211–215 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A thing is worth what another will pay for it.
And no one was willing to pay this much for the drug, but the inexplicably decided no revenue was better than lowering the price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can play this moral dilemma forever. If the one LPLD patient happens to be an expert in 3rd world diseases, then his death would lead to an even bigger tragedy. In reality, there is no dilemma. The people who can help are morally obligated to help in non-theoretical situations. If a child is drowning, and by jumping in I have to ruin my $5,000 watch which I would have otherwise later sold to help 100 children, my…
> You can play this moral dilemma forever. Yes, of course. That's the whole point. It's a very hard problem. > In reality, there is no dilemma. The people who can help are morally obligated to help in non-theoretical situations. Really? How much money have you donated to help provide clean drinking water to poor children in third world countries? > If a child is drowning, and by jumping in I have to ruin my $5,000 wa…
I was born and raised in a third world country, and I assure you the problem is much bigger than simply throwing money at their problems.
> Really? You would sacrifice 100 to save 1? That's a very peculiar moral calculus you have there.
The sacrifice is only hypothetical, while the drowning child is something of immediate concern. If a person were to stand by watching a child drown in exchange for throwing money at a problem that is neither directly visible nor immediate, I would conclude there is something fundamentally wrong with that person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had a staff of skilled people who had been working on the project for years, most likely in an (expensive) laboratory that was purpose-built for the task of producing a transgenic virus destined for humans. It’s not cheap to produce at any scale, and it’s typically more expensive to do small-scale production. A million dollars can barely fund a startup for a year; it’s insane to think you can maintain a drug pro…
But if making a small batch costs $1M, how do they afford to do the research for years in an academic setting? > It’s not cheap to produce at any scale, and it’s typically more expensive to do small-scale production. This is correct, but we're not speaking in relative terms, we're speaking in absolute terms. How can they afford to produce it in a lab (unless each research project has many, many millions to play with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A thing is worth what another will pay for it.
And no one was willing to pay this much for the drug, but the inexplicably decided no revenue was better than lowering the price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What patent are you referring to? Are you sure it's still under patent? Did you read anything about Glybera other than this story? Want some spoilers?
I've only read this story on it. I assumed the patent information based on other commenters, perhaps those were incorrect. I never watch the trailers before I go to watch a movie.