Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by river, Aug 5, 2017.
So pharmas have no business being involved in marijuana .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I strongly believe in the concept of not-for-profit universal healthcare. The current system is repugnant to me, IMO.
While I agree , shouldn't health care be about preventative health care rather than waiting for the problem of health to arise and then treating the problem through drugs .
Prevent any disease should be goal of any health care system .
I totally agree. But preventive care under the current system still costs, sometimes a lot, which many people may not be able to afford. So preventive healthcare is available but not affordable too many. So much for " self evidence that all are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights."
Which comes around to my OP .
Pharmas are not ethical . Their drugs treat the disease but have no preventive nature .
Where is the research , by pharmas , that try to prevent any disease ? In the first place .
Oh, you know, a healthy diet and plenty of exercise. That'll do the trick?
Actually that is a little cynical. I don't know how this research was funded, but we are getting close to being able to "repair" flaws in our DNA coding and thus (hopefully) prevent an inherited genetic flaw from causing future problems. And an even more exciting devekopment for people who already have a disease.
BS continues , Write4U and you know this .
I don't think you are fool .
Note the question mark.
In what way is my post supportive of Big Pharma or BS in general?
IOW, there is research going on which addresses the fundamental genetical causes of disease, rather than prescribing a pill to disguise the symptoms, along with the standard advise of following a healthy diet and plenty of exercise, which is happening right now.
But someone is doing serious research, which was the point that post. Are you positing there is no serious research going on at all, regardless of who is funding it?
Who is the someone ?
There are many non profits who fund scientific research. Universities are just one. The Carnegie Institute for Science another. These institutions are non-profit sponsors, funded by government or a variety of anonymous sources and small individual donations.
This may clarify.
The problem does not start with the research, it begins with the manufacturing by for-profit Big Corporation, who then obtain patents, so that they gain exclusive rights to a product. They have their own labs of course and in order to extend the 7 year limit on a patent, all they need to do is add a harmless chemical and obtain a new patent for another 7 years. Even generic versions required massive investment or one might find that the same company makes a trademark pill and the generic version, thus stifling competition.
Just to make my position clear, I believe that all healthcare services should be administered by non-profits. Why should an insurance company make a profit on offering strictly administrative services? I like Bernie Sanders' idea of a single payer system which covers everyone for free, or a small co-payment, in accordance to ability to pay, such as lowering the age to qualify for Medicare, which is a single payer system., but you have to be 65 to qualify.
How is it possible that we can buy a US manufactured drug cheaper in Canada than in the US? Because the for-profit insurance companies in the US they can pretty well charge as much as they want. Instead of the entire population funding a single non-profit administrative organization, all those for-profit Insurance companies have a few wealthy stock holders who expect a return on their investment.
Hang on. Patents are generally good for 20 years, not 7. And patenting is done at the research stage, before manufacture starts.
I do agree though that complete reliance on commercially driven drug research will leave gaps, purely because the drug companies need to recover their investment, which is not always easy. They place big bets and hope that enough of them come off. The current concern about antibiotic resistance is a case in point. New classes of antibiotics will probably be discovered by the academic world rather than by drug companies.
So far in this thread discussion , I have found NO evidence that pharmas want to prevent disease(s).
Separate names with a comma.