Thread: Potential cure for cancer is not funded by big pharma!

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Tax payers money, not their money.

Andrew

I agree that they should not receive government subsidies. I'd say that's more the government's fault for being assholes, though.

Originally Posted by Slon

I agree that they should not receive government subsidies. I'd say that's more the government's fault for being assholes, though.

But they do receive billions of dollars in subsidies, and that is not about to change. Why should we not demand they put that capital towards promising cures for the things that ail us?

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

But they do receive billions of dollars in subsidies, and that is not about to change. Why should we not demand they put that capital towards promising cures for the things that ail us?

Andrew

It's wrong to give them the subsidies in the first place. Now, you might have a point with what you're saying, but both your (force them to research) and my (stop subsidizing) recommendations require a change of law. Saying that my idea is bad because it won't happen really doesn't make your idea look any better. How likely are our corrupt and dishonest leaders to truly force these guys to do it?

Originally Posted by Slon

It's wrong to give them the subsidies in the first place. Now, you might have a point with what you're saying, but both your (force them to research) and my (stop subsidizing) recommendations require a change of law. Saying that my idea is bad because it won't happen really doesn't make your idea look any better. How likely are our corrupt and dishonest leaders to truly force these guys to do it?

Oh i agree. Its usually the corporate masters forcing politicians to do things, not the other way around.

The only hope is to get the people upset so that they force both gov/corps to do the right thing. That the only way it ever works.

That is why i get disturbed when i see citizens being apologists for big pharma. Its you and I all the rest of the small people who get the raw deal here. I hate to see slaves defending the master.

Andrew

Andrew, I don't know why you are blaming pharma corporations for this. Your beef is with the government. They put a lot of money into research. They could fund research into this if they wanted to. They could stop wasting money researching global warming and put it into something potentially usefull.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Or...The system itself is immoral. The system behaves as if economic needs outweigh the needs of people and of the ecological basis for life to exist in the first place. In other words, any system that places short term gain over long term sustainability and the health of life is insane and needs to be dismantled. I'm not talking about small fixes, micromanaging, or tweaking an irredeemably broken system. I'm talking about complete paradigm shifts.

Andrew

It would be appropriate to note where corporate capitalistic entities have come up with successful drugs and procedures in the American system which were not found under more socialistic systems, or whatever paradigm shift you're suggesting. A paradigm shift would only be acceptable if it produced as much positive as the corporate capitalistic paradigm. I'm one of the largest criticizers of corporate america on this board (mostly to do with boards of directors, ceo's and executive compensation packages), but I do recognize that corporations do ultimately help create wealth and a better standard of living in many cases. There are a lot of drugs that were only able to be brought to market because of patent rights, corporate deep pockets, and corporate manpower capabilities.

Originally Posted by Brexx

Andrew, I don't know why you are blaming pharma corporations for this. Your beef is with the government. They put a lot of money into research. They could fund research into this if they wanted to.

Is there really difference between Government and Big <insert name of any industry here>??

They could stop wasting money researching global warming and put it into something potentially usefull.

Why are you such a fucking troll?

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

The problem with vitamin supplements is that there is absolutely no evidence they do anything besides darken your urine (and drain your bank account).

Except that the WHO ran the largest cancer study that has ever been conducted the results of which showed that supplementing vitamin D has a preventative effect on cancer.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

While I think it would be a very generous and wonderful deed if a company stepped up to the plate and funded the trials, I'm not going to fault them for not doing so. They're in the business to make money, just like any other business is and singling them out for not wanting to enter into an unprofitable venture is crazy.

Which highlights the patent absurdity of a for-profit healthcare system.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Also, I'm not all that sure your model of the pharmaceutical business is necessarily correct. The baldness cure and Viagra were both pushed through fairly fast because they had potential for big profits and they were known and approved drugs already. The Pharma Cos. can make their money off of volume too, and it seems a cure for cancer would be in fairly high demand.

Except that sildenafil citrate wasn't approved for treating ED until Pfizer ran the FDA trials. Legally nobody was allowed to advertise and sell sildenafil citrate as an ED treatment without FDA approval. Once Pfizer got the approval, they were effectively granted exclusive control over the marketing and sale of sildenafil citrate for use as an ED treatment, b/c they already owned the patent on the drug itself. That exclusive control combined with widespread need is why the drug had such a large potential for profit.

But if a cancer treatment can't be patented, then it doesn't matter how widespread the need is. Even if a company spent the money to run the FDA trials and get approval, without a patent any other company (who didn't have to invest millions in trials) would be allowed to manufacture and sell the drug (and make health claims).

Originally Posted by Cari

But on the other hand, we don't generally have a say in what our taxes go to in any other sector, why should this be any different?

Well I'll go ahead and say that I think we should have more say in how specifically our tax dollars are spent. One can dream right?

Originally Posted by Cari

It's not unique to pharma. Our tax dollars are used to subsidize many industries where we have zero say in the resulting product. It's easier to get more upset when it comes to something like this, but it's really no different. There would have to be a change in the whole system, not just this one aspect.

I would agree with making changes to the system. If the general public funded the research, then the general public should own any resulting patents. This would probably result in publicly owned patents being made available to private industry with no licensing fees, which would be the best possible outcome. In this scenario, it would be profitable for Pfizer to sell the drug without having exclusive control b/c their required investment to do so would be no greater than their competitors. Having the manufacturing and marketing infrastructure that they do, as well as their name recognition would give them an edge over competitors and allow them to make higher profits through volume.

Originally Posted by patrickt

The pharmaceutical companies and their employees pay a lot of taxes. Many of the people who might--emphasis on might--benefit. So, why should the government fund the research? One reason is that Canada funds very little drug research and prefer relying on companies from other countries for the research.

The government should fund the research, if the public recognizing the need, b/c it is in the best interest of the welfare of the public (by the people, for the people).

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

It would be appropriate to note where corporate capitalistic entities have come up with successful drugs and procedures in the American system which were not found under more socialistic systems, or whatever paradigm shift you're suggesting.

Well, one could look at some of the success Cuba has had with developing and dispensing pharmaceuticals throughout latin america. Note: Im in no way looking at Cuba as a potential model. (But there is lessons to be learned from them in terms of responding to a sudden loss of key resources like oil).

A paradigm shift would only be acceptable if it produced as much positive as the corporate capitalistic paradigm. I'm one of the largest criticizers of corporate america on this board (mostly to do with boards of directors, ceo's and executive compensation packages), but I do recognize that corporations do ultimately help create wealth and a better standard of living in many cases. There are a lot of drugs that were only able to be brought to market because of patent rights, corporate deep pockets, and corporate manpower capabilities.

Given that in my view the only possible result of the corporate capitalist paradigm is ecocide and authoritarianism i cannot conceive of it as having anything but extremely short term benefits. I have no respect for such an arrangement.

Surely you must realize that a tremendous amount of what ails us is as a result of the corporate/capitalistic paradigm - to which big pharma sneaks in to capitalize on with artificially expensive treatments and cures. And im sure they avoid finding cures wherever possible as that would mean less clients over the long haul, better to maintain a persistently sick society constantly doped up on whatever cocktail that keeps them alive just enough to watch their adverts on TV.

If the corporate world viewed us as anything but consumers this potential cure for cancer would have been funded with their full backing.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Oh i agree. Its usually the corporate masters forcing politicians to do things, not the other way around.

The only hope is to get the people upset so that they force both gov/corps to do the right thing. That the only way it ever works.

The right thing to do is to stop having the government subsidize them and to let the corps research or not research what they want...with their own money only. You don't really have to force them to do anything. Just get rid of the subsidies and then you can keep your money and do with it as you like.

That is why i get disturbed when i see citizens being apologists for big pharma. Its you and I all the rest of the small people who get the raw deal here. I hate to see slaves defending the master.

Andrew

We certainly do, but it can easily be corrected without forcing pharma to research anything. Just stop having the government subsidize them.

Originally Posted by industry7

Except that the WHO ran the largest cancer study that has ever been conducted the results of which showed that supplementing vitamin D has a preventative effect on cancer.

Do you have a link. Id be interested in seeing that research.

Thanks!

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Is there really difference between Government and Big <insert name of any industry here>??



Why are you such a fucking troll?

Andrew

Of course there is a difference. Government supplies services that cannot realistically be gotten from private industry, or they subsidize private industry to do it. If you want something that private industry can't make a profit on you have to get it from government.

Couldn't handle that last comment,eh?

Originally Posted by Brexx

Couldn't handle that last comment,eh?

i do find idiots to be less than tolerable, yes.

Andrew