High-profile killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York

[4bars]

Speaking from extensive experience this is just incorrect. No one is making decisions on this basis. If that were the case there wouldn't be new oncology drugs.

Again there is plenty to criticize pharma companies for - all the bullshit patent games that they play, money wasted on marketing nonsense, all of the underhanded practices that limit competition, etc - but suggesting that they are focusing R&D on chronic treatments is simply incorrect.

It's also not really how R&D works - you can't just say "well they should focus more on curative treatments" as if investment will automatically lead to these types of breakthroughs. Curing diseases is incredibly hard - and you are downplaying the huge efforts that have moved the space in this direction (gene therapies, CAR-T, etc).

I think I already said that in my last comment:

"No, I don't say is EVIL BIG PHARMA and no, I am not saying that they don't cure or completely block drugs that might cure a disease". and I said this also " if a pharmaceutical company specialized in a chronicle solution and has an edge on a particular disease, they will not have incentive to cure it completely when they are already the experts."

Meaning that they will not push their R+D to undercut their own benefits

And also I said: " Sure. Nothing is black and white. The answer is in the middle..."

 

[Red in STL]

Its a daft position. No other way to put it.

Public companies exist primarily to produce returns to shareholders. Curing a disease does that in spades. Why would they choose to pass?

Novo Nordisk became the EUs biggest company off the back of being just one of a few companies to crack the weight loss drug semaglitude. Should somebody create a cure for cancer they would be the biggest company that ever existed.

The company that finds the cure for the common cold will make Apple look like a Mom & Pop outfit!

 

[Red in STL]

I think I already said that in my last comment:

"No, I don't say is EVIL BIG PHARMA and no, I am not saying that they don't cure or completely block drugs that might cure a disease". and I said this also " if a pharmaceutical company specialized in a chronicle solution and has an edge on a particular disease, they will not have incentive to cure it completely when they are already the experts."

Meaning that they will not push their R+D to undercut their own benefits

And also I said: " Sure. Nothing is black and white. The answer is in the middle..."

Pharma compaines don't do all the research or even pay for it, many drugs/treatments are created using trial and error based on multiple research studies done for other purposes

Take the rMNA Covid caccines, they were created based on research that started in the 1960's and took until the 1990's before they started to figure out how they could be developed without killing the cells involved and another 20 + years in to something that could actually be used

 

[4bars]

The company that finds the cure for the common cold will make Apple look like a Mom & Pop outfit!

Good luck finding a company that can cure the hundreds of viruses that causes any common cold. I am sure they are putting tones of resources to achieve it instead of curing a couple or three symptoms at infinitum. 2-3 symptoms vs 200 diseases. I wonder what they would choose. Or just invest in kleenex

 

[Red in STL]

Good luck finding a company that can cure the hundreds of viruses that causes any common cold. I am sure they are putting tones of resources to achieve it instead of curing a couple or three symptoms at infinitum. 2-3 symptoms vs 200 diseases. I wonder what they would choose. Or just invest in kleenex

I didn't say they could do it but you could say the same about influenza, there's billions spent on annual flu vaccines that are fairly effective, there is research being done for the common cold, if someone comes up with something for the common cold that's as effective as the flu vaccine then they are quids in

 

[4bars]

I didn't say they could do it but you could say the same about influenza, there's billions spent on annual flu vaccines that are fairly effective, there is research being done for the common cold, if someone comes up with something for the common cold that's as effective as the flu vaccine then they are quids in

The influenza is a great example. Every year billions are made twitching for the new variants for the 4 strains that exist. What incentive they have to change this business model?

On the common cold it is simply not possible. They are hundreds of them of very different family types that can cause it. Is simply not possible and is not a disease that will kill a reasonable human being. There is 0 incentive

 

[WI_Red]

The influenza is a great example. Every year billions are made twitching for the new variants for the 4 strains that exist. What incentive they have to change this business model?

On the common cold it is simply not possible. They are hundreds of them of very different family types that can cause it. Is simply not possible and is not a disease that will kill a reasonable human being. There is 0 incentive

I would love to hear your thoughts on how to change this model

 

[4bars]

I would love to hear your thoughts on how to change this model

Sure you would "love" it, don't you? So invest to eradicate once and for all the disease like other diseases. I am sure there are efforts, I am sure that a virus that mutates so quick is not easy to do or even possible. What I am sure is that the R+D that would be needed to find this final solution is too much for the return of investment than the R+D that they spend to twitch for the mutation and its ROI

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The influenza is a great example. Every year billions are made twitching for the new variants for the 4 strains that exist. What incentive they have to change this business model?

On the common cold it is simply not possible. They are hundreds of them of very different family types that can cause it. Is simply not possible and is not a disease that will kill a reasonable human being. There is 0 incentive

It’s becoming abundantly clear you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here. It’s probably harsh to have a go at you about this on a website where 90% of the discussion involves people with no clue about football shitting on at each other but still…

 

[4bars]

It’s becoming abundantly clear you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here. It’s probably harsh to have a go at you about this on a website where 90% of the discussion involves people with no clue about football shitting on at each other but still…

funny, instead of correcting me and accusing to people to shitting on at each other, you decide to actually go to the shit route...

I think many time in this forum I step back and thanks for corrections

 

[Pogue Mahone]

funny, instead of correcting me and accusing to people to shitting on at each other, you decide to actually go to the shit route...

I think many time in this forum I step back and thanks for corrections

When you state with certainty that it’s not possible to develop a cure for the common cold but it‘a a choice to not develop a cure for influenza you clearly have such a poor grasp of the topic it’s hard to take anything you post in good faith.

Speaking of vaccines, google “HPV vaccine”. This is a recently developed vaccine being given routinely to kids all over the world. It involves couple of doses of a relatively cheap medicine and had already massively reduced the incidence of cervical cancer. It may eventually eradicate the disease altogether. How does that fit with your vaccine world view?

 

[WI_Red]

Sure you would "love" it, don't you? So invest to eradicate once and for all the disease like other diseases. I am sure there are efforts, I am sure that a virus that mutates so quick is not easy to do or even possible. What I am sure is that the R+D that would be needed to find this final solution is too much for the return of investment than the R+D that they spend to twitch for the mutation and its ROI

I actually would love it, as my entire career has revolved around first being one of those researchers, and now enabling other researchers, to combat and eradicate infectious diseases.

Eradicating influenza has long been both a goal and an immense challenge. Unlike diseases such as smallpox (completely eradicated) or polio (regionally eradicated...for now), where targeted vaccines and immunization campaigns have led to near-elimination or eradication, influenza viruses undergo rapid genetic changes—known as antigenic drift and shift—and have multiple animal reservoirs (e.g., birds and pigs). Beyond that, there are numerous governmental and multinational campaigns and initiatives to eradicate not just influence but numerous rare and/or regional viruses.

 

[4bars]

When you state with certainty that it’s not possible to develop a cure for the common cold but it‘a a choice to not develop a cure for influenza you clearly have such a poor grasp of the topic it’s hard to take anything you post in good faith.

Speaking of vaccines, google “HPV vaccine”. This is a recently developed vaccine being given routinely to kids all over the world. It involves couple of doses of a relatively cheap medicine and had already massively reduced the incidence of cervical cancer. It may eventually eradicate the disease altogether. How does that fit with your vaccine world view?

Thanks. I think that if you read my messages in my last 1 or 2 pages i spoke about that is not all black and white on the new creation of vaccines.

Now. I don't say that is a choice to not cure influenza, I say that there is no incentives enough to spend much more R+D that is already being spent, specially as there is already a solution to mitigate and that produces billions in benefits every year. And also I said that I don't even know that if it is even possible. All the money in the world might not even make it possible

 

[4bars]

I actually would love it, as my entire career has revolved around first being one of those researchers, and now enabling other researchers, to combat and eradicate infectious diseases.

Eradicating influenza has long been both a goal and an immense challenge. Unlike diseases such as smallpox (completely eradicated) or polio (regionally eradicated...for now), where targeted vaccines and immunization campaigns have led to near-elimination or eradication, influenza viruses undergo rapid genetic changes—known as antigenic drift and shift—and have multiple animal reservoirs (e.g., birds and pigs). Beyond that, there are numerous governmental and multinational campaigns and initiatives to eradicate not just influence but numerous rare and/or regional viruses.

So do you agree that it is easier to invest a lower R+D in successfully mitigate the new mutations that happens year than invest tones of resources on R+D to eradicate a difficult virus(es)not knowing if it is even possible? If you are a company that is expected to get benefits, what path is more likely to follow? Low expenditure in R+D with great RECURRENT returns vs High expenditure in R+D with a low possibility of a great 1 TIME return and high possibility of no return at all?

Again, said already 2 times, I am not criticizing medicine, research. I am criticizing capitalism

 

[Red in STL]

Sure you would "love" it, don't you? So invest to eradicate once and for all the disease like other diseases. I am sure there are efforts, I am sure that a virus that mutates so quick is not easy to do or even possible. What I am sure is that the R+D that would be needed to find this final solution is too much for the return of investment than the R+D that they spend to twitch for the mutation and its ROI

You obviously have a fundamental lack of understanding in to how research is funded

Pharma companies don't fund most of it, national Governments and entities like the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation to name 2 do

 

[WI_Red]

So do you agree that it is easier to invest a lower R+D in successfully mitigate the new mutations that happens year than invest tones of resources on R+D to eradicate a difficult virus(es)not knowing if it is even possible? If you are a company that is expected to get benefits, what path is more likely to follow? Low expenditure in R+D with great RECURRENT returns vs High expenditure in R+D with a low possibility of a great 1 TIME return and high possibility of no return at all?

That is not how this shit works. You can't "mitigate mutations" as the mutations change the structure of the surface proteins that are the basis for antibody mediated immunity. Beyond that, the natural reservoirs that exist cause a constant churn of mutations, so better step would be to eradicate the wet markets and other instances where these reservoirs are allowed to mingle.

Putting all that aside, the fact remains that the driving forces for new vaccines/medication/treatments has almost always been academic laboratories and/or the small companies that spin out of them and the funding for those entities is usually not pharma, but governments and non profits.

 

[Irwin99]

Incel weirdos are so last season. What's in now is killer twinks, beautiful and deadly.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That is not how this shit works. You can't "mitigate mutations" as the mutations change the structure of the surface proteins that are the basis for antibody mediated immunity. Beyond that, the natural reservoirs that exist cause a constant churn of mutations, so better step would be to eradicate the wet markets and other instances where these reservoirs are allowed to mingle.

Putting all that aside, the fact remains that the driving forces for new vaccines/medication/treatments has almost always been academic laboratories and/or the small companies that spin out of them and the funding for those entities is usually not pharma, but governments and non profits.

Not really true. Pharma companies also invest billions in the exact same type research done in these academic labs. Plus those labs can only ever take the development so far. We need the pharma companies to take on the enormous expense (and significant risk of failure) in the years of research that need to follow those initial discoveries in order to develop a safe and effective medicine. Plus the fact that they are willing and able to buy up the start-ups that spin out of academic labs is the main reason that research is done in the first place.

I know I’m coming across as a shill for big pharma here but a lot of the criticism they get is uninformed and/or unfair. That said, I can see plenty of reasons why using free market capitalism as the main driver for innovation is flawed. But those flaws are intrinsic to capitalism itself. And apply to every innovative industry, bar none.

 

[4bars]

You obviously have a fundamental lack of understanding in to how research is funded

Pharma companies don't fund most of it, national Governments and entities like the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation to name 2 do

When you wrote this, I though, o well, here we go. I completely had a misconception on how it works. Then I took the lazy approach to ask chat GPT and the results would be

30-40 public. 50-60% pharmaceuticals . 10-15% NGO and phylantropists

Now, yes, is a lazy approach asking chat GPT, but if numbers are really on that ball park. I really not say that is an "obvious fundamental lack of understanding"

 

[4bars]

That is not how this shit works. You can't "mitigate mutations" as the mutations change the structure of the surface proteins that are the basis for antibody mediated immunity. Beyond that, the natural reservoirs that exist cause a constant churn of mutations, so better step would be to eradicate the wet markets and other instances where these reservoirs are allowed to mingle.

Putting all that aside, the fact remains that the driving forces for new vaccines/medication/treatments has almost always been academic laboratories and/or the small companies that spin out of them and the funding for those entities is usually not pharma, but governments and non profits.

Thanks for explaining how the process works. Much appreciated. So there is no incentive at all for pharmaceuticals to invest any R+D in this particular disease because is funded public R+D. I will not dispute anything on public R+D as profit is not the goal but succeeding in eradicating diseases. Period.

I am disputing pharmaceutical R+D and their goals on the drugs that they produce

 

[Red in STL]

When you wrote this, I though, o well, here we go. I completely had a misconception on how it works. Then I took the lazy approach to ask chat GPT and the results would be

30-40 public. 50-60% pharmaceuticals . 10-15% NGO and phylantropists

Now, yes, is a lazy approach asking chat GPT, but if numbers are really on that ball park. I really not say that is an "obvious fundamental lack of understanding"

All I'm going to say is that my job for the last 25+ years has been publishing this research online for the worlds largest STM publisher

Now Pharma does spend humengous billions on research, there's no doubt about it, but the intitial breakthrough research tends to be done elsewhere

 

[4bars]

All I'm going to say is that my job for the last 25+ years has been publishing this research online for the worlds largest STM publisher

Now Pharma does spend humengous billions on research, there's no doubt about it, but the intitial breakthrough research tends to be done elsewhere

Thanks for throwing out the credentials. That I will not even dare to dispute many things that you might say

But what you say it aligns completely with I had being saying. Sure, diseases are cured. Most likely for what you mentioned that is initially funded by public or donors funding. But pharmaceutical R+D is driven mostly for profit. And when profit is the drive, it supersedes the well being of the people. If profits aligns with the well being of the people is for a happy coincidence. And that happens on private health care, in education and housing

 

[WI_Red]

Not really true. Pharma companies also invest billions in the exact same type research done in these academic labs. Plus those labs can only ever take the development so far. We need the pharma companies to take on the enormous expense (and significant risk of failure) in the years of research that need to follow those initial discoveries in order to develop a safe and effective medicine. Plus the fact that they are willing and able to buy up the start-ups that spin out of academic labs is the main reason that research is done in the first place.

I know I’m coming across as a shill for big pharma here but a lot of the criticism they get is uninformed and/or unfair. That said, I can see plenty of reasons why using free market capitalism as the main driver for innovation is flawed. But those flaws are intrinsic to capitalism itself. And apply to every innovative industry, bar none.

Oh, I think we are on the same. My point was the new and novel ideas often begin outside pharma, not that they mature there. Take GLP-1 drugs for example. The initial work into GLP-1that suggested it utility in treating diabetes was done at MGH before Novo Nordisk took the concept and turned it into what it became Ozempic.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Oh, I think we are on the same. My point was the new and novel ideas often begin outside pharma, not that they mature there. Take GLP-1 drugs for example. The initial work into GLP-1that suggested it utility in treating diabetes was done at MGH before Novo Nordisk took the concept and turned it into what it became Ozempic.

Yeah, 100%. A lot of the really significant breakthroughs do take place in academic labs. But there’s a huge amount of capital (financial and intellectual) needed from pharma companies to take those breakthroughs and develop them to a point where they’re any use to sick patients. I was mainly being pedantic on the basis that companies do also do a lot of work on target identification too. So it’s not like they’re completely reliant on other people for those new and novel ideas.

I actually think the model works well. It’s good that academics get to explore whatever interests them without undue influence by the money men. And it’s good the very deep pockets and expertise of these big corporations can step in and bring a drug to market when a new target is identified that has the potential to save lives.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I think I already said that in my last comment:

"No, I don't say is EVIL BIG PHARMA and no, I am not saying that they don't cure or completely block drugs that might cure a disease". and I said this also " if a pharmaceutical company specialized in a chronicle solution and has an edge on a particular disease, they will not have incentive to cure it completely when they are already the experts."

Meaning that they will not push their R+D to undercut their own benefits

And also I said: " Sure. Nothing is black and white. The answer is in the middle..."

This isn't the way diseases, pharma R&D, or scientific breakthroughs fundamentally work.

Pharma companies aren't meant to be right on the absolute cutting edge of the latest science. They are too large and inflexible and it's a waste of their time and resources - especially as when a prospective drug enters clinical trials, it only has a 5 to 10% chance of making it to the market. Asking pharma companies to spend significantly more in early stages that are even less likely to work will just mean that every drug that makes it will be priced even higher.

 

[4bars]

This isn't the way diseases, pharma R&D, or scientific breakthroughs fundamentally work.

Pharma companies aren't meant to be right on the absolute cutting edge of the latest science. They are too large and inflexible and it's a waste of their time and resources - especially as when a prospective drug enters clinical trials, it only has a 5 to 10% chance of making it to the market. Asking pharma companies to spend significantly more in early stages that are even less likely to work will just mean that every drug that makes it will be priced even higher.

Thanks you and @Red in STL to educate me on how the process goes. Had little knowledge.

What is the benefit of public funded research to "hand it over" to the pharmaceutical companies? Do they keep some patent rights because the drugs are based on the initial breakthroughs? Or pharmaceutical companies cleanly benefits of free of public resources spended?

 

[Red in STL]

Thanks you and @Red in STL to educate me on how the process goes. Had little knowledge.

What is the benefit of public funded research to "hand it over" to the pharmaceutical companies? Do they keep some patent rights because the drugs are based on the initial breakthroughs? Or pharmaceutical companies cleanly benefits of free of public resources spended?

There's a number of reasons, mostly to do with national security and wider general public benefits, some research would never get done by private companies (not commerically viable as you have stated) and it's not all related to healhcare necessarily

Funding also attracts the best scientists so there's a prestige element to it, some of the costs are also recouped via tax

Take graphene, a non-medical specific product that has it's research origins in the 1960's and was devloped at the University of Manchester in 2004, it was funded by the European Commission originally, since then the likes of NASA fund research, the first commercial product created and sold was to a pharma company in San Diego in 2017 - no idea what they use it for!

 

[4bars]

There's a number of reasons, mostly to do with national security and wider general public benefits, some research would never get done by private companies (not commerically viable as you have stated) and it's not all related to healhcare necessarily

Funding also attracts the best scientists so there's a prestige element to it, some of the costs are also recouped via tax

Take graphene, a non-medical specific product that has it's research origins in the 1960's and was devloped at the University of Manchester in 2004, it was funded by the European Commission originally, since then the likes of NASA fund research, the first commercial product created and sold was to a pharma company in San Diego in 2017 - no idea what they use it for!

So in short, pharmaceuticals are benefiting of this public research for free or almost for free and turn it to profit

Dont get me wrong. I am a very advocate of mix solutions. There are spaces where government is the best actor and others private is the best one. But is obvious that some areas, the private sector abuse of its power and is so dangerous when is health, education and housing

Pharmaceuticals are just there on the list that the abuse of this. Specially in US

 

[langster]

Dont get me wrong. I am a very advocate of mix solutions. There are spaces where government is the best actor and others private is the best one. But is obvious that some areas, the private sector abuse of its power and is so dangerous when is health, education and housing

Definitely add energy, water, and transport to that list, also law enforcement and prisons. None of those you or I mentioned should be in the hands of private companies or individuals.



Above The Law - Livin Like Hustlers

 

[4bars]

Definitely add energy, water, and transport to that list, also law enforcement and prisons. None of those you or I mentioned should be in the hands of private companies or individuals.



Above The Law - Livin Like Hustlers

absolutely. Was just my main 3 examples were people experience more pain lately. I think no one can deny that a big portion of the opiod crisis is caused by pharmaceuticals in combination with the private health system from the US. I don't know why is so far fetch that pharmaceuticals are moved for no other reason than profit and that it affects curing disease strategies

 

[hasanejaz88]

Don't think she's wrong. While his crime is also being celebrated so it's a bit different but this is similar to the reaction the Boston Marathon bomber got after he was caught as well. It is a weird culture of having not sympathy for someone who is 'hot' despite their crimes.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Don't think she's wrong. While his crime is also being celebrated so it's a bit different but this is similar to the reaction the Boston Marathon bomber got after he was caught as well. It is a weird culture of having not sympathy for someone who is 'hot' despite their crimes.

Shes very wrong here. The killer was a hero before anyone knew who he was, because of who he killed.

The real story, that no mainstream media will ever touch, is that this is a story of two killers. One who used a gun and shot a man, the other a CEO who will have killed tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in the pursuit of profit. And make no mistake, when they tell their claims teams they need to reject more claims, everyone in the conversation knows that means more people dying.

We are only supposed to view one as a criminal. The terror from people like that journalist, is from ordinary people recognising the victim is a murderer too.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Shes very wrong here. The killer was a hero before anyone knew who he was, because of who he killed.

The real story, that no mainstream media will ever touch, is that this is a story of two killers. One who used a gun and shot a man, the other a CEO who will have killed tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in the pursuit of profit. And make no mistake, when they tell their claims teams they need to reject more claims, everyone in the conversation knows that means more people dying.

We are only supposed to view one as a criminal. The terror from people like that journalist, is from ordinary people recognising the victim is a murderer too.

Very well said.

 

[golden_blunder]

You pay more than 200 a month in taxes to get " free" healthcare. The key is what @Red in STL said that his company pays much more for it. Meaning that if you don't have a job you are or fecked without insurance or you pay much more than 200 a month for a private insurance that covers you way less. Also, lets not go to pre existing conditions that is not a problem in public health care countries

US works great when everything goes great but might get ultra shitty when things dont go as great because it has no safety net

I have 2 brothers in the US. Brother 1, his daughter had sepsis when she was a child and was in hospital for weeks, a pretty close emergency. He had insurance through work but wasn’t 100% covered, he had to pay off about 50k. Meanwhile insurance paid out something like 500k

Brother number 2, like me suffers from heart conditions etc caused by a rogue gene. It’s a hereditary problem that 3 of us got and the other 2 siblings escaped. He has had to have an ICD fitted, stents fitted, he has an internal recorder fitted to monitor his beats, all kinds of scans etc. pre-existing condition so most of the things he gets done he has to pay for himself, his insurance covers just a bit. He ended up having to sell his house to cover some medical expenses. Now he’s thinking about moving home to NI.

The system is not fair. By bad genetics, no fault of his own, he was left with a huge bill.

I can see how people continue working when they’re sick etc. it’s just crazy

 

[Pogue Mahone]

So in short, pharmaceuticals are benefiting of this public research for free or almost for free and turn it to profit

Dont get me wrong. I am a very advocate of mix solutions. There are spaces where government is the best actor and others private is the best one. But is obvious that some areas, the private sector abuse of its power and is so dangerous when is health, education and housing

Pharmaceuticals are just there on the list that the abuse of this. Specially in US

Not true. Any “discovery” made in an academic lab that has commercial potential will result in a start-up company being created. If a pharma company wants to buy out that company it will cost them. Then taking that idea all the way through to market will cost them even more (usually a lot more) And the real cost is the fact that the majority of these investments won’t ever earn them a penny, as they will fail at some point along that long journey.

Now obviously, these companies are (mostly) profitable so nobody needs to feel sorry for them but it’s a complete myth that they can sit back and let the government fund research on their behalf, which they can sweep up, free of charge.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Shes very wrong here. The killer was a hero before anyone knew who he was, because of who he killed.

The real story, that no mainstream media will ever touch, is that this is a story of two killers. One who used a gun and shot a man, the other a CEO who will have killed tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in the pursuit of profit. And make no mistake, when they tell their claims teams they need to reject more claims, everyone in the conversation knows that means more people dying.

We are only supposed to view one as a criminal. The terror from people like that journalist, is from ordinary people recognising the victim is a murderer too.

This is a hell of a speech!

 

[11101]

Thanks you and @Red in STL to educate me on how the process goes. Had little knowledge.

What is the benefit of public funded research to "hand it over" to the pharmaceutical companies? Do they keep some patent rights because the drugs are based on the initial breakthroughs? Or pharmaceutical companies cleanly benefits of free of public resources spended?

Economic growth.

DARPA for example, theyre known as the shady defence agency but theyre really one of the biggest VC investors on the planet. They fund all sorts of public research with zero expectation of financial returns. They do it because they know the ones that make it will get commercialised, grow the American economy and develop useful products. Some of their smash hits include the internet and mRNA vaccines.

That mentality and setup is a major reason the US economy is so far ahead of Europe. They spend magnitudes more than us on early stage R&D.

 

[Mogget]

Economic growth.

DARPA for example, theyre known as the shady defence agency but theyre really one of the biggest VC investors on the planet. They fund all sorts of public research with zero expectation of financial returns. They do it because they know the ones that make it will get commercialised, grow the American economy and develop useful products. Some of their smash hits include the internet and mRNA vaccines.

That mentality and setup is a major reason the US economy is so far ahead of Europe. They spend magnitudes more than us on early stage R&D.

Sounds like socialism to me

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Sounds like socialism to me

It’s not really “public research” they’re funding. This is the US after all. The investment they made in the development of mRNA vaccines, for example, was a grant paid to Moderna, a privately owned pharma company.

 

[VorZakone]