Capitalism in all its glory

Heard commentary today about more lives being lost in Western Africa to Ebola because the experimental drug, that appeared to work, is running out. Commentator expressed the opinion that drug companies aren’t investing in Ebola cures because in their opinion it wouldn’t ever be profitable. Thoughts?

My thoughts are…who cares?
Population needs to be reduced. It ain’t gonna happen by providing cures to everything.
It’s that simple.
Now you rebut with some commentary about how certain geopolitical/economic forces shouldn’t hold sway over the process of reducing population.

My thoughts are...who cares? Population needs to be reduced. It ain't gonna happen by providing cures to everything. It's that simple. Now you rebut with some commentary about how certain geopolitical/economic forces shouldn't hold sway over the process of reducing population.
I'm hoping you're just being silly. In case you're not: Let's change things a bit (and this is hypothetical): Drug companies reportedly aren't doing research on AIDs drugs because they don't think it'd be profitable. Your son has AIDs. Ok, so you're still ok with your "populations need to be reduced" answer?
My thoughts are...who cares? Population needs to be reduced. It ain't gonna happen by providing cures to everything. It's that simple. Now you rebut with some commentary about how certain geopolitical/economic forces shouldn't hold sway over the process of reducing population.
Why bother rebutting you when you are so easily mocked by comparing you to one the most well known caricatures of an evil man 2nd Portly Gentleman: What may we put you down for, sir? Scrooge: Nothing, sir. 1st Portly Gentleman: Ah, you wish to remain anonymous. Scrooge: I wish to be left alone, sir! That is what I wish! I don't make myself merry at Christmas and I cannot afford to make idle people merry. I have been forced to support the establishments I have mentioned through taxation and God knows they cost more than they're worth. Those who are badly off must go there. 2nd Portly Gentleman: Many would rather die than go there. Scrooge: If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night, gentlemen. [walks away, then turns back] Scrooge: Humbug! His own words are later used against him by the ghost of Christmas Present "... to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!"
Heard commentary today about more lives being lost in Western Africa to Ebola because the experimental drug, that appeared to work, is running out. Commentator expressed the opinion that drug companies aren't investing in Ebola cures because in their opinion it wouldn't ever be profitable. Thoughts?
Asinine. Pharmaceutical companies develop many drugs that they know won't be profitable. But if they could come up with an Ebola vaccine, it would be highly profitable. The whole world would want it and would be willingto pay for it. There have never been cures for many diseases, small pox is a good example. The only thing that can be hoped for is a vaccine. Don't listen to news commentators. They have proven that most have no sense at all. Lois
In case you're not: Let's change things a bit (and this is hypothetical): Drug companies reportedly aren't doing research on AIDs drugs because they don't think it'd be profitable. Your son has AIDs. Ok, so you're still ok with your "populations need to be reduced" answer?
My thoughts on population reduction stand despite any hypothetical nuances you want to attach. Why would my son having or dying of AIDS have anything to do with my stance on population reduction?
Heard commentary today about more lives being lost in Western Africa to Ebola because the experimental drug, that appeared to work, is running out. Commentator expressed the opinion that drug companies aren't investing in Ebola cures because in their opinion it wouldn't ever be profitable. Thoughts?
Asinine. Pharmaceutical companies develop many drugs that they know won't be profitable. But if they could come up with an Ebola vaccine, it would be highly profitable. The whole world would want it and would be willingto pay for it. There have never been cures for many diseases, small pox is a good example. The only thing that can be hoped for is a vaccine. Don't listen to news commentators. They have proven that most have no sense at all. LoisHuh? Which drugs have they developed that won't be/haven't been profitable? You mean they develop them to give them away free? Out of the goodness of their corporate heart? EDIT: Here's a link to an article from that crackpot site the BBC News with commentary from several crackpots in the military research arm et al, all crackpots: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19112510
In case you're not: Let's change things a bit (and this is hypothetical): Drug companies reportedly aren't doing research on AIDs drugs because they don't think it'd be profitable. Your son has AIDs. Ok, so you're still ok with your "populations need to be reduced" answer?
My thoughts on population reduction stand despite any hypothetical nuances you want to attach. Why would my son having or dying of AIDS have anything to do with my stance on population reduction?You feel it's ok for people who have Ebola (or AIDs) to die (population to be reduced) as a result of companies not developing a certain vaccines for Ebola (AIDs). It's an exact comparison. If you don't get it, then I guess logical discussion is impossible with you.
You feel it's ok for people who have Ebola (or AIDs) to die (population to be reduced) as a result of companies not developing a certain vaccines for Ebola (AIDs). It's an exact comparison. If you don't get it, then I guess logical discussion is impossible with you.
I don't know anything about companies developing vaccines or not. Am I supposed to care about companies developing vaccines? Is this something I should keep up on? Am I supposed to care about your emotional platitudes concerning conspiracies?
My thoughts are...who cares? Population needs to be reduced. It ain't gonna happen by providing cures to everything. It's that simple. Now you rebut with some commentary about how certain geopolitical/economic forces shouldn't hold sway over the process of reducing population.
That is actually debatable More by Dr. Jeffery Sachs here http://books.google.com/books?id=4me_YAJrCqsC&pg=PA160&dq=the+debate+over+popular,+economists+tend+to+be+divided+into+three+camps:+population+optimists&hl=en&sa=X&ei=far3U_2TCImtogSzwIC4DQ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the debate over popular, economists tend to be divided into three camps: population optimists&f=false
Heard commentary today about more lives being lost in Western Africa to Ebola because the experimental drug, that appeared to work, is running out. Commentator expressed the opinion that drug companies aren't investing in Ebola cures because in their opinion it wouldn't ever be profitable. Thoughts?
Asinine. Pharmaceutical companies develop many drugs that they know won't be profitable. But if they could come up with an Ebola vaccine, it would be highly profitable. The whole world would want it and would be willingto pay for it. There have never been cures for many diseases, small pox is a good example. The only thing that can be hoped for is a vaccine. Don't listen to news commentators. Lois The Open Mind is the only real TV commentary which actually stirs intellectual thought. http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/
They have proven that most have no sense at all.
A little extreme there LoisL??? (Not that I think they are reliable anyways) You would like Dr. Neil Postman's works http://www.command-post.com/amusing.htm
That is actually debatable More by Dr. Jeffery Sachs here
I followed the link. It shows excerpts from a book that appears to talk about Global Warming, water shortages, food shortages and economic instability. I didn't peruse long because the sample of the book was done in a choppy, unintelligible manner. Before I continue I.J. can I ask you what exactly is debatable? So we are on the same page please.

Also I J if you come back around here in this thread, please fix your post above(the one with the link.).
I believe it is making the text areas too wide.
Thanks buddy.

Heard commentary today about more lives being lost in Western Africa to Ebola because the experimental drug, that appeared to work, is running out. Commentator expressed the opinion that drug companies aren't investing in Ebola cures because in their opinion it wouldn't ever be profitable. Thoughts?
Asinine. Pharmaceutical companies develop many drugs that they know won't be profitable. But if they could come up with an Ebola vaccine, it would be highly profitable. The whole world would want it and would be willingto pay for it. There have never been cures for many diseases, small pox is a good example. The only thing that can be hoped for is a vaccine. Don't listen to news commentators. Lois The Open Mind is the only real TV commentary which actually stirs intellectual thought. http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/
They have proven that most have no sense at all.
A little extreme there LoisL??? (Not that I think they are reliable anyways) You would like Dr. Neil Postman's works http://www.command-post.com/amusing.htm Ok, that was extreme. Some do know what they're talking about, but too many do not. Anyone who would say drug companies won't invest in drugs that won't bring a profit should not be trusted. Lois
Heard commentary today about more lives being lost in Western Africa to Ebola because the experimental drug, that appeared to work, is running out. Commentator expressed the opinion that drug companies aren't investing in Ebola cures because in their opinion it wouldn't ever be profitable. Thoughts?
Yeah. Its not the job of drug companies to take on unprofitable business and save humanity. Everyone who is offended by this should ask what they are willing to contribute to the cause. If we want someone to make a sacrifice to solve a problem we should be looking at ourselves first. Those who are concerned should push for government financial support to develop and distribute this drug faster. In that way we as a society will be footing the bill through our taxes instead of asking a private company to save lives at their own cost and risk.
Heard commentary today about more lives being lost in Western Africa to Ebola because the experimental drug, that appeared to work, is running out. Commentator expressed the opinion that drug companies aren't investing in Ebola cures because in their opinion it wouldn't ever be profitable. Thoughts?
Asinine. Pharmaceutical companies develop many drugs that they know won't be profitable. But if they could come up with an Ebola vaccine, it would be highly profitable. The whole world would want it and would be willingto pay for it. There have never been cures for many diseases, small pox is a good example. The only thing that can be hoped for is a vaccine. Don't listen to news commentators. They have proven that most have no sense at all. LoisHuh? Which drugs have they developed that won't be/haven't been profitable? You mean they develop them to give them away free? Out of the goodness of their corporate heart? EDIT: Here's a link to an article from that crackpot site the BBC News with commentary from several crackpots in the military research arm et al, all crackpots: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19112510 No, they're not given away free but many governments subsidize them. Anyone who's worried about this can invest in drug research themselves instead of crying that nobody else is putting the money up. Drug research takes money. Where is it going to come from? Or do you think that drug companies should go broke doing it for charity and that the researchers should give up their salaries for drug research? Would you? Lois

Addendum: Before anyone starts asking Mapp Biopharmaceutical ( the company that makes the ZMapp ebola drug) to self finance an effort to save Africa you may want to look at their financials
“this company has an annual revenue of $800,000 and employs a staff of approximately 8.”
http://www.manta.com/c/mt1f9k1/mapp-biopharmaceutical-inc

In case you're not: Let's change things a bit (and this is hypothetical): Drug companies reportedly aren't doing research on AIDs drugs because they don't think it'd be profitable. Your son has AIDs. Ok, so you're still ok with your "populations need to be reduced" answer?
My thoughts on population reduction stand despite any hypothetical nuances you want to attach. Why would my son having or dying of AIDS have anything to do with my stance on population reduction?You feel it's ok for people who have Ebola (or AIDs) to die (population to be reduced) as a result of companies not developing a certain vaccines for Ebola (AIDs). It's an exact comparison. If you don't get it, then I guess logical discussion is impossible with you. It is a process called natural selection. While it may sound callous to humanists, the fact remains that the earth can only accommodate a certain number of organisms. When natural balance is out of whack, nature (and earth's limited resources) will always come up with a process that reduces the offending population. Perhaps AGW will thaw the permafrost below the earth's surface and engulf the earth in a toxic cloud of methane, to cite one possible future. Evidence for such events are mounting.
It is thought that permafrost thawing could exacerbate global warming by releasing methane and other hydrocarbons, which are powerful greenhouse gases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost
As to the likelyhood of mass extinctions of certain populations, this presentation may shed some light on the mathematics of the problem. I urge you to listen to the entire presentation. It is enlightening to say the least. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRVijo65W0
No, they're not given away free but many governments subsidize them. Anyone who's worried about this can invest in drug research themselves instead of crying that nobody else is putting the money up. Drug research takes money. Where is it going to come from? Or do you think that drug companies should go broke doing it for charity and that the researchers should give up their salaries for drug research? Would you? Lois
Here's an article by those leftist-hippies at the Economist, about how big pharma has turned away from research in antibiotic drugs in recent years.]
Drug-resistant bacteria cost Europe alone about €1.5 billion a year in health costs and lost productivity. But firms have been slow to create new antibiotics. First, the science is tricky. Some bacteria have evolved to pump out the drugs that infiltrate their walls; other, “Gram-negative" bugs have an impenetrable outer membrane. Second, clinical trials are arduous. Firms struggle to recruit enough patients with rare bacterial infections. Third, commercial prospects are grim. Patients take cholesterol drugs for life, but they usually take antibiotics for less than two weeks. It is no wonder that Big Pharma has directed its attention elsewhere. AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are now the only big drugmakers with substantial antibiotics programmes. Between 1983 and 1992 American regulators approved 30 new antibiotics. Since 2003 they have approved just seven.
Now, let's step back from emotionally infused language, and look at this issue objectively to see where the potential failure points are: 1.) Drug companies are beholden to their investors to turn a large profit. Those items which yield the biggest return on investment are those that the company should concentrate on. 2.) The stock market is rarely focused on returns that don't show up on the bottom line of the company more than a quarter or two out. 3.) The drug companies often have to worry about frivolous lawsuits. Which cost money, and potentially risky drugs need a big return on their investment to compensate for any potential lawsuits. 4.) We have a government which is currently dominated by people who have an irrational hatred of government. 5.) Many of these same people also don't believe in science, and instead believe in superstition. 6.) It is in everyone's best interest that there are numerous treatments available for any given disease. Item one is pretty key to capitalism, however, it can be corrected by requiring corporations to set aside X percentage of profits towards R&D of drugs which are important, but unlikely to yield large profits. Boards of directors and shareholders are most likely to be opposed to this, since it cuts into their profits, while Republicans are going to be opposed to it, since it involves government regulation. (They'd be fine if corporations did this on their own, but that's unlikely to happen, for reasons I've already stated.) Item two requires a restructuring of our financial system to encourage long-term investment over short-term. As we've seen in the wake of the financial crisis, getting either the government or Wall Street to do anything meaningful in the way of reform is impossible. Item three, the government could fix this, and the Republicans would be happy to get onboard with any potential solution, while the Democrats would not. There's multiple ways in which such a solution could be structured, but ideological issues on both sides would likely prevent any solution from passing. Item four, this doesn't seem likely to be changed any time soon, though its possible that come 2016, enough damage will have been done that the Republicans will no longer control the House, will lose control of the Senate (assuming they gain it this year, which seems likely), and we have a Democrat in the White House. Will they make it an issue that they care to deal with before the 2018 mid-terms (when control of the House generally flips to the opposition party)? Item five, get the religious right out of the Republican party, and we could certainly see a shift in this area. How likely that is to happen, is another question. Item six, not everyone realizes this though, and I've met plenty of people who think that if there's no free market demand, then it doesn't matter if the failure to deal with something will cause humanity to go extinct, we're getting what we "deserve." Make a significant enough change to any of those areas, and there's a good chance the problem will be solved. BTW, those same areas have impact on other issues besides medicine, so there will be broader changes than just solving the issue with not having drugs developed fast enough. (There's also a few issues which I didn't cover, because this is getting a bit long, but changing them will have a positive impact on the situation as well.) Until folks start looking at the situation objectively and stopped damning one another for the problems, its never going to get solved. I do not hold out hope on this last point, however. We can be an insanely stupid species when we want to.
Heard commentary today about more lives being lost in Western Africa to Ebola because the experimental drug, that appeared to work, is running out. Commentator expressed the opinion that drug companies aren't investing in Ebola cures because in their opinion it wouldn't ever be profitable. Thoughts?
Yeah. Its not the job of drug companies to take on unprofitable business and save humanity. Everyone who is offended by this should ask what they are willing to contribute to the cause. If we want someone to make a sacrifice to solve a problem we should be looking at ourselves first. Those who are concerned should push for government financial support to develop and distribute this drug faster. In that way we as a society will be footing the bill through our taxes instead of asking a private company to save lives at their own cost and risk. Good point. How many here or elsewhere, for that matter, would be willing to give up their salaries to a medical research lab until an ebola drug is found? Some people seem to think only research labs should give up their business and only researchers should give up their salaries for the public good. Why only them? Where is everyone's contribution? Put your money where your mouth is instead of calling for someone else to make the sacrifice. Lois