Happy Face

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7716086.stm

You're not like. Any pharmaceutical company would have an Aids vaccine up and running in a shot if they could. They've been treating it for 20 years already and as discussed bioterror vaccines are where the big research money's going now. I wondered how long you could stand it. You complete me.

You're not like. Any pharmaceutical company would have an Aids vaccine up and running in a shot if they could. They've been treating it for 20 years already and as discussed bioterror vaccines are where the big research money's going now.

I'm sure it is. I'd say the same of the US armed forces. But when these organisations are forced to contract out their work to private enterprise, then there is nobody to vouch for the important work being done.

Yep, I already agreed with that above. But when they invest such a small proportion of funds into research, it's rotten to the core that they take all the profits. The tax payers subsidise discovery of a cure, at the expense of other social programs for the less well off, and when a cure is found neither of these groups have access to the cure that they sacrificed most to create. The only research that counts is productive research. Over the period covered by the IAVI doc, nothing was interesting, there was little worth testing. The people who make the money will be the people who own the patent. If that ends up being a pharma company, that will tell you a lot about the productivity of private research compared to public research. It might not be (although the only one in phase 3 is a phama company candidate). http://avac.org/trials_table.htm The money spent is higher now than it was 4 years ago but still is limited by the probability that the candidates will work at a high enough level. One of my mates from GSK now works at IAVI in NYC, i can ask him for his opinion on this. But isn't the majority of public sector funding paid directly to the private companies to assist their research, rather than actual government scientist looking into it. Is their even such a thing as an American government scientest these days? As a result, it will inevitably be a private sector company that claims the patent if it's ever found. Yes, the NIH. Good question, there only are a few examples of this, coincidentally in HIV, lamivudine and Ziovudine were NIH-related discoveries (US funded research). The patents were sold for 14% royalty. Of course when that was sold, it hadnt proved to be effective and the NIH didnt have the money to develop it. This was in the 80s though. Not sure how it would happen today but thats because thats not how things happen. Today, its all about small biotechs taking all the risk and the big co's buying them if it looks good. Public sector research has found nothing of note recently. This NIH http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2007/05...ts-of-interest/ Oh dear.

According to that report commercial investment in an AIDS vaccine has all but dried up either way. What's shocking or even surprising about it? If its not possible to make an HIV vaccine why waste money trying? There would obviously be no money in it. Think about the vaccine that would make the most money - one against the common cold. If this nut was cracked the profits of the pharmaceutical company holding the patent would go through the roof, they'd be worth more than Google to the power of Microsoft. But it hasn't and won't because it's impossible, not because GSK want to retain profits on Lemsip. The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, influenza viruses etc, all of which have dozens of subtypes constantly mutating, which is why vaccination is not feasible. Iirc the HIV virus mutates even more rapidly, and of course affects the immune system itself, so its not surprising vaccination is likely to be next to impossible and frankly not worth wasting money on. Why have the US thrown almost a billion at avian flu in a couple of years then? http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/oct/111241.htm Isn't that a rapidly mutating virus. But it's only killed a couple of hundred people.

According to that report commercial investment in an AIDS vaccine has all but dried up either way. In 2004 that was by the way, and that's not to say private companies don't continue to spend public sector funds on it.

Apparently the latest vaccine makes people more vulnerable... http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081105/ful....2008.1208.html

Yep, I already agreed with that above. But when they invest such a small proportion of funds into research, it's rotten to the core that they take all the profits. The tax payers subsidise discovery of a cure, at the expense of other social programs for the less well off, and when a cure is found neither of these groups have access to the cure that they sacrificed most to create. The only research that counts is productive research. Over the period covered by the IAVI doc, nothing was interesting, there was little worth testing. The people who make the money will be the people who own the patent. If that ends up being a pharma company, that will tell you a lot about the productivity of private research compared to public research. It might not be (although the only one in phase 3 is a phama company candidate). http://avac.org/trials_table.htm The money spent is higher now than it was 4 years ago but still is limited by the probability that the candidates will work at a high enough level. One of my mates from GSK now works at IAVI in NYC, i can ask him for his opinion on this. But isn't the majority of public sector funding paid directly to the private companies to assist their research, rather than actual government scientist looking into it. Is their even such a thing as an American government scientest these days? As a result, it will inevitably be a private sector company that claims the patent if it's ever found.

According to that report commercial investment in an AIDS vaccine has all but dried up either way. Anything you can link to "terror" is where the money is these days.

Yep, I already agreed with that above. But when they invest such a small proportion of funds into research, it's rotten to the core that they take all the profits. The tax payers subsidise discovery of a cure, at the expense of other social programs for the less well off, and when a cure is found neither of these groups have access to the cure that they sacrificed most to create.

There'd be no Bill Gates. It depends on the issue though as well, with certain things it is obviously not an easy, quick (or cheap) task to "cure", and so more hay than is needed is made while the sun shines (so long as there is no immediate risk of cloudy weather or someone else obscuring your sun). HIV apparently not being one of those cases I think it probably is no matter what he claims, a vaccine would give a decent short term boost, but there'd be a massive clamour for mass immunisation the like of which the world has never seen (and probably countries just plain ignoring company "patents" to do so). If you can get rid of it (or reduce it to a negligible level) there's no market, and so long as there's no one close to producing one there's no risk either. Merck, GSK, Boehringer, Pfizer and Sanofi are all investing billions per year in HIV vaccines (added up, not individually). Its a golden bullet that would transform the winner into the biggest pharma company overnight, the impact on the share price would be astronomical and therefore every single executive working within the company would be bonussed enormously. There is no disincentive anywhere in the system. Sure, you wouldnt sell so well in Africa. However, they could vaccinate everyone with the money they save from treating. Plus the cost in Europe/US would be nearer to $10,000 per shot not $100. That was just to keep the maths simple for you. Do you have a source that contradicts the one above? I'd like to know if I should discard the whole document as a point of reference. "Many private sector companies do not specifically track spending on HIV vaccines and hence do not have the relevant data readily available. In addition, many companies were reluctant to share financial information due to proprietary business concerns." Page 11. Its the pre-clinical investments that are large (and growing this year due to a breakthrough piece of science recently) and pre-clinical is not visible to the outside world. Well when I start believing what I'm told to accept on faith by huge money generating clandestine societies you can find me in church EDIT: And it was page 7. EDIT 2: But it does also say..."For those that did not, annual investment and expenditure estimates were extrapolated based on information available in the public domain and expert opinions."

There'd be no Bill Gates. It depends on the issue though as well, with certain things it is obviously not an easy, quick (or cheap) task to "cure", and so more hay than is needed is made while the sun shines (so long as there is no immediate risk of cloudy weather or someone else obscuring your sun). HIV apparently not being one of those cases I think it probably is no matter what he claims, a vaccine would give a decent short term boost, but there'd be a massive clamour for mass immunisation the like of which the world has never seen (and probably countries just plain ignoring company "patents" to do so). If you can get rid of it (or reduce it to a negligible level) there's no market, and so long as there's no one close to producing one there's no risk either. Merck, GSK, Boehringer, Pfizer and Sanofi are all investing billions per year in HIV vaccines (added up, not individually). Its a golden bullet that would transform the winner into the biggest pharma company overnight, the impact on the share price would be astronomical and therefore every single executive working within the company would be bonussed enormously. There is no disincentive anywhere in the system. Sure, you wouldnt sell so well in Africa. However, they could vaccinate everyone with the money they save from treating. Plus the cost in Europe/US would be nearer to $10,000 per shot not $100. That was just to keep the maths simple for you. Do you have a source that contradicts the one above? I'd like to know if I should discard the whole document as a point of reference.

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines? Again, not really, because people don't die without Google. I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently. What creates the poverty that kills? Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford? Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries. More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine. As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something. Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal. I've never said I don't want a pharmaceutical industry. What I don't want is for them to be able to privately sell their wares at a price they dictate, based on maximum profit, rather than closer to a genuine profit that makes it cost effective. There'll never be an HIV vaccine man, you boys don't make vaccines any more, you make treatments to inspire brand loyalty. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal, and you think that inequity should be perpetuated by the wealthiest? No and you are also wrong about the vaccine, have a business lesson above. Nothing further than "no"? Of the $696M of research into a vaccine between 2000 and 2005, only $59 million has come from the pharma's and £9M from biotech. Having invested less than 10% of the cost, do you think they should reap 100% of the benefit? http://www.iavi.org/viewfile.cfm?fid=30892 Section 3.1 I'd hate that to come across as a Fop style change of subject btw, I winked after making the suggestion because it was a tongue in cheek comment and I do agree with the profits that would follow development of a vaccine.

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines? Again, not really, because people don't die without Google. I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently. What creates the poverty that kills? Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford? Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries. More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine. As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something. Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal. I've never said I don't want a pharmaceutical industry. What I don't want is for them to be able to privately sell their wares at a price they dictate, based on maximum profit, rather than closer to a genuine profit that makes it cost effective. There'll never be an HIV vaccine man, you boys don't make vaccines any more, you make treatments to inspire brand loyalty. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal, and you think that inequity should be perpetuated by the wealthiest? No and you are also wrong about the vaccine, have a business lesson above. Nothing further than "no"? Of the $696M of research into a vaccine between 2000 and 2005, only $59 million has come from the pharma's and £9M from biotech. Having invested less than 10% of the cost, do you think they should reap 100% of the benefit? http://www.iavi.org/viewfile.cfm?fid=30892 Section 3.1

So now you want to subsidise GSK to ensure they retain their staff? Dont put anyone with your views in charge of anything!! No I don't. GSK should have a union that's allowed to go on strike to protest lay offs when profits are growing year on year. I know profits have dropped recently, but I'm talking about over the past decade decade.

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines? Again, not really, because people don't die without Google. I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently. What creates the poverty that kills? Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford? Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries. More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine. As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something. Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal. I've never said I don't want a pharmaceutical industry. What I don't want is for them to be able to privately sell their wares at a price they dictate, based on maximum profit, rather than closer to a genuine profit that makes it cost effective. There'll never be an HIV vaccine man, you boys don't make vaccines any more, you make treatments to inspire brand loyalty. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal, and you think that inequity should be perpetuated by the wealthiest?

As I said, Chez hit the nail on the head re: idealism, it's best left at college. Most people as they grow older accept this - the world becomes less black and white but full of shades off grey. But for some people the opposite happens - whether it is to the left or right. These are the buggers you have to watch out for. Says the man who thinks you're either a shining beacon of capitalist purity or a dirty red bastard that once to take our freedom.

I'm not sure you can really call the current banking system capitalism, although the banks are still trying to act like it. I just wonder how heavy handed things well end up getting (which ties back into the political and economic future of the NHS). There is no economy is that is purely capitalist as that would require little or no government intervention. Capitalism is still the overriding nature of practically every economy throughout the world though. Even (and perhaps especially) China. Exactly. The US tried their best to impose their pure capitalist dogma on several countries. Of course the poverty always grows to such an extent all out revolt amongst the poor is inevitable.

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines? Again, not really, because people don't die without Google. I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently. What creates the poverty that kills? Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford? Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

Cheers, just an idea at the moment, I need to see if it has legs, will probably be at the Wigan meet. He'll have you pushing kiddy prozac tests and blocking DCA ones in no time.

You could back up Fop and put that down. Poor little nipper.

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits. I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility. Are you aware we live in a capitalist society? I'm beginning to suspect you may be a communist. We did live in a capitalist society. Have you not been watching the news? The US govenrment just gave private firms $700bn dollars. The UK government are nationalising the banks. Communism and capitalism are dead in the water. I'm a democratic socialist.

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits. I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility.

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe? Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though. The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion. I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right? I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq. I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable. With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest? Doesn't sound very wise to me. If we're willing to say to a pharmaceutical company "the drugs that you price too highly, you can sell at that non-cost effective price privately", what kind of incentive is that for them to produce the drugs at the lowest price possible? Every innovation would be initially priced to cater only to the private market. Don't believe the hype that private firms go out on a limb altruistically pushing to cure diseases at huge cost to themselves and their shareholders and so deserve a return on that investment. US drug companies spend more than twice as much marketing their products as they do researching and developing them*. My alternative? Keep assessing the cost effectiveness and refuse to bow to the pressure. * https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP55.pdf (page 10) Re: bolded bit, not necessarily as getting the government to pay for the drug will open it up to a much bigger market. Also you are ignoring competition from competing companies producing 'me too' drugs and complicating factors from the global market. However, I admit I am no health economist (I specialise in clinical effectiveness) so can't contribute in depth to the discussion. I am acutely aware of the problems of a finite budget with near infinite ways to spend it though, I'm not sure you are. Idealism only gets you so far. But any corporation wants to maximise the profit on each unit sold, so they're always happiest to start rolling out the product as a top priced exclusive one for those that can afford it. Only once you saturate that market and (as you say) alternatives start coming along do you need to drop the price and expand your potential sales. It's the same as an X-box 360. Hey, I'm nothing, but I like having the discussion so I can learn more. Having a finite budget is a reality, but using it as an excuse to allow a system were healthcare improves for those that can afford it, but deteriorates for those that can't? It's abandoning those in society that are most helpless. It's allowing corporations to dictate healthcare policy, they get you by the balls and don't let go.