Marketing decisions, rather than scientific innovations, have guided the development and positioning of contraceptive products in recent years. I review the stalled progress in contraceptive development in the decades following the advent of the Pill in 1960 and then examine the fine-tuning of the market for oral contraceptives in the 1990s and 2000s. Although birth control has been pitched in the United States as an individual solution, rather than a public health strategy, the purpose of oral contraceptives was understood by manufacturers, physicians, and consumers to be the prevention of pregnancy, a basic health care need for women. Best Place to Buy Percocet Online without Prescription. Since 1990, the content of that message has changed, reflecting a shift in the drug industry's view of the contraception business. Two factors contributed to bring about this change: first, the industry's move away from research and development in birth control and second, the growth of the class of medications known as lifestyle drugs. Visit here

IN MARCH 2011, THE SAN Francisco Chronicle ran a front-page story on contraceptives. It began, “These days, choosing a form of birth control can seem as daunting as shopping for a new laptop computer – the technology is constantly changing and there are just so many options.”1 Even though scores of different brand-name and generic products are available on the American market, a closer inspection of the contraceptive landscape reveals a menu of birth control options that relies on science that is more than 50 years old. Since the Pill was first approved in 1960, birth control continues to work in only one of two ways: by preventing fertilization or by preventing ovulation. The barrier methods—condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, and chemical spermicides—have existed for the better part of a century (and in the case of condoms, for centuries). Buy Klonopin 2mg, Order Klonopin 2mg online


The modern intrauterine devices (IUDs) became available in the early 1960s, but they merely improved on a method first introduced in the 1920s. Hormonal contraception—in which synthetic hormones, either progesterone alone or in combination with estrogen, prevent ovulation—was the truly innovative contribution made by the Pill. The newer methods that have come onto the market since 1990—the implant, the shot, the skin patch, and the vaginal ring—simply provide different delivery systems for the hormones to enter the bloodstream.2 Even the technologies behind these delivery systems (e.g., silastic capsules for the implant, transdermal materials for the patch) were developed in the 1960s and 1970s. In the world of contraception, scientific and technological innovation has been moribund for decades. Buy Ativan, Ativan for sale

Why might women need new methods of contraception? A few statistics from 1990 confirm the inadequacy of available methods. An Institute of Medicine study3 of contraception that year reported that almost 3 million unintended pregnancies occurred annually in the United States as the result of contraceptive failure. Half of the 1.5 million abortions in the United States every year were performed to deal with pregnancies resulting from contraceptive failure. One million adolescent girls get pregnant each year. Of women younger than 50 years, 20% had been sterilized, with another 15% married to men who had vasectomies; these people chose to end their fertility rather than deal with contraceptive alternatives, but up to 10% of the women regretted their decision after remarriage or the death of a child.4 Although issues of affordability; cultural constraints; and access to health education, information sources, and contraceptives all influence the effective use of birth control, the physical aspects of existing contraceptive technologies also play a role in women's decisions about whether to use them. Buy Diazepam, Diazepam for sale, Where to buy diazepam

Carl Djerassi, the chemist who first synthesized an orally active progesterone (which made oral hormonal contraception possible), predicted this static state of affairs 40 years ago in a prescient article in Science titled “Birth Control after 1984.”5 In 1989, he revisited the topic of contraceptive research and development in “The Bitter Pill” published in Science.6 He attributed the dearth of innovation to the withdrawal of American pharmaceutical companies from the field. In 1970, 13 major drug firms were actively pursuing birth control research and development (of which nine were American); by 1987, there were only four (with just one located in the United States). Little has changed since then, despite the continued success of the pharmaceutical industry and the expansion of small biotechnology enterprises. Buy Dormicum, Order Dormicum online

Djerassi identified three reasons for “Big Pharma's” flight from contraceptive research: (1) two decades of stringent and burdensome animal toxicology tests required by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which greatly increased the time and expense of developing new products; (2) a negative portrayal of the industry by the media in the wake of Senator Gaylord Nelson's congressional inquiry into the safety of the Pill in 1970 and the Dalkon Shield IUD disaster a few years later; and (3) the increasingly litigious nature of American society, as the courts became the place to seek restitution for injuries or diseases attributed to drugs, medical devices, or other toxic substances. Twenty-two years later, the conclusion Djerassi wrote reads as an accurate reflection of our birth control landscape today. Buy Lorazepam, Lorazepam for sale, Buy Deca 300 online