this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
345 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22634 readers
3538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org 70 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Big Pharma is the only reason people die from...anything.

These people play God.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Corporate medicine owns lives as a whole. Big pharma is only one brick in the paywall to life and the pursuit of happiness.

[–] whithom@discuss.online 6 points 4 months ago

There is no road to happiness. Only the acceptance of your place. Corporations see to that.

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

People die of old age, car accidents, etc. Those are hardly big pharma's fault.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Damn you big pharma! Damn you to hell for pay-walling me from my anti fatal car accident pills you sons of bitches!!!

[–] JWBananas@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There are an average of 488 deaths per day from excessive alcohol use in the US alone. Big Pharma can't grow a new liver for you.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

They lobby for public health and investment spending that will guarantee their own income rather than actually curing health conditions.

Why invest in curing a health condition when you can sell symptom management for a person's entire lifetime instead?

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are you saying that small pharma is responsible for many of the life-saving medicines we use?

[–] ArtieShaw@fedia.io 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's an odd question without an easy answer. And the question is vague enough that it probably doesn't warrant a serious answer.

"Small pharma" plays many roles. One of the most basic is working with "big pharma," whether in research or manufacturing commercial products.

But I'm going on 30 years on the scientific side of this business, so I'm trying to avoid going into a whole spiel on the topic.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 5 points 4 months ago

I think that answers it well enough. Big pharma buys a lot of leads from small pharma, but I think small pharma could fill the pipeline pretty well without ruthlessly exploiting it quite as much.

I wasn't sure if you were a natural remedy type nut. I now take your statement to be hyperbole since a lot of people die from car accidents. Only some of those can be blamed on big pharma making a treatment too expensive or getting the other driver addicted.

[–] Novice_Idiot@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Funny story, was working at an event for Johnson & Johnson. Most of the people working there were super nice and normal. Was kinda surreal to think that I was chatting with some of the people playing medical gods

[–] pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I mean, its a big company. Maybe you were chatting with the shampoo team, which I assume is uncontroversial lol

[–] Novice_Idiot@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 months ago

No, the people there were actively developing new drugs and doing research by the sound of it.

[–] EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

They could make it not burn my eyes, but then it wouldn't be as fun for them.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Strangely, medical privacy is the reason anyone still dies from HIV. For the cost of 10 cents per person, we could test every human in the planet and make that information public. The transmission rate goes down (1/10th) if the infected person knows, and goes down further with the right immunosupressents (by a factor of 1/100). Publicly available data might even push that to 1/1000. The transmission rate is around 1, so that means it would be cut to 1 new infected per 1000 cases.

Within the standard life expectancy of a hiv carrier, we would go from 40 million to 40 thousand cases.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 37 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Even an incredibly accurate tests would result in thousands of false positives that would now be public knowledge. As difficult as it is to correct anything involving government records, you can imagine the fallout from that. Plus some with medicated HIV won't show as HIV positive in blood tests anyways.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

/theydidntdothemath

Whatever percentage of positive tests would have a second and possibly tertiary test to confirm and rule out false positives for a whopping (guessing here) 10.03 cents per person

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

“Medical privacy is the reason anyone still dies from HIV”—goes on to describe a scenario with universal testing and medication access, neither of which currently exist. 🤨

Btw, treated HIV does not have a 1% transmission rate. Undetectable = Untransmittable.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Privacy is almost always a double edged sword here.

Making all medical records of everyone available to science would catapult us 200 years in the future...

... but it would also lead to extremely widespread discrimination against a whole bunch of people, throwing us back 200 years.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The answer is we are the problem.