<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What I believe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://confusion.cc/2006/06/12/what-i-believe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://confusion.cc/2006/06/12/what-i-believe/</link>
	<description>&#34;I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.&#34; -- Uncle Walt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 17:48:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: beggs</title>
		<link>http://confusion.cc/2006/06/12/what-i-believe/comment-page-1/#comment-325</link>
		<dc:creator>beggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:39:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://confusion.cc/2006/06/12/what-i-believe/#comment-325</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think that would be the case.  Diseases like Spina Bifida that affect a small number of people but are seen as tragic are exactly what big company’s look at treating because while it affects a small population it affects them in the rich countries (as well as the poor.)  So big pharma can make money off those in the rich countries who have these diseases and will compete for that money.  

But maybe you&#039;re right.  The problem I see is that simple diseases like Malaria, Dysentery, Cholera, and Typhoid kill millions each year but drugs to treat or prevent these illnesses (some of which already exist) don&#039;t or won&#039;t make the kind of money that high blood pressure or obesity or impotence drugs will make because the people who suffer from these problems don’t live in rich countries.

Let private companies spend money developing drugs to treat these &#039;first world&#039; ailments.  But rather than the NSF funding some, or any, of the research into treatments for these illnesses the government should focus its money on the big problems.  Once these are dealt with then you can attack other illnesses.  We have to draw the line somewhere because it is not practical to spend money on every disease so this is how I would draw it, for now at least.  The first priority should be to help the largest number of people.

One thing that could change the entire system is the rise of the generic drug companies in places like India and China.  As these companies and their countries mature and begin to do their own research and development they will be much closer to these large scale problems and so more likely to research treatments for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that would be the case.  Diseases like Spina Bifida that affect a small number of people but are seen as tragic are exactly what big company’s look at treating because while it affects a small population it affects them in the rich countries (as well as the poor.)  So big pharma can make money off those in the rich countries who have these diseases and will compete for that money.  </p>
<p>But maybe you&#8217;re right.  The problem I see is that simple diseases like Malaria, Dysentery, Cholera, and Typhoid kill millions each year but drugs to treat or prevent these illnesses (some of which already exist) don&#8217;t or won&#8217;t make the kind of money that high blood pressure or obesity or impotence drugs will make because the people who suffer from these problems don’t live in rich countries.</p>
<p>Let private companies spend money developing drugs to treat these &#8216;first world&#8217; ailments.  But rather than the NSF funding some, or any, of the research into treatments for these illnesses the government should focus its money on the big problems.  Once these are dealt with then you can attack other illnesses.  We have to draw the line somewhere because it is not practical to spend money on every disease so this is how I would draw it, for now at least.  The first priority should be to help the largest number of people.</p>
<p>One thing that could change the entire system is the rise of the generic drug companies in places like India and China.  As these companies and their countries mature and begin to do their own research and development they will be much closer to these large scale problems and so more likely to research treatments for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Garth</title>
		<link>http://confusion.cc/2006/06/12/what-i-believe/comment-page-1/#comment-324</link>
		<dc:creator>Garth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:04:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://confusion.cc/2006/06/12/what-i-believe/#comment-324</guid>
		<description>All excellent points; the only thing I have a problem with is this statement:

&quot;I believe we should help to pay for drug development only if that development is aimed at diseases and health problems that affect a significant portion of the global population not 1% of 5% of the global population&quot;

It seems to leave a lot of folks out in the cold.  Corporations will drive research for diseases affecting large segments of the population since that&#039;s where the potential profit exists.  There&#039;s money to be made there.  But diseases like progeria, or as a less extreme example, spina bifida would probably be largely ignored.  I&#039;m sure there are many more solid examples out there -- and I&#039;m not saying that these are any more or less important than dealing with cancer, AIDS, diabetes, heart disease, etc. but if we limit government funding to what affects the majority, little if anything would be done to help those with less known diseases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All excellent points; the only thing I have a problem with is this statement:</p>
<p>&#8220;I believe we should help to pay for drug development only if that development is aimed at diseases and health problems that affect a significant portion of the global population not 1% of 5% of the global population&#8221;</p>
<p>It seems to leave a lot of folks out in the cold.  Corporations will drive research for diseases affecting large segments of the population since that&#8217;s where the potential profit exists.  There&#8217;s money to be made there.  But diseases like progeria, or as a less extreme example, spina bifida would probably be largely ignored.  I&#8217;m sure there are many more solid examples out there &#8212; and I&#8217;m not saying that these are any more or less important than dealing with cancer, AIDS, diabetes, heart disease, etc. but if we limit government funding to what affects the majority, little if anything would be done to help those with less known diseases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

