4 ms·

The best health advances of all time were developed by passionate, and sometimes uneducated, volunteers -- people who were not working for a profit motive, but

The best health advances of all time were developed by passionate, and sometimes uneducated, volunteers -- people who were not working for a profit motive, but for a good-of-all motive. Case in point: the discoverer of penicillin, and the inventor of the vaccine, the inventor of the public blood bank, and on, and on, and on. Inventing then was (arguably) less costly and technical than it is now, because those were low-hanging fruit. A lot of the low-hanging fruit has probably been discovered by now, though we can't be sure, meaning that future research aims at higher-hanging fruit and so, metaphorically, the would-be inventors need ladders. These people need help, not profit, because profit isn't what motivates them anyway. EDIT: Let's not forget public health reform can save more lives than just about anything else (thank you Oliver Wendel Holmes/Ignaz Semmelweis http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/hand_background.php http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/hand_background.ph..., Sara Josephine Baker, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Josephine_Baker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Josephine_Baker and their present day equivalent, Atul Gawande).

_delirium 16y ago
Somehow it seems that the profit motive in pharmaceuticals motivates good science, but targeted at relatively strange things. "Lifestyle" drugs are huge: everyone wants the next Viagra, basically. Perhaps not surprising, because recreational drugs have always been popular, and the "fluff" end of legal pharmaceutical development is the part that sort of bleeds into recreational, since it tends to target something closer to "enhancing" the lives of already fairly healthy people with money, rather than "treating" the ill.
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  Yes, exactly: if pharma is good business, and not philanthropy, then they have to focus on the people who will pay the most, the most readily, and the most often. End of story. Case in point: I'm an American who lives in Vienna, Austria, and I have recurring upper-respiratory/immune system problems. Here, I am treated with a so-cheap-it's-almost-free immune system booster called Broncho Vaxom. It's nothing but dead bacteria, but it's extremely effective (essentially an oral vaccine). It's used to save lives of children in the poorest of nations -- but it's not available in the US, because it's not profitable, whereas continuous rounds of antibiotics are. http://www.google.com/search?q=broncho%20vaxom http://www.google.com/search?q=broncho%20vaxom
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    Coral snake antivenom is a similar thing - the last manufacturer left a supply of a few years that is now running out, but the process for approving a new manufacturer for the same drug is so expensive that the market won't support it. So first responders in Florida have a problem. No coral snake antivenom. A similar market situation applies to flu shots. The current system favors "maintenance pharmaceuticals", not cures. Who wouldn't prefer to have a cash cow that costs the customer a few hundred dollars every month for the rest of their life, in comparison with something that actually cured them? A cure isn't very lucrative at all. Generally, free marketeers protest that this isn't true, in the face of all evidence I can see, but look at the business logic; it's inescapable.
    - ahoyhere 16y ago
      Excellent examples. A free marketeer, as you say, would say that the reason nobody is making more antivenin is because the "process for applying" is so expensive - but of course, there has to be quality control, and more importantly, there's every reason to believe that the manufacture would be more expensive than the applying. Govt regulation is used as a scapegoat. The market for creating this product is just not desirable, because snake bites are extremely rare compared to just about every other medical malady. There was a reason the original manufacturer willingly gave it up in the face of no competition. Public health is a public concern, and should be funded with public money. It is cheaper in the long run because of increasing working years/tax dollars, and reducing bankruptcies, and reducing the number of orphans, etc. Even Mr Invisible Hand, Enlightened Self-Interest himself wrote that the whole edifice of his economic philosophy had to rest on the foundation of respect for human life -- and compassion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
      - stretchwithme 16y ago
        I am not against government or rules. I am against the idea that coercion is the means. Voluntary cooperation, not the use of force, is the means by which we create solutions to all sorts of problems. Health is no different. It suffers over the long term when people think the use of force to get some short term benefit. Somehow we live our lives with the understanding that forcing those around to do what we want would destructive, even if it was somehow benevolent. But collectively, we've convinced ourselves that this cannot be the case. Perhaps it is because the dominant opinion is actually propagated with our own money even if we don't agree and alternative perspectives buried by the mesh of financing and media access of government.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  Viagra was discovered by accident (it was a heart medicine that didn't work out). And I've never understood why it's sneered at. Are there really that many people out there who could face no sex again ever and shrug it off? I think that would be utterly soul-crushing, worse than most of the diseases they have charity walks and telethons for.
  - ahoyhere 16y ago
    They don't rant about it because it solves a truly-no-sex scenario, but because it's essentially a recreational drug for the majority of users. I think the ability to have sex is at least as important as the ability to not piss yourself (e.g. incontinence medication) if not more, but still, its profit center comes from its recreational use. That's why the drug companies love it.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Why do you believe most Viagra sales are primarily recreational?
      - ahoyhere 16y ago
        Because there is no reason to believe that the % of men who have true ED matches up with the amounts of Viagra sold; because I've known many young men who talk about getting drunk or high and taking it, and because their companions agreed or in the least were not surprised; because the market for it online seems to be mostly young, healthy men who want to have greater stamina, not who have anything dysfunctional to begin with... Etc.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        You don't see the tremendous amount of selection bias in your sample? Very quickly: people who need viagra don't like to talk about it, unlike drunken frat boys. The online market is targeting men who can't get it from their doctor because they don't have ED. That doesn't mean the vast majority of viagra users aren't suffering from ED, it just means that online ads are targeting a niche market.
stretchwithme 16y ago
what people need is the freedom to act and create. government, especially when it takes by force from some to give to others for whatever purpose, distorts the decisions people make and, as its activities destroy capital, government delays innovation. its easy to point to the things governments have achieved. what the people would have achieved had they been freer is not so easily pointed out.

_delirium 16y ago

Somehow it seems that the profit motive in pharmaceuticals motivates good science, but targeted at relatively strange things. "Lifestyle" drugs are huge: everyone wants the next Viagra, basically. Perhaps not surprising, because recreational drugs have always been popular, and the "fluff" end of legal pharmaceutical development is the part that sort of bleeds into recreational, since it tends to target something closer to "enhancing" the lives of already fairly healthy people with money, rather than "treating" the ill.

ahoyhere 16y ago
Yes, exactly: if pharma is good business, and not philanthropy, then they have to focus on the people who will pay the most, the most readily, and the most often. End of story. Case in point: I'm an American who lives in Vienna, Austria, and I have recurring upper-respiratory/immune system problems. Here, I am treated with a so-cheap-it's-almost-free immune system booster called Broncho Vaxom. It's nothing but dead bacteria, but it's extremely effective (essentially an oral vaccine). It's used to save lives of children in the poorest of nations -- but it's not available in the US, because it's not profitable, whereas continuous rounds of antibiotics are. http://www.google.com/search?q=broncho%20vaxom http://www.google.com/search?q=broncho%20vaxom
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Coral snake antivenom is a similar thing - the last manufacturer left a supply of a few years that is now running out, but the process for approving a new manufacturer for the same drug is so expensive that the market won't support it. So first responders in Florida have a problem. No coral snake antivenom. A similar market situation applies to flu shots. The current system favors "maintenance pharmaceuticals", not cures. Who wouldn't prefer to have a cash cow that costs the customer a few hundred dollars every month for the rest of their life, in comparison with something that actually cured them? A cure isn't very lucrative at all. Generally, free marketeers protest that this isn't true, in the face of all evidence I can see, but look at the business logic; it's inescapable.
  - ahoyhere 16y ago
    Excellent examples. A free marketeer, as you say, would say that the reason nobody is making more antivenin is because the "process for applying" is so expensive - but of course, there has to be quality control, and more importantly, there's every reason to believe that the manufacture would be more expensive than the applying. Govt regulation is used as a scapegoat. The market for creating this product is just not desirable, because snake bites are extremely rare compared to just about every other medical malady. There was a reason the original manufacturer willingly gave it up in the face of no competition. Public health is a public concern, and should be funded with public money. It is cheaper in the long run because of increasing working years/tax dollars, and reducing bankruptcies, and reducing the number of orphans, etc. Even Mr Invisible Hand, Enlightened Self-Interest himself wrote that the whole edifice of his economic philosophy had to rest on the foundation of respect for human life -- and compassion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      I am not against government or rules. I am against the idea that coercion is the means. Voluntary cooperation, not the use of force, is the means by which we create solutions to all sorts of problems. Health is no different. It suffers over the long term when people think the use of force to get some short term benefit. Somehow we live our lives with the understanding that forcing those around to do what we want would destructive, even if it was somehow benevolent. But collectively, we've convinced ourselves that this cannot be the case. Perhaps it is because the dominant opinion is actually propagated with our own money even if we don't agree and alternative perspectives buried by the mesh of financing and media access of government.
prodigal_erik 16y ago
Viagra was discovered by accident (it was a heart medicine that didn't work out). And I've never understood why it's sneered at. Are there really that many people out there who could face no sex again ever and shrug it off? I think that would be utterly soul-crushing, worse than most of the diseases they have charity walks and telethons for.
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  They don't rant about it because it solves a truly-no-sex scenario, but because it's essentially a recreational drug for the majority of users. I think the ability to have sex is at least as important as the ability to not piss yourself (e.g. incontinence medication) if not more, but still, its profit center comes from its recreational use. That's why the drug companies love it.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Why do you believe most Viagra sales are primarily recreational?
    - ahoyhere 16y ago
      Because there is no reason to believe that the % of men who have true ED matches up with the amounts of Viagra sold; because I've known many young men who talk about getting drunk or high and taking it, and because their companions agreed or in the least were not surprised; because the market for it online seems to be mostly young, healthy men who want to have greater stamina, not who have anything dysfunctional to begin with... Etc.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        You don't see the tremendous amount of selection bias in your sample? Very quickly: people who need viagra don't like to talk about it, unlike drunken frat boys. The online market is targeting men who can't get it from their doctor because they don't have ED. That doesn't mean the vast majority of viagra users aren't suffering from ED, it just means that online ads are targeting a niche market.

stretchwithme 16y ago

what people need is the freedom to act and create. government, especially when it takes by force from some to give to others for whatever purpose, distorts the decisions people make and, as its activities destroy capital, government delays innovation. its easy to point to the things governments have achieved. what the people would have achieved had they been freer is not so easily pointed out.