7 ms·
This is the model for rare diseases that wouldn’t be profitable for pharmaceutical companies. Spinal muscular atrophy (sma) is another example that comes to min
by tylermcgraw 7mo ago
This is the model for rare diseases that wouldn’t be profitable for pharmaceutical companies. Spinal muscular atrophy (sma) is another example that comes to mind.
- yieldcrv 7mo ago> diseases that wouldn’t be profitable for pharmaceutical companies I remember when that observation was discredited as a conspiracy theory
- wat10000 7mo agoI’ve never seen that discredited. Are you confusing the obvious fact that they won’t pursue unprofitable drugs with the much more dubious idea that they won’t pursue profitable cures because ongoing treatment is even more profitable?
- Aurornis 7mo agoThe dubious idea is that eliminating private medical care systems would open up a world of research into treating very rare conditions with high R&D costs. If this was true, why wouldn't all of the countries with socialized medicine be doing it already?
- paulryanrogers 7mo agoThe US already was, and to since extent still does. Same in the UK and other parts of Europe. Government funds a lot of medical R&D. Thank them for the fundamental research that lead to the COVID vaccine.
- AdamN 7mo agoWhere and when?
- Incipient 7mo agoThat's one reason why privatised health is rubbish. "profitable" treatments should be used, in part, to subsidise the cost of unprofitable ones.
- renewiltord 7mo ago[flagged]
- sokka_h2otribe 7mo agoUhh, you know you could skip the vaccine and just call it a tax..
- renewiltord 7mo agoThat wouldn't guarantee subsidization of expensive treatments by cheap ones and therefore is fascist.
- Aurornis 7mo agoNo medical system, public or private, has infinite money. There will always be decisions made about which conditions get research and which don't. It's unlikely that a disease this rare would be prioritized by a purely government run system, either. There are too many more common diseases to address first.
- AdamN 7mo agoIt's a little bit the opposite. Private groups are focused on profits but there are gov programs to support the rare disease research that would otherwise go unfunded in a pure market system.
- Incipient 7mo agoI mean sure, nothing has infinite money...but better to redirect some profits to other treatments, than to extract them all for shareholders?
- wjxgxey 7mo agopfft just illusion of control theatre for people who are scared of death. Throw in some opportunists exploiting it. Just watch what happens if there are unintended side effects. Its okay to die guys. Everyone does it. The sky doesnt fall.
- zdragnar 7mo agoDementia is a terrible way to go, both for the people who get it and for their loved ones who are with them. One day, my grandmother forgot English when my uncle was visiting and kept speaking in her native tongue and got so mad because nobody understood her. That was one of the few amusing anecdotes from get decline. The rest are just depressing. Watching your father cry because he went to the hardware store and couldn't remember how to get home and had to ask an employee to call his family for him, for example, was particularly tough.
- wjxgxey 7mo agoYou know why that happens? Because the health care system slows natural decay rate of some subsystems (via pills/surgeries etc) while having nothing to offer for other subsystems. So rather than all subsystems decaying together we produce this mismatched state.
- temp_praneshp 7mo agoThat's the response you have to the parent's anecdotes? I hope that one day you are not sad and angry anymore.
- zdc1 7mo agoYou can't really blame the healthcare system for this. Alzheimer's and Dementia existed before modern medicine. The reality is that many fit, active, and otherwise healthy people will hit their 60s and 70s and will experience cognitive decline and Alzheimer's.
- wjxgxey 7mo ago
- david_shi 7mo agoSeems insane that profitability so heavily dictates what is researched and what isn't.
- silisili 7mo agoI don't mean to disagree with you in spirit, but profitability is pretty closely entwined with probability. So companies are chasing solving problems that more people have, even if it's for the wrong reason.
- ehnto 7mo agoAs the benefactor of an extremely rare disease, it's not exactly unfair when you look at it from a societal view. If you solve a higher probability problem, you are helping far more people. The real tragedy isn't the allocation of the resources we have spare, it's that so many of our resources are not spare because billionares and corporations have hoarded it. Without changing the percent of allocation, and only changing input resources by capturing it back from billionaires as taxes, we could be helping far more people including super rare diseases.
- silisili 7mo agoAbsolutely. And if you take a step back and look at Covid spending, what it was spent on, and how much fraud was involved, it's absolutely maddening that the government isn't instead spending money on solving actual problems its constituents face. We basically just shoveled free money at anyone who claimed to have a business, to no real effect. C'est la vie, I guess.
- AdamN 7mo agoI don't know how much longer it will last but the US government invests significant resources into rare diseases in order to improve outcomes where the normal market wouldn't otherwise support the r&d.
- s1artibartfast 7mo agoI find it makes more sense if you drop the corporate analysis and just think about people. Money motivates them and is why they go into hospitals or research labs instead of staying home with their family or friends.