Vaccines probably wouldn't have been discovered either.
It literally started because a doctor was like,
"huh, that cow over there has a disease kinda like smallpox, I should inject some cow pus into a little boy suffering from smallpox"
Nonono, you just apply blockchain to the process. God. Get with the times. It's 2018.
Anarchism is literally dismantling a power structure to reform, it can end up being whatever the group of 'anarchists' wan'ts doesn't necessarily have to be Communism, too specific of an example on my part I guess.
Hello, goldman sachs invests tons into research companies and has large pull among them via its investment role and that's what decides what the research company looks into. Money is power and it's being used for dick pills rather than preventing death.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html
The report is linked. It would of course make them trillions of $ but is that worth it? They don't think so because creating a permanent cure has a cost and risks that makes it not worthwhile.
The "conspiracy" is just that we decided to organize a certain way and that way puts lower priority on life-saving research than on earnings reports.
Richter cited Gilead Sciences'
treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90
percent. The company's U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments
peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since.
Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than
$4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.
"GILD is a case in point,
where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted
the available pool of treatable patients," the analyst wrote. "In the
case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing
patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the
virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an
incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure
poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise."
Goldman Sachs has positions in 4,272 companies including many biotech and healthcare companies including pfizer.
https://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/institutional-portfolio/goldman-sachs-group-inc-11158
hit me up with some of that back-alley calpol
biohacking
Goldman Sachs has many divisions, their research division is just one of them. I'm sure their investment management arm had a look at the report themselves and had a good laugh about it. That report is merely pointing out a harsh reality, it's not a prescription for drug companies to stop researching cures. It even makes the following recommendations:
"Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually."
"Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe."
"Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness) … Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets."
But of course, "GOLDMAN SACHS IS BLOCKING CURES FOR PATIENTS" gets way more clicks so that's what everyone went with.
Not an anarchist but people have ridiculous cartoonish ideas about what anarchists desire
"They just wanna loot shops and break stuff!!!"
In my experience most """"anarchists"""" also have no idea about either what anarchism as doctrine has in common in all of its many permutations, nor do some of the ones who can be called educated anarchists have any understanding of the things and hierarchies they supposedly criticize and seek to replace. So saying people have cartoonish ideas about what anarchists desire is only half true because the term is taken up as an identity by a very widely different group of people.
for profit medicine shouldn't exist, it hinders progress and destroys innovation
Wastage is one thing but as you mentioned this wastage comes from end users discarding unused medicine. Decentralised production does nothing for this, and in fact is probably going to be far worse for the environment overall. It's much harder to monitor a thousand small production sites for hazardous waste discharge than it is to monitor one large site.
Health as a whole shouldn't be for profit, because you get things like what was posted earlier such as https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html
I don't think that there are "magic cures" being hidden for things such as aids, if that is what you are referring to.
I already explained why focusing on that one headline is stupid. You're going to have to get stronger substantiation.
no, its far more likely a million small pill mills will improperly dispose of their waste than one single factory.
Look its hard to explain the hundreds of steps that industrial synthesis uses but its actually more efficient and generates less waste products than say a lab table setup because they can use very large separation and reaction equipment to purify and control reaction rates, things that you just can't do on a bench top set up.
as for wastewater discharges, those are two other issues. individuals are flushing down all this medication as well as our waste is filled with unmetabolized products that are because we overuse certain medicines. the way we treat sewage needs to improve in order to prevent these things from entering the groundwater, the first big step in that is eliminate any raw sewage discharge and upgrade facilities to better treat it.
as for industrial discharge that's a whole kettle of fish with the EPAs and that's exactly why having a lase fair EPA director and administration is bad.
Risky, but not bad
While I agree with your first sentence, I have to point out that most reactions are actually easier on a lab scale. You don't have to worry about exotherms as much, mixing is more efficient, and workup is far less of a pain.
It's funny the Goldman Sachs analysis was brought up because if Gilead had listened and not developed and marketed their Hep C treatment then someone else would have and taken all those initial profits. After the release of Solvaldi, there were like 5 other new Hep C drugs that were just as good. This was part of the reason why Solvaldi got cheaper, competition even while it was still patented. And keep in mind that these weren't mere mimics of Solvaldi, the other drugs would have been in development in secret at the same time even if companies were aware that their competitors were working in the disease area.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
