Politics and Medicine - diseases of rich deprive poor of drugs

Author

diseases of rich deprive poor of drugs

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Published on Sunday, September 11, 2005 by the
Observer/UK
Diseases of Rich Deprive Poor of Drugs
by Anushka Asthana

The world's poorest people are being denied access to
drugs because pharmaceutical companies are focusing
their resources on diseases suffered by wealthy,
middle-aged Americans, such as obesity and heart disease, a
leading expert will say tomorrow.

Dr David Rhodes, the Health Protection Agency's (HPA)
head of business development, will claim that
spiraling costs are driving firms to invest primarily in drugs
that tackle diseases of 'older Americans'.

As a result, the international market has been flooded
with medicines to treat 'American diseases' such as
high blood pressure, obesity, heart disease and cancer,
while drugs to tackle tuberculosis, malaria and
water-borne diseases prevalent in the poorest countries have
been neglected.

Presenting his research at the HPA's annual conference
tomorrow, Rhodes will show that more and more
pharmaceutical companies are moving their headquarters to the
US in search of profits. Once there, they pump money
into treatments that help the local population to live
longer.

'Drugs and vaccines are becoming phenomenally
expensive to develop,' said Rhodes. 'Companies have to recoup
their investments by selling the drugs and vaccines.
To be economic, they need a large population and the
price has to be high. That increasingly means that drugs
are developed for older Americans, who are getting
healthier and living longer.'

Costs are soaring, added Rhodes, because of extensive
safety and efficacy testing and the fact that many
drugs that show 'early promise' never make it through the
checks.

As such, companies looking to be 'economic' shift
resources to meet the needs - and benefit from the profits
- of the biggest spenders. 'The US tend to get the
first bite of the cherry,' admitted Rhodes.

He said the trend had led to a 'vicious' circle in the
poorest countries of 'low economic growth leading to
poor healthcare systems, creating a higher burden of
disease which in turn affects the ability of the
population to develop economically'. But while sub-Saharan
Africa is heavily affected, China and India's strong
investment in their pharmaceutical industry has seen
health improvements and economic bonuses that will in turn
attract investment back.

Nevertheless, with many private companies turning
their back on the developing world, Rhodes said research
was heavily dependent on philanthropic funding and
government backing.

He welcomed the International Finance Facility for
Immunization - the funding arm of the Global Alliance for
Vaccines and Immunization - that was launched on
Friday. The group has pledged to raise $4 billion (=A32.2bn)
for an immunization program in the developing world.

=A9 Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

###

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

fresh~horses wrote:

> Published on Sunday, September 11, 2005 by the
> Observer/UK
> Diseases of Rich Deprive Poor of Drugs
> by Anushka Asthana
>
> The world's poorest people are being denied access to
> drugs because pharmaceutical companies are focusing
> their resources on diseases suffered by wealthy,
> middle-aged Americans, such as obesity and heart disease, a
> leading expert will say tomorrow.
>
> Dr David Rhodes, the Health Protection Agency's (HPA)
> head of business development, will claim that
> spiraling costs are driving firms to invest primarily in drugs
> that tackle diseases of 'older Americans'.
>
> As a result, the international market has been flooded
> with medicines to treat 'American diseases' such as
> high blood pressure, obesity, heart disease and cancer,
> while drugs to tackle tuberculosis, malaria and
> water-borne diseases prevalent in the poorest countries have
> been neglected.

This may be a straw man. Drug-resistant TB notwithstanding, most of
these diseases in the third world are diseases of infrastructure,
sanitation, and nutrition, rather than of hot new drugs.
One exception may be vaccines, where public health demands the
production of new vaccines that may be economically unfeasible unless
there is public money brought in.

Steve
>
> Presenting his research at the HPA's annual conference
> tomorrow, Rhodes will show that more and more
> pharmaceutical companies are moving their headquarters to the
> US in search of profits. Once there, they pump money
> into treatments that help the local population to live
> longer.
>
> 'Drugs and vaccines are becoming phenomenally
> expensive to develop,' said Rhodes. 'Companies have to recoup
> their investments by selling the drugs and vaccines.
> To be economic, they need a large population and the
> price has to be high. That increasingly means that drugs
> are developed for older Americans, who are getting
> healthier and living longer.'
>
> Costs are soaring, added Rhodes, because of extensive
> safety and efficacy testing and the fact that many
> drugs that show 'early promise' never make it through the
> checks.
>
> As such, companies looking to be 'economic' shift
> resources to meet the needs - and benefit from the profits
> - of the biggest spenders. 'The US tend to get the
> first bite of the cherry,' admitted Rhodes.
>
> He said the trend had led to a 'vicious' circle in the
> poorest countries of 'low economic growth leading to
> poor healthcare systems, creating a higher burden of
> disease which in turn affects the ability of the
> population to develop economically'. But while sub-Saharan
> Africa is heavily affected, China and India's strong
> investment in their pharmaceutical industry has seen
> health improvements and economic bonuses that will in turn
> attract investment back.
>
> Nevertheless, with many private companies turning
> their back on the developing world, Rhodes said research
> was heavily dependent on philanthropic funding and
> government backing.
>
> He welcomed the International Finance Facility for
> Immunization - the funding arm of the Global Alliance for
> Vaccines and Immunization - that was launched on
> Friday. The group has pledged to raise $4 billion (£2.2bn)
> for an immunization program in the developing world.
>
> © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
>
> ###
>

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

> Published on Sunday, September 11, 2005 by the
> Observer/UK
> Diseases of Rich Deprive Poor of Drugs
> by Anushka Asthana
>
> The world's poorest people are being denied access to
> drugs because pharmaceutical companies are focusing
> their resources on diseases suffered by wealthy,
> middle-aged Americans, such as obesity and heart disease, a
> leading expert will say tomorrow.
>
> Dr David Rhodes, the Health Protection Agency's (HPA)
> head of business development, will claim that
> spiraling costs are driving firms to invest primarily in drugs
> that tackle diseases of 'older Americans'.
>
> As a result, the international market has been flooded
> with medicines to treat 'American diseases' such as
> high blood pressure, obesity, heart disease and cancer,
> while drugs to tackle tuberculosis, malaria and
> water-borne diseases prevalent in the poorest countries have
> been neglected.

COMMENT:

It's worse than that! The world's poorest countries have no food
because the big food corporations are figuring out how to put more
steak and bacon on North American tables, not send grain to Africa. And
MacDonalds is spending THEIR money developing things like nice crispy
Waldorf salads, to help people who ate too many Big Macs, loose weight.
None of this does any good at all for Joe Botswana.

The poor of the world have no transporation or even tractors, because
the rich car companies are involved in doing things like figuring out
how to do remote monitoring of vehicles, so Sally Slowitz can use her
cell phone, to get a satellite in outer space to fix it whenever she
locks her carkeys inside the minivan. Who said high tech wasn't good
for anything? There are 9 year-old on TV making you feel guilty if you
don't have a car with this sytem. So John Suburb has to have one.

The poor of the world have no clothing, because the Nike is using all
its money to develop things like $100 Air Zoom LeBron 2 basketball
shoes, which the disadvantaged youths of the Hood have to have. And
seem to magically have the money to buy. (Where DO they get it? It's a
mystery. I have the feeling it comes out of my taxes somehow, but
perhaps that's just cynicism.)

All this is called "The Global Free Market." It has given us our
present world. Before that, we had something called "The Dark Ages"
which wasn't nearly so pleasant, even for Africans. Malaria and TB were
the least of the concerns of Africans then, even before they were
forced to make Nikes in sweatshops. (Africans back then spent their
time making war on each other, and only got into world trade when they
discovered they could sell the losers to the Portuguese).

So, back to our original subject-- could the global free market work
for the third world? Answer: Yes, if they could free up the capital to
participate in it. The problem is that most of the third world doesn't
have any legal tradition which allows that. In the first world, the
most common way of raising capital for a small is to borrow money
against real-estate. But if you can't prove you own real-estate, that's
impossible. And in most of the third world, it's astonishingly
impossible to do. So people are stuck. They have stuff, they use stuff.
But they can't turn it into capital. In short, their legal systems
suck. Ours work better, except that we've tacked on some new ones in
the pharm industry which wipe out nearly all the advantages of capital
mobility here in the West.

Enter the FDA. If you think legal systems suck, this one is the main
sewer of them all.

> Presenting his research at the HPA's annual conference
> tomorrow, Rhodes will show that more and more
> pharmaceutical companies are moving their headquarters to the
> US in search of profits. Once there, they pump money
> into treatments that help the local population to live
> longer.
>
> 'Drugs and vaccines are becoming phenomenally
> expensive to develop,' said Rhodes. 'Companies have to recoup
> their investments by selling the drugs and vaccines.
> To be economic, they need a large population and the
> price has to be high. That increasingly means that drugs
> are developed for older Americans, who are getting
> healthier and living longer.'
>
> Costs are soaring, added Rhodes, because of extensive
> safety and efficacy testing and the fact that many
> drugs that show 'early promise' never make it through the
> checks.

COMMENT:

And there you are. But liberals, who want to help the developing world,
seem to want to do it by making sure even more safeguards are in place
to increase "extensive safety and efficacy testing" (thus insuring even
higher development costs) and make sure that even MORE drugs that show
early promise never "make it through these checks." That's so we can
make sure we don't release a drug which kills even one person in a
million, against a disease that naturally kills 10 or 100,000 in a
million. First do no harm, you know.

So more than a million kids die in Africa every year because they have
no vaccines? Well, let's listen to the Left, whose idea is to tighten
safety standards on vaccines. Somebody might get autism from vaccines,
and you never know who. So I propose: let's send RFK., Jr. to Africa!
If out of 700,000 dying African kids with measles, there's one who
might instead have gotten autism from thimerosal, then RFK, Jr. will
find him. ***And bring him home.***

That's MY plan. At least it will save one African, and it will give
RFK, Jr. some press, which he apparently badly needs.

Otherwise, I can't think of what to do with starving multitudes who
have screwed-up legal systems which keeps them from participating in
the global economy. It might help to change the legal systems, but that
takes lawyers, and they cost money. Send a donation to Hernando De Soto
at the Institute for Liberty and Democracy:

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/view...eID/8/prmID/100

I don't know what to do with Nike and MacDonalds and GM and so on who
cater to the first-world middle-class, either. Shame on them. If they
did anything else, their stockholders would want their CEOs to be put
into prison, but that's no excuse, is it? Do you want starving African
kids, or American Seniors with fully funded retirements? You can't
have both ways, you know. Probably any senior citizen with a retirement
portfolio worth more than half a million should have anything over that
confiscated and sent to Nigeria. That will show capitalism who's boss,
and help the Nigerians also.

Nor do I have any idea about what to do with rich countries (like my
own) who have no access to cheap and effective drugs, because they also
have a screwed-up legal/regulatory system. And because they have no
feeling for what it means to take risks. And no idea that the proper
thing to do with injury lawyers, is to injure them. As painfully as
possible. (Just try not to get caught at it.) How to make them see the
obvious?

I suppose my own rich country will just have to pay a lot for medical
care and legal bills, and die of treatable ailments, anyway. I can't
get them to listen. All I get in return is the usual liberal
soundtrack, when I try. It sounds a lot like Peter, Paul and Mary. The
FDA is the single worst holdup to research in the US, and the Left's
answer to this problem is a bigger FDA. Hello? Something seems to be
wrong with the feedback, because all I get is a rising howl, and
nothing else.

SBH

Steven Bornfeld

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> And there you are. But liberals, who want to help the developing world,
> seem to want to do it by making sure even more safeguards are in place
> to increase "extensive safety and efficacy testing" (thus insuring even
> higher development costs) and make sure that even MORE drugs that show
> early promise never "make it through these checks." That's so we can
> make sure we don't release a drug which kills even one person in a
> million, against a disease that naturally kills 10 or 100,000 in a
> million. First do no harm, you know.
>
> So more than a million kids die in Africa every year because they have
> no vaccines? Well, let's listen to the Left, whose idea is to tighten
> safety standards on vaccines. Somebody might get autism from vaccines,
> and you never know who. So I propose: let's send RFK., Jr. to Africa!
> If out of 700,000 dying African kids with measles, there's one who
> might instead have gotten autism from thimerosal, then RFK, Jr. will
> find him. ***And bring him home.***
>
> That's MY plan. At least it will save one African, and it will give
> RFK, Jr. some press, which he apparently badly needs.
>
> Otherwise, I can't think of what to do with starving multitudes who
> have screwed-up legal systems which keeps them from participating in
> the global economy. It might help to change the legal systems, but that
> takes lawyers, and they cost money. Send a donation to Hernando De Soto
> at the Institute for Liberty and Democracy:
>
> http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/view...eID/8/prmID/100
>
> I don't know what to do with Nike and MacDonalds and GM and so on who
> cater to the first-world middle-class, either. Shame on them. If they
> did anything else, their stockholders would want their CEOs to be put
> into prison, but that's no excuse, is it? Do you want starving African
> kids, or American Seniors with fully funded retirements? You can't
> have both ways, you know. Probably any senior citizen with a retirement
> portfolio worth more than half a million should have anything over that
> confiscated and sent to Nigeria. That will show capitalism who's boss,
> and help the Nigerians also.
>
> Nor do I have any idea about what to do with rich countries (like my
> own) who have no access to cheap and effective drugs, because they also
> have a screwed-up legal/regulatory system. And because they have no
> feeling for what it means to take risks. And no idea that the proper
> thing to do with injury lawyers, is to injure them. As painfully as
> possible. (Just try not to get caught at it.) How to make them see the
> obvious?
>
> I suppose my own rich country will just have to pay a lot for medical
> care and legal bills, and die of treatable ailments, anyway. I can't
> get them to listen. All I get in return is the usual liberal
> soundtrack, when I try. It sounds a lot like Peter, Paul and Mary. The
> FDA is the single worst holdup to research in the US, and the Left's
> answer to this problem is a bigger FDA. Hello? Something seems to be
> wrong with the feedback, because all I get is a rising howl, and
> nothing else.
>
> SBH

I'm miles away from you politically, but I always enjoy your writing!

Thanks,
Steve

>

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I'm miles away from you politically, but I always enjoy your writing!
>
> Thanks,
> Steve

Remember that when you next view an art show which has content with
which you disagree. Just judge the artwork. Didja like it? Then don't
let the anal rapes get to you. Don't forget to sign the guestbook with
your laudatory comments on your way out.

>
>
>
> --
> {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
> Arial;}}
> {\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
> "nospam" to reply\par
> }

O'Hush

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinnospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:43264790.1040400@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I'm miles away from you politically, but I always enjoy your writing!
>
> Thanks,
> Steve

Me too. I think generally the most obnoxious people on both sides of the
political spectrum do all the talking; the strident and unreasonable on the
left, and the bigoted and undereducated on the right. Whenever I find
myself in a political discussion with someone on the right, particularly on
usenet, they frequently become insulting and abusive and I lose interest. I
appreciate hearing your perspective *because* it's different from mine and
expressed respectfully.

Patti

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

O'Hush wrote:
> "Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinnospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:43264790.1040400@earthlink.net...
>
> Me too. I think generally the most obnoxious people on both sides of the
> political spectrum do all the talking; the strident and unreasonable on the
> left, and the bigoted and undereducated on the right. Whenever I find
> myself in a political discussion with someone on the right, particularly on
> usenet, they frequently become insulting and abusive and I lose interest. I
> appreciate hearing your perspective *because* it's different from mine and
> expressed respectfully.
>
> Patti

Dear Patti

What a load.

Respectfully, Zee

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.m...scoring=d&hl=en

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

fresh~horses wrote:
>
>
> Remember that when you next view an art show which has content with
> which you disagree. Just judge the artwork. Didja like it? Then don't
> let the anal rapes get to you. Don't forget to sign the guestbook with
> your laudatory comments on your way out.

COMMENT:

"Anal rapes?" Smoking something particularly bad tonight, Zee?

It's Africa, folks. A place where, in one country (Rwanda) two groups
of people no more politically or ethnically different than Northern
Yankies and Southern Rednecks, decided they were going to have a
genocide after the killing of the president (by who knows who). Think
of more people killed in the American Civil war in 4 years, killed
instead in 3 months. Men, women, children. Many by machette, up close
and personal. Because somebody was pissed off about the assassination
of a Lincoln or a JFK, and decided a whole subculture was going to be
put to death for it.

And in this context, we're supposed to feel guilty that our drug
companies aren't developing more malarial vaccines down there, with
proper institutional review board approval. My, we capitalists are
brutal bastards, aren't we? How can Western Civilization live with
itself? The guilt!

SBH

O'Hush

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1126586103.310979.84050@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
on[vbcol=seagreen]
interest. I[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>
> Dear Patti
>
> What a load.
>
> Respectfully, Zee

What do you think you're accomplishing here?

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

O'Hush wrote:
>
> Me too. I think generally the most obnoxious people on both sides of the
> political spectrum do all the talking; the strident and unreasonable on the
> left, and the bigoted and undereducated on the right.

COMMENT:

Well, the idea that those on the right are likely to be more bigoted
and undereducated than those on the left, is itself a somewhat bigoted
thought. It might be true that those on the right have had to swim (or
have chosen to swim) fewer miles down the foggy rivers of academic
leftist "humanities" courses, but never imagine that that kind of thing
is the only actual higher education there is. education is also quantum
mechanics, electronics, physiology, and how to make a large structure
out of pre-stressed concrete that won't fall down.

I hypothesize that it's all those humanities courses that cause the
left to continuously propose solutions for the Third World that sound
marvelously fair and democratic, but unfortunately are impossible from
the engineering standpoint. The political, cultural and economic
systems in place will no more support them, than a chickenwire net will
support an Abrams tank. The laws of economics are not much more
maleable than the laws of gravity are. But it's nice to think about. I
like science fiction, too. When you read activist authors who know
nothing about medicine or pharmacology taking about drug development in
the third world, just think of it as something like Star Trek. It's
good for a smile, until some timer in the kitchen goes off, and you
have to get back to reality.

SBH

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> O'Hush wrote:
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Well, the idea that those on the right are likely to be more bigoted
> and undereducated than those on the left, is itself a somewhat bigoted
> thought. It might be true that those on the right have had to swim (or
> have chosen to swim) fewer miles down the foggy rivers of academic
> leftist "humanities" courses, but never imagine that that kind of thing
> is the only actual higher education there is. education is also quantum
> mechanics, electronics, physiology, and how to make a large structure
> out of pre-stressed concrete that won't fall down.
>
> I hypothesize that it's all those humanities courses that cause the
> left to continuously propose solutions for the Third World that sound
> marvelously fair and democratic, but unfortunately are impossible from
> the engineering standpoint. The political, cultural and economic
> systems in place will no more support them, than a chickenwire net will
> support an Abrams tank. The laws of economics are not much more
> maleable than the laws of gravity are. But it's nice to think about. I
> like science fiction, too. When you read activist authors who know
> nothing about medicine or pharmacology taking about drug development in
> the third world, just think of it as something like Star Trek. It's
> good for a smile, until some timer in the kitchen goes off, and you
> have to get back to reality.
>
> SBH

Death for lack of a drug that might cost pennies. Callousness for those
with intractable diabetes.

What useful tutorials Steve. Let's hope this gushing admiration for
your work there is remembered the day you rip and ridicule those who
have AIDS or HCV, or

....ADHD.

Zee

O'Hush

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1126588224.840897.70900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> O'Hush wrote:
the[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Well, the idea that those on the right are likely to be more bigoted
> and undereducated than those on the left, is itself a somewhat bigoted
> thought.

Here in NC the majority of people who consider themselves conservatives are
Evangelical Christian types who XXXXX about "all them Mexicans" in our
schools. I rarely meet anyone who professes to be a conservative thinker
and doesn't act like a dumb hick. During our most recent election, there
was a runoff between two candidates for NC state senate, one of which ran an
expensive and extremely insulting ad campaign filled with images of men
kissing each other and Mexicans crossing the border into the US. The
conservatives where I live are *not* thoughtful or educated people.

> It might be true that those on the right have had to swim (or
> have chosen to swim) fewer miles down the foggy rivers of academic
> leftist "humanities" courses, but never imagine that that kind of thing
> is the only actual higher education there is. education is also quantum
> mechanics, electronics, physiology, and how to make a large structure
> out of pre-stressed concrete that won't fall down.
>
> I hypothesize that it's all those humanities courses that cause the
> left to continuously propose solutions for the Third World that sound
> marvelously fair and democratic, but unfortunately are impossible from
> the engineering standpoint. The political, cultural and economic
> systems in place will no more support them, than a chickenwire net will
> support an Abrams tank. The laws of economics are not much more
> maleable than the laws of gravity are. But it's nice to think about. I
> like science fiction, too. When you read activist authors who know
> nothing about medicine or pharmacology taking about drug development in
> the third world, just think of it as something like Star Trek. It's
> good for a smile, until some timer in the kitchen goes off, and you
> have to get back to reality.
>
> SBH

Nevermind. I take it all back.

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

fresh~horses wrote:
> Death for lack of a drug that might cost pennies. Callousness for those
> with intractable diabetes.

The reason the drug doesn't cost pennies is usually government
regulation. All calousness needed is provided by those who push the
regulation. Though they deny it, the effect is the same. Much the same
can be said for diabetes. These people want government to fix the
problem, when government usually IS the problem. Specifically, it's
usually their next door neighbors, signing petitions against stem cell
research, or against genetic engineering, or badmouthing some new
treatment as being no better than the last, but more expensive (and
besides, the government won't pay for it). It is only "callous" to
expect adults to learn, if you are thinking of adults as children in
the first place.

> What useful tutorials Steve. Let's hope this gushing admiration for
> your work there is remembered the day you rip and ridicule those who
> have AIDS or HCV, or
>
> ...ADHD.

COMMENT:

Oh, my, ADHD! The disease I suggested didn't exist. Instead, I
suggested that we simply let people who think they might function
better on amphetamines, have some in order to see if they did. And if
so, how much better. After that, they and their doctors could keep
track of how much of the stuff it took for them. Or they could do it
without the doctor, if they wanted to do it the dangerous way. You can
learn to scuba dive without an instructor, too, if you want to. The
only trick is getting bodybody to sell you air, but you can usually get
around that.....

I think my detractors insist that ADHD be a real disease, because they
are horrified that people might be able to buy the amphetamines for
themselves or their little overacheivers, without getting the official
label by the official (paternalistic patriarchal) person in charge.
The insisters on the label are those who really, really want the
external labeling game, complete with all the authoritarianism that
comes with it (all the way down to people breaking down your door and
putting you in a cage if you haven't got the label from the proper
labeler).

Now, please try to separate ridicule for people who simply want
amphetamines, from ridicule for people who want them for themselves but
nobody else (unless the major authoritarian game is played, complete
with yours truely in godlike judgement mode, for a price. And usually
with proper attention to class distinctions).

Gosh, it seems I'm a heartless bastard, aren't I? Clearly, the social
labeling game, backed up with the cops and the jails, and me the doc in
the catbird seat, is better. That's where you like to see your doctors,
hey? Haven't you said so? No?

Why don't you go back and read my ADHD oeurve, posted nicely on the net
already, and get back with us. I think you might profit by thinking it
out again. I already have. It took me a long time to do it, and I'm not
going to repeat it.

SBH

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> fresh~horses wrote:
>
>
> The reason the drug doesn't cost pennies is usually government
> regulation. All calousness needed is provided by those who push the
> regulation. Though they deny it, the effect is the same. Much the same
> can be said for diabetes. These people want government to fix the
> problem, when government usually IS the problem. Specifically, it's
> usually their next door neighbors, signing petitions against stem cell
> research, or against genetic engineering, or badmouthing some new
> treatment as being no better than the last, but more expensive (and
> besides, the government won't pay for it). It is only "callous" to
> expect adults to learn, if you are thinking of adults as children in
> the first place.
>
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Oh, my, ADHD! The disease I suggested didn't exist. Instead, I
> suggested that we simply let people who think they might function
> better on amphetamines, have some in order to see if they did. And if
> so, how much better. After that, they and their doctors could keep
> track of how much of the stuff it took for them. Or they could do it
> without the doctor, if they wanted to do it the dangerous way. You can
> learn to scuba dive without an instructor, too, if you want to. The
> only trick is getting bodybody to sell you air, but you can usually get
> around that.....
>
> I think my detractors insist that ADHD be a real disease, because they
> are horrified that people might be able to buy the amphetamines for
> themselves or their little overacheivers, without getting the official
> label by the official (paternalistic patriarchal) person in charge.
> The insisters on the label are those who really, really want the
> external labeling game, complete with all the authoritarianism that
> comes with it (all the way down to people breaking down your door and
> putting you in a cage if you haven't got the label from the proper
> labeler).
>
> Now, please try to separate ridicule for people who simply want
> amphetamines, from ridicule for people who want them for themselves but
> nobody else (unless the major authoritarian game is played, complete
> with yours truely in godlike judgement mode, for a price. And usually
> with proper attention to class distinctions).
>
> Gosh, it seems I'm a heartless bastard, aren't I? Clearly, the social
> labeling game, backed up with the cops and the jails, and me the doc in
> the catbird seat, is better. That's where you like to see your doctors,
> hey? Haven't you said so? No?
>
> Why don't you go back and read my ADHD oeurve, posted nicely on the net
> already, and get back with us. I think you might profit by thinking it
> out again. I already have. It took me a long time to do it, and I'm not
> going to repeat it.
>
> SBH

Thanks. I knew you'd come through. I set my stop-watch.

Zee

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

O'Hush wrote:
> Here in NC the majority of people who consider themselves conservatives are
> Evangelical Christian types who XXXXX about "all them Mexicans" in our
> schools. I rarely meet anyone who professes to be a conservative thinker
> and doesn't act like a dumb hick. During our most recent election, there
> was a runoff between two candidates for NC state senate, one of which ran an
> expensive and extremely insulting ad campaign filled with images of men
> kissing each other and Mexicans crossing the border into the US. The
> conservatives where I live are *not* thoughtful or educated people.

Okay, but it is possible to be a conservative without being a member of
the blble belt evangelical Right.

The Mexicans in the schools in uncontrolled numbers are causing
problems: economic problems. Neither left nor right wants to talk about
it. The left just wants to pay for it, but they also want to borrow the
money for it, and aren't saying where or when or how they'll pay it
back. The right wants to send the Mexicans home, but are considered
racist. When the Mexicans send the Guatamalans who cross THEIR southern
border home, however, they are NOT considered racist. So perhaps there
is something to be learned here from the Mexican government itself?

As for homophobia, well, that's mostly due to fundamentalist religion
and lack of empathy. But the middle of the road conservatives are just
as embarrassed by their homophobic wing, as you liberals are by your
Naderites and tree-huggers and Marxists. We all have nuts in the
family.

SBH

PS: And why am I defending conservatives anyway? I'm a libertarian.
It's just that moderate conservative is as close as I can come to any
standard political label without a lot of explaining. Too much for
tonight.

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> fresh~horses wrote:
>
>
> The reason the drug doesn't cost pennies is usually government
> regulation.

The reason drugs cost so much is graft. Plain and simple. Far more is
spent on marketing than on research.

All calousness needed is provided by those who push the
> regulation. Though they deny it, the effect is the same. Much the same
> can be said for diabetes. These people want government to fix the
> problem, when government usually IS the problem. Specifically, it's
> usually their next door neighbors, signing petitions against stem cell
> research,

You presume to know why people who sign petitions do so. I think the
reasons are varied. Not all reasons will be so restrictive as you
imagine of your *right* to play chemist until you finally get it.

or against genetic engineering, or badmouthing some new
> treatment as being no better than the last, but more expensive (and
> besides, the government won't pay for it). It is only "callous" to
> expect adults to learn, if you are thinking of adults as children in
> the first place.

Or, master and student?

Oh it all sounds so noble Steve. But really it all just boils down to
don't restrict Steve. The restrictions imposed upon a person who has
been injured by undertested, overmarketed drugs doesn't enter into it
for you.

>
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Oh, my, ADHD! The disease I suggested didn't exist. Instead, I
> suggested that we simply let people who think they might function
> better on amphetamines, have some in order to see if they did. And if
> so, how much better. After that, they and their doctors could keep
> track of how much of the stuff it took for them. Or they could do it
> without the doctor, if they wanted to do it the dangerous way. You can
> learn to scuba dive without an instructor, too, if you want to. The
> only trick is getting bodybody to sell you air, but you can usually get
> around that.....
>
> I think my detractors insist that ADHD be a real disease, because they
> are horrified that people might be able to buy the amphetamines for
> themselves or their little overacheivers, without getting the official
> label by the official (paternalistic patriarchal) person in charge.
> The insisters on the label are those who really, really want the
> external labeling game, complete with all the authoritarianism that
> comes with it (all the way down to people breaking down your door and
> putting you in a cage if you haven't got the label from the proper
> labeler).
>
> Now, please try to separate ridicule for people who simply want
> amphetamines, from ridicule for people who want them for themselves but
> nobody else (unless the major authoritarian game is played, complete
> with yours truely in godlike judgement mode, for a price. And usually
> with proper attention to class distinctions).
>
> Gosh, it seems I'm a heartless bastard, aren't I? Clearly, the social
> labeling game, backed up with the cops and the jails, and me the doc in
> the catbird seat, is better. That's where you like to see your doctors,
> hey? Haven't you said so? No?

Huh? You do build strawmen Steve. Is the next step conspiracy theory?
Paranoia?

> Why don't you go back and read my ADHD oeurve, posted nicely on the net
> already, and get back with us. I think you might profit by thinking it
> out again. I already have. It took me a long time to do it, and I'm not
> going to repeat it.
>
> SBH

I have Steve. Apparently I'm in a minority.

Happy Dog

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com>

> Remember that when you next view an art show which has content with
> which you disagree. Just judge the artwork. Didja like it? Then don't
> let the anal rapes get to you. Don't forget to sign the guestbook with
> your laudatory comments on your way out.

No, idiot. Just leave. You get happy your way. Let others get happy
theirs. (When it comes to viewing art.)

moo

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

fresh~horses wrote:
>
> Remember that when you next view an art show which has content with
> which you disagree. Just judge the artwork. Didja like it? Then don't
> let the anal rapes get to you. Don't forget to sign the guestbook with
> your laudatory comments on your way out.

An honest disagreement about an important issue about which honest
folks can disagree is not "anal rape".

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:

>
> COMMENT:
>
> Well, the idea that those on the right are likely to be more bigoted
> and undereducated than those on the left, is itself a somewhat bigoted
> thought.

There's all kinds of bigotry, of course. Take my wife (another lefty)
and her attitudes about--New Jersey. Of course, she grew up in
Cincinnatti, so what can you expect?
I don't even know what's right and what's left anymore sometimes.

Steve

It might be true that those on the right have had to swim (or
> have chosen to swim) fewer miles down the foggy rivers of academic
> leftist "humanities" courses, but never imagine that that kind of thing
> is the only actual higher education there is. education is also quantum
> mechanics, electronics, physiology, and how to make a large structure
> out of pre-stressed concrete that won't fall down.
>
> I hypothesize that it's all those humanities courses that cause the
> left to continuously propose solutions for the Third World that sound
> marvelously fair and democratic, but unfortunately are impossible from
> the engineering standpoint. The political, cultural and economic
> systems in place will no more support them, than a chickenwire net will
> support an Abrams tank. The laws of economics are not much more
> maleable than the laws of gravity are. But it's nice to think about. I
> like science fiction, too. When you read activist authors who know
> nothing about medicine or pharmacology taking about drug development in
> the third world, just think of it as something like Star Trek. It's
> good for a smile, until some timer in the kitchen goes off, and you
> have to get back to reality.
>
> SBH
>

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:

> O'Hush wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Okay, but it is possible to be a conservative without being a member of
> the blble belt evangelical Right.
>
> The Mexicans in the schools in uncontrolled numbers are causing
> problems: economic problems. Neither left nor right wants to talk about
> it. The left just wants to pay for it, but they also want to borrow the
> money for it, and aren't saying where or when or how they'll pay it
> back. The right wants to send the Mexicans home,

...except for those who want the cheap labor.

Steve

but are considered
> racist. When the Mexicans send the Guatamalans who cross THEIR southern
> border home, however, they are NOT considered racist. So perhaps there
> is something to be learned here from the Mexican government itself?
>
> As for homophobia, well, that's mostly due to fundamentalist religion
> and lack of empathy. But the middle of the road conservatives are just
> as embarrassed by their homophobic wing, as you liberals are by your
> Naderites and tree-huggers and Marxists. We all have nuts in the
> family.
>
> SBH
>
> PS: And why am I defending conservatives anyway? I'm a libertarian.
> It's just that moderate conservative is as close as I can come to any
> standard political label without a lot of explaining. Too much for
> tonight.
>

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Jim Chinnis

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part:

>The reason drugs cost so much is graft. Plain and simple. Far more is
>spent on marketing than on research.

Just passing through for a sec, but:

Marketing tends to decrease prices, not increase them. Businesses market in
order to increase sales. The increased sales have to more than offset the
marketing cost, or marketing isn't done the next time or is reduced. The
increased sales spread fixed costs (such as drug development and testing and
FDA submissions etc.) over a larger number of sales, bringing the cost down
and allowing a drug to compete in the marketplace at a lower price.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Jim Chinnis wrote:

> "fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part:
>
>
>
>
> Just passing through for a sec, but:
>
> Marketing tends to decrease prices, not increase them. Businesses market in
> order to increase sales. The increased sales have to more than offset the
> marketing cost, or marketing isn't done the next time or is reduced. The
> increased sales spread fixed costs (such as drug development and testing and
> FDA submissions etc.) over a larger number of sales, bringing the cost down
> and allowing a drug to compete in the marketplace at a lower price.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

I think Zee's issue is the incentives given by pharmo companies to
doctors and pharmacies for encouraging prescribing meds. I agree that
while they doubtless do increase awareness of meds, at the very least it
looks very bad.
I am not speaking from experience; I haven't gotten my trip to Aruba
yet. The biggest graft I've received as a dentist is the Zovirax coffee
mug I'm drinking from right now.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

O'Hush

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1126591830.236639.264290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> O'Hush wrote:
are[vbcol=seagreen]
thinker[vbcol=seagreen]
there[vbcol=seagreen]
ran an[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay, but it is possible to be a conservative without being a member of
> the blble belt evangelical Right.

That was my point. I said I found it useful to hear from you a generally
reasoned and thoughtful conservative perspective without all the insults.
And then I found your response rather insulting.

> The Mexicans in the schools in uncontrolled numbers are causing
> problems: economic problems.

Fine. Those concerns should be taken to lawmakers and law enforcement
officials. How is the situation improved by mistreating and villifying 5yo
Latino kindergarteners and their parents? I'm sure some of those kids are
legal. Had you seen the TV ad I spoke about, I feel certain you would have
found it embarrassing.

> Neither left nor right wants to talk about
> it. The left just wants to pay for it, but they also want to borrow the
> money for it, and aren't saying where or when or how they'll pay it
> back. The right wants to send the Mexicans home, but are considered
> racist.

Oh, Dubya wants to send them home? Seems to me he is very
immigrant-friendly, legal or not. It's good for his corporate masters
because immigration probably depresses wages, and it's good for him because
he gets the Latino vote.

> When the Mexicans send the Guatamalans who cross THEIR southern
> border home, however, they are NOT considered racist. So perhaps there
> is something to be learned here from the Mexican government itself?

My position isn't that we should open our borders or not enforce immigration
laws; only that an individual conservative Republican NC state senate
candidate, who nearly got elected, ran a TV ad that was horrifyingly
insulting to Latinos and gays. I gave this only as an example of the kind
of idiocy I see here in the name of conservatism.

> As for homophobia, well, that's mostly due to fundamentalist religion
> and lack of empathy. But the middle of the road conservatives are just
> as embarrassed by their homophobic wing, as you liberals are by your
> Naderites and tree-huggers and Marxists. We all have nuts in the
> family.

My initial point was that the nuts have taken control over the political
discourse in this country so completely that it is difficult to hold a
discussion that bears any fruit. You seem to be at once agreeing with me
and arguing with me.

> SBH
>
> PS: And why am I defending conservatives anyway? I'm a libertarian.
> It's just that moderate conservative is as close as I can come to any
> standard political label without a lot of explaining. Too much for
> tonight.

Well, you throw around a lot of labels. Because I placed myself to the left
of you, you seem to have made a lot of incorrect assumptions about my
opinions. The political spectrum is not a 2D line. If I generally find
myself to the right of Zee and to the left of you, that does not mean that
my position on every issue falls somewhere between you. There's a lot of
nuance; these are complex issues.

~~Patti

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> ...except for those who want the cheap labor.
>
> Steve

COMMENT:

Oh, true enough. But the labor isn't *actually* cheap when you count
the school and medicaid hospital bills that come with it. It's just
cheap to the employer, who wants to pay the worker crappy wages and no
insurance, and society to pick up the *rest* of the tab associated with
this family living here. That's the Right Wing's way of playing the
Socialism Game (we put all our stuff in a pot, and we all see if we can
all get more out than we put in). They'd deny it, of course.

In New Zealand, they don't even LET you immigrate if you're over 40.
They figure what you'll take out of society, in resources, is less than
what you'll add, after that age. That's socialism also, but at least
it's HONEST socialism.

We could do something of the same, ala the old bracero program pre
WW-II (in which children were generally not brought). Or we could let
only the highly skilled and their families in, which is the way H1B
works. But a young and growing family in the US cost a hell of a lot of
money in school and medical expenses, and it takes a highly paid person
someplace to pay for it. Uncontrolled emigration of unskilled people
AND their young families into a society where the stardard of living
depends on high skills, is clearly a disaster.

SBH

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> "fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part:
>
>
> Just passing through for a sec, but:
>
> Marketing tends to decrease prices, not increase them. Businesses market in
> order to increase sales. The increased sales have to more than offset the
> marketing cost, or marketing isn't done the next time or is reduced. The
> increased sales spread fixed costs (such as drug development and testing and
> FDA submissions etc.) over a larger number of sales, bringing the cost down
> and allowing a drug to compete in the marketplace at a lower price.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5072202220.html
"When it comes to accepting gifts from the marketing reps of
pharmaceutical firms, the American college of Physicians-American
Society of Internal Medicine suggests that its members apply a simple
litmus test: "What would the public or [our] patients think of this
arrangement?"

Most patients never find out. If they did, they'd probably go into
shock over the goodies doctors accept, like meals, travel, gift
certificates or parties. The pharmaceutical industry estimates that it
spends about $5.7 billion a year on marketing directly to physicians,
which works out to about $6,000 to $7,000 per doctor."

http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2..._2005-06-16.cfm
"Eight of nine AHA experts who wrote the stroke guidelines had
financial ties to the drugmaker. That is not uncommon. In a 2002
review, The Journal of the American Medical Association found 60
percent of doctors defending a drug's use had relationships with the
drug's makers. Drug companies provide a significant portion of the
budget for the FDA. One-third of the experts who recently recommended
putting Vioxx and other arthritis medications recalled for increasing
the risk of heart attack back on the market worked as consultants to
makers of the drugs, according to the Center for Science in the Public
Interest."

http://www.drugpromo.info/readit.asp?qt=4&cat=2
"Drug companies spend enormous sums of money promoting their products
around the world to doctors. In 2000 over US$13.2 billion was spent in
the USA1, the 1998 figure for Italy was US$1.1 billion2, and in the
developing world 20-30% of the sales dollar goes into promotion3. There
are currently over 80,000 sales representatives in the USA4, where the
industry sponsored some 314,000 physician events in 20005.

Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs is allowed
in the USA and New Zealand and may soon enter Canada and the European
Union. Growth in spending on DTCA in the USA has been dramatic, with
nearly US$2.4 billion being spent in 20001.

The companies would not be spending billions of dollars if there was no
return and, according to the best evidence, promotion does increase
sales. For every dollar spent on magazine and television advertising
there is a return of US$2.51 and US$1.69, respectively6. Increases in
the sales of the 50 drugs most heavily advertised to consumers in 2000
were responsible for almost half (47.8%) of the US$20.8 billion
increase in retail spending on prescription drugs from 1999 to 20007."

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1728.541655
The Journal of the American Medical Association 2000;283:373-380,
391-393.
"In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Robert M. Tenery, Jr., of the
American
Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, writes
that the
Council has attempted to police physician interactions with drug
companies. The
most egregious activities have stopped, such as awarding airline miles
for
prescriptions written, but recently the need for continuing medical
education
(CME) has driven a resurgence of drug company-sponsored junkets, he
says. CME
credit is a requirement for licensing in most states. Tenery notes that
drug
company money and influence "has permeated virtually all levels of
physician
CME in the form of complimentary meals and entertainment, consultation
fees,
and pseudo-CME courses." He concludes that physicians and the drug
industry
need to develop new industry-wide standards to prevent abuses of the
system."

Jim Chinnis

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part:

>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>Where the money is going
>
>When paying for prescriptions, most of us assume that a great deal of
>the money goes to fund the costs of researching new and more effective
>drugs.

I hope most people don't think that. It's absurd. Maybe you are talking
about the pharmaceutical industry in...well...I dunno what country. In the
US, the industry can't do anything without government approval, so that's
where much of its efforts go. It's also why there are so few truly novel
drugs. The FDA hasn't spelled out what it will consider proof of efficacy
for most conditions. And the industry isn't allowed to sell most of its
products without the signed consent of an MD, so that's where another huge
part of its efforts go.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> "fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part:
>
>
> Just passing through for a sec, but:
>
> Marketing tends to decrease prices, not increase them. Businesses market =
in
> order to increase sales. The increased sales have to more than offset the
> marketing cost, or marketing isn't done the next time or is reduced. The
> increased sales spread fixed costs (such as drug development and testing =
and
> FDA submissions etc.) over a larger number of sales, bringing the cost do=
wn
> and allowing a drug to compete in the marketplace at a lower price.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Where the money goes:

Montreal Gazette.

Cozying up to drug firms disturbs some physicians
Heart doctor complained to professional order after
being invited to refer
patients to clinical trial

CHERYL CORNACCHIA
The Gazette
Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Cardiologist Colin Rose, who also teaches medicine at
McGill, says close
relationships to drug firms undermine doctors'
willingness to try
non-pharmaceutical treatments for their patients.

When a company contacted Colin Rose and offered to pay
him $6,000 to refer
patients to a drug study, they had the wrong doctor.

Rose, a cardiologist at the Montreal General Hospital,
not only said no, but
he passed the written offer to the Coll=E8ge des
m=E9decins du Qu=E9bec,
suggesting it investigate the ethics of paying doctors
to refer patients.

"I'm about the last one on Earth they should have
contacted," Rose said
yesterday.

It turns out that the physicians' college doesn't
investigate those kinds of
cases, but the doctor is no less upset by the offer to
send patients to the
study, which was sponsored by Merck Frosst.

Rose, who is also an assistant professor of medicine
at McGill University,
is outspoken about what he sees as an increasingly
cozy relationship between
doctors and drug companies. He says it undermines
doctors' will to suggest
alternatives like lifestyle changes instead of
prescription drugs.

The hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease
study to which Rose
referred is being conducted by the Clinical Research
Consultant Group at the
Seaforth Medical Building on C=F4te des Neiges Rd .

The group's letter to Rose, dated Nov. 18, 2003,
detailed how he would
receive an honorarium of $6,000 if he referred at
least one patient being
treated for high cholesterol and heart disease. He
would have been required
to perform a physical exam of the patients at the
beginning and end of the
study and write the initial prescription. Nurses
employed by the group would
do the rest - seeing patients throughout the 12-week
study.

The study is evaluating the cholesterol-lowering
efficacy of a 10-milligram
dose of a drug called Ezetimibe when given with a
10-milligram or
20-milligram dose of Atorvastatin, another
cholesterol-lowering drug. Both
drugs are approved for use in Canada.

Rose later received an e-mail from Bernice Pynn, the
lead researcher of the
drug study, saying "at this time there is no
discussion of publication" of
the study results. Pynn, a biochemist, was unavailable
for comment
yesterday. However, an assistant at the clinical
research group confirmed
the multisite study is sponsored by Merck Frosst. So
far, she said, 15
patients are enrolled in Montreal.

Vincent Lamoureux, a spokesperson for Merck Frosst in
Kirkland, said doctors
are sometimes compensated for their time. However, he
said, he was
unfamiliar with the study Rose cited, even though
"there definitely seems to
be a link to some of what we do."

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Oh, true enough. But the labor isn't *actually* cheap when you count
> the school and medicaid hospital bills that come with it. It's just
> cheap to the employer, who wants to pay the worker crappy wages and no
> insurance, and society to pick up the *rest* of the tab associated with
> this family living here. That's the Right Wing's way of playing the
> Socialism Game (we put all our stuff in a pot, and we all see if we can
> all get more out than we put in). They'd deny it, of course.
>
> In New Zealand, they don't even LET you immigrate if you're over 40.
> They figure what you'll take out of society, in resources, is less than
> what you'll add, after that age. That's socialism also, but at least
> it's HONEST socialism.
>
> We could do something of the same, ala the old bracero program pre
> WW-II (in which children were generally not brought). Or we could let
> only the highly skilled and their families in, which is the way H1B
> works.

Isn't that the way Canada works? I understand there's some kind of
flow chart with a point system. You know, the one all us lefties were
asking about after the election last November.
What's H1B?

Steve

But a young and growing family in the US cost a hell of a lot of
> money in school and medical expenses, and it takes a highly paid person
> someplace to pay for it. Uncontrolled emigration of unskilled people
> AND their young families into a society where the stardard of living
> depends on high skills, is clearly a disaster.
>
> SBH
>

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

fresh~horses wrote:

> Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5072202220.html
> "When it comes to accepting gifts from the marketing reps of
> pharmaceutical firms, the American college of Physicians-American
> Society of Internal Medicine suggests that its members apply a simple
> litmus test: "What would the public or [our] patients think of this
> arrangement?"
>
> Most patients never find out. If they did, they'd probably go into
> shock over the goodies doctors accept, like meals, travel, gift
> certificates or parties. The pharmaceutical industry estimates that it
> spends about $5.7 billion a year on marketing directly to physicians,
> which works out to about $6,000 to $7,000 per doctor."

....and all I've got is this damned coffee mug...

Steve
>
>
>
> http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2..._2005-06-16.cfm
> "Eight of nine AHA experts who wrote the stroke guidelines had
> financial ties to the drugmaker. That is not uncommon. In a 2002
> review, The Journal of the American Medical Association found 60
> percent of doctors defending a drug's use had relationships with the
> drug's makers. Drug companies provide a significant portion of the
> budget for the FDA. One-third of the experts who recently recommended
> putting Vioxx and other arthritis medications recalled for increasing
> the risk of heart attack back on the market worked as consultants to
> makers of the drugs, according to the Center for Science in the Public
> Interest."
>
>
> http://www.drugpromo.info/readit.asp?qt=4&cat=2
> "Drug companies spend enormous sums of money promoting their products
> around the world to doctors. In 2000 over US$13.2 billion was spent in
> the USA1, the 1998 figure for Italy was US$1.1 billion2, and in the
> developing world 20-30% of the sales dollar goes into promotion3. There
> are currently over 80,000 sales representatives in the USA4, where the
> industry sponsored some 314,000 physician events in 20005.
>
> Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs is allowed
> in the USA and New Zealand and may soon enter Canada and the European
> Union. Growth in spending on DTCA in the USA has been dramatic, with
> nearly US$2.4 billion being spent in 20001.
>
> The companies would not be spending billions of dollars if there was no
> return and, according to the best evidence, promotion does increase
> sales. For every dollar spent on magazine and television advertising
> there is a return of US$2.51 and US$1.69, respectively6. Increases in
> the sales of the 50 drugs most heavily advertised to consumers in 2000
> were responsible for almost half (47.8%) of the US$20.8 billion
> increase in retail spending on prescription drugs from 1999 to 20007."
>
>
> http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1728.541655
> The Journal of the American Medical Association 2000;283:373-380,
> 391-393.
> "In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Robert M. Tenery, Jr., of the
> American
> Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, writes
> that the
> Council has attempted to police physician interactions with drug
> companies. The
> most egregious activities have stopped, such as awarding airline miles
> for
> prescriptions written, but recently the need for continuing medical
> education
> (CME) has driven a resurgence of drug company-sponsored junkets, he
> says. CME
> credit is a requirement for licensing in most states. Tenery notes that
> drug
> company money and influence "has permeated virtually all levels of
> physician
> CME in the form of complimentary meals and entertainment, consultation
> fees,
> and pseudo-CME courses." He concludes that physicians and the drug
> industry
> need to develop new industry-wide standards to prevent abuses of the
> system."
>

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

fresh~horses wrote:

>
>
> The reason drugs cost so much is graft. Plain and simple. Far more is
> spent on marketing than on research.

Not "far more." The figures are roughly comparable, and much depends on
what you count as "marketing" and what as "research." Is dealing with
the FDA on how to present the data for those package inserts
"marketing" or "research"? How about publication costs and conference
travel? How MUCH conference travel? Research isn't done in the rest of
science until the paperwork is done. If you go to "pure" academic
research conferences, you'll find that self-promotion, and promotion of
results, is hardly limited to results that stand to make any kind of
profit.

What is this "graft?" You think advertising is "graft"?

Complaining that you pay for "marketing" when you pay for a product
(including a medical product) is like complaining that you pay for
"transportation" from the field when you buy strawberries. It's part of
the business. If it's not done, most of the fruit stays in the field,
where it rots. What YOU want, is for somebody to go out and pick it for
you, select and sort it for you, and bring it to you, all for free.
Well, that's not the way the universe works. It's not even the way
Canada works (though this may not be immediately apparent).

It would be nice if somebody picked the nicest strawberries and brought
them to your door as a public taxpayer funded service, I suppose. And
dipped them in chocolate, too. But I don't think that's going to
happen.

>
> Or, master and student?

COMMENT:
BIG difference. Master and student can trade places in an instant,
depending on the game (How do you beat Bobby Fisher? Play him at
anything but chess..). But parent and child is more permanent, and
more pernicious. Especially when government is involved.

> Oh it all sounds so noble Steve. But really it all just boils down to
> don't restrict Steve. The restrictions imposed upon a person who has
> been injured by undertested, overmarketed drugs doesn't enter into it
> for you.

COMMENT:
And why do you think so? Because it can't happen to me, or because you
don't think it CAN happen to me? And if not, why not? This is not a
rhetorical question. It relates to the cost of information (or rather,
wisdom) and who's going to pay it.

>
>
> I have Steve. Apparently I'm in a minority.

Too bad.

SBH

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> "fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part:

> Marketing tends to decrease prices, not increase them. Businesses market in
> order to increase sales. The increased sales have to more than offset the
> marketing cost, or marketing isn't done the next time or is reduced. The
> increased sales spread fixed costs (such as drug development and testing and
> FDA submissions etc.) over a larger number of sales, bringing the cost down
> and allowing a drug to compete in the marketplace at a lower price.

COMMENT:

Just so. That's pretty obvious in selling novels or magazines, so why
do people's mental circuit breakers trip out when it comes to
pharmaceuticals? A pill is a piece of physically instantiated
information, like a newspaper. It should be obvious that the more
subscribers you can find for your newspaper, say the New York Times,
the better the quality of the paper you can produce for the
subscription price. So, does subscriber advertising really tend to
*raise* the price of a subscription to the TIMES, or decrease it?

The irony is that the regulatory burden on the the pharm industry is so
high right now, mostly due to activists like Zee, that they really are
forced into the kinds of economies of scale which only large scale
advertising CAN deliver. Zee wants a small limited edition art-journal
kind of world, while demanding the kind of monster potective regulatory
infrastructure that, were it to be imposed on the publishing industry,
only formulaic best-sellers could support. And wonders why my heart
doesn't bleed for her position.

A story, reported by a nutritionist and MD I once read. Once upon a
time, there was a wonderful new anitbiotic for TB (panacea!), which
caused blindness in lab animals (plaugue!). But such were the horrors
of TB at the time, that they decided to do limited trials on humans
anyway, since our retinas differ somewhat from the average animal (as
you can see at night with a flashlight). They ran the tests, warning
the sanitarium patients to report the slightest problems with vision.
After some time, a walk through the wards produced one fellow who was
"reading" his magazine upside down. Turned out he couldn't see at all.
They asked why he'd said nothing. He replied that he'd seen too many of
his friends go out the back door over the years, and he was determined
to go out the front, even if if with a cane and dark glasses. He knew
if he complained, they'd stop the drug (They cut his dose, his vision
came back, and he was later able to re-start).

That research world described above, is gone. The drug never would have
gone to human trials in THIS world, and *everybody* in the hospital
would figuratively have gone out the back to the body removal lift, in
the politically correct way. Say "Tuskeegee," and remember them in your
prayers.

And TB, meanwhile, is winning. New drugs are more and more too
expensive to develop, and when we try it in Africa to cut costs, there
are political objections and more muttering about Tuskeegee. Corporate
greed is blamed for the spiggot running dry. So TB continues to rank
with the top killers of people every year in the world. That's our
unintended consequences of limiting individual choice, and interfering
with research. That's our brave new world of best-sellers or nothing.

SBH

PS. The drug in the story, however, survived its trials and is still
used for TB, albeit with careful vision testing. All doctors know
ethambutal. Now no longer panacea or plague, but just a perfectly
pedestrian pharmaceutical. Albeit an older one.

S.

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

fresh~horses wrote:
> You presume to know why people who sign petitions do so. I think the
> reasons are varied. Not all reasons will be so restrictive as you
> imagine of your *right* to play chemist until you finally get it.

COMMENT:

Somebody has to play chemist until they finally get it! Who do YOU
propose? You obviously don't like the present set of players. Who you
gunna hire instead? And why should they do what you say? Or care,
since you don't seem to?

SBH

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> fresh~horses wrote:
>
>
>
> Not "far more." The figures are roughly comparable, and much depends on
> what you count as "marketing" and what as "research." Is dealing with
> the FDA on how to present the data for those package inserts
> "marketing" or "research"? How about publication costs and conference
> travel? How MUCH conference travel? Research isn't done in the rest of
> science until the paperwork is done. If you go to "pure" academic
> research conferences, you'll find that self-promotion, and promotion of
> results, is hardly limited to results that stand to make any kind of
> profit.
>
> What is this "graft?" You think advertising is "graft"?

Well perhaps I chose the wrong word. SWAG? And, DTCA is so far not
allowed here. I think that's what I mean. It really takes a huge chunk.
You know that. You just think it's ok. Call it education. OrwellSpeak.

>
> Complaining that you pay for "marketing" when you pay for a product
> (including a medical product) is like complaining that you pay for
> "transportation" from the field when you buy strawberries. It's part of
> the business. If it's not done, most of the fruit stays in the field,
> where it rots.

: ))

What YOU want, is for somebody to go out and pick it for
> you, select and sort it for you, and bring it to you, all for free.

Not at all. Taxes is the preferred way here. But even so, there are
lots of out of pocket expenses. None of the several products I've used
recently were covered under taxpayer supported heatlth care. I paid out
of pocket. The preferred delivery system for estradial cost me $110.
This spate of products will be the first I've used since statins, and
they were the first since antibiotics in the '70s. See when you aren't
subjected to pharma shill day in and publication out, you are less
susciptible to thinking you need something picked, selected and sorted
to continue living.

> Well, that's not the way the universe works. It's not even the way
> Canada works (though this may not be immediately apparent).
>
> It would be nice if somebody picked the nicest strawberries and brought
> them to your door as a public taxpayer funded service, I suppose. And
> dipped them in chocolate, too. But I don't think that's going to
> happen.
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
> BIG difference. Master and student can trade places in an instant,
> depending on the game (How do you beat Bobby Fisher? Play him at
> anything but chess..). But parent and child is more permanent, and
> more pernicious. Especially when government is involved.
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
> And why do you think so? Because it can't happen to me, or because you
> don't think it CAN happen to me? And if not, why not? This is not a
> rhetorical question. It relates to the cost of information (or rather,
> wisdom) and who's going to pay it.
>
>
>
>
> Too bad.

> SBH

fresh~horses

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Of course I care. I sometimes wonder who's point of view you are
attributing to me? Point of view can change depending on the issue.
It's not knee jerk left, always.

Some technology is too precious to be owned by one entity.

I know you don't agree with that. But we have the pretense, at least,
of living in democracies, you and I. And I have the option and right to
change my mind as I learn more about anything.

Zee

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

O'Hush wrote:
>
> Fine. Those concerns should be taken to lawmakers and law enforcement
> officials.

COMMENT:
Who are powerless, due to certain politicians. Who can only be
displaced by running nasty ads, in some cases. Politics is dirty. I
don't think there's any way of keeping it clean, do you?

> How is the situation improved by mistreating and villifying 5yo
> Latino kindergarteners and their parents? I'm sure some of those kids are
> legal. Had you seen the TV ad I spoke about, I feel certain you would have
> found it embarrassing.

COMMENT:

I probably would have. But I find the present school situation in MY
state (California) even more embarrassing. It's far worse than in
yours, and for the reasons the ad addressed. The widdle 5-year old was
a well paid child actor, and probably wasn't that embarrassed. His
parents weren't too embarrassed to sign the contact paying him scale
for TV time, anyway.

As for stereotyping all the little Latin-looking kids in school,
whether legal or not, there's a simple way to fix that. Remove the
illegal ones. Then everybody knows the ones left have a right to be
here. It's rather the same argument for ending reverse-discrimination.
It increases respect on all sides.

>
> Oh, Dubya wants to send them home? Seems to me he is very
> immigrant-friendly, legal or not. It's good for his corporate masters
> because immigration probably depresses wages, and it's good for him because
> he gets the Latino vote.

COMMENT:
Well, touche', but Bush is the main reason nothing is getting done
about this problem. (And by the way, although it got him the
Latino(ina) vote in Texas, he lost it nationally. So I'm not sure why
he's so grateful.)

>
> My position isn't that we should open our borders or not enforce immigration
> laws; only that an individual conservative Republican NC state senate
> candidate, who nearly got elected, ran a TV ad that was horrifyingly
> insulting to Latinos and gays. I gave this only as an example of the kind
> of idiocy I see here in the name of conservatism.

Having not seen the commercial, I cannot comment.

> My initial point was that the nuts have taken control over the political
> discourse in this country so completely that it is difficult to hold a
> discussion that bears any fruit. You seem to be at once agreeing with me
> and arguing with me.

COMMENT:
Sigh. As has been noted by many, the nuts control *most* political
discourse. I don't know why--- perhaps it is because only nuts care
enough to spend all the time it takes to do much politiking.

My other main theory of politics is that much of it is
misplaced/misapplied instinctual parental behavior. Parents have nutty
opinions regarding their offspring (do you tell YOUR friends what you
really think of their offspring?). They also have opinions regarding
dangers to their offspring which are looney to the point of frank
paranoia. I swear to God we bombed Iraq partly because of a lot of
people who were genuinely afraid at some level that Saddam Hussein was
going to send over planeloads of nerve gas to poison their children in
Upper Buttcrack, Georgia (or wherever).

So let us pretend you are a politician. Who are you going to play to?
Adult libertarians? Or a bunch of not-overbright parental units, stuck
mindlessless in fierce child-safety protection-mode? Bush got elected
on the idea that no child would get left behind, remember? Doesn't
that image of a child getting left behind, really do a number on your
heart-strings? Never mind if there's anything substantial to it.

SBH

PS: Alas, what then happened is he got us into a completely unnecessary
$200 billion dollar war (and that's just authorized spending SO FAR),
when it turns out we will need just about that much money just to
completely clean up and repair the recently flooded gulf. Or course,
we'll now have to do BOTH.

So only my wallet got left behind.....

S.

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> fresh~horses wrote:
>
>
>
> ...and all I've got is this damned coffee mug...
>
> Steve

COMMENT:

Well, that's because that $5.7 billion is a total cost of the
opperation. Most of it goes to pay salaries of the drug reps which go
to see doctors in their offices, AND I suspect it counts also cost of
free samples of drugs given out by those reps, which is the only reason
most doctors put up with the drug reps (so they can get the samples,
and have something to give to their indigent patients).

The "$6000 to $7000" per doctor is a completely misleading statistic.
The doctor never sees usually anything more of that gross advertising
cost for his personal use other THAN a coffee mug, a pen, and some
reprints. Which is why these stories sound so weird to most of us. It
ain't being used to fly us to Aruba (or even Bonaire, where the better
diving is). Yes, some few physicians really work the system giving drug
lectures, and that CAN pay well. But your own doc (however he or she
was) is probabaly not one of them. I could have done it for Fosamax and
some other drugs, but turned all that down. Didn't feel like science.

I think the biggest things I've ever accepted from drug companies were
some very nice host-bar caffeteria-style soiree/dances, after a few
scientific conventions. I remember one at the Wriggley mansion above
Phoenix, which the company had rented for the evening. Given by the
Plavix people, I think. Or maybe it was the Aggrenox people. Anyway,
when it came to strokes, they were against them. Had a fine time.

Came back and gave out so many of these drugs that all my patients bled
out of their eyes, eyes, noses, and some even developed the stigmata of
Jesus.

SBH

O'Hush

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1126648600.898463.309000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> O'Hush wrote:
>
> COMMENT:
> Who are powerless, due to certain politicians.

What do you recommend?

> Who can only be
> displaced by running nasty ads, in some cases. Politics is dirty. I
> don't think there's any way of keeping it clean, do you?

I think it could be a lot cleaner than it is currently here in the US. Or
do you recommend we just wring our hands and piss and moan?

are[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> COMMENT:
>
> I probably would have. But I find the present school situation in MY
> state (California) even more embarrassing. It's far worse than in
> yours, and for the reasons the ad addressed. The widdle 5-year old was
> a well paid child actor, and probably wasn't that embarrassed. His
> parents weren't too embarrassed to sign the contact paying him scale
> for TV time, anyway.

There were no such images of any Latino kid in the ad. It showed stock
footage of Mexicans rushing the border and climbing over a fence, and made
statements about overcrowded schools, etc., and gay men french kissing. It
was the tone that was offensive.

> As for stereotyping all the little Latin-looking kids in school,
> whether legal or not, there's a simple way to fix that. Remove the
> illegal ones. Then everybody knows the ones left have a right to be
> here. It's rather the same argument for ending reverse-discrimination.
> It increases respect on all sides.

You go right ahead.

the[vbcol=seagreen]
because[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> COMMENT:
> Well, touche', but Bush is the main reason nothing is getting done
> about this problem. (And by the way, although it got him the
> Latino(ina) vote in Texas, he lost it nationally. So I'm not sure why
> he's so grateful.)

Florida. Where were you?

immigration[vbcol=seagreen]
kind[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Having not seen the commercial, I cannot comment.
>
me[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> COMMENT:
> Sigh.

Not sure how to interpret that sigh.

> As has been noted by many, the nuts control *most* political
> discourse. I don't know why--- perhaps it is because only nuts care
> enough to spend all the time it takes to do much politiking.

You know, you actually do a lot of politicking yourself here.

> My other main theory of politics is that much of it is
> misplaced/misapplied instinctual parental behavior. Parents have nutty
> opinions regarding their offspring (do you tell YOUR friends what you
> really think of their offspring?). They also have opinions regarding
> dangers to their offspring which are looney to the point of frank
> paranoia. I swear to God we bombed Iraq partly because of a lot of
> people who were genuinely afraid at some level that Saddam Hussein was
> going to send over planeloads of nerve gas to poison their children in
> Upper Buttcrack, Georgia (or wherever).
>
> So let us pretend you are a politician. Who are you going to play to?
> Adult libertarians? Or a bunch of not-overbright parental units, stuck
> mindlessless in fierce child-safety protection-mode? Bush got elected
> on the idea that no child would get left behind, remember? Doesn't
> that image of a child getting left behind, really do a number on your
> heart-strings? Never mind if there's anything substantial to it.

Um, no, actually. It all sounded too simplistic. Turns out it is.

> PS: Alas, what then happened is he got us into a completely unnecessary
> $200 billion dollar war (and that's just authorized spending SO FAR),
> when it turns out we will need just about that much money just to
> completely clean up and repair the recently flooded gulf. Or course,
> we'll now have to do BOTH.
>
> So only my wallet got left behind.....
>
> S.

So let's hear your list of solutions.

Dr. Wayne Simon

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

the analogy of magazine prices in reference to advertizing, or newspaper
prices, with prescription medication prices, is not really a workable
economic comparison.

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> Isn't that the way Canada works? I understand there's some kind of
> flow chart with a point system. You know, the one all us lefties were
> asking about after the election last November.
> What's H1B?
>
> Steve

Type of US visa for skilled workers. Has a numbers cut-off each year.

http://www.h1base.com/

Locals naturally complain that it sort of "outsources" skilled jobs to
foreign workers willing to work for less, even in the US.

You know, like Kaiser-Permanente hiring foreign-educated docs, just out
of their US internships, for $75,000? They might not speak the
language that well, and they don't have much experience. But they have
the sheepskin.

Again, how much is wisdom worth? And do you really want to pay it?
That depends on how wise YOU are, grasshopper.

S.

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

O'Hush wrote:
>
> What do you recommend?

Vote them out of office.

>
> I think it could be a lot cleaner than it is currently here in the US. Or
> do you recommend we just wring our hands and piss and moan?

No, but if the only way to get rid of a bad politician is a ad that
offends your sense of good taste, then maybe it's worth the high price.

>
> Florida. Where were you?

In California. Well the Cubans were a special case (pissed off with
Clinton/Gore over Elian Gonzales), and (on relooking) it came out that
Florida was the ONLY state (including Texas, to my surprise) where
Latinos voted Bush (49%/48%). But we're not being flooded with Cuban
immigrants.

>
> You know, you actually do a lot of politicking yourself here.

Again, touche, but straight politics is actually a fairly small part of
my actual net activity. Or do you follow me in sci.physics, too?

Lately I've gotten more political because certain people have insisted
on politicizing sci.med. In years past, it wasn't quite so bad.

Of course, you can define politics so broadly that nearly every social
opinion can be seen as a political one. I'm sure many people would
consider any opionion on homosexuality to be a political opinion. On
the otherhand, suppose I think the FDA is a mostly evil organization
(which I do). Is that a political opinion? I think the same about the
FDA whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. As you say, there
are many dimensions in political thought and some of them are
orthogonal to the line that defines right-left.

>
> So let's hear your list of solutions.

COMMENT:

Well, my solution to the Iraq war was stated prior to March, 2003.
Let's not.

At the time I (like everybody else) thought Hussein had nerve gas and
maybe anthrax also. I'm not clairvoiant. But I didn't CARE. He hadn't
used it in 1991 on Israel (which has nukes and doubtless threatened to
use them), so why should he ever use it on the US or anybody else with
the capacity to blast him for it? No new problem existed in 2003. He
was as contained as he'd ever been-- indeed even more contained. I
didn't care if he threw out every inspector forever, so long as he
didn't start building nuclear powerplants (don't confuse or conflate
nukes with ANY other weapon-- linguistically or otherwise). I thought
doing Iraq would detract from our search for bin Laden, which it has
done (to our immense cost). I never had any idea how bad it would be.
It has also kept us from dealing with Iran, which really DID
participate in 9/11, and has yet to pay for doing so. We cannot afford
to let our unquestioned attackers off, while we pursue wild geese. We
have to some extent done so. We live in a world which will eat your
lunch if you behave that way.

$250 billion is a lot of money to waste ($50 billion more is scheduled
to be voted on for Iraq, over the $200 already committed). To
paraphrase E. Dirkson: a quarter-trillion here, a quarter trillion
there--- pretty soon you're talking about real money.

As for OUR gulf and Katrina, I won't try to be a Monday morning
quarterback. These things happen; that's what Fed taxes are for. But if
it's later determined that Bush's pulling of the civil engineering
project funding (to pay for the frigging Iraq war) WOULD have made a
difference in the levee disaster, there's going to be some BIG
explaining to do there. And in any case, as I said, one
quarter-trillion dollar disaster per administration, is enough.

SBH

Jim Chinnis

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in part:

>"The pharmaceutical industry estimates that it
>spends about $5.7 billion a year on marketing directly to physicians,
>which works out to about $6,000 to $7,000 per doctor."

Wow. I would have guessed that the gals who strut into my doctor's office
every time I'm there must be making $100 an hour. There's one there about
half the time, and that alone totals about $100,000 a year. With three docs
in the practice, that's $33,000 per doc not counting samples!

Considering that the doc never has let any of the reps in, at least while
I've been there, I think I'll sell my pharma stocks. They've all been
losers, anyway.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Dr. Wayne Simon wrote:
> the analogy of magazine prices in reference to advertizing, or newspaper
> prices, with prescription medication prices, is not really a workable
> economic comparison.

COMMENT:

And just why not? I rather liked it. The marginal cost of producing an
additional number of pills, once you've got the drug and the license to
sell it, is pretty darned small in comparison to all the rest.

SBH

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> Considering that the doc never has let any of the reps in, at least while
> I've been there, I think I'll sell my pharma stocks. They've all been
> losers, anyway.

COMMENT:

Now, now. We all know pharma is a license to print money, and makes
more money than any other sector of the economy. It can't possibly be
that your pharm stocks are money-losers. The industry is so bloated and
corrupt with profit that you really *can't* lose by investing there---
especially with a a pharm sector stock-fund. That's what the Left says.
And since when are they ever wrong?

SBH

O'Hush

2005-09-24, 2:33 pm

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1126656945.359018.108410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> O'Hush wrote:
enforcement[vbcol=se