Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
• Embed this notice
  Alex von Kitchen (dangerous_beans@aus.social)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 13:58:31 JST Alex von Kitchen

  in reply to

  • pmonks (330ppm)

  @pmonks because obviously people dying of fucking AIDS should have to cover the bill 🙄

• Embed this notice
  pmonks (330ppm) (pmonks@sfba.social)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 13:58:31 JST pmonks (330ppm)

  in reply to

  • Alex von Kitchen

  @Dangerous_beans The drug wouldn’t exist at all if Gilead hadn’t had an incentive to spend money on R&D, clinical trials, and the approvals process, and make at least some profit out the back end. And that would leave all of us worse off.

  So where would you propose that money come from, or what alternative incentive structure are you proposing to ensure drug discovery continues to happen?

• Embed this notice
  pmonks (330ppm) (pmonks@sfba.social)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 13:58:32 JST pmonks (330ppm)

  • Shannon Prickett
  • Infoseepage

  @Infoseepage @Binder Do you happen to know how much it cost them to develop, test, and get the drug approved?

• Embed this notice
  MegatronicThronBanks (megatronicthronbanks@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 18:03:55 JST MegatronicThronBanks

  • Infoseepage

  @Infoseepage It's ok. Thanks to modern software's complete lack of security all the production details will already have been stolen and are now being processed by a competitor.
  Even if gilead somehow manages to make it illegal to sell competing vaccines (good luck with that), medical tourism is huge now and a quick trip to BKK will soon get you your AIDS vax.

• Embed this notice
  pmonks (330ppm) (pmonks@sfba.social)'s status on Friday, 26-Jul-2024 22:25:36 JST pmonks (330ppm)

  • valhalla
  • Alex von Kitchen

  @valhalla @Dangerous_beans Yeah that’s a good model imho, in part because it allows for better cross-subsidisation of both failed and unprofitable drugs, based on drugs that are profitable. One issue is that it also tends to result in more unmet need in orphaned indications, since on a cost/benefit basis it isn’t rational to “waste” finite R&D on areas that have little need (which leaves folks with those conditions SOL). The TGA in Australia can be quite ruthless about this, for example.

  And yes I believe OP was posting in the context of the US, where this kind of “socialist” model would be very difficult to deploy (which doesn’t make it any less of a good idea, ofc).

• Embed this notice
  Merilee D. Karr, MD, MFA (merileedkarr@federated.press)'s status on Friday, 26-Jul-2024 22:25:46 JST Merilee D. Karr, MD, MFA

  in reply to

  • pmonks (330ppm)
  • Alex von Kitchen

  @pmonks @Dangerous_beans
  Actually, the drug wouldn’t exist at all without loads of public dollars invested in basic research.

  No drug company creates a new drug on its own dime.

  They all take advantage of our tax dollars to develop their drugs, then extort the sick people who need the medications that they helped pay for.

  Drug companies are poisonous parasites.

  clacke likes this.
• Embed this notice
  Mina Harker (mina@berlin.social)'s status on Friday, 26-Jul-2024 22:25:52 JST Mina Harker

  • pmonks (330ppm)
  • Alex von Kitchen
  • Infoseepage

  @Infoseepage

  We should also not forget that practically all ground research in pharmaceuticals is done at public universities and institutions.

  Companies should get paid for testing and producing, possibly have a grace period of, say, 5 years of monopoly gains, but the knowledge needs to be public.

  Medical progress is not helped by patents and monopolies, but hindered.

  @pmonks @Dangerous_beans

  clacke likes this.
• Embed this notice
  pmonks (330ppm) (pmonks@sfba.social)'s status on Friday, 26-Jul-2024 22:25:58 JST pmonks (330ppm)

  • Alex von Kitchen
  • Infoseepage

  @Infoseepage @Dangerous_beans Thanks! Including cost is the only way to actually understand what’s really going on, and mentioning Gilead’s profit is useful context too.

  “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”