The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Happy Birthday Astin ... is it still your b-day in Oz? Hope it is/was ace mate

So, this is a major misconception by the public about where the money actually goes when drugs are developed. Read the link you have there, but with a more realistic eye about where the money is going. Drugs are SUPER expensive, but only because they're super expensive to discover. 'Drug discovery' is a tremendously difficult thing, to the point where it is the wetdream of a professional drug discoverer in the pharma world to discover 1 drug in their 30+ year career. During that time, the team of pharma researchers all have to be paid for their PhD level of expertise, and the human cost in developed countries is quite expensive! If there are 1000 people in one pharma company, and each person makes ~70+ thousand, and benefits cost another 100+ thousand per person each year, then the human cost alone in that rough exercise accounts for 170 million yearly for just 1000 people, and can touch the billion dollar figure per year for very large companies. That is where the money is going in that 1.3 billion dollar figure.

The major problem lies in developing a substance that actually does something, and you know exactly what that something is, including all side effects. To get a statistically valid clinical trial is actually a rather hard thing to do; a poorly designed clinical trial can prove whatever you want it to. Considering your St. John's wort example, the most costly 'drug discovery' component is already finished, it would just need to go through clinical trials as a drug for antidepression. The body of evidence in place may already serve for early phase clinical trials, and it may just need to go through a couple of more trials to prove its efficacy (and determine side effects). It would cost some money, but it would NOT be so prohibitively expensive as starting from complete scratch.

Considering this, the idea that it's 'unfair' to make the supplements world actually prove their product does what it is promised to do (or at the very least, not be harmful) is a bit odd. Quackery is illegal for moral reasons, and hard to argue that what the supplements world is doing is not quackery; particularly with the Dr. Oz zeal, false promises are being sold millions of bottles at a time. It is in the public's interest to get this stuff tested and approved!

Congratulations! Your comment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Dr. Oz has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your video, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Dr. Oz, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 3 Badge!

Your video, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Dr. Oz, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Did you notice the switch from Kansas to the Land of Oz there between 3:07 & 3:08 ?

Also... Did anyone else pick a place on the playground that they would ride out the storm as well? Yeah, part of the roof found me. Tornado: 1 - Me: 0

So the Wizard of Oz black and white tornado thing is true?

Maybe I'm uninformed here, but are they saying they're not able to open a debit account? Surely that's a zero risk proposition for any bank (if overdraws are restricted), it's just pure interest for them on anything you keep in there (minus any interest you receive).

Or is it different in the US with your reliance on checks? Even if that's the case, surely checking could just be restricted, leaving you with either cash withdraws or paying by card, with instant electronic verification.

As to transaction fees. Over here in Oz, most transaction and saving accounts are monthly fee free. This is pretty new (as recently as several years ago you'd have a $5-10 monthly fee). Wonder if it's different in the states.

If they're not able to secure a loan, that's a different issue entirely. I don't see how an alternative banking system would help there.

@ChaosEngine

I hope I don't have to be the one to point out the multitude of studies which have shown where crowds, group think or subjugation of one's opinion's to someone's authority results in terrible consensual decisions being made:

Stanford Prison Experiment
Milgram Experiment
Asch Conformity Experiment
Bystander Effect

In a situation like this, it's likely no one in the crowd has ever dealt with a serious fire. They may not recognise the risks of unexpected suffocation. They may not recognise how fast fire can travel or the risks of being trapped.

Earthquakes are somewhat different (and living in Oz I have no experience with them), but I would imagine that they can go from mild to serious very unexpectedly. California sits on multiple major fault lines. A serious earthquake is very plausible, it is in fact 'expected and long overdue' to happen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-japan-quake-california-idUSTRE72F5KG20110316

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

It's a secret code that you need to use google converter to unlock - 16 u.s. fl oz to ml

Would be much easier if they just sold half litre cups.

Wait? The half litre cup was the SMALL one???? Good grief!

Yeah, yeah. But now onto the big question!

So, what are the oz things that the Americans are going on about?