3 ms·
To be fair its not so simple. You fund the clinical trial perhaps, but you also fund shareholder profits. This incentive model is actually pretty perverse becau
by asdff 4y ago
To be fair its not so simple. You fund the clinical trial perhaps, but you also fund shareholder profits. This incentive model is actually pretty perverse because there are diseases that aren't seeing drugs developed because they are so rare that a treatment will never be given to enough patients to turn a profit. A better incentive model is to have the government identify diseases that lack a solid treatment option and fund clinical trials through direct taxation versus profiting off of the sick or abusing the for profit insurance process to cover these huge fees.
- ekianjo 4y ago> A better incentive model is to have the government identify diseases that lack a solid treatment option and fund clinical trials through direct taxation The government is the worst tool for this job, because they would need to hire external experts to assess which disease should be studied, and those experts would be already in bed with the industry for a long time. You would just be diverting tax-payer money in a different way.
- asdff 4y agoHow do you think government research money is currently directed? Sure you get people from industry but you also get people from academia and government as well filling these positions. That's basically anyone with domain knowledge. Sure people can be corrupt and evil or whatever, but that's why you have other checks in your system to deal with it. If you think it can't be done just because 'government', that's not a strong argument because literally any sort of person in any position in any org, public or private, could be corrupted, and the race to the bottom of this logic is to trust nothing and no one.
- coldtea 4y ago>The government is the worst tool for this job, because they would need to hire external experts to assess which disease should be studied, and those experts would be already in bed with the industry for a long time. There's no need to "hire external experts". They could have their own pool.
- ekianjo 4y agoLike the FDA? We see how well it works...
- coldtea 4y agoWell, other countries managed to solve it, as they've managed to have schools without shootings, cities with public transport, no gerrymandering, and so on. So it's not unsurmountable, just badly done...
- ekianjo 4y agoother countries fail at research. there is close to zero new drugs that are not developed in the US
- coldtea 4y agoYou'd be surprised, especially since most of the "new drugs developed in the US" are crap consumer oriented drugs with no real medicinal value (a trillion snake-oil industry) and differentiating qualities, and reiterations of existing stuff to get new patent leases... Even so, https://www.iam-media.com/article/switzerland-once-again-named-the-worlds-most-innovative-country#:~:text=The%20top%20pharmaceutical%20patents%20are,of%20the%20most%20biotech%20patents https://www.iam-media.com/article/switzerland-once-again-nam....
- ekianjo 4y ago> "new drugs developed in the US" are crap consumer oriented drugs with no real medicinal value (a trillion snake-oil industry) This is true to some extent (not all drugs approved require more than just superiority vs placebo), but that reads like throwing the baby out with the water. There's a ton of great drugs developed every year that are clearly very innovative in terms of mode of action, and by far and large those come from the US.
- Glawen 4y agoWhere does this hate from government Congress from? Government funded research is how a lot of research is done in Europe. If you saw these academics and researchers salary you would laugh, but still they produce stuff without being in bed with anyone.