Photo contradicts Pelosi's statement about not meeting Kislyak

[Th'Pusher]

"National Ins utes for Health committed $119 million over five years to the Accelerating Medicines Partnership"


Then where did the money come from? Where will it come from in the future under that plan? What is the underlying motive for private industry to embark in these ventures, smaller profits but smaller risks? If so, that's still a profit motive.

And it was the paragraph that was "also from the article" that was privately funded. I wasn't disputing the NIH was funding one idea. Multiple ideas were presented, but you honed in on the publicly funded one and disregarded the others missing the overall point of the article. Again, because it fits your preconceived notion that Government is the problem.

[DMC]

It's called using government money to spur innovation. In this case, spurring innovative ways to mitigate technical risk in new drug development.

There's no such as government money. It's taxpayer money. So make up your mind, is it privately funded or not?

If it works, it would be in the private sectors' best interest to continue to spread the cost of technical risk. The market will play it's role allowing the profit motive to return as a true driver of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.

Why would it be in their best interest? Oh because of profits! So profit motive is the best driver for innovation after all, regardless how they go about getting there.

That's the goal.

$119M represents less than 1% the cost of the proposed wall on the Southern border which you don't seem to take an issue with.

A much better investment imo.

So the goal/motive is profit. What the are you arguing against again?

[DMC]

And it was the paragraph that was "also from the article" that was privately funded. I wasn't disputing the NIH was funding one idea. Multiple ideas were presented, but you honed in on the publicly funded one and disregarded the others missing the overall point of the article. Again, because it fits your preconceived notion that Government is the problem.

"This is the last time I am going to state my position. The profit motive actually disincentivizes innovation of new products" - You

"If it works, it would be in the private sectors' best interest to continue to spread the cost of technical risk. The market will play it's role allowing the profit motive to return as a true driver of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry" -You again

Do you not get it that the entire endeavor is profit driven? Profit now, profit later... still profit. Where's the other motives I asked you about?

[Th'Pusher]

There's no such as government money. It's taxpayer money. So make up your mind, is it privately funded or not?

One of the ideas in the article posted was publicly funded. Others were privately funded. You chose to focus on the one that was publicly funded, but the point of the article was to discuss ideas to mitigate technical risk. The article also touched on the the FDA's relatively new fast-tracking process for new innovative drugs.

Why would it be in their best interest? Oh because of profits! So profit motive is the best driver for innovation after all, regardless how they go about getting there.

So the goal/motive is profit. What the are you arguing against again?

The point is that the profit motive has not become a driver of innovation because money is spent on evergreening exiting drugs which has a better ROI as in borne out in the percentage of me-too drugs vs new drug development. At this point, I am starting to think I have given you too much credit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One of the ideas in the article posted was publicly funded. Others were privately funded. You chose to focus on the one that was publicly funded, but the point of the article was to discuss ideas to mitigate technical risk. The article also touched on the the FDA's relatively new fast-tracking process for new innovative drugs.



The point is that the profit motive has not become a driver of innovation because money is spent on evergreening exiting drugs which has a better ROI. At this point, I am starting to think I have given you too much credit as in borne out in the percentage of me-too drugs vs new drug development.

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. -Bert Russell

Of course he fixated on the simpler topic of derp S0C14l1SM! DMC likes to play the polymath but is the most pseudo-intellectual individual on this board.

If you try to shove his nose in a particular issue which is obvious he bungled he will change the subject typically with ad hominems about you. It's a waste of time arguing with him he only argues honorably when he thinks he can win.

[Th'Pusher]

"This is the last time I am going to state my position. The profit motive actually disincentivizes innovation of new products" - You

You've edited out the crux of my argument. You're being intentionally deceitful or you're dense. At this point, I honestly don't know which one.

"If it works, it would be in the private sectors' best interest to continue to spread the cost of technical risk. The market will play it's role allowing the profit motive to return as a true driver of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry" -You again

I've edited to highlight the important word in my statement. I've haven't argued the profit motive can't be effective.

Do you not get it that the entire endeavor is profit driven? Profit now, profit later... still profit. Where's the other motives I asked you about?

I understand companies primary responsibility is to generate profit. And as you've already conceded, evergreening existing patented drugs is more profitable than developing new drugs. The pharmaceutical industry has become so risk averse that the profit motive no longer drives enough innovation to create new drugs. Mitigating technical risk is a way we can potentially return the profit motive as a driver of innovation.

If you don't get it by now, I will just consider you too dense to understand the argument.

[Th'Pusher]

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. -Bert Russell

Of course he fixated on the simpler topic of derp S0C14l1SM! DMC likes to play the polymath but is the most pseudo-intellectual individual on this board.

If you try to shove his nose in a particular issue which is obvious he bungled he will change the subject typically with ad hominems about you. It's a waste of time arguing with him he only argues honorably when he thinks he can win.

Before this exchange, I suspected, but wasn't sure I agreed with this assessment. After this exchange, it's pretty clear you're correct.

[DMC]

You've edited out the crux of my argument. You're being intentionally deceitful or you're dense. At this point, I honestly don't know which one.



I've edited to highlight the important word in my statement. I've haven't argued the profit motive can't be effective.



I understand companies primary responsibility is to generate profit. And as you've already conceded, evergreening existing patented drugs is more profitable than developing new drugs. The pharmaceutical industry has become so risk averse that the profit motive no longer drives enough innovation to create new drugs. Mitigating technical risk is a way we can potentially return the profit motive as a driver of innovation.

If you don't get it by now, I will just consider you too dense to understand the argument.

Everything you've suggested is still motivated by profit.

I'm still waiting for you to offer an alternative motive.

[DMC]

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. -Bert Russell

Of course he fixated on the simpler topic of derp S0C14l1SM! DMC likes to play the polymath but is the most pseudo-intellectual individual on this board.

If you try to shove his nose in a particular issue which is obvious he bungled he will change the subject typically with ad hominems about you. It's a waste of time arguing with him he only argues honorably when he thinks he can win.

rent free

[Th'Pusher]

Everything you've suggested is still motivated by profit.

I'm still waiting for you to offer an alternative motive.

There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine. It's just skewing too heavily toward evergreening existing drug patents because of the risk involved in new product development. My argument has always been that the profit motive has not been effective for new product innovation.

There is nothing more I can do. You are too dense to understand a relatively simple concept.

Look on the bright side. You've come a long way since posting a chart of new chemical en ies by country for an argument

[DMC]

There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine. It's just skewing too heavily toward evergreening existing drug patents because of the risk involved in new product development. My argument has always been that the profit motive has not been effective for new product innovation.

There is nothing more I can do. You are too dense to understand a relatively simple concept.

Look on the bright side. You've come a long way since posting a chart of new chemical en ies by country for an argument

"Your position on the profit motive driving innovation in modern pharmaceuticals is laughably stupid."- you

If profit motive is the only motive, why is it stupid to suggest that?

You've been back peddling for quite some time on this.

[DMC]

Btw, this is where you started:

I use these words as qualifiers because I am recalling information I have read and I do not have the time, nor the desire to go look up specifics. You can call it lazy. That's fine. Still, you have posted zero evidence to convince anyone (other than maybe WC) that the profit motive drives innovation in the current pharmaceutical industry. Your new chemical en y chart by country was pathetic.

This is where you are now: "There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine"


My original comment was that, if you remove the profit motive, you basically will have no innovation. I think I said "slow to a crawl" and you somehow tried to quantify that, ignoring the fact that the term is generally used with another reference in mind. In this case, we were discussing current levels. Now you say there is no other motive (or you've again avoided actually saying it, you're implying it because you're a chicken ).

Like the rest of the arm-chair socialists here, you don't have a plan, just a complaint.

[Th'Pusher]

"Your position on the profit motive driving innovation in modern pharmaceuticals is laughably stupid."- you

If profit motive is the only motive, why is it stupid to suggest that?

You've been back peddling for quite some time on this.

You're too dense.

[Th'Pusher]

Btw, this is where you started:



This is where you are now: "There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine"


My original comment was that, if you remove the profit motive, you basically will have no innovation. I think I said "slow to a crawl" and you somehow tried to quantify that, ignoring the fact that the term is generally used with another reference in mind. In this case, we were discussing current levels. Now you say there is no other motive (or you've again avoided actually saying it, you're implying it because you're a chicken ).

Like the rest of the arm-chair socialists here, you don't have a plan, just a complaint.

You're too dense.

[z0sa]

Btw, this is where you started:



This is where you are now: "There does not need to be an alternate motive. The profit motive is fine"


My original comment was that, if you remove the profit motive, you basically will have no innovation. I think I said "slow to a crawl" and you somehow tried to quantify that, ignoring the fact that the term is generally used with another reference in mind. In this case, we were discussing current levels. Now you say there is no other motive (or you've again avoided actually saying it, you're implying it because you're a chicken ).

Like the rest of the arm-chair socialists here, you don't have a plan, just a complaint.

The problem isn't profit. Compe ion is good. Profitting off fixing people's bodies even, has its place.

Charging hundreds, even thousands of times as much in the USA compared to other countries isn't compe ion, though - it's blatant unethical price gouging, not to mention the cause the untold pain and suffering and death. Likewise, conducting "research" into 'new' medicines that are a hair different from existing ones so that a cutthroat industry's corruption is sustainable cons utes nothing less than fraud. Even Trump pays lip service to these realities. There's a lot of dead and dying and suffering patients who wouldn't mind exchanging slower innovation for their quality of life, or simply, their life. Ultimately, that's the elephant in the room.

[DMC]

The problem isn't profit. Compe ion is good. Profitting off fixing people's bodies even, has its place.

Charging hundreds, even thousands of times as much in the USA compared to other countries isn't compe ion, though - it's blatant unethical price gouging, not to mention the cause the untold pain and suffering and death. Likewise, conducting "research" into 'new' medicines that are a hair different from existing ones so that a cutthroat industry's corruption is sustainable cons utes nothing less than fraud. Even Trump pays lip service to these realities. There's a lot of dead and dying and suffering patients who wouldn't mind exchanging slower innovation for their quality of life, or simply, their life. Ultimately, that's the elephant in the room.

That's a different argument than saying profit motive isn't what drives innovation.

[Th'Pusher]

That's a different argument than saying profit motive isn't what drives innovation.

And that's a different argument than saying the profit motive isn't an effective driver of new product innovation.

You're too dense to make that differentiation.

[z0sa]

That's a different argument than saying profit motive isn't what drives innovation.

I'd say that love of profit is hurting innovation in many cases, then. Like the saying goes, for profit healthcare is in the business of creating (customers) wealth, just like any other for profit endeavor.

[DMC]

And that's a different argument than saying the profit motive isn't an effective driver of new product innovation.

You're too dense to make that differentiation.

You're too stupid to realize the term "effective" is A) subjective and B) a red herring since I never said it was effective. I've established it's the only motive, and so compared to the other non-existent motives, it's 100% effective.

[DMC]

I'd say that love of profit is hurting innovation in many cases, then. Like the saying goes, for profit healthcare is in the business of creating (customers) wealth, just like any other for profit endeavor.

That would be fine if some other motive was helping it, so the cause vs correlation aspect could more easily be dismissed.

The market is driven by demand. Stop buying the they produce. If people are going to buy it anyhow, then the profit motive is doing just fine.

Or

When a not-for-profit en y produces ground breaking results in medicine, then big Pharma will have to take notice because the market will reflect it.

By the way, it's the FDA that prevents Americans from buying drugs from other countries (maybe the DEA as well but that's different). People pretend for-profit industries are ing the American people but the federal government holds the key to true free market pharmacy.

[Th'Pusher]

You're too stupid to realize the term "effective" is A) subjective and B) a red herring since I never said it was effective. I've established it's the only motive, and so compared to the other non-existent motives, it's 100% effective.

Sure it's subjective. But I've provided a baseline - currently 60% of new drugs that are FDA approved are me-too drugs which, imo, means profit is not effectively driving innovative new products.

We agree evergreening existing drugs is more profitable than developing new ones. Pharmaceutical companies have a finite amount of money they are going to invest in R&D. The profit motive ensures that the development of me-too drugs comes at the expense of developing new more innovative drugs.