多的干预中获益。瑞士的医疗服务好得令人惊叹，也许是世界上最好的，而美国则有一些无与伦比的优秀医疗服务，但这是有代价的，而且还有一些非常浪费的做法。
It is a combination of factors. Both countries have insurance-based systems which are usually more expensive because of the additional burden of administration. Both countries tend to intervene earlier and more radically than other countries, often when the overall health benefits are marginal for the patient and poor from a health economics perspective, largely because doctors benefit from performing more interventions. Swiss healthcare is quite stunningly good, perhaps the best in the world, whereas the US has pockets of unrivalled excellence, which comes at a price, and some very wasteful practices.
瑞士媒体：接种疫苗或远离公共场所
瑞士媒体：制药业是邪恶的
你不可能两全其美。
Swiss media: get vaccinated or keep out of public spaces
Also Swiss media: pharma is evil
You can't have it both ways.
在美国听起来也是一样，只不过你得说：
美国主流媒体/民主党人
Sounds the same in the USA, except you have to say:
American main stream media/democrats
感谢您的反馈。您认为瑞士媒体（或者各地媒体）应该报道哪些新闻或问题？
Thanks for your feedback. Are there stories or issues you think the Swiss media (or maybe media everywhere) should be covering?
jdp - 并非如此，我只是觉得很讽刺，很多抱怨制药公司赚钱的人，同时也是想强迫其他人接种疫苗的人。这也会让制药公司赚更多的钱！
jdp - not really, i just think it is ironic that a lot of people that complain about the money pharmaceutical companies make, are also the ones that want to force other people to get the vaccine. Which will also make the pharmaceutical company more money!
保持这些美元的滚动......完全不考虑那些买不起疫苗的人/国家。贪婪是活着的，而且很好。
Keep those $$$ rolling in...No consideration whatsoever for people/countries who can't afford vaccines. Greed is alive and well.
如果不是药品及其制造商，那么今天地球的人口可能不会超过几十人。尽管有些人贪婪地提高燕麦的价格，其中一些燕麦的价格很高，但它们正在为我们的救援做出贡献，有些人想要或被拒绝。
لولا الأدوية ومصنّعوها، فربما لن تزيد أعداد سكان الأرض اليوم عن العشرات. ورغم جشع البعض في رفع أسعار الأوية وغلاء البعض منها، فهم مساهمون في إنقاذنا شاء البعض أم رفض.
药物曾经拯救生命。不幸的是，大约 30 年前，有人认为健康是一门很好的生意，因此决定让人们一直生病，这样他们就需要不断治疗，而治疗会让他们病得更重，因此他们需要更多的治疗，直到死亡。美国就是最好的例子，欧洲紧随其后。
看看阿片类药物的欺诈行为就知道了。美国有著名的大药监局，但它却是世界上病得最重、用药最多的国家。
Medicines used to save lives. Unfortunately around 30 years ago someone decided that health is a very good business so decided to keep people sick so they demand constant treatments that will make them sicker so they will need more treatments until they die. US is prime example followed by Europe.
Just look at Opioids fraud. The US has their famous big FDA and it is the sickest and most medicated nation in the world.
几十年前，医学一直在帮助人们。本世纪初，健康产业被资本驱动的贪婪者劫持。他们会毫不留情地拿我们的健康做交易。
Medicine helped people until a couple of decades ago. In the early 2000s the health industry was hijacked by capital driven greedy people. They will trade with our health with no mercy.
世界各地的医疗保健主要/主要是关于两件事。
1）从生病的人身上赚取巨额的金钱。
2）政治。 实际上是在说--看看我们（国家）在医疗上花了多少钱；看看我们为你提供了很好的固定物/身体修复物！。
我们的医疗保健大多是失败的。 因为如果我们真的想让我们的人口少生病，我们就会。
1）在每个地方提供健身房，为所有年龄段的人提供体育活动，全部免费。
2）缩短工作日，允许平衡/合理的在家工作，通过法律向所有的人支付加班费--这些法律会被执行；这样人们就有更多的时间来休息。
3）让儿童更多地参与体育活动；减少家庭作业（例如，在许多国家，儿童经常做学校作业到晚上10点或以上；这对他们的健康和无用的压力来说是可怕的，这不会使他们更聪明；但使他们更容易患终身疾病，如心脏病、血压、成瘾、肥胖、糖尿病、压力/抑郁症）。
4）严惩不健康/加工食品，通过补贴和降低税收来鼓励销售天然/健康产品。
5) 不仅要减少空气污染，还要减少噪音污染（惩罚高噪音的来源，如高噪音的自行车/车辆、高噪音的花园设备、频繁响起的教堂钟声），减少光污染；在瑞士可能不是一个大问题，但在许多大城市/城镇却是一个严重的问题。 光线和噪音污染扰乱了睡眠和正常的大脑功能，导致严重的慢性疾病。
总结。
制药公司受贪婪的驱使，不喜欢一次性/永久性地解决疾病；因为这样他们就不能快速致富。 他们喜欢第3点中提到的慢性病，因为这样他们就可以日复一日地销售昂贵的维持人类生命的药物。 患病的人往往必须终生服用这些药物。 这意味着--为制药公司创造大量的财富，而代价是让人类继续生病（没有明确的解决办法）。
癌症大流行并不是一个真正的问题。 我们必须专注于改善健康；而不是在人们生病时专注于提供昂贵的治疗。 当然，我们也需要后者，但主要重点应放在上述几点（预防和良好的健康）。
如果我们真正关心我们和我们孩子的健康，让我们诚实地对待这一切。
Healthcare around the world is mainly/mostly about two things:
1) Making enormous amounts of money from the ill humans.
2) Politics: In effect saying- Look how much money we (country) spend on healthcare; look we are providing you with good fixings/body repairs!
Our healthcare is mostly a failure. Because if we really want our population to be less ill, we would:
1) Provide Gyms in each locality, with physical activities for all age groups, all completely free.
2) Shorten the work day, allow balanced/sensible work-from-home, pay overtime to ALL people, thru laws - which are enforced; so that people have more time to rest. e.g. How many people suffer from sleep deprivation?
3) Engage children more into physical activities; cut down on home-work (e.g. in many countries, children often do school work until/beyond 10pm; horrible for their health and useless pressure which does nothing to make them smarter; but makes them more prone to life-long illnesses such as heart disease, blood pressure, addictions, obesity, diabetes, stress/depression).
4) Severely penalize unhealthy/processed foods, and encourage sale of natural/healthy products thru subsidies and lowering any taxes on them.
5) Reduce not just air pollution, but also reduce Noise Pollution (penalize sources of loud noises e.g. loud bikes/vehicles, loud garden equipment, frequent church bells ringing), Reduce Light pollution; may not be a big issue in Switzerland, but is a serious issue in many big cities/towns. Light and Noise pollution disrupt sleep and normal brain functions, leading to serious chronic illnesses.
SUMMARY:
Pharmaceutical companies are driven by greed, and do not like one-time/permanent fixes to illnesses; as then, they do not get rich fast. They love chronic illnesses mentioned in point 3, as then they can sell expensive just-keep-human-alive medicines, day after day after day. The ill human often must keep taking these medications for life. This means - LOT of wealth generation for pharmaceutical companies, at the expense of keeping the human ill (no clear fix).
Covid pandemic is not really a problem. We must focus on improving health; rather than focusing on providing expensive treatments, when people get sick. Of course, we need the latter as well, but main focus should be on points above (Prevention and Good Health).
If we truly care for our and our children's health, let us be honest about it all.
很好的建议，可以改善健康，让我们远离那些治标不治本的药丸。然而，指责制药公司的 "贪婪 "是由人类的懒惰和舒适需求（以及政治家希望通过这些需求连任的愿望）造成的，这太容易了。你要对自己的健康负责......这意味着要采取正确的行动--如果你因为对自己的健康不负责任的生活而生病，没有人可以指责你（当然不包括基因缺陷--在这种情况下你可以感谢制药公司让你更长寿）。
Great suggestions to improve health and keep us away from pills that fight symptoms, not causes of illness. However, to blame pharmaceutical companies for their „greed“, caused by human laziness and comfort need (and the wish of politicians to be re-elected by those) is just too easy. You are responsible for your health…and this means to take the right actions - no one is to blame if you get sick from leading your life irresponsibly towards your own health (gene deficiencies excluded, of course - in such cases you can thank pharmaceutical companies for a longer life).
BUSYBEE，我同意我们必须对自己的生活方式决定和健康负责。
但需要良好的立法和明智的治理，原因就在这里。
我们在家里（在伦敦）主要吃新鲜的食物--在我们能买到和负担得起的情况下，新鲜/优质的食物；而且我们的孩子已经习惯了这样的食物。 但是在学校里，他只能在学校的午餐大厅里吃到低质量、经过加工或没有营养的食物。 他要为这些食物付钱；这不是免费的。
从家里带午餐不是一个选择，因为它不能保持新鲜；没有地方可以将自带的食物储存在冰箱里，直到他们的午餐时间。 与瑞士不同的是，孩子们不回家吃午饭；家里没有人，或者学校往往离家很远。
这种学校咖啡馆的食物（如果可以称之为食物的话）是高脂肪、高盐或高糖的，而且往往是经过加工的（例如，瓶装巧克力牛奶、加工肉类、常温蛋糕/饼干/产品、冷火腿三明治等）。 英国的肥胖水平相当高，已知至少有30%的人口是肥胖的（而且越来越严重）。
肥胖已经导致许多人患上慢性病。 然而，如果你去任何一条商业街，你会发现许多咖啡馆/餐馆出售不健康（和昂贵）的食物；如果你去超市，新鲜的食物较少，更多的是加工的、罐装的、瓶装的、塑料包装的食物--这些食物往往含有大量的各种坏东西。
食物是生存所需；许多人最终购买/消费不健康的食物，导致医疗保健的巨大压力；考虑到我们生活在一个富裕的国家，并支付巨额税收，这是难以接受的。
这个严重的问题只能通过聪明的利民法律来解决，这些法律迫使食品生产商/销售商销售健康食品。 即使我们对自己的健康负责，我们也会这样做，但我们无法改善我们可获得的食品质量。 生活在大城市里，我们无法自己种植食物。
只有我们的领导人和明智的治理才能解决这个问题。 消费不健康的食物是一个远比科维德更大的流行病。
-- 每年大约有280万人因肥胖而死亡。 当我们可获得的许多食物都是高盐、高糖和高脂肪时，就很难保持良好的健康。
工作时间过长，体育活动少，特别是对儿童来说，也是导致健康状况不佳的问题，但我们作为个人无法解决这些问题。
BUSYBEE, I agree we must hold ourselves accountable for our own lifestyle decisions and health.
But good legislation and smart governance is needed, and here is why.
We at home (in London) eat mostly fresh food - as fresh/good quality as we can buy and afford; and our child is used to such food. But when at school, he has access to only low-quality, processed or nutrition-less food, in the school lunch hall. He pays for this food; it is not free.
Taking lunch from home is not an option, as it does not stay fresh; there is no place to store home-brought food in a refrigerator until their lunch time. Unlike in Switzerland, children do not come home for lunch; no one is at home or schools can often be far from home.
This school-cafe food (if one can call it food) is high in fat, salt or sugar and is often processed (e.g. bottled chocolate milk, processed meats, ambient temperature cakes/cookies/products, cold ham sandwiches, etc). Obesity levels are quite high in UK, with at least 30% of the population known to be obese (and getting worse).
Obesity has lead to many being chronically ill. However, if you go to any shopping street, you will find many cafes/restaurants selling unhealthy (and expensive) food; if you go to a supermarket, there is less fresh food, and a lot more processed, canned, bottled, plastic-packaged food - which is often high in various bad things.
Food is needed for survival; many people end up buying/consuming unhealthy foods, leading to a huge strain on healthcare; and considering we live in a rich country and pay huge taxes, it is hard to accept.
This serious problem can only be solved thru smart people-friendly laws, which force food producers/sellers to sell healthy foods. Even if we hold ourselves accountable for our health, which we do, we cannot improve the quality of food which is available to us. Living in a big city, we cannot grow our own food.
Only our leaders and smart governance can solve this issue. Consumption of unhealthy foods is a far greater pandemic than Covid.
-- Around 2.8 million people die each year as a result of being obese. It is hard to maintain good health when much of food available to us is high is salt, sugar and fat.
Very long work days, poor access to physical activities, particularly for children, are also issues which lead to poor health, but which we cannot solve as individuals.
伟大的评论 Sensiblemike 👍👍💪
Great comments Sensiblemike 👍👍💪
我一直在想，为什么自大流行病开始以来，健康饮食、锻炼、维生素 D、锌、维生素 C、减压和戒烟一次也没有被提及，尽管死亡和住院的大多数是肥胖者和吸烟者，除了老年人，但衰老是我们无能为力的，因此这并不能算作严重疾病的预防。那么是的，为什么从来没有提到过健康的生活习惯呢？这真的与健康有关吗？
I always wondered why healthy eating, exercise, vitamin D, Zinc, Vitamin C, stress reduction and stop smoking was not mentioned even once since the pandemic started, despite that big majority of deaths and hospitalization are obese people and smokers, apart from old people, but aging is nothing we can do about, therefore it does not count for prevention of severe deseas. So yes, why healthy habits was never mentioned? Is this really about health?
只要你去超市，当你发现很多产品都是垃圾食品时，你就会明白为什么政府什么都不做了。所有的垃圾食品公司都会破产，经济也会崩溃。酒业、烟草和大多数医药产品也是如此。我们只需要不到 30% 的产品就能健康快乐地生活。
Just go to the supermarket and when you realize that plenty of the products are junk food, then you will understand why the government does nothing. All the junk food companies will go broke and the economy will collapse. Same goes for the alcohol industry, tobacco and most of Pharma products. We need less than 30% what is out there to live healthy and happy.
我的看法比大流行之前还要低。 通读疫苗的随机对照试验研究，让我大开眼界。我相信，制药公司善于制定试验，并按照他们选择的方式提交数据。 在美国，他们与监管机构之间的关系也很有问题。 除了建议每个人在做出影响其健康的决定之前仔细做自己的研究之外，不知道有什么解决办法。
I have an even lower opinion than prior to the pandemic. Reading through the randomized controlled trial studies for the vaccines was eye-opening. I believe that pharmaceutical companies are adept at formulating trials and presenting data in the light of their choosing. Here in the US, the relationship between them and the regulatory agencies is also quite problematic. Not sure what the solution is except to advise everyone to carefully do their own research before making decisions that will affect their health.
我对制药公司的评价一直很低，尤其是在有私人健康保险系统的国家。由于制药公司知道保险会支付，成本被夸大了多少？这是为那些能负担得起全额保费的富人准备的，而不是为那些需要Jahresfranchise或当月不吃的穷人准备的。
I've always had a low opinion of pharma companies especially in countries with a private health insurance system. How much are costs inflated as pharma companies know the insurance will pay? This is for the rich who can afford full premiums, not the poor who need the Jahresfranchise or not eat that month.
Lynx，你说--"......对制药公司的评价很低，尤其是在实行私人医疗保险制度的国家...."；也许你在暗示，在实行国家医疗保健制度的国家，制药公司在某种程度上提供了更好的价值。
您错了。 国家医疗系统非常昂贵。 举例来说，在英国，2021 年国家医疗服务体系的预算为（按英镑换算）217,911,841,617 瑞郎。 英国人口为 6700 万。
由此得出，每人每年的医疗支出为 3252 瑞士法郎。 这是为每个人花费的金额，无论是出生一天的婴儿、体格健壮的运动员或青少年，还是老年人。
大多数人，就像我家的每一位成员一样，很少看医生，也没有看医生的必要。 但我们每年都要付钱，这没有问题。 问题的关键是，对于确实需要治疗的人来说，纳税人（将）为每年 1,760 亿英镑的支出买单，他们将为每个人支付巨额资金，每个（患病）人的支出远远高于 3,252 瑞士法郎。
许多制药公司与纳税人资助的各种医疗机构签订了巨额而昂贵的合同，保证了他们的巨额收入。 你和我只是看不到账单，就像在私人资助的系统中一样。 这就是这两种制度的唯一区别。
我确实赞成国家医疗保健系统；我只是说，制药公司仍然可以得到他们想要的东西--大量的钱；你只是通过纳税来支付，并直接收到账单。
Lynx, you say - "...low opinion of pharma companies especially in countries with a private health insurance system...."; maybe implying that pharma companies somehow provide better value in countries with national healthcare systems.
You are mistaken. National healthcare systems are enormously expensive. As an example, in UK, for 2021, the NHS budget is (converted from £) CHF 217,911,841,617. Population of UK is 67 million.
The above gives us annual healthcare spending PER PERSON of CHF 3,252. This is the amount that is spent for EACH person - be it a one-day-old infant, a very fit athlete or teenager, or an old person.
Most people, like every member in my family, have rarely seen a doctor or have had the need to do so. But we do pay each year, and that is OK. The point is that, for the people who DO need treatments, the taxpayers who (will) pay for the £176 billion annual spend, will pay enormous amounts of money PER PERSON, much greater spend per (ill) person than the CHF 3,252.
Many pharmaceutical companies have LARGE and expensive contracts with various taxpayer-funded healthcare organizations, guaranteeing them huge revenues. You and I just do not see the bills, like one would in a privately funded system. And that is really the only difference between the two systems.
I do favor national healthcare systems; just saying that pharma companies still get what they want -- lots of money; you are just paying for it thru your taxes, and do get billed directly.
Sensiblemike 说得没错--制药公司既榨取私人保险的利润，也榨取公共保险的利润。保险的设计使真正需要治疗的人（病人）对价格没有任何发言权。
但正因如此，我不赞成全国性的保险制度。在私人体系中，我至少可以选择我的保险公司。在美国，新型保险公司层出不穷，它们会为病人争取到实实在在的优惠。一旦实行单一付费制，你就会被政府和监管俘虏。
Sensiblemike is right - pharmaceutical companies milk both private and public insurance. Insurance is designed so that the people who actually need treatment (the patients) don't have any say in the price.
But for that reason, I don't favor national systems. In a private system, I can at least choose my insurance company. In the US, new types of insurance companies are popping up where they will actually secure good deals for patients. Once you have single payer, you're stuck with government and with regulatory capture.
奖励措施，如 "6 个月/1 年免费就诊一次"，而不必去看医生。
或者最好签约健身房 1 年，并在年底前提交改善报告......
降低保费的保费奖励...
在可预见的未来，对制药厂的需求始终存在。对于大多数人来说，无论是否幸运，但包括一种鼓励将健康更多地掌握在自己手中的途径，更有可能实现 "双赢
Incentives like ‘ a visit free 6mths/1 year’ having not have had to visit a Dr.
Or better sign up to a gym for 1 year and with an improved report by the end of the year…
Premium incentives for Premium reduction…
There will always, for the foreseeable future the need for the Pharmaceutical Ind. For most people fortunate or not but including an avenue that encourages taking ones health more into one hands is more of a ‘win win’ possibility…
我不知道编辑部是如何决定这些讨论的主题的。 这个话题本身太复杂，太抽象，任何外行人（包括我自己）都无法进行有意义的讨论。
我试图回答你的话题。
制药厂是这一流行病中的隐藏英雄和邪恶。他们在新闻中并不受人瞩目。 他们默默地制造疫苗，也从全球疫苗接种运动中秘密地获得了数十亿甚至数万亿的资金。
他们是英雄还是魔鬼？ 我们不能肯定地说，因为我们与制药公司没有直接联系。 我们甚至没有关于他们的间接消息。 这是令人担忧的，因为他们仍然隐藏着，他们是一个谜。
I don't know how the editorial decides on these topics for discussion. The topic itself is far too complex and far too abstract for any layperson (including myself) to discuss meaningfully.
I attempt to answer your topic.
Pharma are the hidden heroes and evils in this pandemic. They are not in the limelight in the news. They silently made the vaccines and also they secretly profited from billions and even trillions of chf/dollars from the global vaccination campaigns.
Are they heroes or devils? We cannot definitively say this because we do not have direct contact with Pharma. We don't even have indirect news about them. This is worrisome because they remain hidden and they are an enigma.
感谢您的观点。我同意你的观点，这是一个复杂的话题，但同时也以某种方式影响着我们所有人。我认为你关于这些公司似乎隐藏或沉默的观点很有意思。我想我们中的很多人都觉得自己并不真正了解这些公司在做什么，以及他们是如何做出决定的。
您对如何改变这种状况有什么想法吗？
Thank you for your perspective. I take your point that it is a complex topic but at the same time something that affects us all in some way. I think your point that the companies seem hidden or silent is an interesting one. I think many of us feel we don't really understand what these companies do and how they make decisions.
Do you have thoughts on how to change this?
制药公司实际上是相当透明的。他们的股东要求这样做，政府也期望这样做。顾名思义，公布专利就是将原本属于秘密的东西公之于众。问题是，如果你没有受过科学训练，这些科学知识可能会让你摸不着头脑。不过，要改善药品公司的运作方式，还有很多事情可以做。直接面向消费者的广告应受到更严格的控制，未达到预期结果的试验结果仍应公布，医疗保健专业人员从医疗保健供应商处获得资助的情况也应更广泛地公布。
Drug companies are actually quite transparent. Their shareholders demand it and governments expect it. By definition publishing a patent is putting what would otherwise be secret in the public domain. The trouble is that the science can be quite baffling if you are not scientifically trained. However, there is much that could be done to improve how drug companies operate. Direct-to-consumer advertising should be more strictly controlled, results of trials that have not achieved an expected outcome should still be published and the extent to which healthcare professionals receive funding from healthcare suppliers should be made more widely available.
亲爱的尼科，感谢您参与讨论。看起来医药行业的透明度确实在不断提高，但在价格方面还存在不足。您认为公司是否应该公布药品的实际价格？或者政府对研发的资助额度如何？
Dear Nico, Thanks for contributing to the discussion. It does seem that transparency has been improving in the industry but one area where this is lacking is around prices. Do you think that companies should have to reveal actual prices paid for their medicine? Or what about amount of government funding into R&D?
定价很困难。通常情况下，支付方希望对价格保密，尤其是在他们进行转售的情况下。此外，药品公司最初在本国市场或其有特殊影响力的市场推出药品时，会寻求一个他们认为市场能够承受的尽可能高的价格，因为从表面上看，这应该是目前最有前途的治疗方法，而且从卫生经济学角度看也是经济有效的。这就设定了一个标价，其他国家的主管部门会根据这个标价讨价还价。有些国家讨价还价得很厉害，而这些国家往往是该药物最后上市的国家。
政府或学术界的资助通常用于初级研究，而即使是最具创新精神的制药公司，也仅将其营业额的 15%用于初级研究（约占初级保健药物营销费用的三分之一！）。开发化合物并将其推向市场的过程中存在风险，只有极少数有前途的化合物能够走出实验室。我们之所以能看到新药，是因为制药公司拥有雄厚的资金实力，可以承担巨大的风险。
Pricing is difficult. Often it is the payers that want to keep secret the prices, especially if they on-sell. Additionally drug companies initially launch their drugs in their home market, or one where they have particular influence, looking for as high a price as they believe the market will bear for what, on the face of it, should be the most promising treatment available and is cost effective in terms of health economics. This sets a marker price against which other authorities in other countries will haggle down. Some countries haggle hard and those countries tend to be the last to see the drug launched.
Government or academic funding is usually in primary research, something which even the most innovative drug companies spend only 15% of their turnover on (around a third of what is spent marketing drugs in primary care!). The risks come in developing a compound and bringing it to market, which happens for only a very small number of promising compounds that leave the labs. The reason that we see new medicines is because drug companies have inordinately deep pockets and can take huge risks.
您的两个问题是相关联的。新型创新药物的定价高有两个原因。药物不仅要支付自身的部分研发成本，还要支付因各种不同原因而停产的众多其他候选药物的研发成本。此外，还要为其他新药的未来开发提供部分交叉资金。
许多顶级教学和研究诊所与制药业之间都有合作，但政府资助制药业的情况很少见，Covid 是个例外。开发一种新药的成本每年都在增加，这是因为政府理所当然地要求提供越来越多的信息，说明药物是如何开发、试验和生产的，而且他们还要求公司了解药物的所有信息。食品和非处方药的情况却并非如此。
让我们明确一点，"制药业 "并不是一个无形的东西。这些公司大多是公开交易、高度负责的公司。首席执行官和其他高级管理人员都是众所周知的。制药业与各国政府合作，努力在创纪录的时间内研制出柯韦德疫苗。瑞士和许多富裕国家一样，选择了最昂贵的 mRNA 疫苗。而 J&J / AZ 公司生产的更传统的疫苗价格还不到其一半。因此，如果你想指责瑞士，那么瑞士肯定选择了昂贵的方案，而这是政府的决定。我还可以继续说下去，但不想让大家感到无聊。
Your two questions are linked . pricing of novel new and innovative pharmaceuticals is high for 2 reasons. The drug has to cover part of not only its own development costs but also the numerous other candidates that were stopped for a myriad of different reasons. Plus partly cross fund future development of other new drugs.
There are collaborations between a lot of the top teaching and research clinics and the pharma industry but it is rare that govt funds the industry, covid was an exception. The cost of developing a new drug gets higher every year and this is because governments rightly require more and moreninformation about how the drug was developed trialled and manufactured plus they require companies to know about everything in the drug. The same cannot be said of food and over the counter non prescription medications.
I am staggered that there is a lot of anger directed at "the pharma industry" Lets be clear here it is not an amorphous thing. Mostly these are publicly traded and highly accountable companies. The CEOs are known as are other senior executives. The industry pushed hard to achieve a covid vaccine in record time, in collaboration with governments. Switzerland like a number of rich nations chose the most expensive options the mRNA vaccine. The more conventional vaccines from J&J / AZ were less than half the price. So if you want to point a finger for sure Switzerland chose the expensive option, and that was a Govt decision. I could continue but do not wish to bore everyone.
加入对话