http://www.bobbywrightcancerfight.co.uk/ BBC news link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4246842.stm
The hu14.18 antibody is still in Phase II even in the US, so the fact that its in Phase I in the UK isn't surprising. Obviously, you have no clue what you're talking about. As a matter of fact, the rights to the hu14.18 antibody is owned by EMD in partnership with Merck KGaA. Acquiring the rights to replicate the stuff is controlled by patent laws and the representative government agencies that recognizes those laws as protection for the "property" of pharmaceutical companies. Ain't capitalism grand?
Moved from another thread: I'd think this would be so obvious, I shouldn't even need to point it out, but: Are you fucking kidding me? Where are the pharmaceutical co's multi-billion dollar R&D budgets supposed to come from, if you don't allow them to keep the fruits of their own labor for a measly 20 years? Are there no more medications left to be discovered? Not allowing men to keep the fruits of their own work <b>impedes future work (and therefore production) from ever taking place.</b> That's why communism always fails. If you disagree with this basic premise, I invite you to go put all your efforts for the next few years into building a successful, productive farm in Zimbabwe. There is a desperate need for such farms, but strangely enough, nobody seems interested in creating them. I wonder why.
Who said anything about "impeding progress" or denying anyone the "fruits of their labor"? The FDA and the USPTO already grants "fast-track" status to companies that engage in research that saves lives. Is it so unrealistic to have legislation that defines "open source" requirements for competing companies that wish to help speed the process? A part of the requirement would be an automatic agreement to a certain % of royalties to the owner for any of them that wish to participate. Companies already infringe on each other's property rights. They do it because patent law does not protect their property. It protects their right to seek compensation. It still doesn't provide a guarantee that the owner gets paid. It just serves as to deter infringement. Hell, an "open source" agreement law (only for things that are considered life-saving essential) with criminal repercussions alone would reduce the number of infringement law suites that costs all parties billions and guarantee that the owners get paid.
Capatalism is grand, otherwise there would be no hope at all because god knows socialized medicine stunts R&D. Anyways, if socialized medicine was so great he would have access to it under his own medical plan. Maybe the US will someday get socialized medicine so we can stop subsidizing the rest of the world.
There you go again, flapping your pie-hole without even bothering to educate yourself about this situation. The parent company that holds the rights to the antibody is German; which I believe has a socialized health-care system. I don't suppose the company researching the antibody is using tax-payer money for it now would they? Hmmmm....imagine that; socialist money used for capitalistic R&D thats supposedly "stagnating" under a socialized system. I don't suppose that pharmacuetical companies in America are using tax-payer money to fund their R&D as well? Isn't that a fine example of a "corporate welfare" system? Or do you consider that to be a "social program"? Lets see; all the advantages of free public money with the protection of capitalistic laws. So what shall we call it?
Are you claiming that pharma company shareholders receive more gov't money than they pay in taxes? If not, what exactly are they getting for 'free'?
No, I'm not claiming that at all. I'm simply pointing out that a socialized form of funding already exists in the business. Its certainly a far cry from all the touting of the benefits of a capitalistic system; which, in its purest sense, it is not.