CorgiRegisteredFriend
Well-known member
Coldplay pay tribute to M.C.A at the Hollywood bowl yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVr4UP9ntLs&sns=em
Sorry but this is sadder than the news itself. Wrong wrong wrong!
Coldplay pay tribute to M.C.A at the Hollywood bowl yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVr4UP9ntLs&sns=em
Licensed to Ill is much maligned. Listen again, it's a brilliant album.
Yep me too. Then heard Paul's Boutique and it blew my mind. It still amazes me they went from Licence to Ill tabloid shockers to one of the best hip hop albums ever!
Not only did their career have an almighty turn around but this album did as well as upon release Paul's Boutique was, at best, met with indifference and largely ignored.
Favourite album?
Check your head for me.
Sorry but this is sadder than the news itself. Wrong wrong wrong!
It's about time the global pharmaceutical giants were told to f*** off and the cure for cancer is made available. Is there any part of the body it can't affect? Jesus, 47 is no age. I know a guy who has an inoperable brain tumour at 40 and will not live past this November. He has a 5 year old son and spends all his waking hours writing a journal that his boy can read at various stages throughout his life, because his Dad won't be there. It's all so terribly sad. RIP Adam.
There is almost certainly cures for cancer sitting on the pharmaceuticals shelves, but they'd lose huge profits from making it available.
Total rubbish.
I love a reply with reasoning.
The rewards for a cure would far outstrip the return on managing an illness. For starters you will almost certainly be the absolute market leader as opposed to a player in a congested market. You will also be able to price the treatment relative to the cost of managing the illness.
Also, and this is my main reason, having a compound sitting on a shelf makes no sense as the patent will be running down from the moment it's registered. Typically you get 20 odd years and then anyone can manufacture it ie the longer you do nothing with a compound the less time you have to make any money from it. If you choose to do absolutely nothing for the full life time of the patent all you have done is stop someone else manufacturing it for 20 years. Anyone can then come along and work with it. My point being you would be stupid to not try and make any money from it as once the patent expires someone else certainly will try. Of course you could hide it on a shelf and not patent it but then you run the risk of anyone copying your asset.
What you have suggested makes no sense and the very reason you are suggesting for companies not progressing new drugs is the very reason they will progress them.
You are totally allowed your opinion as am I, and I don't need a lesson in patents, to be honest it has no relevance. There is a very shady underworld in many walks of life that we have no idea about, I believe a cancer cure is one of them. Just my opinion like.
I don't need a lesson in patents, to be honest it has no relevance.
Give me a reason as to why you think they might hold back a market leading blockbuster of all blockbuster drugs then? It makes no sense which ever say you look at it commercially or otherwise. Also, not all drug research is conducted by big pharma companies. Why would a small biotech/pharma hold back? Why would a charity funded university researcher hold back?
Why don't you take this shit to another thread you jerks.
I went to about 5 bars last night all of which played some Beastie Boys. It was good.
Hmmm someone dies of cancer and we debate cancer... you're right, it should be taken elsewhere