Woman Killed by a Superbug Resistant to Every Available Antibiotic

[Spectral]

More money to be had in developing sexpills for impotent donny the dumpsters out there than making actual life saving medicines. And this debunks all claims that for profit is the way to go since all you get is better sexpills but other more expensive research with few and far between sales at no profit gets cancelled since no profit mon.

There are tens of billions of dollars of public money spent on biomedical research every year. When things are untreatable, it's not because no one's trying.

Slurring the good people that engage in biomedical research and innovation (whether public or private) makes you look ignorant and spiteful.

For that matter, acting like pills that improve sexual function aren't a good thing makes you look ignorant and spiteful. Having a health sex life is part of having a health life. These are legitimate medical treatments.

[Wyrt]

What happens is the US develops the drug and Canada, Mexico and probably a lot of other countries pass laws that greatly reduce the cost of US drugs, what do they care, it's not their companies losing out. So if you let US citizens buy from Canada you are giving US citizens a way of circumventing the free market, patents, etc.

If US citizens could buy from Canada there would be actual competition for US drug companies and they couldn't charge fucking retarded amounts for drugs.

US drug costs is a large part of why US health insurance is so fucking expensive compared to the rest of the developed world.

[Osmeric]

If US citizens could buy from Canada there would be actual competition for US drug companies and they couldn't charge fucking retarded amounts for drugs.

US drug costs is a large part of why US health insurance is so fucking expensive compared to the rest of the developed world.

And then drug R&D would collapse. And with everyone free riding, there would be no more new drugs to free ride on.

[araine]

There are tens of billions of dollars of public money spent on biomedical research every year. When things are untreatable, it's not because no one's trying.

Slurring the good people that engage in biomedical research and innovation (whether public or private) makes you look ignorant and spiteful.

For that matter, acting like pills that improve sexual function aren't a good thing makes you look ignorant and spiteful. Having a health sex life is part of having a health life. These are legitimate medical treatments.

I didnt write what you think i wrote, but if you cant see the problem in making sexpills for profit being a better business model than making medicine that saves lives well i dont know what to tell you to change your mind and understand that we dont need more sexpills i can ensure you that market is getting a shitload of coverage from big pharma as is and really do these conservative duffuses need it since the bible says they shouldnt have sex in the first place?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The difference is that there's really no expectation that Republicans will support the bills proposed by Democrats, especially as things become increasingly about partisanship and not principles. There was still a significant amount of action across the aisle, enough that it should have not only passed, but passed easily, and Democratic senators still torpedoed the legislation. Am I really suggesting that Republicans didn't contribute to it failing in that the majority didn't vote for it? No, but I think if you want to single out one party or the other to blame for the failure of this bill, it really needs to be on the shoulders of the Democrats this time.

By that logic we have 25 people that "failed" their parties. The majority of both parties did exactly what you would expect.

[araine]

And then drug R&D would collapse. And with everyone free riding, there would be no more new drugs to free ride on.

Total nonsense, everyone knows the health insurance companies and big pharma is in it together since more money for each of them the higher the drug costs are. since the insurance rates are basically a cost+ contract with the buyers of health insurance. meaning they have no interest in lowering drug costs, same methods used by contractors in Iraq like Halliburton that raked in billions in profit doing nothing but cost+ billing to the government.

[Spectral]

I didnt write what you think i wrote, but if you cant see the problem in making sexpills for profit being a better business model than making medicine that saves lives well i dont know what to tell you to change your mind and understand that we dont need more sexpills i can ensure you that market is getting a shitload of coverage from big pharma as is and really do these conservative duffuses need it since the bible says they shouldnt have sex in the first place?

This is really economically illiterate. Multiple markets exist. You've packed at least 5 different wrongheaded sentiments into this short post. A quick summary:

1. Multiple markets exist, there's no need to act like Viagra crowds out other medical research.
2. There's massive public funding for biomedical research, if there lots of low-hanging fruit, they'd find it.
3. Sexual function treatments are legitimate and creating more of them (particularly for women) is legitimate.
4. Pharma companies constantly seek more medical treatments.
5. Most conservative Christians aren't anti-sex.

You don't know anything about these topics.

- - - Updated - - -

Total nonsense, everyone knows the health insurance companies and big pharma is in it together since more money for each of them the higher the drug costs are.

That's not how this works at all. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

And your point would be? At the end of the day, in an uncharacteristic show of bipartisan cooperation, a decent chunk of Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for the bill. A group of Democrats who receive large donations from pharmaceutical companies chose their donors over their constituents at large. You can blame the Republicans if you wish, but if you're looking for someone to burn at the stake, the Democrats were clearly the ones who blew it.

My point would be it is the people that voted against it that are at fault...not the parties they belong to.

[Felya]

Guess it wasn't radioactive...

[stabetha]

Well, yeah, I know it's hard and expensive. That's why I'd like more dedicated funding for it! Doing another shitty study that once again shows that homeopathy is bunk for a half million dollars is easy and that half million won't actually go very far in antibiotic research, but there's some finite chance of incrementally improving knowledge.

I'm not looking for a moonshot style approach, these mostly don't work, just reallocating funds over time.

well for that you wold need to talk to the countries that insist on paying only the cost to manufacture medince and then talk shit about the US for paying so much in order to pay for the research.

[Wyrt]

And then drug R&D would collapse. And with everyone free riding, there would be no more new drugs to free ride on.

Oh please, if it wasn't profitable to sell the drugs in other countries then they wouldn't do it. No one is getting a free ride. Complete bullshit.

[Trassk]

Viruses are living, evolving things that adapt every few years to whatever chemicals we pump into our bodies. We can't eradicate most viruses because by the time we find a way to block it, its taken the next step. coupled with how many people their are in the world now, it no surprise.

[Spectral]

Oh please, if it wasn't profitable to sell the drugs in other countries then they wouldn't do it. No one is getting a free ride. Complete bullshit.

Are you sure you understand the difference between cost to develop and incremental unit costs here? This has a very important impact on how companies approach research.

- - - Updated - - -

Viruses are living, evolving things that adapt every few years to whatever chemicals we pump into our bodies. We can't eradicate most viruses because by the time we find a way to block it, its taken the next step. coupled with how many people their are in the world now, it no surprise.

Viruses are tangential to the point.

[Bigbazz]

This is what we get for retards not knowing how to use antibiotics properly.

Probably more to do with the overuse in livestock than with people not being responsible with their use of medication, the scale is much much larger with livestock.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No kidding. Does that really need to be explicitly stated to be understood? I figured people could work out that "the Democrats" meant "the Democrats who voted against the bill," as blaming people who voted for the bill for the bill not passing would just be strange.

May I point out to you a sentence you wrote:

No, but I think if you want to single out one party or the other to blame for the failure of this bill, it really needs to be on the shoulders of the Democrats this time.

Your words. You put the blame on the Democratic Party...not the individuals.

[Wyrt]

Are you sure you understand the difference between cost to develop and incremental unit costs here? This has a very important impact on how companies approach research.

They get millions of dollars from the government for development.

[Spectral]

Probably more to do with the overuse in livestock than with people not being responsible with their use of medication, the scale is much much larger with livestock.

While this is relevant more broadly, I don't think 4th and 5th generation antibiotics are used much (if at all) in agriculture. If I'm wrong and somehow has a source, I'm happy to read and be corrected.

- - - Updated - - -

They get millions of dollars from the government for development.

So the answer is basically "no".

[Wyrt]

So the answer is basically "no".

They're already getting the cost to develop from government grants. We are already paying for the development through our tax money. Why are we also paying for development when we buy them?

Sounds like big pharma bullshit propaganda.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

And your point would be? At the end of the day, in an uncharacteristic show of bipartisan cooperation, a decent chunk of Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for the bill. A group of Democrats who receive large donations from pharmaceutical companies chose their donors over their constituents at large. You can blame the Republicans if you wish, but if you're looking for someone to burn at the stake, the Democrats were clearly the ones who blew it.

I think the point is, don't ignore the Republicans that voted against the medical bill or whatever. Same with Democrats.

[Spectral]

They're already getting the cost to develop from government grants. We are already paying for the development through our tax money. Why are we also paying for development when we buy them?

Sounds like big pharma bullshit propaganda.

The average cost to bring a drug to market is ~$2.5 billion. This is not even close to defrayed substantially by public funding. I'm sure SciAm is just promoting big pharma bullshit propaganda though