Shouldn't Funding Medical Research Be A Top Priority?

[Nervous Guy]

Having your pipeline go straight from discovery right into Phase I would save a ton of Yuan. You'd be passing those savings down to the consumer...well, the ones that lived, anyway.

they gots lots of people there, what's a few million less...between you and me...I wouldn't take any new drug until it's been on the market at least 3 years...scary stuff I've seen.

[Ramius]

they gots lots of people there, what's a few million less...between you and me...I wouldn't take any new drug until it's been on the market at least 3 years...scary stuff I've seen.

 

I'm scared enough by the publications coming out of china and japan, let alone the actual fruits of their research. Nothing like reading a paper making claim A, not disclosing the methods they used, using trivial data, leaving out other data, and assuming a full conclusion. That seems par for the course over in the far east.

[Nervous Guy]

I'm scared enough by the publications coming out of china and japan, let alone the actual fruits of their research. Nothing like reading a paper making claim A, not disclosing the methods they used, using trivial data, leaving out other data, and assuming a full conclusion. That seems par for the course over in the far east.

if I see a paper coming out of the "East"...I don't even bother reading it, because it's complete bull sh--...I have never been able to replicate anything from the "East"....ever...and I have tried several times over the years.

[GG]

if I see a paper coming out of the "East"...I don't even bother reading it, because it's complete bull sh--...I have never been able to replicate anything from the "East"....ever...and I have tried several times over the years.

 

That proves it then. The US is sitting on groundbreaking drugs and won't put them out into the marketplace.

[erynthered]

That proves it then. The US is sitting on groundbreaking drugs and won't put them out into the marketplace.

 

 

Well, the Government doesn't want to help " Those People". You know, Molson's neighbors.

[pdh1]

Only in manufacturing industries, though. We should subsidies service companies. Like drug manufacturers.

About time for molson_goldfish to pull an irrelevant Iraq reference out of his ass, isn't it?

 

 

Setting up something like an X-prize in cancer/aid research could be good thing to jump start some younger, smaller drug companies.

 

The other side of this not mentioned as much is all the legal costs the drug companies face, and the constant threat of lawsuits.

Even if a person doesn't use the drug as it is prescribed, and they get sick or die, the drug companies can still end up being sued for big time cash.

Now if the company screw up, and push something to market they know is flawed, ok, they deserve it.

But the large amount of even relatively small lawsuits takes its financial toll.

Much like in other areas of health care, the sue happy nature of society ends up costing us all in the long run.

[Nervous Guy]

Setting up something like an X-prize in cancer/aid research could be good thing to jump start some younger, smaller drug companies.

 

The other side of this not mentioned as much is all the legal costs the drug companies face, and the constant threat of lawsuits.

Even if a person doesn't use the drug as it is prescribed, and they get sick or die, the drug companies can still end up being sued for big time cash.

Now if the company screw up, and push something to market they know is flawed, ok, they deserve it.

But the large amount of even relatively small lawsuits takes its financial toll.

Much like in other areas of health care, the sue happy nature of society ends up costing us all in the long run.

There already is such a thing setup now...there are several small biotechs that discover something but can't afford to develop it, so along comes a noble drug company, say like...Pfizer, they buy them up...everybody is happy...it happens all the time.

[Bungee Jumper]

I'm scared enough by the publications coming out of china and japan, let alone the actual fruits of their research. Nothing like reading a paper making claim A, not disclosing the methods they used, using trivial data, leaving out other data, and assuming a full conclusion. That seems par for the course over in the far east.

 

 

Isn't that what HA calls "science"?

[Ramius]

if I see a paper coming out of the "East"...I don't even bother reading it, because it's complete bull sh--...I have never been able to replicate anything from the "East"....ever...and I have tried several times over the years.

 

I wasted 6 months of research trying to replicate what a few of the groups over there claim they did. Thankfully it was some side experiments, and not the actual meat of my thesis research. Any paper coming out of the far east gets tossed in the trash now.

[OCinBuffalo]

I wasted 6 months of research trying to replicate what a few of the groups over there claim they did. Thankfully it was some side experiments, and not the actual meat of my thesis research. Any paper coming out of the far east gets tossed in the trash now.

They do that kind of thing in my business too - this way when we actually invent something new and claim IP rights or a patent, GOD forbid = not too popular in my line of work nowadays, when they (TRY TO) steal it they can point to a bs whitepaper they wrote a year ago saying "we already thought of it". They never can produce any working code that shows they have it -> just a lot of paper. It's just a way to try to stay with us->which they will never do because their culture prevents the degree of independence necessary for true original thought. Btw, the Isrealis and the Russians try to do the same thing.

[molson_golden2002]

Only in manufacturing industries, though. We should subsidies service companies. Like drug manufacturers.

About time for molson_goldfish to pull an irrelevant Iraq reference out of his ass, isn't it?

I think I understand now. Your inane and non-real world logic lost me. You are making an ideological stand somehow by comparing a drug company to McDonalds. That's not so bright if you ask me. Ask a person who might be saved by turning over a cancer cure developed through government funding to a private firm to manufature if its the same as subsidizing McDonalds. Somehow I don't think they will care if the government gave the drug company a money making idea, as long as it is for the greater good in the long run.

 

I think the other question raised was how do you determine who gets to manufacture it? Who wins who loses?

 

I could give a flying fug as long as the life saving product is on the market.

[Taro T]

I'm scared enough by the publications coming out of china and japan, let alone the actual fruits of their research. Nothing like reading a paper making claim A, not disclosing the methods they used, using trivial data, leaving out other data, and assuming a full conclusion. That seems par for the course over in the far east.

In biochem that's been happening for at least the last 15 years. A good friend of mine was continually harping on how any journal article methodology she tried to reproduce from Japan would inevitably need her to add a step or modify a reagent concentration to actually duplicate the results.

 

Which makes me ask, doesn't any peer reviewer EVER try to replicate the experiments that are described in a technical article? (The answer may well be, they never do, J Coli or yourself would know much better than I about this issue. I just always found it amazing that, anecodotally at least, this practice went on (and appears to continue to this day).

[Taro T]

I think I understand now. Your inane and non-real world logic lost me. You are making an ideological stand somehow by comparing a drug company to McDonalds. That's not so bright if you ask me. Ask a person who might be saved by turning over a cancer cure developed through government funding to a private firm to manufature if its the same as subsidizing McDonalds. Somehow I don't think they will care if the government gave the drug company a money making idea, as long as it is for the greater good in the long run.

 

I think the other question raised was how do you determine who gets to manufacture it? Who wins who loses?

 

I could give a flying fug as long as the life saving product is on the market.

Actually, YOU compared the drug company to MickeyD's. You said (paraphrasing here) that as long as a company provided a service, there was no problem with receiving a govt. subsidy. Well, most people consider restaurants to be part of the "service" sector. So, by your posts, it appears that restaurants, such as the one with the clown and golden arches, should be subsidized. Robble, robble, robble.

 

And just purely out of curiosity, how much money do you think the researcher (and his team) that develop the cancer cure should be paid? And, should the individual whose tissues were used to develop/test the cure be paid anything, and if so, how much?

[Bungee Jumper]

I think I understand now. Your inane and non-real world logic lost me. You are making an ideological stand somehow by comparing a drug company to McDonalds. That's not so bright if you ask me. Ask a person who might be saved by turning over a cancer cure developed through government funding to a private firm to manufature if its the same as subsidizing McDonalds. Somehow I don't think they will care if the government gave the drug company a money making idea, as long as it is for the greater good in the long run.

 

I think the other question raised was how do you determine who gets to manufacture it? Who wins who loses?

 

I could give a flying fug as long as the life saving product is on the market.

 

MY inane and non-real world logic? You're the one that said he wanted to subsidize service companies, not having the FIRST clue what that meant, or what drug companies are.

[Bungee Jumper]

And just purely out of curiosity, how much money do you think the researcher (and his team) that develop the cancer cure should be paid? And, should the individual whose tissues were used to develop/test the cure be paid anything, and if so, how much?

 

Enough so they can be taxed at a high rate, and their money used to subsidize the drug company that paid them so much.

[molson_golden2002]

MY inane and non-real world logic? You're the one that said he wanted to subsidize service companies, not having the FIRST clue what that meant, or what drug companies are.

Big drug companies are not fast food joints and you comparing the two is beyond silly. Further, you trying to argue that if we turned over new drugs to the big companies to produce and sell to save lives--yes they will make a profit--that we would somehow have some major moral and ethical delema because fast food and drug companies are somehow related is even stupider. What? the government will develop a new special sauce for the Big Mac? What will Burger King say?

[molson_golden2002]

1) Actually, YOU compared the drug company to MickeyD's. You said (paraphrasing here) that as long as a company provided a service, there was no problem with receiving a govt. subsidy. Well, most people consider restaurants to be part of the "service" sector. So, by your posts, it appears that restaurants, such as the one with the clown and golden arches, should be subsidized. Robble, robble, robble.

 

2) And just purely out of curiosity, how much money do you think the researcher (and his team) that develop the cancer cure should be paid? And, should the individual whose tissues were used to develop/test the cure be paid anything, and if so, how much?

1) Dave, I think any reasonable person can see the difference between selling a fvgging cheeseburger and selling a life saving drug.

 

 

2) Enough to afford a big mac

[Bungee Jumper]

Big drug companies are not fast food joints and you comparing the two is beyond silly.

 

You're right...because drug companies are MANUFACTURING companies and fast food companies are SERVICE companies. However - and here's the important point you keep missing - it was your comparison, not mine. You're the one that called drug manufactures service companies. I merely demonstrated your breathtakingly stupid comparison was, in fact, breathtakingly stupid by taking it to its logically idiotic conclusion for you.

 

Further, you trying to argue that if we turned over new drugs to the big companies to produce and sell to save lives--yes they will make a profit--that we would somehow have some major moral and ethical delema because fast food and drug companies are somehow related is even stupider. What? the government will develop a new special sauce for the Big Mac? What will Burger King say?

 

I never argued that. I argued that your breathtakingly stupid idea of subsidizing service companies was, in fact, breathtakingly stupid because that includes subsidizing McDonalds, but not Pfizer. It's not a moral or ethical "delema" [sic]...it's a logical dilemma: you said you want to subsidize industrial sectors that don't even include the companies you want to subsidize.

[molson_golden2002]

You're right...because drug companies are MANUFACTURING companies and fast food companies are SERVICE companies. However - and here's the important point you keep missing - it was your comparison, not mine. You're the one that called drug manufactures service companies. I merely demonstrated your breathtakingly stupid comparison was, in fact, breathtakingly stupid by taking it to its logically idiotic conclusion for you.I never argued that. I argued that your breathtakingly stupid idea of subsidizing service companies was, in fact, breathtakingly stupid because that includes subsidizing McDonalds, but not Pfizer. It's not a moral or ethical "delema" [sic]...it's a logical dilemma: you said you want to subsidize industrial sectors that don't even include the companies you want to subsidize.

Yes! YOU took it to the stupid "logical" conclusion, not me. I understand that the government can turn over a new discovery to private industry and the world will not end. Everything else you dreamed up flowed from that stupid conclusion you reached. So you "demonstrating" for me "my" logic was BS. You made up an argument and attached it to me. You can't attack my argument so you make one up. You are an idiot.

 

And a news flash for you, university research into cures for all kinds of diseases is having successes and its being turned over to private companies. The horror! It goes on all the time. And its a good thing.

 

Example:

 

Achievements during 2005/2006 include:

 

From January 2005 to July 2006, three anticancer drugs developed in the Section for Cancer Therapeutics were licensed to major pharmaceutical companies. The Section continues to identify on average two clinical development candidates per year

http://www.icr.ac.uk/about_us/achievements/index.shtml

[Bungee Jumper]

blah blah blah...

 

Oh, so funding private corporations with public money is okay, then?

 

Depends. If they are providing a service then yes, of course its ok.

 

YOU'RE the one that said it's okay to federally subsidize companies that provide a service. That you're too damned stupid to know that includes McDonalds but excludes drug manufactures is not my goddamned problem. I just pointed it out to you; don't shoot the messenger.