Did AIDS activists' success reduce the development of new AIDS medicines?

[istara]

Didn’t a lot of funds get stripped from other worthy causes when the whole AIDS thing started up? I believe seeing statistics that showed the research spend on AIDS was vastly disproportionate to that spent on cancer, given the frequency rates of the two diseases.

Either way, I sure as hell hope they find a cure for both soon.

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by december * **
. So, have the AIDS activists’ efforts been counter-productive? Are efforts to provide cheap AIDS medicine hurting AIDS sufferers? Should compassionate people begin defending the ability of drug companies to maintain patent rights and to charge high prices? **

No. The patents on drugs have been relaxed only in countries which essentially couldn’t afford the drugs at all . In other words, without these “infrigments” on patents, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t have made a buck in these countries. By coming to an agreement with the countries producing cheap copies, they can actually expect to make more money than they would have otherwise. Even earning only one cent on each dose is much better than not selling any dose at all.
These companies just don’t like these sorts of precedents. Had they compromised immediatly, by offering to sell the rights to produce copies at a minimal price in the countries where these drugs are so much needed, instead of suing, which made them appear as the nest of greedy and heartless bastards they’re, they could have made some money much earlier.

[Liberal]

Eonwe wrote:

Man, that just really bugs me. Why bother to be a doctor if it’s not profitable? Why bother helping people if it’s not profitable? I understand it’s a business, but it’s a business of healing, is it not?

Are you willing to go to med school and work for free? If not, don’t criticize. If so, why haven’t you?

[Chumpsky]

*Originally posted by Muad’Dib *
**Forget profit. Why should any company do any research on AIDS when they know that any big breakthrough is going to be stolen from them at gun point by the government? **

You have it exactly backwards.

In the real world, what happens is that expensive technologies are developed at public expense, and then handed over to private power as a gift. Bio-technology is only one example among many, which also includes computers and aviation.

There is no reason why medical research can’t be publicly funded. In fact, almost all of it already is. Then drugs can be produced at public expense and sold at not-for-profit prices. At least, that is how a civilized society would do it.

[smiling_bandit]

while we fund research for drugs for poor sick people in a more efficient way.

Who’s this “we”, white man?

Why should the private sector have the sole responsibility for developing drugs? Or, more acurately, why should drugs be developed at public expense, only to be turned over to private profit when they are profitable?

Jaw Dropping through the floor here! Total Bull! Chumpsky, are you delusional? Where did you get this “idea” that public domain develops drugs. The public sector has been good in producing “pure science”, but not applied science. Corporations have been far, far better in accomplishing the latter. Since you, once agaain, make a seriously flawed and wild accusation/assertion without a cite…

There has actually been some good research done in the public sector, you know, lilke ALMOST ALL OF IT. The lack of sufficient funding for AIDS research has nothing to do with market pressures. It is a public policy decision.

Are you wacked? Companies have done the real AIDS research. SO they can make money at it. It takes billions per year. try looking at the facts rather than making them up as you go.

In the real world, what happens is that expensive technologies are developed at public expense, and then handed over to private power as a gift. Bio-technology is only one example among many, which also includes computers and aviation.

Biotechnology. Aviation. Computers. Lets see…

Biotech: The hell? This is an entire field of science and technology. It covers half of chemistry to physiology to microbiology. So vague as to be meaningless on its face. Do you mean to say that University Professors discover things and the U sells it to industry? Either way, its totally wacked.

Computers: While the first technologies were learned due to the needs of war, the tech was so basic as to be unp[atentable, if the gov was interested in doing so anyway. On top of that, this is one field where private competition has succeeded even beyong the wildest dreams of idustry promoters. Even you can’t deny that! (Though I’m sure you will try…)

Aviation: Part of the public domain? The Hell? You cannot patent flight, not the scientific principles thereof. Companies got the idea to make and sell devices to move people through the air. What’s you point?

There is no reason why medical research can’t be publicly funded. In fact, almost all of it already is. Then drugs can be produced at public expense and sold at not-for-profit prices. At least, that is how a civilized society would do it.

This is quite possibly the single supidest idea I have ever heard of. Like I’ve been saying, this Chump creates a conclusion and stuffs arguments into it.