Recent Posts

[entirely]

On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically

Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
 

I take your point here, but there is a huge difference between "hiding a cure" and being happy having a "decades long patent" on something that alleviates symptoms (which may have arisen from an attempt to find a cure).

 

I'm not sure you do entirely get the point

If a company such as AstraZeneca researches a cure for something and ends up with a good treatment for it - that might have taken about $1bn to get to market.

If they have a 20 year patent that means they must make at least $50 million a year to get their R&D money back

If a different company, such as Pfizer were researching the same cure and get beaten to the treatment by AZ - they'll keep on researching the cure.

If they get a cure 5 years after AZ got their treatment it means Pfizer will patent their cure for 20 years.

And AstraZeneca has 15 years left on a patent which is basically worthless - because who is going to pay for the treatment when they can just pay for the cure

In this model the profit maximisation is for AZ to patent the treatment - and still carry on researching the cure.

That's obviously hugely simplified - but it's basically the reason why research will never get stifled.

If it works (for a middle class western customer) - it will make a profit

And if your pharma company doesn't make that profit - one of your competitors will.

Lennon, what a terrible waste of a talent and decent human being. Been passed away now longer than he was alive.

So difficult only choosing 3 things on this thread. It's like being asked your favourite 5 songs, just impossible.

Lennon: I was 25 and on my way to play a snooker tournament. I heard it on the radio in my truck and was devastated the needless tragedy.

Such a waste.

Elvis: Went to see my now wife, then fiancé and found her crying her eyes out.

Well if the passing of Elvis gets in, then I'll have to add the murder of John Lennon. One of those "I remember where I was when I heard the news" things.



Also, Grenfell.

1966 - I was 12 and away at Boys’ Brigade Camp. Took the ferry to the Isle of Wight and kept my radio to my ear. When Hurst scored the goal that put us ahead in extra time I ran up Ryde Pier and slipped on the damp boards nearly losing my radio over the side.

1968 - the first English team to win the European Cup. Yes, I am aware that Celtic did it the year before and that too was memorable.

2001 - my daughter rang me to say that a plane had hit a skyscraper in New York.

There were any number of others but the first two were joyful memories and we need more of those.

1986 Challenger
1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster
2008 Financial crash

Like many I could have had a bigger list.

Aberfan - the first big news story that stuck in my memory. I was 8 years old.

9/11 also the death of Osama Bin Laden. 

Chernobyl

On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically

Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
 

I take your point here, but there is a huge difference between "hiding a cure" and being happy having a "decades long patent" on something that alleviates symptoms (which may have arisen from an attempt to find a cure).

 

.... On his advice my other half had chemo back in the UK, she had 4 drugs, 3 were artificial copies of natural remedies. If the drugs companies can't make money out of something they are unlikely to pay for research to prove that it works.

There is always not enough money to research everything, but the usual criteria for ranking isn't how much money it might make but how likely it is to work

If it works - pharma companies can make money out of it

We know this because - you've already stated that they do it

Anything that is naturally curative in nature is more convenient and often more effective once a company has worked out a way to mass produce it and put it in a shop

On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically

Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
 
The only time when not making money stops research is when the entire market for a disease - are poor

This is why there's a whole branch called "neglected tropical disease" - these are all the diseases that it is not profitable for private companies to research because it wouldn't be guaranteed to get their research money back - so they rely on charitable foundations and government grants. it's worth noting the majority of all scientific research done worldwide is government grants and not private companies - for example even if zero pharma companies spent money on cancer research it would still be one of the most researched areas because of all the government grants that go towards it.

Unless anyone is planning on moving to deepest African then they're not really going to be affected by that

Anything that can be sold to comfortable middle class westerners will always be researched because it will always make money

And we definitely know this - because the Wellness alternative health industry makes more money than Big Pharma does