http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(15)00424-7/abstract

We need to change the dynamics of our market economy that incentivises giving precious antibiotics to animals to facilitate high density factory farming. The end result is that stuff you could use to save people in the future is being used to improve profits now.

You, me, and our children are on track to really regret this short sightedness….

Hi zhuk,

Please don’t think I am having a go here, I’m not, but I believe it may be worthwhile to point out a difference between yours and the Doc’s posts. True, it is semantics but I think there is something of a lesson in it.

The Doc talks about the use of life saving antibiotics to facilitate (helps, assists) high density farming to achieve higher profits. On the other hand you say that modern farming practices neccessitate (need, forces) the use of these life saving antibiotics.

Very similar sounding statements but I would suggest that the Doc’s statement is the one that “Farmco” would present to their potential investors (twisted in a much more positive style and behind closed doors) while your take is the one that they would present to the media for general consumption by the public. I.e. The subliminal implication is “hey, we only do this because we “have” to, not because we want to”

And to bring it back to this site, we need to think about how Pharmco justify the high price of drugs to the media. We understand that good, healthy profit facilitates funding of high R&D costs for new drugs. OTOH Gilead argues that high R&D costs necessitate them charging $1,000 per pill for Sovaldi.

Ummmm…..yeeeees, so how much of the (approx) $999 profit per pill goes back into R&D, etc?????

This is why I sometimes hate the internet, you can’t see my eyes or hand gestures or hear my tone of voice while I speak.

I didn’t think you were deflecting from what the doc said, in fact I understood you were agreeing and reinforcing it. But the way you expressed it was interesting in that you used the word “necessitating”.

I was trying to point out that this use of antibiotics is only necessary because the “farmers” involved choose to overcrowd their livestock beyond the natural immune defences of the animals, they choose to employ insufficient staff to be able spot potential illness and then administer the antibiotics to only the sick animals.

If asked, these same “farmers” will say it is necessary for the health and welfare of the animals and to ensure affordable, disease free food for their customers. This is dishonest, they have options, what they choose is to maximise their profits at the expense of the potential future health of the human race.

In the same way, big Pharma claim it is necessary to charge high prices to cover high R&D costs required to introduce new and better drugs. This is also dishonest, again they have options, what they choose is to maximise their shareholders profits to whatever the (local) market will bear without regard to peoples health.

So we should not use their words, necessity, necessitating, necessary, in these circumstances as they imply inevitability. We should keep reminding them and everyone else that they choose these paths that they take and that their choices have consequences.

sorry….I’ll get off my soapbox now

G[/quote]

I absolutely agree with you on this, GAJ

(and not only on the lack of online nuance, can be very misleading/irritating at times for sure!)

What you have quoted here is absolutely spot-on…and I was thinking specifically of the US when I used the word “necessitating”. You are right this is exactly what a large percentage of their farmers have chosen to do, ignoring their livestock’s wellbeing in the pursuit of ever-larger profit margins. Helped also by the generous Govt subsidies which enable and encourage them to overcrowd (again, for “maximisation” of resources) with no thought of future impacts on the animals, human consumers of the over-medicated end product, or the environment.

In the same way, big Pharma claim it is necessary to charge high prices to cover high R&D costs required to introduce new and better drugs. This is also dishonest, again they have options, what they choose is to maximise their shareholders profits to whatever the (local) market will bear without regard to peoples health.

So we should not use their words, necessity, necessitating, necessary, in these circumstances as they imply inevitability. We should keep reminding them and everyone else that they choose these paths that they take and that their choices have consequences.

A very valid analogy, and well said GAJ.

Being of a rather naturally cynical bent, I probably should have used the word “necessity” in parentheses, as that was definitely the tone intended. Sorry for any misunderstanding on that front

No probs mate. The internet/social media can be an awkward beast at the best of times heh