4 ms·

Private people invested a lot of money to develop this and get it through testing. Allowing them to reap the benefits from their investment for a limited time i

Private people invested a lot of money to develop this and get it through testing. Allowing them to reap the benefits from their investment for a limited time is just fine. It's not people couldn't also: Diet, exercise, choose veggies, eat more fiber, etc

isoprophlex 1y ago
"Sorry bro gonna let you die because, muh investments, you see" Your closing remark is overly simplistic and offers a contradiction: if those things would work for these obese people, they wouldn't need GLPs.
- exabrial 1y ago
  The laws of thermodynamics apply to everyone equally.
  - asdff 1y ago
    Where in thermodynamic principles does it suggest money ought to flow into the pockets of the few?
  - phantasmish 1y ago
    The standard for medical interventions usually isn’t “could it work?” or “should it work?” but “does it work?” This is why the efficacy of every single contraceptive method isn’t way higher than it is. Lots of them should work almost perfectly… but the harder they are to use correctly, the less effective they in-fact are.
    - exabrial 1y ago
      Eating less, exercising more, has worked for the entire existence of human race. In fact, it worked for me just fine too. GLP-1s are a safe and proven tool and should be used wherever appropriate to assist people. Both of these are simple facts that aren't in contradiction with either other. But saying the patent owners shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits of their investment is ridiculous, especially when it's completely possible to lose weight in other ways. 6 years isn't that long to wait anyway.
- ck2 1y ago
  just want to point out it's not just for obesity GLP-1 has been demonstrated to even cure some types of long-covid in some people in some cases and various other diseases but it's priced way out of reach even for micro-doses until it becomes generic so all those cases suffer until 2030, if they make it that far, five years is a long time
asdff 1y ago
The public also invested a lot of money.
cess11 1y ago
Kind of weird to assume other people think it's fine to exchange human lives for money. Is it ethical for me to pay someone to murder you? Does it matter if it costs me a large amount of money or not?
- exabrial 1y ago
  This is a great example of a straw-man attack.
  - cess11 1y ago
    No, it is not. They said that since someone, which is typically a fictive person, had spent a lot of money, they deserve to restrict physical persons' access to supposedly life saving substances. I would like to know how far they take that position.
    - WillPostForFood 1y ago
      How many people do you feel liek you are personally responsible for killing because you haven't given 100% of your disposal income to food relief? Hundreds? Thousands?
      - CobrastanJorji 1y ago
        This isn't "I could use my money to acquire food for the poor." It's "I'm going to prevent anyone else from selling food, and that will let me charge 100x as much for food."
        cman1444 1y ago
        And yet, if the system wasn't set up this way it's likely that these medicines would never have been developed in the first place. If we take away investor returns now, why would they ever pursue developing similarly effective drugs in the future?
k_roy 1y ago
Protecting it before generic is fine, but the pricing doesn't make sense. If it's $1000 per month cost per person when it's the name brand, how many people are on it? At this point just the diabetics and people with really good insurance? Wouldn't they make a hell of a lot more money selling it for $100 during their protected period to 1000x the people.
- kube-system 1y ago
  They have direct discount programs where they sell at ~ half price.
  - pretzellogician 1y ago
    True, but also still absurdly high. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly cost roughly $500 monthly... but the price is almost the same regardless of the dosage (from say 0.5mg to 2.4mg).
MangoToupe 1y ago
> Allowing them to reap the benefits from their investment for a limited time is just fine. Or we could just move to a sane economic system where we don't have to beg the rich/reward people for having money
km144 1y ago
Those things also require more willpower than taking a medication. Willpower is generally determined by your particular psychology which is determined by genetics and environmental factors. People don't have a choice in the matter as much as your comment seems to imply. Getting GLP-1s to everyone who could benefit from them is extremely important for overall health.

isoprophlex 1y ago

"Sorry bro gonna let you die because, muh investments, you see" Your closing remark is overly simplistic and offers a contradiction: if those things would work for these obese people, they wouldn't need GLPs.

exabrial 1y ago
The laws of thermodynamics apply to everyone equally.
- asdff 1y ago
  Where in thermodynamic principles does it suggest money ought to flow into the pockets of the few?
- phantasmish 1y ago
  The standard for medical interventions usually isn’t “could it work?” or “should it work?” but “does it work?” This is why the efficacy of every single contraceptive method isn’t way higher than it is. Lots of them should work almost perfectly… but the harder they are to use correctly, the less effective they in-fact are.
  - exabrial 1y ago
    Eating less, exercising more, has worked for the entire existence of human race. In fact, it worked for me just fine too. GLP-1s are a safe and proven tool and should be used wherever appropriate to assist people. Both of these are simple facts that aren't in contradiction with either other. But saying the patent owners shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits of their investment is ridiculous, especially when it's completely possible to lose weight in other ways. 6 years isn't that long to wait anyway.
ck2 1y ago
just want to point out it's not just for obesity GLP-1 has been demonstrated to even cure some types of long-covid in some people in some cases and various other diseases but it's priced way out of reach even for micro-doses until it becomes generic so all those cases suffer until 2030, if they make it that far, five years is a long time

asdff 1y ago

The public also invested a lot of money.

cess11 1y ago

Kind of weird to assume other people think it's fine to exchange human lives for money. Is it ethical for me to pay someone to murder you? Does it matter if it costs me a large amount of money or not?

exabrial 1y ago
This is a great example of a straw-man attack.
- cess11 1y ago
  No, it is not. They said that since someone, which is typically a fictive person, had spent a lot of money, they deserve to restrict physical persons' access to supposedly life saving substances. I would like to know how far they take that position.
  - WillPostForFood 1y ago
    How many people do you feel liek you are personally responsible for killing because you haven't given 100% of your disposal income to food relief? Hundreds? Thousands?
    - CobrastanJorji 1y ago
      This isn't "I could use my money to acquire food for the poor." It's "I'm going to prevent anyone else from selling food, and that will let me charge 100x as much for food."
      - cman1444 1y ago
        And yet, if the system wasn't set up this way it's likely that these medicines would never have been developed in the first place. If we take away investor returns now, why would they ever pursue developing similarly effective drugs in the future?

k_roy 1y ago

Protecting it before generic is fine, but the pricing doesn't make sense. If it's $1000 per month cost per person when it's the name brand, how many people are on it? At this point just the diabetics and people with really good insurance? Wouldn't they make a hell of a lot more money selling it for $100 during their protected period to 1000x the people.

kube-system 1y ago
They have direct discount programs where they sell at ~ half price.
- pretzellogician 1y ago
  True, but also still absurdly high. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly cost roughly $500 monthly... but the price is almost the same regardless of the dosage (from say 0.5mg to 2.4mg).

MangoToupe 1y ago

> Allowing them to reap the benefits from their investment for a limited time is just fine. Or we could just move to a sane economic system where we don't have to beg the rich/reward people for having money

km144 1y ago

Those things also require more willpower than taking a medication. Willpower is generally determined by your particular psychology which is determined by genetics and environmental factors. People don't have a choice in the matter as much as your comment seems to imply. Getting GLP-1s to everyone who could benefit from them is extremely important for overall health.