Dietary supplements: the free market vs. the FDA

We are the Borg.
User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:03 pm

Skeeve wrote:You remind me of one of my grandboys, when I ask him what he's holding behind his back.
Except I'm not holding ANYTHING behind my back. My numbers are out front, straight from the CDC. You just refuse to acknowledge them. You, on the other hand, CLAIM to have numbers, but refuse to show them.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:27 am

shanek wrote:Except I'm not holding ANYTHING behind my back. My numbers are out front, straight from the CDC. You just refuse to acknowledge them. You, on the other hand, CLAIM to have numbers, but refuse to show them.
Gracious me, Shanek. Where did I claim to have numbers? Could it be that you can't address the facts of how cause of death is reported, and have started bawling about numbers in order to avoid the real issues?

How much did gasoline cost in 1950, Shanek? I could afford to fill my Super Clipper Straight 8 for about $2.50 then, but if I had coronary heart disease, I was gone, too bad.

You're not mean, you're a idiot.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:23 pm

Skeeve wrote:Gracious me, Shanek. Where did I claim to have numbers?
When you said, "We have the numbers, and you, the evasive mean person, haven't anything but an untoward way of calling people who disagree with you liars."
How much did gasoline cost in 1950, Shanek? I could afford to fill my Super Clipper Straight 8 for about $2.50 then,
So you don't understand how inflation works, either. $2.50 in 1950 is the equivalent of about $19.09 today.

Inflation calculator: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html
but if I had coronary heart disease, I was gone, too bad.
According to this site:

http://www.health.gov/Partnerships/Media/heart.htm
Disease prevention activities -- such as lifestyle improvements by the American public and better control of the risk factors for cardiovascular disease -- have been a major factor in a 59 percent decline between 1950 and 1996 in the death toll from coronary heart disease and stroke. I commend those Americans who are making lifestyle choices to reduce their risk of heart disease and stroke.
So, lifestyle changes such as exercise and quitting smoking are largely the credit for this. NOT government medical regulations.

But then, you have the numbers, I don't...
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Sun Jun 27, 2004 6:27 pm

shanek wrote:
How much did gasoline cost in 1950, Shanek? I could afford to fill my Super Clipper Straight 8 for about $2.50 then,
So you don't understand how inflation works, either. $2.50 in 1950 is the equivalent of about $19.09 today.
My, my, child, how come you apply inflation to my costs, but not to your medical costs.

Quack, Quack, Quack.

While you're at it, why don't you address how doctors enter cause of death. While you're at it, why don't you address what happened to people with coronary heart disease in the 1950's. You can cite all the wishful thinking that you like, but you're so enamored of numbers, you really ought to cite the relative efficiacy of diet and exercise with an already damaged heart vs. lipitor and bypass.

You could do it, but you won't. You'll continue to evade until the liberatarian party is eaten alive by quacks like you.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite » Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:07 pm

Skeeve wrote:You could do it, but you won't. You'll continue to evade until the liberatarian party is eaten alive by quacks like you.
Given that shanek is a member of the Libertarian Party and given the resume of the Party's candidate for presidency, I can only conclude that the majority of the party are made up of quacks.

Sad, really, as many people have some sympathy with the ideas of libertarians (notice the small "l"). One such person is myself. What shanek and his party fail to understand is that in their endevour to be philosophically "pure" in their presumptions and the logically derived positions this entails, they will automatically lose most people's sympathy. Their current program is the program of fanatics. If they could grow up and temper their program, as all parties in a Parliamemtary Democracy must do, I expect they could be a force to recogned with, even in American politics.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Sun Jun 27, 2004 11:51 pm

Skeeve wrote:My, my, child, how come you apply inflation to my costs, but not to your medical costs.
When did I ever not do that? I said that comprehensive medical insurance was about as much as a power bill. And that's true. Since, on average, power bills have risen at a rate greater than inflation, your accusation that I did not apply inflation to my argument is specious and dishonest.
While you're at it, why don't you address how doctors enter cause of death.
Why don't you address the statistics on that? You said, "just wearing out," clearly meaning either exhaustion or natural causes or something similar. You did NOT say that they died from diseases relating to old age; in fact, you stated outright that those diseases were no longer a real problem thanks to our wonderful government regulations. You were WRONG.
While you're at it, why don't you address what happened to people with coronary heart disease in the 1950's.
Why don't you address the major reasons WHY the rate of coronary heart disease has fallen, which have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with regulations?

YOU are the one evading. NOT me.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:05 am

[quote="shanek"]Why don't you address the major reasons WHY the rate of coronary heart disease has fallen, which have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with regulations?
[quote]

Goodness, me, time to pay the piper on that one, Shanek. Why should I provide any such evidence, since you're the only one to use the words? Is it your religious beliefs that prevent you from realizing that the way to treat coronary heart disease has advanced by leaps and bounds, and it's done so, very nearly completely, after the initiation in 1960 of those regulations that you're so upset about?

That doesn't prove that regulations had anything to do with it, of course, then again, it's your own dishonest response that suggests that anyone has.

You, once again, are evasive. You make up points and claims when you can't address the ones that people actually make, you avoid and dodge the issues of how causes of death are listed, and you ignore the basic demographics known to everyone with experience in the field completely.

In short, you remain deliberately deceptive and ignorant. You won't convince me to vote for your political religion this way. I wouldn't vote for the hippies then, and I won't vote for you, now.

Every time you open you trap, you serve my method, you drive more people away from your quack political religion.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:06 pm

Skeeve wrote:Goodness, me, time to pay the piper on that one, Shanek. Why should I provide any such evidence, since you're the only one to use the words?
YOU made the claim that fewer people die from coronaries DUE TO THESE REGULATIONS. YOU made the claim. YOU back it up. And YOU deal with the evidence I presented that shows that you are WRONG.
That doesn't prove that regulations had anything to do with it, of course, then again, it's your own dishonest response that suggests that anyone has.
That's what this whole thread is about! In fact, I was the one who pointed out to YOU that very effect! Now, here you are throwing it back at me as if it refutes something I've said. Pathetic.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:04 pm

shanek wrote:YOU made the claim that fewer people die from coronaries DUE TO THESE REGULATIONS.
My, my, this is just like the schoolyard I had to control in 1950. No, little boy, I said that fewer people die from their first coronary.
skeeve wrote: While you're at it, why don't you address what happened to people with coronary heart disease in the 1950's. You can cite all the wishful thinking that you like, but you're so enamored of numbers, you really ought to cite the relative efficiacy of diet and exercise with an already damaged heart vs. lipitor and bypass.
As I have come to expect, that was an outright lie on your part. Why do you bother to lie when the evidence is easily found on the same page? Do you really think that the readers here are that stupid? Do you hold the people here in such intellectual contempt that you think they can't read back half a page.

Liar!

You are a deliberately, conciously dishonest, small-minded proseylitizer of a quacked political religion, and that's that.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:30 pm

shanek wrote:
Geni wrote:So I apear to be on your ignore list fine fine fine.
No, I just feel no need to provide support for a claim I never made. Especially when it's off-topic. The devaluation of the dollar, to my recollection, hasn't even come up ONCE in this discussion.
You claimed 100s of millions of dolars cost. I know ther rough figures in pounds so Unless the dollar has crassed your figure is out by an order of magnitude.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:37 pm

Skeeve wrote:My, my, this is just like the schoolyard I had to control in 1950. No, little boy, I said that fewer people die from their first coronary.
That is an outright LIE. The ONLY time you even USED the word "first" was when you were blathering on about only the "first" cause of death being recorded. You NEVER said ANYTHING about the "first" coronary before now.

You are perfectly free to quote yourself saying otherwise.
skeeve wrote:As I have come to expect, that was an outright lie on your part.
No, it isn't. The evidence, as I have posted, backs me up on this. Pretty much every source on the subject attributes most of the decline to lifestyle changes. Also amazing is that two of the best preventative actions you can take are aspirin (available for over 100 years) and wine (available for centuries). So, please present evidence showing how government regulation is responsible for the decline in coronaries. If you can't do that, you have no leg to stand on.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:57 pm

shanek wrote: No, it isn't. The evidence, as I have posted, backs me up on this. Pretty much every source on the subject attributes most of the decline to lifestyle changes.
You liar, you said I attributed the decrease in mortality to government regulations. I didn't. Stop lying, you sniveling little cheat!
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:19 pm

Here's an article that supports many of the points I've made here:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/pf/health_drug_costs/
Last year, for example, they spent $32 billion on R&D -- an amount equal to about 70 percent of the industry's profits. Moreover, most R&D money is spent on drugs that never reach the market. The industry points out that for every 5,000 treatments tested, only five make it to clinical trials and only one ends up in drugstores. Last year, a mere 15 drugs won FDA approval.

As a result, in recent years drugmakers have come to rely heavily on just a handful of blockbuster drugs -- $1 billion-plus sellers. For example, 85 percent of Pfizer's $32.4 billion in sales last year came from its 10 best-selling drugs.

Once a drug is approved, the company has a limited time before the patent expires and others can copy the drug and compete on price, which inevitably decimates sales. Prozac sales slid 22 percent the year its patent expired, 63 percent the year after that. Although patents last 20 years, the clock starts running when the drug is first developed, not when it's approved, so the average sales period is just 11 years.
Why are drugs cheaper overseas?

This one is simple: Other countries regulate drug prices.

In Canada, the destination for busloads of American seniors seeking cheaper drugs, a government review board sets the prices of new drugs and limits the increases on existing ones to no more than inflation.

Today the U.S. dollar's strength relative to the Canadian dollar gives us an automatic 26 percent discount. A three-month supply of 10mg Lipitor costs $183.97 at drugstore.com. In Canada, the same Lipitor costs $206.22 Canadian. At the current exchange rate, we can buy that Canadian Lipitor for $153.20.

For further proof that government controls and patent protections are what account for big price gaps, consider generic drugs, whose prices are unregulated in Canada. Generics tend to cost as much as 50 percent more in Canada. One little-discussed fact in the U.S.-Canadian drug debates is that the border is being crossed both ways: Canadians often buy generics from mail-order pharmacies in the U.S.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:21 pm

Geni wrote:You claimed 100s of millions of dolars cost. I know ther rough figures in pounds so Unless the dollar has crassed your figure is out by an order of magnitude.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040318/03/
The plans represent the agency's attempt to reduce the cost of developing drugs by using new diagnostic and imaging technologies to better design clinical trials. “We're not seeing the increases in new products that we expected based on all the advances in science,” said Janet Woodcock, the FDA's director of cross-center initiatives. “The professional staff at the agency is also concerned about how the new scientific knowledge is going to be worked up to apply to product development.”

The FDA estimates that a new drug costs from $800,000 to $1.7 billion to bring to market, but most drugs do not work on most people, Woodcock told The Scientist. According to the FDA report, despite a growth in government and private investment, the number of new drugs with novel chemical structures has fallen from roughly 70 in 1993 to less than 30 in 2003. New biologics applications have fallen from just under 30 to just under 20 during the same time period.

“The big story, I think, here, is that if you were to write a description of how drugs are developed in 2004, that really hasn't changed very much in the last 30 years,” said Alastair J.J. Wood, assistant vice chancellor for research at Vanderbilt University. “This is an early attempt on the FDA's part to make the case that maybe we should at least start a conversation on how we should change that,” said Wood, who was at one time considered a candidate for FDA commissioner.
It costs TOO MUCH to bring a drug to market, and as a result, innovation is being stifled. EXACTLY like I said. And that's from the FDA itself!
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:48 pm

shanek wrote:It costs TOO MUCH to bring a drug to market, and as a result, innovation is being stifled. EXACTLY like I said. And that's from the FDA itself!
Still evading, I see. Not only that, you're taking the word of the evil regulators themselves. I guess you've had to sleep with the enemy now to get your data.

But you're still evading. You lied when you said that I claimed that coronary heart disease was mitigated by regulation. I didn't say that. Why did you claim I did? You said
Why don't you address the major reasons WHY the rate of coronary heart disease has fallen, which have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with regulations?
, when of course I haven't ever suggested that regulations were involved.

If you wish to make a statement and find the data, I won't stop you.

But, before you go, please show us the evidence to support your implicit claim that deaths due to old age are listed as such. When you throw out the mortality numbers, and say that "old age' isn't even listed, you claim that "old age" is what the report would say.

Please prove that. Prove that when a 90 year old person has a final heart attack because their liver can't provide any sugar, their kidneys can't reject water, and their intestines can't absorb nutrients, that you would find any evidence of "old age".

Having read such death certificates, I know that they would say "heart failure" and then list the other contributing causes. "Old Age" wouldn't be listed anywhere, only their age, without comment.

So, in fact, you have no numbers that show, one way or another, that old age is or is not the final problem for a growing number of people. I suppose that we could cite the growing need for nursing care, assisted living, nursing homes, bed care, and the like, but frankly, you don't deserve the time or the respect, because you'll either call everyone who does a liar, or you'll lie right back in their faces, like you've done to me.

You are a politico-religious bigot.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:55 pm

Skeeve wrote:Still evading, I see. Not only that, you're taking the word of the evil regulators themselves. I guess you've had to sleep with the enemy now to get your data.
Ah, yes. Any excuse to avoid the data. Quote something from someone else and it's a biased source. Quote something from the FDA themselves and you're sleeping with the enemy. Pathetic.
But you're still evading. You lied when you said that I claimed that coronary heart disease was mitigated by regulation. I didn't say that. Why did you claim I did?
Maybe because you're LYING and you did really say that? You said this, your exact words:
Now, in 2000, what do we die of? Mostly of catastrophic cancer, catastrophic infections, catastrophic trauma, or of just wearing out. We have more people than ever now sick, because they're just worn out. They get there because nothing got them before that. That's a result of everything from the 1960's to last week, and that's the primary reason that medical care is getting so expensive, now we're trying to fix the stuff that's just worn out.
in response to my claim that regulations have stifled innovations since the 1960s.
If you wish to make a statement and find the data, I won't stop you.
Already have. You just ignored it.
When you throw out the mortality numbers, and say that "old age' isn't even listed, you claim that "old age" is what the report would say.
I didn't say that "old age" wasn't listed; I said it didn't make the top ten. But perhaps you were so threatened by the data you didn't even bother to read it properly...

By the way, why is it that your wonderful, miraculous regulations can save people from heart attacks EXCEPT when that's due to old age?

Oh, and you might also try and explain why the biggest medical breakthroughs in this area, including open heard surgery, transplants, etc., occured up through the 1950s.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:03 pm

It's time for you to admit that you haven't any evidence, and no other tactic than calling the people who outpoint you liars.

It's ok to play king of the hill on the playground, but the rules change when you start throwing dirt in people's faces.

You are worthy of neither argument nor response. Once again you've called me a liar when you absolutely, incontrovertably know that I'm not, and that after you, yourself, lied and tried to put words in my mouth.

You have no honor, morals, or ethics, and only a basic form of intelligence.

And, yes, it's all a government plot, and yes, they are all out to get you.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:23 pm

shanek wrote:
It costs TOO MUCH to bring a drug to market, and as a result, innovation is being stifled. EXACTLY like I said. And that's from the FDA itself!

Now what percentage of those costs are due to FDA rules? Regulation doesn't come in until pretty late in the day in terms of drug development. Then there are the areas that are not really regualted at all (synersis roots for example) these cost but you can't blame the FDA for this (and modern drugs are very difficult targets).

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:51 am

Geni wrote:Now what percentage of those costs are due to FDA rules?
Almost all of it. They're pretty much the only costs once the new drug is developed until getting to market, which is what that cost measurement was for.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

Loon
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Loon » Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:07 am

shanek wrote:http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040318/03/

It costs TOO MUCH to bring a drug to market, and as a result, innovation is being stifled. EXACTLY like I said. And that's from the FDA itself!
The exerpt you provided can be fairly summarized to say (and correct me if this summary is innacurate):

Bringing a drug to market is expensive. A smaller number of drugs with novel chemical structures is being brought to market. Things haven't changed much in 30 years. Maybe the FDA should reduce costs.

It doesn't say what percentage of the cost is due to FDA requirements. No statistics are presented for compounds that do not qualify as "drugs with novel chemical structure," though I'm not sure what those other things might be (food additives? agricultural chemicals? use of old drugs for new purposes?)

More importantly, the article presents no reason to abandon FDA testing and regulation. In fact the exerpts provided several posts above show that price regulation

I'm curious what support you see in the article from CNN. It seems to say that regulation keeps prices down. I didn't see much discussion of development and regulation costs, which seems to be the thrust of debate here.
I guess there he chose to err on the side of more votes. -[size=75]Grammatron[/size]