|
|
#111
10-08-2007, 10:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
I think I'll join you for a dunk in the crazy tank. The mere act of governments discussing regulating drug prices kills people. [/ QUOTE ]If you read the two BMJ links (both of which are based on the authors' experiences of uncovering fraud by the pharmaceutical industry), you'd know that rampant profiteering kills people; it's very very easy to cheat a drug trial and then spin the results. It was the Vioxx scandal that led congressional hearings and to the most recent change in policy by the major medical journals; they no longer publish industry-sponsored research unless the authors can show they were contractually free to publish (as described by the ever ethical Dave Sackett here). It's intensely naive to think that unregulated private industry never cheats its customers. Taking that view in medicine kills people. Presumably, you agree that doctors need professional oversight for competency and ethics? Why not the salesmen who make such vast profits selling them medicines? 
|
|
#112
10-08-2007, 10:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think I'll join you for a dunk in the crazy tank. The mere act of governments discussing regulating drug prices kills people. [/ QUOTE ]If you read the two BMJ links (both of which are based on the authors' experiences of uncovering fraud by the pharmaceutical industry), you'd know that rampant profiteering kills people; it's very very easy to cheat a drug trial and then spin the results. It was the Vioxx scandal that led congressional hearings and to the most recent change in policy by the major medical journals; they no longer publish industry-sponsored research unless the authors can show they were contractually free to publish (as described by the ever ethical Dave Sackett here). It's intensely naive to think that unregulated private industry never cheats its customers. Taking that view in medicine kills people. Presumably, you agree that doctors need professional oversight for competency and ethics? Why not the salesmen who make such vast profits selling them medicines? [/ QUOTE ] Oversight? Yes. Government oversight? No. The FDA is entirely to conservative. If you want a perfect industry that never has faults, good luck. If a drug is released that harms some people, the FDA is on the hook. If they take too long to approve a drug, or don't approve it at all, there is no way of knowing how many people that die could have been saved. The design of the FDA produces standards of approval that are entirely to risk averse.
|
|
#113
10-08-2007, 10:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think I'll join you for a dunk in the crazy tank. The mere act of governments discussing regulating drug prices kills people. [/ QUOTE ]If you read the two BMJ links (both of which are based on the authors' experiences of uncovering fraud by the pharmaceutical industry), you'd know that rampant profiteering kills people; it's very very easy to cheat a drug trial and then spin the results. It was the Vioxx scandal that led congressional hearings and to the most recent change in policy by the major medical journals; they no longer publish industry-sponsored research unless the authors can show they were contractually free to publish (as described by the ever ethical Dave Sackett here). It's intensely naive to think that unregulated private industry never cheats its customers. Taking that view in medicine kills people. Presumably, you agree that doctors need professional oversight for competency and ethics? Why not the salesmen who make such vast profits selling them medicines? [/ QUOTE ] Actually, a LOT of posters are against government oversight of doctors too.
|
|
#114
10-08-2007, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Lifetime health coverage was part of what the racketeers of Enron stole from them when the pension disappeared. [/ QUOTE ] Lifetime health coverage? That's is/was a pretty sweet deal, then...if true. [/ QUOTE ]Not being in the US, I checked this out. Seems to be pretty standard to have retirement health insurance benefits; hardly surprising when losing them was so devastating to the couple I referred to. Turns out even the US media are noticing there's a problem. US media turn on corporate excess [ QUOTE ] Similarly, when Louis Gerstner retired as IBM's chief executive he became eligible for an annual pension of at least $1.1m, precisely what the company had promised in his contract when he joined the computing firm eight years previously. But, as part of a 1999 cost-cutting programme, many IBM employees are being forced to receive smaller pensions and retirement health insurance benefits than they were promised when they were hired. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#115
10-08-2007, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think I'll join you for a dunk in the crazy tank. The mere act of governments discussing regulating drug prices kills people. [/ QUOTE ]If you read the two BMJ links (both of which are based on the authors' experiences of uncovering fraud by the pharmaceutical industry), you'd know that rampant profiteering kills people; it's very very easy to cheat a drug trial and then spin the results. It was the Vioxx scandal that led congressional hearings and to the most recent change in policy by the major medical journals; they no longer publish industry-sponsored research unless the authors can show they were contractually free to publish (as described by the ever ethical Dave Sackett here). It's intensely naive to think that unregulated private industry never cheats its customers. Taking that view in medicine kills people. Presumably, you agree that doctors need professional oversight for competency and ethics? Why not the salesmen who make such vast profits selling them medicines? [/ QUOTE ] Actually, a LOT of posters are against government oversight of doctors too. [/ QUOTE ] Really? That's unbelievably naive and stupid. Wow. They get up to lethal shenanigans left to their own devices. It took years to prove that guy a fraud, whilst several kids died as a result in the UK alone (no idea if other countries got affected by the fraud, but we still have millions of kids at risk from this thieving liar).
|
|
#116
10-08-2007, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think I'll join you for a dunk in the crazy tank. The mere act of governments discussing regulating drug prices kills people. [/ QUOTE ]If you read the two BMJ links (both of which are based on the authors' experiences of uncovering fraud by the pharmaceutical industry), you'd know that rampant profiteering kills people; it's very very easy to cheat a drug trial and then spin the results. It was the Vioxx scandal that led congressional hearings and to the most recent change in policy by the major medical journals; they no longer publish industry-sponsored research unless the authors can show they were contractually free to publish (as described by the ever ethical Dave Sackett here). It's intensely naive to think that unregulated private industry never cheats its customers. Taking that view in medicine kills people. Presumably, you agree that doctors need professional oversight for competency and ethics? Why not the salesmen who make such vast profits selling them medicines? [/ QUOTE ] Actually, a LOT of posters are against government oversight of doctors too. [/ QUOTE ] Really? That's unbelievably naive and stupid. Wow. They get up to lethal shenanigans left to their own devices. It took years to prove that guy a fraud, whilst several kids died as a result in the UK alone (no idea if other countries got affected by the fraud, but we still have millions of kids at risk from this thieving liar). [/ QUOTE ] Sounds like all this regulation is doing an AWESOME job of preventing stuff like this...
|
|
#117
10-08-2007, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like all this regulation is doing an AWESOME job of preventing stuff like this... [/ QUOTE ]So you missed the post that points out that medical journals no longer publish "research" funded in this way, and the fact that Wakefield lied about his funding, and the fact that his co-authors dissociated themselves as soon as they realised what gullible fools they'd been. You think it'd be better if we had no General Medical Council to suspend them and strike them off the register if appropriate? Yeah...sure you do. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#118
10-08-2007, 11:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sounds like all this regulation is doing an AWESOME job of preventing stuff like this... [/ QUOTE ]So you missed the post that points out that medical journals no longer publish "research" funded in this way, and the fact that Wakefield lied about his funding, and the fact that his co-authors dissociated themselves as soon as they realised what gullible fools they'd been. You think it'd be better if we had no General Medical Council to suspend them and strike them off the register if appropriate? Yeah...sure you do. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] His behavior was fraud and would be just as illegal in the absence of a regulatory body. It sounds like the medical journals changed their publishing standards on their own. All your regulatory body did was revoke his license, which is an inconsequential action, since after his reputation was ruined, no one would hire him anyway.
|
|
#119
10-08-2007, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think I'll join you for a dunk in the crazy tank. The mere act of governments discussing regulating drug prices kills people. [/ QUOTE ]If you read the two BMJ links (both of which are based on the authors' experiences of uncovering fraud by the pharmaceutical industry), you'd know that rampant profiteering kills people; it's very very easy to cheat a drug trial and then spin the results. It was the Vioxx scandal that led congressional hearings and to the most recent change in policy by the major medical journals; they no longer publish industry-sponsored research unless the authors can show they were contractually free to publish (as described by the ever ethical Dave Sackett here). It's intensely naive to think that unregulated private industry never cheats its customers. Taking that view in medicine kills people. Presumably, you agree that doctors need professional oversight for competency and ethics? Why not the salesmen who make such vast profits selling them medicines? [/ QUOTE ] Oversight? Yes. Government oversight? No. The FDA is entirely to conservative. If you want a perfect industry that never has faults, good luck. If a drug is released that harms some people, the FDA is on the hook. If they take too long to approve a drug, or don't approve it at all, there is no way of knowing how many people that die could have been saved. The design of the FDA produces standards of approval that are entirely to risk averse. [/ QUOTE ] It also quashes everyone's freedoms by taking the liberty of deciding your risks for you and coercing into their decision. natedogg
|
|
#120
10-08-2007, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Bush vetoed a "children's health bill" today. this bill utilizes the classic political trick of naming a bill in some innocuous way that sounds wonderful for all, like the "clean air and water" act which provided access to timber for logging companies. [/ QUOTE ] I've often been told that Americans have no sense of irony, but I never believed it before. Did you read any of the links Nate? How do you justify this? [ QUOTE ] It's the money, dummy This prospectus is addressed primarily to drug companies, with good reason. One of them now has 10 products with more than $1bn in sales each, and some 165 million people worldwide take its medicines. Its market capitalisation recently passed that of Microsoft Corporation and is second only to that of General Electric. In 2000, the top nine drug companies in the United States had over $155bn in revenue. The top executives in these companies were paid between $3m and $17m plus stock options valued between $11m and $73m. Drug companies have the cake, and they are eating it too. Put simply, we want a piece of that cake. If you are not a member of this elite club, you may want to skip to table 3, where we list our bargain basement services. Once we have paid off our mortgages, we will consider pro bono work. Meanwhile, if you would like our help, please make sure to send us your credit card number and bank balance. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Your capacity for tangent continues to amaze me. The profits made by pharma are unrelated to the "Children's Health Bill". You continue to brilliantly enhance your persona of ignorant socialist euro-college kid. It's pretty funny. Nevertheless, your quoted excerpt (which you didn't link to by the way) is also funny in an of itself. Can I ask you, do you understand the difference between revenue and profit? Here's a hint: Exxon Mobil generates the most revenue of any company in a quarter. Do they generate the best return on investment? (hint: no) Also, do you believe that profit in an of itself is evil? Hopefully you've read my response explaining why it is important to drug companies to profit from their endeavors and why that means your socialist country is free-riding on american research. natedogg
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
