by php flash chat on Speed Dating to Save Lives
"It was my first visit to your blog, but I admire time and effort you put into it! I have enjoyed reading many of your articles, looks like you are a professional writer! Well done! James, " Read more »

by simon on The Most Important Hire in Global Health
"I'd like to comment on the fact that the term "cost-effective" vaccines is not meaningful, since cost-effectiveness always depends on the Willigness to Pay of a given coutnry (which WHO recommends to be 1-3xGDP per capita). E.g. while in UK a medicines/vaccine that has incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 43,000-130,000 USD/QALY will be considered "cost-effective", it will not be the case in India where the threshold is 1-3xGDP=1,000-3,000 USD/QALY. It means that the same vaccine would need to be 43x cheaper in India than in UK to be cost-effective. I believe that the future of developing countries will depend on their ability to develop vaccines locally and sell them at local prices. I am currently involved in a research project in India which aims at understanding the challenges of entrepreneurship and its role in affordable healthcare in the future. Best regards " Read more »

by Mark H on Trademark of Innovation
"Often the pharmaceutical companies are seen as evil because they do not do enough to help the poor by giving away medicines or licence rights. But we must consider two things: 1 they are commecial companies and have legal obligations towards their shareholders i.e. their prime concern is making money 2 these companies invest a vastly greater amount of money in R&D than the government. As a result their R&D occasionally finds cures inadvertently for other diseases - even if they are not actively trying to create the right medicine. So how do you create an incentive for the most effective creator of new innovative cures whose primary goal is to make money (like all companies)? Well the answer seems obvious - reward them with tax benefits that would help push them above their competitors. Whilst you could argue that this would prevent the government from reaping the benefits (tax) you could also say that the competition created would drive innovation and spending in the private sector which would improve the economy. A win win win situation - pharmaceuticals, government, developing countries!" Read more »