The Hulk a possibility?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
All of this being completely irrelevant to the actual point of the original comment of mine that you quoted to somehow justify the rant. Which lead to me questioning the relevance of your initial rant where you say my comment was "not really true", which somehow elicited another rant.

That's "not really true" -being the amount they supposedly invest to figure out every side effect and how the medicine will best help patients. Best helping patients is not the concern of the men and women who sign the checks and care about the bottom line. I can't see this being as possible if there weren't invdividuals along the way that didn't accomodate these goals.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's "not really true" -being the amount they supposedly invest to figure out every side effect and how the medicine will best help patients. Best helping patients is not the concern of the men and women who sign the checks and care about the bottom line. I can't see this being as possible if there weren't invdividuals along the way that didn't accomodate these goals.

Expecting corporations to be altruistic is naive. It's the pharmaceutical industry not the pharmaceutical charity.

Originally posted by inimalist
then both you AND x are making wild generalizations by including all possible forms of "medical" research as a single field and oversimplifying funding issues.

One can also of course separate either term in to a plethora of distinct fields.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, isn't bio-medical animal stuff more often than not?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
While I partially agree that drug companies don't reinvest enough money into R&D, it still takes about 10 years and a billion dollars to progress a drug through clinical trials with most falling short along the way. And pharmaceutical companies have to make profits if they're to retain and attract investors, and continue functioning.

Expecting corporations to be altruistic is naive.

I don't expect them to be altruistic. I expect the people who fund their anti-altruism, while being told they're altruistic and have our best at heart, rise up and regulate them into the ground. Force them to be altruistic. Even though that's a contradiction.

And even that is far fetched, since they're regulated by the government and the people are represented by their government, and the government is owned by big business in this country, including the drug companies. And we all think that the word change is new and unique to every election, when it really needn't be said since the point of any election is change.

So, basically, to boil it down, I wish the people held their government's feet to the fire more than they do, so the government would hold other feet to the fire on the people's behalf.

I wish the government wouldn't have the power to be interesting to big companies. Big Governments really just have downsides.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wish the government wouldn't have the power to be interesting to big companies. Big Governments really just have downsides.

Shameful plug?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wish the government wouldn't have the power to be interesting to big companies. Big Governments really just have downsides.

We have had this argument before, if I recall correctly.

Can we not do it again?

Originally posted by Devil King
We have had this argument before, if I recall correctly.

Can we not do it again?

Meh, not looking forward to it either.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've generally been drawing a distinction between basic research and clinical trials. I wouldn't consider the term "biomedical research" to encompass the latter, while "medical research" to me has more broad connotations.

One can also of course separate either term in to a plethora of distinct fields.

cool, not trying to put words into your mouth at all or anything

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Or cell culture models.

word 🙂