Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 3 Nov 2006 05:22 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>You argue like a first grader. > > > Do go on. Keep reading. You'll "get a clue" soon enough.
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 05:43 unsettled wrote: > Ben Newsam wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >>It is the overall thrust of your posts > >>that gives any reasonable reader the idea that you're > >>anti-American. > > > > Whereas the overal thrust of your invasions gives the rest of us the > > idea that you are American. > > That might pass for a clever insult in your part > of the world, but it fails that test here, with > good reason. > > Population UK 60,441,457 (CIA) > > Population USA 295,734,134 (CIA) > > So who and what is this "the rest of us"? > > We outgrew you ca 1776 and you, quite obviously, > are still smarting about it. WTH is your point. EU population ~ 500m ! It's the largest market in the developed world ! Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 07:07 In article <4549E4E8.61E6C504(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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 They don't. > when cheaper >generics are just as good for mnay things ? These days anybody with any kind of insurance have to use generic. > >It artificially inflates costs. That's not allowed in the NHS. > Who is supposed to pay for the drug research? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 07:10 In article <454A9769.5C386334(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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. You seem to think that a drug company has to stop making its brand of drug once the patent protection expires. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 07:12
In article <GXz2h.4038$B31.1135(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:4a119$454aac25$4fe762a$27898(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> MooseFET wrote: >> >>> unsettled wrote: >>> >>>>MooseFET wrote: >>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[....] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Where did you get that silly idea? At least two of my patents are for >>>>>a "widget" that replaces an older "widget". To get a patent, you don't >>>>>need to prove that it is better. You only need to prove that it is >>>>>different and works. >>>> >>>>You're right. It has to be different. So the new one doesn't >>>>simply clone the action of an earlier medicine. That's the >>>>point of this discussion. >>> >>> >>> That is not correct either. The action can be identical and the >>> chemical different and still get a patent. >> >> Can be does not mean it is. Chemicals are funny that way. > >Nice strawman...nobody ever said that *all* new drugs are just knock-offs of >old ones. But a substantial number are. That is what generics are...knockoffs of an existing drug. /BAH |