This stupid country just lets people fucking die and get disabled everyday. I’m sick of it. My tax dollars just go to killing and dismembering people abroad. Fuck fuck fuck.

  • glans [it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
    2·
    3 months ago

    i’m with you in principal but why does your proposed solution rely so heavily on the US owning everything? Wouldn’t putting it out into the world under some kind of Libre license be better? (Creative Commons Share-Alike for medicines.)

    Bill Gates is such a fucking menace.

    I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing but I recall people in Oxford were seriously contemplating publishing their COVID vaccine info freely but Bill Gates flew his ass to England and had a private meeting with the guy in charge. Told him that brown people can’t be trusted to do manufacturing properly and it was a recipe for disaster letting them make half-assed products. Idk if that was really compelling to the guy or maybe also waved around prospects of future funding or whatever. But whatever it worked.

    • JusticeEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      Uh, I think I got off on the US because I live in this shithole. Obviously any vaccines developed outside the US shouldn’t belong to the US at all. My main concern with patents and stuff would be US corporations doing what they did they to the insulin patent. It was never intended to be profitable, and yet it is.

      It’s all just tinkering stuff ultimately because I would like to see private pharma totally gone and only be publicly funded and then internationally shared for the betterment of all human existence.

      • glans [it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Obviously any vaccines developed outside the US shouldn’t belong to the US at all.

        What about those developed in the US?

        My main concern with patents and stuff would be US corporations doing what they did they to the insulin patent.

        Well first of all insulin was developed in Canada. But I was actually thinking of it in suggesting something akin to Share-Alike. Which I didn’t really explain but it is a feature of certain Creative Commons licenses e.g. CC BY-SA:

        ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

        Now obviously this is intended for artistic works. Even applying it to source code is highly discouraged. But I do find it useful to contemplate the ideas. CC are attempts to make libre culture integrate in capitalism and as such are doomed to certain limitations. So depending if you are thinking reformist or revolutionary, will go in different directions. Under communism we wouldn’t have patents. We would have inspections, regulations etc but patents… don’t think so.

        My concept is that some sort of SA written with pharmaceuticals and medical devices in mind, could have, time travel-wise led in a different direction.

        I am totally unclear in my limited research about whether/how a patent from 100 years ago is in force or relevant today.

        In any case, nobody uses that insulin, everybody uses modern insulins and what really costs is the delivery devices (needles). What we need (under capitalism) is a mechanism to extend the good vibes “virally” to related innovations. Whatever they may be.

        background re insulin

        The discovery of insulin revisited: lessons for the modern era

        In late May 1922, the University of Toronto and Eli Lilly worked out an agreement that gave Eli Lilly the exclusive rights to manufacture and distribute insulin (free of charge) to selected physicians and hospitals (1, 48, 49). After one year, the company was free to charge for insulin and patent any innovations on their product (see also below). A very close working relationship between the Toronto team and scientists at Eli Lilly ensued (50, 51). The rationale provided by the board of governors of the University of Toronto for favoring one company was that concentrated effort by one firm would be the most effective solution to overcoming the supply problem. Heading off anticipated criticism of being “unethical or unfair or as in any way prejudicial to the free manufacture of insulin” (1), they also stated that they would “give other firms, as well as hospitals and other non-commercial concerns, every chance to do the best they can by publishing the details of the methods … in full at an early date” (1, 48, 49). With the resources and advances Lilly applied to the manufacture of their pork “Isletin” by late 1922, they were starting to overcome the drastic shortage. Further modifications overcame several potency and stability issues, and, by early 1923, Lilly was able to manufacture sufficient high-quality insulin for the needs of the entire world (1, 48, 49). By late 1922, the Connaught Laboratories had updated their equipment and production facilities and also begun to overcome their initial production challenges (1, 47, 48). The University of Toronto also granted complete British patent rights to the insulin extract to the Medical Research Council of Great Britain (48), and European rights to the nonprofit Nordisk Insulin Laboratory, facilitated by the Nobel laureate August Krogh of the University of Copenhagen and his associate, H.C. Hagedorn, later merging with Novo to become the present-day insulin manufacturing company Novo Nordisk (48).