It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death Panels Come To The UK

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 



You forgot to mention the fact that treatment had been withdrawn from their loved ones without their knowledge...


It doesn’t say that in the article, someone says it in the comments which may or may not reflect reality however that is not the point, you made the claim that this was a “death panel” to “save a few quid” without any evidence of that whatsoever.


I dont know what your beef is


My beef is that you utterly refuse to acknowledge the constraints that our medical system operates within. It is simply impossible to treat everyone to the highest standard with anywhere near the budget that is available to the NHS.

Before you stick some doctor’s head on a pike will you first let him know whose treatment you want reduced in order to put those resources towards the treatment of your mum?




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 

EvanB you're obviously a patriot and I understand your frustrations but......I'm usually a lurker and leave my views to be expressed by yourself, and others (especially Stu Mason), as your more informed than I. But I'm seeing a theme here, and I'm losing respect for your threads (and views)

Death Panels Come To The UK (source Daily Mail)
Children as young as EIGHT filmed taking part in cage fighting... and it's LEGAL (source Daily Mail)
Bank worker foils fraudster who tried to con elderly woman out of her savings... Scam Alert! (source Daily Mail)
24 male 'slaves' rescued by police in dawn raid on Bedfordshire caravan site(source Daily Mail)
Why Eurozone should become should become United States of Europe, by David Cameron(source Daily Mail)
Home fit for a hero? While £1m homes go to asylum seekers, a soldier who lost three limbs serving h (source Daily Mail)

WTF chap surely you don't believe this bullshiat? Theres a reason why it's known internationally as the 'Daily Fail' FFS! Informed Americans know this pile of crap for what it is, a hyperbolic, xenophobic, racist piece of disgusting bile, so why don't you?! Your a Brit for crying out loud! You make thread after thread to support it's idiocy, and they regularly go to 5+ pages, WHY?
That's what the Fail does, it incites hatred, rhetoric and division as it's bread and butter. If you really have to read that pile of s*** and post threads containing its nuclear grade idiocy, then at least have the decency to post alternative articles from other sources on the same subject. It might just stop your threads going down this same silly road.

For the record, I'm not a lefty or socialist in any way shape or form. I've lived long enough to have seen what Labour do to this country more than once.....bankrupt and on its knees again. Neither am I a Tory, they're assholes as well, kick the worker so the toffs are ok.
All I'm saying chap, is research the stories you post threads about before creating DERPA DERP DERP from the Daily Fail



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Russell Howard's Cancer Song
edit on 28-9-2011 by ridcully because: you tubes crap


edit on 28-9-2011 by ridcully because:oh and enough said. I'm not reading your threads anymore if they only cite the fail as the source

edit on 28-9-2011 by ridcully because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Yes, HPV is a STD. But you can get cervical cancer without having HPV (though it is quite rare). HPV just greatly increases your chances of getting it.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ridcully
 


I know there are other alternatives, Im just wondering if the government insurance is worth it compared to regular insurance. Basically in the US if you work for a good company you get good insurance. Insurance cost me $20 a month. It covers everything but cosmetic surgery. My dental $10 dollars a month and it covers everything, except if you get new teeth they only do a co pay on those. It's accepted almost everywhere, the places that dont accept it are dumps anyway. How many people choose NHS over private?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PapaEmeritus
reply to post by ridcully
 


I know there are other alternatives, Im just wondering if the government insurance is worth it compared to regular insurance. Basically in the US if you work for a good company you get good insurance. Insurance cost me $20 a month. It covers everything but cosmetic surgery. My dental $10 dollars a month and it covers everything, except if you get new teeth they only do a co pay on those. It's accepted almost everywhere, the places that dont accept it are dumps anyway. How many people choose NHS over private?


Big difference in the UK - you can take out private insurance but if you're health is extremely poor - or you require immediate life saving treatment - the private hospital returns you to the NHS - no matter who you are.
edit on 29-9-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 



What I said was medical research should be taken out of the hands of pharmaceutical co.’s. If the medical research deems a drug to be the answer then send it to a smaller big pharma industry for investigation and research. As long as drug companies conduct the research the only solution you will ever get is a drug.

A friend of mine gave up his research position with a pharmaceutical co. on ethical grounds. He tells me they are no longer set tasks to find a cure for x condition, rather, he told me, they work in labs with different compounds and chemicals and when they see a reaction they go to their line manager saying, ‘look if I do this with x and add y – z happens.’ And the companies ask ‘hmm..what can we use this for?’

The examples I gave were mistakes of medicine that have cost countless lives because the solutions were simple. They required that out of the box thinking and didn’t require a new drug with billions in research. Don’t talk about the HPV vaccination – that vaccination was tested on a study group of 200 in the short term before it was rolled out for profit – behaviour modification would be cheaper, less invasive, less dangerous...and of course less profitable.


This was not the first recession or global downturn, things are bad but the system has not absolutely failed. People said the same thing in the 1930’s, it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.


This is the first ‘global’ downturn of its kind. In the 30’s they were able to invest in infrastructure to help get things kick started – and then of course you can’t beat a world war for picking up the economy.
China was loosed on the world for just 8 years before it exposed capitalism as the exploitative pyramid system it is.

How do you think we’ll get out of this one? They've used cheap credit to keep us going through the 90’s and noughties – and now that elastoplast option has run dry.

The EU competition rules means we can’t compete with Spain and their cheaper labour on massive infrastructure projects that are being undertaken in this country. They no longer perform their Keynesian economic function. E.g. 5 years completing the motorway system in Glasgow – not a Scottish worker on the site – all Spanish.


That is not what the evidence of planned economies shows. If public ownership was so efficient why has every known planned economy seen huge economic shortages?


They grossly undervalued our nationalised companies when they floated them – a lot of people made an awful lot of money out of privatised monopolies. Not a one private company will outlay the necessary investment on infrastructure. When infrastructure is being built the tax payer pays for it – when the profits are being collected the private investor creams them off. I use Railtrack as one example – renationalised because profits came first – not peoples’ welfare and lives.


You haven’t actually answered any of the criticisms of nationalisation that I posted in reply to Evan. I said that if you nationalise pharmaceutical companies…


I want MEDICAL research taken out of the hands of pharmaceuticals – but pls note my earlier point when I stated that if in the public domain there would be no requirement to expend billions in dividends. Private investors don’t invest in pharma out of the goodness of their hearts – they do it for money – lots of it.


you won’t eliminate costs, the capital still has to be paid for, scientists have to be paid, engineers have to be paid etc.


And? You think public sector workers work for free or something?


You then also have to find a way of replacing the investment that currently comes from private investors, you’re unlikely to get more from charity since if they could give more they probably would already. You could raise taxes but as I mentioned earlier private investment in pharmaceutical R&D was $39bn in the US alone, that’s a lot to raise in taxes if UK investment in anywhere near that figure.


Yes – and what were the profits? The top 10 drugs sold (excluding China and India) made $664 billion in 2007. In 2008 they cleared more than the 2008 bailout figures for the US economy. That’s one hell of a return. Psychotropic s and statins, on their own, make more in annual profit than it costs to run the NHS per annum.

What’s the difference – only that publicly funded research may focus on need and not on profit. When it comes to health altruism should be the main motivator – nothing else.

I can save a fortune in a stroke – stop giving 1 in 9 of our population SSRI’s. Stop ‘fixing’ people to fit a broken society and start fixing the society to fit the people.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ridcully
 


Mate, regardless of your view of the source (which is something we share btw), I do go down the road of checking if this is bs or not before posting, and if it is you will get an appology from me everytime.. However in this case and those you cited, they are all true and have been on msm also..

As for the daily fail you are right, they do like stoking the fire however thats what these forums are for.. To debate the issues and test validity.. And this is the right place to do it too with all flavours of political leanings and not just the daily fails burn them all crowd



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 



What I said was medical research should be taken out of the hands of pharmaceutical co.’s. If the medical research deems a drug to be the answer then send it to a smaller big pharma industry for investigation and research. As long as drug companies conduct the research the only solution you will ever get is a drug.


Of course; pharmaceutical companies make drugs, that’s what pharmaceutical means, if pharmaceutical companies conduct research they’ll produce a drug.

If you say medical research should be taken out of the hands of pharmaceutical companies you are saying that they shouldn’t be able to develop new drugs.


A friend of mine gave up his research position with a pharmaceutical co. on ethical grounds. He tells me they are no longer set tasks to find a cure for x condition, rather, he told me, they work in labs with different compounds and chemicals and when they see a reaction they go to their line manager saying, ‘look if I do this with x and add y – z happens.’ And the companies ask ‘hmm..what can we use this for?’

The examples I gave were mistakes of medicine that have cost countless lives because the solutions were simple. They required that out of the box thinking and didn’t require a new drug with billions in research.


How does stopping all private drug R&D help?

If you take medical R&D out of private hands all you do is cut off the supply of the drugs they develop. Unless you think everything they produce is useless I can’t see why that is a good thing.

You could nationalise these companies but as I said earlier you would have to replace private investment with higher taxes which would be very costly. Of course if government can find the money to fund a public pharmaceutical industry there is no reason why government couldn’t fund an increased parallel public R&D and thereby reap both the output of the private sector and a public sector that can afford to look at more commercially risky treatments.


The examples I gave were mistakes of medicine that have cost countless lives because the solutions were simple. They required that out of the box thinking and didn’t require a new drug with billions in research.


That’s not because we have a private pharmaceutical industry. It is up to medical professionals and policy makers to determine what treatment is used; they create the demand that the pharmaceutical industry responds to.

If the way the private sector produces drugs is wasteful then competitors (private, public or charity) can take advantage of that with more targeted R&D, finding those simple solutions you talk about. There is nothing stopping the public sector from doing that; if you do your job inefficiently that does not stop others from doing it better does it.


They grossly undervalued our nationalised companies when they floated them – a lot of people made an awful lot of money out of privatised monopolies. Not a one private company will outlay the necessary investment on infrastructure. ...


That had nothing to do with what I asked. You said “of course medical research would cost less and be more efficient in the public sector”; if the public sector is inherently so more efficient why did every planned economy suffer economic shortages of goods?

If public ownership simply eliminated costs then economies based on public ownership should be much better than capitalist economies; but that’s not what has been observed.


I want MEDICAL research taken out of the hands of pharmaceuticals – but pls note my earlier point when I stated that if in the public domain there would be no requirement to expend billions in dividends. Private investors don’t invest in pharma out of the goodness of their hearts – they do it for money – lots of it.


That is exactly what’s wrong with taking medical R&D out of the private sector.

There is no requirement for investors to invest out of the kindness of their heart so long as they invest; and they do.

If you ditch the profit incentive then those people will no longer invest and you have to make up that level of investment from somewhere and the only place that is going to come from is government or charity.

Charity is likely a nonstarter since if people wanted/could afford to give more then they would do so already.

Government can take up the slack but see the fourth paragraph above and last few below.


And? You think public sector workers work for free or something?


No and that is exactly my point; the development of new drugs is costly without accounting for profit margins so that even without making a profit some form of rationing will still be needed.


Yes – and what were the profits? ...


That’s irrelevant; private pharmaceuticals put $X into R&D, if you take



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 




Of course; pharmaceutical companies make drugs, that’s what pharmaceutical means, if pharmaceutical companies conduct research they’ll produce a drug.

If you say medical research should be taken out of the hands of pharmaceutical companies you are saying that they shouldn’t be able to develop new drugs.


No – I did NOT say they stop making drugs – I said as long as they conduct medical research the ONLY solution will be a drug – because, as you stated, that’s what they do. They need a marketable product at the end of the day.


How does stopping all private drug R&D help?


By citing my friend as but one example as I was attempting to demonstrate that private research & development has gone awry...chasing money & certainly NOT chasing cures. They largely produce palliative treatments NOT cures. Because they are profit driven there is simply no profit in actually curing any given condition. When I recently asked a doctor what medicine could cure, he blithely responded, ‘Oh nothing at all. We simply facilitate the right conditions for the body to heal itself.’


If you take medical R&D out of private hands all you do is cut off the supply of the drugs they develop. Unless you think everything they produce is useless I can’t see why that is a good thing.


See above – we don’t want drugs – we want cures.


You could nationalise these companies but as I said earlier you would have to replace private investment with higher taxes which would be very costly. Of course if government can find the money to fund a public pharmaceutical industry there is no reason why government couldn’t fund an increased parallel public R&D and thereby reap both the output of the private sector and a public sector that can afford to look at more commercially risky treatments.


You see that $650 billion dollar annual 2007 profit for just 10 meds that you claim is ‘irrelevant’ to this argument – there’s your investment. No tax payers involved – simply the profits from what will continue to be a productive industry. Rather than divvying up the profits to individuals/pension co.’s to spend on whatever - the profits can be re-invested for further research, development & treatment. In short – there’s plenty of money.


That’s not because we have a private pharmaceutical industry. It is up to medical professionals and policy makers to determine what treatment is used; they create the demand that the pharmaceutical industry responds to.


Precisely. See Prof. Healy on this subject. In summary he is apologising for medicine’s failure to protect us from the tyranny and propaganda spouted by big pharma . You forget that big pharma started out as snake-oil salesmen. Old habits and all that- they are genius marketers.




If the way the private sector produces drugs is wasteful then competitors (private, public or charity) can take advantage of that with more targeted R&D, finding those simple solutions you talk about. There is nothing stopping the public sector from doing that; if you do your job inefficiently that does not stop others from doing it better does it.


What??? See Prof. Healy vid above.


That had nothing to do with what I asked. You said “of course medical research would cost less and be more efficient in the public sector”; if the public sector is inherently so more efficient why did every planned economy suffer economic shortages of goods?


Britain didn’t have an entirely planned economy prior to selling off of the utilities etc. - it was the best example of a mixed economy in the world.


If public ownership simply eliminated costs then economies based on public ownership should be much better than capitalist economies; but that’s not what has been observed.


Wake up – that bubble burst in 2008. Boom bang a bust, boom bang a bust, that’s how it actually goes....and everyone knows.



There is no requirement for investors to invest out of the kindness of their heart so long as they invest; and they do.


Who the hey needs investors?


If you ditch the profit incentive then those people will no longer invest and you have to make up that level of investment from somewhere and the only place that is going to come from is government or charity.


There would still be profit – it’s just that it would be reinvested in research & treatment. Have you ever heard the phrase, ‘money is the root of all evil’. Caring for fellow humans should be altruistic – not profit driven.


Yes – and what were the profits? ...



That’s irrelevant; private pharmaceuticals put $X into R&D, if you take


The annual profit of the top 10 drugs alone easily dwarfs your private investment and covers it for the next 20 yrs.
edit on 29-9-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PapaEmeritus
reply to post by ridcully
 


I know there are other alternatives, Im just wondering if the government insurance is worth it compared to regular insurance. Basically in the US if you work for a good company you get good insurance. Insurance cost me $20 a month. It covers everything but cosmetic surgery. My dental $10 dollars a month and it covers everything, except if you get new teeth they only do a co pay on those. It's accepted almost everywhere, the places that dont accept it are dumps anyway. How many people choose NHS over private?


Sorry If I came across overly aggressive, we're very protective of our NHS (despite it's faults)! in the UK, every worker pays into the NHS, certain people (retired, unemployed, disabled etc) get it free. The problem is, this gets abused, and abuse, I think, is at the heart of this thread. Some employers do provide private health care, taken directly out of the wages, as in the USA.

Dental work, unless your a very highly paid individual, you pay private or go NHS. NHS covers just basic treatment, anything else you have to pay private rates, although your NHS dentist will generally be qualified to do this, but at extra cost. Almost the same as your dental costs I'd guess.

But to answer your question, yes, it is worth it. I doubt you'll find any brit in this thread or on this site that will disagree. I'm 41 now so I've only known having NI taken out my pay cheque, and have only ever received the best of treatment.

BTW thats a very good price plan you have there. I've been following the Obamacare debacle quite closely. Are you honestly sure you're adequately covered? No snark intended



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by ridcully
 


Mate, regardless of your view of the source (which is something we share btw), I do go down the road of checking if this is bs or not before posting, and if it is you will get an appology from me everytime.. However in this case and those you cited, they are all true and have been on msm also..

As for the daily fail you are right, they do like stoking the fire however thats what these forums are for.. To debate the issues and test validity.. And this is the right place to do it too with all flavours of political leanings and not just the daily fails burn them all crowd


I'm apologising again, Evan I'm sorry for the snarky reply. I just hate the Fail and all it stands for old chap. Like I said, they only ever publish to get a bad reaction.
"ooh lefty BBC"
"all immigrants have monkey aids and smell"
"Ed Milliband is made of plasticine and used to be called Wallace!"
(Actually that last ones true! deserves its own thread lol)

I'd also add that whatevers published in the Lancet (Oncology) deserves to be taken with a grain of salt. I seem to remember an article being widely derided not so long ago because 1 doctor wanted to ban all kitchen knives or something similar. Went all round the world, probably because of the Fail!
edit on 29-9-2011 by ridcully because: Sorry, taken with a grain of salt if it hits MSM! If it does, The Fail, The Sun or any other crap paper has sniffed some overblown outraged column inches



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 



No – I did NOT say they stop making drugs – I said as long as they conduct medical research the ONLY solution will be a drug – because, as you stated, that’s what they do. They need a marketable product at the end of the day.


I think wires are getting crossed here; on page three you said that all medical research should be taken out of the hands of big pharma. I am saying that this would mean that they no longer produce new drugs and that this is bad. We may not agree on the latter but do we agree on the former?


By citing my friend as but one example as I was attempting to demonstrate that private research & development has gone awry...chasing money & certainly NOT chasing cures. They largely produce palliative treatments NOT cures.


See above – we don’t want drugs – we want cures.


I don’t know the truth of that but assuming it is true there is still a benefit in palliative treatment and the fact that palliative treatments exist does not stop the public or charity sectors from investing in cures. The activity of private pharmaceuticals is an additional benefit.


You see that $650 billion dollar annual 2007 profit for just 10 meds that you claim is ‘irrelevant’ to this argument – there’s your investment...


Sorry I thought you wanted to see prices come down to cost.

But even in what you propose here there are problems. For example that profit you want to reinvest comes from activities that you have already condemned, by “chasing money & certainly NOT chasing cures” as you put it. Given the competitive nature of the industry it’s likely that pharmaceuticals are already extracting as much profit as they can so by moving into areas that the pharmaceuticals can’t get an economic profit from you’ve got to accept that you’re probably going to reduce your profits significantly.

Secondly you’re proposing the creation of a monopoly with all the inefficiencies that they bring such as prices (you are proposing a profit making monopoly after all) far above those of a free market.

The direction of resources in such a monopoly is directed by some single central authority and there is no guarantee that that direction will be the right one. In a competitive industry there is always the possibility of failure if a firm makes bad decisions, in a public monopoly there is no failure so bad decisions can accumulate. On the flip side without competition it’s harder to identify good practices.


Precisely. See Prof. Healy on this subject. In summary he is apologising for medicine’s failure to protect us from the tyranny and propaganda spouted by big pharma …


Sorry I don’t have time to watch a 90min video but I’ll try to watch it later.

Yes pharmaceuticals do put a lot of effort into marketing but we’re not talking about a dumb consumer base, we’re talking about very intelligent, highly qualified people with access to the means to thoroughly test marketing claims all within a highly regulated market.


What??? See Prof. Healy vid above


Like I said I can’t watch it right now, can you summarise what Healy says about why the private sector is stopping the public and charity sectors from carrying out more efficient and better targeted R&D?


Britain didn’t have an entirely planned economy ...


But I’m not talking about Britain I’m talking about the general relative efficiency of a public vs private industry. You said that “of course medical research would cost less and be more efficient in the public sector”; I am saying that if this was necessarily true then planned economies where everything was publicly owned should have been much more efficient than their capitalist or mixed economy counterparts but that is not what has been observed.


Wake up – that bubble burst in 2008...


Yet there has been real growth in wealth and standards of living over the long term despite many busts; not so in planned economies until they started to privatise. But even if you were right that does not prove that public ownership is so obviously more efficient; the planned economies’ bubble burst far earlier.


By the way do you have a source for this $650bn profit for the top ten drugs? I’ve been looking around and the 2008 revenue of the largest 19 pharmaceutical companies in the world only came to around $500bn; $650bn seems unrealistic.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 



I think wires are getting crossed here; on page three you said that all medical research should be taken out of the hands of big pharma. I am saying that this would mean that they no longer produce new drugs and that this is bad. We may not agree on the latter but do we agree on the former?


Yes – medical research should be taken away from big pharma. Not pharmaceutical research. Should that medical research deem a drug is the best solution then there would still be extant a plethora of private pharmaceutical companies to fulfil that demand.


I don’t know the truth of that but assuming it is true there is still a benefit in palliative treatment and the fact that palliative treatments exist does not stop the public or charity sectors from investing in cures. The activity of private pharmaceuticals is an additional benefit.


Of course there’s a benefit to palliative treatments – but there is no financial benefit for drug companies in researching more effective preventative treatments so they will not research them.



Sorry I thought you wanted to see prices come down to cost.


You could reduce the prices 20 fold , that’s a 2000% reduction in profit, and still maintain the same levels of investment you cite. That’s covering labour costs as they are. I recollect electricity, gas and water being in the states’ hands – I don’t recollect paying cost for it. It is priced at a level that allows for re-investment.
Why would pharmaceutical companies disappear under this model? They would simply diminish in size and no longer be among the largest and most lucrative corporations in the world.



Secondly you’re proposing the creation of a monopoly with all the inefficiencies that they bring such as prices (you are proposing a profit making monopoly after all) far above those of a free market.


What I want is medical research taken away from drug companies being centrally funded doesn’t stop competition for success. Central funding removes the requirement to chase funding or conducting research to please investors.





Yes pharmaceuticals do put a lot of effort into marketing but we’re not talking about a dumb consumer base, we’re talking about very intelligent, highly qualified people with access to the means to thoroughly test marketing claims all within a highly regulated market.


Sure – that’ll explain all the anti depressant ads on the net then.

Re Healy;
In short Healy explains how the system is money led, explaining that advertising to the public etc. is not the core problem with the future of medicine but that you are meant to think that’s the problem – the real problem he states – is the drug companies’ control of the clinical trials. He apologises for medicine’s failure in protecting us from big pharma. Really you should kick back and watch it.



But I’m not talking about Britain I’m talking about the general relative efficiency of a public vs private industry. You said that “of course medical research would cost less and be more efficient in the public sector”;


Aaah the joys of the mixed economy. ..you don’t have to discuss public v. Private. You can take the best elements of both and combine them. Take life’s necessities e.g. gas, electricity, and water out of the hands of private profiteers and into the control of the state and let the city slickers play with the rest.


The events of the past few years have demonstrated that our current version of capitalism is a fraud. Ppl have been receiving massive remuneration purportedly for the risks and responsibility they undertake – but it’s been demonstrated that there is no real risk involved for private corporations – too big to fail so the taxpayer underwrites them . The lines are becoming very blurry...we are certainly not following the market's natural flow at the moment.


But even if you were right that does not prove that public ownership is so obviously more efficient; the planned economies’ bubble burst far earlier.


Yes and they learned their lesson. When will we learn ours and adapt? Capitalism is a good enough system but has to be held in check or else it just becomes the exploitative pyramid system we now have.



By the way do you have a source for this $650bn profit for the top ten drugs? I’ve been looking around and the 2008 revenue of the largest 19 pharmaceutical companies in the world only came to around $500bn; $650bn seems unrealistic.


See Prof. Healy vid – he’s speaking at Cornell Uni. The amount is actually $560billion (£566 to be precise) but what’s $84 billion these days. On these figures the arguments still stand.


edit on 30-9-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


I was under the impression that pharmaceutical research was a part of medical research and thus taking away the latter meant taking away the former too.

If that’s not the case then to be honest I’m not entirely sure what it is you’re advocating and to what ends.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I think what she is hitning at is having the research for the disease in questions, it's causes and potential treatments done by "public" research. Any other research into potential drugs and their applications is done privately by the Pharma's.

Attacking it from both sides, as it were. Pharma's tend to discover new compounds then play with them until they find out what it can do, so they can carry on doing that while the actual research into the disease is done by people whose concern is not profit driven and if they decide a drug is to be used, it is done by the medical people, not because big Pharma said so.

That said, it is largely how it is done anyway. Charities and hospitals do a lot of research of their own (Cancer Research UK, Guys and St Thomas, Great Ormond Street etc), independant of big Pharma and to be honest, some of the better cures and treatments come from this route and they utilise whatever drugs are on the market if needed.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join