Off Topic The Politics Thread

Spot on. Our Intelligence services are doing an amazing job. Only a matter of time though!

 

35 dead......60 hostages.........Terrible situation

 

So it's kicked off again in Paris. Terrible stuff happening, feel for the French people, to live in constant fear of these psychos.

At least 40 people killed is the latest I've heard. RIP.

You could hear explosions from outside of Stade the France during the France-Germany friendly match. Thought it was fireworks at the time, it even brought cheers from the crowd as they thought the same.

 

The reference to liberal was intended to refer to the implications, rather than the cause. Day to day security will surely have to be increased.

I do think Paris is more susceptible than London due to huge arab-muslim presence particularly in the suburbs. The French have unwittingly allowed in a Trojan horse. Though we can be far from complacent

 

The numbers are going to be huge. I feel sick. This must end now! Off with the silk gloves, exterminate the ****ers. No mercy.

We're talking several hundreds of people killed. Sickening.

My thoughts and prayers are with the family of the people killed and the French people in general.

 

128 dead and that will rise.

I despair!!
I have no answers, but something has got to happen. My kids will see terrible times.

 

I see Old Labour have brought back Ken Livingstone into active politics...and he's rewarded them by putting his foot firmly in his mouth with his first public utterance...

my advice...stick to knocking the pomp off David Mellor on LBC's Saturday show, Ken

 

As if recent news hasn't been depressing enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015

Why are no new antibiotics being developed?

Why should we have to rely on 'the market' to do this?

 

The basic research happens in universities all over the place, the 'market' gets involved to commercialise and spend the big bucks on taking the basic science through clinical development and the legal/ regulatory minefield. If the basic science looks strong and the cash stacks up they will be made available. And for antibiotics that's where it goes wrong. These are medicines which cure (or don't) an infection in a short period of time, you don't take them for long and they have a relatively short lifespan as bacteria develop resistance to them (don't ask me how). You are much better off developing treatments for chronic conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure or arthritis, which people will (or at least should) take for years.

To be fair 5 of the top 10 Pharma companies do have antibiotic development programmes. And we have barely scratched the surface in searching for potential new medicines.

Perhaps you are right Stroller, governments should take the lead in developing antibiotics. Or perhaps not, not sure how many great medicines the state run systems of the USSR and China produced. Or perhaps they should incentivise the companies to invest more in it.

 

No one could expect drug companies to undertake not-for-profit activities, but it shouldn't be left to individual governments either. Perhaps the G20 nations should commit to setting up a joint initiative to deal with this issue.

 

Perhaps something like this. It has to be international as research is global.
http://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/alzheimers-research-uk-to-back-100m-new-dementia-discovery-fund/

Of course $100m is a laughably small amount in terms of making treatments actually available but it should help the basic research.

 

A small amount, yes, but I think this is a good way to go.

How much do drugs companies spend on research?

What if each of the G20 contributed an average of £1 billion per year towards antibiotics research?

 

My company, which is top 15 in terms of size, spends about 25% of turnover on R&D, that's about $5bn a year. I think most of the serious 'innovative' companies spend at least 20%. It is estimated that the total industry spend on R&D will be over $140bn this year. It's a very collaborative process, firms work with each other, academia, start up biotechs, whoever to find stuff. But it's how productive this spend is that's important. Most of it produces nothing except data about what doesn't work (useful in itself), rather than effective and safe medicines. So if the G20 put in £1bn each you would certainly add to scientific knowledge, but not necessarily find any cures. This is why the private sector takes the risks and tries to charge as much as it can get away with for the relatively few products we actually get to sell, for the limited patent lives we have to sell them in. We do all right out of it though.

 

So £4.6bn per annum from each of the G20 and we're matching what is currently spent on R&D by the whole global private sector. £4.6bn is not that much really - scrap Trident and there's plenty of change left over.

No criticism of your company, or the industry as a whole, but if the profit motive doesn't provide the desired outcome we should look for alternative solutions.

 

Feel free to criticise the industry and by extension my company, there's plenty of things we deserve criticism for. Your profit motive reference is spot on. These are just companies, following the money in a sector which offers both enormous risks and enormous rewards, but essentially the same as companies making widgets. Almost every company has value statements about 'putting patients first', but clearly for all shareholder value comes first. They can be criticised as amoral, even immoral, for making money out of suffering, but if they didn't we would have no new treatments. There's an odd kind of integrity about it.

Fortunately the interests of the public and the companies converge a lot of the time (in terms of research) because meeting 'unmet need' is where the money is. That means we study things which are poorly catered for and affect relatively large numbers of people - which in turn means rarer diseases get less attention. Bacterial infections is a strange anomaly, as we have discussed above, and perhaps a more active government investment strategy would make a difference. The money should go to researchers not the industry, and companies incentivised perhaps by guaranteed income for stuff they get through the development and regulatory process, or a level of compensation for drug candidates they invest in but which fail. Reduce risk for them and they will be prepared to take more risk on. But I can't see an alternative to the industry being a key vehicle, because that's where the expertise is.

 

find a pill that stops snoring and not only will your company make billions worldwide
but you will also get eternal gratitude from mrs kiwi

 

As well as Mrs Sooperhoop...

 

So Cameron is going to ask Parliament to sanction British bombing raids in Syria.

What would Tony Benn have said? (and who's that sitting behind him?)



Corbyn will surely have to allow Labour a free vote, otherwise it could get very messy.

 

As always old Tony taking the moral high ground, easy to do from the backbenches. To be fair to him he stuck to his principles even when a minister, being one of the factors (but only one) in the disintegration of British industry and fragmentation of the Labour movement. Still, all fine if him and Jezza don't have anything on their consciences, we'll conveniently forget the gassing of the Kurds and what Assad is doing to the poor citizens of his own country, let alone Daesh.

 

I would have said that Thatcher was a much bigger factor in the disintegration of our industrial base.

Britain adding to the bombing in Syria wouldn't actually achieve much, other than to make us more of a target for terrorists. Rather than this I would support our contributing to a global coalition of ground forces (UN sanctioned) to crush Daesh. Then deal with Assad. As ever though, the problem is what do you leave behind?