New drug blocks HIV from entering cells

[Teek]

and yes charge for it. but do not charge to make profit. to line some ceo's pocket and buy him a new swimming pool. the cost should cover production and new research. you cannot turn aids into a profit machine. the suffering of millions into a new private jet. death into a stock price.

Why would any scientist want to continue creating the drug? Why should they have to sacrifice their life for the sake of others? How do you think he will continue to make a drug when he is unable to afford food?

If we make AIDS a profit machine, the disease would cease to exist.

*sorry if this double posts*

the scientists willing to research and develop a drug for the good of mankind are the moral and good ones. the scientists developing a drug to fill their wallets are just profiteers in misery.

The scientists willing to research and develop a drug because the recognize that the people who need it are willing to pay for it - they are moral. The ones who kill themselves to create it are profiteers in misery.

[Cloud No.9]

no it would perpetuate. how do you expect to rid the world of a disease if the people cannot afford to be cured? this drug will safe only two type of people. the rich with aids. and the ceo of the company's pilot.

we can pay for the scientists to work on this and still make it affordable. we just don't have to line the pockets of those you seek to turn aids into a new porsche.

[Optium]

Or have the government take away like 1% of their military budget and
pay for this drug, then they could probably give the drug to every
person--healthy included--in the world. Aha!

.opt

[Teek]

no it would perpetuate. how do you expect to rid the world of a disease if the people cannot afford to be cured? this drug will safe only two type of people. the rich with aids. and the ceo of the company's pilot.

we can pay for the scientists to work on this and still make it affordable. we just don't have to line the pockets of those you seek to turn aids into a new porsche.

Who will pay for the scientists. And how much? How much is a "profit"? And I think if anyone deserves a porsche, it's the man that helps cure AIDS.

[The Man]

It is a life and death situation, and if people cannot have access to the drug, they will die. I don't see how Cloud is being self-righteous about this. To me it is nothing less than criminal negligence for a government to allow people to die when there's any possibility of keeping them alive. (Well, unless they're a braindead vegetable like Terri Schiavo, but that's another issue entirely)

Tell me how you propose to give a drug away for free and continue production. And then tell me how many scientists are willing to continue, under such a creed.

Note how I said the government would be negligent? In other words, they would pitch in the money. Any government that allows its citizens to die under its watch is grossly neglecting one of the primary duties of government, which is to protect its citizens.

[Cloud No.9]

the scientists will be paid for the by the price of the drug as i said.

profit = higher prices = less people able to afford = more death.

it's a simple equation. the mean who profits from aids will not end the disease he will only further seperate the rich from the poor. the rich will be living. the poor will be dead. that is not a man who deserves a porsche. a man who perpetuates the suffering of people deserves nothing.

[ShunNakamura]

Optium has a point. Cutting back by even 1/10th of a percent on the military could probably pay the scientists for the development of the drug.. and possibly then some.

I don't have a problem with the scientists getting paid for thier work. But I also don't care for when medicine is turned into a money making scheme by companies, so that only the well off(the ones with less health problems on average) can afford it when they need it.

[Mirage]

Like Opt said, if for example the US just took a few percents of their military budget, it would solve a lot of financial problems.

[Destai]

If selling the drug becomes profitable doesnt that mean the drug can be researched and improved further? And personally considering these people have taken a step in curing aids, yeah I think they deserve some sort of profit from someone.

[Cloud No.9]

scientists should be paid for their work i did not deny that. but ceo's should not use this to gain profit from misery.

[Destai]

scientists should be paid for their work i did not deny that. but ceo's should not use this to gain profit from misery.

But again doesnt it need to be sold profitably to be further researched and improved. Y'know, to save lives and prevent misery and stuff.

[Cloud No.9]

by profit i mean gains in wealth in the company and it's owners. not to produce it, pay the men who make it, and further research. those are fine.

but to simply pocket the money would be wrong. patenting a drug would lead to that. it is the only reason to patent.

of course drugs can't be free (they used to be on the nhs til they ruined it) but they can be as cheap as possible. they can be used for good and not just to make money.

[Raistlin]

To me it is nothing less than criminal negligence for a government to allow people to die when there's any possibility of keeping them alive. (Well, unless they're a braindead vegetable like Terri Schiavo, but that's another issue entirely)

The government is not your keeper, nor is it responsible for your welfare. You are not entitled to anything you cannot give yourself. It is the "entitlement" myth which started welfare and such(my step-uncle calls this generation the Age of Entitlement; Ayn Rand called it the Age of Envy. Both are extremely appropriate). "I don't have food...so I'm entitled to it - someone must give it to me." "I don't have money for clothes - someone must give it to me." "I don't have a money for $50,000 medication - but I'm entitled to it - so someone must give it to me." How does the government get this money to "give" to you? By taking it from the people that have it.

let this drug to be produced but do not insist by high prices that life is purely acheivable by the rich. those who need this most are poor.

Well, if only 2% of the population can pay for it, then it has to drop prices to meet demand. There's many millions of people that have AIDS - any coorporation that wants to make money to continue production has to meet the biggest chunk of the demand that it can. This is the law of supply and demand in a free market. It could only price-fix with government money. Either way, the government cannot say "you have to set your prices at this" - and if they don't, the business will naturally have the lowest prices it can to meet demands, which will make it more money, which will mean it can spend more money on more research and better equipment, which means it can discover more cost-effective methods of production, which means prices will lower to meet more demand, etc. It's the endless, natural cycle of a free market.

Any government that allows its citizens to die under its watch is grossly neglecting one of the primary duties of government, which is to protect its citizens.

Only by protecting against the infringements of freedom, i.e., the use of force. The government cannot make it illegal to walk close to the edge of a building; it is not the government's fault if you trip and fall over. The government cannot protect its people by infringing on its peoples rights; to do so is the grossest contradiction of all time - a justification for dictatorship.

If selling the drug becomes profitable doesnt that mean the drug can be researched and improved further? And personally considering these people have taken a step in curing aids, yeah I think they deserve some sort of profit from someone.

Exactly.

scientists should be paid for their work i did not deny that. but ceo's should not use this to gain profit from misery.

And the people who discovered the polio vaccine profitted from misery, and the people who discovered vaccines for malaria, flu, etc. all profitted from misery. This is the attitude of what Ayn Rand called the "hatred of the good for being good" - instead of doing the world a tremendous service by spending enormous millions and countless hours researching a vaccine which could potentially save millions of lives, they were evil because they "profitted from misery."
I will say this - without those CEOs and those rich businessmen and their money and their investments, our life expectancy would not have quadrupled in the last several hundred years. But they're evil because they make a profit. They're evil because they "take" so much out of the community and don't give anything in return, despite them providing jobs for thousands of people and giving the world the benefit of their minds - their investments, their funded research, their funded technologies, and they only receive a profit.

[The Man]

Not reading through all that. What exactly makes one person's property more important than another person's life?

[Cloud No.9]

actually my life expectancy is higher because i get free health czre, (government did that). it's illegal for me to work in a factory or down the pits til i'm 16 (government did that too). sanitation was governed so i didn't get cholera (wanna guess who did that?) my bread doesn't have led in it and i don't life opposite a dung heap. (this too). my houses was built to regulations which meant it had clean running water, windows, ventilation, electricity and gas (and this). because people get a free education and so can go on to do great things (one guess). food is cheaper and in better condition (yep this one too). the air is cleaner (and this one). noone does 90mph down my street (they did that too). anymore....? yeah but it's time to stop.

taking money from the grossly rich is not the death of humanity.