Most of the illness youc na see in the Third World can be solved completely with good water, good sanitation, good parenting help and good food. These are the things that really change the outcome of life... donot believe the hype of Big Pharma about how life-saving their products are...actually, taking into account the big picture, they are quite irrelevant (although in some particular cases it cna make the difference for a particular person).
So thecompany can indeed focus in the five (roughly) badly and desperately needed reasearch lines like Malaria or better solutions for Yellow Fever (just the two that most often come to my mind together with black fever mentioned).
I wish her a lot of luck. Although I also would like the states to research on these issues (as they already do in some cases)
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
As we are not living in an ideal world, I think it is important to realise that people can make a difference.
IN case he uses all the money to make some of the already drugs cheaper.. It is great!
Although, in that case, I think good food and good sanitation (and water) is much more needed generally...except for a very short set of medications. I hope she chooses them carefully and thoroughfully... in other words I hope that she knows much more than pharmaceuticals and medicine to get the proper answer (as far as I see it it is really a very difficult question...but maybe there are no-brainers).
Although I also would like the states to research on these issues
We have become (too) thankful of charity because, increasingly, it takes on roles that it should not NEED to. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Yes, very much so. I think the problem here is the frame - this is compassionate capitalism in action, with missionary overtones of bring the benefits of big-science to the innocent. Or something along those lines.
While running a not-for-profit foundation is better than being part of Big Pharma, if she'd set up a not-for-profit to provide basic sanitation, this would never have been tagged as a story in the mainstream press because it wouldn't be sexy enough.
It's not quite true that the 3rd world doesn't need meds, because tropical areas can be more hostile - with parasites and other infections - than temperate areas are. But the basics are an essential first step, and probably twice as likely to make a difference as drugs are.
An even more impressive result for a scheme like this would be to provide meds in the US itself.
Like kc I wish her well. But I think there is a subtext here, and it's about the exec class reflecting on itself. The recipients and their real needs seem to come lower down the list than the fact that this is pitched as an entrpreneurial success story.
There is no instant solution. So all positive contributions are welcome.
I see nothing wrong with the exec class reflecting upon itself, providing that it would be indicative of a new mood of morality. Hardly to be expected, but not necessarily to be ridiculed.
Just as education is empowering in the 'Third World', so is it empowering in the executive world. My impression of the many execs I meet is that they are very well, but narrowly educated. All they want to know more about is what will help them survive and prosper in the tiny habitat that they currently occupy. You can't be me, I'm taken
Yes, sanitation is needed, medications are needed, peace and justice are needed. There is no instant solution. So all positive contributions are welcome.
I think it needs lots of courage to take that step and I do not know many people who have that courage. It is so easy to discuse this on sites like ET - but it needs a lot more to actually do something. If sanitation is so important maybe those here with the knowledge and expertise needed could start such an organization.
Also I do not think being entrepreneur is negativ - only if it is done with greed and egocentrically, and I do agree there is a lot of that. So, I find it nice to read about someone who does business with compassion and hope she will inspire others to do the same.
I have nothing against the initiative. I just think it has to be seen in a bigger aid work context. And it's possibly a little sad that one sexy story - and this is a very sexy story - is going to get more media attention and support than people who have been doing some extremely unsexy but very important work for years.
They deserve support too. If anything they deserve more support, because they're often on the front line. Sometimes they're literally putting their lives at risk, to an extent which I'd guess isn't the case here.
I believe this is a pretty big difference between the US and Europe, in that there is much more of a tradition of charititable contributions, in particular. I know you disagree with that,,,but I think that is just a difference in approach.
That charities do more, or better, after that is good, and will reflect the individual preferences - and freedom to act - of citizens. But relying ONLY on charity for some roles seems unefficient and dangerous to me. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I think one of the problems to today is, that companies are not happy any more to just make a profit, i.e. pay decent salaries, have all the expenses payed, even research and maybe have something left over. No, if the part left over at the end of a year is not at least twice as much as the year before the company is considered a failure. So, big companies are hoarding money, some don't even know what to do with it anymore, except for exorbitant bonuses, etc. Unfortunately even state owned companies today mostly fall into this pattern. Thus, I really consider the idea of a non-profit company novel for out times.
Okay, Hale's company gets the start up money from charities instead of banks, but I consider this a good investment, if this company actually will be able to make enough money to have all the expenses coveret, it will become self-sustaining.
In my view, which I know may not be broadly shared here at ET, we have plenty of pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies that have the objective of developing life saving products (see heart valves, angioplasty catheters, pacemakers, defibrillators, stents, Lipitor, etc. etc.) and making a profit. But there are products that are needed such as Victoria Hale has identified, that can not be developed and make a profit, due to the target customer set being incredibly poor. So this seems a great opportunity for those who have earned their money in free market systems, to give back to others, through this kind of model.
And I don't think it will be reasonable for Ms Hale's company to break even--given the costs that I mentioned earlier for clinical trials and drug development. maybe for the "long hanging fruit" products she'll get a head start since other companies have done a lot of the work--but even then, won't clinical trials be required? and then there are other diseases in the 3rd world that I think are going to need much more spending for drug development. So I think this charity raising model could be great.
And it is the exception, not the rule, for a company to double its earnings from one year to the next,,,though I know the energy companies likely did it this year. i don't have the numbers yet, but in the US I imagine earnings grew something like 12--22%, on average.
Happy New Year -:)
