Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:47:30 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:38:35 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


I think you will find that the US sat on its hands when Hitler and
Mussolini
were threatening Europe



Oh that's right. I forgot that the hundreds of thousands of US killed
and wounded happened in the US and would later shipped over to be put
in graves in France and elsewhere. That's right. That's what
happened.

Hitler invaded Poland in what year? The Americans joined the war in Europe
in what year and why? I think you will find there is a gap of a couple of
years between those dates.



Of course, there was. We keep forgetting here how incompetent
Europeans are at solving their own problems. Just like Bosnia, of
course, we had to intervene to stop it. And Poland was invaded in
September 1939 and the US started the Lendlease program less than a
year and a half later. Far too long for you is it? 12 years wasn't
enough for you for Bosnia

so it looks like the US sat on its hand for quite a while when Hitler and
Mussolini were threatening Europe. Next

And might have continued to sit on its hand had Japan not hit
Pearl Harbor. A good "what if" for argument is "what if Hitler
hadn't gratuitously declared war on the USA right after pearl
Harbor?"


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article
,
dechucka wrote:

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:38:35 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


I think you will find that the US sat on its hands when Hitler and
Mussolini
were threatening Europe



Oh that's right. I forgot that the hundreds of thousands of US killed
and wounded happened in the US and would later shipped over to be put
in graves in France and elsewhere. That's right. That's what
happened.

Hitler invaded Poland in what year? The Americans joined the war in Europe
in what year and why? I think you will find there is a gap of a couple of
years between those dates.



Of course, there was. We keep forgetting here how incompetent
Europeans are at solving their own problems. Just like Bosnia, of
course, we had to intervene to stop it. And Poland was invaded in
September 1939 and the US started the Lendlease program less than a
year and a half later. Far too long for you is it? 12 years wasn't
enough for you for Bosnia

so it looks like the US sat on its hand for quite a while when Hitler and
Mussolini were threatening Europe. Next


Hummm... but it was France and the UK who were charged and accepted the
responsibility to inspect Germany after WWI to prevent Germany from
building up a military... and by 1936 they didn't even need to make
physical inspections... just read the paper.

Who sat on their hands ?

"NEXT"

jay
Wed Aug 15, 2007

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:32:33 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:30:30 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:



Perhaps so you'll better comprehend:

I've can comprehend the fact easily the Yanks sat on their hands while
Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe

Oh poor Europe. Why don't you just stop killing each other and
relying on us?


totally different debate, you claimed that the US did not sit on its' hands
when Europe was threatened by Hitler and Mussolini I pointed out that you
were wrong

Only you would think a neutral country at the time not acting for less
than a year and a half, not the two you said, would be sitting on its
hands, compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12
years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think?





a. less than a year and a half is nothing.


Well it was about 1/4 of the time the war lasted

Big deal. Solve you own problems. Funny how lots of you only like
America when it saving your asses isn't it?

America like normal only got involved in the war when it suited their self
interest ie Japan blew up your fleet in Pearl Harbour

Gee, as if any country in their right mind gets involved in a war for
any other reason. Brilliant.




Switzerland never did
anything except rip off jews the entire war

we aren't discussing Switzerland

That's right. It's not in Europe is it? Spain then. Oops not in
Europe either. Ireland then. Oops also not in Europe. Portugal.
My god, also not in Europe. Sweden. Definitely not in Europe.

wtf r u going on about? I think you are trying to divert attention from the
fact that the US sat on its' hands while europe was threatened by Hitler and
Mussolini. This may have been a good thing or a bad thing but it is a fact

Uhh, how about an analysis of European countries that sat on their
hands for the ENTIRE WWII?





b. why should we have done anything at all? Europeans love to
slaughter each other--see entire 20th century.

you only did something about it after Pearl harbour, if not the Americans
would have continued to try and make a profit out of the European War.

Never heard of Lendlease have you? How about the Marshall Plan
afterwards. Did you hear of that?

Len Lease that was a deferred payment scheme wasn't it. Now do you note
that the Marshall plan was AFTER the war. Doesn't take away from the fact
that the yanks had sat on their hands

You really are a simpleton aren't you? I don't know Len. Is he a
friend of yours? Here, why don't you read about what it really was
and see how much we got back:

Lend-Lease was the name of the program under which the United States
of America supplied Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, France and
other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941
and 1945 in return for land to house a military base. It began in
March 1941, nine months before Pearl Harbor. It was abruptly stopped
by the Americans immediately after VE-day

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007
prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain,
$11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6
billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on
air bases) that went to the U.S. It totaled $7.8 billion, of which
$6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Apart from
that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the
termination date. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a
discount, for £1,075 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.)

And, oh yeah, while we were sitting on our hands:

Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act
of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States
to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise
dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems
vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article".
Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the
end of October, 1941.

Earlier, there was an entirely different program in 1940, the
Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were
transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange
for basing rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland.

Reduces your stupid sitting on our hands crap doesn't it?





c. in spite of this, we did and took care of the problem didn't we?
Just like Bosnia.

well I think those damn Russians had quite a bit to do with it

That's right. They were going to veto the action in the Security
Council, so it was done with NATO. Big contribution.

I was referring to WW2

Funny we were talking about Bosnia and the US. No one doubts what
Russia did, but go and read about Stalingrad and you will have hoped
both Stalin and Hitler would have lost, given what they both did.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:36:18 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Me, I'll take the medical specialists who actually know what they
doing and talking about.

Me, I'll do the research myself. I don't like it when others try to make my
decisions for me. It's dangerous to make decisions based on the opinions of
others, and it's dangerous to rely exclusively on credentials.

Fine by me. Who cares if you kill yourself.


If you say so. Then it's a world class crappy system not supposedly
the world's finest as the WHO thinks. Can't even handle an
infitesimal percentage of the population. World class that.

It really has nothing to do with the health system. The same problem would
have existed anywhere under the same weather conditions.

See entire rest of Europe during the same heat wave.


Gee, can even transport about 1/3 of the people that go to a football
game spread out all over France.

Transport them where?

Can't figure that out either can you. Even after I gave you several
examples.


Complete bull**** as usual. It's done all the time in emergencies
here.

No, it is not. Even in hot desert climates, heat waves kill people.

Blah, blah. Crappy French health system.


But I guess in our dismal system (see Black) we plan for
various emergencies in advance (excepting the Bushies, of course, who
couldn't organize a Boy Scout reunion).

Is New Orleans an example of how well you plan in advance?

Gee, what did I just say genius? Even Nixon recognized that two
wrongs don't make a right. They make two wrongs. See French
healthcare system, heat wave 2003.


Hmm, you must be suffering from it now. As wikipedia says "Heat
prostration, or heat exhaustion, is characterized by mental confusion,
muscle cramps, and often nausea or vomiting. At this stage the victim
will likely be sweating profusely. With continued exposure to ambient
heat, which sometimes is facilitated by the mental confusion,
temperature may rise into the 39 to 40 °C range (103 to 104 °F), and
lead to full-blown heat stroke."

Yeah, these are all symptons that wouldn't lead someone to think
something is seriously wrong alright.

Not a self taught idiot like you. Any normal person would. A
temperature of 39 to 40 °C range (103 to 104 °F) not serious?
Hahahahaha. Typical conclusion of a self taught idiot.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:38:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

So now you are wandering all the way back to 1955 to try to compare
something?

The Chicago figure dates from 1995.

Are you completely unaware of all the
technological advances and advancement medical knowledge and systems
that makes you're argument completely ridiculous?

There have been no significant technological advances in this domain,
particularly since 1995. The last important advance was air conditioning, but
it places where it is not widely used, it is not much of a factor.


Right. No medical advances since 1995. Well, there goes all the
other guy's major European drug advances alone.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:45:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:



so it looks like the US sat on its hand for quite a while when Hitler and
Mussolini were threatening Europe. Next

And might have continued to sit on its hand had Japan not hit
Pearl Harbor. A good "what if" for argument is "what if Hitler
hadn't gratuitously declared war on the USA right after pearl
Harbor?"

While I don't agree with the sitting on our hands stuff unless you are
just talking about sending troops as you can see from the various aid
that was given (and never repaid), this is an interesting question
vis-a-vis Europe because we certainly would have been involved in
Asia. Though Roosevelt purposely withheld resources from the Asian
theatre to put into Europe. Just ask MacArthur in The Phillippines.

Another interesting question is what would have happened in Europe had
Hitler not attacked Russia?

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:31:42 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

Gee, what did I just say genius? Even Nixon recognized that two
wrongs don't make a right. They make two wrongs.

That's not necessarily the case. Two wrongs don't make a right, but
they can cancel each other out, and that's better than one wrong.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:49:01 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:55:55 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:07:34 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:27:13 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:


Just an important one for me is Novo Nordisk in Denmark. One of the
world leaders in recombinant DNA produced proteins, they not only
produce a variety of human analogue insulins, but also recombinant
factor VII for hemophiliacs, Norditropin, a synthetic human growth
hormone and are currently testing for a variety of anti-tumour
proteins.

Thats a quick sample of what the rest of the world is doing, took me
about 10 minutes to find that and certainly represents a nice slice of
the many things that worldwide labs, both large and small are doing.

Well good for you. You have done your research. I won't go into how
Pfizer is the largest in the world, has the largest selling drug in
Lipitor, etc. etc. It is true that these companies developed those
you cite, but the question is where not who. Most if not all of these
countries have major facilities in the US where a lot of r and d is
done and they do a lot together with other companies. A lot of the
research is also done in universities, not companies in any case and
licensed to the companies. In any case, as I stated before, I have no
problem acknowledging that this is a global interconnected business.
I was simply refuting Black's nonsense about the US having a ghastly
system. You at least answer intelligently which is appreciated. Much
better than the others who just babble and ignore the very real faults
of their systems.


the largest selling company doesn't provide 90% of the development.

How do you know who does 90% of the development.

So you pull anumber out of your ass and expect it's credible, Whereas
I have shown that many international companies produce many of the
most innovative medical research around


If you want to talk aboput where development takes, it is all over the
world with studies in many many countries, so your whining on that
front doesn't hold up. There are university sites throughout western
Europe, Canada, India South Africa working on drugs for many of the
companies, including Pfizer.

True, but this doesn't tell anything about how much of the development
is done where does it? It just says that development is being
undertaken in lots of different places.

Again, your department of pulled out of the ass statistics has no
support, several international groups doing research and development
does not support your assertion


The point of argument here is that you refuted Black with an argument
that you couldn't back, you've been shown the evidence, now move along
to something you can back.

You haven't done anything but list a bunch of different drugs.
Nothing more. I never said non-US drug companies didn't do
development. I said that the article I read said that 90% (at the
point the article was written) was done in the US. Period. And you
have no idea where that list of drugs you came up with were developed
do you? For all you know, they may have been developed in the US.

and you have never shown your assertion to be close to true. Since 4
of the top 5 companies are doing innovative research in their
countries and abroad there is sweet **** all to your assertion


The fact that 10 minutes of research on my part showed your 90% of all
good medical things are american is false. Maybe you should learn that
arguments need facts to back.

Which, of course, is a complete distortion of what I said, which
referred only to drug development and, as I said, you proved no such
thing. You have no clue where those drugs you listed were developed,
as I said. You only showed who sells them after they are developed
and who owns their rights to do so. Nothing more.

Most are done at their labs in switzerland, germany and france. these
large companies have batteries of pharmacologist doing on-site
research.

AstraZeneca, main research labs are in Sodertalje, Sweden with 5
other European R&D centers, 2 U.S. centers, 2 in Japan, 1 in India and
a new center in Shanghai

GlaxoSmithKline major research centers are in U.K (4), Italy, Croatia
and France, and 3 in the U.S.

Pfizer has most of their R&D in the U.S. but has 3 international R&D
centers

Sanofi Aventis has 19 European Research centers, 12 in France, 4
American centers, and 2 in Japan

Novartis has 1500 scientists employed at the Basel Switzerland site 2
american sites, 2 other European sites and 1 japanese site hosts a
further total of 800 scientists

Roche has 2 pharmaceutical labs in Europe 1 in China, 2 in the U.S.,
they also have diagnostics R&D at 5 European centers and 2 in the
U.S.


Merck interestingly has 200 people at the main Boston Lab, plans to
increase to 400, they don't say much about their rosetta division,
other than about the 5 chief scientists. They proudly hail the
accomplishments of 225 scientists at the Montreal site. There is a
site in England that does R&D, but not sure the numbers employed.

Eli Lilly has 2 locations for R&D in the U.S. (down from 4), and R&D
facilities in Australia, Belgium, China, England, Germany, Japan,
Singapore and Spain.

No matter how you slice it, the U.S. does not do 90% of the
innovation, whether you guage it by the compnay headquarters, or by
the R&D facility locations.

The reality is that the Western countries (Europe, U.S. and Canada)
are doing most of the research and it is well divided up.

Bluntly I don't care about the American medical system, That's for
Americans to worry about. I found your misinformation, however,
offensive and you made those statements based on your nationalistic
hubris.

And you are full of ****, because I did no such thing but you're
making a great attempt here of doing that yourself aren't you?
Crowing about a list of drugs owned and marketed by non-US companies
that you have no clue where they were developed.

Again, I've shown where the companies are and where the R&D is done.
You have failed to back your arguments. You simply do not provide
proof for your statements.

My intent was to show your 90% argument is flawed, I have done so. If
you want to refute it do some damn research. I'm finished doing it for
you.

GK

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:22:02 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:04:55 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:


What on earth could that mean? Just how can anyone measure by what's
"major"?

Uh, you could start with sales. The major ones sell the most


crappy determinant, how about the drugs that actually produce an
effective change in therapeutic methods. Just because a new birth
control pill becomes more popular because of lining american doctors
pockets does not mean it's a major new drug from any meaningful
perspective to the general population.

Back to bashing are you? Just when you were beginning to be sensible.
There are, of course, lots of ways to measure this and sales IS the
most common. If I had a serious disease, however, my first one would
be the one that effectively treated that disease whether anyone else
bought it or not. That's why the saying "statistics don't lie. Liars
use statistics."


Not bashing, the simple fact is that sales are not a good determinant
of quality, inventiveness or efficacy. Those are the considerations
that really mean something, and for the argument, one should be using
originality. Your own arguments were about innovation.

I already said there were more ways to look at things than just sales,
but sales is the measure most commonly available for measurement.
Where are you numbers for measuring those you mentioned?


If you want to measure the impact of drug development, you should use
a standard that actually has an impact on how it impacts patient
health and change in standard of treatment.

Funny, they have done this for years for Lipitor which is by far the
biggest selling drug worldwide, or are you now arguing that it has no
impact on mortality or morbidity?


The development of simvastatin as the first marketable statin was
important, it had global impact on how we treat and prevent heart
disease, the development of Lipitor and Crestor were simply ways for
other drug companies to cash in. Lipitor selling more than Zocor and
Crestor has everything to do with marketing.

Complete nonsense. There us considerable differences between these
statins and their combinations with other drugs, creating Vytorin, for
example, which both raises significantly good cholesterol and lowers
the bad. Simivastin, in fact, is one of the components of Vytorin.
And, for your information, it was NOT the first marketable statin.
Lovastatin was. Mevastatin was the first discovered, which occurs
naturally, but wasn't marketed. And Crestor is viewed as an outright
dangerous statin as viewed by many professionals who think it should
be pulled from the market Just like Bayer's Baycol was. Oops. That
was a major European drug wasn't it?

Your full of ****, Crestor is no different in safety profile vs.
Lipitor, it is cheaper, it produces less effect on HDL than Lipitor at
half the dose, so dose dependant SE are much less. Oops, Bayer is an
American company, was confiscated in WWii and i based in the U.S.

Vytorin is a combination drug, it does not significantly raise HDL, it
has drops it the same as Lipitor, it's just that the Ezetrol component
that has no effect on HDLt. It has all the risks of Lipitor.

Oh by the way, Zocor was R&D by Merck concurrently with Mevacor, it
was released later to compete with the competitions more potent
Pravachol, allowing Merck to release Mevacor and keep a little more
patent life on Zocor, it was truly the first discovered marketable
statin.

Do some damn research


Your argument that 90% of all good medical things are american needs
measurement by a standard that is meaningful in the practice of
medicine and patient outcome, sales aren't it.

Which I never said, of course, but obviously from the above, accuracy
isn't your forte.


FWIW Crestor is better than Lipitor, and is the only statin with
minimal HDL effect, Lipitor is no better than Zocor.

Baloney. Crestor is quicker acting and nothing more and most probably
outright dangerous. Zocor and Lipitor are roughly equivalent for most
people but can vary dramatically individually. Vytorin beats them
both head and shoulders (I know because I have used both Lipitor and
Vytorin). And Lipitor, unlike all the others is the only one that has
been shown to actually reduce arterial clogging as well.

No Crestor is at least twice asd potent as Crestor for equivalent
dosing, HDL suppression is significantly less. It is absolutely no
more dangerous than Lipitor.

As far as Vytorin vs. Lipitor, it's 2 drugs moron, of course it works
better than Lipitor, it's Lipitor and Ezetrol. It takes Vytorin 20 to
equal Crestor 10. and no Lipitor doesn't have an endothelial effect,
that's Lipitor combined with an ACE, marketed in a combo-form called
Caduet.

I should know, I'm a physician, I see the results every day working in
a population that is very homogeneous with a high penetration of
genetic hypercholesterolemia.

Oh, and all the ranting about the dangers of statins, rhabdomyolysis
is exceedingly rare, I've seen a true case once in 19 years, and it
was easily reversed by stopping the statin.

You are truly a boob.

GK

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:28:43 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:41 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:


As for other heat related episodes, you might want to refrain from
slamming other countries when the U.S. has shown that large number of
people die in single U.S. cities due to heat waves.

"Several of the worst heat waves of the twentieth century occurred in
U.S. cities. In 1955, an eight-day run of temperatures over 100
degrees Fahrenheit in Los Angeles left 946 people dead. In 1972, New
York City suffered a two-week heat wave that claimed 891 lives. More
recently, an extreme heat wave in Chicago in 1995 killed 739 people in
a matter of days. Slow political recognition of the threat and an
overloaded response system worsened the effects of the weather
anomaly."

Chicago has about 3 million, Europe has about 725 million, France
about 64 million

739/3million is about .02% of total population
35000/727million is about .004% of the population
14800/64million is about .02% of the population.

It doesn't look the US has any better record on treating heat related
deaths.

So now you are wandering all the way back to 1955 to try to compare
something? How quaint? Are you completely unaware of all the
technological advances and advancement medical knowledge and systems
that makes you're argument completely ridiculous? I guess not. And,
gee. 2003 was sooo long ago.


RTFA

I used Chicago, 1995 for comparison.

GK