Privatise the NHS

[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.

 

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.

[Renton 21985]

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.

 

 

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.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

[Renton 21985]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

[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.

 

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.

 

That's made my day, i think i'll use that one.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

[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.

 

 

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.

There are working an a "universal" flu vaccine aren't they? Or at least they are getting funding for it.

[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.

 

 

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.

[Renton 21985]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

[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.

 

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.

 

Because they are really communists?

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

[Renton 21985]

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.

 

 

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.

 

Because that is a more achievable aim I'd imagine. I'm not an immunologist mind. Notice that that link was referring to government funding btw.

 

So what are you suggesting? Do you really think there is some conspiratorial reason why the holy grails of immunization - the common cold and HIV - have not been achieved?

[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.

 

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.

[Renton 21985]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

 

Well it would be a big disincentive to invent a vaccine that ultimately damaged your profit margins, of course. But it has already been explained to you that this would not be the case, hasn't it? We could talk hypothetical bollocks all day, I'd rather not though.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

Because that is a more achievable aim I'd imagine. I'm not an immunologist mind. Notice that that link was referring to government funding btw.

 

So what are you suggesting? Do you really think there is some conspiratorial reason why the holy grails of immunization - the common cold and HIV - have not been achieved?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7577501.stm

[Renton 21985]

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.

 

 

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.

 

Because that is a more achievable aim I'd imagine. I'm not an immunologist mind. Notice that that link was referring to government funding btw.

 

So what are you suggesting? Do you really think there is some conspiratorial reason why the holy grails of immunization - the common cold and HIV - have not been achieved?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7577501.stm

 

And?

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

 

Well it would be a big disincentive to invent a vaccine that ultimately damaged your profit margins, of course. But it has already been explained to you that this would not be the case, hasn't it? We could talk hypothetical bollocks all day, I'd rather not though.

 

No all that's been mentioned are some figures he pulled out of his ass (and there's plenty of counter arguments to that ).

 

So basically if they can they will, so almost certainly in some circumstances they already do.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

Because that is a more achievable aim I'd imagine. I'm not an immunologist mind. Notice that that link was referring to government funding btw.

 

So what are you suggesting? Do you really think there is some conspiratorial reason why the holy grails of immunization - the common cold and HIV - have not been achieved?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7577501.stm

 

And?

 

Potential Universal flu jab, by looking at things in a slightly different way. Saying something can't or won't be done because it can't be done now or is difficult to do now is spurious.

 

Although again it underlines the big issue in UK publicly funded research, which is it has often done the expensive leg work, and then the private sector moves in take the $$$'s.

[Renton 21985]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

 

Well it would be a big disincentive to invent a vaccine that ultimately damaged your profit margins, of course. But it has already been explained to you that this would not be the case, hasn't it? We could talk hypothetical bollocks all day, I'd rather not though.

 

No all that's been mentioned are some figures he pulled out of his ass (and there's plenty of counter arguments to that ).

 

So basically if they can they will, so almost certainly in some circumstances they already do.

 

 

So how much do you think an effective HIV vaccine or cold vaccine would be worth? You're talking out your arse and you know it.

[ChezGiven 0]

Fop, "Still a long way to go" and the basic machinations of the executive bonus incentive system (time-horizon 5 years for decision-making) means that everyone wants to find the winner. You'd retire worth millions more if it happened on your watch. You know nothing of business so am not surprised this passed you by.

 

HF, the NIH is a superb organisation, research it properly and even if there are examples conflicts of interest, dont dismiss it because of that.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

 

Well it would be a big disincentive to invent a vaccine that ultimately damaged your profit margins, of course. But it has already been explained to you that this would not be the case, hasn't it? We could talk hypothetical bollocks all day, I'd rather not though.

 

No all that's been mentioned are some figures he pulled out of his ass (and there's plenty of counter arguments to that ).

 

So basically if they can they will, so almost certainly in some circumstances they already do.

 

 

So how much do you think an effective HIV vaccine or cold vaccine would be worth? You're talking out your arse and you know it.

Like I said that's not really the point, and you know it.

[Fop 1]

 

[Renton 21985]

Potential Universal flu jab, by looking at things in a slightly different way. Saying something can't or won't be done because it can't be done now or is difficult to do now is spurious.

 

Although again it underlines the big issue in UK publicly funded research, which is it has often done the expensive leg work, and then the private sector moves in take the $$$'s.

 

You do realise that influenza and AIDs are completely different infections don't you? Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that.

 

Like I said, I'm no immunologist or microbiologist, but I'd hazard a guess I know a fair bit more than you. Why don't you use your best friend Google to find out the facts behind the difficulties of HIV vaccination? I advise you to stay away from Parky websites mind.

[Happy Face 29]

HF, the NIH is a superb organisation, research it properly and even if there are examples conflicts of interest, dont dismiss it because of that.

 

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.

[Renton 21985]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

 

Well it would be a big disincentive to invent a vaccine that ultimately damaged your profit margins, of course. But it has already been explained to you that this would not be the case, hasn't it? We could talk hypothetical bollocks all day, I'd rather not though.

 

No all that's been mentioned are some figures he pulled out of his ass (and there's plenty of counter arguments to that ).

 

So basically if they can they will, so almost certainly in some circumstances they already do.

 

 

So how much do you think an effective HIV vaccine or cold vaccine would be worth? You're talking out your arse and you know it.

Like I said that's not really the point, and you know it.

 

No, the point is you're a contrary wum who lives for chomps, I know. Yawn. Nearly home time.