What is Digg?37 Comments
- sahaskatta, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14this is why i hate forbes.com
http://skattertech.com/media/forbescrap.jpg
I can't imagine how much worse it would be if i didn't have adblock+ enabled... - Spuy767, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3There is that basic law of supply and demand that you forget about. It's our insurance system that allows the drug companies to charge ridiculous amounts for medication. People like myself who pay for insurance but never use it subsidize the cost that insurance companies pay for price gouged medication. Even medicare is used by legislators in the pocket of big pharma as a cudgel to force seniors to pay a higher price for medication. I believe it was everyone's favorite Huffington Post, so no one here will question the accuracy of it, that had an article about an elderly gentleman who was paying $0.20 per pill more on medicare for subsidized medicine than he would pay buying the same pills at costco, unsubsidized.
- Spuy767, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Don't buy things with outlandish claims like: Leptopril, Kyoki Pads, Hydroxy Cut, etc. There, I regulated it for you.
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -5/+8Our primary purpose is, and always will be, to educate our youth about the real dangers and consequences associated with drugs.
- MsWireless, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Kateyall,
You're right. I used to work for FDA. They get contractors to give them all their info on new drugs and/or food additives. Basically if an ad hoc panel says..... "it's ok, but not great" its going to pass through the pearly gates. And let us not forget the corporate money they benefit from. We live in a capitalistic country. Nobody cares anymore, unless they see $$ signs. I think its a disease at this point. Money honey, that's all that matters. - inactive, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4The pharmaceutical industry spends twice as much on advertising and PR as on actual research. If they can come up with a cure for evil, they are certainly not going to take it themselves.
- ATLien74, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Kids kill eggs on drugs.
- masamunecyrus, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2This is a more difficult issue than any of you are giving it credit for. On one hand, the FDA is a government organization easily subjected to bribes and being influenced by money. On the other hand, the FDA already has ridiculous standards on the testing of new drugs before they enter the marketplace. It costs billions to develop a drug, but perhaps even more billions to test it and take over 5 years in clinical trials. This also causes the current problem we have with drug companies not wanting to create drugs that they can't patent, because why spend billions of dollars on a drug when you can't even make up 50% of the costs of pushing it to the market due to the immediate third-party knock-offs?
People criticize the FDA because it takes too long for useful drugs to get to the marketplace. People criticize the FDA because drugs get to the marketplace too fast. And people criticize drug companies for not wanting to spend the billions it takes for clinical trials on drugs that they can't legally own in order to make up the costs of pushing it through clinical trials.
One thing I can say, though, is that the situation would at least be a little better if the FDA had a piece of the federal budget for paying for clinical trials of non-drugs. That is, herbal supplements and the like. For instance, the FDA isn't supposed to recommend and orange for scurvy, because an orange is not a drug. But since the FDA is a government organization (non-profit), if they could, themselves push non-drugs proven to cure illnesses through clinical trials (of course with a good system of deciding which non-drugs should take priority in receiving funds), it would at least improve the system marginally, I think. - masamunecyrus, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I'll agree with that. :-)
- jburka, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1They're writing about prescription, not street, drugs. Good to educate kids about those too. Take a course in pharmacology at university!
- smacksaw, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Zaibatsu - no Forbes.com
Get with your zaibatsu and make a collective decision to just say "iie" to Forbes.com and their crappy website. - take2la, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1This is a systemic issue. Most of the drugs prescribed in this country, have as side effects stroke, heart disease (inc. diabetes), or cancer. Add in to the formula, food additives such as "High Fructose Corn Syrup" (again causes obesity & diabetes). This particular additive is almost in every product on the shelves. The food, causes the disease, for which the drugs side effects are life threatening.
Do you think this is happenstance? Our society is held together by the economic pillars of energy, health care & insurance, largely. No pun intended. The only recourse is to eat healthy, stay active, don't accept any medications whose side effects are toxicity. Read thru the BS & make up your own mind.
http://www.psychconflicts.com - argoff, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2The real debate should be about patent and how they disincentive companies from acting in peoples best interest .... about how they're a false property (like slavery) and how they force the market to center around invention controls instead of invention services .... which ends up hurting inventors more than it helps them. How are patents anything other then genocidal - like when they sued in the world court to stop 15 million AIDS patents in Africa from buying generics made in India.
- MariusAgricola, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I was going to ask for some numbers to back up this claim, but then I came across a study that indicates this is so: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request ...
However, I don't think it's necessarily a problem that industry is motivated by profits. That's what the free market is about in the first place, and not all drug companies are created equal (that is, some are better than others). I would hate to paint the entire industry with the same brush. - TheMachine1, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2We had a story on Digg that mentions that 90% of high school seniors in Texas are not physically fit I'm going to extrapolate that to easily apply to all adults in the US since as people get older they tend to get less fit.
Anyway were making drugs for conditions like type-II diabetes that exercise and diet alone could treat in most cases. - Fast05GT, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2They will never "find" the cure for any cancer's or diseases... all the money is in the medicine and the long term monthly payments. A cure would only be a one time payment and pharmaceutical companies dont get rich that way.
- SenorGeltabz, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Instead of these people arguing over drugs. Why not take some of the crap out of the food people eat like high fructose corn syrup and other crap. I don't know maybe some of these ridiculous problems would start to go away. In a lot of cases illicit drugs is healthier than prescription drugs. It pays more to "TREAT" a problem, then actually do something about it!
- MsWireless, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0AMEN!
The food additive problem is outrageous. I was there when they did the study on Nutri-Sweet and sulphates in salads. And meat, what they feed the cattle you eat is appalling. If you want to eat organic, you best have a big pocket book. How insane does it get?
Iatrogenic. Definition: the treatment is worse than the disease. - cronian, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2You don't know the long-term effects of drugs until you've done long-term trials. However, by the time you know whether or not a drug works, its patent has run out. So, the drug companies make their money by BS'ing the FDA to approve another drug, that probably doesn't even do anything new, and then marketing the hell out of it to cash in before their patent runs out. In other words, the drug business is total *****. The way it is drug companies rush to sell a drug, that don't know the full effects of. Next, if any ill effects are discovered, the drug companies are heavily incentivized to lie, after all the money they've put into it.
I don't think private pharmaceutical research works very well. We should rely on non-profits and governments to do the research. Drug companies should focus on making the actual drugs. - inactive, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2You could just get rid of the FDA completely and have drugs certified by some UL-type organization. It would be legal to sell drugs without any sort of approval, but approval would be available. Plus, a place like the UL has a lot more to lose than the FDA. If the FDA ***** up they just shuffle the blame around until people forget what happened, but if UL blows their reputation they go out of business.
Then, you could perhaps even have scaled ratings in terms of effectiveness or whatever they think will make their certification more in demand by consumers. Granted it's more complicated but I have more faith that if I plug in something with a UL listing it won't catch fire than if I take some pill approved by the FDA I won't have a sudden heart attack.
It would be easy enough for someone to start, if they caught the next drug like Vioxx or Fen-Phen to slip through FDA approval before getting revoked before the FDA did. Do it twice and people would start calling for the FDA to be eliminated. - Abomonog, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1They do not pay hundreds of millions of dollars on drug testing. They might pay that on the research phase but safety testing rarely costs more than the price of 30 or so volunteers at 500 to 3000 dollars apiece.
The patent system is also largely responsible for the war on drugs.
There are no patentable drugs on the drug schedule and when a derelict formula is discovered (as in the case of ecstasy) drug companies instantly lobby to have that formula outlawed before any proper research can be done.
Ecstasy was developed in 1917 by the Germans as a mass mind control agent but was shelved. It entered America as a spoil of war in 1946 and remained shelved until the 80's when a Dallas psychiatrist and chemist discovered it. In the few clinical trials it received it performed better than any formula in existence for certain kinds of depression and was beginning service in marriage counseling of all places. However, ecstasy was involved in 2 deaths at a night club (heat stroke) and at that moment the major drug companies got wind of it's exsistance.
Millions of dollars were paid to senators and representatives to ensure it made schedule 1 and it did in record time. To date ecstasy has only been involved in a handful of deaths and there are no known cases of straight up overdoses. Users either die of heat stroke or literally kill themselves drinking water.
Aside from marijuana, ecstasies extremely low death rate makes it the least lethal modern drug in history. It also performed extremely well in the clinical testing it received. An excellent example of how the patent system encourages the squashing of old or unpatentable formulas to the detriment of the people.
In reality drug companies pay more in lobby money than safety research. - Nysul, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1There shouldn't even be an FDA (perhaps just an organization that protects against false advertisement, and one that evaluates food safety). People should have to either research the medications prescribed to them, rely on UL-type groups for certification, or get off their ass, eat well and exercise (solving the need for cholesterol, depression, high blood pressure, obesity, and ADHD drugs for MOST, and I realize not all, people). Conversely, I should be able to put anything in my body without the need for a doctor if I choose to do so.
- take2la, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0This is the cause. Watch this video, then question. Is it only limited to one protocol of products?
Or is it an market strategy?
http://www.psychconflicts.com) - Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I don't agree that the left side is crap. Related news, more by this author (to see how/what he writes) and stock quotes (seeing as how this is primarily a financial news site).
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1right. so almost all research says that drugs like ecstasy and marijuana are relatively safe, but possession of those is a felony. but big pharma has to jump through too many hoops. boo hooooo, drown in *****.
- twomeyw23334, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Yes, I totally agree with you. But what does that have to do with the patent system or innovation?
My original comment still stands, the patent system (while it definitely has its issues) isn't evil, and we certainly wouldn't have more innovation without it.
As far as insurance, I'm in the same boat as you. I (and my company) pay massive fees for a services that I never use. I would prefer to buy cheap insurance that offered very little other than covering big emergencies with a high deductible. Over the long run I would save ridiculous amounts of money, especially if my company then paid me their previous portion of my HMO. The problem is I can't buy this insurance because I have no choice, the only choice is the one option my employer gives me. In addition, there is so much government regulation of what insurance must cover that they can't legally offer bare bones coverage in most states.
The only possible way this will change is if McCain wins and manages to get his health plan through but in the meantime, I would say we don't really have health insurance in this country. We have pre-paid health care (does your car insurance cover oil changes?) and you either use it or loose it. The fact that I could pay cash for the annual doctor checkup and dentist appointment that I'm supposed to go to and it would be cheaper than 1 month payment of my HMO (my and my companies payments combined) just blows my mind. - Nysul, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Why? The only thing the FDA should regulate is truth in advertising claims. If I want to grow ephedra, weed, and poppies in my backyard and make teas out of them or smoke them it should be none of the government's business.
- WilliamDavis, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Drug companies actually love all of these hurdles, because it keeps the prices high and the competition away.
- Mootabolife, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2This is why Pulp Fiction is allowed on network television.
- vlumpt, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1The FDA mostly cares about themselves. They get no reward for approving a new drug, which can benefit millions of people according to choices made by them and their doctors (admittedly not perfect choices, but free choices). However, if they approve a drug they will be blamed or unpredictable adverse effects a few years down the road because our science is not yet developed enough yet to offer complete safety. In effect they are incentivized to look at the costs and not the benefits. Thus, a better glucose control drug will be kept off the market because of a possible effect on heart disease. This is not to the benefit of the patient that under advise of a doctor decides that this is the right way to go for them.
Regarding the patent system, there would be no drugs without patents because there is no compensation for forcing the drug companies to pay for increasingly extensive and expensive safety testing costing 100's of millions of dollars - something that is to the public's benefit and not to theirs. As a result, no company would or could afford to do clinical trials without a way to recoup this expense and it is the temporary market exclusivity offered by a patent that allows this. - twomeyw23334, on 07/10/2008, -2/+0The testing costs to bring a drug to the market alone, let alone the R&D costs, are massive. If you suddenly told companies that after investing millions into a drug and going through FDA approval some other company could copy it and sell it for ultra-cheap (they don't have the huge expenses to cover) the big drug companies would simply stop developing new drugs.
The only way such a scheme could possibly work is if the entire industry was made a non-profit government run organization.
So tell me how bankrupting an inventor doesn't "hurt" him and how hurting inventors (which is what you would be doing) would breed more innovation.
Why you're at it, maybe you can explain while all our basic economic knowledge is wrong and why all documented human history leading up to this point has been bogus. Why has a country such as the U.S., which uses patent laws, have more innovation in its short 200 year history than any other civilization in history. - inactive, on 07/10/2008, -2/+0You think you've seen it all with Mr. Hands, wait til ya see Mrs. Hands!
- 471776, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2You're right, we should stop broadcasting any film that makes any reference to drugs or crime in public venues or television.
- Animal, on 07/10/2008, -5/+3I just wish the FDA could start regulating the herbal/supplement "drug" market for efficacy and safety as well.
- sap959, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1was it a mass debate?
xD - kateyall, on 07/09/2008, -6/+3FDA does not give a ***** about me or you. It's all about moneys! They put new drugs out there like nobody's business. It didn't kill the rats, so we're probably okay. Right... right??? I'm so screwed. I love pharmaceuticals.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 