Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the avoid-long-scaly-things dept.

Doctors are concerned that stocks of anti-venom are running low around the world.

Dr. Richard Clark from UC San Diego Health is an expert in treating snake bite victims. He said, "I think the big deal about antivenoms and shortages in the world right now is that drug companies that make any kind of pharmaceutical product, only make it if it's profitable. And the problem with antivenoms is they tend to be fairly expensive to produce."

It's expensive to produce and there is not enough demand -- so little in fact, that the pharmaceutical company that produced antivenom products stopped making them in 2003. The Food and Drug Administration stepped in and extended the expiration dates of the last remaining supplies to last until June 2016. Clark says it will likely last even longer.

"So, there's still expired antivenom around that we know still works. One day that will be gone unless a company starts to make the coral snake antivenom again," said Clark.

In a case of a lifesaving drug, is it unreasonable to expect a pharmaceutical company to continue making it even though they would make higher profits elsewhere? Is this a good place for governmental incentives?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by charon on Friday November 25 2016, @05:03AM

    by charon (5660) on Friday November 25 2016, @05:03AM (#432751) Journal
    The article uses the word antivenom. The doctor quoted in the article uses the word antivenom. The World Health Organization uses the word antivenom. But ok, we'll change for you, AC.
  • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Friday November 25 2016, @02:13PM

    by Magic Oddball (3847) on Friday November 25 2016, @02:13PM (#432845) Journal

    Antivenin is the original correct spelling; "antivenom" only relatively recently became considered 'correct' due to the high number of people that have seen it spelled that way online without having been exposed to the original form first.

    • (Score: 1) by charon on Friday November 25 2016, @06:34PM

      by charon (5660) on Friday November 25 2016, @06:34PM (#432948) Journal
      That is true. However, as much as language pedants dislike it, all languages evolve. I am a prescriptivist myself, so I understand the tendency to wish to freeze english in a time when twerk was not a word. But every source in the article used "antivenom", it's not my job to correct them.