From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 19:52:19 MST
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> Has someone else got another point?
This is from a message I wrote to Dave Kekich recently.
There is a recent study out claiming that less than 1% of our genes are
responsible for aging.
> One percent of our genes is *still* 300 genes. Assuming the PharmaCo model
> is to produce one "perfect" drug to correct each defective gene here are
> some consequences:
>
> a) Assuming you can take one pill every 15 seconds (a pretty optimistic estimate)
> you are going to have to spend 75 minutes a day taking your drugs.
> b) Assuming the normal pricing for new on-patent drugs is like Paxil ($90/month).
> its going to cost you $27,000/month ($324,000/yr) to deal with your aging.
> c) Assuming the normal patent lifetime of 20 years, one has to invest
> approximately six and a half million dollars in optimizing your longevity.
> d) If only 32 million U.S. citizens (12% of the population) want to extend their
> lifespan the cost would exceed the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the U.S.
>
> These are some of the reasons I have concluded that the big PharmaCo model is "broken".
> If its "broken", then sooner or later it will fail (as did horse drawn carriages) --
Similar arguments have been made with respect to Alzheimer's. If we don't
solve it -- it may bankrupt the U.S. over the next 20 years.
The brutal truth (and I know I'm going to get called every name in the book
for this) is that we either have to find (a) a cure for long term diseases
that make people unproductive; (b) a cheaper way to care for them; or (c)
when their lives become a severe net drain on society that we put them down
just as we do cats or dogs.
I'm open to other alternatives but those are the only three that I can see
right now. It makes no sense to devote X% of societies' resources to the
elderly who will never provide a ROI when one could devote X% of societies'
resources to children who will provide an ROI. The only way out of this
box that I can identify depends on whether devoting Y% of societies' resources
to the problem will make the elderly productive again.
The system as it currently appears to be defined in "first world" countries
is unsustainable.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:52 MST