Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Would Penicillin-like drugs get produced in the US anymore?

ASU2003 · 05-13-2010, 07:06 PM

Dichloroacetate Effective Against Aggressive Brain Cancer

With all of the Cancer charities spreading 'awareness', you would think they would throw a little money at some researchers who have come up with a cheap and effective method that looks like it holds promise after the small test. And if you follow the money, it doesn't lead to large corporations that can patent it and make billions. In this case (and in the US most of the time), it doesn't seem to lead to the government either. The government might benefit from lower Medicare payments, but doctors and big pharma campaign contributions might dry up if congress would give too much money to small researchers that produced simple and cheap cures.

Slashdot Science Story | Cheap Cancer Drug Finally Tested In Humans

As for why this is in Politics, this is the main thing that I like about socialized/communist medical care. There are incentives for the government to reduce costs and put money towards vaccines and cures. In the capitalist system, they need to make sure people get sick, and then treat the symptoms for years and years. There is no reason for a large bio-tech company to make this DCA drug treatment, since their competitors will be able to copy it, or researchers in foreign countries can produce it without royalties. Yes, there is the issue of where does the initial funding come from in order to produce and develop these drugs in socialized healthcare systems if there is no monitary incentive, but are we getting to a point where people can be perfectly healthy, but not have it cost very much?

The other big question, is where is all this money that is being raised by charities going to? How much is going to universities that don't have ties to drug companies (the drug companies probably funded the labs and provided a few professors), to allow the company to commercialize any discoveries? How much is going to lobbists and administraive costs? How about advertising costs, instead of going to paying for medical care of people who are sick with the disease?

I think the best solution is to have a x-prize type approach to this. If your lab or company cures AIDS, cancer, whatever, there should be a large sum of money that they would win. It doesn't matter how much the treatment costs, if it is a difficult treatment, or if it is just one shot.

05-13-2010, 07:06 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Would Penicillin-like drugs get produced in the US anymore? Dichloroacetate Effective Against Aggressive Brain Cancer With all of the Cancer charities spreading 'awareness', you would think they would throw a little money at some researchers who have come up with a cheap and effective method that looks like it holds promise after the small test. And if you follow the money, it doesn't lead to large corporations that can patent it and make billions. In this case (and in the US most of the time), it doesn't seem to lead to the government either. The government might benefit from lower Medicare payments, but doctors and big pharma campaign contributions might dry up if congress would give too much money to small researchers that produced simple and cheap cures. Slashdot Science Story \| Cheap Cancer Drug Finally Tested In Humans As for why this is in Politics, this is the main thing that I like about socialized/communist medical care. There are incentives for the government to reduce costs and put money towards vaccines and cures. In the capitalist system, they need to make sure people get sick, and then treat the symptoms for years and years. There is no reason for a large bio-tech company to make this DCA drug treatment, since their competitors will be able to copy it, or researchers in foreign countries can produce it without royalties. Yes, there is the issue of where does the initial funding come from in order to produce and develop these drugs in socialized healthcare systems if there is no monitary incentive, but are we getting to a point where people can be perfectly healthy, but not have it cost very much? The other big question, is where is all this money that is being raised by charities going to? How much is going to universities that don't have ties to drug companies (the drug companies probably funded the labs and provided a few professors), to allow the company to commercialize any discoveries? How much is going to lobbists and administraive costs? How about advertising costs, instead of going to paying for medical care of people who are sick with the disease? I think the best solution is to have a x-prize type approach to this. If your lab or company cures AIDS, cancer, whatever, there should be a large sum of money that they would win. It doesn't matter how much the treatment costs, if it is a difficult treatment, or if it is just one shot.