COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Jovan Dragisic]

What is keeping medical research from being funded by independent sources? Meaning all of medical research. I understand regulation on medical drugs and so on (although it doesn't really matter anymore after 2020), but the research itself, why does it HAVE TO be funded by government? Are scientists making that much money from the government anyway?
Maybe this is too complicated for my little brain to understand, I'm just always trying to think of an alternative to centralized entities and monopolies, but I guess they exist for a reason.

I was really just playing a poor devil's advocate here, but I can try. The medical science and industry is a public private cartel. You have what is supposed to be private companies running the thing, but in reality they are tightly bound with government. So getting money from Pfizer, Sanofi or Glaxo Smith Kline is not that much different from getting paid by the government directly. This can take on many forms, depending on the minutiae of a given healthcare system, but as a whole, we are dealing with a cartel. A cartel is akin to any other kind of government structure, you get bureaucratic petrification, which is hard to escape. Given that this particular cartel is spending about a quarter of global GDP, a number which will probably double pretty soon, it is not reasonable to expect that too many scientists will break out. Plus, the media is part of the cartel, so good luck trying to get something past all the gatekeepers.

[Grobleaugg]

The video I was referring to, was Trumps call for everyone to pack up and leave etc.... The video that Chansley was quoting. For some reason Twitter at the time took that video of Trump down. I am sure had people have seen Trump himself say that, many would not have entered.

I am not certain I am following what you are saying. You appear to be saying that if others saw the video from Trump requesting people to leave that they would not have entered and that this was Twitters fault because they removed the video? If this is what you are suggesting it makes no logical sense because the January 6th rioters had already entered the building several hours before Trump made that video.

Here's my problem with this.
Pharma companies and the government are the same thing at this point. The government doesn't employ people that understand science (or at least people that behave according to it). The "scientific community" is not really a thing in my opinion. 10% is not a result that tells me that this system is better than any other system. People get interested in literally anything, especially when it's about their own ass, and a private company without protection from the government would be very careful about putting anyone's interest before that of their consumers. And the idea that drug prices would skyrocket without government intervention is absurd, since a free market would fix that pretty quick.
How much does "government funded" insulin cost again? And how much does a tv cost compared to 15 years ago, including taxes of course, which we shall pay forever?

The free market would dictate that the prices of medications would skyrocket and/or that new drugs would not be developed. How do you think private companies would recoup the costs of the additional cost of the research you just placed on their backs? Also, you clearly dont understand how grants get approved and funded.

[francesco.decaro]

I was really just playing a poor devil's advocate here, but I can try. The medical science and industry is a public private cartel. You have what is supposed to be private companies running the thing, but in reality they are tightly bound with government. So getting money from Pfizer, Sanofi or Glaxo Smith Kline is not that much different from getting paid by the government directly. This can take on many forms, depending on the minutiae of a given healthcare system, but as a whole, we are dealing with a cartel. A cartel is akin to any other kind of government structure, you get bureaucratic petrification, which is hard to escape. Given that this particular cartel is spending about a quarter of global GDP, a number which will probably double pretty soon, it is not reasonable to expect that too many scientists will break out. Plus, the media is part of the cartel, so good luck trying to get something past all the gatekeepers.

The libertarian premise is that without a government, cartels would not exist. This is why I tend to focus on the government as a problem as opposed to the cartel, which is much harder to contrast, as well as pointless

[Mark Rippetoe]

The free market would dictate that the prices of medications would skyrocket and/or that new drugs would not be developed.

Explain your reasoning.

[francesco.decaro]

The free market would dictate that the prices of medications would skyrocket and/or that new drugs would not be developed. How do you think private companies would recoup the costs of the additional cost of the research you just placed on their backs? Also, you clearly dont understand how grants get approved and funded.

The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

From the article:

"[...]Insulin pricing in the United States is the consequence of the exact opposite of a free market: extended monopoly on a lifesaving product in which prices can be increased at will, taking advantage of regulatory and legal restrictions on market entry and importation"

Judging from your contributions to the board, it sounds like you believe a lot of things work in a way in which they don't actually work. But as Rip said, you are free to explain your reasoning

[Jovan Dragisic]

The libertarian premise is that without a government, cartels would not exist. This is why I tend to focus on the government as a problem as opposed to the cartel, which is much harder to contrast, as well as pointless

I agree with the premise. Maybe even more than that - government was created in order to facilitate cartels - this is probably the origin of the current civilization cycle, starting in Sumer.

[Grobleaugg]

Explain your reasoning.

I thought I already did, but allow me to be more succinct. From a brief google search 82% of research is government funded, 11% is funded through the private sector and the remaining percentage is from other sources.

Are Federal and Private Research Funding Substitutes? | NBER).

If you remove the 82% of government funding those costs would need to be picked up by the private sector. The private sector would have to pass the cost of doing the research onto the consumer if they want to make a profit, which would in turn increase the prices of what they are selling. In the example I have been using, your drugs would cost more. It would also be unlikely that new drugs would be developed because why would they risk their money into developing ideas that wont have a return on investment until many years down the road, if at all?

Look how much medications cost now? Now imagine if private companies had to fund the bulk of the research themselves. Do you see the costs going down? Keep in mind that the above scenario also does not account for the open sourced nature of how science is currently conducted and published. If private companies did the research themselves, it is less likely that the data would be shared effectively decreasing competition.

[VNV]

Here's the opening paragraph from today's Malone substack:

I first really encountered economist Peter Navarro very early in the COVIDcrisis outbreak during 2020, when he contacted one of my clients seeking sources for ramping up domestic manufacturing of hydroxychloroquine. There are many who claim to have been very early advocates for pharmaceutical management of COVID-19, but no-one can dispute that Peter was at the absolute forefront of the push to provide early drug therapies. Peter was the tip of the spear within the White House until Janet Woodcock and Rick Bright successfully conspired to subvert the will of the sitting POTUS. What ever you think of Donald J. Trump, whatever mistakes he may have made, whatever his misplaced trust in Mike Pence, Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci contributed to the resulting massive public health fiasco, there can be no doubt of the amazing progress which this economist made to advancing efforts to appropriately manage the COVIDcrisis - until he was blocked.

[emphasis mine]

First I've heard of Woodcock and Bright.

[Shiva Kaul]

What is keeping medical research from being funded by independent sources? Meaning all of medical research. I understand regulation on medical drugs and so on (although it doesn't really matter anymore after 2020), but the research itself, why does it HAVE TO be funded by government? Are scientists making that much money from the government anyway?
Maybe this is too complicated for my little brain to understand, I'm just always trying to think of an alternative to centralized entities and monopolies, but I guess they exist for a reason.

NIH, NSF and DARPA spend $40B+ annually on research, and they’re not the only games in town.

I'm pretty sure we could easily find a million people interested in giving a few dollars each for research with no conflict of interest or driven by profit.

That’s $120+ from every American.

[mkm5]

I was fortunate to have participated in JFK's presidential fitness program in my youth. Although I was a weak, skinny, probably malnourished kid in school, every time I met a fitness goal it helped me understand I could do more than I thought I could. When I got to college and was able to get more food and access to weightlifting, I went from skinny to stronger pretty quickly with some hard work under the bar.

What a contrast back then from what is the so-called president we have now. Just imagine a debate on anything between JFK and FJB.

The Motivation Factor - Physical Education in schools in 1960's - #JFKChallenge - YouTube