Privatise the NHS

[Happy Face 29]

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.

 

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

[Fop 1]

Gardasil just won the Prix Galien fopsy.

For maximum profit?

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

There's a lot more $$$'s in treating HIV than there is in curing it, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

Wrong, the company that finds this vaccine will can expect to add around $200bn to its value overnight.

 

You see my little inexperienced fopster, bless you, you have no business experience and therefore forget/dont realise that its not just Africa that is in the market for a vaccine, its 6 billion people across the globe. Like all vaccines, they work on the basis of universal coverage.

 

Charge $100 a shot - thats $600bn in potential revenue.

 

 

So that would be like the Cervical cancer vaccine then?

 

Fingers in ears time. Like clockwork this.

He can't have it BOTH ways, one way or another he's clearly being limited with the "truth". (it's the Hull issue all over again )

Edited November 7, 2008 by Fop

[Guest alex]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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

[ChezGiven 0]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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).

 

And that, Gentlemen, says it all

 

Fingers in the ears, as manc-mag said.

[Fop 1]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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.

[Fop 1]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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).

 

And that, Gentlemen, says it all

 

Fingers in the ears, as manc-mag said.

 

Which is it then; vaccine or not to vaccine?

Edited November 7, 2008 by Fop

[Happy Face 29]

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.

 

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.

[ChezGiven 0]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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.

[Happy Face 29]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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.

[ChezGiven 0]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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.

[Happy Face 29]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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."

Edited November 7, 2008 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

Doesnt detract from the point, there's more money in a vaccine than a treatment. Between 2000 and 2004 there was very little to spend money on as science hadn't generated any targets to research.

[Happy Face 29]

Doesnt detract from the point, there's more money in a vaccine than a treatment. Between 2000 and 2004 there was very little to spend money on as science hadn't generated any targets to research.

 

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.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

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.

 

Again I don't think it would, trying to sell it a $10,000 a shot would probably result in public and political revolt. 3 meals from a revolution and such.

 

Although I still want you to make your mind up about vaccines.

[Renton 21986]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

[ChezGiven 0]

Doesnt detract from the point, there's more money in a vaccine than a treatment. Between 2000 and 2004 there was very little to spend money on as science hadn't generated any targets to research.

 

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.

[Fop 1]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

 

No one has said they have it or are even close, just IF. One of those in the future type things again.

 

 

Although I'm still wondering about vaccines and cervical cancer.

[Happy Face 29]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

 

According to that report commercial investment in an AIDS vaccine has all but dried up either way.

 

Much of the apparent drop in commercial investment between 2002 and 2004 is due to the

completion of VaxGen’s Phase III clinical trials and the subsequent shift in VaxGen’s priorities from

HIV vaccines to vaccines against bioterror agents. In 2002, VaxGen invested between US$ 30 mn

and US$ 32 mn of their own funds on preventive HIV vaccines, whilst in 2004 they invested none.

 

Anything you can link to "terror" is where the money is these days.

 

[Happy Face 29]

Doesnt detract from the point, there's more money in a vaccine than a treatment. Between 2000 and 2004 there was very little to spend money on as science hadn't generated any targets to research.

 

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.

[ChezGiven 0]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

 

No one has said they have it or are even close, just IF. One of those in the future type things again.

 

 

Although I'm still wondering about vaccines and cervical cancer.

 

Merck are coining it in with Gardasil and thats small-fry.

[Happy Face 29]

Apparently the latest vaccine makes people more vulnerable...

 

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081105/ful....2008.1208.html

 

[Fop 1]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

 

According to that report commercial investment in an AIDS vaccine has all but dried up either way.

 

[Fop 1]

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.

That's one of the problems the UK has had, Government funds it, the private sector nicks off with it and makes the money. Efficiency.

[Fop 1]

Apparently the latest vaccine makes people more vulnerable...

 

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081105/ful....2008.1208.html

 

 

Just imagine all the money they could make with THAT!

[Happy Face 29]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

 

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.