World On The Cusp Of Post Antibiotic Era Warning

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Well, people die from one thing or another anyway.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397612].message }}

lanfear63

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, people die from one thing or another anyway.

Well this is giving people more choice as to what to die from. It can only be a good thing huh!

I know for certain I would not be around if there had never been antibiotics.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397759].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Well this is giving people more choice as to what to die from. It can only be a good thing huh!

I know for certain I would not be around if there had never been antibiotics.

Ok ... so you wouldn't and a lot of people wouldn't be around if it weren't for antibiotics. So now a lot of people won't be around because of antibiotics. So what are you going to do? Fret about it? Not being flip, but it seems you don't win either way. Of course you can always don a space suit to protect yourself from all infections.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397788].message }}

MikeTucker

8 years ago

Yeah, dying from a lack of antibiotics would not be my first choice!

As for having them in food...
My own opinions aside, it's not going to change, because of the money.
Companies are not going to change out of the goodness of their hearts,
and governments of the world are not going to make them.

So medical science needs to catch-up... And someday in Imaginary Land,
maybe get ahead of the game.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

...A tachyon enters a bar.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397767].message }}

ThomM

8 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeTucker

Yeah, dying from a lack of antibiotics would not be my first choice!

As for having them in food...
My own opinions aside, it's not going to change, because of the money.
Companies are not going to change out of the goodness of their hearts,
and governments of the world are not going to make them.

So medical science needs to catch-up... And someday in Imaginary Land,
maybe get ahead of the game.

Nope but consumers are.
http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/antib...e-meats-CS.pdf

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397779].message }}

MikeTucker 8 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Nope but consumers are.
http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/antib...e-meats-CS.pdf

I've gotten my hopes up on this kind of thing before.
And been disappointed every time.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

...A tachyon enters a bar.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397808].message }}
- ThomM 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by MikeTucker
  
  I've gotten my hopes up on this kind of thing before.
  And been disappointed every time.
  
  I get that and mostly feel the same way. The thing with this is that it's actually happening.
  
  I know for certain I would not be around if there had never been antibiotics.
  
  It's not that antibiotics are a problem, it's the over use of them particularly in the cattle and poultry industries.
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397853].message }}

butters

8 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

More people likely to die of common ailments as viruses becoming resistant to antibiotics.

People will die, warns antibiotic expert - BBC News

Obviously, antibiotics don't cure viruses

[ 4 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397783].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Obviously, antibiotics don't cure viruses

I'm sure he means bacteria rather than viruses.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397790].message }}

lanfear63

8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Obviously, antibiotics don't cure viruses

Oh so you think your all clever now. Working down on the Pharm.

Easy slip up as they have the same spelling.

Anyway, your thoughts, chief medical officer?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397800].message }}

butters

8 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Oh so you think your all clever now. Working down on the Pharm.

Easy slip up as they have the same spelling.

Anyway, your thoughts, chief medical officer?

Haha

we are all screwed until governments throw big money at pharma companies, then they will churn out antibiotics like no other. Right now, there are more profitable areas than antibiotics so once that swings the other way, we are all saved!

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397848].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Haha

we are all screwed until governments throw big money at pharma companies, then they will churn out antibiotics like no other. Right now, there are more profitable areas than antibiotics so once that swings the other way, we are all saved!

I'm just wondering why governments should have to throw big money at a for profit major industry. Do they share the profits with the government? They make billions peddling their drugs. Why shouldn't the cost of doing business be theirs, just as any profit corporation?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10399373].message }}

butters

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I'm just wondering why governments should have to throw big money at a for profit major industry. Do they share the profits with the government? They make billions peddling their drugs. Why shouldn't the cost of doing business be theirs, just as any profit corporation?

Why should a company pump a load of money into something which isn't profitable? If the government isn't gonna make it worth it for them, then they won't do it. The GSK news letter even said, the cost of research is so much they will not get their money out of it. No business is ever gonna do that.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10399445].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Why should a company pump a load of money into something which isn't profitable? If the government isn't gonna make it worth it for them, then they won't do it. The GSK news letter even said, the cost of research is so much they will not get their money out of it. No business is ever gonna do that.

Simply because, as an industry, they have a higher profit margin than practically any other industry. They could easily do it for humanity. It takes them longer to profit from antibiotics. People only take them for a short course rather than gobbling up their drugs daily for the rest of their lives, but they do make a profit from antibiotics in the long term.

Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.Throw in widespread accusations of collusion and over-charging, and banking no doubt springs to mind.

In fact, the industry described above is responsible for the development of medicines to save lives and alleviate suffering, not the generation of profit for its own sake.

Pharmaceutical companies have developed the vast majority of medicines known to humankind, but they have profited handsomely from doing so, and not always by legitimate means.
Last year, US giant Pfizer, the world's largest drug company by pharmaceutical revenue, made an eye-watering 42% profit margin. As one industry veteran understandably says: "I wouldn't be able to justify [those kinds of margins]."

Stripping out the one-off $10bn (£6.2bn) the company made from spinning off its animal health business leaves a margin of 24%, still pretty spectacular by any standard.

In the UK, for example, there was widespread anger when the industry regulator predicted energy companies' profit margins would grow from 4% to 8% this year.

Last year, five pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20% or more - Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly.
'Profiteering'

With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why.

Last year, 100 leading oncologists from around the world wrote an open letter in the journal Blood calling for a reduction in the price of cancer drugs.

Dr Brian Druker, director of the Knight Cancer Institute and one of the signatories, has asked: "If you are making $3bn a year on [cancer drug] Gleevec, could you get by with $2bn? When do you cross the line from essential profits to profiteering?"

And it's not just cancer drugs - between April and June this year, drug company Gilead clocked sales of $3.5bn for its latest blockbuster hepatitis C drug Sovaldi.

Drug companies justify the high prices they charge by arguing that their research and development (R&D) costs are huge. On average, only three in 10 drugs launched are profitable, with one of those going on to be a blockbuster with $1bn-plus revenues a year. Many more do not even make it to market.

But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs - in some cases twice as much - than on developing them. And besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10399640].message }}

butters

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Simply because, as an industry, they have a higher profit margin than practically any other industry. They could easily do it for humanity. It takes them longer to profit from antibiotics. People only take them for a short course rather than gobbling up their drugs daily for the rest of their lives, but they do make a profit from antibiotics in the long term.

I'm sure they could do it for humanity... Will they, nope. Companies like to make big profit, not throw billions in trying to find somethibg which may take them a long time to find. They would have to develop equipment to grow un-cultureable bacteria etc... I was asked why big pharma don't do something and that's the reason, to small profit. You got to remember, any new antibiotic produce will be heavily restricted in prescriptions to stop resistance growing at a fast rate.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400131].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

I'm sure they could do it for humanity... Will they, nope. Companies like to make big profit, not throw billions in trying to find somethibg which may take them a long time to find. They would have to develop equipment to grow un-cultureable bacteria etc... I was asked why big pharma don't do something and that's the reason, to small profit. You got to remember, any new antibiotic produce will be heavily restricted in prescriptions to stop resistance growing at a fast rate.

I actually already knew the answer to the question .... the "for humanity" was facetious, considering we're talking about Big Pharma. They operate purely on greed and profit. Humanity has nothing to do with what they do.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400282].message }}

butters

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I actually already knew the answer to the question .... the "for humanity" was facetious, considering we're talking about Big Pharma. They operate purely on greed and profit. Humanity has nothing to do with what they do.

You say that but I'm learning that they have a lot of programs on going which actually benefit people. For example, they have a 100 million dollar pot between a few major companies just to find the cause for dementia. They have programs all around the world to lower emission and working with their partners to teach them. They price their products based on the economic situation of the country. I'm sure they are greedy interms of profits but what company isn't.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400794].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

You say that but I'm learning that they have a lot of programs on going which actually benefit people. For example, they have a 100 million dollar pot between a few major companies just to find the cause for dementia. They have programs all around the world to lower emission and working with their partners to teach them. They price their products based on the economic situation of the country. I'm sure they are greedy interms of profits but what company isn't.

I see the word greed, and wonder why it is used. All companies are built to make a profit. Companies aren't built out of altruism. If a project/product is profitable, they build it. If it's not profitable, they don't.

It isn't evil. It's just why companies are in business.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400821].message }}

lanfear63

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I see the word greed, and wonder why it is used. All companies are built to make a profit. Companies aren't built out of altruism. If a project/product is profitable, they build it. If it's not profitable, they don't.

It isn't evil. It's just why companies are in business.

Big Pharma came about from investors bribing colleges and universities to go by their philosophies of medicinal preparations. The colleges and universities saw dollar signs as well as the investors. While there is definitely a place for them they are not the only way to treat ailments and illnesses. It forced the world into a fork in the road that may take a long time to get out of. We chose to become reliant on them more or less exclusively despite the fact that most of them (with the exception of antibiotics and penicillin and a few others) are just pain management and masking in nature, quick fix. But, have side effects.

In doing that, despite it's inherent misguided stupidity, it has become part of the infrastructure of any given country. (Health of a nation is infrastructure, make no mistake) It is one of the few types of businesses, despite being that important, that gets away with charging extortionate fees for what it produces In places like the US it runs rife.

In places in the world where we have socialised medicine, not so much. People put money into the pot via there salaries, out of that pot comes the free hospitals and flat rate prices on drugs. I'm sure that the drug companies charge far less for there drugs to the government agencies but know full well that there will always be ongoing profit.

The places that do not have fully implemented social medicine like the US are obviously there pot of gold. When that finally gets resolved one day then the percentage of profits and the influence that these companies have will be put into perspective.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401038].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Big Pharma came about from investors bribing colleges and universities to go by their philosophies of medicinal preparations. The colleges and universities saw dollar signs as well as the investors. While there is definitely a place for them they are not the only way to treat ailments and illnesses. It forced the world into a fork in the road that may take a long time to get out of. We chose to become reliant on them more or less exclusively despite the fact that most of them (with the exception of antibiotics and penicillin and a few others) are just pain management and masking in nature, quick fix. But, have side effects.

In doing that, despite it's inherent misguided stupidity, it has become part of the infrastructure of any given country. (Health of a nation is infrastructure, make no mistake) It is one of the few types of businesses, despite being that important, that gets away with charging extortionate fees for what it produces In places like the US it runs rife.

In places in the world where we have socialised medicine, not so much. People put money into the pot via there salaries, out of that pot comes the free hospitals and flat rate prices on drugs. I'm sure that the drug companies charge far less for there drugs to the government agencies but know full well that there will always be ongoing profit.

The places that do not have fully implemented social medicine like the US are obviously there pot of gold. When that finally gets resolved one day then the percentage of profits and the influence that these companies have will be put into perspective.

Yep, medicine is important that's for sure . . .

A doctor wanted to get off work and go hunting, so he approached his assistant.

“Patrick, I am going hunting tomorrow. I don’t want to close the clinic so I want you to keep it open and take care of my patients.”

“Yes, sir!” – answers Patrick.

The doctor goes hunting and returns the following day and asks: “So, Patrick, how was your day yesterday,?”

Patrick told him that he took care of three patients.

“The first one had a headache so I gave him Paracetamol.”

“Bravo, and the second one?” – asks the doctor.

“The second one had stomach burning and I gave him Malox, sir.” – says Patrick.

“Bravo, bravo! You’re good at this and what about the third one?” – asks the doctor.

“Sir, I was sitting here and suddenly the door opened and a woman entered. Like a whirlwind, she undressed herself, taking off everything including her bra, her panties and lied down on the table. She spread her legs and shouted: “HELP ME! For five years I have not seen any man!”

“Thunderin’ Lord Jayzus, Patrick, what did ye do?” – asks the doctor.

“I put drops in her eyes.” he replied.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401092].message }}

Princess Balestra 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

"I put drops in her eyes." he replied.

That is romance on a stick.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401123].message }}
- positivenegative 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Princess Balestra
  
  That is romance on a stick.
  
  No. This is romance on a stick(s).
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401128].message }}
  
  Princess Balestra 8 years ago
  
  ur so cool with visuals.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401138].message }}
  
  positivenegative 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Princess Balestra
  
  ur so cool with visuals.
  
  I guess so.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401147].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

You say that but I'm learning that they have a lot of programs on going which actually benefit people. For example, they have a 100 million dollar pot between a few major companies just to find the cause for dementia. They have programs all around the world to lower emission and working with their partners to teach them. They price their products based on the economic situation of the country. I'm sure they are greedy interms of profits but what company isn't.

Hooray for them. They'll then develop a drug for dementia and charge $100K or more for a round of treatment, like they do with Hep C and other critical drugs. I'm sorry, but if they think that is pricing based on the country's ability to pay, they mean the country's top 1%'s ability to pay in the US. Or you can just go to India and get the drug much cheaper.

As I said, there are few, if any, industries that operate with the profit margins that they do.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400863].message }}

butters

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Hooray for them. They'll then develop a drug for dementia and charge $100K or more for a round of treatment, like they do with Hep C and other critical drugs. I'm sorry, but if they think that is pricing based on the country's ability to pay, they mean the country's top 1%'s ability to pay in the US. Or you can just go to India and get the drug much cheaper.

As I said, there are few, if any, industries that operate with the profit margins that they do.

Does that make them wrong? If you could sell a product at 1000% profit opposed to 50% wouldn't you? It doesn't make them evil charging prices for drugs which they developed, it's just business. You pay for private healthcare, does that make the doctors evil or a better dentist. Business is business, if you want there product, you have to pay their prices. There are usually alternatives but they may not be as good.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400899].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Does that make them wrong? If you could sell a product at 1000% profit opposed to 50% wouldn't you? It doesn't make them evil charging prices for drugs which they developed, it's just business. You pay for private healthcare, does that make the doctors evil or a better dentist. Business is business, if you want there product, you have to pay their prices. There are usually alternatives but they may not be as good.

No butters, I would not sell life saving drugs at 1000% or more profit, who very few people can actually afford.

Oh ... and that company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, that the Internet now hates, increased the price of a drug by 5000%, which promptly increased the price from $13.50 per tablet to $750 per tablet... because he can (until the backlash hit the fan).

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400914].message }}

Kurt

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I see the word greed, and wonder why it is used. All companies are built to make a profit. Companies aren't built out of altruism. If a project/product is profitable, they build it. If it's not profitable, they don't.

It isn't evil. It's just why companies are in business.

Originally Posted by butters

Does that make them wrong? If you could sell a product at 1000% profit opposed to 50% wouldn't you? It doesn't make them evil charging prices for drugs which they developed, it's just business. You pay for private healthcare, does that make the doctors evil or a better dentist. Business is business, if you want there product, you have to pay their prices. There are usually alternatives but they may not be as good.

JC Penny had the philosophy that he'd sell products at the lowest price he could, not at the highest price possible. I think JC did OK.

And Big Pharma isn't the only option. There's plenty of universities and non profits that do many good things and could do more with more money.

If we're going to use market concepts to defend the prices Big Pharma charges, then we need to open up our market to drug makers in other countries and let Big Pharma have competition. Let drugs from Canada and Mexico into the market and see what happens.

The health industry isn't a "free" market. Patients don't really have a choice and most drugs require a prescription, removing any "free choice" and Big Pharma doesn't have true competition.

And there's a difference between "profit" and "profiteering".

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400953].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

If we're going to use market concepts to defend the prices Big Pharma charges, then we need to open up our market to drug makers in other countries and let Big Pharma have competition. Let drugs from Canada and Mexico into the market and see what happens.

The health industry isn't a "free" market. Patients don't really have a choice and most drugs require a prescription, removing any "free choice" and Big Pharma doesn't have true competition.

And there's a difference between "profit" and "profiteering".

... and for many years, that's exactly what I did ... purchased my drugs (the few that I needed) from offshore pharmacy companies and got drugs that did the job exactly as the US counterpart at a fraction of the cost. I used those no script needed sites until they were finally shut down. And I would do it again. So, yes, there are alternatives.

At my age, I take no regular medications at all. My brother does have Hepatitis C and cannot afford the cure.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400994].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

JC Penny had the philosophy that he'd sell products at the lowest price he could, not at the highest price possible. I think JC did OK.

JC Penny didn't have to research, develop, test, and get approval for the products they sold. They just had to buy and sell.

JC's real philosophy was to also buy at the lowest cost. Didn't he feel altruistic toward his suppliers?

I'm not defending anything. I was explaining that companies exist to make a profit.

I have no knowledge of, or interest in the manufacturing of drugs.

Originally Posted by Kurt

If we're going to use market concepts to defend the prices Big Pharma charges, then we need to open up our market to drug makers in other countries and let Big Pharma have competition. Let drugs from Canada and Mexico into the market and see what happens.

Smart idea. Never happen.

Originally Posted by Kurt

I'd then come up with a simple formula that if these other countries approved a drug, that it would be "semi-automatically" approved in the US.

For example, the formula could be if 3 other countries approved the drug and none rejected it, it would get approval in the US. Maybe add something to the formula like if a drug was rejected by one other country, they it would need to be approved by 5 other countries, etc., to be accepted by the US.

Another incredibly good idea that would solve multiple problems at no real cost.

But that doesn't serve anyone's self interest. So, again, Not a chance.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401091].message }}

Kurt

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

JC Penny didn't have to research, develop, test, and get approval for the products they sold. They just had to buy and sell.

JC's real philosophy was to also buy at the lowest cost.

I'm not defending anything. I explaining that companies exist to make a profit. I meant nothing more or less than that.

Irrelevant and non sequitur.

JC could have bought at the lowest cost and sold at the highest cost possible. But he didn't.

After JC Penny's went public, there was a board meeting with 49 other board members and JC. There was a vote to start a JC Penny credit card. The vote was 49-1 in favor of a credit card. The lone vote against it was from JC. He said he had no doubt the credit card would increase profits. However, he said he voted against it because he knew people would get info trouble by buying things they couldn't afford and he didn't want to be responsible for that.

We can debate about whether he was right or wrong. But what is clear is, he put what he felt was right before profits. Something that is unthinkable today.

Another example...I read a report a while back, asking doctors why they became doctors. In the 1950s and 60, 90% of the doctors replied "to help people".

However, by the 1980s, this stat went totally upside down and 90% of the doctors replied "to make money".

Ask yourself this...your wife has a life threatening medical emergency and you have two doctors to choose from. All you know is one of them became a doctor to make money and the other became a doctor to help people.

Which one do you choose?

I know which one I'd choose.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401097].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

I posted before I read your last post. I believe you about JC Penny.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Another example...I read a report a while back, asking doctors why they became doctors. In the 1950s and 60, 90% of the doctors replied "to help people".

However, by the 1980s, this stat went totally upside down and 90% of the doctors replied "to make money".

Simplistic. Do you think human brain activity changed between then and now? Do you think human nature took a turn?

The answer is obvious, and you know what changed.

I would want the doctor with the best record of success treating what is ailing my wife.
I don't give a shit what his motivations are.

I'm leaving this post, because I know it's irritating when I delete posts, but my interest in this is pretty non-existent. If you and I were in person, I'd change the subject.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401106].message }}

Kurt

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I posted before I read your last post. I believe you about JC Penny.

Simplistic. Do you think human brain activity changed between then and now? Do you think human nature took a turn?

The answer is obvious, and you know what changed.

I never said or implied that brain activity changed. I implied behavior changed. The discussion should be about how and why.

But if the report I read was accurate, then yes, "human nature" did change, at least for those that became doctors.

I would want the doctor with the best record of success treating what is ailing my wife.
I don't give a shit what his motivations are.

But you don't have that information in the hypothetical question I posed. The purpose of my question wasn't to determine which doctor had the best record since no relevant info was given, it was which doctor of the two you would select.

Since I asked a direct question and didn't get a direct response, I'll assume it's because you didn't want to answer and that your pursuit of "truth" isn't quite as strong as you claim.

Not having any more info, I'd choose the doctor that became a doctor to help people.

I'm leaving this post, because I know it's irritating when I delete posts, but my interest in this is pretty non-existent. If you and I were in person, I'd change the subject.

We're not in person, nor are we the only two people involved in this conversation.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401159].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I never said or implied that brain activity changed. I implied behavior changed. The discussion should be about how and why.

I'll assume the report was valid.
How did behavior change in doctors? Did they go from being wonderful people to greedy people? No. What changed was the way they answer the question. Why did that change? Because it was an unacceptable answer in the 1960s to say you were in medicine for the money, and it was acceptable (maybe even trendy) to say it in the 1990s. I suspect if the question was asked today, you would see a swing back to "wanting to help people".

Survey, opinion poll, and focus group interviewers tend to get answers that the person thinks will make them look good in the eyes of the questioner. What a person really thinks deep down, can only be revealed by their actions.

Originally Posted by Kurt

But you don't have that information in the hypothetical question I posed. The purpose of my question wasn't to determine which doctor had the best record since no relevant info was given, it was which doctor of the two you would select.

And my answer was that it didn't matter to me. What matters is the competence of the doctor. You gave an example, where you set up the parameters. I'm saying your parameters are faulty. If I know why the doctor took up medicine, it should actually be easier to know what his experience is. I know you didn't include that in your question.
Your question was restrictive in the options. I just expanded the options to make it a better question.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Since I asked a direct question and didn't get a direct response, I'll assume it's because you didn't want to answer and that your pursuit of "truth" isn't quite as strong as you claim.

You would be wrong in that assumption.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10401921].message }}

seasoned

8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Haha

we are all screwed until governments throw big money at pharma companies, then they will churn out antibiotics like no other. Right now, there are more profitable areas than antibiotics so once that swings the other way, we are all saved!

The government did NOT fund antibiotics! The industry started because of a guy the government called CRAZY, and threw into a mental asylum! The later major players were individuals or small teams! The guy that created the small pox vaccine was CASTIGATED!

So WHERE is the government in this? And WHY do people think money is MAGIC? It ISN'T!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10399473].message }}

butters

8 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

The government did NOT fund antibiotics! The industry started because of a guy the government called CRAZY, and threw into a mental asylum! The later major players were individuals or small teams! The guy that created the small pox vaccine was CASTIGATED!

So WHERE is the government in this? And WHY do people think money is MAGIC? It ISN'T!

Steve

Re read what I wrote, and re read the question I was asked...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10399518].message }}

HeySal

8 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Obviously, antibiotics don't cure viruses

LOL. Thank you. People need to stop and think about what's being said.

There are a lot of bacterial infections that are not responding though.

There are things we can use besides antibiotics for infections - and save the pharms for the infections that nned to be stopped immediately, such as a kidney infection. Giving people antibiotics any time they have even a minor infection is kinda stupid. Like taking a cannon to a knife fight.

We have doctors that give people antibiotics for colds and flu over here. They won't fix flu and aren't needed for a common cold when what you need is D3, C, and a few minerals to stop it.

What's worse? Pharms only make drugs they can profit from - or - doctors, who make commissions on drug sales, keep stuffing their patients with drugs that are unneccesary for anything but racking up profits for the doctor.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10402465].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

We have doctors that give people antibiotics for colds and flu over here. They won't fix flu and aren't needed for a common cold when what you need is D3, C, and a few minerals to stop it.

What's worse? Pharms only make drugs they can profit from - or - doctors, who make commissions on drug sales, keep stuffing their patients with drugs that are unneccesary for anything but racking up profits for the doctor.

Actually, the doctors don't prescribe antibiotics for colds and flu. They prescribe them for the secondary infections caused by colds and flu. I had a history of chronic bronchitis and sinusitis and every time I got a cold or flu, I got one or the other.

As for doctors stuffing patients ... I'm rather tired of the notion that people have to do what a doctor tells them to do and that people are so completely stupid that they will take anything a doctor hands to them without question. I certainly won't and I'm not likely to be one that the doctor will earn much commission from. I particularly will question a doctor over the use of a relatively new medication that I am unfamiliar with. My last checkup, I refused medication for blood pressure because I told him that I would go home and work on it and if I haven't improved it in 6 months, then we'll talk about medication. People need to be proactive in their health care and do the harder things themselves that produce results, like changing their diets, increasing exercise, losing weight, quitting bad habits, etc.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10402678].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

More people likely to die of common ailments as viruses becoming resistant to antibiotics.

Nothing like getting a good jump on spreading that holiday cheer. :-)

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10397840].message }}

Princess Balestra

8 years ago

Bacteria are ruthless.

But they lack the brains and heart to figure beyond division.

Hoomans got blendyjuicy f* ko powa bustin' on outta all burgs.

Hit on gonna triumph over split on.

Even w/o recently abundant antibiotics, we won out.

Thanks

Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10398062].message }}

seasoned

8 years ago

This isn't news. Anyone that doubts that, or the potential for problems, can look up MRSA. MRSA infection - Mayo Clinic One of MANY such things created!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10399312].message }}

seasoned

8 years ago

If those profits, and maybe even for pfizer, where the REAL profits, It wouldn't be out of line for a reasonable drug. HECK, the return on advertising is generally VERY low there!

Of course the REAL issue is that most drugs are GARBAGE! Most OTHER drugs are MISLABELED or people play "keep away", and others have a lot of unreasonable costs tacked on, MOSTLY from the government, and related costs, but some from other attendant costs and some crazy corporate policies.

I have one drug, and the GOVERNMENT, CLAIMING TO LOWER INSURANCE COSTS, INCREASED my "drug" costs by WELL OVER 100%! One supplier was secretly trying to rectify this, and I settled up last week for the created 10 months of deficit. The cost? OVER $1600USD!!!!!!!! And I QUOTE "DRUG" because this is a FEDERALLY REQUIRED test I must take for a FEDERALLY HIGHLY INCREASED cost, for a FEDERAL AGENCY for a FEDERAL RESTRICTION increased by a FEDERAL REQUIREMENT for a drug I must take for the rest of my life.

I know this might sound like a modest cost to some of you. OH steve is complaining about a $2000/year payment for tests and the actual drugs only cost him perhaps $3000 more for other tests and doctor visits, and maybe $1800 for the actual drugs! Well, excuse me if I am more worried about the arbitrary keepaway game that costs me $5000/year rather than the perhaps $360/year you are talking about here. Yeah, we can talk about a lot of the other $1440 that includes lawsuits, stupid ads almost NOBODY reads. or a vague ad on TV that ***I*** see as an attempt to mitigate arbitration from damages that occur because of people, like me, that have been put on the drugs WITHOUT our consent, and WITHOUT being told the truth. Or what about the lobbying for one drug to cause a smear campaign against all competitors? I HEARD the fallout that I was told by others, and another doctor, FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW to prescribe the drug, told me of the SCAM!

He was PROVEN to be telling the truth(PROVEN by a lab test), and telling a lie could have destroyed his career(Since the tests would have proved the lie, and it would be needlessly sacrificing patients). Unlike the doctors in the other states though, he was FORBIDDEN by state law to prescribe the name brand drug. I wonder! If he could have prescribed the name brand, would I have EVER heard the truth?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10399937].message }}

Kurt

8 years ago

As a solutions orientated person, if it was up to me, I'd make a list of all the other countries that have medical standards that are about equal to our own. I'm guessing there's around 25 countries that would meet this criteria.

I'd then come up with a simple formula that if these other countries approved a drug, that it would be "semi-automatically" approved in the US.

For example, the formula could be if 3 other countries approved the drug and none rejected it, it would get approval in the US. Maybe add something to the formula like if a drug was rejected by one other country, they it would need to be approved by 5 other countries, etc., to be accepted by the US.

A strong sign of intelligence is recognizing intelligence in others, and using intelligence in others. We should use the intelligence of these other approved countries with high medical standards to reduce costs and red tape here. I would feel every bit as safe taking a drug approved by 3 other counties with high medical standards as I would if it was approved by our own FDA, maybe even more safe.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10399964].message }}

Princess Balestra 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

As a solutions orientated person...

You have no idea how hot that sounds right now.
- Thanks
Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10400100].message }}

World On The Cusp Of Post Antibiotic Era Warning

Trending Topics

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Boat and Jet Ski Rentals...... Door Hangers Effective?

A Very Strange Internet Problem