Hear, hear. Well said, that.

That sad thing is that what you say isn't clearly obvious to everyone involved.

....but thanks for saying it anyway, Stephen. It''ll do more good than dull celebs posing at Nelson Mandela's Cape Town concert.

What you say -- and what is said in the article -- is hardly new, nor does it adequately address all the facets of the AIDS debacle. To be sure, it addresses only one: the motivation of pharmaceutical companies in the current system of allocating monies to HIV/AIDS drug research. No one wants them to go out of "business". But this is a life or death issue here. Can we put a little more energy into it? Please?

Oh, and try these on for size:

http://www.unaids.org/en/in+focus/topic+areas.asp

Sparkle says: "...the motivation of pharmaceutical companies in the current system of allocating monies to HIV/AIDS drug research. No one wants them to go out of "business".

Oh but that is EXACTLY the goal of the anti-globailsation movement.

Whether on drugs patents, free trade or the Kyoto Protocol, the loose alliance of Green, anti-capitalist and AIDS campaigners is driven solely by Socialist ideas.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the total discrediting of Socialism as progressive econmic and social idea has left them stranded.

I agree in principle but the countries now suffering worst from the AIDS virus can't afford the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies are researching and manufacturing. To them, without the availability of generics, the drugs might as well not exist.

From an ethical point of view we need to ask ourselves how many millions of deaths in poorer countries are acceptable whilst keeping these drugs unaffordable.

To say that there are only two options "pharma company research or nothing" is untrue because governments could subsidise company research.

Just some things to think about.

Howard:

"To them, without the availability of generics, the drugs might as well not exist."

Do you really not understand that, without profitable pharma companies, there will be no generics? Because there will be nothing to copy?

Is it possible that you cannot follow this?

Or am I missing something here?

Another good post Stephen and right on about the whole AIDS thing. Instead of treating the drug companies like the enemy, those who are keen to help with the AIDS problem should be embracing them. Course there are anti-globo fools who think AIDS was created by the US to kill minorities and non-Anglos. With that sort of stupidity as meme is there any wonder the whole AIDS thing is such a debacle?

Andrew - you're missing something.

While the drugs remain expensive, for the poor they might as well not exist.

They could be made cheaper by governments subsidising the pharmaceutical companies. That way they get their profits & therefore continue development, the sufferers get the drugs and everyone gets a warm glow from knowing that a little bit of their taxes have helped to save lives.

One of the problems overlooked by the cheaper drugs argument is that the infrastructure needed to deliver them effectively does not exist in many areas of the world that we are talking of. This prevents effective treatment as much as any 'affordability' issue of drugs themselves. Fixing this problem is far harder but I would argue is of equal if not more importance, although it will receive far fewer headlines.

Howard Shaw: "To say that there are only two options 'pharma company research or nothing' is untrue because governments could subsidise company research."

It's not about defraying costs. No good capitalist would undertake the effort without the possibility of a large pay-off.

I.e., I'm only willing to spend $1B upfront because of the chance to make $10B down the road. By, um, charging lots of money for my invention.

Remove my chance to make $10B and I won't touch the research even at zero cost -- I'll simply work on something else. The next Viagra, or whatever.

So Flagellum, you're in favour of full nationalisation of the relevant pharmaceutical companies?

'From each according to his ability,' Howard. ;-)

It serves me right for posting extemporaneously in the middle of the night, but as a good capitalist I approve of the choice to say "screw that" and work on the next Viagra. I think Company XYZ's choices look something like this:

(a) Develop an AIDS vaccine at a cost to you of $1B, with the opportunity to make $10B
(b) Develop an AIDS vaccine at a cost to you of $0 (Howard's research subsidy), with the opportunity to make $0 to $1B (the inevitable price controls in exchange for the subsidy)
(c) Develop the next Viagra at a cost to you of $1B, with the opportunity to make $10B

Scenarios (a) and especially (c) appeal to me as an investor. Scenario (b) sends me fleeing in terror: yes, govt subsidies limit costs, but govt price controls limit upside, and that's what I'm looking for.

Scenario (b) is indeed not too distant from nationalizing biopharma. Biopharma companies effectively become govt employees, with all the opportunity and incentive that go with that. As an investor I wouldn't stand for it, and I hope that execs wouldn't, either. If govt fiat closed off (a), and tried to force (b) on a company, I'd hope the board would say "screw that" and run straight for (c).

So to answer your question, obviously nationalizing biopharma would be an utter disaster, but between nationalization and capitalism I really do not see a viable middle ground. The research subsidy you propose doesn’t give any of the primary actors what they want.

Oh, and Stephen, kudos on your use of the term "wreckers."

Flagellum - It could be argued that you have just written a terrible indictment of capitalism. You do remember why we're talking about AIDS vaccines don't you? This is a life or death situation.

Returning to the fray rather late...

Quite apart from theoretical discussions about capitalism, I believe that government subsidy of research would have two effects:

1) the research process would become flabby, costly, ineffective, and bureaucratic.
2) When you take the state's shilling, you do the state's bidding: everything would dissolve into politics, huge resources would be expended, and nothing would be achieved.

The track record of all government subsidies, in all industries, in all countries, and at all times, backs up my view. Remember Harold Wilson's white heat of technology? Remember "picking winners"?

Stephen's original comment was correct - there is no alternative to profitable commercial enterprise, if we really want results.

I am in no doubt as to the severity of the situation, but that is a reason for harnessing the profit motive, not for crippling it.

Please allow me to leave my links on your page
Married Women Cheating Wives
Swingers Clubs
Swingers Couples Swinging
Swinger Couples ads
Penis Growth Pills
Sorry for disturbing
Regards

My name is Bryant Monzon and I have an Idea for racing money for aids resurch but no one is willing to leasson please help me out. with information on how to start this idea of mine.

This is my Idea.
Name of the sloggen is Stick your two cents!
were every body in the united states give 2 pennis for aids resurch.
your two cents. Thank you

Bryant Monzon and every life that it will save.

beau infirmiere baise II beau infirmiere chatte II beau infirmiere chattes II chaude mama quarante cinq II donne moi du cul vingt six II exhibitionnistes quarante trois II me demena matia video II me demena matia video II me demena matia ikones II koutos prosopo II koutos prosopiko II koutos fantasia II congenial segretaria masturbate II congenial segretaria sex II congenial segretaria strip II

busting tight ass hoes* busty anal* big teacher tit* big tit wife* veronika pagacova hardcore* veronika pagacova movie* allinternal anastasia* allinternal and ass trafic* jentina gallery* assparade hollie* malestrippers cumshot facial* malestrippers having fun*