121–130 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? What’s the incentive for Pfizer to fund development if they don’t get exclusivity?
They acquire the rights i don't think they fund much. Why these diseases are serious enough to lock us all in our fucking homes but yet rampant profiteering is allowed is a travesty. The entire state and industry hand in hand, defacto fascism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution is climbing mount improbable. And natural selection (even in the face of in this case intelligently designed selectors) funnels organisms into potential dead ends which they can’t evolve out of - they’ve gone up the ‘north face’ and in order to reach fitness in the face of their selectors, they actually need to be on a completely different mountain. An antibody that dead ends all current evolutionary trends…
How are we sure it is a dead end and how sure are we? It sounds as if this would put extraordinary selective pressures on the virus, if we are wrong I’d fear we would just make things worse
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they could make more than $XB by selling it afterwards? Also, who's to say that Pfizer can't make an additional deal, or funding, for this effort?
How? What’s the incentive for Pfizer to fund development if they don’t get exclusivity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. This is the only system ever found that reliably turns out 30–40 new drugs a year. Others like USSR’s and Japan’s didn’t.
How many of those are any good and not snake-oil crap?
[1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/food-and-drug-admin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically I’m saying they should make a finished solution but leave distribution and full scale manufacturing to private industry. Not because private will do that part better, but because at that point there’s not much need to use taxes to finish the job. What drug manufacturer wouldn’t want the contract to exclusively sell an already developed product? All they need to do is follow FDA regulations and pricing.
“Making a finished solution” is the really, really expensive part. How does the government allocate limited resources in your model?
Either way, making the results of research that has already been funded by charities, the state etc public should be mandatory, and would still leave these companies with plenty of profits.
Can we please have this sort of research for the common cold and flu please. I hate flu season, I'm normally sick three of four times a winter. I get really sick at least once a year. I'd love to avoid that.
My wife used to be the same, got 3-5 colds/winter. Started wearing N95 masks with Covid and hasn't had a cold since. Basic hygiene really helps. Though you might have unavoidable exposure (workplace, commute, etc) which increases your risk.
I know this is might be a poor example but there are old anime series from 80s, early 90s where characters that get sick wear simple masks to protect others from spreading whatever they caught.
That's animated cartoon while in reality, whole pandemic I was observing the comments around the global and "local" Internet (as well real life convos) where people called the necessity of wearing masks as restriction of civil freedoms, and masks as "muzzles".
My sister was even harassed walking by street by some random guy who stopped his car, rolled window and ordered her to "take off this rag from face".
From what I've heard S. Koreans still prefer to wear masks despite that these aren't enforced in public space - tho, the particular places and situations where these are needed still apply.
So I wonder, do the countries that describe themselves as Western differ that much from Asia in term of public health and responsibility towards others, and just really basic hygiene? It doesn't seem to be a brainier to protect oneself and others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't sell something without exclusivity now?
Who funds development? You can’t sell a product that does not exist.
Now, if by "development" you mean the cost of mass manufacturing and marketing the substance, then every company that wants to manufacture it can find their own, which will be payed for by, you know, sales.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who funds development? You can’t sell a product that does not exist.
You're going in circles. We were discussing a vaccine that was discovered with most funding coming from charities (B&M Gates foundation) or the state (NIH), and some by Pfizer. But, Pfizer gets to keep 100% of the results of this research. Now, if by "development" you mean the cost of mass manufacturing and marketing the substance, then every company that wants to manufacture it can find their own, which will be paye…
Here’s an accessible overview from the CBO: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126
From the article: The researchers have applied for patents on both the antibodies and the mouse model used to produce them. They hope to see their work developed commercially. ... followed by This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-021989), the National institutes of Health (NIAID Consortia for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development UM1-AI144371, P01 AI158571, Ma…