On 2008-04-24, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <EM_Pj.57185$vr3.26400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Not only in looks, but in senescence:
>>
>> The core problem seemed to intrigue Gates, who offered it as "a
>> paradox": If a drug company ever invents a treatment for something
>> like malaria, it'd be immediately beset by calls to give the drug
>> away. "So they choose never to work in those areas," he noted
>> sympathetically. "The current incentive system isn't doing it."
>>
>> How much error and misinformation can /you/ cram into that paragraph?
>
> Can you be less vague? What do you incorrect in that paragraph?
For starters, big pharma is infact working on these sorts of
problems. There is considerably glory to be had in wiping out
a disease. I think Gates greatly overstates the negative impact
of poor countries whining for a handout.
It's much like Gates whining that the Chinese won't pay full
price for Windows. The market is not merely limited to those who
can't pay (even in anti-malaria medicines).
Although this sort of rhetoric could backfire and point out the
inherent problem of allowing Big Pharma to act like Robber Barons.
Someone else could look at the same statements as a good reason to
get Academia across the planet more in control of the whole process
(of making new drugs).
If the current relatively free market isn't working out for Big
Pharma then perhaps it's time to bypass them entirely rather than
giving them some sort of state sanctioned bribe.
We need to be doing more research into un-patentable treatments.
Unfortunately that doesn't happen because then Big Pharma can't then
place itself as gate keeper.
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
