121–130 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying that curing diseases is a bad business model is like saying discovering the world's largest gold mine would be a bad business because you'd eventually run out of gold. The underlying argument doesn't make sense.
When the supply runs dry, demand will naturally increase. Hoarders will be golden at that stage.
-- Nassim Taleb
I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying that curing diseases is a bad business model is like saying discovering the world's largest gold mine would be a bad business because you'd eventually run out of gold. The underlying argument doesn't make sense.
It does make sense if you turn it around "Having permanent patient by treating only symptoms is better than curing them right away" Basically living (comfortably, or at all) as a subscription service
Goldman Sachs modus operandi is leaning too far on the parasitic side of the spectrum
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy123's law of headlines: Any headline that ends in a question mark will have an associated comments section mentioning Betteridge's law, despite that law having being empirically falsified.
Selcuk's Law of Generalisations: Any mention of an adage will have an associated comment claiming that it can be falsified by giving at least one counter-example.
Nvader's law: Any law you named after yourself is ipso facto much less impressive.
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.
The longer someone lives, the more potential value they can contribute to a society. The opportunity cost is something we've figured out from a medical perspective, but shareholders want returns today, not returns fifty years from now. That is what we need to address.
Some governments recognize that the longer people life, the more pensions / social security / healthcare resources need to be paid to that person.
its much cheaper for governments for people to just die when they retire, tax their wealth at 40% and then free up resources (housing or healthcare) for the next generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying that curing diseases is a bad business model is like saying discovering the world's largest gold mine would be a bad business because you'd eventually run out of gold. The underlying argument doesn't make sense.
It does make sense if you turn it around "Having permanent patient by treating only symptoms is better than curing them right away" Basically living (comfortably, or at all) as a subscription service
I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…
That's not true for diseases that hit those at or near retirement, which is probably most of them. They are mostly drawing pensions without contributing much economically.
Note 1: This is just stating economic facts, not advocating any ghoulish policy. Note 2: I expect that Note 1 will be ignored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FDA needs to declare death a disease that patentable drugs can be developed against. All of a sudden the flood gates get opened to encouraging drug research on anything that keeps people alive longer.
I quite like this concept. Did you come up with it?
Because death is not technically a disease, right now if a company came up with a literal immortality pill they wouldn't be able to get it patented or get FDA approval for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying that curing diseases is a bad business model is like saying discovering the world's largest gold mine would be a bad business because you'd eventually run out of gold. The underlying argument doesn't make sense.
It does make sense if you turn it around "Having permanent patient by treating only symptoms is better than curing them right away" Basically living (comfortably, or at all) as a subscription service