Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Universities don't have the hundreds of millions / billions to spare to get one registered
States do.Universities don't have the hundreds of millions / billions to spare to get one registered
And so Uni's do. If we give it to them and tell them how to spend it.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
And the "logic" that making people healthier was part of the dream when the NHS started that after the initial high costs, things would get cheaper as people became more healthy. Clearly that didn't happen - and is one of the reasons why most countries run massive current account debts as costs for retired people are balooning as the longer they live the more they cost - and we can pay more for them to live longer.
In fact, people have become healthier. It's one of the reasons they're living longer. Long enough to incur complementary chronic health issues. But that hardly means the enterprise of modern healthcare has failed - quite the opposite, in fact.And the "logic" that making people healthier was part of the dream when the NHS started that after the initial high costs, things would get cheaper as people became more healthy. Clearly that didn't happen - and is one of the reasons why most countries run massive current account debts as costs for retired people are balooning as the longer they live the more they cost - and we can pay more for them to live longer.
Some drugs and treatments are more important than others. For instance, if corporations are unwilling to develop new antibiotics due to the expense, then they should step aside and abdicate all responsibility for development of antibiotics in particular to states. They can continue on with their lesser product lines as previously.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
States do.
And so Uni's do. If we give it to them and tell them how to spend it.
But they haven't. Nothing stopping them. Companies do create these things. If govenments / universities can do it better - then they are completely able to do so.States do.
And so Uni's do. If we give it to them and tell them how to spend it.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
In fact, people have become healthier. It's one of the reasons they're living longer. Long enough to incur complementary chronic health issues. But that hardly means the enterprise of modern healthcare has failed - quite the opposite, in fact.
Some drugs and treatments are more important than others. For instance, if corporations are unwilling to develop new antibiotics due to the expense, then they should step aside and abdicate all responsibility for development of antibiotics in particular to states. They can continue on with their lesser product lines as previously.
People live longer and don't die wich chronic diseases. I never said that this is a failing of modern healthcare - but the fact is it costs a lot more and money is not infinite. There is unlikely to be a point where the costs are lower as almost everything that is found is to alleviate things to do with chronic disease - not cure. In fact, people have become healthier. It's one of the reasons they're living longer. Long enough to incur complementary chronic health issues. But that hardly means the enterprise of modern healthcare has failed - quite the opposite, in fact.
Some drugs and treatments are more important than others. For instance, if corporations are unwilling to develop new antibiotics due to the expense, then they should step aside and abdicate all responsibility for development of antibiotics in particular to states. They can continue on with their lesser product lines as previously.
Ok, several points to clarify here:
1) Companies have developed many antibiotics - but they don't get licenses since the standard is they have to work better than existing ones rather than providing an alternative. There are many, many antibiotics such as this. The failing is therefore that of the FDA / EMA not companies. This goes for both classes of antibiotics as well as new antibiotics in classes.
2) Countries are more than able to develop them as well - but they haven't
3) Lesser priorities... oh, such as dementia, diabetes, asthma cancer and so on...
4) No company has the responsibility to create any particular product since they receive no grants to do so.
In short - you want more antibiotics then alter the process to enable entibiotics to be lisenced with warnings in sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 as appropriate. Many would rarely be used unless new resistances appear. But sadly State regulatory bodies don't appear to have this foresight.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
But they haven't. Nothing stopping them. Companies do create these things. If govenments / universities can do it better - then they are completely able to do so.
Indeed, and that's what I want them to do. No need to stop the existing pharmaceutical companies though, if they can survive with government competition it's fine by me. But pour some tax dollars into development of everything deemed "basic necessities" and finance it in a way most beneficial to society(whether that's free or not).But they haven't. Nothing stopping them. Companies do create these things. If govenments / universities can do it better - then they are completely able to do so.
If pharmaceutical companies can survive the competition with government companies giving their drugs away for free - great!
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
1) Companies have developed many antibiotics - but they don't get licenses since the standard is they have to work better than existing ones rather than providing an alternative. There are many, many antibiotics such as this. The failing is therefore that of the FDA / EMA not companies. This goes for both classes of antibiotics as well as new antibiotics in classes.
That is an interesting truth.1) Companies have developed many antibiotics - but they don't get licenses since the standard is they have to work better than existing ones rather than providing an alternative. There are many, many antibiotics such as this. The failing is therefore that of the FDA / EMA not companies. This goes for both classes of antibiotics as well as new antibiotics in classes.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
There is unlikely to be a point where the costs are lower as almost everything that is found is to alleviate things to do with chronic disease - not cure.
That is where you have to look for the conspiracy!!!!1111There is unlikely to be a point where the costs are lower as almost everything that is found is to alleviate things to do with chronic disease - not cure.
As for the antibiotics, don't we already have bacteria that are resistant to most/all of our antibiotics?
Originally Posted by Husar:
That is where you have to look for the conspiracy!!!!1111
As for the antibiotics, don't we already have bacteria that are resistant to most/all of our antibiotics?
The whole vaccine market would rather point to there being no conspiracy; and recently there has been several new cures for Hep C released - cures are much harder and have taken longer. That is where you have to look for the conspiracy!!!!1111
As for the antibiotics, don't we already have bacteria that are resistant to most/all of our antibiotics?
Yes, there are bacteria resistant to most currently used antibiotics - which is why having different ones even with a poorer safety profile would be a good thing for those cases where resistance is present to usual ones - I'd not want Vancomycin if Methicillin works but I'll have it if resistance is present as I'd rather damaged kidneys than be dead (televancin was available and is better but is no longer in the UK as it is unprofitable).
Although resistance can be to classes of antibiotics, the wider the antibioitic classes used the less likely bacteria will be resistant to all of them.
Bacteria that have resistance are generally less virulent since they have multiple DNA plasmids to encode for all the protiens required. This slows down the rate of division, and so generally require a weakened immune system to do well.
Didn't you guys hear? We are all dead from Ebola in 18 months anyway.
Scam is such a loaded term, I prefer the expression "stupidity tax"
Originally Posted by Ronin:
Scam is such a loaded term, I prefer the expression "stupidity tax"
I have no problems whatsoever with the nigerian email scams. I consider that to be "Darwin in practice".Scam is such a loaded term, I prefer the expression "stupidity tax"
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I have no problems whatsoever with the nigerian email scams. I consider that to be "Darwin in practice".
So you think the poor and uneducated deserve to lose even more money?I have no problems whatsoever with the nigerian email scams. I consider that to be "Darwin in practice".
Originally Posted by Husar:
So you think the poor and uneducated deserve to lose even more money?
You're not poor when you can blow 10.000 on a mail order bride.So you think the poor and uneducated deserve to lose even more money?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
You're not poor when you can blow 10.000 on a mail order bride.
I wasn't aware of nigerian mail order bride scams.You're not poor when you can blow 10.000 on a mail order bride.
Originally Posted by Husar:
I wasn't aware of nigerian mail order bride scams.
You're not poor when you can blow 10.000 to help an oil company executive transfer a bribe to an offshore account, either.I wasn't aware of nigerian mail order bride scams.
You can't be poor and fall for these scams since they require that you have money. You may end up poor though, but I have no problem with that. The Nigerian is also quite poor, so he'll find a use for the money.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
You're not poor when you can blow 10.000 to help an oil company executive transfer a bribe to an offshore account, either.
You can't be poor and fall for these scams since they require that you have money. You may end up poor though, but I have no problem with that. The Nigerian is also quite poor, so he'll find a use for the money.
Quite a few people are already poor but loan the money from somewhere or someone.You're not poor when you can blow 10.000 to help an oil company executive transfer a bribe to an offshore account, either.
You can't be poor and fall for these scams since they require that you have money. You may end up poor though, but I have no problem with that. The Nigerian is also quite poor, so he'll find a use for the money.
And going by your argument, the poor are to blame for being poor in general if you just spin it far enough.
After all, they're just not clever enough to get all that money the rich have through whatever means necessary.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Quite a few people are already poor but loan the money from somewhere or someone.
That's extremely rare. The Nigerian scams target the middle class, and they play upon greed.Quite a few people are already poor but loan the money from somewhere or someone.
If you're willing to spend a few thousands helping someone else hide money from the tax collector; sorry, you deserve to lose it.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO