3 ms·
1. The drug industry not creating a drug doesn't stop a charity from developing it. (Bill Gates once wanted a drug developed that didn't have enough of a marke
by danielweber 12y ago
1. The drug industry not creating a drug doesn't stop a charity from developing it. (Bill Gates once wanted a drug developed that didn't have enough of a market, so his foundation paid out of pocket for it.) It's not "to the detriment of society" for them to pursue their own ends, and more than it is "to the detriment of society" that I'm typing away on HN instead of being outside picking up trash.
2. Conspiracy theories about keeping diseases around are misfounded. a) The drug in only effective in EDIT 97% of people. b) The patent will eventually expire. c) The price for the drug is cheaper than the lifetime cost of treatment, making it a win-win scenario. (Plus the eventual expiration of the patent will make this very cheap in the long term.)
- carbocation 12y agoNitpick: the sofosbuvir trials show ~97% effectiveness, not 80%.
- dnautics 12y ago1) For example, the polio vaccines, which were developed and even whose distribution by the private non-profit that is now (the somewhat corrupt) March of Dimes. Incidentally, the polio vaccines weren't patented, either.
- arikrak 12y ago97% is pretty high, but I agree that it's not too likely that's the drug company's plans. Note that the government grants the drug company a monopoly to sell their drug, so it makes sense to place some limitations on pricing, or at least negotiate like other government do.