A joint study between Yale University, King’s College Hospital in London and Doctors Without Borders found a single shot could be made for just 89 cents.
Someone that doesn’t understand how much capitalism has done for research.
The scales aren’t the same, the public would never allow that sort if risk, its completely impossible for governments to cause that amount of drug breakthroughs
But the public of course is just fine having a little 10 trillion military excursion in the middle east. You don’t even need to explain how it will be profitable in that case. Because of how passionately everyone wanted this.
For old people cancer, capitalism is the only possible option.
And let’s not forget that a great deal of the research is already publicly-funded.
I still don’t understand how Covid vaccines are suddenly allowed to cost a fuck ton of money. Enough public money was thrown at those things to buy entire nations - why the fuck isn’t it owned by the public.
Exactly. It’s an argument for regulation. Also maybe they should spend some of their advertisement budget on R&D instead of convincing patients what they should be on.
Likely not, no. Novo Nordisk spent $5 Billion on R&D in a year as a company. I can’t find consistent numbers on advertising costs, but that looks to be somewhere around $100-200 million over the last 12 months, for this product specifically. The total annual compensation of the entire executive team at Novo Nordisk is about $46 million USD.
It also regulates sugar and can be used as an alternative to insulin in many cases. The fact that it slows down the digestive process to make you feel like you’re still full is a side effect compared to the sugar regulation.
There would still be a profit incentive in this case even if they charged 1% of what they’re asking for. They’d still be making a 50% profit. A margin that would be highly favourable in basically any other industry. The whole point of market competition is to drive down that profit margin and pass the savings on to customers. A 95% markup like here demonstrates that the health industry is completely immune to market forces.
R and d would disaapear and no new drugs would be made if it wasn’t for patents and profits.
Yes.
If people just ate less they would get the same benefit.
Well, yes, but actually no. We enjoy food for a reason, and the availability of all kinds of food today interferes with our bodies and brains, which were tuned to scarcity in ancient times. Most people simply can’t eat less; that’s why the majority never lose weight or regain it after some time. Meanwhile, health issues caused by being overweight are consistently among the leading causes of death in developed countries. Therefore, this fat loss drug is very important.
Removed by mod
What the hell happened to Public Funding for Science and shit
That’s only for diseases you can’t milk a fat profit from like tuberculosis.
Would a publicly funded study into a weight loss drug receive a sufficient share of a government’s research budget?
I’m not sure I understand your question but maybe it should
Someone that doesn’t understand how much capitalism has done for research.
The scales aren’t the same, the public would never allow that sort if risk, its completely impossible for governments to cause that amount of drug breakthroughs
You apparently don’t understand how much government-subsidized research has done.
Ever had an MRI? Ever known anyone who had an MRI? Ever known anyone whose life was saved because something was discovered on an MRI?
Thank NASA, not capitalism.
But the public of course is just fine having a little 10 trillion military excursion in the middle east. You don’t even need to explain how it will be profitable in that case. Because of how passionately everyone wanted this.
For old people cancer, capitalism is the only possible option.
It’s also needed by type 2 diabetics. So I’d say pretty vital.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read in a month. It was originally and still is a diabetes drug. Go lick more corporate boots.
I’ve seen that argument about expensive drugs over and over and over.
And you know what it’s an argument in favor of?
Government-subsidized research.
It’s not an argument in favor of pricing drugs so high that only the rich can afford them. At all.
And let’s not forget that a great deal of the research is already publicly-funded.
I still don’t understand how Covid vaccines are suddenly allowed to cost a fuck ton of money. Enough public money was thrown at those things to buy entire nations - why the fuck isn’t it owned by the public.
That one is especially ludicrous. It’s mitigating a pandemic (or I guess endemic at this point) illness! It should be manufactured at cost.
Exactly. It’s an argument for regulation. Also maybe they should spend some of their advertisement budget on R&D instead of convincing patients what they should be on.
R&D already disappears when compared to marketing or executive pay. Corpos whining about profits again
Likely not, no. Novo Nordisk spent $5 Billion on R&D in a year as a company. I can’t find consistent numbers on advertising costs, but that looks to be somewhere around $100-200 million over the last 12 months, for this product specifically. The total annual compensation of the entire executive team at Novo Nordisk is about $46 million USD.
It also regulates sugar and can be used as an alternative to insulin in many cases. The fact that it slows down the digestive process to make you feel like you’re still full is a side effect compared to the sugar regulation.
That’s why people take ozempic.
Also what you said is incredibly stupid.
There would still be a profit incentive in this case even if they charged 1% of what they’re asking for. They’d still be making a 50% profit. A margin that would be highly favourable in basically any other industry. The whole point of market competition is to drive down that profit margin and pass the savings on to customers. A 95% markup like here demonstrates that the health industry is completely immune to market forces.
True and I think no one expects any good to cost the same as manufacturing it, but the difference here is 200 times. That is bonkers.
Yes.
Well, yes, but actually no. We enjoy food for a reason, and the availability of all kinds of food today interferes with our bodies and brains, which were tuned to scarcity in ancient times. Most people simply can’t eat less; that’s why the majority never lose weight or regain it after some time. Meanwhile, health issues caused by being overweight are consistently among the leading causes of death in developed countries. Therefore, this fat loss drug is very important.
Removed by mod
This is just ignorant.
Calories in and out is accurate.
That wasn’t the point of my post. Could you please read the whole thread before joining instead of picking a single phrase?
Removed by mod
Consider not using word “science” anymore, you clearly have no idea what it is.
Ahaha! Ok! You’re spreading misinformation, that’s against the rules.