"Capitalism breeds innovation" the innovation:

Jul 24, 2024 5:47 AM

Decitron

Views

14476

Likes

904

Dislikes

17

Sauce: https://x.com/NoJusticeMTG/status/1815757955746193832

It isn't capitalism that creates vaccines, it's scientists who are passionate about helping people. And it's often subsidized through our tax dollars so some worthless trustfund layabout can profit off our money and the scientists labor.

capitalism

latestagecapitalism

politics

[deleted]

[deleted]

2 years ago (deleted Jul 27, 2024 10:50 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Project 2025 will have the FDA ban an HIV vaccine. They are already training people to go after PrEP.
Remember how Reagan did nothing to stop an AIDS epidemic in the 80s? Well now his people want to manufacture one.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Why would you say it can be made for $40 when it can be made for $31 according to them? Just say what you mean, say sold for $40 at a 30% profit or say made for $31.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So, what you're telling me is that somebody needs to hire a team of shadowrunners to run Gilead's servers, rip the paydata, and mass-release it to the world? Would that I had the nuyen...

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And it looks like they are playing the good guys

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

IMO every country should have a generic drug manufacturing lab and a policy that if drug companies are gouging they can waive drug patents and make the drugs themselves.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Profit above a certain amount should be completely illegal the world over. The pursuit of profit is currently risking the survival of the human species.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Capitalism makes a lot of good drugs. They can't price them to the moon however. Wegovy turns out to fix sleep apnea, cardiac death, obesity weight a lot more. Fatty liver. New stuff that's effective needs price controls

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

if someone wanna learn how rigged USA health care system really is, great doc about 1 hours called "Oxyana (Documentary)" on youtube, how pharmaceutical company gets restructured from the very beginning of illegal project, senate involvement down to hospitals & distribution, all "official"

2 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 2

and that part of "scientists who are passionate about helping people . . ." Dunno where ya are getting information or you are just that young, "scientists" are crucial part of creating fake narratives & cover ups, subsidized "researches" on which policies are created & laws made. Chek GigaohmBiological on twitch for starters, one of very few that speaks up.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

I've worked at a university for almost 5 years and all scientists I know that switched from working at the university to working in the private sector did so because all they got from the university after several years of work devoted soley to science was a measly wage and a "fuck you, we won't give you tenure, but here's another 6 month contract that we may or may not extend", while on the other hand the private sector was offering them better condition than they could ever dream of at the uni.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Ontario did this with a Breast cancer gene test. They made it themselves. Fuck your patent.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Citation needed on the "we already have an HIV vaccine" thing. As someone who works in healthcare, that would be huge news and there's absolutely no way to develop something like that quietly.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Don't forget, _most_ research into medicine is done with public money. Medical corporations just like to pretend they did all the work.

2 years ago | Likes 87 Dislikes 2

That's not actually true. A majority of all biomed funding comes from private sources.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I appreciate the correction. I suspect there's a difference in how the funding gets spent.

Would it be fair to suggest that public grants are more likely to be directed toward risky "new" research, whereas it's easier to raise private funding for "safer" projects, like reworking a medication to avoid patent expiry?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't think you can realistically draw any such conclusions just because you want to. Medical research is complicated and doesn't easily break down into simple narratives.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I just learned that in the UK, they *vaccinate* thier chickens against salmonella. It would cost US egg producers 14 cents per chicken to vaccinate them, and it's more profitable to just tell consumers to practice rigorous food safety. Which is part of why our eggs are refrigerated, while more rational countries don't need to do that.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Actually our eggs are refrigerated because they're washed in the process of packaging them, which disturbs an antibacterial coating on the egg itself. US food safety procedures require anything which has potentially come into contact with poop to be washed.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

1/2 That's why I said it's part of why. "The British Lion mark on eggs means that they have been laid by hens vaccinated against salmonella. "https://www.egginfo.co.uk/eggs-safety/salmonella#:~:text=The%20British%20Lion%20mark%20on,of%20the%20British%20Lion%20scheme. "There's been no push to require vaccination in the U.S., in part because it would cost farmers and in part because advocates have been more focused on more comprehensive food safety reforms"

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/2 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/salmonella-vaccine-might-have-prevented-egg-recall-flna1c9477231 And: "the agency doesn’t prohibit companies from selling chicken contaminated with dangerous salmonella like infantis. And even when people get sick, it has no power to order recalls." https://www.propublica.org/article/salmonella-chicken-usda-food-safety

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Capitalism does breed innovation...mainly innovative new ways to fuck over regular people and ensure power and wealthy hoarding by the elite continues.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hey, this time it was South Park that predicted the future

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

For the record, what they're talking about is not at all a vaccine, it's PrEP; a constant stream of antiviral drugs to prevent infection. It's an important distinction as PrEP drugs need to continue being taken indefinitely to maintain protection, as opposed to a vaccine which offers lasting immune response.

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

THANK YOU. I knew there was a catch to this "vaccine".

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

How does Gilead "not allow" a generic version? Couldn't the scientists who created this say "Hey screw you guys, wer're putting this formula out in the wild for anyone to use?"

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

IIRC, even if the formula is released, the companies who would make it would be liable for breaching intellectual property.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

30% profit on something almost everyone (well, maybe before COVID, SMH...) would want, world-wide, is still the greatest capitalist coup in human history. I think there's more to it. Like rendering the worst permanent consequences of casual sex back down to what they were in the 60s (Herpes and maybe a pregnancy scare) is unacceptable to the Elite because they feel like social control is tied to human sexuality in ways I admit I don't fully understand.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Healthcare is one of those things that we really should be structuring as a publicly owned non-profit sort of thing. Comfortable, reliable, middleclass public service like jobs and we all fund research and production to meet general medical needs...

2 years ago | Likes 264 Dislikes 0

But what about the shareholders!

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They use our fucking tax dollars to subsidize the research and privatize the profits while literally killing those who can't afford it. - source : I've been a type one diabetic for 20 years.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

if you must pay (for healthcare) or face dire consequences (up to and including death) then it is NOT a free market. I'm tired of pretending otherwise.

2 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Like most other countries do, they must be doing something right.

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Most medical research in the US is already massively funded by the public via taxes, it's just that there's zero requirements to not price gauge the resulting medicine so that's what they're doing.

2 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 0

Gouge, but otherwise I agree

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

That's fine, it doesn't even respect itself to be honest. Just look at the fights people will put up over the world Octopi... Entirely illogical. Octopodes or Octopuses, sure, but some people try to say English should use Octopi as if that's a thing...

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I just want to be able to offer high quality services to the population in my area without having to worry if I will be paid enough to feed my family...I live in a healthcare provider area and am literally the only person with my credentials for a hour drive radius...but my hands are tied

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And food and housing and education....

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

L O L . $40k a pop is "accessible". Sure.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

How is that the smart buisness practice? I could sell 5 of this thing that costs me $5 to make for $50,000 and make $250,000 of I could sell 50,000 of them for 40 and make 2 million? What crack was their mothers smoking that that is the choice they make?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

For their many failures, I'm don't doubt their competence on this particular subject. Saying "they charge 40k per year for product x" is going to be a total oversimplification.

They will have a different price for every customer (ie. insurer or nation), and a team of people to make sure each price is as high as the customer will bear.

They won't sell the meds for 40$ anywhere, because the grey market would undercut their capacity to charge 40k elsewhere.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Sometimes I think greed genuinely makes people stupider, and that an economic system that's build on greed might not be a terribly good one in part for that reason.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I often think a lot of a society without money. Like Star Trek. How would it work? I keep thinking we as a society need to get rid of change the concept of a business existing solely for shareholders and profits first.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

v

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Anyone have a direct link to the Gilead story?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am currently on a cancer immunotherapy treatment that costs $30k per dose and I get it every 3 weeks. Thank fuck I hit the out of pocket max on my insurance, and thank fuck I can still afford my insurance premiums, but it churns my stomach (even more than the chemo) each time they hook up that bag.

2 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

'thats just the chemo' - joking. this bullshit is such a fuckin joke... Needs to be a right for everyone. I get free healthcare thru the VA, and I will happily pay 10% more in taxes for everyone to get fucking healthcare.

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Get well soon

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I'm assuming those 30% profit are on production alone, ignoring the cost of development, so that's really oversimplifying. We can't expect companies to develop medicine and then refuse them profits. That said, this does of course illustrate one problem with corporate medical research. Another is that companies don't want to share their progress, which increases the time and money spent on research, and a third is that they tend to focus on rich people problems. Medical research should be public.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 12

Literally no one reasonable is stating they should be denied profits but it's clearly an issue when a company corners a market then maliciously uses patents to say they created a drug when it's just insulin or whatever. There is blatant fuckery afoot and you can't deny that.

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

The name 'Gilead' doesn't seem to be associated with anything positive for the lives of people . . .

2 years ago | Likes 54 Dislikes 1

I'm not sure. You mean the elven from lotr?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

v

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Uh they produce truvada and discovy which are PrEP medications for HIV. Which has had a huge impact for refill ingredients the prevalence of AIDS and specifically the lives of many gay men. Which honestly is why they don't want to make the vaccine easily available, but still, they've done a massive amount of good, even when balanced by their greed.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Roland Deschain, the Gunslinger, is from Gilead.

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

And that guy took a LOT of lives

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

True! But that Gilead is no more. The world has moved on.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

There’s also The Republic of Gilead, from The Handmaid’s Tale

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Okay and I know this sounds a bit shilly, but there's no way 40 bucks is a 30% profit if you're accounting for research costs.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A lot of research is done at universities and then bought by larger companies. At most, what pharma companies usually do, is do product formulation, large scale efficacy and safety testing and then production development (plus an eCTD filing). If they own the patent for the specific ingredient used then they have plenty of time to recoup R&D costs and make a profit before the patent expires.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I feel like Americans have a really skewed view of this stuff because of how busted their healthcare system is. For instance, an American friend said she was happy because her health insurance would cover a medication she needed so she'd only have to pay $200 a month out of pocket. I looked up the exact same medication in my country. $50 for a month's supply without any subsidy or anything. And I'm sure the company is still making money here.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

EU should put a cap on profit marigins on medication, then start a hospital in the US and massively undercut everyone.

2 years ago | Likes 163 Dislikes 2

But then who will pay the outlandish salaries of the middlemen?!?! Won’t someone think about the CEOs?!?!?!

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes. Zero.
Profiting from medical care is the bodily equivalent of Crassis and his fire brigade waiting for someone to pay an extortionate fee before putting out a fire. And letting it burn to the ground if they won't or can't pay.

2 years ago | Likes 51 Dislikes 1

R&D needs to be recouped, which is fair. Some profit is fine. Rampant profiteering needs to be reeled in HARD

2 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Exactly, holy shit I'm all for people profiting from making discoveries and taking risks to create a new medical breakthrough but price gouging is ridiculous. Set a maximum markup percentage cap based on how much it costs to produce the product/procedure. I'm thinking 175% markup at most because let me tell you 900% markups at hospitals exist and it's practically criminal

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I'm sure the US and our precious, precious corporate citizens would find a way to sue the EU for trying any such useful thing.

2 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 1

You wouldn't need to, as doing something like that I am fairly sure violates EU regulations that EU funding has to be used for EU citizens and member states.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I bet a hospital like that would turn a nice profit - which could fund the EU budget more. There are many such state backed commercial entities.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Except the EU doesn't run hospitals. That's left to the member states, and their Regulations don't mess with the US ones.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Most everything good against major corporate entities I expect the E.U. to have laws for and for the U.S. to follow suit in, oh, I don't... a decade or two later :/ I'd love to see that shit.

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

While it sounds as a good idea they will cheat with how much it cost to produce through other companies they own. Fairly standard to pretend some small little item cost 100 times more than it does and then write it off in taxes. Also fairly hard to track without a really thorough look into it unfortunately. I'm not sure how to fix this problem exactly

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

UKs healthcare is lacking of lately, but at least NICE sets maximum prices for medication. Unless some brand new exotica miracle meds, if you want to sell to NHS (that would be the vast majority of prescription medication used in UK), you better check your prices.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There's an excellent case for granting US citizens assylum in the EU.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm not sure they'd need to open the hospital. All they have to do is jump whatever hurdles the FDA have in place for imported pharmaceuticals. Shit, the EU could charge 300% for their drugs they sell in the USA to not only pay for the production, tariffs and shipping, but also help fund the healthcare of their own citizens.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Agreed. I switched jobs and my health insurance hasn't kicked in. I had to pick up 3 generic prescriptions and the bill was $400

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If European companies saw a profit in that, they would. But somehow, they stay away from the US.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

There is profit to be had, but the issue comes in the form on corporate owned lawmakers & courts.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The reason Karl Marx’ philosophy failed was because he didn’t want the proletariat to have it good, he wanted the bougoisie to have it bad. -Betrand Russel

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 24

Funny how this comment of mine, merely quoting a philosopher’s opposing opinion on Communism, gets downvoted. The (initially worthless) points it costs me are spent for good value because the reactions to my comment are intelligent and thought provoking - rendering those points valuable in the wake. But still I wonder, why downvote?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 8

You're being downvoted because Russel's statement is completely wrong about Marx's philosophy. Just because you're quoting someone doesn't mean you're contributing anything useful to the conversation.

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

His system doesn't account for Human greed. It is built on the idea that everyone would work together for the benefit of everyone. But a system like that can easily be broken by a few key individual bending things to benefit themselves more than others. So unless there is a safeguard to prevent that weakness, it is very vulnerable to corruption.

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

Marx tried to find the laws that govern the progression of society, starting from a material basis as opposed to Hegel's idealistic approach. He derided utopianism within the socialist movement. He absolutely accounted for human greed, and considered that communism is the solution to it.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Sadly, he underestimated its power to corrupt.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I agree but I merely quoted one of the great thinkers of the 20th century. Maybe I should’ve added the rest of the quote: “and that makes it a philosophy of hate. Philosophy aims to find the good, which inherently sets up his philosophy for failure.”

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 8

All due respect to Russell but I think he's out of his element here.

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I’d sincerely like to know why you think Russell would be out of his element. Could you elaborate?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

His characterisation of Marx's philosophy is reductionistic and oversimplified to the point of a complete strawman. Marx absolutely wanted to improve the lot of the working class, first and foremost, but beyond that, he wanted the dissolution of the class system altogether. He tried to approach capitalist society objectively, gave it its due where appropriate, and criticised "utopian" socialists who didn't have a plan. To call Marxism mindless hate of the bourgeoisie is downright ignorant.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Unlike capitalism, which has it all build in from the get go. (I do agree with you though, but I also find that specific critique a bit dishonest in light of *waves around*

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I don’t think the critique he had on Communism was an implicit celebration of Capitalism for Russel. The remark was standing on its own and I blanking on it right now but I know he had some critical notions on Capitalism as well.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Oh, both systems are flawed, and we need a new solution that is built from the mistakes we learned about in both. The problem is, Humans will find away to corrupt any system they are placed in. So whatever system use, if the anti corruption systems aren't rock solid, then you kind of end up in the same place regardless.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1