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 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:45:55 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:



where did I say 2 years?

When you originally posted this and said that the US sat on its hands
for about 2 years. That's where.

really? your claim is bull**** because I didn't. NEXT

If it wasn't you, it was someone else because that's what I responded
to.



compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12
years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think?

so the europeans were worse in Bosnia han the Americans were in WW2 when
it
come to sitting on hands. Your point is what

You just said it.

So my position is correct, the yanks sat on their hands

And you're a complete obsessive pinhead






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.

so we agree that they sat on their hands.

Nope, as I have shown, significant aid started in 1940. Apparently,
you think that if someone doesn't act on day 1 they are sitting on
their hands,

I must be ignorant I thought that Lend Lease was passed in early 1941

You're entirely right, for once, there. That you're ignorant.
Significant aid preceded that in 1940


Lend lease was a delayed payment system so America could profit from the
european war

Oh sure moron. That's why we got all our money back with interest.
Whoops, that was less than than $8 billion back out of $50 billion
given. Where is the profit there genius?

you do know what the lend lease programme was all about don't you. The
recipients would pay for the arms after the war finished. The Americans
actually being forced to enter the war changed things

Which they didn't. Nowhere near in full much less with a profit which
makes your statement complete nonsense as I said.

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:45:55 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:



where did I say 2 years?

When you originally posted this and said that the US sat on its hands
for about 2 years. That's where.

really? your claim is bull**** because I didn't. NEXT

If it wasn't you, it was someone else because that's what I responded
to.

Have you got any idea what you are trying to debate?




compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12
years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think?

so the europeans were worse in Bosnia han the Americans were in WW2 when
it
come to sitting on hands. Your point is what

You just said it.

So my position is correct, the yanks sat on their hands

And you're a complete obsessive pinhead

just trying to point out that the yanks sat on their hands as well as
Europe in relation to hitler et al







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.

so we agree that they sat on their hands.

Nope, as I have shown, significant aid started in 1940. Apparently,
you think that if someone doesn't act on day 1 they are sitting on
their hands,

I must be ignorant I thought that Lend Lease was passed in early 1941

You're entirely right, for once, there. That you're ignorant.
Significant aid preceded that in 1940

Well Lend lease was not aid so what AID flowed during 1940



Lend lease was a delayed payment system so America could profit from the
european war

Oh sure moron. That's why we got all our money back with interest.
Whoops, that was less than than $8 billion back out of $50 billion
given. Where is the profit there genius?

you do know what the lend lease programme was all about don't you. The
recipients would pay for the arms after the war finished. The Americans
actually being forced to enter the war changed things

Which they didn't. Nowhere near in full much less with a profit which
makes your statement complete nonsense as I said.

Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment was
expected

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:36:09 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:01:56 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:




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

Speak for yourself. As I said, you haven't proved anything about who
does what development. Anywhere anytime.

YTou have never backed your argument, the information below shows
without too much brainpower that your claim is not sustainable, all
the U.S. labs below do not provide 90% of the R&D for those companies.



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

You're, of course, the one trying to pull stuff out of your ass. For
the umpteenth time, WHERE have you shown anywhere who did the
development for the drugs you listed? Answer: you didn't and can't.



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

So, having shown you are a complete liar and have demonstrated nothing
at all about where the drugs were developed and by whom, you will now
just babble on like this to try to cover your bull****.




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.

Proof? None.

Given below, read before you comment


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

Oh, 2 US ones with a large one that I know of NJ because my wife has
friends that work there. Nothing done there, of course.

however the Sodertalje lab is the largest and the India lab is huge
and the most state of the art. The U.S. labs are not doing 90% of this
companies research.


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

Oh, 3 more in the US. Know what's done where? No.

Except that the vast majority is done at the 4 home operations.


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

Oh US again. By the largest of them all.

No surprise, but then they only account for 7.2% of global market,
next down the list GSK does 5.9% and the nest 5 down are
international, so Pfizer is not that much larger.


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

Ah 4 more. Nothing done there, of course.

Never said that, it's just that the other 21 do far larger combined
R&D, with the vast majority in France.


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.

All this listing proves what I said about their US presence and
disproves nothing of what I said, because as I keep saying, you have
no clue what is done where and by whom, with what success rate, etc.
etc. Just hand waving bull**** as if the more you talk the more
credible it becomes. You're just like the heat stroke guy who thinks
the more he babbles the more credibility he has. All while it
published all over the internet how the French system failed in 2003
and the health minister was forced to resign.

No, I actually back my claims unlike you, You are the hand waver, no
intelligent person looks at the data that I've shown and continues to
try and justify their argument that 90% of medical innovation, current
or otherwise is American. You're like GWB, can't admit you blew it.
Oh, but you are probably one of those that likes the smirking chimp.


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

For which you again have absolutely no proof.

Given above, only a retard would see anything else.


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.

You, of course, have done nothing of the kind. You have no clue where
the successful development is done, by whom, how much or anything
else.

Yeah, actually I did, including employment numbers when readily
available, 5 of the 6 top drug companies do the majority of their R&D
at their home country labs.


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.

That's good because nothing you have shown refutes anything.

Bull****

anyway I'm done doing your research, your arguments have been shown as
unbackable assertions. The information above more than adequately
shows that the U.S.A. is not responsible for 90% of innovation in the
medical business. The standard that you set your "I pulled it out of
my ass" argument is so high that for your argument to stand you must
provide proof. You never have.

Enough time wasted on you.

GK

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:42:12 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:36:09 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:01:56 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:




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

Speak for yourself. As I said, you haven't proved anything about who
does what development. Anywhere anytime.

YTou have never backed your argument, the information below shows
without too much brainpower that your claim is not sustainable, all
the U.S. labs below do not provide 90% of the R&D for those companies.

And as I keep asking you, you know this just how? Other than just
making it up like you're doing here?

Answer, there is absolutely none.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:23:44 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment was
expected

On paper, at least. Roosevelt probably didn't actually expect
repayment. In fact, payment consisted of turning over a certain
amount of Britsh property to the USA at the time.

Without at least a pretense of quid pro quo Roosevelt might not
have been able to get the bill through the somewhat isolationist
Congress.

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

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:23:44 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment
was
expected

On paper, at least. Roosevelt probably didn't actually expect
repayment. In fact, payment consisted of turning over a certain
amount of Britsh property to the USA at the time.

Without at least a pretense of quid pro quo Roosevelt might not
have been able to get the bill through the somewhat isolationist
Congress.


given the US isionlatist views at the time I tend to agree. But that does
not take away from the fact that the US sat on their hands while Hitler et
al was threatening Europe, which is the whole point of this sub thread







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

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:34:27 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:23:44 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment
was
expected

On paper, at least. Roosevelt probably didn't actually expect
repayment. In fact, payment consisted of turning over a certain
amount of Britsh property to the USA at the time.

Without at least a pretense of quid pro quo Roosevelt might not
have been able to get the bill through the somewhat isolationist
Congress.


given the US isionlatist views at the time I tend to agree. But that does
not take away from the fact that the US sat on their hands while Hitler et
al was threatening Europe, which is the whole point of this sub thread

There is no point to your comments other than trying to make it look
like the US was doing nothing in order to make it look bad.
Otherwise, you wouldn't bother with such idiocy would you. You would,
instead, show some gratitude for the thousands of Americans who died
in Europe, the aid that was given and quite a few other things. But
that's hardly your objective is it?

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:50:47 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:34:27 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:23:44 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment
was
expected

On paper, at least. Roosevelt probably didn't actually expect
repayment. In fact, payment consisted of turning over a certain
amount of Britsh property to the USA at the time.

Without at least a pretense of quid pro quo Roosevelt might not
have been able to get the bill through the somewhat isolationist
Congress.


given the US isionlatist views at the time I tend to agree. But that does
not take away from the fact that the US sat on their hands while Hitler et
al was threatening Europe, which is the whole point of this sub thread

There is no point to your comments other than trying to make it look
like the US was doing nothing in order to make it look bad.
Otherwise, you wouldn't bother with such idiocy would you. You would,
instead, show some gratitude for the thousands of Americans who died
in Europe, the aid that was given and quite a few other things. But
that's hardly your objective is it?

One has to face the fact that the US was indeed highly
isolationist up until Pearl Harbor. "Sitting on its hands" seems
a bit strongly worded, but it's more or less accurate. There were
certainly many intervention-minded people and politicians but on
the whole the American people weren't interested in pulling
European chestnuts out of the fire at the cost of American lives
again.

Franklin Roosevelt certainly took a longer view and knew that one
day we would have to go to war against Germany, but any steps he
took in that direfction had, politically, to be discreet. He had
to dress up Amerian aid to Britain as "Lend-Lease", where the US
would give Britain material aid in exchange for British bases and
land in the Americas. And he had to appeal to American's nicer
instincts by using the garden hose analogy in a speech.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odlendls.html

From http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odllpc2.html:

"Well, let me give you an illustration: Suppose my neighbor's
home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose four or
five hundred feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect
it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire. Now,
what do I do? I don't say to him before that operation,
"Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for
it." What is the transaction that goes on? I don't want $15--I
want my garden hose back after the fire is over. All right. If it
goes through the fire all right, intact, without any damage to
it, he gives it back to me and thanks me very much for the use of
it. But suppose it gets smashed up--holes in it--during the fire;
we don't have to have too much formality about it, but I say to
him, "I was glad to lend you that hose; I see I can't use it any
more, it's all smashed up." He says, "How many feet of it were
there?" I tell him, "There were 150 feet of it." He says, "All
right, I will replace it." Now, if I get a nice garden hose back,
I am in pretty good shape."

In some respects it's almost scarey. Particularly things like the
wildly enthusiastic theatricality of the German-American Bund.
Charles Lindbergh went to Germany a few times, was given awards
by the Germans, and became the object of the isolationist
movement, making speeches that in 1941 and later would have been
treasonable.

There is a Phillip Roth novel, "The Plot Against America", which
takes the premise that Lindbergh ran against Roosevelt in 1940 on
an isolationist platform and won.

Even after Pearl Harbor the sentiment aginst the "yellow menace"
was pretty strong and Congrtess heartily voted war against the
Japanese on 8 Dec 1941. But war was not declared against Germany
until 11 Dec 1941 after Hitler supported the Japanese by
declaring war on the USA, and act not required by his treaties
with Japan. As I mentioned before, it is interesting, if
fruitless, to speculate on how history might have gone had Hitler
not declared war on the US.

What we found later about plans to divide the USA between German
and Japan, and about Hitler's pushing for an Amerikabomber and
other ways to drop bombs on the USA indicates that the Americans
had scales on their eyes.



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

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:18:36 GMT, grant
kinsley has scripted:

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

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.

Have you figured out this guy's debating strategy yet?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:58:41 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:18:36 GMT, grant
kinsley has scripted:

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

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.

Have you figured out this guy's debating strategy yet?

yep, he's a maroon, as bugs bunny would say,

he pulls stuff out of his ass, then defends it with hand waving.

that's why I'm not debating him anymore. :-)
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---