 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / April 2007More Evidence that Drug Makers Should Not be Allowed to Design and Perform Their Own Studies
Drug firms may sway cancer trials Email Print Normal font Large font Carol Nader February 27, 2007 DRUG industry-funded trials of breast cancer therapies are more likely to report positive results than those independent of drug companies, according to a report. Authors of the US study, who claim it is the first such analysis specifically focusing on breast cancer trials, say pharmaceutical industry involvement in published breast cancer research may affect the way the trial is designed, its focus and its results. The analysis has again raised concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest in research that is funded by drug companies. Three of the four authors of the analysis are consultants to drug companies. They reviewed 140 studies reporting breast cancer therapy results in 1993, 1998 and 2003. Almost half the studies reported some form of drug company involvement, whether it be co-authorship, supplying the drug or financial support. Of the 56 studies examined from 2003, 84 per cent of the industry- funded studies were "positive", compared with 54 per cent of the non- industry sponsored studies. The analysis was published in Cancer, the journal of the American Cancer Society. It was led by Jeffrey Peppercorn, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina school of medicine's division of hematology and oncology. He is also a member of the Speakers Bureau for Genentech and consultant to drug company Merck. "The impact of the growing pharmaceutical industry involvement in breast cancer clinical research appears similar to the impact of industry sponsorship documented in other fields of medical research," the report concluded. "The majority of clinical research currently is associated with the pharmaceutical industry, and this association appears to have an impact on research outcomes and may shape study design." David Henry, professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Newcastle, said the findings echoed similar studies. He said there was also "publication bias", in that journals were more likely to publish studies that were positive. "What you get in the end is industry-funded studies that find in favour of the commercial products are the ones most likely to be published and read by people," he said. Cancer Council Australia chief executive Ian Olver said companies "may be picking drugs that they're pretty sure are going to be winners". "It's certainly a problem that the biggest pool of money for clinical research is provided by drug companies that have at least a potential vested interest in the outcome," he said. A Medicines Australia spokeswoman said the industry made a significant investment in clinical trials involving cancer research. She said all clinical studies must be approved by an ethics committee, and most were now registered on a clinical trial register. Copyright © 2007. The Age Company Ltd. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/drug-firms-may-sway-cancer-trials/2007/02 /26/1172338547348.html > Drug firms may sway cancer trials > Email Print Normal font Large font Carol Nader [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > research is provided by drug companies that have at least a potential > vested interest in the outcome," he said. "potential vested interest" Hah! "vested interest" is vested interest. There is nothing "potential" about it. > A Medicines Australia spokeswoman said the industry made a significant > investment in clinical trials involving cancer research. Ooooohhhhhh...... that makes it all better then. They spent a significant amount of money to subvert science from an independent process to vested interest brand marketting. The amount spent makes it all better then, and that is just so much more acceptable. I say all of industries "significant investment" is a waste of money insofar as science is concerned, because it is not science, it is marketting. For anyone to call it science, one would have to wear pretty opaque rose-coloured glasses. > She said all clinical studies must be approved by an ethics committee, > and most were now registered on a clinical trial register. Time to re-vamp the "ethics" committee structure. And re-vamp the requirements to register these marketting efforts as clinical trials. Too many people with vested interests at the highest levels of the research industry. Heads must begin to roll. TC > Copyright © 2007. The Age Company Ltd. > > http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/drug-firms-may-sway-cancer-tri... > > "It's certainly a problem that the biggest pool of money for clinical > > research is provided by drug companies that have at least a potential [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > TC I noticed easy stepping by the article writer, as well. The tone of the piece is almost divorced from the facts presented. Look at the article as a microcosm of socio-economic consensus undergoing a large, systemic change. We are seeing two things happen at once. 1) The facts about industry corruption are coming to light, regardless. And 2) Social consensus still affords some measure of protection to the players in big business. What's important to see is that item #2 is on the decline, while item #1 is gaining momentum. Though outright fraud is possible, what is much more common is misinterpretation. That is, the actual experimental findings are discussed in a manner divoreced from reality. An example is an "essential fatty acid" study that featured a small number of pregnant cats. One of the cats had healthy kittens, despite a diet totally devoid of "essential fatty acids," yet the conclusion was that the "EFA" claim was supported. If "EFAs" are absolutely essential, then none of the cats could have given birth to healthy kittens. Thus, it's not a matter of outright fraud much of the time, but rather a cult-like allegience to textbook notions. Another example of the shenanigans being played can be found at: http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/ru486.shtml And there are examples of my site as well: http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/ On Feb 26, 5:45 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > Though outright fraud is possible, what is much more common is > misinterpretation. I think misinterpretation is not the problem with drug studies. Drugs have a fairly broad range of effect in which approval can be achieved, so that poor analysis is not the issue. There are three main problems with drug research and development to be addressed. 1) The premise for most drug research is flawed because the objective of achieving modification of a disease marker is meaningless. Unless the marker is proven to be a disease trigger, bending the marker will not prevent, treat, or cure illness. Such drugs also introduce new disease, such as cancer and stroke risk, in an unknown percentage of patients. The overwhelming majority of all prescription drugs are a threat to public safety and have not been shown to effectively treat disease or extend life. 2) The drug maker is permitted to design the study on which approval will be based. This violates any principle of "regulatory oversight" the public has a right to expect, and underscores the complicity of FDA on behalf of its primary funding source, the drug makers. 3) The absence of regulatory control preventing the media from sponsoring phoney "news" regarding drug development. Typically, a press kit is provided to media by the drug industry, therefore dissemination of such material constitutes promotion, not "news." Both that and direct to consumer advertising should be illegal. > That is, the actual experimental findings are > discussed in a manner divoreced from reality. An example is an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/ > On Feb 26, 5:45 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > promotion, not "news." Both that and direct to consumer advertising > should be illegal. The popular media bows to the advertisers. And pharma spend literally billions every year on guess what.... advertising in the popular media. TC > > That is, the actual experimental findings are > > discussed in a manner divoreced from reality. An example is an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >On Feb 26, 5:45 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: >> Though outright fraud is possible, what is much more common is >> misinterpretation. >I think misinterpretation is not the problem with drug studies. Drugs >have a fairly broad range of effect in which approval can be achieved, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >promotion, not "news." Both that and direct to consumer advertising >should be illegal. Much worse than misrepresentation is statistical incompetence, because the "medical statisticians" are essentially at the level of someone who cannot use statistics at a BA level; introductory methods courses without understanding cannot do better, and it would be difficult to get medical faculty to approve a "concepts" course which would require the use of people with real statistical knowledge. This is the case with government studies as well. The PROSPER study of statins in senior citizens is almost as flawed as any I have seen, and I cannot get the relevant information from the published "analysis"; I question how well the medical people could understand such a study. This applies to most of the medical studies I have seen. The FDA is not any more capable than those; however, it has set up protocols for the drug companies to use, and they are followed to the letter. The conditions on the design are rather stringent, but not necessarily sound, and the analyses are utterly simplistic. Well known factors are not included in the study, except as criteria for randomization, which is not the way to do it; effects are not independent of the initial response. Translation for the uninitiated: good for the average person does not mean good for YOU. As for complications in the future, this is not at all ascertainable in studying the effects of a drug for approval. Only approving the drug, and seeing what happens, can find this out, unless we learn enough biochemistry to get at this without clinical trials. If a drug increases the danger of cancer and stroke over 5 years from 1% to 2%, one would have to observe 4000 people for those 5 years to reliably find this out, although one could catch worse situations faster.  SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > In article <1172584448.394513.58...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What was that saying about the three knids of statistics - statistics, statistics and ???? TC > > In article <1172584448.394513.58...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > - Show quoted text - In the area of statistics and trials by drug companies, you might try reading "The Cholesterol Myth" by Uffe Ravnskov M.D. He looked into many of the major heart disease studies and found that many were flawed, but they helped the drug companies sell statin drugs. Chris >> > In article <1172584448.394513.58...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, >> > >On Feb 26, 5:45 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: >> > >> Though outright fraud is possible, what is much more common is >> > >> misinterpretation. ..................... >> > Much worse than misrepresentation is statistical incompetence, >> > because the "medical statisticians" are essentially at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > to approve a "concepts" course which would require the use >> > of people with real statistical knowledge. >> > This is the case with government studies as well. The >> > PROSPER study of statins in senior citizens is almost [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > such a study. This applies to most of the medical >> > studies I have seen. >> > The FDA is not any more capable than those; however, it >> > has set up protocols for the drug companies to use, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > Translation for the uninitiated: good for the average >> > person does not mean good for YOU. >> > As for complications in the future, this is not at all >> > ascertainable in studying the effects of a drug for >> > approval. Only approving the drug, and seeing what >> > happens, can find this out, unless we learn enough >> > biochemistry to get at this without clinical trials. >> > If a drug increases the danger of cancer and stroke >> > over 5 years from 1% to 2%, one would have to observe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University >> > hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558- Hide quoted text - >> > - Show quoted text - >> What was that saying about the three knids of statistics - statistics, >> statistics and ???? >> TC- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - > In the area of statistics and trials by drug companies, you might >try reading "The Cholesterol Myth" by Uffe Ravnskov M.D. He looked >into many of the major heart disease studies and found that many were >flawed, but they helped the drug companies sell statin drugs. >Chris The statin studies are among the worst, and they will not get better until much more complicated statistical methods than those I have seen in medical reports are used. I have had numerous doctors try to get me on statins, and I have managed to convince some that it was at least reasonable in my case not to do this. In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British government, it was stated that something was not important because its p-value was 0.052. If the p-value was 0.049, it would have been quite important. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > In article <1172783573.264397.30...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > because its p-value was 0.052. If the p-value was 0.049, > it would have been quite important. That's why drug approval should be based on endpoint data confined to clinical outcomes in real patients, not the bending of markers "sold" to the public as equivalent to the disease itself. > > The statin studies are among the worst, and they will not > > get better until much more complicated statistical methods > > than those I have seen in medical reports are used. I have > > had numerous doctors try to get me on statins, and I have > > managed to convince some that it was at least reasonable > > in my case not to do this. > > In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British > > government, it was stated that something was not important > > because its p-value was 0.052. If the p-value was 0.049, > > it would have been quite important. > That's why drug approval should be based on endpoint data confined to > clinical outcomes in real patients, not the bending of markers "sold" > to the public as equivalent to the disease itself. How can one distinguish between a "marker" and a disease? Hypertension is a marker because it can be measured, but hypertension by itself can cause damage to a body. The statins do lower cholesterol and reduce the incidence of CVD, but statins also reduce inflammation which makes it difficult to distinguish in which way the statins function to lower CVD. -- Ron > > > The statin studies are among the worst, and they will not > > > get better until much more complicated statistical methods [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How can one distinguish between a "marker" and a disease? A marker or markers are part of what characterises the disease. The disease shows itself as a collection of symptoms and markers. Controlling one marker or one symptom of a disease without regard to treating the cause of the disease is the most idiotic approach to disease treatment ever concocted. And for advanced degree pinheads to buy into it shows just how useless an advanced degree is. Hypertension > is a marker because it can be measured, but hypertension by itself can > cause damage to a body. Then determine the cause of the hypertension and and treat the cause. Seeking to reduce hypertension while completely excluding any consideration to the cause of the hypertension will sell drugs but will not result in anything else other than a slight lowering of the hyper tension at the expense of possibly very dangerous side effects while allowing the cause of the problem to continue and cause other symptoms and problems. But them thay can sell more drugs to control those markers and symptoms while still not address the underlying cause. If your tires go flat constantly from nails in the driveway, the mechanic will gladly sell you new tires every week while you break your back with a carjack to get the flat tires to the mechanic every week. You will be better served by buying a cheap magnet and clearing the driveway of nails in the first place. Cheaper and easier on your poor muscles. >The statins do lower cholesterol and reduce > the incidence of CVD, but statins also reduce inflammation which makes > it difficult to distinguish in which way the statins function to lower > CVD. Bullshit. Statins barely lower cholesterol, and cholesterol does not *cause* CVDs. It is an intermittent marker in CVDs, which means that in those that have CVDs sometimes there is elevated cholesterol. And there are many with CVDs that never showed any cholesterol problems. Lowering cholesterol slightly/barely with statins does nothing except cost you your money and your health while ignoring the real cause of CVDs which is a diet chronically high in nutrient-deficient highly- processed manufactured crap foods like sugar, hfcs, margarine, RTE cereals, white flour, most vegetable oils, htp and utp milk, etc. and deficient of real nutrients. TC > -- > Ron >> > > The statin studies are among the worst, and they will not >> > > get better until much more complicated statistical methods [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > clinical outcomes in real patients, not the bending of markers "sold" >> > to the public as equivalent to the disease itself. >> How can one distinguish between a "marker" and a disease? >A marker or markers are part of what characterises the disease. The >disease shows itself as a collection of symptoms and markers. >Controlling one marker or one symptom of a disease without regard to >treating the cause of the disease is the most idiotic approach to >disease treatment ever concocted. And for advanced degree pinheads to >buy into it shows just how useless an advanced degree is. >Hypertension >> is a marker because it can be measured, but hypertension by itself can >> cause damage to a body. >Then determine the cause of the hypertension and and treat the cause. There are times that symptoms need to be treated, and this is even when the cause cannot be treated. If someone has a high fever, get the fever down while investigating. And too often the causes are not known. There may be some moderately easy changes, like losing 50 pounds, which can have an effect on hypertension, but these are not really causes. Also, these do not always work. This does not mean that causes and their treatment are not looked for. Hypertension is a symptom, but can be dangerous by itself. >Seeking to reduce hypertension while completely excluding any >consideration to the cause of the hypertension will sell drugs but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >those markers and symptoms while still not address the underlying >cause. This is definitely considered. Also, if someone is going to lose 50 pounds, which itself has undesirable effects, it is still necessary to treat the hypertension. My late wife had hypertension which was treated, but with no recognizable cause, including weight. >If your tires go flat constantly from nails in the driveway, the >mechanic will gladly sell you new tires every week while you break >your back with a carjack to get the flat tires to the mechanic every >week. You will be better served by buying a cheap magnet and clearing >the driveway of nails in the first place. Cheaper and easier on your >poor muscles. Few medical conditions are as simply treated as such. There are more than 500 KNOWN internal medicine diseases, and for most people, only half of which they have are recognized, and a dozen at a time is not unusual. >>The statins do lower cholesterol and reduce >> the incidence of CVD, but statins also reduce inflammation which makes >> it difficult to distinguish in which way the statins function to lower >> CVD. >Bullshit. Statins barely lower cholesterol, and cholesterol does not >*cause* CVDs. It is an intermittent marker in CVDs, which means that >in those that have CVDs sometimes there is elevated cholesterol. And >there are many with CVDs that never showed any cholesterol problems. It depends on the person; the effect can be considerable. High LDL is known to cause deposits in blood vessels. On the other hand, high HDL tends to reduce the effect. The effect can also be minimal. We need research in pure biochemistry, not just to treat conditions. >Lowering cholesterol slightly/barely with statins does nothing except >cost you your money and your health while ignoring the real cause of >CVDs which is a diet chronically high in nutrient-deficient highly- >processed manufactured crap foods like sugar, hfcs, margarine, RTE >cereals, white flour, most vegetable oils, htp and utp milk, etc. and >deficient of real nutrients. What we know about nutrition is negligeable, and what physicians know about it is on the low side of what is known. I believe I know more than most people, and what you have said in your last statement is only partially true. It is also the case that "natural" diets are not optimal; evolution had to use what could be done, not what should be done. And when advising or prescribing for individuals, remember Your Mileage May Vary. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >>> > > The statin studies are among the worst, and they will not >>> > > get better until much more complicated statistical methods [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > Your Mileage May Vary. Of course, then there are those studies which "show" that a majority of elderly put on statins end up with a cancer diagnosis shortly thereafter. Reason? Probably because cholesterol is also an anti-oxidant. In important studies those with the absolutely lowest cholesterol levels (naturally) had the highest mortality rates. > Of course, then there are those studies which "show" that a majority of > elderly put on statins end up with a cancer diagnosis shortly thereafter. > Reason? Probably because cholesterol is also an anti-oxidant. In important > studies those with the absolutely lowest cholesterol levels (naturally) had > the highest mortality rates. More likely because cancer is a disease of the elderly. Longer you live, more likely you will get cancer. The shortly thereafter part argues against stain being the cause. >> Of course, then there are those studies which "show" that a majority >> of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > live, more likely you will get cancer. The shortly thereafter part > argues against stain being the cause. Or, more likely, the statins accelerated the disease. It may have been the Framingham study. But in any case, those who had the lowest natural levels of cholesterol had the shortest lives. >> Of course, then there are those studies which "show" that a majority of >> elderly put on statins end up with a cancer diagnosis shortly thereafter. >> Reason? Probably because cholesterol is also an anti-oxidant. In important >> studies those with the absolutely lowest cholesterol levels (naturally) had >> the highest mortality rates. > More likely because cancer is a disease of the elderly. Longer you >live, more likely you will get cancer. The shortly thereafter part >argues against stain being the cause. This is not a valid argument; the treatment and control groups were both elderly, and age distribution was matched. The elderly tend to have a higher level of HDL, which is a survival factor, and LDL is in known to be involved in front-line activity against bacteria and viruses. Higher levels of HDL help against the bad effects of LDL, so the right balance is helpful. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > In article > <kurtullman-DF39ED.14533402032007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and viruses. Higher levels of HDL help against the > bad effects of LDL, so the right balance is helpful. Interesting. Are you saying that with the cancer diagnosis, too in addition bacteria and virii? I would still think that the shorthly thereafter part would argue against introduction of the statins as cause. Most environmental cancers that I am familiar with, lung and skin for instance, require long period of times before they show up. I would also think that the matching would probably argue against a bias because one side or the other is being generally followed closer and thus finding things that might not have been without the added poking found in trials.. > In article <YW_Fh.5685$PL....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > live, more likely you will get cancer. The shortly thereafter part > argues against stain being the cause. Non sequitur. Your premise does not support your conclusion. Our knowledge of the etiology of cancer, especially in relation to medication, is not sufficient to say anything about how quickly errant DNA could manifest clinically as a drug side effect. The fact that cancer becomes more likely as we age is not an argument against the potential for a statin to accelerate the incidence of cancer in those predisposed to it. Think about HRT, an "intervention" that elevated the risk (and therefore incidence) of both stroke and breast cancer in millions of women, yet we cannot say how much more quickly those who were already predisposed to those conditions experienced those diseases because of their "treatment." All we can say is that their risk was elevated. And that's all we *need* to know. PeterB > In article <1172861758.693608.287...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > diets are not optimal; evolution had to use what could > be done, not what should be done. You obviously only know a little more than a typical md, which is not very much. Like you said "negligible". We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these chronic diseases. Those nutritional requirements are not that much of a mystery. All the necessary vitamins, minerals and essential macro- nutrients are well known and easily available to us. We need to eat the most nutritionally sound foods available, and freshness is of great importance for nutrition soundness. Recognising that refined and overly processed foods are not useful nutrional sources is important. As well as recognising that some "foods" aren't foods at all. And some "foods" are detrimental to our health and, as such, can be classified as poisons. Soy was never a food and never will be. At best, when fermented, it is a condiment. Margarine is not food. Ultra high temp pasteurized milk is now a dead substance with little nutritional value. White flour is a starch and nothing more except for the cheap vitamins they throw into it so they can call it "enriched". Sugar is not a food and contains no nutrition. In fact it is a slow poison doing us great harm. Cyanide is a natural substance. I would not recommend it as a food. Eating natural stuff is a concept that needs to be refined. I suggest eating foods, real foods, in their as-near-to-natural states as possible. Real produce, grown in real healthy soils, eaten fresh. Real meats from real animals having been reaered on their natural foods. Minimal processing. And of course, avoid all the fake manufactured overly processed crap out there. No pill can make you healthy. Without real nourishment, optimum health is un-attainable. TC > And when advising or prescribing for individuals, remember > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those > nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these > chronic diseases. What bullshit. The chronic diseases of today were present in the past, when life expectancy was 35 years and food was in its natural unhealthy state. > > We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those > > nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when life expectancy was 35 years and food was in its natural unhealthy > state. That is bullshit. Diabetes T2 has tripled in 30 years. Obesity the same. CVDs as well. The only major lifestyle difference between now and the 1970's is the availability of refined and processed foods like sugars, hfcs, white flours, manufactured crap food in general, high temperature pasteurised milk, soybean proteins, etc. The impact of hfcs and sodas on health cannot be over emphasized. In the 70's, I was a teenager and if I drank two sodas a month, that was quite the treat. Today, almost every fridge has a couple of 2 litre jugs of soda. Every fast food meal includes a litre or two of soda. Every day millions of people now consume litres and litres of that crap that conatins no nutrition, tons of calories, and hfcs that buggers up your blood glucose levels to obscenely high levels, chronically. RTE cereals are consumed by the ton by children. RTE Cereals contain nothing but denatured grain starch, chemical flavourings, and copious amounts of sweetners like hfcs. Kraft Mac and Cheese is crap food. No nutrition whatsoever. One of the biggest selling orange drinks is Sunny Dee, it is a thick sugary syrup coloured orange and flavoured with chemicals. Kids are drinking it by the gallon. White bread contains no nutrition, except for the cheap vitamins they throw in so they can call it "enriched". Powdered soup bases are not real food. They are piles of chemical flavourings and colouring. And you wonder where these chronic diseases are coming from. It is plain and simple malnourishment. These chronic diseases have been plaguing us, to some degree, since about 12,000 years ago, with the advent of grain agriculture in Europe, and have only recently, the last 30 year, exploded in incidence. And it was not unusual for people to live into their 80's and 90's several centuries ago. The causes of early death often included infectious diseases, accidents leading to infections, dental abcesses, warfare, etc. Remember, they did not have good concepts of hygiene and they had no access to anti-biotics. Infections were typically uncontrollable. Chronic diseases like diabetes T2, heart disease, cancers occurred but not at nearly the levels seen today. Your sweeping generalisations are crap. And dead wrong. TC >> > We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those >> > nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > TC Going on and on and on about all the various foods that are not the best and actually somewhat negative ONLY CLOUDS the base, excess sugar, real and substitute. Overstatement and generalities ONLY CLOUD the basic issue, excess sugar. It's like yelling and screaming in a crowd about the man who has a rope and knife in his hand and is naked and extremely dirty. Forget the idea that he has a gun pointed at you and has already shot ten people. >> > We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those >> > nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > TC >> > We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those >> > nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > TC Your post therefore "proves" that life expectancy is declining. In FAct, it is increasing. Thus modern diets are doing something right, despite your fear of soda and everything else. > >> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I never said anything about life expectancy declining. I refuse to debate with a.sholes who twist my words around to fit their bullshit. TC >> >> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > TC Also, life expectancy has change very little. When taking into account infant mortality drop and sub teen death rate drop, life expectancy is LESS. The base should be how long a seventeen year old is expected to live. >>> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1172871306.001969.13310@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>> >> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>news:1172864442.488404.302060@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com... >>> >> > We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those >>> >> > nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these >>> >> > chronic diseases. >>> >> What bullshit. The chronic diseases of today were present in the >>> >> past, >>> >> when life expectancy was 35 years and food was in its natural >>> >> unhealthy >>> >> state. >>> > That is bullshit. Diabetes T2 has tripled in 30 years. Obesity the >>> > same. CVDs as well. The only major lifestyle difference between now >>> > and the 1970's is the availability of refined and processed foods like >>> > sugars, hfcs, white flours, manufactured crap food in general, high >>> > temperature pasteurised milk, soybean proteins, etc. All of these crap foods were available in the 1930's, with the exception of soybean proteins, which research seems to justify as beneficial. As for Type 2 diabetes, which I have, part of the increase is due to longevity, part to the control of the disease, and part to the change in the definition. I would have been diagnosed at least 15 years earlier under the current standards. There are also treatments not available 30 years ago, and it was about 30 years ago that the disease was recognized as insulin resistance, not deficiency of normal insulin. Insulin resistance can start years before even moderate recognition can occur. Never being overweight, even as a child, may prevent the genetic condition. The prevalence of this disease is due to its genetic advantages under primitive conditions; it rarely is a debilitating condition until reproduction is over. .................L SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > As for Type 2 diabetes, which I have, part of the increase > is due to longevity, part to the control of the disease, > and part to the change in the definition. I would have > been diagnosed at least 15 years earlier under the current > standards. Hmmm... interesting view. While things like an altered definition of diabetes can increase the prevalence, that alone won't come near accounting for the tremendous increase. There is undeniably an increase of diabetes, meaning per 1000 people, more of it truly have the illness than in past eras. The collective laziness and fatness of our society probably does play a signficant role in that. >>>> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > As for Type 2 diabetes, which I have, Out of about 30 patients with type 2, I do not know of a single one who didn't have a ridiculous diet including much sugar when a teen. THEY don't think so and STILL are completely stupid in their diet. >part of the increase > is due to longevity, part to the control of the disease, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > overweight, even as a child, may prevent the genetic > condition. And having a decent diet, low in sugar and high in several B systems and Cumin and Cinamin. But, like you say flat out obesity is deadly. There are those with a high metabolism who get it (succomb to it). These are the ones who die relativelyyoung with a meriad of other diseases. > The prevalence of this disease is due to its genetic > advantages under primitive conditions; it rarely is > a debilitating condition until reproduction is over. > > .................L >>>>> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1172871306.001969.13310@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>>>> >> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>news:1172864442.488404.302060@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com... >>>>> >> > We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those >>>>> >> > nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these >>>>> >> > chronic diseases. >>>>> >> What bullshit. The chronic diseases of today were present in the >>>>> >> past, >>>>> >> when life expectancy was 35 years and food was in its natural >>>>> >> unhealthy >>>>> >> state. >>>>> > That is bullshit. Diabetes T2 has tripled in 30 years. Obesity the >>>>> > same. CVDs as well. The only major lifestyle difference between now >>>>> > and the 1970's is the availability of refined and processed foods >>>>> > like >>>>> > sugars, hfcs, white flours, manufactured crap food in general, high >>>>> > temperature pasteurised milk, soybean proteins, etc. >> All of these crap foods were available in the 1930's, >> with the exception of soybean proteins, which research >> seems to justify as beneficial. >> As for Type 2 diabetes, which I have, >Out of about 30 patients with type 2, I do not know of a single one who >didn't have a ridiculous diet including much sugar when a teen. >THEY don't think so and STILL are completely stupid in their diet. When I was between 13 and 17, I was so skinny that doctors tried hard, and unsuccessfully, to put weight on me. By age 19, the situation had completely reversed. Go figure! >>part of the increase >> is due to longevity, part to the control of the disease, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> overweight, even as a child, may prevent the genetic >> condition. >And having a decent diet, low in sugar and high in several B systems and >Cumin and Cinamin. I like cumin, but I have never seen it labeled as promoting health. Cinnamon is of advantage for diabetics. I have seen ginger and turmeric touted, as well as green tea and very dark chocolate. The advantages of antioxidants and polyphenols is relatively recent; the FDA has not, to my knowledge,' approved any claims about them, or about omega 3 fatty acids. >But, like you say flat out obesity is deadly. >There are those with a high metabolism who get it (succomb to it). These >are the ones who die relativelyyoung with a meriad of other diseases. Now come up with a good method for losing weight and keeping it off; changing a person's set point is not that easy. Experiments on rats jibe with this, as well. >> The prevalence of this disease is due to its genetic >> advantages under primitive conditions; it rarely is >> a debilitating condition until reproduction is over. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >>>>>> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > tried hard, and unsuccessfully, to put weight on me. By > age 19, the situation had completely reversed. Go figure! Not at all uncommon even without any malady. You are not "mature" until around 25. Don't tell that to a 15, 18 or 21 year old. >>>part of the increase >>> is due to longevity, part to the control of the disease, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > approved any claims about them, or about omega 3 > fatty acids. Don't bet your health on FDA. As a diabetic you are probably aware that they REFUSE to let STEVIA be labeled as a sweetener. It's about the only safe one out there. >>But, like you say flat out obesity is deadly. >>There are those with a high metabolism who get it (succomb to it). These [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is not that easy. Experiments on rats jibe with > this, as well. Lower (not dumb lower) carb intake. Weight (resistance) training. Aerobics are absolutely great but do practically nothing for weight control unless one does enough to ruin every joint in their body. It's almost a sure bet (your sig) that you have a desk job. You didn't say. Were you mechanically active as a teen? (No I don't mean car mechanic) There is some evidence that highly active (weight bearing etc) teens produce a body metabolism model that requires higher than normal "forever" lifestyle. >>> The prevalence of this disease is due to its genetic >>> advantages under primitive conditions; it rarely is >>> a debilitating condition until reproduction is over. As an ex attendee of the U of Minn, I was told that Purdue U was mediocre :>) :>) Can't just let it go. ..................... >>>> As for Type 2 diabetes, which I have, >>>Out of about 30 patients with type 2, I do not know of a single one who >>>didn't have a ridiculous diet including much sugar when a teen. >>>THEY don't think so and STILL are completely stupid in their diet. >> When I was between 13 and 17, I was so skinny that doctors >> tried hard, and unsuccessfully, to put weight on me. By >> age 19, the situation had completely reversed. Go figure! >Not at all uncommon even without any malady. >You are not "mature" until around 25. >Don't tell that to a 15, 18 or 21 year old. .................. >> The advantages of antioxidants and polyphenols is >> relatively recent; the FDA has not, to my knowledge,' >> approved any claims about them, or about omega 3 >> fatty acids. >Don't bet your health on FDA. >As a diabetic you are probably aware that they REFUSE to let STEVIA be >labeled as a sweetener. It's about the only safe one out there. >>>But, like you say flat out obesity is deadly. >>>There are those with a high metabolism who get it (succomb to it). These >>>are the ones who die relativelyyoung with a meriad of other diseases. >> Now come up with a good method for losing weight >> and keeping it off; changing a person's set point >> is not that easy. Experiments on rats jibe with >> this, as well. >Lower (not dumb lower) carb intake. >Weight (resistance) training. >Aerobics are absolutely great but do practically nothing for weight control >unless one does enough to ruin every joint in their body. >It's almost a sure bet (your sig) that you have a desk job. Not only that, but I never had any other kind. During those teen years, I was a student and at the end a mathematics research assistant. Except for one year in the Army, much of that at desk work, I never had any other kind. Actually, aerobics did a great job for me, except it ruined my knee (soft tissue damage) and made it difficult to do much exercise since. Right now I have multiple problems.' I agree with you about carb intake; I do not do Atkins, but go more in that direction, and it seems not to have made anything worse. >You didn't say. Were you mechanically active as a teen? (No I don't mean >car mechanic) >There is some evidence that highly active (weight bearing etc) teens produce >a body metabolism model that requires higher than normal "forever" >lifestyle. No, never. I never had that much weight to bear at the time. >As an ex attendee of the U of Minn, I was told that Purdue U was mediocre >:>) :>) Can't just let it go. For many things, it is. Frankly, at this time, I do not trust an undergraduate degree in mathematics from any university in the country. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > ..................... > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > trust an undergraduate degree in mathematics from any > university in the country. Boy, have you got that right. Try being an Engineering or project manager and hire someone who can ACTUALLY APPLY math. >Also, life expectancy has change very little. >When taking into account infant mortality drop and sub teen death >rate drop, life expectancy is LESS. >The base should be how long a seventeen year old is expected to live. That value is also continuing to rise, vernon. Figures you wouldn't know that. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher >>Also, life expectancy has change very little. >>When taking into account infant mortality drop and sub teen death [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That value is also continuing to rise, vernon. Figures you wouldn't > know that. Correct. The life expectancy of a 17 year old today is greater than it was for a 17 year old 30 years ago. > I never said anything about life expectancy declining. I refuse to > debate with a.sholes who twist my words around to fit their bullshit. > > TC http://blog.naturalhealthperspective.com/2007/03/04/tc-sure-does-like-to-complai n-a-lot/ Agreeable as always, ... eh TC? --- http://blog.naturalhealthperspective.com/ Keep on Blogging on Dude! > >> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > it is increasing. Thus modern diets are doing something right, despite your > fear of soda and everything else. Bad logic. The rise in aggregate lifespan at the population level does not disprove the detriment of poor diet at the level of individual health. Maximum lifespan is genetic based, therefore diet may not be as reliably correlated to lifespan as it is to disease rates (and the evidence supports that.) A variety of factors other than diet are known to impact human health and lifespan, so while one variable is predisposing, another is mitigating. Health researchers are well aware that lifespan is not the primary measure of population health and fitness. I agree totally with TC's premise that dietary habits are well correlated to rates of disease and that lifestyle choices are the best tool we have for improving personal health, regardless whether we can extend our lifespans appreciably or not. PeterB > > >> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > does not disprove the detriment of poor diet at the level of > individual health. You have miserable logic. You are saying that one at a time we call all have poor diets but at the group level then live longer. Ha Ha Ha. On Mar 3, 6:59 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > You have miserable logic. You are saying that one at a time we call all > have poor diets but at the group level then live longer. Ha Ha Ha. I did not say everyone has a poor diet, I said longer life does not disprove the negative impact of a poor diet. Even a child of eight years old would understand that. Question: Can most people have less money than they need and still have enough money to live better than their grandparents? Of course they can. Don't allow your ignorance of the fundamentals of statistical science to fool you into thinking you know something you don't. PeterB > Your post therefore "proves" that life expectancy is declining. In > FAct, it is increasing. Thus modern diets are doing something right, > despite your fear of soda and everything else. How does one conclude that increased life expectancy is as a result of diet? Could it not be that other things are increasing life expectancy RELATIVELY more than bad diets are decreasing it? Of course. I'm not saying that's the case, but it is absolutely possible. > > Your post therefore "proves" that life expectancy is declining. In > > FAct, it is increasing. Thus modern diets are doing something right, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > more than bad diets are decreasing it? Of course. I'm not saying that's > the case, but it is absolutely possible. You don't get your name in the newspaper unless you declare we have a "crisis" of "-----fill in the blank...." Simply living longer does not count. > >> "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Life expectancy has leveled of. The generation that is now approaching 55 is in worst physical condition then the previous one. We are about to see an explosion of type to diabeates. This because of our overconsumption of sugars. The insulin resistant syndrome or near diabetes is a growing concern. Most life expectancy gains have been accomplished by reducing early childhood deaths. While many would attribute that to antibiotics and other medical procedures I agree with a recent article in the British Medical Journal that said better sanitation was the most inportant factor Some of the discussion above about statins which are the most widely prescibed drug in the world and which have not really been shown to decrease mortality when used in primary care. Medicine today is more about marketing drugs that treat markers. Every one Knows that hypertention is the silent killer but in a anylysis on bete Blocker published in the Lancet they were shown to be no better that placebo against heart diesease and only reduced stroke by about 15% and increased the incidence of diabetes .In the UK they have been removed as primary care for hypertention. Just Google [atenolol in hypertention a wise choice.]. Most MD don't understand that fact much easier to market The silent killer; Bad lipids and many other things. Easier sell then educating people on the inportance of diet ,excercise and a healthy lifestyle. >> We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those >> nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these >> chronic diseases. > What bullshit. The chronic diseases of today were present in the past, >when life expectancy was 35 years and food was in its natural unhealthy >state. Right on! We evolved to survive the "natural" availability, which was in no way optimal. Also, from the standpoint of survival, what life expectancy was best before civilization? Under hunter-gatherer conditions, a "senior citizen" may be useful as a store of knowledge, but is otherwise a drain on the resources of the tribe. The genetics for insulin resistance, which can lead to the full-blown disease, Type 2 diabetes, has survival advantages in conditions of famine, which our ancestors were likely to face. Now, it is likely to be only bad. Genes which have only bad consequences now had survival advantages under "natural" conditions. Sickly cell anemia is now at least somewhat treatable; it used to be almost certainly fatal. Sickle cell trait, the heterozygous form, has a small reduction in the ability of the blood to transport oxygen, but confers substantial ability to resist malaria. What is better when? SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > >> We evolved with certain specific nutrient requirements. Meet those > >> nutritional requirements and we will be healthy and free of these [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > which was in no way optimal. Also, from the standpoint of > survival, what life expectancy was best before civilization? I don't know about "best," Herman, but from archeological digs and so forth we know it was under 40 up until modern times. Most of the time it was about 30. > Under hunter-gatherer conditions, a "senior citizen" may be > useful as a store of knowledge, but is otherwise a drain on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which our ancestors were likely to face. Now, it is likely > to be only bad. Correct. > Genes which have only bad consequences now had survival > advantages under "natural" conditions. Sickly cell [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the blood to transport oxygen, but confers substantial > ability to resist malaria. What is better when? Then there is the natural ability to resist the plague, which also gives immunity to AIDS. >> In article <1172783573.264397.30...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > In article <1172584448.394513.58...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > >On Feb 26, 5:45 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: >> >> > >> Though outright fraud is possible, what is much more common is >> >> > >> misinterpretation. ..................... >> The statin studies are among the worst, and they will not >> get better until much more complicated statistical methods >> than those I have seen in medical reports are used. I have >> had numerous doctors try to get me on statins, and I have >> managed to convince some that it was at least reasonable >> in my case not to do this. >> In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British >> government, it was stated that something was not important >> because its p-value was 0.052. If the p-value was 0.049, >> it would have been quite important. >That's why drug approval should be based on endpoint data confined to >clinical outcomes in real patients, not the bending of markers "sold" >to the public as equivalent to the disease itself. Drug approval is based on such data; in the US, the FDA has essentially a rigid set of requirements. That it can be done better is not the fault of the drug companies. Few medical researchers understand the statistics they regularly use. The studies I have attacked include those done by the British government, not pharmaceutical companies. There are lots of similar studies, some of which may be sponsored by the companies themselves. They do show that statins have benefits, and nobody disagrees that they have risks, for some. It is quite possible that if everyone took statins there would be fewer cardiovascular problems, but even if this is the case, should everyone take them? SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > >> In article <1172783573.264397.30...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > fewer cardiovascular problems, but even if this is the case, > should everyone take them? Herman, have you shown in a refereed journal that applying the data analysis you prefer has or will have resulted in large-scale changes in outcomes? If not, why not? >>> > In article <1172584448.394513.58...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > because its p-value was 0.052. If the p-value was 0.049, > it would have been quite important. That is a matter of tradition, not FAct Herman. The .05 level is quite arbitrary as you well know. snip >> In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British >> government, it was stated that something was not important [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That is a matter of tradition, not FAct Herman. The .05 level is quite >arbitrary as you well know. It also depends on what the comparator arm is. If a placebo when other standards of care drugs exist, the clinical relevance may be nil. Another approach that could augment the p<0.05 (which, though arbitrary, is adhered to with some might), would be to apply Bayesian statistics. These may give a better idea of whether the findings may have clnical significance masked by a high p value. George M. Carter snip >>> In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British >>> government, it was stated that something was not important >>> because its p-value was 0.052. If the p-value was 0.049, >>> it would have been quite important. >>That is a matter of tradition, not FAct Herman. The .05 level is quite >>arbitrary as you well know. >It also depends on what the comparator arm is. If a placebo when other >standards of care drugs exist, the clinical relevance may be nil. If it is one drug or another, the double-blind tests can still be used. If the type of care is involved, this does not work. >Another approach that could augment the p<0.05 (which, though >arbitrary, is adhered to with some might), would be to apply Bayesian >statistics. These may give a better idea of whether the findings may >have clnical significance masked by a high p value. > George M. Carter It has been shown that the level of significance is not directly related to the evidence in favor of the new treatment, nor does it at all indicate the quantitative difference. The use of the likelihood function, which is the experimental evidence, is needed, and it is not at all difficult to show this. Also, multivariate statistical procedures, not at all new but apparently understood by few medical people, are needed and available. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > snip > >>> In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > new but apparently understood by few medical people, > are needed and available. I will strong agree with the last statement. Multivariate analysis especially for SES does show large social class differences which can easily mess up a so-called clinical study. >snip >>>> In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >still be used. If the type of care is involved, this >does not work. Double-blind wasn't the aspect I was referring to but rather the use of a placebo or, if one exists, a pre-existing standard of care. Often, drug companies prefer placebo especially if their new drug, very costly, isn't likely to be any better than older drugs. >>Another approach that could augment the p<0.05 (which, though >>arbitrary, is adhered to with some might), would be to apply Bayesian [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >is the experimental evidence, is needed, and it is not >at all difficult to show this. Please tell me more about the likelihood function. >Also, multivariate statistical procedures, not at all >new but apparently understood by few medical people, >are needed and available. There's a number of ways to undertake multivariate analyses that I think are rather routinely done. George M. Carter > snip > >> In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > George M. Carter Ok, but have you or Herman applied the Bayesian techniques to a clinical outcome to show the difference? >> snip >> >> In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Ok, but have you or Herman applied the Bayesian techniques to a clinical >outcome to show the difference? I cannot speak for Herman but I have not. Yet! I'm not a statistician but have worked on clinical trial development. An interesting paper in PLoS recently discussed the technique and how it can be used. Not as a replacement but rather as an adjunct analysis. But then, I think we need to FIRST clean up clinical science and eliminate the pernicious influence of privatized R&D which has turned it into a mockery where profit matters, lives and health are secondary and irrelevant. George M. Carter > >> snip > >> >> In one British study on diabetes, sponsored by the British [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > George M. Carter Medicince may be the only business where research is supposed to be supported by government. At least the drug companies do their own research. How much more can government do anyway? snip > Medicince may be the only business where research is supposed to be >supported by government. At least the drug companies do their own research. >How much more can government do anyway? Medicine should not be a business. That's the first, false premise. "Business" implies commodities. Is your life and health nothing more than a commodity? That view is genocidal when it goes to people being denied treatment due to overinflated and arbitrary costs. Government does a GREAT deal of R&D already--pharma thus benefits from tax dollars and then turns around, hides behind a distortion of patent law, and screws the crap out of everyone. Discovery pipelines narrow as blockbusters are exclusively sought. Crap like ezetimibe is vomited onto the scene, pointlessly--except for profit. Your question is excellent. The government can and does do clinical trials through phase 2 and even 3. I think that we can have public funding for all the way through post-marketing studies. (As an aside, this will work even better and with greater economy if we have a single payer health care system and thus fewer forms for physicians to waste time and lives with.) Kucinich I believe has a bill to sponsor just this kind of thing. Discovery then could be FAR more collaborative. Licensing fees up and downstream of the discovery process would be eliminated. Some stinking pharma lawyers might have to find other work as would the armies of brain dead, greed-fueled lobbyists and salesmen. A sacrifice that pales in comparison to the millions that could be helped when SCIENCE rules the roost, not profit. (And with a return to the use of patent to inspire innovation, not stockholder profit.) George M. Carter snip >> Medicince may be the only business where research is supposed to be >>supported by government. At least the drug companies do their own research. >>How much more can government do anyway? >Medicine should not be a business. That's the first, false premise. >"Business" implies commodities. Is your life and health nothing more >than a commodity? That view is genocidal when it goes to people being >denied treatment due to overinflated and arbitrary costs. Medical care is a commodity, which is, and will be, in short supply. That costs are overinflated and somewhat arbitrary is due to the existence of anti-insurance (no real insurance operates the way "medical insurance" does, and insurance company and federal regulations greatly add to the costs. My podiatrist told me he has as many clerks as nurses. At least 20% of the cost is due to this. >Government does a GREAT deal of R&D already--pharma thus benefits from >tax dollars and then turns around, hides behind a distortion of patent >law, and screws the crap out of everyone. I doubt that 10% of the testing costs of drugs is matched by government R&D. It should be all R, but this would go against the government mandates. >Discovery pipelines narrow as blockbusters are exclusively sought. >Crap like ezetimibe is vomited onto the scene, pointlessly--except for >profit. With the emphasis on cures, rather than on understanding, and this comes from the government funders, what do you expect? >Your question is excellent. The government can and does do clinical >trials through phase 2 and even 3. I think that we can have public >funding for all the way through post-marketing studies. Rarely. Doing this for ONE drug would use up a big part of the entire federal health R&D annual budget. >(As an aside, this will work even better and with greater economy if >we have a single payer health care system and thus fewer forms for >physicians to waste time and lives with.) If we have a single payer system, innovation will greatly decrease. I would like to get rid of the "reduced rates" allowed by the insurance companies. This CANNOT produce good medical care. Right now, many physicians are refusing to take Medicare patients because the government allowed rates are less than their marginal net revenues. >Kucinich I believe has a bill to sponsor just this kind of thing. >Discovery then could be FAR more collaborative. Licensing fees up and >downstream of the discovery process would be eliminated. Some stinking >pharma lawyers might have to find other work as would the armies of >brain dead, greed-fueled lobbyists and salesmen. It costs most of a gigabuck to carry out the phase 3 testing. Getting this back through temporary monopoly is the basis of the idea of patents; the patenter must provide the information for anyone "skilled in the art" to make the drug in return for the temporary exclusive rights. The government cannot pay for all of this. >A sacrifice that pales in comparison to the millions that could be >helped when SCIENCE rules the roost, not profit. (And with a return to >the use of patent to inspire innovation, not stockholder profit.) What typically happens is that the idea comes up, and then there is a sale of the patent rights (of unknown value at the time) to a company which can carry out development. I once came up with an idea for something to be used on an electronic computer, and a university patent committee decided that it was patentable, but not worth patenting. With medical patents, there is a special rule that the patent does not expire until 10 years after approval to market the drug, while for ordinary patents, there is a fixed time from submitting the patent. This is because it too often takes more than 10 years to get through the approval stages. Also, many drugs fail, and the costs of testing these need to be recovered. Science is what scientists do, not science administrators. At this time, the government is directing most science. Medicine seems to have the largest independent activity, instead of most science being in this category. I would rather get rid of almost all government involvement. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >snip > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Medical care is a commodity, which is, and will be, in short >supply. That's one view--one that has failed dismally. The United States as a result of embracing this view spends 15% or more of its GDP on healthcare, has outcomes in terms of infant mortality, longevity, etc. on a par with the Czech Republic (where they spend a LOT less on healthcare) and with 47 million of us uninsured. That's a model called "disaster" in any book but the kind of brain dead, head-up-the-a.s ostrich-style approach of people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. A lot of those costs are related to the tons of paperwork, forms in quintuplicate and efforts to deny claims that characterize the lethal and destructive "insurance" industry. snip... >>Government does a GREAT deal of R&D already--pharma thus benefits from >>tax dollars and then turns around, hides behind a distortion of patent [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >by government R&D. It should be all R, but this would go >against the government mandates. LOL...you're psychotic. The "D" part is a HUGE chunk of pharma's inflated lie that it costs $800 million to bring a drug to market (let alone that half the cost is capitalization). R&D costs would be MUCH lower without the thorny thicket of patents that charge outrageous licensing fees for every step in discovery. Let alone all the costs of sending millions of minions of brain dead reps to hawk drugs to physicians. >>Discovery pipelines narrow as blockbusters are exclusively sought. >>Crap like ezetimibe is vomited onto the scene, pointlessly--except for >>profit. > >With the emphasis on cures, rather than on understanding, >and this comes from the government funders, what do you expect? What in the world are you babbling about now? Oh my god. You really believe this bullshit? Provide some evidence then, please. George M. Carter > >snip > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > quintuplicate and efforts to deny claims that characterize the lethal > and destructive "insurance" industry. You know, of course, that all the uninsured could be covered if we stopped paying clerks to deny claims and simply paid for needed care instead. I notice the so-called "insurace" discount at work personally this month. A leg immobilizer (for a torn tendon), which is a velcro gizmo, was billed at $100. Approved charge? $17.95, which is ample. The poor slob without insurance gets the $100 bill. >> >snip >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >$100. Approved charge? $17.95, which is ample. The poor slob without >insurance gets the $100 bill. Yep--that's right. I'm one of those poor slobs. And they are going to murder me, just like they are murdering lots of people in the US and around the world to charge these unreasonable prices. I'm weary of living in |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message