JimmyT wrote:

JimmyT – 27 October 2008 01:08 AM

You see, I’m a practicing pharmacist and my most frequent contact with CFC’s was in the propellant for aerosol canisters for asthmatics. I dispense a lot of these. Probably a couple of dozen each day. Over the last decade I’ve watched the price of these medications drop steadily, until they seemed fairly reasonable. (about $10 per canister). But then drug manufactures were forced to switch propellants. Suddenly the price for these went up to about $40 each. Oh, and the new ones don’t work as well.

Can you prove causality rather then correlation? The price could have gone up for any number of reasons not stimply because of propellant change to HCFC and HFC.

I suppose I should have said: When the newly formulated one’s were released they were $40 each. Causality was certain.

It’s true the cost of the propellants was very small. But prior to marketing a newly formulated drug (and just the change of propellant does make a newly formulated drug) the entire safety and efficacy test procedures must be repeated. Dispersion of the drug particles in the propellant must be tested. Clinical trials must be done. Raw materials supply chains must be established. New ingredient must be tested for purity. (This often involves the establishment of new analytical testing procedures.) New drug applications must be submitted to the FDA. And on and on and on……… This takes years and costs tens of millions of dollars.

And guess who pays?

So basically your saying we should stay with tings because of the price of change? Hey guess what NO FOCUS FUSION, lets just keep pumping oil, change infrastructure because of impending doom, f that! it would cost to much to change lets just ride this wave to hell!