XPost: talk.politics.misc, or.politics, seattle.politics
XPost: ca.politics
From: lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net
hlillywh@juno.com (Hal Lillywhite) wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote in message
> news:...
>
>> > I do believe we need regulation to assure the safety of vaccines,
>> > but not to regulate profits, the market can do that. If the
>> > previous vaccine suppliers had not been driven out of business we
>> > would probably have an adequate supply. If the legal climate
>> > allowed a high probability of profit from DNA engineered vaccines,
>> > we would at least be on the way to having them, and we might have
>> > them right now. Such engineered vaccines would be more available
>> > and more likely to match the current variety of virus. They would
>> > also not need eggs for production so would avoid the allergy
>> > problems the current vaccine causes. (cf. the article by Bernadine
>> > Healy, MD in the Oct 18 US News and World Report, p78.)
>
>
>> But Hal, 'everyone' says they were driven out of business by the
>> regulations assuring the safety of the vaccines!
>
> 'everyone' obviously doesn't include me, at least not if you're
> talking safety regulations. Maybe regulations designed to keep price
> down, those obviously do interfere with supply. Just who is it that
> you claim believes safety regulations have driven those companies out
> of the vaccine business?
Have you been reading this thread and some of the others?
>
>> So, how many lives Are you willing to spend on "allow the market to
>> function"?
>
> Again wrong question. The question is, which costs more lives,
> regulations designed to keep prices down or deregulation of prices?
If you 'allow the market to function', you do not regulate vaccine
producers; you allow the 'market' to regulate them.
How many lives are you willing to spend to 'allow the market to
function'?
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
