TallDave, this thing is still an ongoing matter. The EU parliament dismissed the law, but the Comission was and still is trying to press it through against all resistance from the parliament and the public. It is undemocratic to the point. This whole matter still is not over yet, only delayed.
The copyright law is a totally different matter and is unrelated to the patent laws.
Healthcare & rationing
On the matter of drugs and the patients ability to inform themselves:
I dont see it, sorry. How many people even know how an antibiotic works? What is bacteriostatic, what is meant by bactericide?
Which of these is the way an Eridromycin works? Or Penecilium?
And Antibiotics are comparably easy. Doctors- at least here, I dont know maybe the ones in the US suck- do know these things. They go to the university for at least 6 years and then have 4 more practical years where they have to learn these things. In those 4 years they also specialize in a field. My dad is not a cardiologist, he is a urologist. He does have a good understanding of this field, but he would not make as good decisions a real cardiologist would. I know that, because I have seen it. So yes there are differences among doctors. Also, of course you can always get a second opinion from another doctor. In Austria this is even free. So if you think that your current doctor does not give you the best treatment check elsewhere. In most cases they will tell you the same thing. Some details might differ. The outcome should always be the same.
I do agree that even doctors can be idiots sometimes though. You find them everywhere these day.
Anyway after all the formal education- at least our doctors- have a life long of learning the latest treatments. My father is over 60 years old and he goes to almost every conference there is for urology. There he learns about the latest treatments and he can discuss matters with his collegues. Funny sidenote, the pharmaceutical companies usually pay the trip to wherever the conference is (often the US, but also all over Europe). Why? Because they are (logically) interested in doctors knowing about the latest treatment options and how they work.
But hey maybe you think that all doctors do at conference is sit together and discuss how they can best ripp off their patients, or something?
How many mecdical conferences is a normal patient to in a year? In his life?
And now wellness exhibitions dont count.
Yet, it is true that patients are interested and read up on things. The problem is that it can be the wrong things. The shelves in bookstores are running over with books on alternative medicine, Homeopathy, Bach Flowers, Rekhi, Accupuncture and all that shit. I am sure there are also some books on the merrits of Marihuana for Msimon there.
These are all Bullshit.
The internet is no better. Even more serious websites are barely of any use. It is the details that matter and the average person usually does not understand them. I am really trying to understand things and I am talking to my father and my sister about things, but the details are not so easy to understand for someone who does not have a medical degree or a degree in chemistry.
I dont see it, sorry. How many people even know how an antibiotic works? What is bacteriostatic, what is meant by bactericide?
Which of these is the way an Eridromycin works? Or Penecilium?
And Antibiotics are comparably easy. Doctors- at least here, I dont know maybe the ones in the US suck- do know these things. They go to the university for at least 6 years and then have 4 more practical years where they have to learn these things. In those 4 years they also specialize in a field. My dad is not a cardiologist, he is a urologist. He does have a good understanding of this field, but he would not make as good decisions a real cardiologist would. I know that, because I have seen it. So yes there are differences among doctors. Also, of course you can always get a second opinion from another doctor. In Austria this is even free. So if you think that your current doctor does not give you the best treatment check elsewhere. In most cases they will tell you the same thing. Some details might differ. The outcome should always be the same.
I do agree that even doctors can be idiots sometimes though. You find them everywhere these day.
Anyway after all the formal education- at least our doctors- have a life long of learning the latest treatments. My father is over 60 years old and he goes to almost every conference there is for urology. There he learns about the latest treatments and he can discuss matters with his collegues. Funny sidenote, the pharmaceutical companies usually pay the trip to wherever the conference is (often the US, but also all over Europe). Why? Because they are (logically) interested in doctors knowing about the latest treatment options and how they work.
But hey maybe you think that all doctors do at conference is sit together and discuss how they can best ripp off their patients, or something?
How many mecdical conferences is a normal patient to in a year? In his life?
And now wellness exhibitions dont count.
Yet, it is true that patients are interested and read up on things. The problem is that it can be the wrong things. The shelves in bookstores are running over with books on alternative medicine, Homeopathy, Bach Flowers, Rekhi, Accupuncture and all that shit. I am sure there are also some books on the merrits of Marihuana for Msimon there.
These are all Bullshit.
The internet is no better. Even more serious websites are barely of any use. It is the details that matter and the average person usually does not understand them. I am really trying to understand things and I am talking to my father and my sister about things, but the details are not so easy to understand for someone who does not have a medical degree or a degree in chemistry.
Well actually there is quite a bit of good research out there on the benefits of marijuana for various conditions. Chron's disease, diabetes, glaucoma, etc.
Some of the research papers are reproduced here:
http://www.pacifier.com/~alive/index_se_cmu.htm
So I guess that would make you an ignorant consumer of medical services. Despite having a doctor in the family. How interesting.
And why do I know a bit about the subject? It interested me and so I study it. There is nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same. I am fortunate to be interested in many things. And I hardly ever take much on trust.
BTW when people are spending their own money they tend to be more interested in what they are paying for.
Some of the research papers are reproduced here:
http://www.pacifier.com/~alive/index_se_cmu.htm
So I guess that would make you an ignorant consumer of medical services. Despite having a doctor in the family. How interesting.
And why do I know a bit about the subject? It interested me and so I study it. There is nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same. I am fortunate to be interested in many things. And I hardly ever take much on trust.
BTW when people are spending their own money they tend to be more interested in what they are paying for.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
There is no difference. In business terms both are cost and risk. Scrolling back in this thread, you and others have held out the cost and risk of doing basic 'research' as the justification for charging high prices for health care in the U.S.. Now you say that actually it's the government that should be doing the basic research?Then you don't understand the difference between productization and basic research.I don't see how you can reconcile this position with your free market rhetoric.
That sounds suspiciously like hypocrisy to me.
If the government does the enabling research, I don't think it's unreasonable for the profits to be constrained. The constraint could take the form of price controls or it could be some other means, such as royalty payments, or free product for a public healthcare scheme. Either way the capital invested by the taxpayer should have some kind of return. In that case, at least, the return was very poor indeed.
How many people know how a computer works? Yet somehow we manage to buy them anyway, because the industry supplies metrics most people can understand.
Consumer-advertised drugs are usually pretty easy to understand: you have a symptom, this drug is shown to alleviate it in x% of cases with y% incidence of side effects. You generally aren't going to be buying an anesthetic or an acute intervention drug like Herceptin, so those are only marketed to doctors.
Consumer-advertised drugs are usually pretty easy to understand: you have a symptom, this drug is shown to alleviate it in x% of cases with y% incidence of side effects. You generally aren't going to be buying an anesthetic or an acute intervention drug like Herceptin, so those are only marketed to doctors.
It's the difference between the Human Genome Project and a drug that is based on a gene target found in the HGP, or the difference between semiconductor materials research and a Pentium III.There is no difference.
No, it's the difference between science and applied science.In business terms both are cost and risk.
Not basic research, productization research. Productization can be very difficult and very expensive, and is very necessary if we want new products.Scrolling back in this thread, you and others have held out the cost and risk of doing basic 'research'
They are; basic research is often public domain. But we don't put price controls on Intel products.If the government does the enabling research, I don't think it's unreasonable for the profits to be constrained.
Last edited by TallDave on Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
First, if you get the wrong computer it's not going to kill you.TallDave wrote:How many people know how a computer works? Yet somehow we manage to buy them anyway, because the industry supplies metrics most people can understand.
Consumer-advertised drugs are usually pretty easy to understand: you have a symptom, this drug is shown to alleviate it in x% of cases with y% incidence of side effects. You generally aren't going to be buying an anesthetic or an acute intervention drug like Herceptin, so those are only marketed to doctors.
Second, if you get the right computer, and you happen to have a particular brand of blender in your kitchen as well, it's not going to kill you.
Taking a drug is a life or death thing.
Buying a computer is not.
Let's talk apples versus apples here. The analogy is very bad.
Whether it's going to kill you is immaterial to whether you need to understand how it works in order to purchase the right one. Clearly you don't.First, if you get the wrong computer it's not going to kill you.
In any case, a doctor won't prescribe you a drug that's going to kill you. That's their function. I'm not arguing against prescriptions, I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable for companies to advertise drugs to people who don't understand exactly how they work (or need to).
Last edited by TallDave on Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Have you tried Medline? Its a huge site but relatively easy to navigate. I happen to know that it is used by the general public as well as by medical professionals, including research scientists so the quality of information must be good.The internet is no better. Even more serious websites are barely of any use. It is the details that matter and the average person usually does not understand them. I am really trying to understand things and I am talking to my father and my sister about things, but the details are not so easy to understand for someone who does not have a medical degree or a degree in chemistry.
http://medlineplus.gov/
I agree that in order to understand the details well enough to diagnose and prescribe, you need to understand the terminology. That comes with a medical degree in the particular specialty. No one should diagnose and treat themselves, but they should know enough to tell when a problem is serious, know enough to accurately answer the doctor's questions, know enough to understand what their doctor tells them, know enough to discuss, even introduce, treatment options and know enough to suspect that their doctor is an idiot, or more likely, out of his/her depth.
Aero
People self medicating are one of the main reasons why we have so many antibiotic resistant germs nowadays. The others are people with Aids and people that dont take their medication as prescribed.
Now tell me, if you have an infection, like say Helicobacter Pylori. What is the right antibiotic to take? What is the dosis? How long do you take it? Hmmm?
You can try reading it up on the internet, but what you will end up with is estimates, based on the average patient, or reference cases. This might or might not apply to you.
Anyway, in this case you would actually take a cocktail of antibiotics.
Of course you can always try Vitamin C or marihuana and see whether it works, hehehehe.
Now tell me, if you have an infection, like say Helicobacter Pylori. What is the right antibiotic to take? What is the dosis? How long do you take it? Hmmm?
You can try reading it up on the internet, but what you will end up with is estimates, based on the average patient, or reference cases. This might or might not apply to you.
Anyway, in this case you would actually take a cocktail of antibiotics.
Of course you can always try Vitamin C or marihuana and see whether it works, hehehehe.
First, I believe it was you that pointed out in another thread that the Human Genome project, as undertaken by the government, was overtaken by a privately funded project that was more successful. I think the conclusion you were alluding to then was that the government should have just left the research to the free market.TallDave wrote:It's the difference between the Human Genome Project and a drug that is based on a gene target found in the HGP, or the difference between semiconductor materials research and a Pentium III.There is no difference.
No, it's the difference between science and applied science.In business terms both are cost and risk.
Not basic research, productization research. Productization can be very difficult and very expensive, and is very necessary if we want new products.Scrolling back in this thread, you and others have held out the cost and risk of doing basic 'research'
They are; basic research is often public domain. But we don't put price controls on Intel products.If the government does the enabling research, I don't think it's unreasonable for the profits to be constrained.
Second, the publicly funded research in question here is not public domain. The manufacturer of that drug has a monopoly. If the compound were in the public domain then competition would likely have pushed the price down considerably.
Finally, I stand by my assertion that there is no difference between 'basic' and 'productization' research as applied to drug prices. Pharmaceutical companies are businesses, and in business the only thing that matters, ultimately, is the return on capital invested and risk. A company can invest in blue sky research just as easily as it can invest in applied research, and price the resulting products accordingly. Many companies do engage in this kind of research.
I can't think of anything in life that is more 'material' than whether a particular action you take or decision you make will end your life.TallDave wrote:Whether it's going to kill you is immaterial to whether you need to understand how it works in order to purchase the right one. Clearly you don't.First, if you get the wrong computer it's not going to kill you.
When you step on a plane, do you tell the pilot how to fly it correctly? Do you look up information about the plane and learn how to fly it in case the pilot is an idiot?
Do you go to the cockpit and kindly suggest a different route to the pilot?
I doubt you do. You will sit kindly in your chair and follow the instructions that the qualified personell gives you. Yet, when it comes to our health, all of a sudden people think they are qualified to "fly". I dont get it, really.
I really do know a lot about medicine and I do concern myself both professionally and personally with it every day. Yet, I would never, ever even dare to interfere with the treatments prescribed by my doctors. I might and I say might, get a second opinion if I feel that something could be off. I have done that before (I was always wrong just for your information).
It is good for the patient to inform himself about his illness and to learn about it and to understand it and the treatment and why he takes it. This does usually not enable the patient to judge the quality of a treatment however. As I said, even a urologist will (if somewhat right in the head) not interfere with the treatments proposed by a cardiologist if he has a heart problem. My dad went as far as to make suggestions for checkups that could be done when I had my heart attack. That was not necessary though, since all of them had been done already anyway. Anything beyond that, my dad staid out of. Even though he does not like statins, he still insists that I take them because my cardiologist ordered me to.
Clear?
Do you go to the cockpit and kindly suggest a different route to the pilot?
I doubt you do. You will sit kindly in your chair and follow the instructions that the qualified personell gives you. Yet, when it comes to our health, all of a sudden people think they are qualified to "fly". I dont get it, really.
I really do know a lot about medicine and I do concern myself both professionally and personally with it every day. Yet, I would never, ever even dare to interfere with the treatments prescribed by my doctors. I might and I say might, get a second opinion if I feel that something could be off. I have done that before (I was always wrong just for your information).
It is good for the patient to inform himself about his illness and to learn about it and to understand it and the treatment and why he takes it. This does usually not enable the patient to judge the quality of a treatment however. As I said, even a urologist will (if somewhat right in the head) not interfere with the treatments proposed by a cardiologist if he has a heart problem. My dad went as far as to make suggestions for checkups that could be done when I had my heart attack. That was not necessary though, since all of them had been done already anyway. Anything beyond that, my dad staid out of. Even though he does not like statins, he still insists that I take them because my cardiologist ordered me to.
Clear?
Sorry, I have to come back to this one. First, in response to the assertion that it is better to rely on the expert advice of our doctor when considering how to medicate a particularly malady you tell us:
Next, I'd like to point out that these guys seem to think we need healthcare reform.
http://www.phrma.org/platform_for_a_healthy_america/
That's right. The very same pharmaceutical industry we're discussing now.
Now you fall back on exactly that expert planner to save the consumer from killing themselves with novel drugs they saw on tv:Doctors often seem pretty ignorant as well; they generally just add a heaping helping of arrogance to the mix. Anyone can read a study.
Again, this is a Communist "expert planner" principle dressed up as something else. Doctors are no different than experts in any other industry and just as prone to the limited information problem. You can get wildly different recommendations from different doctors for the same symptoms. Doctors often ignore new, better treatments -- they have very little incentive as compared to patients.
Which is it Dave? Is the doctor trustworthy or not?TallDave wrote:In any case, a doctor won't prescribe you a drug that's going to kill you. That's their function. I'm not arguing against prescriptions, I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable for companies to advertise drugs to people who don't understand exactly how they work (or need to).
Next, I'd like to point out that these guys seem to think we need healthcare reform.
http://www.phrma.org/platform_for_a_healthy_america/
That's right. The very same pharmaceutical industry we're discussing now.
So if these guys, the ones building the innovative products you're defending so zealously, think they can handle reform, why can't you? Surely they're closer to the problem, and the solution, than you are.America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies support comprehensive health care reform, guaranteeing that every American has access to high-quality, affordable health care coverage and services. We consider it a moral and economic imperative that health reform gets done this year.
America is going to get sicker and poorer and less competitive with the world if we sit on the sidelines and get nothing accomplished this year. In fact, the impact of lost workdays and lower employee productivity because of chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease, resulted in an annual economic loss in America of $1 trillion, according to Milken.
Or you can look up research others have done.Skipjack wrote:People self medicating are one of the main reasons why we have so many antibiotic resistant germs nowadays. The others are people with Aids and people that dont take their medication as prescribed.
Now tell me, if you have an infection, like say Helicobacter Pylori. What is the right antibiotic to take? What is the dosis? How long do you take it? Hmmm?
You can try reading it up on the internet, but what you will end up with is estimates, based on the average patient, or reference cases. This might or might not apply to you.
Anyway, in this case you would actually take a cocktail of antibiotics.
Of course you can always try Vitamin C or marihuana and see whether it works, hehehehe.
Now why is there so little research on the antibiotic properties of Vitamin C? Group think. The idea has been "debunked" so the interest is low.
Something similar happened to Polywell re: Rider.
How about marijuana? The US government does as much as it can to impede such research. In part because of its threat to the drug companies. You would think the Euros obsessed with lowering the cost of medicine would be interested in such research. You would be wrong. As far as I can tell the hot bed of marijuana as medicine is the USA. Why? Informed consumers who are breaking the government's strangle hold. You know. That personal responsibility thing.
BTW can you tell me where in the USA antibiotics are over the counter? If there is drug resistance in the USA it is the fault of doctors and ignorant consumers. But mostly doctors as they are the ones doing the prescribing.
BTW you would be surprised how hit or miss Doctors are re: medicines. For many conditions it is: try this and tell me how well it works.
Also note: I have given you a page of research papers on marijuana's efficacy for various conditions and yet you still make jokes about it. That tells me you are not serious. The group thinkers have gotten to you too. Pity.
Want to know more about Vitamin C as an antibiotic? You can visit this highly acclaimed blog and read about a US Government Study:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... iotic.html
This study has shown that 4 weeks daily high dose vitamin C treatment in H. pylori infected patients with chronic gastritis resulted in apparent H. pylori eradication in 30% of those treated. In those patients there was also a highly significant rise in gastric juice total vitamin C concentration which persisted for at least 4 weeks after the treatment ceased. A significant, though less marked, gastric juice total vitamin C concentration increase was observed during vitamin C treatment even in subjects with persistent H. pylori infection, though this was not maintained after treatment ended. The mechanism whereby vitamin C treatment appeared to result in H. pylori eradication is unclear. Further confirmatory studies are indicated.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.