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.

 

Sick babies denied treatment in DNA row

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Just as a matter of information sharing...

I don't know where the notion that the lupus test to which I referred is some high-cost multi-thousand dollar ordeal. The fact is there IS NO PRICE for it because it was too cheap and could not be commercially exploited to the satisfaction of the industry. Therefore it was never brought to 'market'.

The FDA approved the test for market but no one would touch it.

It is a simple test involving the chemical analysis of blood serum and its reactiveness to certain anti-bodies.

This isn't about cost - as usual its about profit.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Well in all fairness the companies that do this research have salaries to pay and overhead. They probably spend TONS of money on research before they come across one discovery that will pay their bills.

I do not know what their profit margin is, but if we expect these companies to "give it away" the moment they discover it to save the worlds poor and dying then we can forget about new inventions or research. If you want it to be non-profit driven then have the government do all the research and see how well that works out.

I don't know about YOU people but I work for money. I am not about to go work at a company that can't pay me so we can provide "free" services. Most people can't work for free. That is reality.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
Well in all fairness the companies that do this research have salaries to pay and overhead. They probably spend TONS of money on research before they come across one discovery that will pay their bills.

I do not know what their profit margin is, but if we expect these companies to "give it away" the moment they discover it to save the worlds poor and dying then we can forget about new inventions or research. If you want it to be non-profit driven then have the government do all the research and see how well that works out.

I don't know about YOU people but I work for money. I am not about to go work at a company that can't pay me so we can provide "free" services. Most people can't work for free. That is reality.
[edit on 3-12-2008 by Sonya610]


I think you just hit the nail on the head as to why a society that revolves around profit(money) is a society doomed to failure.

Having to work 40+ hours a week just to make enough money to pay our bills will not create a compassionate society, it creates a profit driven, selfish, aggressive society.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
I don't know about YOU people but I work for money. I am not about to go work at a company that can't pay me so we can provide "free" services. Most people can't work for free. That is reality.


thats a bad analogy. For example, if you make sandwiches, it would be like suing anyone else that was starving and tried to make a sandwich for patent infringement.

It has nothing to do with giving anything away for free. Im actually quite interested at how you came to that conclusion. Please explain.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


If someone actually allowed a patent to be awarded to a specific DNA sequence which occurs naturally, then I would suggest that it was because someone was paid handsomely to push the paperwork through. If that was the case, then if enough light was shed on this, then it could be eventually overturned. Any rationally thinking person can easily see through this nonsense.

The only way I can rectify it in my mind is that if they are the ones responsible for creating the particular sequence that creates cancer or disease, then I can see a patent being awarded. If it happens naturally, then they are not the creator of the sequence and no patent should be awarded.


By the same token, I cannot see how anyone could make money by owning a disease. If someone gets your disease and dies, you could be tried for murder if you intentionally gave the disease to them or manslaughter if you did not.

I would hope a jury would not buy a patent infrigment case if a person came down with a patented disease. It would be hogwash.

This just makes my head spin what our world is coming to.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by xman_in_blackx]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by xman_in_blackx
 


from what i can gather from similar cases, it gets messy: once you patent a certain genome or DNA sequence, any mutation that is spawned from that patented sequence is also patented.

I predict that eventually, people will be walking, breathing, living patent infringements. Again I recall how this played out with Monsanto: they patented certain types of crops, and those crops spread to other farms (as seeds tend to do, as they have always done) - and the farms in which those seeds were deposited (without the farmers knowing) Monsanto moved in with the lawsuits, and in many cases took over the farms.

It's just a simple extrapolation from plants to animals, and it's already here in a small capacity.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


If that is the case, then it isn't a far stretch that those people who are "living breathing patent infringements" will probably become non entities with no rights or instant criminals. They could be forced into armies, sweatshops, sex slavery, etc.

This could quickly become a Philip K. Dick nightmare.

Eugenics. Plain and simple. A "my DNA is better than yours" type of scenario.

Sickening and very frightening.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
thats a bad analogy. For example, if you make sandwiches, it would be like suing anyone else that was starving and tried to make a sandwich for patent infringement.

It has nothing to do with giving anything away for free. Im actually quite interested at how you came to that conclusion. Please explain.


It would be as if you hired hundreds of people and invested years developing a NEW revolutionary lightbulb.

Then the day you finally managed to get that new lightbulb made, and you might FINALLY be able to make some money to PAY OFF the money you borrowed from investors to create it. Well, the day you finally sold your FIRST little light bulb you had to give the patent away and let EVERYONE make those same lightbulbs without paying you ANYTHING for the work you did. You find out they took YOUR idea, and they are making those lightbulbs super cheap in China and now you can't compete and you will never see your money returned.

If that happened would you just give up that lightbulb patent, and then start on a NEW project that will be taken away the moment it comes to market too? Maybe you will say, sure, I will start working on a new project even if I don't make any money, cause I am a generous person. Well thats great, but unless YOU PERSONALLY have millions invest in your new project that won't make any money you can be darn sure you won't find anyone else to invest in it if they know their money will never been seen again.

Like I said the only other alternative is to ahe the governments fund all these projects so they come out of "communal" dollars and then everyone benefits without paying extra for it. You can be sure there would be far far fewer new medical breakthroughs if the government was responsible for doing it all.

In summary -- it is not the end result, it is the massive amount of research dollars that go into creating the end result. The money has to be made back and that means enforcing patents for a specified amount of time.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Maxmars
 



The second point is that no human system can bear making choices about who is worth saving and who isnt. That is why we use a free market system on healthcare.


I believe that no man, and no man made system can make that call. That is the reason for leaving the "decision" to the markets.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by 44soulslayer]


Umm...the "free market system" is a man made system...



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
So they OWN that gene that is currently in my body right now?
That's like patenting casts for people with broken arms, or patenting my brain.
What next?
This is B.S.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
It would be as if you hired hundreds of people and invested years developing a NEW revolutionary lightbulb.


again, poor analogy. Trust me, I understand the point you are trying to make, but your comparisons just don't hold up - we are talking about life or death vs lightbulbs here.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientistagain, poor analogy. Trust me, I understand the point you are trying to make, but your comparisons just don't hold up - we are talking about life or death vs lightbulbs here.



Ahhhh...so it is life or death. Fine then. Just pull their patent and explain "this is life and death! not about money!"

Go ahead and do it. Then sit around wondering why medical breakthroughs slow to a crawl, and there are hardly any "new lifesaving breakthroughs" when the research companies can't get, or don't have the money to keep doing MORE research.

Might cause a lot more deaths in the future when medical advancement slows dramatically, but hey for TODAY it would make everyone feel really good!



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


So did you have an actual perspective to add here, or just sarcasm?

It seems you did not grasp the severity of the patent at hand here, since you brought up "free work" and lightbulbs. Neither of those has anything to do with curing a disease, and neither of those even hints at the issue of patents in the context of bio-medical research.

Or perhaps you did grasp that, and are just in the mood for a debate. If that's the case, I'm ready for it.. but come with a rational and comparable argument.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Oh I am sorry, am I offtopic? And here I thought the whole POINT of the article was intellectual property rights and medicine.

My mistake. Sorry for derailing your thread. I realize now you simply wanted people to agree with YOUR take on the article, and it is not appropriate to point out differing opinions.

My apologies, I won't post in contradictory opinions in YOUR thread again.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This is completely disgusting! Profit should never be more important than a person's life! It's just criminal! There should be some new rule that states that saving a life overrides profits and patents!



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610

Go ahead and do it. Then sit around wondering why medical breakthroughs slow to a crawl, and there are hardly any "new lifesaving breakthroughs" when the research companies can't get, or don't have the money to keep doing MORE research.

Might cause a lot more deaths in the future when medical advancement slows dramatically, but hey for TODAY it would make everyone feel really good!


I'm not so sure that believing the hype from research and pharmaceutical companies makes it a reality.

Big Pharma spends a lot more money on advertising than on research. They also recieve more money daily than they want you to think. I saw a figure that stated anti depressants alone earn big pharma 200 million dollars each day. That is 1 billion dollars every work week.

I am highly suspicious of anyone who states that big pharma or medical research does not make any money. The model that Scientist has mentioned is the model in which they use racketeering to muscle governments and then individuals to buy into their machinations.

Cures do not make any money, but testing and treatment make fortunes.

What we can gleen from your words is that medical research or big pharma has no intention of sympathizing with individuals with disease, but is here purely to make money. They then put a small fraction of that profit into research. I couldn't agree with you more if that is what you are stating.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
I realize now you simply wanted people to agree with YOUR take on the article, and it is not appropriate to point out differing opinions.

My apologies, I won't post in contradictory opinions in YOUR thread again.


From sarcastic to passive-aggressive. I love differing opinions. I just prefer them to come from an actual stance, not just from being argumentative for the sake of it. I prefer substance, and I'm not afraid to call you out if you are lacking some of it.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Lets not go overboard here.

There are some vital aspects of medical innovation that have effectively come out of profit seeking and patent protection. Some people see this profit as immoral, but they never consider where innovation would be without it.

Im involved in medical research. My primary motivation is not solely to help people... its also to make a profit. Frankly I just wouldn't bother innovating if I couldn't make a living out of it; or if my inventions could simply be taken and used by others.

Profit in healthcare is not bad; it motivates and drives healthcare providers to greater heights.


That's sick, in my opinion. You'll willingly prevent others, who may GENUINELY be willing to submit their time and experience in order to solely HELP PEOPLE, because you want to make a profit. That's what I'm hearing.

And that is exactly what is wrong with the world. People like yourself who would condone the prevention of free thought on something that ha the potential to help others, just because YOU got there first and want to keep all the money and glory for yourself.

How can preventing others from investigating, experimenting with and being fully aware of a new breakthrough in healthcare, DRIVE healthcare providers to greater hights, when it ties the hands of all but the ones who hold greed above human life?

bah.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Wow, now they're taking a toll on human life. We are worthless to corporations, we live in this world to make corporations grow.

What would be the solution?

Quite possibly bankrupt the companies and purge them out of history?

Or gun down them m-f'ers in the government and annul all the patents on life?


Sometimes I can't even fathom the evil of human beings.




And profit for innovations?

ARE YOU SURE THAT INNOVATIONS COME FROM MONEY?

Innovations come from the human mind, humans learn how to improvise, thus money is not always needed. In this case, THEY ARE HINDERING INNOVATION.

Patents on DNA? My dad is a genetic engineer and he said that the only thing patents on genetic material is prohibiting research.

[edit on 12/3/2008 by die_another_day]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Well, I'm not sure about the argument that people will not invest effort for a noble cause if it is not a source of profit that is protected and made inaccessible to others (yeah, I use Linux... ok... finished laughing..?).
I can only speak for myself, but I submit my following thoughts as an example:
If there was something that I'm good at that I could do that would help this world become a better place (even if only by a tiny amount) I would do it for enough to pay the bills, keep my family and myself well feed, educate my children and to save a couple hundred $ a fortnight. If I was in that situation and was given the opportunity to do something else that would make me a lot more money (even if it was exponentially more) I would choose to keep making the world a better place.

I'm of the opinion that these patents (for gens) should not exist. I believe that advances in Medicine would be made at no slower rate without them. I understand the argument to the contrary, but I submit that money would still be made, just slightly less of it.. slightly.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join