So, Gilead has a drug which when given twice a year effectively prevents 100% of all HIV infections. That's it, roll up your sleeve and get jabbed twice a year and never have to worry about AIDS. It is cheap to make, but instead of being credited as the company which ended AIDS globally, Gilead is looking to profit from it as much as possible. Humanity has the technical capability to end a horrible disease, and it won't because of capitalist reasons...
AIDS killed ~630k people last year.
reshared this
pmonks (330ppm)
in reply to Infoseepage #StopGazaGenocide • • •Alex von Kitchen
in reply to pmonks (330ppm) • • •pmonks (330ppm)
in reply to Alex von Kitchen • • •@Dangerous_beans The drug wouldn’t exist at all if Gilead hadn’t had an incentive to spend money on R&D, clinical trials, and the approvals process, and make at least some profit out the back end. And that would leave all of us worse off.
So where would you propose that money come from, or what alternative incentive structure are you proposing to ensure drug discovery continues to happen?
Violet Madder
in reply to pmonks (330ppm) • • •@pmonks @Dangerous_beans
BULLSHIT.
Given half a chance, humans would make medicines just to fucking help each other and for an exciting science project, and the people who make useful stuff that helps a ton of people would be hailed as heroes and showered with gifts...
IF CAPITALISM WASN'T WARPING EVERYTHING INTO A FUCKING VAMPIRIC CONTEST THAT SUCKS THE GENEROSITY AND COMPASSION OUT OF THE WORLD UNTIL PEOPLE THINK THERE'S NO REASON TO SAVE LIVES IF YOU CAN'T CORNER THE MARKET ON THAT SHIT LIKE IT'S A PREY ANIMAL.
Goddamn.
clacke: exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Elena ``of Valhalla''
in reply to Alex von Kitchen • •@Alex Von Kitchen @pmonks (330ppm) I'd say that the bill should be covered by the public healthcare system, after negotiating a price with the manufacturers from the position of strength that being controlled by a national government gives, so that the pharmaceutical company has a way to recover their costs (including those for failed attempts), but is not in the position to abuse their monopoly on the specific drug.
Oh, wait, this is from the US, right?
(having non-profit entries taking care of the - expensive - R&D and trials parts would be even better, and probably a more efficient way to spend public money)
clacke: exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Elena ``of Valhalla''
Unknown parent • •@pmonks (330ppm) @Alex Von Kitchen AFAIK for-profit drug research isn't significantly better in covering those areas, so it wouldn't be any worse than it currently is.
Of course a full star-trek style utopia where everybody's need are provided for, money doesn't exist anymore and drugs simply available would be even better, but I don't expect to see *that* in my lifetime.
clacke: exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.