3 ms·

study from 2003, a little bit has changed since then. but overall, it shows that using the market as a guiding principle for the selection of which drugs to de

study from 2003, a little bit has changed since then. but overall, it shows that using the market as a guiding principle for the selection of which drugs to develop works. it frees humans from making morally horrible choices. by being profit driven, drug development is automatically covering the diseases which have the highest number of patients and highest economic impact. the latter is difficult to stomach, but from a purely scientific standpoint, which overlaps with the market, a western life is indeed worth more than an african one. simple to prove, kill 3000 westerners and the world goes to war. kill 3000 ethopians and the world goes meh. it is impossible to target all diseases at the same time. also, through healthcare spending the world is signalling in cold, hard terms how much their health is worth to them. which leads to finite resources and, again, the horrible choice on what to try to cure. supply and demand, where demand is not only desire but backed by the economic means and will to spend it, works in this area. as for the speed of the approval process - better safe than sorry. the only way to make it faster would be larger human trials, but who exactly wants that?

HarryHirsch 13y ago
by being profit driven, drug development is automatically covering the diseases which have the highest number of patients and highest economic impact. Your faith in Mammon, the god of money, is touching, but unwarranted. There is malaria and schistosomiasis, these two are holding back development of the African continent; there is also the emerging threat of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, yet there is preciously little research done into these because there is little money to me made. At least for Malaria we have the Gates Foundation. Meanwhile, the second most-sold medication in the US is a stomach acid blocker. If you don't think something is wrong there, I think something is wrong with you.
- pinaceae 13y ago
  please read my comment again, you're missing my point. humanity is voting, through their wallets, who should be treated for what. as an individual you despise it from a moral standpoint, sure, but once you reach the level of treating billions far stronger and fundamental rules takes over. very similar to the vaccination debate where an individuals opinion should not be respected for a larger goal, a vaccinated herd of people.
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    Please read my comment again. "Humanity ... voting, through their wallets" is punting for short-term gains and missing the bigger picture. The economic impact of malaria and bilharziosis is immense. They place a heavy burden on already overstretched public health systems, they discourage investment, and patients cannot work or attend school. If these two could be brought under control, sub-saharan Africa would look entirely different. Let's note that the Panama Canal could only be built after yellow fever was under control in the area.
    - pinaceae 13y ago
      the economic impact on those african nations is immense. but the economic impact of those nations is miniscule. that is my point. they do not research, they do not produce, they do not contribute. not just because of malaria, but because of history, hundreds, even thousands of years. diabetes will see even more attention now. why? because of china. china is economically more important to the world, short, middle and long term than africa. this is an un-emotional, completely rational statement. and the panama canal is a great example of the west's interests driving research in medics. white people started colonies, got sick, wanted cures. HIV started to become a target for research the moment famous white people got sick and started dying - and in this context someone like magic johnson is white, western. sub-saharan africa will always be a shitty place to live. climate, natural resources - all work against it. not all locations where humans settle make sense. bangladesh, etc.

HarryHirsch 13y ago

by being profit driven, drug development is automatically covering the diseases which have the highest number of patients and highest economic impact. Your faith in Mammon, the god of money, is touching, but unwarranted. There is malaria and schistosomiasis, these two are holding back development of the African continent; there is also the emerging threat of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, yet there is preciously little research done into these because there is little money to me made. At least for Malaria we have the Gates Foundation. Meanwhile, the second most-sold medication in the US is a stomach acid blocker. If you don't think something is wrong there, I think something is wrong with you.

pinaceae 13y ago
please read my comment again, you're missing my point. humanity is voting, through their wallets, who should be treated for what. as an individual you despise it from a moral standpoint, sure, but once you reach the level of treating billions far stronger and fundamental rules takes over. very similar to the vaccination debate where an individuals opinion should not be respected for a larger goal, a vaccinated herd of people.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  Please read my comment again. "Humanity ... voting, through their wallets" is punting for short-term gains and missing the bigger picture. The economic impact of malaria and bilharziosis is immense. They place a heavy burden on already overstretched public health systems, they discourage investment, and patients cannot work or attend school. If these two could be brought under control, sub-saharan Africa would look entirely different. Let's note that the Panama Canal could only be built after yellow fever was under control in the area.
  - pinaceae 13y ago
    the economic impact on those african nations is immense. but the economic impact of those nations is miniscule. that is my point. they do not research, they do not produce, they do not contribute. not just because of malaria, but because of history, hundreds, even thousands of years. diabetes will see even more attention now. why? because of china. china is economically more important to the world, short, middle and long term than africa. this is an un-emotional, completely rational statement. and the panama canal is a great example of the west's interests driving research in medics. white people started colonies, got sick, wanted cures. HIV started to become a target for research the moment famous white people got sick and started dying - and in this context someone like magic johnson is white, western. sub-saharan africa will always be a shitty place to live. climate, natural resources - all work against it. not all locations where humans settle make sense. bangladesh, etc.