Imagine a drug which, with no side effects, boosts IQ 10 points. Should it be a) Banned b) Sold c) Made freely available on NHS d) Put in the public water supply? Now, instead of a drug, ask analogous questions of an IQ-boosting gene which could be inserted in zygote genomes.
-
-
I might have understood .....but I didn't get the damn drug!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nope. That's only true if those companies are operating at the verge of bankrupcy. As long as they are operating above the value of money, they have options, i.e.: reduce net profit margins.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank God America subsidizes saline costs for the rest of the world ($500 vs $1).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, good. Let's stop subsidizing everyone else.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It might be interesting to look at medicines which are licensed in Europe and UK but not in USA. Although the ones i know of are now generics.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The only thing that Americans are subsidizing in drug development is big profits from the needy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Dude, do pharmas just gift drugs to the NHS for free? Coz I’m pretty sure we spend billions each year running it.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
No, that means that shareholders, executives and big pharma corpirations are to be held accountable, too. You can’t just offload additional costs on the public and government. Business 101 in balanced economies.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.