Quote: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... er-vaccine awesome, let's hope this vaccine proves to be successful! smoke as much as you want ![]() Jugoslavija je bleda slika premrzlega partizana zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti. -Via Ofenziva Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56 Ideology: Democratic Socialism Unperson
I'm going to wait until either FC or Richto tell us this is legit before I really comment on it I think.
Sounds fishy to me. A cure for cancer? Seriously?
Uh, no, it's not a cure for cancer, it's a treatment that stops cancer... which is nothing new or extraordinary, I was quite disappointed by the article actually.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo Quote: Yes, but this is still a good thing. There is never going to be a single magic bullet which cures cancer. This kind of thinking is a pipe dream. As of now, there are treatments or preventions for several types of cancer. This is sounding to me like one more to add to the list. The awesome thing about Cuba is that the health industry there is likely to seek cures or preventions even if the type of cancer involved is a comparatively rare one. In the US, drug companies will only manufacture treatments if they can make a good enough financial return. So thousands of people can die when a treatment for their condition exists! Just because a bunch of Capitalist pricks don't think they can make enough money out of them!
I find immunotherapy to be a very interesting field
I hadn't heard about attempts to apply it in lung cancer until now, though. We'll see how it fares in trials. Vaccine-based immunotherapy has produced improved outcomes in other cancers in the past, albeit it tends to be insufficient in itself. Still, every bit helps Fellow Comrade wrote: Some points - there is such a thing as orphan drug designation, to encourage development of drugs for rare diseases. - even in a socialist economy, you have a limited budget, and must make choices on what to fund more and what to fund less. Cold Equations gambit, unfortunatedly, but there's no helping this :-( - to be fair, as far as corporations are concerned, the pharmaceutical complex works better than your average capitalist industry, meaning that they have a strong incentive to invest in R&D, and are actually the sector which invests the highest % of it's revenue in it. This is not to say that they're not a bunch of corporate sobs, but rather, that before making drastic changes to the model, we should have a throughly planned alternative in detail. Back in white
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55 Party Bureaucrat
Well, actually, I would not give too much credit to the pharmaceutical complex. In the US at least, under the provision of the Bayh-Dole Act, most of the serious investment in R&D is spearheaded by the government, and the pharmaceutical companies only enter the equation at the late stage of development, in areas like drug delivery design and marketing.
![]() "History is a set of lies agreed upon." --Napoleon Bonaparte
*shrug* The way I studied it, it was as I said. I'm not saying that goverment investment in R&D isn't very important as well. I'm not saying that the current model is ideal, or that there are no better alternatives. What I'm saying is that we (rethorically speaking) should be careful with it, and changes should be mulled carefully before being implemented.
I'm reading this at the moment, looking for further insights on the matter. Maybe a new thread would be better, though, as this is fairly off-topic. Edit: bits: Quote: Quote: ---------------------------------- Back in white
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||