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

Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 188 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#152

Post by bluGill »

devsda wrote: post #92
bluGill wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public transit is a good business model if you don't have to compete with government subsdized roads and you don't have government limits on what you can charge. Good luck finding anyplace without those.

> Public transit is a good business model if you don't have to compete with government subsdized roads and you don't have government limits on what you can charge Without subsidized roads, its easy for deep pockets to offer exorbitant prices for land and monopolize the roads. Anyone not planning to charge high prices for usage will be held off by high acquisition prices at "market" rates. There's only so much land an…

Subways in NYC had found ways to compete with each other before the government took over. (though admittedly this was enabled by very dense areas, and long term not the best for the overall city). However your point is destroyed by counter example.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#153

Post by tptacek »

beeflet wrote: post #144
tptacek wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists are routinely independently re-discovering each others discoveries. The effort to discover cures to important disease is intense. The conspiracy to suppress a cure would have to be vast.

You don't have to suppress a cure, you can just choose not to release information that reveal one or spend research money in directions that lead to a cure. Also, not that vast if you consider the amount of people who have the information needed to realize what is going on.

This only makes sense if you believe that the science leading to a disease cure occurs in exclusively one lab controlled by a giant pharma company, and not instead in dozens of labs in university biomedical programs around the country.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#154

Post by animal531 »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #47
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person dies from a disorder in their 20s, they'll never buy your heart medication in their 70s. Today's patient is tomorrow's patient.

Treat vs cure. You treat them so you can go on treating them. If you cure them, maybe you’ll treat them later and or maybe you won’t - but that’s outside the current bonus cycle / opportunity window.

I'm not sure I agree, when we humans only lived for 50 years there were no time to develop any range of other diseases that we are experiencing now in later life, so even if you cure A there will definitely be many many opportunities to treat anywhere from B-Z.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#155

Post by CGMthrowaway »

netsharc wrote: post #149
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the way ski resorts work in the US. One company builds the ski resort (losing) but also develops all the real estate around it (winning). It only works if it's a resort worth living near. Or casinos, which are the reverse. Build hotels, entertainment etc (losing) to support traffic to your casino (winning)

Won't real estate near ski resorts become hotels? Or does the word "resort" mean there are on-site hotels?

There are hotels but the real money for ski resorts is in the condos, timeshares and houses that are sold on the nearby land. When I said "ski resort" I mean lift-serviced terrain and all the supporting infrastructure for skiiers during the day

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#156

Post by CGMthrowaway »

stavros wrote: post #138
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why company? In France, ski resorts are often built by local authorities, not companies.

That's just not the sort of thing the US believes in.

Yes very different in the US - good overview here https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQpuf_9CQz7/

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#158

Post by ninetyninenine »

habinero wrote: post #141
ninetyninenine wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm sorry, but if you _actually_ think about it, your whole premise is ridiculous. We'll put aside the obvious fact that drug researchers are, you know, people who presumably got into the industry to help people, which includes themselves and their families. We'll also put aside the fact that drugs go out of patent relatively quickly, and they'd just lose out to generics. Like they do now. The simple truth is they do…

[flagged]

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#159

Post by ninetyninenine »

tptacek wrote: post #153
beeflet wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to suppress a cure, you can just choose not to release information that reveal one or spend research money in directions that lead to a cure. Also, not that vast if you consider the amount of people who have the information needed to realize what is going on.

This only makes sense if you believe that the science leading to a disease cure occurs in exclusively one lab controlled by a giant pharma company, and not instead in dozens of labs in university biomedical programs around the country.

If it happened in dozens of labs… how the fuck does big pharma hold patents on certain drugs? The existence of a patent means the drug was developed and patented by one entity.

If a molecule, synthesis path, or mechanism has already been disclosed in the literature by multiple labs, then that is public prior art and it cannot be patented.

Therefore, If there were dozens of other researchers coming up with the same drug the patent is legally invalid.

So it seems you’re the one not making sense.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#160

Post by tptacek »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #159
tptacek wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only makes sense if you believe that the science leading to a disease cure occurs in exclusively one lab controlled by a giant pharma company, and not instead in dozens of labs in university biomedical programs around the country.

If it happened in dozens of labs… how the fuck does big pharma hold patents on certain drugs? The existence of a patent means the drug was developed and patented by one entity. If a molecule, synthesis path, or mechanism has already been disclosed in the literature by multiple labs, then that is public prior art and it cannot be patented. Therefore, If there were dozens of other researchers coming up with the same dr…

I'm not sure you understand how patents work.
Post reply on HN