AIDS Vaccine Being Delayed; Private Companies Not Interested

Post by **Edi** » 2005-12-26 05:29pm

So your only argument for not developing an AIDS vaccine is coporate greed, just like I said. Can you actually formulate an ethical argument to support that?

Edi

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-12-26 05:30pm

Isnt that nice, living human beings have nil value...charming...proof again that good business and good ethics cannot exist within the same place at the same time.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:30pm

Edi wrote:
LongVin wrote:
SirNitram wrote: What is your definition of 'widespread' and why should we give a shit about it? What is your justification for throwing out the nonsense of some Luddite, idiotic parents wanting their kids to get sick so they can avoid a shot?
Widespread would mean that a sizeable minority of people have it have a very good chance to easilly get infected. Probably around 10% or more of the population anything that could be considered epidemic proportions would be widespread.

The point stands that people are distrustful of certain vaccines because of perceived harms the vaccine could cause.

With the Chicken Pox vaccine there were supposedely cases the vaccine caused a few very strong cases of Chicken Pox in children who were vaccinated. People wouldn't want HIV injected into there arms for the fear that they could possible become infected by a mishap.
You really are fucking stupid. There are places in Africa where the infection rate is between 20 and 35% of the adult population. Or was it so that people with brown or black skin living far away don't count for shit in your wolrd view? Those figures are dragging those countries' economies down, which causes economic harm to the countries themselves, their region and also to the developed world.

Edi

and how much of the global population do those people count for? Its still not much. Nor do they have the means to even afford vaccines or drugs for the disease. The only availible market is in the developed world where it is easier and more profitable to control and treat the population already infected

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-12-26 05:30pm

As I and several others have said, CORPORATE PROFIT SHALL BE TRUMPED BY ETHICS!

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-12-26 05:31pm

LongVin wrote:Because HIV isn't widespread. The insurance companies are not going to want to pay for something that less then 1% of the population has and that so few people get.

This is, of course, why the government forces them to do so. A public good with no large individual incentive is such a basic market failure it's listed in introductory high school economics courses.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-12-26 05:32pm

Are you by any chance a libertarian LongVin, you seem to have the attitude of their great spokesman this season:

"If they are going to die they had best do it swiftly and reduce the surplus population."

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:34pm

Edi wrote:So your only argument for not developing an AIDS vaccine is coporate greed, just like I said. Can you actually formulate an ethical argument to support that?

Edi

Lower profits decrease the value of the stock depriving shareholders of profits and potential earnings. Its not fair to the shareholders if they aren't getting what they initially payed for.

If I was a shareholder in one of these medical companies and they spent all there time developing an AIDS vaccine that wasn't profitable in the long run and I lost thousands of dollars I would be pissed because the corporation didn't represent my(and the thousands of others who invested) needs as an owner in the company.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-12-26 05:35pm

So in essence, LongVin, your argument is thus: Curing people of HIV is bad for business, but holding them hostage against a lingering death is; so therefore let's develop only therapies that hold the patient hostage and invest in things that disrupt and stymie the vaccine research. Yay, you've just embraced the Gangland Protection-Money Racket mentality so fucking prevalent in American corporate culture. Fuck off and die!

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-12-26 05:35pm

LongVin wrote:
Edi wrote:So your only argument for not developing an AIDS vaccine is coporate greed, just like I said. Can you actually formulate an ethical argument to support that?

Edi
Lower profits decrease the value of the stock depriving shareholders of profits and potential earnings. Its not fair to the shareholders if they aren't getting what they initially payed for.

If I was a shareholder in one of these medical companies and they spent all there time developing an AIDS vaccine that wasn't profitable in the long run and I lost thousands of dollars I would be pissed because the corporation didn't represent my(and the thousands of others who invested) needs as an owner in the company.

People will suffer and die, but damnit wont someone think of the shareholders?!

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-12-26 05:36pm

LongVin wrote:And people won't want to get AIDs vaccines because they know they won't need it because they aren't going to be putting themselves into situations where they can get AIDs. There will of course be people who will get it to just be "safe" but then again I gurantee most people will feel they just don't need it.

That's a lie. Anti-retroviral drugs need to be taken every 12 hours sharp for the rest of an infected AIDS patient's life and people do it, yes even in Africa. There are shortages of the flu vaccine because so many people want it. Your idea is based on people being too stupid to care for their own health, particularly black Africans. I find this "black people stupid" idea disgusting and racist.

Read here, ARV's are being deployed en masse for the first time this year and 2006 is a crucial year. People were breaking down the doors at Tsepong clinic trying to get medicine and had to be turned down because there were only two doctors and four nurses all Western volunteers because the local doctors had already died from the disease. It would be the same with an AIDS vaccine, people would be lining up in droves to get it.

As for your idea that AIDS is under control and not much of the world is affected by it... sure, if you live in a Western country and can afford ARV drugs, but in Africa entire countries are dying off because their male adult population is going down the drain. Of course you'll keep being a fucking idiot and thinking that Africans don't count as people.

Brian

Post by **Edi** » 2005-12-26 05:36pm

LongVin wrote:
Edi wrote:So your only argument for not developing an AIDS vaccine is coporate greed, just like I said. Can you actually formulate an ethical argument to support that?

Edi
Lower profits decrease the value of the stock depriving shareholders of profits and potential earnings. Its not fair to the shareholders if they aren't getting what they initially payed for.

If I was a shareholder in one of these medical companies and they spent all there time developing an AIDS vaccine that wasn't profitable in the long run and I lost thousands of dollars I would be pissed because the corporation didn't represent my(and the thousands of others who invested) needs as an owner in the company.

You losing a few thousand dollars and somebody else losing his life because you're a greedy fuck are eual magnitudes of harm since when? Dumbass...

Edi

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:39pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Are you by any chance a libertarian LongVin, you seem to have the attitude of their great spokesman this season:

"If they are going to die they had best do it swiftly and reduce the surplus population."

Depends on the issue at hand. In some issues I favor authoritarian approaches and in others I favor a more libertarian approach.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-12-26 05:39pm

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10; KJV

Sorry about the Bible shit, but it _might_ get this fucktard to listen and see it our way. Even Christianity admonishes against profit for its' own sake!

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:45pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:So in essence, LongVin, your argument is thus: Curing people of HIV is bad for business, but holding them hostage against a lingering death is; so therefore let's develop only therapies that hold the patient hostage and invest in things that disrupt and stymie the vaccine research. Yay, you've just embraced the Gangland Protection-Money Racket mentality so fucking prevalent in American corporate culture. Fuck off and die!

If there was significant demand(of people who can pay) for such a vaccine then the Market will accomadate it. So if millions of people(once again people who can afford the costs) wanted a vaccine but the current research institutions weren't providing it eventually a few doctors would get together and go "Hey if we started a lab with the express purpose of finding an HIV Vaccine we could make a lot of money." They would bring the idea public gain investors and set out to do as they promised and produce a vaccine. But if there is no sufficient demand from the public at large for said vaccine then no one will take up the task.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:46pm

Edi wrote:
LongVin wrote:
Edi wrote:So your only argument for not developing an AIDS vaccine is coporate greed, just like I said. Can you actually formulate an ethical argument to support that?

Edi
Lower profits decrease the value of the stock depriving shareholders of profits and potential earnings. Its not fair to the shareholders if they aren't getting what they initially payed for.

If I was a shareholder in one of these medical companies and they spent all there time developing an AIDS vaccine that wasn't profitable in the long run and I lost thousands of dollars I would be pissed because the corporation didn't represent my(and the thousands of others who invested) needs as an owner in the company.
You losing a few thousand dollars and somebody else losing his life because you're a greedy fuck are eual magnitudes of harm since when? Dumbass...

Edi

And if the company doesn't make a profit they are forced to lay off employees. What about them?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-12-26 05:48pm

LongVin wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:So in essence, LongVin, your argument is thus: Curing people of HIV is bad for business, but holding them hostage against a lingering death is; so therefore let's develop only therapies that hold the patient hostage and invest in things that disrupt and stymie the vaccine research. Yay, you've just embraced the Gangland Protection-Money Racket mentality so fucking prevalent in American corporate culture. Fuck off and die!
If there was significant demand(of people who can pay) for such a vaccine then the Market will accomadate it. So if millions of people(once again people who can afford the costs) wanted a vaccine but the current research institutions weren't providing it eventually a few doctors would get together and go "Hey if we started a lab with the express purpose of finding an HIV Vaccine we could make a lot of money." They would bring the idea public gain investors and set out to do as they promised and produce a vaccine. But if there is no sufficient demand from the public at large for said vaccine then no one will take up the task.

And this is why we invented 'non-profit' organizations you gangsterist fucktard!

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2005-12-26 05:49pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:So in essence, LongVin, your argument is thus: Curing people of HIV is bad for business, but holding them hostage against a lingering death is; so therefore let's develop only therapies that hold the patient hostage and invest in things that disrupt and stymie the vaccine research.

Wasn't there an episode of TNG with this same plot?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2005-12-26 05:49pm

They go on unemployment. What part of "Either someone makes less money or someone dies" do you not understand?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-12-26 05:50pm

LongVin wrote:If there was significant demand(of people who can pay) for such a vaccine then the Market will accomadate it. So if millions of people(once again people who can afford the costs) wanted a vaccine but the current research institutions weren't providing it eventually a few doctors would get together and go "Hey if we started a lab with the express purpose of finding an HIV Vaccine we could make a lot of money." They would bring the idea public gain investors and set out to do as they promised and produce a vaccine. But if there is no sufficient demand from the public at large for said vaccine then no one will take up the task.

Hey, bongvin, AIDS vaccines are a public good. There's a reason lack of such production is called a MARKET FAILURE.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:52pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
LongVin wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:So in essence, LongVin, your argument is thus: Curing people of HIV is bad for business, but holding them hostage against a lingering death is; so therefore let's develop only therapies that hold the patient hostage and invest in things that disrupt and stymie the vaccine research. Yay, you've just embraced the Gangland Protection-Money Racket mentality so fucking prevalent in American corporate culture. Fuck off and die!
If there was significant demand(of people who can pay) for such a vaccine then the Market will accomadate it. So if millions of people(once again people who can afford the costs) wanted a vaccine but the current research institutions weren't providing it eventually a few doctors would get together and go "Hey if we started a lab with the express purpose of finding an HIV Vaccine we could make a lot of money." They would bring the idea public gain investors and set out to do as they promised and produce a vaccine. But if there is no sufficient demand from the public at large for said vaccine then no one will take up the task.
And this is why we invented 'non-profit' organizations you gangsterist fucktard!

And not for profit organizations still requires a source of funds to conduct the neccessary research. If there isn't enough demand for them to accquire enough funds through donations they can not conduct the research. Or even if the government subsidizes the organization when the government needs to cut spending they are going to cut it to things that aren't popular with the voters.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:53pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:They go on unemployment. What part of "Either someone makes less money or someone dies" do you not understand?

So its ok for them to lose most of their salary, pensions and benefits? Not to mention then it puts extra strain on other people who are gainfully employed who have to pay the taxes that go to people unemployed?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-12-26 05:55pm

LongVin wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:They go on unemployment. What part of "Either someone makes less money or someone dies" do you not understand?
So its ok for them to lose most of their salary, pensions and benefits? Not to mention then it puts extra strain on other people who are gainfully employed who have to pay the taxes that go to people unemployed?

By jingo you really are ethically the equivalent of something picked from between the toes of a sewage treatment worker that lost his boots. You honestly feel that pension plans are more important than peoples lives...

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2005-12-26 05:56pm

LongVin wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:They go on unemployment. What part of "Either someone makes less money or someone dies" do you not understand?
So its ok for them to lose most of their salary, pensions and benefits? Not to mention then it puts extra strain on other people who are gainfully employed who have to pay the taxes that go to people unemployed?

A chemist working at drug company will always, always find employment eventually due to the rarity of his skills (why do you think it costs so much money and time to become one?). An African peasant dying of AIDS can only die once.

Which one would you pick? The dying peasant or the college degree holder who has to search for a job?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2005-12-26 05:58pm

How about, the stockholder hear about this, and force a change in the board of directors. Research stops.
Or the investors flee, fearing less profits, and the company folds. Research stops.
It won't happen that way either.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-12-26 05:59pm

LongVin wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:They go on unemployment. What part of "Either someone makes less money or someone dies" do you not understand?
So its ok for them to lose most of their salary, pensions and benefits? Not to mention then it puts extra strain on other people who are gainfully employed who have to pay the taxes that go to people unemployed?

Why would you rather pay for the healthcare and unemployment of a person with AIDS rather than the healthcare and unemployment of a healthy person?