Your statement is incorrect, disingenous, mean-spirited and betrays any sense of charity. Â I have yet to see where Alzheimers is selective to only those earning six-figure incomes or more! Â And there are documented cases of Alzheimers affecting "younger" people, even people in their thirties! Â
I suspect that you might be misunderstanding what I am trying to get at. And I appreciate your zeal towards charity. That is a good thing. Let me try to elaborate to you what I am trying to say.
Are there young people who suffer from Alzheimers?
Does Alzheimers affect both the poor and the rich?
Now, if you were the CEO of a big pharmacutical giant...let's say Merck or Pfizer, where do you invest your research money? AIDS research or Alzheimer's research?
You are going to tell your company scientist and technicians to research Alzheimers related issues and invest the bulk of your money towards Alzheimer's research. Furthermore, you would also fund projects at big univeristies and colleges done by PhDs who are doing research that might somehow benefit or help your own projects on Alzheimers.
You might ask, "Why Alzheimers and not AIDS?"
Cause Alzheimers predominantly affects people in first world countries.
Why first world countries?
Because unfortenately, poor people in third world nations do not live long as Americans. They die from AIDS, malaria, typhoid, malnutrition, etc. Â You see the large majority of Alzheimers cases in older people - people who live long enough to show the signs and symptoms of Alzheimers. And make no mistake about it, there is more profit to be made from rich people than the poor people. As a American or Eurupean pharmacutical giant, you can get money from Medicare and Medicaid or some sort of national healthcare system they have in Europe. You can get money from health insurance companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, Aetna, AmeriCare, and HMOs. In response to your comment that, "I have yet to see where Alzheimers is selective to only those earning six-figure incomes or more!" I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to get at. If you are born in America, chances are, you are much wealthier than the rest of the world and will have a longer life span than many people around the world. You have access to hospitals and doctors.
You can't make a lot of money from poorer people, so as a pharmacutical company, you have much less incentive to fund PhDs who are trying to do AIDS research. Instead, you concentrate your resources on developing products that will yield much more profits and dollars for you - even though AIDS is killing many millions of young people around the world. Basically, you cater to the health problems facing richer people. (ie Americans, Western Europeans etc.)
Pharmacutical companies are there to turn a profit for their shareholders. They are there to report to Wall Street that their third quater profits were up 10%. They are there to make money. They are not as alturistic organizations as some people make them out to be. They do not care about the health problems facing poor people. They will care about the problems facing us wealthier people living in first world industrialized countries - cause we have more money.
The government knows that the private sector is funding a lot of money into potentially lucrative projects, such as Alzheimers. Those researchers studying AIDS aren't going to get as much research money from pharm companies as those researchers doing Alzheimers research. AIDS might be devestating, but it is not as lucrative to cure as Alzheimers. So government organizations like NIH are going to jump in and fund those PhDs who are doing AIDS research - as well as also funding Alzheimer's research.
With that said, I'd like to see there be more money for research in both Alzheimers and AIDS. We have an obligation towards both our friends and family at home who are suffering from Alzheimers, and also an obligation towards those who are less fourtenate than us.