Chávez wants to end medicine patents

[Forkboy]

CARACAS - President Hugo Chávez has vowed to shake up the rules governing intellectual property rights on medicines and other products in Venezuela, the socialist’s latest move against the private sector.

“A song is intellectual property, but an invention or a scientific discovery should be knowledge for the world, especially medicine,’’ Chávez said late Saturday.

“That a laboratory does not allow us to make a medicine because they have the patent, no, no, no,’’ Chávez said.

Chávez, who has nationalized many Venezuela industries and is critical of the private sector, ordered his trade minister to analyze the patent rules in the OPEC nation.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2009/06/22/chvez_wants_to_end_medicine_patents/

[Syrinx]

1. it's obscene that health care, in any form, is a for-profit business

But, maybe human nature is obscene itself. I'm not sure.

[dkf]

4. Well would you like to work your whole life and never receive

any compensation for it? How are you supposed to live? Chavez wants people to spend millions of dollars to create drugs, and then give it out for free. He's not even arguing for a reasonable amount to compensate for cost or limited profit.

[EFerrari]

5. Poor, poor Big Pharma.

lol

[dkf]

6. I'm talking about the rationale behind his argument.

It doesn't hold water.

[EFerrari]

7. Too many assumptions, too little information. n/t

[dkf]

8. I think its more than obvious actually.

What more do you need? He doesn't believe in patents.

[EFerrari]

11. So, what does that mean to you? It sounds like he has another

idea for the way this should work and it's not explained in this article. Is that enough for you to be set off? :)

[dkf]

14. He thinks once a discovery is made, no one should be compensated for it.

"Chávez recently criticized Swedish packaging maker Tetra Pak, saying its patents on cartons were limiting production in Venezuela"

Its not even related to saving lives, but even things like packaging.

[EFerrari]

19. Again, your assumptions are over the top.

You don't know what he thinks.

[Syrinx]

9. well, I got into an argument with EFerrari the other night, because I was anti-Chavez

So maybe this means I'm "fair and balanced." :)

Maybe greed needs to be used as an incentive to find cures. I'm not sure. But it would be nice if the governments of the world would regulate and restrain that greed. Innovators should be rewarded, but abuse should be punished, in my opinion.

[EFerrari]

10. It just seems like one thing to compensate people for their work

and another to bleed sick people to line the pockets of Big Pharma. But, I really don't know enough about this in either direction.

[Syrinx]

12. I think we are in synch on this particular topic

:hi:

EDIT: aren't you the DU'er formerly known as sfexpat, or something close to that?

Just trying to improve my memory.

[EFerrari]

13. It depends. Are you with a collection agency?

:hi:

[Syrinx]

15. NO!

I hate those guys! ;)

[Greyhound]

16. you work for the salary you're paid and the satisfaction that you have helped

thousands of people overcome or better tolerate their illness.

I know that's a difficult concept for Americans to grasp, but profit a lousy motivation for health care, just look at well it has served us. We spend far more than anybody and were 37th in 2002 (they don't do the rankings anymore), I'm sure it's worse now.

[elmaji]

17. inventors don't neccesary get paid a salary.

A lot of them get no money at all.

What of them?

[Greyhound]

18. I've never heard of somebody tinkering in their basement or garage inventing

a new medicine, and since that is what we're talking about, your question is meaningless. Hugo Chavez did not, that I know of, advocate forcing Ron Popeil to surrender his pocket fisherman to the world.

[EFerrari]

20. I'm going to order my next ShamWow! from Venezuela.

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Nobody cured a disease by tinkering in a garage.

Is an inventor any less an inventor if he's an actual scientist got a lab coat and working in a proper laboratory as opposed to a garage?

[Greyhound]

22. That person is working in that lab and drawing a salary and trying to make

some contribution to science, as the original reply stated.

Please try to keep up.

[Selatius]

23. Typically, that person is working on a grant either from a public entity or a private one with a...

living allowance. If the funds came from a public place, such as the Dept. of Education or the Food and Drug Administration, the taxpayers have a claim on the patent already.

[Greyhound]

27. True. Which gets back to what I think is the original point, the morality of

prioritizing research and supplying medicine on the basis of realized or potential profits.

In my experience, those that have gone into medicine and research primarily to make money, really suck at it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. How many pro bono doctors and scientists do you actually know?

Why do you think they're representative, and how do you rate their abilities?

[Greyhound]

31. Was I talking to you? No, now please wait until you're called upon,

the adults are having a conversation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. Well then by all means, converse like an adult.

They're pretty simple questions that any adult should be capable of answering.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. That person is making a salary...

Because some company wants to earn patent rights by inventing new drugs.

Please try to comprehend basic reality.

[Greyhound]

25. I'm so sorry, we seem to have left you behind again.

:nopity:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Keep telling yourself that.

[Greyhound]

28. I don't have to, you just keep reminding us over and over and over...

:rofl:

[wolfgangmo]

78. Wrong.

In every other country where medicine and medical research is publicly supported they make huge contributions to the understanding of the human body and health. And not one of them work for a drug company.

Your entire premise is based on the lie that big pharma has been telling since Saint Reagan rolled onto the stage, namely that without them there would be no medical research ever done and that every drug and advancement has been because of them. That is pure BS.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. You realize they have "big pharma" in other countries, right?

And that they can patent medicine there too, right?

It's not some big conspiracy theory, you know.

[elmaji]

46. Didn't you read the fucking article.

Chavez is against any patents. Period.

Not just medical ones.

And believe it or not, the first medical labs WERE set up in garages. If people could afford the equipment they would still be set up in garages.

But that equipment is expensive. And most of the initial patented run pays for that kind of stuff.

In most countries outside the USA, (like Venezuela) the patent expires much sooner than it does in the USA.

[Greyhound]

49. And what marvels of medical science came out of these garages?

Like most of what Chavez does, or says he's going to do, it comes down to whether you feel it is better to live in a community and work for the betterment of that community, or to live in a jungle and become the prey or the predator.
:shrug:

[elmaji]

50. So communism.

Nice to know. I always said Chavez is a Communist.

I thought we went back through this in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Communism does not work. Period.

[EFerrari]

51. Capitalism just collapsed the global economy so that argument can't be

the best one you can make.

[elmaji]

54. No it didn't.

Free Markets crashed the global economy.

But at least under Free Marketism there IS a economy.

Capitalism entails a certain amount of regulation.

[Greyhound]

58. Well, Cuba is the world's only true communist nation and an overwhelming number

of Cubans are really happy with it.

Did you know that Cuba is the only nation on earth that never fills it's annual allotment of US citizenship applications?

Did you know that Cuba has a 100% literacy rate?

Did you know that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than we do?

Did you know that has a better education system and higher graduation rate than we do?

Did you know that Cuba produces a surplus of Doctors, Engineers, Scientists, and PhDs and sends them all over the world to help other nations that need their services FOC?

But, forget about Cuba; Did you know that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index">all but one nation on earth that has happier, more satisfied citizens than the USA has some form of Socialist government, and they (The UAE) have more money than they can spend?

The USSR and China (our two big "enemies"), are not communist, they are/were totalitarian dictatorships that called themselves communist.

So no, we didn't go "back through this in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s". We were and still are propagandized and conditioned to fear what we will not be allowed to know. Cuba is far from perfect, but the average Cuban has less to fear than the average American.

Turn off your TeeVee, it's primary function is to stop you from thinking, and look it up for yourself. Better yet, talk to real live people that have been there, listen to what they say, learn why they hold the views they hold, and decide for yourself.

[elmaji]

60. Yea Cuban's aren't happy.

They're forced to appear happy. I visited Cuba years ago, and was chased out by Castro's secret police.

The poeple don't have basic goods such as soap, deodorant and toothpaste. They have very little in the way of medicine. They are not allowed to speak their mind, and everything they do or say can have strong repercussions up to death.

The state controls all the media and censors anything that goes against Castro or their way of thinking.

What Cuba is is hardly what I want America to become. It would be a step back in all directions.

[Greyhound]

61. Since you are an anonymous poster with no history and I know at least a dozen

people that both live there and visit there frequently, I'll take their word (which is completely contradictory to yours) for now.

[elmaji]

64. Thats fine.

But did the people who live there live on the street, or live in the foreigners area.

I never entered on a US passport, I never visited the foreign areas. I visited only the commoners.

If anyone you know in Cuba tells you the common Cuban has access to things like Toothpaste, Soap, and Deodorant every single day of their life they are lying to you.

If anyone tells you they have freedom of the press in Cuba and freedom to speak their mind they are lying to you.

If anyone tells you they have freedom of religion in Cuba, they are lying to you.

Simple facts.

[Judi Lynn]

65. Your claims of shortages are so odd. Apparently you intend to side-step

the 45+ year old embargo altogether.

DU'ers are a whole lot brighter than that.

As for your silly remark about churches, whom do you think you're fooling here? There are several DU'ers whose US churches correspond directly with their sister churches in Cuba, and have, for YEARS.

There has been a Russian Orthodox congregation there, also, FOR YEARS, as well as a Jewish synagogue, etc.

Many of us have a very clear memory of when the Pope went to Havana in the 1990's, during Bill Clinton's Presidency, and was well attended by the Archbishop of Havana, Cardinal Jaime Ortega, who's been around for a very long time, doing CHURCH stuff, and who was also on the short list the last time a Pope was chosen. There are even those fundie Christian churches in which Holy Rollers wave their arms around in the air, turning their faces up to the ceiling toward the Flying Spaghetti Monster, making great displays of their versions of piety.

All KINDS of church organizations from the States go there regularly, have, FOR YEARS.

Don't even try to put any of that crappola over on DU'ers. We've heard it all since long ago. You don't realize that normally intelligent people just don't buy garbage like that, most likely never did. You'd have to be an idiot to swallow that swill. Wake the heck up.

[elmaji]

66. Yes, yes churches exist. But are CONSTANTLY harrased.

That is not freedom of religion, not in the least.

Also those churches have to register with the state, are extremely limited in what materials they have (bibles and such are hard to come by).

The Catholic Church has free range of course because they are THE CHURCH, minorities in the meanwhile are pushed to the side and persecuted quite often.

Yes like I said, I went as part of a church organization to Cuba. What I saw there was not freedom of religion, not in the least. Especially with Castro's police following me around, and the local Pastor's being so afraid for their own safety because of me being around they asked me to leave.

That's why I haven't returned since.

As for shortages, I wouldn't blame the lack of simple goods like soap and such on the USA, call it a hunch but I think a country of 11 million has the understanding and resources to produce their own.

[Judi Lynn]

68. Maybe you should give more details, for credibility's sake. How ARE these protestant churches

"persecuted?" Take the time and explain the procedure. You should describe the manner in which protestants are being abused for their faith.

By the way, don't you imagine all U.S. churches have to have legal permission from the U.S. government to operate formally, and receive their tax exempt status? Aren't you aware there are laws here relating to churches,which they must observe, and they are not free to operate any old way they want, like a village idiot?

I see you sidestepped the Catholic Church, and implied it doesn't get "persecuted" because it's "the church." That actually contradicts your first claims that churches get persecuted.

"Castro's police" followed you around, you on an island which does a HUGE business in tourism from Canada, Eurorpe, Asia, Australia, and Latin America, as well as many Americans who go there via 3rd countries? How many cops do you think it takes to follow all of them around, especially the ones who rent cars, or RV's, or motorcycles, or bicycles and zoom all over the island?

That's never happened to any of the DU'ers who've taken the time to discuss their trips, many making many trips over the years, and some going there for work, and staying for extended periods. I've only heard one person claim a cop gave him dirty looks. It could be he was drunk! Most cops in Cuba don't carry guns, by the way, in that "police state."

As for industries on the island to make all these products, why don't you give the names of other islands which have the ability to make their own products? Importing has always been the practise on these islands which were seized by Spain and used with slave labor to produce fruit crops, or tobacco, etc. to send OUTSIDE the country to other places. Islands generally are not capable of sustaining any kind of heavy industry. They import. Ask people who live in Hawaii about that.

Don't you ever take the time to LEARN anything useful? Don't you ever take the time to research, and to THINK through these things? What you're spewing is exactly the same spew I've heard from Miami reactionary "exiles" for years. Word for feeble word.

[blindpig]

72. such bullcrap

The Baptists I met down there would be highly amused by your comments.

And no, I was not on the 'gold coast', I was in Pindar del Rio, countryside & small towns.

[EFerrari]

89. This talking point was big among the nut wing about a month ago. n/t

[Greyhound]

67. None of them have US passports as it has only recently even been possible

since our "free and democratic" government has threatened us with jail time for going there.

No, my friends are from other, more sane, nations and have been visiting and doing business there for years. There is no free press there, and since I do not subscribe to any delusional mythologies, religion has never been discussed to my recollection.

Personal hygiene is something else that has never been a topic of conversation, but dental care has and apparently the average Cuban gets better dental care than I do, not to mention health care and opportunities for higher education.

Of course, Cuba was not the subject of the conversation but just an example which you have seized on to get away from the actual discussion.

[shellgame26]

99. Then

maybe we should end the embargo? :shrug:

[Maru Kitteh]

95. "Cuba is the only nation on earth that never fills it's annual allotment of US citizenship applicati

"Did you know that Cuba is the only nation on earth that never fills it's annual allotment of US citizenship applications?"

Brilliant.







I can't imagine WHY.

[Greyhound]

96. LOL! You guys are so amusing.

The whole Elian Gonzalez drama was all true too.

You betcha.

[Maru Kitteh]

100. But I suppose the moon landing was fake, right?

Unbelievable.

[Greyhound]

102. Are you really that devoid of argument?

I just happen to be friends with some people that lived right there and were present during the whole fiasco. It was a minor family squabble that the reich-wing seized on, exaggerated and in many respects fabricated (for instance nobody broke into the apartment at all, let alone with guns drawn), to discredit the administration.

Turn off the boob tube, it's really effecting you.
:eyes:

[Maru Kitteh]

107. You implied that the human beings who risk their lives and often die to get here are fake.

I didn't say a damn thing about EG, that was your Red Herring. You may prattle on about it as you wish of course. I choose to stay on point. Are you going to address the fact that more Cubans wish to flee Cuba and live in the U.S. than the Cuban government or the 20,000 legal quota of the U.S. will allow and that the end result is that many desperate Cubans lose their lives in the ocean?


I'm betting you won't, but if you do, it'll be a pointless waste of time engaging you anyway. You've already decided that Cuba is an island paradise full of win, whereas I have opinions based outside of that kind of fantasy thinking. Like most places, there are many good things about Cuba and some things the government does well. I can acknowledge those good things without denying the deaths and desperation of so many who have left and tried to leave because of the bad things about Cuba as well. You can't. You don't have an argument with someone like that, you just pity them.

[Horse with no Name]

52. First of all you do realize that the majority of these scientists who "discover" and "invent"t hese

drugs, they are subsidized by grants (that they don't have to pay back). So basically, they do to work everyday and invent something--their salary for doing their job should be compensation enough.

[EFerrari]

53. Does the government fund most of this development indirectly

in the first place?

If anyone else had said, hey, we're paying too much to Big Pharma for medicine, I wonder if the response would have been different? :)

[Horse with no Name]

55. Yes. Grants, governmental agency grants, and tax deductions.

Here are some links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS95523+03-Oct-2008+PRN20081003
Isis Announces Award of Up to $8.4 Million in New Government Grants and Contracts...
>>>snip
Isis Announces Award of Up to $8.4 Million in New Government Grants and
Contracts to Its Ibis Biosciences Subsidiary for Pathogen Detection and Human
Forensics

CARLSBAD, Calif., Oct. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Isis Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ISIS) announced today that its majority-owned subsidiary, Ibis
Biosciences, Inc. (Ibis), was awarded government grants and contracts from the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) and other government agencies totaling up to $8.4 million.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-489122.html

>>>snip
The average cost of developing a new prescription drug -- including paying for the many failures -- reached $802 million in the 1990s, according to a controversial study announced yesterday.

Several watchdog groups immediately discounted the work of the Tufts University researchers, arguing that the calculations ignore the large tax deductions and government grants that drug companies receive.

http://ir.isispharm.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=293400
Isis Announces Approximately $2.8 Million in Government Grants and Contracts Awarded to its Ibis Subsidiary to Advance Ibis' Pathogen Identification Technology

CARLSBAD, Calif., Feb 12, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: ISIS) announced today that its majority-owned subsidiary, Ibis Biosciences, Inc. (Ibis), has been awarded two new Phase 2 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants and a new government contract totaling up to approximately $2.8 million. The SBIR grants awarded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Army will fund advancements in the Ibis T5000(TM) Biosensor System for new biodefense applications, including the detection and identification of infectious agents within the military blood supply. The contract from the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (DHS-S&T) adds to a contract awarded in September 2007 from the same agency for the advancement of Ibis' microbial forensics applications and the enhancement of Ibis' microbial database.

[EFerrari]

56. So, we pay for the development and Big Pharma gets buckets of money.

They get us coming AND going.

[Horse with no Name]

57. Yep. One of the BIGGEST lies out there for the high prices of pharmaceuticals

that is never challenged.
WE pay for the development. We do. American citizens.
Then we are told that the drugs are soooooooo expensive because the development costs are so high.
Well, considering WE paid for THAT too, there is a huge disconnect that our congressional critters NEVER address.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Actually, no.

The U.S. gov. under the NIH grant funds some research projects, mostly at the university level.

These rarely turn out marketable drugs.

The vast majority of drugs on the market are there because private drug companies invested billions.

[wolfgangmo]

79. "Marketable" drugs?

Viagra, anyone?

Yup, that saves lives. Thank god for big pharma. Now you too can get a boner that lasts so long that you have a stroke.

Most americans are, by any rational standard, drug addicts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. As opposed to drugs that don't pass screenings.

"Yup, that saves lives."

Viagra? It doesn't save lives, but it sure improves quality of life.

Something Big Woo Woo never did that for anybody.

"Most americans are, by any rational standard, drug addicts."

This comment is not rational.

[Greyhound]

59. Well I was all set to jump in and you two sorted it before I could begin.

The level and pervasiveness of propaganda is quite frustrating. I think most people today believe that without some corporate parasite pushing us, we would just be squatting in the road wondering where to take a dump.

I've actually had people argue, right here on DU, that without extraordinary compensation and the likelihood of getting rich nobody would go into medicine "'cause it's too hard".

[northzax]

29. who's going to pay that salary?

just out of curiosity.

[Greyhound]

34. That would depend on what laboratory the researcher is working in. The university,

the hospital, the state, in the case of our for-profit aberration, the company.

[northzax]

35. ok, but WHY would they pay her that salary?

you think people are going to spend hundreds of millions on research just for the hell of it? just in case they might find something that might marginally improve care? it doesn't really work that way.

look, big pharma engages in some awful practices, including spending way too much on marketing, off-labelling drugs and fighting for long term patents that are ridiculous. but it costs about $100 million to bring a drug to market in the US (the FDA insists on all sorts of pesky studies and tests first, jackasses) and that's if the drug is already developed and on the market somewhere else (like Europe) imagine the multiples of that it takes to actually develop the drug. let alone all the sunk costs of funding all the research that doesn't find a new drug, right now at least. who's going to pay that? hospitals?

[Greyhound]

36. You're buying the corporate line and that's just what it is.

Research is not driven by the pursuit of profits, it is the quest for knowledge. What we have now is a perfect example of the fallacy of their logic. 14 new drugs to make your dick get hard and virtually no research into treating/curing relatively rare diseases.

Did Salk cure polio to make himself a bundle? Did Fleming stumble across penicillin while looking into chemical alchemy? Did Watson and Crick figure out the double helix in order to clean up in the stock market?

[Telly Savalas]

42. Bringing a new drug to market costs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The research towards getting an idea for a new drug may be conducted by a scientist with no motivation other than curiosity and the desire to help humanity. However, to demostrate a new drug is stable, safe, and effective requires numerous studies and clinical trials. This work is done by teams of dozens if not hundreds of people, not a lone Ayn Rand style individualist scientist superhero. Hence, the process is very expensive. The folks who provide the resources to make this happen generally are trying to make a return on their investment.

If the development of pharmaceuticals is to be left in the hands of the private sector, then patent protection needs to be kept in place. Without this protection nobody is going to want to invest the huge amounts of money necessary to bring a drug to market, because they won't see a return on the investment.

If you want to remove profits and the big bad corporations from pharmaceutical manufacturing, you're going to have to do more than remove intellectual property protection and hope that new drugs are magically developed. It would be necessary to create a government funded public institution to conduct clinical trials for new drugs.

I'm skeptical that a government-run monopoly on pharmaceutical development is the optimal way to make advancements. Instead I'd look at making reforms to rx development financing on two fronts:

1. Putting price controls in place for on-patent pharmaceuticals. While a pharma company should be able to see a return on its investment, it shouldn't be able to exploit its position to gouge people suffering from illnesses. The federal government should following the lead of other countries and set price controls and negotiate with the drug companies.

2. (as per Selatius's point above) Reworking intellectual property rules in a way so that when the idea for a drug comes from research funded by tax dollars, taxpayers have a claim on a portion of the revenue that comes from the sale of the drug.

[Greyhound]

48. Telly, see #44 as answer to most of your points.

In reading your reply, what I see is a basic buying into the meme that "government is the problem". What those that created this myth overlook, or purposely neglect, is that we are the government, or at least that the way it was set up.

Left to the "private sector" (an euphemism for profiteering parasites), we get pretty much what we have now, a plethora of products to attract consumers to overcome perceived inadequacies (my johnson won't rise to the occasion anymore, or I have crow's feet and I look my age) and a dearth of needed remedies to real maladies.

There is no answer to your post if one accepts the precept that profits are paramount. The alternative is that we live in a community and that community should support and promote the members of the community.

Look at the concept of "the commons" as defined, or at least popularized, by Thom Hartmann.

What kind of world do you want to live in? That is the issue we face.

[northzax]

43. i don't know Salk's motivation, honestly

and, as you point out, he refused to patent the vaccine. we are all living in a better world because people like Salk exist. but they are by far the minority. and, of course, he had 20,000 doctors working under him (which was possible because of the extreme public health crisis he was living through)

can I ask, do you know anything about the regulatory approval process for a new drug? what you need to do to get one approved? let me give you a general, brief idea:

step one: prove that it's a unique compound.
step two: prove that it works
step three: prove that it is safe
step four: find out how it isn't safe, and document all side effects, including cross-referencing interactions with all other drugs that a patient might take.
step five (sometimes): do all of the above for children)
step five.2: prove your ability to manufacture it safely
step six: document every step of the discovery, design and manufacture process publicly.
step seven: hope the FDA signs off, because each of the steps above costs at least 10 million. oh, and if anything goes wrong, you are out the cash.

that's not the 'corporate line' that's the FDA's line.

your idealism is touching, of course, that research should be done for the sake of research, and I'm sure a lot of it is. Just as art should be done for the sake of art, right? and it is. but most of tthe patrons of the sciences and the arts have always had other motives. people aren't saints, as much as you'd like them to be. adjust.

oh, and cover the difference between pure science (Watson and Crick); skilled accident (Fleming) and applied medical research (Salk)

[Greyhound]

44. I understand what you're saying and it is true (here), but much of that is the result

and response to charlatanism (pursuit of profit) and the for profit system we now have.

I picked those three examples specifically to illustrate a limited cross section of research. I assume, because of your response, that you are somehow in the field. What you say is absolutely true, however I'm sure that you can also see that it doesn't have to be and the profit motive is the direct cause of much of it.

Step 1. purely due to financial considerations. eliminated
Steps 2 and 3. Essential.
Step 4. Direct result of the money in the system and an outgrowth the rampant charlatanism that still exists. Perhaps not eliminated but at least greatly reduced.
Step 5. Depends, but frequently necessary.
Step 6. That's science.
Step 7. Only a major issue here, again due to the $$$. Easily bypassed through appointing a former head of the FDA as your CEO, paying him a truckload of cash, and then cycling him back into the agency (Rumsfeld, for instance).

Once again we're back to the profit motive corrupting the science. Medical compounds and devices in other nations don't face nearly as much of this as we do, just look at all of the "experimental" (and therefore uncovered/uncompensated) treatments that have been in use all over the world for decades, except here where an insurance corporation is seeking, not to help patients heal, but to maximize shareholder returns.

The US tort system throughout medical science is a direct and necessary outgrowth of the profit motive in medicine, as is the shortage of practitioners and absurd requirements for them to practice. We are in this position because it is the only recourse left to the victims of malpractice, in all it's forms, and that we have an industry devoted to profits over people/application.

The money corrupts all it touches, without exception.

[wolfgangmo]

82. the patent process retards scientific progress

Science is pushed forward by shared research, ideas, and findings. The patent process makes all of that private and secret.

It slows down progress so some white guy somewhere can have a dividend and so the CEO of the company can get gold faucets for his second yacht.

[wolfgangmo]

77. He is not suggesting that.

Where is he suggesting that?

Not everything is all or nothing. Besides, the scientists who make the breakthroughs are going to do that anyway and they only get paid a wage for the most part. It is the uber-investor and other inherited wealth parasites who are making the big money on the back of geniuses.

What Chavez is suggesting is that medicines should be available at a fair price, but I suppose you are against that because you have bought the entire drug company PR meme that if we stop supporting them then no medicines will ever be developed ever again. As if the countries where medicine is publicly supported like Japan, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, etc never make even one single contribution to medical advancement. Puhlease.

[XemaSab]

94. You think the guy who discovered Oxycontin gets royalties

every time Rush pops a pill?

Think again...

[dkf]

2. Why doesn't Venezuela's oil belong to every citizen on this planet?

They shouldn't be able to sell it for money as they didn't even create it.

[Codeine]

33. Pwned.

:yourock:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. Don't confuse property of physical things with "intellectual" property.

The former has a base in reality. The latter is a legalistic fiction.

[wolfgangmo]

87. Wow. What a strange concept.

Let me illustrate with a short story.

A man once offered me a dollar bill if I would give him 4 quarters. The net result was zero growth.

The same man once offered me an idea of his if I also gave him an idea of mine. The net result was 100% growth.

What you are suggesting is that I give him 4 quarters and he give me no dollar bill. What I (and I think Chavez to a certain extent) is suggesting is that we exchange ideas.

[elmaji]

3. Terrible idea

I like the idea as much as the next person, but this is just going to cause problems when Venezuela is unable to ensure manufacturing rights for drugs because of this. The only way they're gonna be able to figure out how to make the drugs otherwise is to spy and steal it. Frankly, this will only make Venezuela more of a backwater place when it comes to availability of new medicines.

[Ikonoklast]

32. Bad idea,

Not realistic in any way.

If there are hungry people, should he not just take from the farmers without compensation for all their hard work, then?

Food is an absolute must.

[Zynx]

47. Indeed. The same argument can be applied to a lot of fields.

People deserve compensation equal to what they contribute. Medical researchers who discover vital cures are entitled to large amounts of compensation. If those are companies, so be it. Now, the prices in this country are extreme, but they need not be that high for the companies who have achieved breakthroughs to profit. Price controls and other regulations can correct for these imbalances.

[Deja Q]

37. Altruism? Or another empty political stab because, given the power, he'd be no worse at best...

far worse at worst.

I still can't shake my head of his little tirade on Obama; applauding his words and then saying if he didn't get ___ and ___ and ___ he'd say the words were all phony, blah blah blah... it doesn't work like that, Hugo...

Food for thought.

[anonymous171]

38. That's actually a pretty good idea. nt

[MasonJar]

39. Great idea! It is hideous to pay more until some company's patent

runs out so we buyers can purchase a generic. These corporations claim to need to charge more for research. Let research scientists work for the government. Foreigners who see our ads for medicine are amazed. Pharmaceutical companies do not advertise in other countries. No wonder drugs in Canada are cheaper.

[Prometheus Bound]

40. All right! That's it! I've had it with Chavez!

I've supported him up till now, but this talk of making medicine affordable for all is unacceptable.

He can't be allowed to hurt the profits of a few European and American pharma companies just so a few tens of millions of poor people can get cheap medicine.

If other countries get it in their heads that US patents can just be ignored in their counties, that would be like the end of the world.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Why expect anything else from an idiotic dicktator?

[Zynx]

45. I think researchers who discover incredible breakthroughs are entitled

to a large amount of compensation. If you take away patent rights, you have to give them something else, like a government grant of a large amount.

For example, if a university researcher discovers a cure to pancreatic cancer, I think they should become a multi-millionaire off the proceeds of that breakthrough.

[dkf]

62. I agree.

The person who discovers a cure for diabetes deserves more compensation than Bill Gates.

[Zynx]

85. Certainly.

[Greyhound]

63. But the researcher that makes that discovery won't get that compensation

even if we agreed that (s)he deserves it. So where is the benefit to society or the researcher?

And to take your logic further, why are not the teachers that will educate and form your children's world view and much of their future, not paid millions? Do you think that is easy or inconsequential? Yet, you defend a system that pays those that produce nothing and acquire their positions primarily through birth millions while those that do the work are compensated with just enough to accumulate huge debts.

Your logic is flawed.

[Zynx]

84. I never said teachers shouldn't be paid a lot.

However, I think if, say, a start-up biotech company finds a cure to multiple myeloma that company and its researches are entitled to vast riches. They have directly greatly improved the lives of tens of thousands and prevented many needless and tragic deaths. The value added there is greater than that of a typical teacher.

I never defended the system you suggest. People should be paid based on their value added. Investment bankers add little value. As a result they should not be paid much. The same goes for CEOs. Medical researchers add a great deal of value to the world and should be paid accordingly.

[Greyhound]

101. That's cool, but doesn't address the issue of the last reply, that being that the

researcher that makes the discovery doesn't get the money.

Also the same system ensures that there will be little of no research for other diseases just as bad or worse, but are also rare. Bottom line is that we are a community and the profit motive is antithetical to the commons.

And I would definitely dispute the relative value of a teacher (assuming the same quality, of course).

[tkmorris]

106. OK. But in making that argument

Are you also saying that those who suffer from multiple myeloma should be allowed to die if they cannot afford to enrich the company and it's researchers? Because that is precisely the outcome of our current system, which acts as you suggest.

I would suggest that there be a monetary incentive to such research but that once found, it be applied for the good of all. The most obvious way to do this is to have a national (government sponsored) grant foundation that doles out research monies to the most promising scientists and lab rats, and awards monetary sums for certain discoveries. AIDS vaccine? 500 million dollars. Herpes vaccine? 50 million. Cure for cancer? 10 billion. And so forth. The caveat is that the discovery belongs to the US government, and is made available at cost to any who can afford it, and subsidized for those who cannot. NO patent, no profit making off the sick.

What say you Z?

[JackRiddler]

73. What's the ratio of what researchers get, compared to what the pharms get?

[Zynx]

83. Top researchers for pharmaceutical companies get paid a great deal.

Granted, it's a fraction of what they should get paid because the company takes the rest.

[JackRiddler]

88. Excellent.

They should be paid and lavished with the equipment and materiel they need. They should be rewarded madly whenever they succeed, from the receipts for that medicine.

This can still be done while limiting or eliminating corporate patents on medicines.

[MellowDem]

71. Chavez isn't doing this for humanity...

His support of Iran proves that. He will do anything and everything possible to please the lower classes because they are what keeps him in power. He is a dictator through giveaways, definitely better than through force, but in the end he won't last. Once the oil runs out or the price drops too low, the game is up. There will be no more easy money to throw at social programs.

[EFerrari]

90. Calling him a dictator simply shows how clueless you are.

And, btw, it's not a "giveaway" if it's the right of the Venezuelan people.

And, he's already been in office for a decade, during which just about every indicator in Venezuela has improved.

[MellowDem]

91. Yes yes...

everything has improved tremondously during the glorious revolution according to Chavez, how surprising. But yes, he is a dictator in my eyes. Sure, he's supposedly duly elected, but that doesn't make him any less of a tyrant to me. Government social programs in Venezuela are used as political fodder, which to me translates to a sort of bribe. A giant political machine.

He's not the worst Presidente out there, that's for sure, but anyone who attributes the actions of Chavez as showing his concern for his fellow man is naive, and the Iran situation proves that. He's just a shrewd politician. But eventually an economy so reliant on oil and so inefficient and undiverse will lead to a real crisis in Venezuela, then we will see what will happen when those funds dry up. Venezuela needs a true progressive that will push for permanent improvement, not hand outs to ensure a tyrant's continued rule.

All I can positively about him is that he is much better than his predecessor.

[EFerrari]

92. According to Chavez? Try according to the UN.

And try reading something about what the government is doing to diversify their economy. And if you have any time left over, try not assigning opinions and attitudes to other people.

[MellowDem]

93. Chavez supports Iran....

something you refuse to address. How can he be a true progressive?

I agree with the UN that Venezuela is better off, but that doesn't mean Chavez doesn't have his own official reports coming out that show quite a favorable light.

I'm sorry, but anyone who publicly supports Iran becomes very suspect to me, especially concerning their motivations behind their actions.

[shellgame26]

98. "I'm sorry, but anyone who publicly supports Iran becomes very suspect to me"

I'm sorry but anyone who swallows whole whatever the MSM feeds us, while knowing fully well that they have lied to us repeatedly becomes very suspect to me.

The CIA did attempt to overthrow Chavez so I think he knows a little something about it.

[EFerrari]

104. So you'd trust him if he put out negative reports about his tenure?

lol

[Ohio Joe]

74. It costs a lot to make a new drug

I find it makes no sense that a company can't make its money back... hell, even make a profit.

I also find it makes no sense that is someone needs a particular drug that it should be withheld because they can't afford it (for whatever reason).

The way the system is now does not work or make sense. Simply saying we are going to go to the other extreme won't work any better or make any more sense. There really has to be a happy medium... I do not know what it is or how to get there though...

HA, fat lot of good I am :D

[Vidar]

76. Individuals who actually made the medical discoveries should be justly compensated.

However, as for Pharmaceutical corporations holding patents, Chavez is right.

[Zynx]

86. So if a biotech start-up finds a massive cancer breakthrough they are not

entitled to patent protection?

[shellgame26]

97. that terrorist marxist

should be overthrown!

C'mon everybody. Obey your media. Chavez, bad. Medical patents, good.

[robertpaulsen]

103. Here's another fucking commie who agrees with him.

Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" (On being asked who owned the patent on his polio vaccine by journalist, Edward R. Murrow in 1954.)

— Jonas Salk

http://www.todayinsci.com/S/Salk_Jonas/SalkJonas-Quotations.htm

Can you believe an American attacking the ideals of the private sector like that? :sarcasm:

[sub.theory]

105. Convenient, considering Venezula isn't exactly a hotbed of research

It's easy to say that when the United States and Europe are subsidizing the cost of research and development of new drugs and treatments. In effect, he wants all the benefits without having to pay any costs....typical Chavez bullshit.