draak13

Member Profile


Member Since: June 22, 2007
Last Power Points used: never
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to draak13

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 16 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 15 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 14 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 13 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 12 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 11 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 10 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


enoch says...

why thankies!
i think all ideas should be challenged,especially my own.
if my ideas cannot withstand criticism or scrutiny,then they are probably bad ideas to begin with,and should be discarded pronto.

so i try to post videos that challenge the staus quo,or bring a new perspective and sometimes i just post videos that i agree with and see if those videos hold water.

so i am grateful that others can appreciate what i am trying to do.
stay awesome!

draak13 said:

Thank you for posting pieces that challenge the viewer to learn and think critically!

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on A Response to Lars Andersen: a New Level of Archery has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

lantern53 says...

thank you, brother

draak13 said:

Thanks for your discussion on the Fergeson incident, and for sharing that you are a police officer. It's certainly going to make your posts unpopular, given much of what I see on here, but I strongly respect that you shared this information in this situation. Your posts on the main topic were very substantive, and really put things in a more full perspective. I really learned a lot from this thread, and a lot of it was propelled by your comments.

The amount of misinformation seems rather high in this case. I don't know which way it will turn out, but thank you for being a reasonable voice with a contrary opinion to the knee-jerk reaction of the rest of the sift.

ChaosEngine says...

Excellent comment! Have a point!

draak13 said:

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!

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Top Comments