@criticalthud - Pretty much completely eradicating smallpox and polio, rabies is no longer a death sentence, there has been a 55% reduction in cardiovascular disease fatalities since the fifties, there is a 90% childhood leukemia survival rate, transplants, bacterial infections are generally no longer a big deal...

This is just what comes to me off the top of my head, with research I could go on for hours.

Of course there are flaws and in some cases corruption in western medicine just as you would expect with any such massively complex and lucrative human endeavor, but trying to equate it with the blatant quackery of "alternative medicine" only displays your intentional ignorance of reality and makes you the butt of any joke.

I have no patience for this kind of mindless drivel. Somehow, it has become trendy to ignore the benefits of modern medicine. Honestly, I don't care if you die needlessly of cancer because you waited too long to see some western doctors, but when scum like you try to contribute to the general atmosphere of rampant unfounded mistrust of science based techniques that have an astoundingly successful track record, then you are trying to spread your inane poison and I have to reprimand your idiocy.




http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150698.001.0001/acprof-9780195150698-chapter-18

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/childhood-leukemia-survival-rates-improve-significantly

>> ^Sniper007:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
Science > Prayer.
Where are you Shinyblurry??
(Great sift man. Would promote if I could!)

Yeah, because robot arms are way better than real arms.


That's what God thinks too. That's why He gives members of his beloved creation arthrogryposis, polio, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other such amusements. To show how much He loves us.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

In which country?>> ^Yogi:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
People still die from polio.

Yeah but not in this country.



Apparently in a country we're not helping very much lately. Pakistan.

In which country?>> ^Yogi:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
People still die from polio.

Yeah but not in this country.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

People still die from polio.


Yeah but not in this country.

People still die from polio.

Another fake history action movie?

What's next?

Bill Clinton: International man of mystery?
Ray-gun: republicans in space?
Dubya and Clive: a comedy about a stupid-looking ape and an orang-utan?

Actually, they all sound awesome. I'm totally on board with this. carry on....

>> ^zeoverlord:

>> ^therealblankman:
What is it with Dead Presidents and undead monsters?

Still waiting for the Ronald Reagan zombie apocalypse movie.


That would work. I was thinking along the lines of Richard Nixon vs the resurrected terra cotta army of the first Chinese Emperor.

"Nixon vs. the Terra Cotta Army. Only Nixon could save us from China!", or "Only Nixon could go to China... and kick some ass!".

>> ^therealblankman:
What is it with Dead Presidents and undead monsters?


Still waiting for the Ronald Reagan zombie apocalypse movie.

I thought you might enjoy this movie trailer
http://videosift.com/video/FDR-American-Badass-F-CK-POLIO

>> ^Sarzy:

So sad. How is it the 21st century and we haven't cured cancer yet??


Well, if your into conspiracy theories, there's money to be made not curing it. Me, i just think its harder to cure a genetic disease, than a viral (like polio). Sucks none the less.

@blankfist [edited b/c I didn't like my original comment]

You can't have it both ways.

Either
"Salk's research was funded privately, I'm afraid"
or
"Private charities won't cover it all"
--------------------------------------------

I'd also like to point out something interesting I dug up in the process of this discussion. While the polio vaccine was being tested on schoolchildren, before regulations went into place to prevent such a thing, 10 children were killed and 164 were paralyzed for life as a result of a bad batch of the polio vaccine being administered.

"The Salk vaccine was licensed at a time when we basically didn’t have vaccine regulation in this country. The government learned that having 10 people oversee vaccines, and frankly doing it on a part-time basis, was not good enough. The Cutter incident was a painful lesson about the fact that we needed much better oversight." - PBS's American Experience: Polio

"Investigators soon learned that all the sick children had been injected with a bad batch of vaccine, made in Berkeley, California. After a hasty and poorly staffed government screening process the vaccine had been deemed safe. In fact it had contained virulent live polio virus." - Same PBS link as above.

You left out the part where schoolchildren died or were paralyzed for life because of lack of oversight.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

There are 34 different pharmaceutical companies in the United States currently. There are 34Not one of them pulls down less than 1.6 billion dollars a year. The average revenue of the bottom ten pharmaceutical companies is 2.4 billion. The top ten make at least 10 billion a year in revenue with Johnson and Johnson pulling down a whopping 70 billion in revenue.


My point exactly. They're making a killing because there's such little competition in the marketplace. 34 doesn't seem like a small number to you? There are more mechanics in your hometown most likely.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Assuming your figure is correct, even the smallest of the pharmaceutical companies in the US would have access to producing something like the polio vaccine if the current cost to bring drug to market is in fact $802 million.


You're missing the point. Let's remember what this blog was about: what I'm assuming is more than 34 companies or schools have researched the AIDS protein for over three decade and they weren't able to do what the unlimited gamers online did in three weeks. That's opening the market. I know accepting that causes some unsettling cognitive dissonance, but there it is all pink and naked.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I still don't understand why you think a smaller pharmaceutical company would shy away from production/distribution of a drug if it was all already paid for through a nonprofit like the March of Dimes.


Because instead of spending $800 million for one drug, they could spend $800 million for who knows how many drugs. Ten. Fifty. Maybe hundreds. Thousands? $800 million is a lot of money.

Especially when it's "cost of doing business" the large pharmaceutical companies probably wrote into the law when their lobbyists got the legislators to pass it. I'd much rather pay $800 million as a rich corporation so only the rich investors can compete with me. That ensures less competition. And the less competition, the higher the profits for an inferior product. As one of the 34 I'd prefer that to compete with hundreds of companies.

And private charities won't cover it all. You need investors. And if you're an investor with minimal capital who can't afford the risk of the $800 million price tag, you'll probably not invest. What do you have against competition? Don't you agree that more competition would be better? Isn't that what we've seen with the gamers?

Hmmm, perhaps I misinterpreted you when you used the word "still" in that sentence. I thought you were suggesting something else; that was my mistake. Regardless, this ingenuity was made possible by state institutions and not surprisingly didn't come from the University of Phoenix or similar for-profit schools.

I never said that the state university fully funded his research (you must read, grasshopper), I said it was discovered at a state university. Surely the university loaned him a hand here and there.

There are 34 different pharmaceutical companies in the United States currently. Not one of them pulls down less than 1.6 billion dollars a year. The average revenue of the bottom ten pharmaceutical companies is 2.4 billion. The top ten make at least 10 billion a year in revenue with Johnson and Johnson pulling down a whopping 70 billion in revenue.

Assuming your figure is correct, even the smallest of the pharmaceutical companies in the US would have access to producing something like the polio vaccine if the current cost to bring drug to market is in fact $802 million. ESPECIALLY when you factor in that all of the research and development costs will be privately funded by charitable donations like the March of Dimes, as in your polio example, the costs would be minimal. I still don't understand why you think a smaller pharmaceutical company would shy away from production/distribution of a drug if it was all already paid for through a nonprofit like the March of Dimes.

Oh shit did I just blow up your whole argument? Boom motherfucker.

@blankfist

"I'm sure the researchers there are fantastic."

You are such a hypocrite. In your post you praise the discovery, and now you bash the university that made it all possible with a snide bit of sarcasm.
-----------------------
-----------------------
"He developed and released a cure to polio, but today the restrictions on the market makes this kind of charitable action illegal."

What EXACTLY are the restrictions that prevent someone from independently researching and independently developing a cure for a disease; and then openly publishing information about said cure.

And before you say "Well the FDA piles on regulations/fees DURRR, that's what my article said!"

Your article also said "Some observers would say that reducing FDA restrictions would reduce the price of drugs consumers face. I do not believe this to be the case. After the R&D is spent, firms price their drug to maximize profits subject to consumer demand."
-----------------------
-----------------------
Incidentally, the polio vaccine you referred to was also discovered at a state university.
----------------------
----------------------
We have lived in a world without the Pure Food and Drug Act. All it led to was maximization of profit through insidiously horrible work conditions, disgustingly inferior products for consumers, and the publication of The Jungle.