Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 04:31 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > >>>It's Gallup, the most respected polling organization in the world. > >> > >>The article doesn't say that Gallup actually had people in the > >>field conducting the poll > > > > > > You reckon it was USA Today and CNN staffers ? > > I don't "reckon" anything about that at all. The article > does *not disclose* who conducted the poll. It was too tricky to 'get a clue' over this ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 04:33 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > Hint. It's quite normal for news organisations to commission a poll from the > > experts. > > But that doesn't mean they did in this case. Don't you think > if they had hired Gallup the article woud have said so? One > thing is for sure, they didn't say so. Next time I see an newspaper article about a Gallup poll I'll certainly start wondering if it wasn't actually one of their competitors. You really are clutching at the proverbial straws aren't you ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 04:35 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>unsettled wrote: > >>>>Eeyore wrote: > >>>>>MooseFET wrote: > >>>>>>Eeyore wrote: > >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money for > >>>>>>>>>health care. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs when cheaper > >>>>>>>generics are just as good for mnay things ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Imagine that a drug company comes up with a new drug called > >>>>>>"Nopainatall". They send their field people out to talk to doctors an > >>>>>>sell them on the advantages of Nopainatall. They have studies and > >>>>>>graphs and all sorts of useful literature that calls the drug only by > >>>>>>its brand name not the chemical name. This is where doctors get a lot > >>>>>>of their information today. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old one ( where a > >>>>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep the prices > >>>>>high. > >>>> > >>>>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. > >>> > >>> > >>>I understand perfectly. > >> > >>If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you > >>called new drugs "just replacements for old one." > >> > >>You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement > >>for an old one. > > > > > > This is *exactly* what they're doing by modifying the chemical formula when making 'Drug > > B'.. Without a patented drug to treat condition X they'd suffer a loss of income when > > Drug A's patent runs out. > > > > Drug B will of course be promoted as a 'better' version of Drug A. > > Review, for example, beta blockers, old and new. The high > priced Coreg which is under patent does indeed outperform > the older beta blockers by a country mile. In fact, it has > been shown to sometimes reverse heart failure. That's > something never before achieved. > > Compare Celebrex to other Cox II inhibitors, like Viox, for > example. > > Progress is actually relentless. It isn't simply recycling > variations on older themes. > > The drug manufacturers do have huge teams of researchers and > expensive labs. Of course they have huge profits as well, more > than they should if we lived in a reasonable world. But there's > no simplistic rip off where the new patents are concerned. I have no problem whatever with *genuine* drug research. Why would I ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 04:37 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > > >>You're making stuff up once again. > > > > > > I saw nothing made up. > > You made up a "fact" that the poll was scientific. Me ? I haven't commented on it at all. Do please get your attributions right ! > >>Don't you ever get > >>tired of having to invent facts to support your anti- > >>American views? > > > Are you saying it's anti-American to report that Iraqis want US troops to leave > > their country ? > > > If so - why ? > > It is anti-American to keep claiming that when you have > no facts to support the idea, only a "report" from > suspect sources. What's suspect about them ? > It is the overall thrust of your posts > that gives any reasonable reader the idea that you're > anti-American. I ask again.... " Are you saying it's anti-American to report that Iraqis want US troops to leave their country ? " Graham
From: unsettled on 3 Nov 2006 04:37
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:b44c0$454a9541$49ecfd8$27465(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:40570$454a2bd8$4fe71d7$24986(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:d38ed$454a0d9f$49ecfab$24139(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:11089$45495c2e$4fe7052$20335(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <4546F871.E7AD0EB5(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Also compare the availability of goods and services in Europe >>>>>>>>>>>>>and other places in the world to ours. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>What !!!! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Are you being funny ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>No, he's not. There are a lot of Europeans who come to the US >>>>>>>>>>>to shop. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>There have been many flights bringing Europeans to shop at >>>>>>>>>>the Mall of America in Minnesota. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Cite ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Stuff it, fool. I've been there and talked with some of >>>>>>>>the people. I've also shopped at Gurnee Mills which is >>>>>>>>a one story affair with a mile long zig-zag mall under >>>>>>>>roof. I first ran into them there, later at Mall of >>>>>>>>America. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Mall of America is so large, for your information, that >>>>>>>>there's an amusement park in the center, including a >>>>>>>>roller coaster. It set itself up to be an international >>>>>>>>destination. You don't suppose that a setup like that >>>>>>>>could be supported solely by sales to the Twin Cities >>>>>>>>and Minnesota folks within an easy drive, do you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And yet despite all that, you still only have a handful of anecdotes >>>>>> >>>>>>>from a few travellers who have done it. Useless. If you're going to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>claim "there have been many flights...", you better supply data on it, >>>>>>>otherwise you're being hoodwinked by the very same thing you chastise >>>>>>>other people for--seeing only the evidence they want to see. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bwahahahaha. Trying to create a hard science where there is none? >>>>> >>>>>Hey, I wasn't the one that made the unsupportable claim, based on a few >>>>>anecdotes. >>>> >>>>BS, you do it constantly. >>> >>> >>>Cite three examples, please. >> >>Just read your article just prior to this one, and the >>two following it. They're full of unsupportable claims >>coming from you, most of them made-up by you to >>promote your anti-American views. > > > If so, then you should surely be able to come up with three examples of > unsupportable claims. We're still waiting. I just did. It appears you're dumber than even I thought. |