- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Capitalism vs Cures
Posted on 12/30/16 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 12/30/16 at 4:18 pm
We all know the industry of R&D, treatment, and drugs.
What is the money incentive for finding a cure?
What is the money incentive for finding a cure?
11
Posted on 12/30/16 at 4:42 pm to StickD
Truth is even with a cure for cancer, people are still going to get cancer. You don't cure it until it's diagnosed. You will not run out of patients. For vaccines, everyone needs them. Still won't run out of patients. Cure doesn't necessarily mean eradicated. Cure means treat those afflicted.
There is money to be made in treatment, cure and prevention.
There is money to be made in treatment, cure and prevention.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 4:44 pm to StickD
Have you read my cancer thread? I'm taking a beating over there for a very similar question.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 4:48 pm to NoHoTiger
The cure business model doesn't seem as apparent to me.
That's why I was asking.
That's why I was asking.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 4:49 pm to StickD
quote:
What is the money incentive for finding a cure?
You'd sell a lot of it. Will it cannibalize sales of cancer treatments? I guess that depends on what the rest of your cancer medicine portfolio looks like. For some companies the answer might be yes but for many I'm sure it's no. I don't think you can say that curing cancer is inherently unprofitable for every drug company.
Even if it was, the cure for cancer doesn't have to be pharmaceutical in nature. I'm sure the biotechs with their genetic and nano technology would love to be the ones to cure cancer.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 4:51 pm to StickD
Because you are looking at it as a problem -> solution -> end. Disease doesn't work that way. Even diseases that have been eradicated have to studied and maintained and vaccinated against (think small pox), so a true business model does not work in this instance. There are always going to be outside forces at play. Also, most diseases are living organisms and life always finds a way. So even cures have to be updated to keep up with the changing and evolving diseases.
This post was edited on 12/30/16 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 12/30/16 at 4:53 pm to High C
I did read it. It's easy to dismiss and say conspiracy theory.
That's why I'm asking what's the business model for billion dollar companies and non profits to actually find a cure.
Should be an answer. If not, why not?
That's why I'm asking what's the business model for billion dollar companies and non profits to actually find a cure.
Should be an answer. If not, why not?
Posted on 12/30/16 at 5:01 pm to StickD
quote:
What is the money incentive for finding a cure?
Charging a lot of money for it.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 5:02 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
You'd sell a lot of it.
Probably not. You'd probably sell a patent for a lot. I imagine there would be death for a cure to be made public. There are lots of innovations that are held in patent form and not used because they don't make as much long term money.
Like the Tesla energy device. Once the guy funding it realized he couldn't charge for it the funding stopped.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 5:07 pm to StickD
quote:
That's why I'm asking what's the business model for billion dollar companies and non profits to actually find a cure
Of course there is. Don't let the tin foil types get to you.
Everyone would need anti cancer meds. Profits would be ridiculous.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 5:10 pm to StickD
Scientists with high education and intellect aren't driven necessarily by money. They are driven by achievement and curiosity. Someone who developed some universal cure all would become immortal.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 5:10 pm to RogerTheShrubber
The Cure is criminally underrated. Disintegration is one of the best late 80's albums.
This post was edited on 12/30/16 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 12/30/16 at 5:11 pm to StickD
Let's use polio as an example in a modern medicine context applied to your business model question. How would that go?
Posted on 12/30/16 at 5:15 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Someone who developed some universal cure all would become immortal.
Like the guys that developed cures for polio, mumps, measles, ect?
Posted on 12/30/16 at 5:17 pm to PuntBamaPunt
After some R&D into the Cure, I'm still finding nuggets in that gold mine.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 6:07 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
Like the guys that developed cures for polio, mumps, measles, ect?
Absolutely. Unless your us using it literally and not figuratively.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 6:10 pm to High C
There is a pill for my type of cancer, 10 grand a month for life. Docs use chemo if you're healthy enough because of the expense
Posted on 12/30/16 at 6:42 pm to StickD
quote:The "cure" would be worth an absurd amount of money, and people would be willing to pay for it.
What is the money incentive for finding a cure?
Not to mention the historical significance, fame, notoriety, and just the accomplishment itself, especially given the moral implications.
And financially, just think of the book deals, the speaking engagements, and everything else that would come with it. Reseach would probably be funded indefinitely by people like Bill Gates.
Posted on 12/30/16 at 6:49 pm to StickD
Look into Gilead, they just cured Hep-C and made billions.
Everyone said it could not be cured 10 years ago.
Everyone said it could not be cured 10 years ago.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News