Copper and Alzheimer's

EdFred said:
I always liked Ian Malcom's quote in Jurassic Park when it comes to science.
(paraphrased)
"You were so busy worrying about whether you could do it, that you never stopped to think about if you should."

Followed up with

"What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

I can't say that I disagree. I think we've gone too far with science and saving people.
Click to expand...
People should also ask "should we fund this research"? It takes capital to produce a new vaccine, or to produce the genetically engineered plant. The societal implications of most discoveries aren't fully known until after discovery. The morality of societal decisions belong to all of us, not just the scientists.
 
EdFred said:
I always liked Ian Malcom's quote in Jurassic Park when it comes to science.
(paraphrased)
"You were so busy worrying about whether you could do it, that you never stopped to think about if you should."

Followed up with

"What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

I can't say that I disagree. I think we've gone too far with science and saving people.
Click to expand...

You'll feel quite differently when it's someone close to you who needs saved.
 
PilotAlan said:
I think this is the issue. Science today is all about the press conference and the grants. Preliminary reports are published and promoted, without the rigor and follow up they used to have.
Also, peer reviewed journals seem to be dropping in the quality and rigor of review.
Click to expand...

As I just pointed out in another thread, Sophists never went away.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
As for owning a company, love to do it. Wish I had the great idea. For a pharma company, one still needs to get the idea to the point of making a viable molecule. This means the owner scientist needs to assemble a team, get the lab/office space, equipment, etc. this takes capital, so s/he goes to the venture capital market. Once they get. A viable molecule, it needs to get throng clinical trials-more capital needed. At this point, the scientist sells off to a big pharma that has the resources for the trials and marketing it the drug makes it. The scientist that did most of the work gets a couple of million, the VC that merely provided some money gets hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of pharma companies that never did any of the above but instead purchased the patents of any number of them who neglected the business side of their business.

Big pharma isn't about discovery. Let the little guys do that and go bankrupt trying. They just buy the ones that beat the odds and Market the crap out of them.
 
denverpilot said:
There are plenty of pharma companies that never did any of the above but instead purchased the patents of any number of them who neglected the business side of their business.

Big pharma isn't about discovery. Let the little guys do that and go bankrupt trying. They just buy the ones that beat the odds and Market the crap out of them.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I've worked for multiple big pharmas in multiple countries. They *all* do drug discovery. They are *also* extremely quick to buy small companies that have gotten a compound far enough down the pipeline to be promising, but that isn't the only way they get new drugs.
 
rwellner98 said:
FWIW, I've worked for multiple big pharmas in multiple countries. They *all* do drug discovery. They are *also* extremely quick to buy small companies that have gotten a compound far enough down the pipeline to be promising, but that isn't the only way they get new drugs.
Click to expand...

Ahh yeah, they're all doing some. But the big surprise money-makers come from the small guys. And they also seem to lead to the biggest class-action lawsuits a few years later for deadly side-effects.

It's really a nutty business.
 
denverpilot said:
Ahh yeah, they're all doing some. But the big surprise money-makers come from the small guys. And they also seem to lead to the biggest class-action lawsuits a few years later for deadly side-effects.

It's really a nutty business.
Click to expand...

Yeah, "big surprise" money-makers is a good way of putting it. Internal R&D is risk averse and tends to focus on things that seem likely to pay out at some point (e.g. tweaking existing drugs to restart patent lifetimes). The "shot in the dark" winners, well, I can't think of one I've seen that didn't come from an acquisition.
 
EdFred said:
No, I never said kill everyone before they reach 50. But when things start to break, let them break. It's that's person's time. Next year I turn 40. As I will have no wife or kids by the time I am 40, I will not be seeking any treatment for things that are part of the natural decaying process. If I get cancer, I get cancer - nature has determined that it is my time. I will cash out, and spend my last however many months seeing various parts of the world, and make Angel Falls the last place I visit. Sure if I break a leg, or arm, I will get it reset as that's not a condition of my body breaking down. But anything that's a decaying process, I'm not going to try and extend my life to the point where I forget how to use the can, and **** myself while watching Murder She Wrote reruns.
Click to expand...

I got cancer. I sought medical treatment and I don't have cancer anymore. And I'm still flying. I refuse to take such a fatalistic approach.
 
Ghery said:
I got cancer. I sought medical treatment and I don't have cancer anymore. And I'm still flying. I refuse to take such a fatalistic approach.
Click to expand...

Congrats on beating cancer last time..........But....... All of us have cancer, it is just a question of time when it rears it's ugly head..:eek:

I hope it doesn't come back...:yes:
 
Ghery said:
I got cancer. I sought medical treatment and I don't have cancer anymore. And I'm still flying. I refuse to take such a fatalistic approach.
Click to expand...

I know, but you also had a wife and kids at the time. I don't, so I look at it from the perspective of not only has nature designed me in a way that I am not the sort of individual that the opposite sex is looking to procreate with. my body also doesn't have the genetic make up to fight off cancer. I'm smart enough to get the hint that nature doesn't want me around or passing on my faulty genes.
 
population growth is directly attributable to global warming - that curve looks familiar.

But seriously, the population growth has occured the result of the use of energy. The more energy we use - the more people have. The corollary is because use of energy creates or least is a byproduct of wealth - wealthier populations are healthier.

You can also create a graph of education levels in women and population growth - even though as average female education levels grow into college the reproduction rates drop off.

The basic point is that you can make something out of anything . . .
 
rwellner98 said:
Yeah, "big surprise" money-makers is a good way of putting it. Internal R&D is risk averse and tends to focus on things that seem likely to pay out at some point (e.g. tweaking existing drugs to restart patent lifetimes). The "shot in the dark" winners, well, I can't think of one I've seen that didn't come from an acquisition.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Viagra under Pfizer from the beginning? Of course, it's serendipity finding is interesting but I think Pfizer had it from the start. I could be wrong, but I know it makes Pfizer a lot of money.
 
EdFred said:
I know, but you also had a wife and kids at the time. I don't, so I look at it from the perspective of not only has nature designed me in a way that I am not the sort of individual that the opposite sex is looking to procreate with. my body also doesn't have the genetic make up to fight off cancer. I'm smart enough to get the hint that nature doesn't want me around or passing on my faulty genes.
Click to expand...

1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer. Are you saying that 1 in 6 men have faulty genes? This approach may work for you, but I doubt many will think the same way.
 
Ghery said:
1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer. Are you saying that 1 in 6 men have faulty genes? This approach may work for you, but I doubt many will think the same way.
Click to expand...

I am saying that more than 1 in 6 have faulty genes. Diabetes, bad vision, cancers, etc... are all due to faulty genes. In the past a lof of these genes would have been removed from the gene pool. Survival of the fittest. But with all the "advancements" we've made in science we allow the crap genes to be passed on. Nature has made it clear my genes are crap and not to be passed on. Who am I to argue with nature?
 
docmirror said:
Wasn't Viagra under Pfizer from the beginning? Of course, it's serendipity finding is interesting but I think Pfizer had it from the start. I could be wrong, but I know it makes Pfizer a lot of money.
Click to expand...

You're right. Well done!
 
EdFred said:
I am saying that more than 1 in 6 have faulty genes. Diabetes, bad vision, cancers, etc... are all due to faulty genes. In the past a lof of these genes would have been removed from the gene pool. Survival of the fittest. But with all the "advancements" we've made in science we allow the crap genes to be passed on. Nature has made it clear my genes are crap and not to be passed on. Who am I to argue with nature?
Click to expand...

Most of us who wear glasses would be dead in pre-civilization times. Lots and lots of bad genes passed on for that one. I gotta go with Ed on this one. Technology allows us to borrow back a lot of time. I'd have to rely on someone who could see to spear something good to eat and warm to wear. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Most of us who wear glasses would be dead in pre-civilization times. Lots and lots of bad genes passed on for that one. I gotta go with Ed on this one. Technology allows us to borrow back a lot of time. I'd have to rely on someone who could see to spear something good to eat and warm to wear. :)
Click to expand...

And buying back time or passing on faulty genes contributes to rising health care costs. Yeah, I said it.
 
denverpilot said:
Most of us who wear glasses would be dead in pre-civilization times. Lots and lots of bad genes passed on for that one. I gotta go with Ed on this one. Technology allows us to borrow back a lot of time. I'd have to rely on someone who could see to spear something good to eat and warm to wear. :)
Click to expand...

On the other hand, I would be the go-to guy of the tribe for removing splinters!
 
denverpilot said:
Most of us who wear glasses would be dead in pre-civilization times. Lots and lots of bad genes passed on for that one. I gotta go with Ed on this one. Technology allows us to borrow back a lot of time. I'd have to rely on someone who could see to spear something good to eat and warm to wear. :)
Click to expand...

And technology allows us to let intelligent people live, even if they have such horrible defects like bad vision. It is such a terrible thing for people to advance...
 
Bob Noel said:
And technology allows us to let intelligent people live, even if they have such horrible defects like bad vision. It is such a terrible thing for people to advance...
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "advance." If in another 100 years everyone has to be be on some pill, or supplement, or whatever, I don't call that much of an advancement.
 
EdFred said:
And buying back time or passing on faulty genes contributes to rising health care costs. Yeah, I said it.
Click to expand...

Define "faulty genes".

For example, Sickle cell anemia can be considered a "faulty" gene, it reduces life expectancy. However, it confers a survival advantage where malaria is prevalent ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm )

I also read a theory where autism, though by some to be genetic, may be partially due to environmental factors that prevent the proper operation of topoisomerases ( http://www.biosciencetechnology.com...utism?et_cid=3451073&et_rid=84559900&type=cta )

The reason I bring this up is....there are no simple answers! We are still learing what is "genetic" vs "environmental".

There's also many reasons for rising health care costs, longer life spans is on e reason. Greed is another, additional regulations for drugs, longer clinical trials means a shorter product life before it goes generic, so the payback period is reduced, so the price is higher.

Like I said, no simple answers.
 
docmirror said:
Wasn't Viagra under Pfizer from the beginning? Of course, it's serendipity finding is interesting but I think Pfizer had it from the start. I could be wrong, but I know it makes Pfizer a lot of money.
Click to expand...

And helped the tiger population! When Viagra came on the market, the demand for tiger penis in China dropped to nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top