Comments by "Antony Wooster" (@antonywooster6783) on "Ester McVey MP on WHO" video.

  1. Privately-owned pharmaceutical firms have a built-in conflict of interest. They make their money from sick people. Their really ideal customers are those who are chronically sick but not so sick as to be unable to work. Being capitalist enterprises they have a duty to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. This in turn means that they have to be opposed to anything that tends to promote public health. A cured customer is a lost sale. A cure for a common disease is a thing to be avoided, what is needed (What they need.) is something which alleviates the suffering, costs a lot of money and does not cure the illness. In short, privately owned pharmaceutical companies are an OBVIOUSLY BAD IDEA. Letting a body owned by privately owned pharmaceutical companies (Like the WHO.) make the laws for all countries, is self-evidently self-destructively stupid. Just ask yourself: "In whose interests are they going to work?" We should all oppose it! Ideally, pharmaceutical research organizations would be owned by the governments of the World and private research would be strictly controlled and its results would be available to the World's pharmaceutical manufacturer. Apart from this, pharmaceutical research would be a monopoly of the international organization. This would solve a lot of problems, but crucially it would remove the conflict of interest. Governments, like ordinary people, want cures, not "treatments". They want healthy populations. There are also other benefits of international research organizations doing the research for the pharmaceutical industry. It removes all the problems over patents. It ensures equal access to all countries to the medicines their population needs. It means that there would be no "orphan" diseases, diseases that are too rare to be profitable to treat. There would be no incentive to replace satisfactory medications with newer, more profitable ones, just because they are more profitable. Above all, there would be no incentive to suppress cures. Of course there would be disadvantages too. There would, no doubt, be complaints that the organization was "too burocratic" and inflexible, but the advantages would outweigh all the drawbacks. In my view, this arrangement must come, sooner or later. People must see and avoid the stupidity of the present set-up eventually.
    1