Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 286 posts

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#71

Post by aero142 »

zackmorris wrote: post #69

We used to have government-funded research programs at universities, now we have for-profit big pharma which by definition creates treatments that cost more. It could be argued that this was by design. So open sourcing cures like this is a natural free market reaction to that. Since most of the cost of any new medication today is research, we should decouple that cost from production. The main reason this doesn't hap…

You are arguing with a straw man. The other side doesn't believe that a dollar spent by the government is as effective as a dollar spent by the private sector.

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#72

Post by rayiner »

octaveguin wrote: post #40
WalterSear wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of medicine I require to be functional enough to hold down a job has risen so much that the copay is the equivalent of the entire out-of-pocket cost from a few years ago. The medication was discovered in 1969. The application method, which is the shitty excuse for the patents protecting its $2,200/month price tag, was first approved for use by the FDA in 1979. The drug has been for sale in it's current form…

Enbrel? They just received another patent extension, too. This is what government granted monopolies look like.

Enbrel didn't receive a patent extension.[1] In 2011, a patent was issued that covered certain aspects of Enbrel that had originally been applied for in 1990. Under the rules applicable to pre-1995 patents, the life of that patent runs 17 years from the date of issuance (or 2028). That could not happen under the current law. Patents issued after 1995 are only valid for 20 years from the date of filing, with current limited adjustments due to delays at the USPTO.

[1] There isn't really any such thing, at least as a way to resurrect patents that would otherwise expire.

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#73

Post by faizshah »

fhood wrote: post #6

Honest question: What does it even mean to be an anarchist these days? What is the default "anarchist"? Because Wikipedia isn't really helping.

The definition I use is 'a system lacking a state or ruling elite.' If you want to include anarcho capitalism you probably want a more general definition though.

I think I derived this definition from David Graeber's work.

Also some people choose a definition that emphasizes the process rather than the features. Those kinds of definitions are like 'removing unjust hierarchy or domination' or something to that nature.

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#74

Post by Overtonwindow »

joering2 wrote: post #57
Overtonwindow wrote: post #3

DIY pharmaceuticals is ....well it sounds immensely dangerous. Not only is the chemistry frightening but quality and chemical availability. It reminds me of Naturopaths and herboligists claiming to cure and treat ailments with supplements. As much as I hate the pharmaceutical industry, I think it's best for now to leave the drug making to them.

DIY pharmaceuticals sounds dangerous. Sure! So is eating 47 teaspoon of salt, 480 bananas, or drinking 179 expressos [1]. If you happen to be unable to afford so much coffee, just rent a car and smash into a tree at 100 miles per hour. So driving cars is also immensely dangerous! I really hate that nany state we are living in where an average 16 year old is lawfully allowed to drive 5,000 pounds metal machine and kil…

You didn't read the article did you...

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#75

Post by apsec112 »

zackmorris wrote: post #69

We used to have government-funded research programs at universities, now we have for-profit big pharma which by definition creates treatments that cost more. It could be argued that this was by design. So open sourcing cures like this is a natural free market reaction to that. Since most of the cost of any new medication today is research, we should decouple that cost from production. The main reason this doesn't hap…

The NIH budget, the largest US government funder of medical research, is bigger now than at any time before 2000 (although it's down a bit from the 2003 peak, adjusting for inflation).

Source: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/NIHMech_1.jpg

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#76

Post by knieveltech »

rightos wrote: post #70
octaveguin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enbrel? They just received another patent extension, too. This is what government granted monopolies look like.

It's a difficult balance to strike - you want the companies to keep developing drugs, you want onerous regulation on those drugs to make sure they're produced and tested for safety and efficacy. But then you want them to be cheap for patients and insurance companies. The best solution is probably to simply drop patent extensions for these things and allow generic drug manufacturers to do what they do best, but if you…

You want pharma companies to keep doing drug discovery why not ban outright any kind of marketing or advertising for their products? R&D spend across the industry is a fraction of the marketing spend. Think of all the good research that money would fund once pharma companies were freed from spending it on advertising.

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#77

Post by devdad »

intro-b wrote: post #30
wccrawford wrote: post #11

>Then he took another sip from a flute of Taittinger Champagne. What? >Swaggering, charismatic, and complex, Gag me. >Michael Laufer has become a fixture in the growing biohacker movement ever since he published plans last year for a do-it-yourself EpiPencil — a $35 alternative to the pricey EpiPen. That couldn't possibly go wrong, eh? >It’s not clear whether anyone has actually ever used a homemade EpiPencil to prev…

the overall affect that Laufer strikes throughout the interview and article gives me a strange impression - it's like a kind of self-parody

I get the feeling that the author really dislikes Laufer. The whole article comes across as wanting to smear his character as a rich, egoistic crazy person with hubris. I don't know what kind of anarchists you got in SV, but wtf:

> He said this over lunch at an upscale French bistro in the Silicon Valley, where he orders Champagne and sauteed scallops. “If you really take the time to smell the scallops,” Laufer said, inhaling luxuriantly, “you can feel the ocean.”

I really disagree with the commentators that feels that this is an article aimed at lifting Laufer.

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#78

Post by rubyn00bie »

dv_dt wrote: post #48
octaveguin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enbrel? They just received another patent extension, too. This is what government granted monopolies look like.

This is what the breakdown of working competitive markets look like, and in this case it takes both government monopolies, as well as well as overwhelming short-term greed on the part of the private companies. Long term don't these companies think that charging outrageous prices for drugs will cause a future voter/government backlash of some sort... or maybe they think they should extract profits now because of a cha…

No. :(

Businesses have no concern over their long term viability. Executives are not incentivized in anyway to care about long term interests. In fact all their bonuses and compensation explicitly reward the short term. Compounding the problem is a simple cost benefit analysis means they've already costed out the future "backlash," and still find themselves to be more profitable.

The "long term" is nothing but a mental exercise with no real world manifestation for businesses. The closest you can probably get to it having meaning is for business school grad students doing case studies.

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#79

Post by LeifCarrotson »

wavefunction wrote: post #13
dannyw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. When you actively advocate for this, do you face moral responsibility when someone prepares it wrong and dies? (I’m pretty sure the legal answer would be yes on so many fronts)

I don't know that the legal system necessarily cares about morality or moral responsibility. It seems like the only criteria that would matter would be legal responsibility, whatever that standard might be.

It isn't always about whether the legal system cares. They're asking whether or not moral people should care. Those can be very different.

Re: An anarchist takes on Big Pharma by teaching patients to make their own meds

#80

Post by johnny99 »

octaveguin wrote: post #40
WalterSear wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of medicine I require to be functional enough to hold down a job has risen so much that the copay is the equivalent of the entire out-of-pocket cost from a few years ago. The medication was discovered in 1969. The application method, which is the shitty excuse for the patents protecting its $2,200/month price tag, was first approved for use by the FDA in 1979. The drug has been for sale in it's current form…

Enbrel? They just received another patent extension, too. This is what government granted monopolies look like.

And this is what populists should be irate about. Not... other things.
Post reply on HN