Still, thanks to R&D, those with AIDS now live about 20 years longer. And what's the response of the leading AIDS activist group? To hand out embarrassing letter grades to the companies:
"There's no sugarcoating," [a group board member] said. "The membership feels that the pharmaceutical industry can be doing a much better job, whether it's innovation or pricing."
Let me not sugarcoat things either. Here's a rather simple way to cut down on the prevalence of this ravaging disease -- stop fucking each other in the butt.
Fair enough..disgust is not a social construct.
ReplyDeleteIt would be more interesting to see your obvious intellect applied
to why this phenomenon has persisted through time and across cultures.
Actually what Big Pharma is really doing is giving each AIDS victim another 20 years to infect others. Think of it as an investment in almost guaranteed future revenue streams
ReplyDeleteAnd we think that Big Tobacco is cynically ruthless in devising schemes to lure in new customers.
Fucking Hell. I was with you just fine 'til the idiotic "stop fucking each other in the butt" remark.
ReplyDeleteWhat's needed is better sex education for our youth, both straight and gay, and proper use of condoms by everyone. The abstinence-only sex ed programs so popular with conservatives often teach that condoms are pretty much useless and, of course, gay kids are given no option under these programs other than than to never have sex, since they're not allowed to marry in the vast majority of states in the USA.
Teaching kids that condoms don't work merely teaches them to not bother to use them. Not teaching them about how to properly protect themselves does nothing other than make adults with little sense of reality happy.
BTW, straight folks "[fuck] each other in the butt," too, you know.
@ Mr. HCI
ReplyDeleteAgnostic has a well documented irrational hatred for homosexuals. He routinely uses the words "faggot", "queer", and "gay" as if they were generic insults.
@Agnsotic
You seem to ignore the moral issue of profiting from the suffering of others. That, I would imagine, would be ample justification for those who look poorly on big pharma's contribution.
You say that universities could put money toward less profitable cures. That, I think, is the best argument for dissolving patents and moving drug research out of private hands and into the public trust.
For a man whose writing is absolutely devoid of any discussion of the moral implications of any given subject you certainly write with what Ayer called "a peculiar tone of horror".