r/biotech • u/Spirited-Address5973 • Nov 02 '24
I am worried about what will happen to the biotech industry after this election Open Discussion đď¸
Hello all,
I recently read this blog post Healthcare Policy Plans : Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump 2024 , and it was pretty eye-opening. On one side, Kamala Harris has plans to expand the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). People at work were saying this is great for patient but could have some serious long-term consequences, particularly for federal healthcare centers. These centers often rely on the differences in drug costs to sustain their revenue, so changes could result in significant funding cuts. According to the projections I've heard, this might even lead to massive layoffs in 2026 and 2027.
On the other hand, Trumpâs âMake America Healthy Againâ policy aims to overhaul federal regulations around pharmaceuticals and public health agencies. But hereâs where it gets even crazier âthey havenât shared many details yet. RFK Jr. mentioned that Trump promised him control over agencies like the HHS, CDC, and FDA, and potentially even USDA. That makes me even more worried because handing over control of these agencies could lead to massive changes in how public health and biotech regulations are handled. Also is RFKJr. even qualified for that, what do you guys know about him ? is he good or bad?
What are your thoughts? Iâm especially curious about what people working in federal health agencies think about these potential changes
501
u/ProteinEngineer Nov 02 '24
If RFK Jr is running the FDA, the entire industry is fucked in the long term. The only exception is whichever companies sell TRT and ivermectin.
32
u/Big_Extreme_8210 Nov 02 '24
Please tell me Trump would need Senate confirmation for this appointment. Â Please.
73
u/ProteinEngineer Nov 02 '24
Nope. He found away around it by having âactingâ appointments last time.
32
u/anon1moos Nov 02 '24
He wouldnât need to make Jr. a cabinet secretary to have the effect, he could be âWhite House Advisor on pseudoscience and tremendous quackeryâ and still call the shots at the FDA.
Your approvals and INDs would not depend on how compelling your packages are, it would matter who your company knows, or has greased, in the relevant agencies.
12
u/Reasonable_Move9518 Nov 02 '24 edited Nov 02 '24
Collins AND Murkowski are on the committee that would have to advance RFK Jrâs nomination to any post requiring Senate confirmation. Â
 RFK Jr might also have problems with pro-life republicans (who are already pissed at Trump and REALLY want their own person at HHS) and more âestablishmentâ republicans (as a former Democrat with leftish views outside of vaccines⌠which very very recently became right-coded).
Trump isnât really very loyal to his supporters and itâs not clear if heâd really want to expend political capital on RFK Jr after heâd delivered the votes.
 He can still cause absolute chaos as an âadvisorâ though⌠as Stephen Miller did on immigration.
19
u/ProteinEngineer Nov 02 '24
At the end of his first term, Trump realized he doesnât need senate approval for his appointments. He just gives them an âactingâ designation. Keep thinking âit wonât be so badâ and then when we all lose our jobs we can say âIt was going to happen anyway.â
2
u/Reasonable_Move9518 Nov 02 '24
Acting secretaries have time limits and potentials for all/many of their rule making to be tossed if their appointment violates the federal vacancies reform act.Â
They do become more of an issue at the end of a term
10
4
u/scarybottom Nov 03 '24
He actively is planning on AVOIDING that process- because RFK Jr could not make it through that process, Same with his plan for mr. musk.
17
u/Business-You1810 Nov 02 '24
Also RFK wants to direct half the NIH funding into lifestyle treatment BS, which means a lot of unfunded labs and a whole lot more people hitting the industry job market
4
u/serialmentor Nov 03 '24
As somebody running a research lab with funding primarily from NIAID, I'm very worried about what somebody like RFK might do to the NIH. I may have to retire early.
3
3
u/scarybottom Nov 03 '24
The Ivermectin industry was horrified by the mis-use. Most people in leadership understand...we WANT some regulation to ensure safe and effective use of products- especially medical products. RFK would return us to "medical choice"...which is just code for SNAKE OIL will now be legal and you will have spend a lot of time reading as many peer reviewed papers as you can to see if treatment is even legitimate. And then it's a crap shoot if the treatment you PAID for (hospitals are going to LOVE this /s), is even real. Chemo may be tap water because the entire supply line will become unregulated with no accountability.
No matter how folks try to prevent the agenda- people are going to die.
-1
1
u/chucktownbtown Nov 04 '24
I would like to see him, or someone, at least get better control of the food part of the fda. Thereâs no reason so many chemicals are in our foods that other leading nations ban because they are not safe to consume.
-8
u/Apprehensive_Cup_432 Nov 02 '24
It sounded like he would oversee all HHS. NOT the FDA.
"The key, which President Trump has promised me, is control of the public health agencies, which is HHS and its sub-agencies, CDC, FDA, NIH and a few others. And also the USDA, which is, you know, key to making America healthy, because we've got to get off of seed oils and we've got to get off of pesticides ⌠and we need to make that transition to regenerative agriculture," Kennedy said.
34
u/ProteinEngineer Nov 02 '24
Did you even read what you pasted? The FDA is part of HHS.
-14
u/Apprehensive_Cup_432 Nov 02 '24
Frankly, you need to understand structure. The director of the FDA is the person who leads operations. Not this guy. He would be collecting info from all the other agencies (i.e. CDC, USDA, etc.) and report to Trump.
He would not head the FDA. In his quote he seems more interested in agriculture
20
u/ProteinEngineer Nov 02 '24
Really? The guy whose entire thing is that vaccines are bad and specifically mentions FDA in the thing youâre quoting doesnât care about the FDA?
→ More replies6
u/blackreagentzero Nov 02 '24
The FDA is under HHS, so in essences he would have complete control over it as the FDA has to follow the rules set by HHS.
8
-94
u/Spirited-Address5973 Nov 02 '24
I donât know about this guy policies or views. Has he ever been appointed to sensitive positions like the FDA or even ever did anything of importance?
→ More replies132
693
u/blinkandmissout Nov 02 '24
If RFK gets anywhere near health or science leadership, we're fucked. As a nation, not just as an industry.
181
u/atlantagirl30084 Nov 02 '24
He wants to pull vaccines off the market. Think about how much that would impact everyone. Measles, diphtheria, flu, etc will skyrocket.
35
u/Kentaiga Nov 03 '24
Letâs be real, if RFK really tried to do that, some big wig would just slip a couple million in his pocket and tell him to reconsider. These people do not have a moral constitution, theyâll take the money, and the medical industry has a lot of money to give.
17
u/atlantagirl30084 Nov 03 '24
Letâs really hope so. I can totally see your point-vaccine manufacturers wonât want to have their vaccines pulled from the market.
So itâll all be a grift. Just like Trumpâs first term. Please let him only have a one termâŚ
18
u/vathena Nov 03 '24
Didn't we find out when Trump was elected before that it only took $1.2M for Novartis to bribe him? It doesn't even cost an objectively large sum of money ....
4
u/Kentaiga Nov 03 '24
As long as itâs more money than the other side, you could probably give him a half-eaten piece of gum and still get away with it.
14
u/scarybottom Nov 03 '24
Let's be real- RFK will still remove the mandates in schools and gov't funding for the vaccination programs. So vaccination will become a CLASS issue- those that can afford them will get the protection, those that cannot....won't.
And even then, due to other changes Trump team wants (see Project 2025), there would be NO assurance that that ampule of vaccine is anything other than tap water.
3
1
u/chucktownbtown Nov 04 '24
I thought RFK just wants vaccines to go through the same trial testing that other drugs do? Not saying I support him, but I also donât like that vaccines have an immunity blanket either. I think thereâs a middle ground that needs to be found.
1
u/atlantagirl30084 Nov 04 '24 edited Nov 04 '24
UmâŚvaccines have gone through RIGOROUS testing-the same as or more than drugs, because they are administered to healthy people.
They have some of the highest standards for testing, and any adverse event is reported to a reporting body. Vaccines that have been around for a long time also have the backing of the hundreds of millions of people who have taken them, most without any obvious side effects other than infusion reactions (because they cause an immune response). Yes COVID is newer but given how many have been given out, again, adverse events especially for the Pfizer vaccine are quite low and thereâs not any consistent effect (I know the COVID vaccine from AstraZeneca caused some blood clots, so that was pulled off the market).
The link between autism and vaccines has been tested in hundreds of studies. There is no link.
1
u/chucktownbtown Nov 04 '24
I never suggested there was a link to autism. I myself, and my toddlers, are vaccinated. I just. Got the flu vax a week ago.
Sounds like you believe they are tested very well. They therefor have no need for their immunity blanket that was lobbied for because the manufactures claim that vaccines are inherently dangerous
1
u/94runner028 Nov 10 '24
"any adverse event is reported to a reporting body" kinda like the COVID vaccines when they decided there were 'no side effects '
1
u/biobrad56 Nov 04 '24
He wonât. Howard Lutnick is on the transition team and insiders at Cantor who cover biotech spoke with him. Heâs pro vaccine and even got the latest seasonal flu vaccine and vaccinated his kids every year. This is just talk until they win then theyâll stall RFK appointment he probably will not get much.
1
u/atlantagirl30084 Nov 04 '24
That would be good. He was wanting to get vaccine data and make âdecisionsâ about the safety or vaccines. But he has no medical or scientific training, so any small adverse event reported (thereâs a special reporting agency for vaccine-related injuries) would cause him to pull them off the market.
26
u/ExternalSea9120 Nov 02 '24
I agree that the guy is a nutcase, and I hope that he will not get anywhere close to a government role.
But, considering also that the pharma industry is a powerful lobby, I wonder how much damage he could really do. I mean, they won't take lightly anything that could hit their profits.
42
u/XXXYinSe Nov 02 '24
During trumpâs presidency, he consistently railed against vaccines just to rally up some support based on peopleâs dissatisfaction during the pandemic. Trump and RFK would absolutely try similar stuff again, and most of pharma will put up with it based on tax savings. Companies like Moderna that only have vaccines to their name might try to fight it but theyâre the minority anyway. Pharma is a powerful lobby but theyâre very centrist due to them still being big businesses
22
u/blackreagentzero Nov 02 '24
Lmao no they aren't going to put up with it. They would sue and likely win. You're talking about a ton of money. Also, think of the precedent it would set if they allowed for removal of certain medicines just because a politician didn't like it? That's insane.
8
u/scarybottom Nov 03 '24
I think you overestimate the protections we have under the current federal judiciary and SCOTUS.
0
u/blackreagentzero Nov 03 '24
No, you're underestimating the money and power in the pharma industry. They aren't going to allow shenanigans on that basis alone.
3
u/seagoatgirl Nov 03 '24
You're overestimating the effect of law and order that will go out the window if Trump wins. How exactly do you think industry will stop any shenenigans? It will be all about who will pay the most to Trump and his minions. Pharmas who pony up the most and kiss the boot will keep their meds; others will get yanked.
They are already trying to pull certain meds because they don't like them (see: mifepristone.)
1
u/blackreagentzero Nov 04 '24
Lmao the FDA can't even get CBD off the market, can't stop off label use of ketamine. Even if things did get "pulled", it would be up to the FDA to actually enforce which historically they have a hard time doing.
In any case, I'm not going to go back and forth on this with people who dont know how any of these systems work (mifepristone is a generic abortion med...and still on the market).
1
u/seagoatgirl Nov 05 '24
I wasn't talking about CBD, and obviously people use all sorts of drugs off-label/illlegally. That has nothing to do with having someone like Trump come in, replace all federal employees with party loyalists, and go pay-to-play wherever possible.
Here is just one article about his plans: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4941371-trump-war-on-civil-service/
Happily, Trump is not the president today and with any luck, he will not be president in 2025, either. So yes, mifepristone is still on the market today; we'll see where it ends up in 2025 if Trump gets in.
14
u/XXXYinSe Nov 03 '24
Looked into what exactly RFK was proposing and I think youâre right if theyâre taken off the market completely. There would be lawsuits from pharma challenging the decision.
But if itâs more of a middle ground like removing them as covered treatment options under government insurance like Medicare/medicaid and making them more expensive for the average individual to get, I think pharma would stay silent.
Either way, our healthcare gets worse. I wonder how crazy into conspiracies RFK himself is though. Trump is a grifter and talks a lot of shit but he actually gets good doctors to treat him. I wonder if RFK actually skips his doctor visits because he âknows betterâ
7
u/blackreagentzero Nov 03 '24
That's not something he can do. Formulary decision is complicated and there's not a legitimate way to deprioritize vaccines, etc. Not saying he wouldn't TRY but he's unlikely to get far. He would essentially have to fabricate reasons which I'm sure he's not above.
4
u/Reasonable_Move9518 Nov 03 '24
GOP congressmen like big campaign checks from pharma and have a lot of investments.Â
Theyâll make sure things donât get too out of hand.
8
u/Fiyero109 Nov 02 '24
Can you imagine parents will have to drive to Canada or fly to Mexico to get vaccines for their children
13
u/ExternalSea9120 Nov 02 '24
I am not saying it wouldn't be awful. I think RFK could do massive damage to the pharma industry, which will affect especially low earning families. But I am skeptical of the fact that he could shut down the entire industry, given that pharma is a powerful lobby.
That said, I hope both he and Trump won't get anywhere close to the white house
91
u/ThenIJizzedInMyPants Nov 02 '24
RFK jr is a complete nut who should go nowhere near any health agency
11
63
279
u/SuddenExcuse6476 Nov 02 '24
We should really be more concerned that Trump has promised to crash the economy and eliminate 1/3 of the federal budget than the effects of negotiating drug prices. These things arenât comparable.
81
u/Present_Hippo911 Nov 02 '24 edited Nov 02 '24
Right? Trumpâs economic policies would mean permanent double digit inflation at best. A complete economic ruin that would rival the Great Depression at worst.
Genuinely no idea why anyone would vote for the guy. Are they under the impression he controls immigration? Thatâs congressional! Theyâd have to increase ICE funding 2000%+ to do even anything remotely close to what he wants, which is controlled by Congress! The executive branch doesnât control a whole lot about immigration.
39
Nov 02 '24
At this point I honestly think trump supporters literally believe the president has a series of buttons and sliders on the desk that they use to control the economy, immigration, the weather. They donât know that there are three branches of government so everything you just said means nothing to them. Christ, Tommy Tuberville didnât know the three branches of government and heâs a US senator.
6
u/mentfib Nov 03 '24
You are correct, sadly this is most voters for both political parties. Pew research finds little difference in civic understanding by political party as of 2023 - fewer than 50% of voters even know how long a Senate term is.
The President is just the person with the remote control. They steer the ship of state and pull all the levers and make The Economy happen.
7
u/Present_Hippo911 Nov 02 '24
Without repealing the 14th amendment (which he doesnât have the power to do), deporting all illegal immigrants would take decades and hundreds of billions into the trillions of dollars. Spending that Congress controls, not the presidency.
The presidency controls DHS (which can change terms of existing programs routed through DHS like TPS), ICE, and the physical border. Thatâs literally it. Even ICE is only partial control because congress controls the budget! Congress themselves canât even do anything, last time they passed any comprehensive legislation on immigration was over a decade ago!
14
u/SuddenExcuse6476 Nov 02 '24
Only the biggest of pharmas might survive - likely buying up all the cheap small and mid sized biotechs and everything would be consolidated under only a few umbrellas. This industry would look completely different if it even survives at all.
2
u/ThenIJizzedInMyPants Nov 03 '24
Right? Trumpâs economic policies would mean permanent double digit inflation at best. A complete economic ruin that would rival the Great Depression at worst.
these are pretty contradictory. the great depression was a deflationary bust.
0
10
u/travelingbeagle Nov 03 '24
Trump has previously embraced the idea that the market should determine efficacy of medication instead of waiting for waiting for long clinical trials. This approach would gut much of the FDA, but would allow for pharma, biotech, and snake oil companies to bring new drugs to the market much faster and not be burdened by knowing whether something works.
35
u/RogueStargun Nov 02 '24
If RFK Jr is let anywhere near America's health agency, we are fucked.
Imagine if another COVID or Bird Flu hit, and everyone was given healing crystals and prayers.
It's sad seeing Idiocracy gradually became reality during my lifetime.
6
u/lilmeanie Nov 02 '24
Like the H5N1 thatâs popping up in cattle?
6
u/RogueStargun Nov 02 '24
Yes like the nascent flu virus that has the potential to kill millions only this time it can hit our young people
6
95
u/stemcellguy Nov 02 '24
If RFK ends up anywhere near the FDA or NIH, we better switch our research to herb medicine and energy treatments.
20
129
u/clubspadina Nov 02 '24
There is no public health under Trump and RFK. Just the rich will be able to afford care.
50
u/diagnosisbutt Nov 02 '24
I work at an nipt company so we'll be fine with all the extra babies they'll force women to have!
/s
13
u/athensugadawg Nov 02 '24
NIPT will be declared voodoo....look what's happening with IVF.
Oh wait, Trump is the "Father of IVF..."
15
u/diagnosisbutt Nov 02 '24
Nah, our test can tell if the baby they're forcing you to carry after a rape is an immigrant or real American, giving peace to mothers everywhere that their little blessing is one of the good ones.
4
65
u/Present_Hippo911 Nov 02 '24
Iâm more confused why anyone wants to vote for Trump. I live in a red state, my in laws are lifelong republicans. Theyâve cited inflation and prices and whatnot for voting R.
Worth noting Trumpâs only viable economic policy (high tariffs) is explicitly inflationary and would undo the past 2.5 years of cooling via fed rates and the IRA nearly overnight.
17
u/RatsOfTheLab Nov 03 '24
The tariffs are scary. How many lab consumables, raw materials, and reagents do we get from overseas? Any kind of basic electronic(laptop, PC to run an instrument) are going to have tariffs(as far as I understand the Trump plan. I could be wrong.) Operations costs could rise significantly.
84
u/2Throwscrewsatit Nov 02 '24
Drug discovery would benefit under Harris; Pharma would benefit but also see their power diminish.
Trump would create such instability and disinformation that folks would push out Medical experts prescribing and push for a ton to DTC crap (opposite of Europe). It would be a shitshow of quackery
0
u/TheNoobtologist Nov 02 '24
Wouldnât expanding the IRA and the continuation of preventing larger pharma companies from acquiring biotech companies hurt the industry? VC has been on the sidelines because thereâs no exit strategy except IPO. This is the worse Iâve seen the market in my career.
8
u/2Throwscrewsatit Nov 02 '24
Smallere biotechs going to market with their drugs is something that right now isnât possible because of lack of commercialization support for biotech. The only exit is the one that is legislated into existence. VCs will always want to cash out as early as they can and cashing out before commercialization is a better bet for VCs but itâs not the only bet.
VCs make shit tons of money even if they donât return anything. Itâs a conveyor belt of cash. Who cares if they have to go to market to get paid.
47
u/Hiddenagenda876 Nov 02 '24
Iâm less focused on what itâll do to the biotech industry and more on what itâll do to the country as a whole. To answer your question, no one that Trump has chosen for his team, is even remotely educated or qualified for what they are going to be put in charge of. Did you not pay attention during his first term?
54
u/OkStandard6120 Nov 02 '24
My hot take: the IRA is bad short term for big pharma but good long term for biotech innovation, imo. There is no reason everything in this industry needs to be so expensive - it's just greed, inertia, and waste. We could use a kick in the pants to improve efficiency tbh. I'm willing to accept a downturn to achieve that, but I honestly don't think it will affect the industry that much; might just lead to more small companies getting ahead and big pharma having to make changes to be more efficient.
3
u/grammarperkasa2 Nov 02 '24
Efficiency in this case would probably mean a lot less validation and QA (where requirements have gotten out of hand). But I don't think it's something that other 1st world governments are willing to compromise on
2
u/OkStandard6120 Nov 03 '24
This is true, but there are a lot of processes that can be streamlined I think. Working in mfg, there is a lot of unnecessary work done out of fear only, not because the FDA tells us we have to do it. A lot of the waste is also in the R&D environment, where failure tends to be celebrated because "that's science." Technology tools, automation, etc are going to make it a lot easier to fail fast and early and move through the development process faster.
7
u/brdoma1991 Nov 03 '24
So youâre ok with losing your job and the industry deciding that they wonât need to hire people with your skill set anymore, therefore making you obsolete?
Because letâs be clear, thatâs what âa kick in the pantsâ infers for a ton of people.
4
u/OkStandard6120 Nov 03 '24
Yeah I'm actually not worried about adapting to a changing industry. I'm confident in my ability to learn something new. Besides, I fantasize about starting a brewery or going into ocean research every day of my life anyway, this industry sucks.
10
u/LeakySprayBottleDrip Nov 03 '24
I don't like articles where the authors inflate their background. The author is "Dr. Wafaa Aldhafiri" who is still a PhD candidate. Lol save the Dr. title until you get your diploma.
9
u/Jamez4401 Nov 03 '24
Are you even allowed to use the Dr. prefix if you donât have your degree completed? Thatâs crazy
8
-1
u/Spirited-Address5973 Nov 03 '24
Are you sure ?! Her LinkedIn profile says sheâs a senior scientists at AZ. There are posts on her account from her defense.
1
46
u/shivaswrath Nov 02 '24
Just vote.
One side is letting in clowns to run everything. RFK is an đŠ.
Other side is keeping the ship pointed in a direction.
28
u/kitmittonsmeow Nov 02 '24
The American healthcare system is broken. Harris will try to do what she can with qualified and well educated administrators to try to figure out how to limit costs for US citizens, that may make margins for pharma more challenging and decrease r&d investment but itâs difficult to fund those anyway without costing it so high that the costs get spread out to everyone. Ultimately - if you really believe your company slogans that weâre doing it for the patients that will be what the democrats are trying for.
Under Trump itâll be a disaster. The guy is a grifter and doesnât care about science. The majority of the people that worked for him under his first term are not backing him in this election and I feel like that alone should make this a no brainer on who to vote for.
21
u/Lonely_Refuse4988 Nov 02 '24
Lots of unfounded hysteria around a President Harris & impact on biotech. As soon as Inflation Reduction act was passed, chicken little were claiming it would kill mergers & acquisitions (it hasnât, M&A activity is going strong) , and would kill small molecule drug development & pharma/biotech profits (it has done neither!!) On the other hand, we should be scared to death about the impact of Donald being back in power and how that would destroy the biotech sector. đŹđŹđŹ
0
u/circle22woman Nov 03 '24
You are incorrect.
My company has already flagged which therapeutic areas will fall under the IRA, and incorporated the impact into forecasts.
It's pretty simple - if the return on an R&D investment doesn't meet a threshold, it won't be invested in.
1
u/Lonely_Refuse4988 Nov 03 '24
I didnât say people arenât having dumb reactions to IRA!! This is another example of dumb hysteria! Pretty much any therapeutic area can still be profitable for an effective and safe therapy! If a company with a promising therapy that has a high probability of showing efficacy & being safe & well tolerated, decides not to to develop it out of dumb hysteria around IRA, that company will likely falter & die anyway at some point in future. đđ¤Łđ¤ˇââď¸
1
u/circle22woman Nov 03 '24
I didnât say people arenât having dumb reactions to IRA!!
Just because you don't understand it, it's not "dumb".
It's very straightforward - you invest $X and need to get $Y back or it's not worth the investment.
If that's too complicated for you, you might want to refrain from commenting on the IRA at all.
1
u/Lonely_Refuse4988 Nov 03 '24
The estimates of $Y in sales are being grossly undervalued & driven by hysterical fear!
I have been part of successful development programs, where certain therapies were estimated to bring in mid to high nine figure amount in peak sales, but turned out to be multi-billion $ blockbusters!! Case in point - Dupixent, made by Regeneron (and co developed by Sanofi). Go look up the estimates that major financial institutions had for this therapy when it was in phase 3 trials and expecting approval in atopic dermatitis.
Today, itâs generating nearly $9 billion PER YEAR in sales (and still rising as new indications are added), beyond even the most optimistic estimates back then.
Again, if any company is estimating $Y in sales with hysterical fear thrown in, they are acting in dumb and foolish ways!! đđ¤Łđ¤ˇââď¸
1
u/circle22woman Nov 03 '24
The estimates of $Y in sales are being grossly undervalued & driven by hysterical fear!
Ok, I'll tell our finance department?
Today, itâs generating nearly $9 billion PER YEAR in sales (and still rising as new indications are added), beyond even the most optimistic estimates back then
Ok? What does that have to do with choosing not to invest in a therapeutic area where the return doesn't meet a threshold? Sure, forecasts are sometimes far off reality, but you still need to do them because investment decisions need to be made.
I'm not giving you a hypothetical, I'm talking about what the finance people are doing in one of the top 5 biopharma companies.
Again, if any company is estimating $Y in sales with hysterical fear thrown in, they are acting in dumb and foolish ways!! đđ¤Łđ¤ˇââď¸
Again, I'll tell our finance department they're being "dumb and foolish". I'm sure they'll appreciate it, especially the emojis!
0
Nov 03 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Lonely_Refuse4988 Nov 03 '24
Such dumb, idiotic ad hominem attacks that arenât even based on any reality! đđ¤Łđ¤ˇââď¸ I provide a real life case study showing how commercial estimates are often grossly underestimating sales of a therapeutic, and you resort to dumb ad hominem responses. đŠDo you think the sharpest biotech analysis on Wall St are all Labcels, or the commercial development teams at Regeneron were clueless about peak sales of their future blockbuster asset? đ¤Łđ¤ˇââď¸ The bottom line is, many biotechs can easily underestimate sales & if a therapeutic has high probability of success in demonstrating strong efficacy & being safe & well tolerated, a company would be foolish to dump it in the trash prematurely! đ¤ˇââď¸
49
7
u/TrekJaneway Nov 03 '24
I wouldnât be too worried. Big pharma has A LOT of lobbying juice behind them. That will also benefit small pharma. Weâll be fine.
2
u/dusty_muppets Nov 03 '24
But we havenât been fine for the past few years. All these layoffs. When will it end?
6
u/TrekJaneway Nov 03 '24
Ah, thatâs actually a Trump problem. He opened the floodgates with unlimited money to make a Covid vaccine. Notice those layoff really picked up after everyone was vaccinated, government pulled the wallet shut, and the the rebound inflation began (which was inevitable because we shut down global supply lines).
Problem is, he doesnât think her did anything wrong, and a bunch of Nobel Prize winning economists have said his economic plan will have us in a recession by middle of next year.
Harrisâ plan is different. It builds a stronger economy, which lowers interest rates, which gets the venture capitalists to open their wallets agajn, which gets more startups and smaller biotech going.
Thatâs when it stops. When the money flows again. Right now, the taps are just starting to be turned on with the recent rate cuts.
7
u/YourRoaring20s Nov 02 '24
340B is an insane giveaway to hospitals. It needs to be linked to the enrollee, not the site of care.
6
u/atxgossiphound Nov 03 '24
OP is likely an influence account. No post history.
Theyâre trying to âboth sidesâ this debate. They claim that a short term policy change that will have minimal impact on the industry is the same as the other sideâs policy proposals that completely eliminate the regulatory and funding agencies that keep our industry functioning.
I applaud everyone responding, but we shouldnât even engage with these propaganda posts.
(Letâs see how quickly my post gets to negative votes :) )
1
25
u/Junkman3 Nov 02 '24
Trump doesn't have a plan other than to appoint a completely unqualified science denier to run everything.
6
u/eazolan Nov 03 '24
Stop worrying about things outside your control. It doesn't matter who wins the election, things will change.
1
8
u/DeezNeezuts Nov 02 '24
PHARMA will not allow the government to tell them how to price drugs. You should have seen what IRA looked like before the super lobby edited it.
2
3
u/dpspp Nov 04 '24
Direct quote from Kamalaâs memoir âIf we want our children to have cures for humanityâs most terrible diseases, we should invest in our national medical researchers, instead of relying on companies that would rather funnel money to their shareholdersâ - socialism
7
Nov 03 '24
You think this is new? I wish I had the emails from the 2008 and 2012 elections still. How voting for Obama would have dire consequences for the industry and there would be mass layoffs because the cost of doing business would be increased so much and companies would have to move and such. Here is what your upper management isn't telling you. Those FDA licenses your company has to produce medicinal products, yeah they don't transfer to another location. So in essence your company would be rebuilding from the beginning if they want to relocate. It would cost them far more money and a big hit to the shareholders to move and start over, than to simply pay you fair wages and fair benefits. Don't listen to any of that noise. The winners and losers are your CEO's and their inner circle. You'll be fine. You are people of science. Trump has repeatedly crapped on all of us. He didn't follow the pandemic playbook us older folks wrote during the swine flu. Then he dragged Fauci through the mud and continues to do so when given the opportunity. He denies science, education, climate change, as so on. You do what you will with that information. But remember, Trump was president for 4 years already. Do you really want the circus again?
6
u/throwaway3113151 Nov 02 '24
The talk at the point all bullshit intended to motivate the base to vote. Look to the past to understand what will happen: a lot of noise around a few popular issues and almost no action everywhere else. Biotech has nothing to worry about. Money talks when it comes to the GOP and Dems. At the end of the day Wall Street always wins.
Donât believe me? Case in point: the wall. It was the big promise last time around and never materialized for one main reason: it was something t promised only to win the election.
2
2
u/Cultural_Evening_858 Nov 03 '24
so what does employment look like in biotech vs Mag 7 after trump vs harris election?
1
u/Spirited-Address5973 Nov 03 '24
Looking at the economy in general, I see more layoffs and more startups going under for lack of funding and no big Pharma acquisition.
5
u/Sybertron Nov 02 '24
I'm not, both parties are extremely close with corporate money, pharma/biotech is on right up there with tech for biggest US industries, thereby when they win and their friends win the industry will be just peachy.
2
u/Spirited-Address5973 Nov 02 '24
I think so too, because all of these reforms overlook the two key bottlenecks that affect healthcare affordability: 1) Big Pharma's pricing model and how they conduct their pricing analysis, and 2) insurance practices regarding billing patients and their interactions with doctors. Until these two issues are addressed, I don't believe significant changes will happen
5
u/crunchwrapsupreme4 Nov 02 '24
perhaps you're not aware, but campaign promises mean jack shit, so don't worry about it.
10
u/Present_Hippo911 Nov 02 '24
Hereâs the problem: Trump is such a pathological liar and everyone who surrounds him are yes men, itâs hard to tell what is bullshit and what isnât. You have to treat everything like itâs an honest promise because thereâs 0 way to tell what is and isnât just bullshit.
-1
2
u/Scottwood88 Nov 02 '24
The Dems probably wonât win the Senate, so I wouldnât worry too much about the plans Harris has (if they concern you).
0
u/Blackm0b Nov 02 '24
I am not so sure about that
3
u/Scottwood88 Nov 02 '24
Thereâs probably a 75% + chance the Republicans will control the Senate. If the Dems somehow maintain it, it would be 50-50 and very difficult to pass anything.
Trumpâs agenda is far more likely to actually get implemented. So, if one is comparing the two and worried about both, Harris is an easy pick.
1
u/Blackm0b Nov 03 '24
I do not think Trump's agenda would get implemented either. The tariffs would have immediate blow back. His only other tangible idea is a tax cut, which I guess could go through on appropriations but I am not sure.
All his immigration crap gets tied up in the courts. Government employees are fucked though once Elon guts it and awards himself fatter contracts.
Trumps agenda is way worse across the board.
1
u/helphunting Nov 03 '24
The federal health care centers that rely on the price difference for the revenue need to change.
That is not good for the industry long term.
2
u/Spirited-Address5973 Nov 03 '24
Yes but where are they gonna get financial support ? It has to come from somewhere
1
u/helphunting Nov 03 '24
In reality, it comes down to proper management of taxes. Other countries can do it. So can the US.
1
u/Pellinore-86 Nov 03 '24
The other big problem is interest rates. Larger deficits could drive up yields significantly on top of increased tariffs which would really hurt early biotech.
1
u/Somaliona Nov 03 '24
I think if RFK goes after big pharma he will very quickly learn who wears the pants in that relationship
1
u/DeMantis86 Nov 03 '24
You're worried? I'm worried Trump will win. Every day it's new brain farts and no plans, no accountability.
Please. Be worried about actually still having a country that functions after Tuesday.
1
u/Kinky_drummer83 Nov 03 '24
Don't worry too much about the IRA. There are very specific parameters around which drugs they target, and even after they are identified there is a long process before price changes take effect. It also doesn't apply to commercial-coverage drugs. Companies might not like it, but they can at least plan for it given the time-line.
The Harris administration is more likely to scrutinize the PBM industry, and that is definitely needed. PBMs are another driver of high prescription costs, and the PBMs don't even bring a new or unique product or service to the market. They are middlemen that are not doing what they claim to be doing.
In short, vote Harris/Walz for an administration that will actually be competent. Biotech will be fine. That's my two cents.
1
1
u/External-Beat-398 Nov 03 '24
I mean if Kamala starts taxing every large corporation 25% for unrealized capital gains ⌠how will they make that money at the end of the year ? Lay off people of course and cut jobs . No large company that has millions and billions in stocks can afford to pay minimum 25 percent at end of the year unless they pull out of other stuff which most likely will be peopleâs jobs :) . So think about that
1
u/seagoatgirl Nov 03 '24
Well, Elon thinks he will be able get rid of most of the federal agencies, so I'd expect places like the FDS, CDC, DHS etc to get gutted.
Immediate economic concerns are small beans compared to the general chaos that will be unleashed.
1
u/wisergirlie Nov 04 '24
This entire thread is extremely bias. Obviously an unpopular opinion here but as someone who works in the industry and studied Public health, RFK isnt a crazy antivax lunatic. Heâs pushing for reform to get to the root of our nations health problems. Poor lifestyle choices, harmful preservatives and toxic chemicals in our everyday products are actually a leading factor in causing all the diseases weâre trying to create medicines for. Iâd love to see regulation put into place to prohibit the use of certain substances as they do in many other leading nations. Weâve become a bandaid solution country when it comes to health. Just look at how crazy the market is for glp-1 drugs being used for weight lossâŚ
1
u/syfyb__ch Nov 04 '24
interesting how what i assume are sort of 'smarter' folks with STEM degrees are so ignorantly hyperbolic in this thread....its almost comical
"healthcare policy" has nothing to do with any of you lab rats working at a biotech company...maybe speculate on what investors are rotating into or thinking about, that has always affected you and will always affect you, not the sloganeering of the executive branch
no one here touches anything related to 'make america healthy again', regulations and compliance, or FDA's agency mission; focus on slaving away for your corporate overlord doing low ethical work in a slap-shod manner while collecting a check doing the least amount possible -- remember, their messaging is what matters you are in a cult after all
signed,
a scientist who has seen it all
1
u/YankeePatriot63 Nov 05 '24
RFK will not head the FDA! Please stop gaslighting! The choice is clear - we all need to vote for Trump. Trump surrogates (Lutnick, Ramaswamy, etc.) have already discussed about rebuilding our Pharma/biotech supply chains. Almost 100% of our active ingredients, excipients and PPE is manufactured in China. Those materials need to be manufactured in the USA!
Also, lowering the corporate tax rate, combined with applying tariffs to offshore manufacturers, will drive further investment HERE!
Keep focused on the big picture and long-term success. If you care about your family and the future of this nation, go out tomorrow and vote for Trump!
1
1
u/RegularDifferent9504 Nov 03 '24
Reading these comments tells me all I need to know about the type of people who belong to this subreddit. Please do yourself and the world a favor and find a new career.
1
u/Ph0ton_1n_a_F0xh0le Nov 02 '24
Vote Harris or Trump cause the overall economy will tank and appoint an antivaxxer conspiracy nut to head the DHHS
1
u/biobrad56 Nov 02 '24
Itâs just conspiracy noise that RFK is going to run the FDA. Lot of misinformation. Thatâs not how commissioners get approved.
1
u/biobrad56 Nov 03 '24
Our trade groups who talk everyday with both transition teams (BIO, PhRMA, etc..) have been indifferent. Itâs not what a majority of folks in comments claim and there are pros and cons to each.
1
u/Clear-Pin-3293 Nov 04 '24
So RFKs plans will likely be just used as a way for trump to get more votes and will likely be ineffective?
1
u/Clear-Pin-3293 Nov 04 '24
Trumps VP JD Vance said heâs supportive of the curative therapies that pharma has produced in recent years. Trump also didnât make any attacks towards pharma in his first term. However, I am worried about RFKs disinformation and any drastic changes he would be able to make.
1
u/biobrad56 Nov 04 '24
Yes. We can expect actual policy and agencies to govern as they did under trumps first term. If anything like he did with right to try expect more of those kinds of actions. Any actual bureaucratic changes to the degree thatâs being discussed even appointments need to go through congress and select committees and there are plenty of republicans who favor pharma biotech for anything drastic to occur
1
u/Apprehensive_Cup_432 Nov 02 '24
I think that there is a lack of clarity from both administrations. All they say is that they want to lower prescription drug prices but don't specifically mention how.
What we can only do is see what they've done and they're likely to keep pursuing policies that they've previously championed.
By eliminating PBMs, that removes a layer of costs and I think would be good to lower prices.
Medicare negotiating drug prices is also an interesting way of lowering drug prices.
I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen in the short term or long term with respect to biotech
5
u/DayDream2736 Nov 02 '24
I know Iâll get downvoted but if you watch the podcasts of any of the candidates they lay out their plan.
The big two things Iâve been hearing is: They are interested in forcing hospitals to actually share the cost of their treatments before you even accept it.
They also want to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for side effects from certain drugs. For example, if you have severe side effects from Covid vaccine Pfizer. Pfizer has a duty to share with you the possible effects of the drug. If the side effects are worst than the disease why take it.
Other things are of course universal healthcare etc.
5
u/Apprehensive_Cup_432 Nov 02 '24
Podcasts where the candidates give their versions of what they will do? Can you name some? Thanks
2
u/DayDream2736 Nov 03 '24
Jre, Theo von, adin Ross did one, they are long form podcast interviews of the candidates
1
u/ChapterMasterCharles Nov 04 '24
Aren't these all Trump? Had Harris done any long form podcasts that covered healthcare?
1
-8
u/Spirited-Address5973 Nov 02 '24
I agree there is a lack of clarity and as mentioned in the blog post not a lot of follow-through.
0
u/ptau217 Nov 03 '24
With Harris there are policy differences that industry can fight, blunt, and adapt. With Trump there is an anti-science nutball RFK Jr who will destroy biotech because he doesn't believe disease is real or needs any therapy other than vitamin D and exercise.
0
u/Savings_Bluejay_3333 Nov 03 '24
Just vote for the rational sane one, which is not Trump and his crew of parasites
-23
-1
u/Swimming-1 Nov 03 '24
Can hardly wait until worm brain RFK Jr gets to âcontrolâ the FDA, HHS, CDC as Trump âpromisedâ him. Hysterically fun times awaiting us all!!! /s.
-17
u/kudles Nov 02 '24
We desperately need to fix the food in this countryâŚ
I am fairly certain RFK is mostly against the giant hold big pharma and big insurance has on the accessibility of healthcare in this country.
From what I have heard in interviews is that he is âpro-safe vaccineâ rather than âanti-vaxxâ.
RFK wonât be doing science, but Iâm fairly certain he will enact regulations on pharmaceutical companies & food companies to make Americans healthier (obesity epidemic) and reduce the extensive profit pharma rakes in from many of their practicesâŚ
What I am worried about is reductions in NIH funding, which affects the availability of money for scientists sending in grant applications, and therefore can stagnate science.. but thatâs almost a separate issue. Iâd like to see money taken from the DOD and given to NIH or something.
Kamala and Trump both suck big time. But I personally think the food in America needs big changesâŚ
10
u/Present_Hippo911 Nov 02 '24 edited Nov 02 '24
pro-safe vaccine
That doesnât mean what you think it does. It means safe to âhis standardâ, which doesnât exist and/or doesnât make sense scientifically. Itâs the same thing as the people wanting 30+ year longitudinal studies for COVID vaccines. They donât actually want vaccines at all, but wrapping it up in a âIâm just asking questionsâ package makes it more palatable. You canât trust a guy who still thinks vaccines cause autism and thimersol is still in childhood vaccines. He doesnât care about safety! His idea of âsafeâ doesnât have any resemblance of reality.
When your position is that âno vaccines are safe, and no information, data, or evidence will ever change thatâ, you arenât pro-safe vaccine, youâre anti-vaccine.
-5
u/kudles Nov 02 '24
Look I think the majority of vaccines are highly beneficial to society and human health... you donât have to convince me that.
I donât think RFK will be some âhealth dictatorâ. However, I do think his mind is somewhat in the right place with âtaking onâ big pharma and also fixing the food in America.
7
u/Pyrobot110 Nov 02 '24
People like you that think Harris is anywhere even near as bad as Trump are a large part of whatâs wrong with America. Harris isnât ideal, sure, but sheâs fine. Trump is a literal maniac and pathological liar that wants to tear this country apart piece by piece and appointing RFK to any position, never the less something even adjacent to any scientific discovery or medical practice would be irreparably disastrous for the country and industry as a whole. Fuck off with your âerm actually both sides are badâ bullshit. This country is fucked if trump gets elected again.
-9
u/kudles Nov 02 '24
Lol
2
u/Pyrobot110 Nov 02 '24
Really? Thatâs your reply to someone attempting to explain how this is one of the if not the single most important elections in US industry even just solely from a biotech perspective? Fucking âlolâ? Actually pathetic
2
u/kudles Nov 02 '24
Starting off your reply to me with âpeople like youâ is not how you get me to engage genuinely, sorry. Youâre also not trying to explain anything. You are regurgitating the same BS I see everywhere online about Trump. You say âbiotechâ perspective but gave nothing tangible. So yes, Lol.
I just donât think the country is âfuckedâ if trump gets elected. That is fearmongering BS imo. Truth be told, I wish heâd won 2020 so we can be over the trump timeline already.
I also donât think itâs âfuckedâ if Kamala gets elected. I do think, however, Kamala is an incapable and unlikable leader. Trump isnât much better, but I have at least seen moments from him where he is likableâŚ. I have also seen the contrary from him.
Your dismissal of my âboth sides badâ opinion solely because it is âboth sides badâ is laughable. So yes, I will reply âLolâ.
Again â I think food in USA is an easy fix that could really help a lot of people healthwise. I do worry about NIH funding.
If you are thinking of retorting with any measure of â34 time felon, insurrectionistâ. I donât care. Iâm not voting for him. Iâm just not voting for Kamala eitherâŚ
-2
u/DayDream2736 Nov 02 '24
Right now the issue is thereâs gonna be reform if either side wins and thatâs why I think biotech is being careful. Both sides want to see big pharma become more transparent with side effects and also want treatments to actually display costs. This will affect companies bottom lines. Right now hospitals charge whatever they want for treatments without any repercussions.
The issue I think with biotech right now is I donât see too much innovation because everyoneâs scared of these reforms.
The biggest thing is they want to expose hospitals to actually say how much treatment is before you get it so we as a people can decline and go somewhere else if we want. The way we pay is like a public company but they get to price it how the want. Thereâs nothing regulating this and will change. For companies to keep their margins they preemptively cut staff to equal out on the profits thatâs what Iâm seeing.
I am optimistic as I think both sides want companies to make new medication to save people. We need to give more tax breaks to new startup so we can get more jobs in those sectors.
5
u/Fine_Design9777 Nov 02 '24
Are u sure? B/c RFK doesn't seem like a champion of medication at all.
→ More replies1
u/Spirited-Address5973 Nov 02 '24
I agree with you, there is no innovation but its not because of these reforms it's because of these predatory unjust patent laws that get exploited.
I 100% agree with you, not telling a person how much their treatment cost just open the door for patients to be exploited. In the blog post I shared above, it says that Trump signed a No Surprises Act which required healthcare providers to give uninsured patients a "good faith estimate" of costs before delivering services. but that's only for noninsured people.
0
u/Georgia_Gator Nov 04 '24
I wouldnât worry too much, largely things do not change between administrations. Both parties are spending us into oblivion.
-10
u/Dense_Suspect864 Nov 02 '24
For your jobs Trump is almost certainly better. Lower rates, no vaccines, less government interference for drug pricing.
2
u/youlookmorelikeafrog Nov 02 '24
??????? Dense and suspect
-5
u/Dense_Suspect864 Nov 03 '24
I know ppl here probably have no business sense, itâs totally ok, Iâve seen VPs not having thatâŚ
4
u/youlookmorelikeafrog Nov 03 '24
How in the world could no vaccines benefit anyone working in the biotech/biomedical sciences professionally or personally?
-5
u/Dense_Suspect864 Nov 03 '24
No vaccines->more diseases that we donât even know how to treat(like HBV)->more unmet medical needs->more jobs
3
-2
u/syntheticFLOPS Nov 03 '24 edited Nov 03 '24
We're under attack by Trump and co. This is like 9/11 all. Can't air raid our ships, can't outspend us in the cold war, can't fly planes into our buildings without something bad happening to you, so they're doing it politically.
This is an attack on our entire nation.
0
u/Aromatic_Fill9351 Nov 03 '24
You need to chill out. The rhetoric is causing people to lose their minds. Neither candidate is a great choice for the country moving forward. At the end of the day, we have checks and balances for a reason. The industry hasnât exactly flourished under Biden/Harris. The RFK JR thing is also pure BS. If his last name wasnât Kennedy, he wouldnât be anywhere near the campaign. There is NO WAY he will be leading the FDA or any other major healthcare apparatus.
2
u/syntheticFLOPS Nov 03 '24
If you're not a little bit scared, you don't know what's going on. It's okay to be alarmist, when there's something to be alarmed about.
I'm not saying do anything drastic, vote for the right lady.
My perspective: worked in national security for the past 12 years.
181
u/StatisticalScientist Nov 02 '24
If RFK Jr gets control, I'm hard pivoting into from pharmaceuticals to supplements. Half this country wants to just overpay for sea moss and "deep earth iodine" anyway, might as well give them what they want.