Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=harvey]If it really cures cancer you could likely get FDA approval.[/quote]
Assuming a compound cures cancer (and that the side effects did not overwhelm the therapeutic effect) there is no question you could get FDA approval – if you pay for all of the clinical trials that are required (which costs hundreds of millions of dollars). For example: http://bit.ly/2gMANWL
In the present hypothetical, there is no patent protection, so you would pay that money and then anyone else who wanted to piggyback your FDA approval could do so for almost nothing and sell the same drug for the same indication. This would likely violate any corporate official’s fiduciary duty . . . so overall an unlikely outcome.
Participant[quote=moneymaker] It is only when the immune system is asleep at the wheel that cancer gets a foot hold and puts up barriers to the immune system. Removing those barriers is the secret.[/quote]
You realize that people have been working on this for a long time, right? If you’re interested, look up P53, checkpoint inhibitors, etc.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]OT: While in the amazon I discover a natural cure for cancer. It’s herbal and therefore not patentable, [/quote]
This is not true. Patentability does not have to do with whether it came from a natural source – it is whether the specific claimed invention is a product of nature. If I isolate something from a plant (i.e. taxol from pacific yew or vinca alkaloids from vinca plants, like the ground cover you use) and formulate it in a way that is therapeutic, it can be patentable because the formulation is not a product of nature.
[quote=moneymaker] cost to produce 1 pill is approximately 25¢ and it takes 3-5 pills to effect a cure. FDA does not regulate herbs (and no the herb is not weed). [/quote]
This is also not true. The FDA regulates herbal products if they are sold using a claim of therapeutic benefit. That’s why the supplement companies use all of the weasel words like “supports immune health” to avoid therapeutic claims.
[quote=moneymaker]
The only succesful company that started this way that I can think of is coca-cola but back then they did advertise it as being a cure for some sort of malady, which today would land you in court/jail today. So question in short is what to do with a cure for cancer that is cheap, not patentable, yet theoretically worth Billions? [/quote]If it’s not patentable, no commercial company can afford $500 million to $1 billion to do the clinical trial that would allow it to be sold to address a therapeutic purpose. So it isn’t worth billions unless it’s patentable. Generally speaking, only patented drugs (including drugs for which the patent has expired) are worth billions.
What is supposed to get done is the NIH is supposed to investigate these sorts of things but they have a long history of not doing much in terms of development. So the answer is, if it’s not patentable it will probably never be developed.
[quote=moneymaker]
Selling it to a pharmaceutical company for money might seem like the thing to do but they would probably just steal it as there own idea.P.S.- one part of the above story is a lie.[/quote]If it is not patentable, there is no property (that’s where the intellectual property thing comes in) to steal. You can’t steal something that someone can’t own. In other words it’s in the public domain. But, generally speaking, pharmaceutical companies won’t develop something that isn’t patentable. The generics do try to jump on the band wagon at the time of patent expiration – their strategy is to get in early and get some of the profits resulting from the former exclusivity before the priced falls.
Since your hypo is based on (at least one) false premise, it’s hard to answer your question. Of course, this is not intended to be legal advice.
Participant[quote=all]Elite private schools have limited capacity and the cost is the major control mechanism. LJCDS already has all the kids they want. They would just increase the cost by whatever the value of the voucher is.
I am a bit surprised that you would argue against Common Core, FLU. Important purpose of math in school is to develop problem-solving skills and common core math is doing that. It is the path that matters, not the number at the end. My 4th-grader can solve quadratic equations, but as long as he cannot explain the solution he is just a well-trained monkey.[/quote]
Most teaching methods work when the teachers are smart and like the subject they teach. Very few elementary school teachers like science and math and therefore we get kids who are uninspired in those areas (at least). The teachers yammer on about using various methods to solve math problems, but most of the times they don’t understand them or really don’t care. Last I heard the text books that have been published incorporating the common core had been slapped together in very short order. Because our schools were hesitant to buy textbooks that had not been road tested, they adapted modules from some education project in Utah and I have found them to be, frankly, crap. California no longer requires textbooks to be Oked by the California Board of education so the schools are able to teach from whatever they like. It’s depressing. It’s hard to have kids do really well in AP math classes without having some sort of external help.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]
This might sound crazy but all these nanny state laws are going to drive up costs for social security, medicare and other retirement expenses that workers subsidize. There’s no argument that they work, but the costs of people living longer are going to be our greatest challenges in the future. I shouldn’t say this as a man in striking distance of his 50th birthday but the system benefits from shorter lifespans. Youth is finite, the amount of years the young are a drain on the economy is fairly constant. Death keeps moving further out to the point that working life is nearing parity with retirement life. That is going to be a problem. Mark my words, you know I’ll bump and quote this prediction in 20 years.[/quote]This is a well known tendency and a big issue for the UK NHS, where it was found that those who follow a healthy lifestyle generate, on average, $417,000 in healthcare costs over the course of their lifetimes, whereas smokers and obese people cost $371,000 and $326,000 respectively (in 2008 dollars): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=2
So the recent rationing of health care in the UK based on obesity and smoking (using elective surgery as a carrot on a stick) seems somewhat counterproductive economically:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/obese-patients-and-smokers-face-6-month-surgery-ban/Really the cheapest thing would be to just kill everyone.
Participant[quote=PCinSD][quote=harvey][quote=PCinSD]Yes. Here’s just one example, among many. And there’s plenty of others where you have a blatant disgust for women in general. You are a mysogynistic, racist, elitist pos.[/quote]
He’s one helluva troll, that’s for sure.
He had Allen dancing to his tune for years. Brian couldn’t post anything with Allen jumping on it. And he still gets people worked up here. And never once are his feathers ruffled by anyone. Same pattern, every time. And they still get sucked in…
An odd but impressive phenomenon.[/quote]
Negative attention is the only attention he gets, so it’s somewhat understandable. He didn’t last too long the 1st time until Rich banned him. He still does the same shit, but when he can create an endless number of sock puppet accounts to bypass that, it does no good.[/quote]
His odd grammatical errors and weird world view is pretty identifiable – I’m pretty sure we’d know him under a different name. Somewhat of an Ignatius Reilly (although apparently the thin version). I wonder if he has a collie.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=NotCranky]
A good female would have won. It just means he gave up trying to find equality in a personal relationship with women and took candy that he could afford instead. Given that men are behind in the battle of the sexes, that’s not really all that dumb.[/quote]
Makes sense that men like Trump. He has what they want. They are hoping for some trickle down. Assuming that Melania is a 9.5 or 10, don’t Trump supporters who go to bed with 5s feel more than a little depressed? Apparently not.
Trump male supporters feel that democrats act elitist and intellectually superior. But Trump acts superior in the sex department. He clearly says “I don’t think so; I don’t think so” to the types of women his supporters actually have sex with. But his supporters don’t feel any condescension.
I was talking to some women about Trump.
I talked to cleaning ladies in the elevators and all say “el Trump es no bueno”
All the educated women i know or meet hate Trump. Attractive women hate Trump.The only women who support Trump are plain, chubby women. 6 or below, I would say
as evidences by the women we saw at Trump rallies. I wonder what attracts them to Trump.[/quote]It just keeps getting better. Brian – you are missing your opportunity – you should have a show on cable. If I think of a good title I’ll post it. You realize that “all the educated women [you] meet” could very well be zero . . . And I’ll say it again even though Harvey says I’m cruel to you – it’s no surprise you are single. You’re attitudes toward women are worse than any Trump supporter I’ve met. And I mean that.
Participant[quote=flu] and there would be ridiculous amount of six sigma processes [/quote]
Is that still a thing?
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd]
Looks like the list of Supreme Court justices under consideration don’t share your love of the coasts. They are listed in an NYT article entitled “Ivy League? Out. The Heartland? In.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-justices.html
[/quote]That’s ok. I’m would happily let the Supreme Court send social issues back to the states, that is the red states. Let them have what they want. Who are we to decide what’s good for them.[/quote]
So you must think Roe v. Wade was wrong (?).
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]So evangelicals voted for Trump.
I’m really at a loss how Trump represents Christian values.You’re right scaredy. Abortion is a biggy. He will have to do something.
Looks like the list of Supreme Court justices under consideration don’t share your love of the coasts. They are listed in an NYT article entitled “Ivy League? Out. The Heartland? In.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-justices.html
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] I think that Trump is the last stand of the old guard.[/quote]
According to Pew Research:
Clinton received a lower share of the vote among young voters (ages 18-29) than Obama received in 2012 or 2008. Young adults preferred Clinton over Trump by a wide 55%-37% margin; by comparison, Obama had a 60%-36% advantage over Romney in 2012 and a 66%-32% advantage over McCain in 2008.
At least according to these date, the Democrats are losing ground among the 18 – 29 age group and Republicans are gaining.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I like the protests. We need passion on the left so young people vote.
Trump getting elected is what happens when they don’t vote. Young people need to get with the program and vote.[/quote]Have you seen the Craigslist ads offering $ for protesters? They could be fake – not sure. But it is pretty clear they are busing people in. You don’t see many of the protesters being interviewed – which is interesting. Or maybe I just haven’t seen them.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]no more abortions will probably satisfy his voters. screw the wall, and the deportations. just stop all the aborting.[/quote]
As an attorney that’s disingenuous. Overturning R v W would leave it to the individual states to decide – not prohibit it. Plus I didn’t see that as being a very important issue compared to jobs.[/quote]
couldnt they make it a federal crime?
i think abortions a pretty big one for trumplets.[/quote]
It never was a federal crime – but anything’s possible. More like capital punishment, it was a controversial issue left to the states to decide. Trump sees it as a state law issue if you believe the 60 minutes interview.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=bearishgurl]FIH, what do you think of females who take offense to people flying (and rioting with) Mexican flags on American soil? :=0[/quote]
Females are always looking for something to be offended about… so it doesn’t bother me. I like lesbian attitudes; they are tough, don’t get offended easily and they know how to renovate homes. Trump is right, whiny women are annoying.
About men, just don’t claim to be tough, manly and confident then act like a girly man.
Trump was right again about some servicemen. They are weak and at littlest thing develop mental problems. Get a grip.I really don’t care what flag people fly. I don’t fly any and never will.
Doesn’t bother me when people speak Spanish or other language i don’t understand. I don’t feel they could be laughing at me. And if they did, what i don’t know can’t bother me.I listen to Spanish radio several times per week. Some songs are really good. I Shazam them then add them to favorites.[/quote]
In another post I said you were politically schizophrenic. I’d like to delete the “political” element. Thanks for the laugh about Shazaming Spanish radio, and for your laser-like focus.
-
AuthorPosts