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

New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 256 posts

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#241

Post by tertius »

refurb wrote: post #228
pkaye wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the lower labor costs and people consider drugs to be so profitable, I don't know why other countries don't do as much research and drug development. Just a few countries carry the lion share of this effort.

That would be my response. If someone else can improve R&D and lower the cost of drugs, they are more than welcome to. Interestingly, I haven't seen any takers.

This is constantly done... Find some new discoveries in basic science. Get finding. Develop a drug. Test and redevelop. Market. Profit.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#242

Post by tertius »

refurb wrote: post #227
tertius wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost got it right: Drugs elsewhere are cheaper and largely subsidized by USA citizens. * Correction, by U.S. government (through law). > Those drugs cost a fortune to make and the companies make their money in USA. Yes R&D is expensive, but pharma is extremely profitable. Here in the U.S. and abroad.

pharma is extremely profitable That's survivorship bias. Yes, the successful pharma companies are quite profitable, but there are 10 failed companies for every successful one. I remember reading a paper that said the overall returns for the industry are either single digit or negative.

This is business in general.

The big ones buy up the small generic producers and single new drug companies and get slightly bigger.

The ones who can't pass trials fail. That's business, especially in R&D.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#244

Post by BuckRogers »

vidarh wrote: post #237
BuckRogers wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more than willing to bet you are happy to voice your opinion on any given subject, including this one as you try to snuff my viewpoint out with claims about my attempt at oppression. Why can't I add my own opinion and voice? Just because you don't like what I think. This is the same misguided logic you tried to use on bad_user. You really don't get it and honestly I don't care if you ever do or not.

I find you comical that you are for social pressure to avoid behavior you don't like, but are complaining when others apply social pressure. Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

You can find it as comical as you want but you're making the same mistake noncoml did. He said bad_user was trying to impose his view on others and that I'm trying to make people think my way.

bad_user and myself are both influencing others. We're not imposing anything at all. He's fine to criticize if he wants, that wasn't the issue at all. He didn't understand the difference between social pressure (which I'm advocating along with bad_user) and imposing. They aren't the same thing.

He's trying to split hairs with everyone on HN and not be intellectually honest so it's not worth discussing. Very easy to see what bad_user and myself meant. But the downvotes on noncoml's post speak for itself, most people are getting it.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#245

Post by noncoml »

BuckRogers wrote: post #244
vidarh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find you comical that you are for social pressure to avoid behavior you don't like, but are complaining when others apply social pressure. Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

You can find it as comical as you want but you're making the same mistake noncoml did. He said bad_user was trying to impose his view on others and that I'm trying to make people think my way. bad_user and myself are both influencing others. We're not imposing anything at all. He's fine to criticize if he wants, that wasn't the issue at all. He didn't understand the difference between social pressure (which I'm advoc…

I don’t know man. I am just presenting my arguments. You are the one who is taking it personal, counting votes, and have to resort to personal attacks(“splitting hairs with everyone”, “not be intellectually honest”)

Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean you have the intellectual honestly and he doesn’t.

Also, if it’s not worth discussing, just stop discussing. What’s with this passive aggressive statement?

Btw, since downvotes seem to be important to you: every single reply of yours in this thread is negative.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#246

Post by BuckRogers »

noncoml wrote: post #245
BuckRogers wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find it as comical as you want but you're making the same mistake noncoml did. He said bad_user was trying to impose his view on others and that I'm trying to make people think my way. bad_user and myself are both influencing others. We're not imposing anything at all. He's fine to criticize if he wants, that wasn't the issue at all. He didn't understand the difference between social pressure (which I'm advoc…

I don’t know man. I am just presenting my arguments. You are the one who is taking it personal, counting votes, and have to resort to personal attacks(“splitting hairs with everyone”, “not be intellectually honest”) Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean you have the intellectual honestly and he doesn’t. Also, if it’s not worth discussing, just stop discussing. What’s with this passive aggressive st…

I did stop discussing, especially with you but here you are again. You just can't resist, which shows how you are. You're welcome to disagree, but you didn't just disagree, you said we were trying to force our will on others. That's called intellectual dishonesty and someone not worth spending time on. Meaning, you just want to argue. Go look through your post history and check the downvotes, not good. I'll leave you to it, good luck bud.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#247

Post by noncoml »

BuckRogers wrote: post #246
noncoml wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know man. I am just presenting my arguments. You are the one who is taking it personal, counting votes, and have to resort to personal attacks(“splitting hairs with everyone”, “not be intellectually honest”) Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean you have the intellectual honestly and he doesn’t. Also, if it’s not worth discussing, just stop discussing. What’s with this passive aggressive st…

I did stop discussing, especially with you but here you are again. You just can't resist, which shows how you are. You're welcome to disagree, but you didn't just disagree, you said we were trying to force our will on others. That's called intellectual dishonesty and someone not worth spending time on. Meaning, you just want to argue. Go look through your post history and check the downvotes, not good. I'll leave you…

> I did stop discussing, especially with you but here you are again

You mentioned my name. What did you expect?

Furthermore I never said I stopped discussing, unlike you.

Finally, you are the one who is trying to split a hair: “Imposing your opinion” might be a bit strong, but it’s closer to “social pressure” than “influencing” is.

Discussing with you can be considered influencing.

“Social pressure” can be a whole town marginalizing you and your family because you are gay.

I don’t think I am trying to split hair. They are very different things.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#248

Post by refurb »

tertius wrote: post #241
refurb wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be my response. If someone else can improve R&D and lower the cost of drugs, they are more than welcome to. Interestingly, I haven't seen any takers.

This is constantly done... Find some new discoveries in basic science. Get finding. Develop a drug. Test and redevelop. Market. Profit.

Based on lowering the costs of R&D? I've yet to see it.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#249

Post by vidarh »

BuckRogers wrote: post #244
vidarh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find you comical that you are for social pressure to avoid behavior you don't like, but are complaining when others apply social pressure. Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

You can find it as comical as you want but you're making the same mistake noncoml did. He said bad_user was trying to impose his view on others and that I'm trying to make people think my way. bad_user and myself are both influencing others. We're not imposing anything at all. He's fine to criticize if he wants, that wasn't the issue at all. He didn't understand the difference between social pressure (which I'm advoc…

I don't see how I'm making a mistake at all. What I found comical was your statements about social pressure in the context of your complaints.

Now you're repeating the complaints, and on top of that splitting hairs while complaining about others splitting hairs while doing so.

To me your responses just makes this whole exchange look sillier.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#250

Post by Kalium »

refurb wrote: post #224
L_Rahman wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the entrenched nature of the American pharmaceutical industry, I'm unconvinced that any of them have actually tried to solve the problem of cheap antibody manufacturing at scale.

Why wouldn't they? Any reduction in cost is pure profit for them.

Reflexive paranoia rather than calm business analysis tends to rule the day when pharmaceutical companies are under consideration.
Post reply on HN