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 Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:08:35 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:



Actually, I did not say that. I said that NOW 90% of pharmaceutical
inventions were done in the US--not 1920, not overall, not anything
else. Those were the numbers that were reported publicly a couple of
years ago. Show that it's patently untrue if you can. Show anywhere
where we benefit from other countries' research as much or more than
we contribute.

Irt's patently untrue, the fact that 4 of the biggest 5 drug companies
are non-american and do their research in swiss, french and german
labs is all it takes.

Prove it. That's what the article said and these companies do a great
deal of their research in the US. I said this was done in the US
according to the article, not all done by US companies. The point was
to illustrate how important the US is to medicine in general and not
the ghastly system the moron Black babbles about.


your rabid nationalism does little to promote your arguments. The U.S
benefits as much as it contributes, and no amount of whinbing on your
part changes that.

Listen nitwit. This isn't rabid nationalism, it's a fact. I have
been quite critical about a lot of the aspects of the US system so I'm
not the rabid nationlist you claim if you'd bother to read. I am also
not a simplistic moron like Black who babbles about our "ghastly
system" all while the BBC says his has a survival rate for a colon
cancer about half of ours. And the French guy thinks heat stops at
the French border and a whole bunch of other nonsense. I never said
the US doesn't benefit from elsewhere. Of course, it does. That was
not the issue, however. These morons are the ones putting forth a
slew of nationalistic crap not me. I was just answering their
ridiculous simplistic, uniformed and erroneous libel, that's all.
They have little clue what they are talking about and haven't said a
thing about the BBC article other than calling the guy who posted it a
kook. Except do the whining you're talking about.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:23:49 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:14:07 GMT, "David Gee"
wrote:


"grant kinsley" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:09:28 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:
snip
Like what and where? How about giving examples that demonstrate
anywhere near the dependence worldwide medicine has on the US?

start with heart transplanrts. C. Barnard, South Africa

insulin. Best and Banting, Canada

neurology / neurosurgery, Wilder Penfield, Montreal, Canada



Notable achievements to be sure, but try coming up with ones closer to
the 21st century which is what I was talking about as I said. Start
with naming 10 new major drugs that have been produced in Europe or
Canada within the last decade or so.


First, most "major new drugs" are simply new additions to drug classes
already in use. In the last decade there are unlikely to be 10
distinctly new classes of medications. The blunt reality of most new
drugs is that they are produced to allow a drug company to get around
patents for a competitor so they can share in the profits.

there is nothing new about the most commonly used drugs in the
practice of medicine.

Alpha blockers, beta blockers, ace inhibitors, diuretics, ARBs, CCBs,
steroids, NSAIDs, vitamin D analogues, penicillins, sulfas,
macrolides, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, statins, fenofibrates,
digitalis, HRTs, oral contraceptives, H2RAs, antihistamines, PPIs,
ASA, Acetaminophen, quinine, quinidine anti arrythmics, anaesthetics
(local and general), SSRIs, tricyclics, MAOIs, Beta agonists,
atropine, epinephrine are all old drugs by the standards you are
talking and they cover the vast majority of what is used in everyday
and emergency medicine.

But some for instances of newer drugs that truly impacted the world.

GlaxoSmithKline in the UK (2nd largest drug comany in the world) is
responsible for

Serevent, the first long acting beta agonist. Part of the combination
drug Advair, possibly the most important drug therapy for control of
asthma

Wellbutrin, an atypical antidepressant, is a combines norepinephrine
and dopamine reuptake inhibitor, unique from tricyclics and SSRIs,
also used in addiction therapy

Ondansetron, a serotonin 5HT3 receptor antagonist, possibly the best
anti-nauseant for chemotherapy patients

Sumatriptan, the first of the triptan anti-migraine medications. truly
revolutionary.

Sanofi_Aventis in France is the third largest drug company in the
world. They have developed

Plavix, a unique compound that helps maintain blood flow in
atherosclerotic vessels. Not using this drug post-CVA and post stent
placement in modern western practice is likely akin to wilful
malpractice.

Actonel, one of two bisphosphanides used in weekly dosing to prevent
osteoporosis.

Leuprolide, Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Analog, suppresses growth
of prostate cancer by inhibiting gonadotropin production, allows
treatment of metastatic prostate cancer without castration.

Lantus and Epidra, synthetic human insulins allowing tighter control
of IDDM.

Enoxaparin, one of the LMW heparins, allowing heparinization of a
patient at risk of DVT with home subcutaneous injections rather than
IV treatments.

Novartis is the 4th largest drug company in the world, they are based
in Basel, Switzerland, and have produced the following drugs

Gleevec, chemotherapeutic agent in CML

Lamisil, one of the first unique antifungal agents in 50 years,
substantially safer than any of its predecessors (such as amphotericin
B and Griseofulvin)

Zoledronic acid, prevents pathologic fractures in bone cancers and
metastatic bone tumors.

Elidel, along with protopic are the only available nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory agents for treatment of eczema, these are
indispensible in treating facial eczema.

Hoffman Laroche is the 5th largest drug company in the world, they are
based in Switzerland and have developed agents such as

Trastuzumab, for treating HER2 positive breast cancer

Mefloquine, one of the major malaria prophylaxis and treatment agents

PEGasys, interferon for treatment of chronic hepatitis

Tamiflu, one of the few medications actually effective vs. influenza
viruses

Hoffman LaRoche also produces a large number of chemotherapetic
agents

Thats just a sample from 4 companies.

as far as canada. The protocol for antirejection in kidney transplant
that has been adopted nearly worldwide, it is called the Halifax
Protocol, developed in Nova Scotia.

The Edmonton Protocol is still developing Beta-Cell transplant
technology, this protocol is being done at several worldwide centers
now and offers one of the best hopes for curing IDDM

Colopath and ColorectAlert are diagnostic non-invasive tests for
colorectal cancers developed by Ambrilia Biopharma in Quebec

TVT technology for producing vesicles coated in tumor homing peptide
to deliver chemotherapeutic agents specifically to tumors is available
for licensing from Ambrilia, the future of cancer treatment lies in
the ability to produce agents that cen be selectively delivered to
tumours, this is one such way.

Ambrilia also has a pair of promising anti-HIV drugs in stage 4
testing

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.

GK

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:14:52 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:13:57 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:


Notable achievements to be sure, but try coming up with ones closer to
the 21st century which is what I was talking about as I said. Start
with naming 10 new major drugs that have been produced in Europe or
Canada within the last decade or so.

"10 new major drugs"???

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.

GK

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:54:50 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

big snip

I never said the
BBC article had anything to do with this issue.

What the hell are you talking about? You've done nothing but bring it
up! Just what drug are you on? Caffeine? Booze? Crack? Or just the
sweet lord...

This is just more
changing the issue by you, Blacko, the guy who thinks heat stops and
the French border, etc. when faced with the very real problems and
issues with their own systems that they were trying to portray as
great solutions while libelling ours. All out of complete ignorance,
of course. This only shows that fools rarely differ.

If anyone could figure that bit out, please tell me.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:30:15 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:28:58 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:26:07 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:27:15 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


It's all getting a bit tedious TBO.

I noticed.

I'll give '**** for brains' one last chance and than that's it...

Gee, yet another chance to show everyone what a complete idiot you
are. What fun. As if you control anything.

Haven't you noticed that everyone here thinks you're an idiot?

For some reason, I simply don't care what morons like you think.
You're a bunch of ignorant lying libellers. If you don't like being
called on this erroneous, ignorant and simplistic crap you post you
could always try stopping it. You might even try discussing real
issues instead of the load of crap you babble. Refuted even by the
BBC.

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:30:15 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:28:58 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:26:07 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:27:15 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


It's all getting a bit tedious TBO.

I noticed.

I'll give '**** for brains' one last chance and than that's it...

Gee, yet another chance to show everyone what a complete idiot you
are. What fun. As if you control anything.

Haven't you noticed that everyone here thinks you're an idiot?

For some reason, I simply don't care what morons like you think.
You're a bunch of ignorant lying libellers. If you don't like being
called on this erroneous, ignorant and simplistic crap you post you
could always try stopping it. You might even try discussing real
issues instead of the load of crap you babble. Refuted even by the
BBC.

Man, you are lost.

No one, absolutely no one has questioned the BBC article. It's
possible about right even. Really! I'm not kidding!

Now, what were you saying?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:55:26 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:36:35 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:59:49 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:16:24 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:38:41 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

I haven't had a single drink in about 2 weeks,

So what's your excuse for being so incoherent and agitated?

I'm neither. Just refuting fools posting complete nonsense like
yourselves. Won't do you any good, of course, but intelligent people
that can read and use browsers will have no problem.

We don't.

Talk about delusions of grandeur.

I think I'm replying to a true sad loser in the US of A.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:20:01 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:05:39 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Probably not if they're that incompetent.

Competence is not a factor. The only way to deal with high heat is to keep
cool.

Yeah, man. Chill out.

Spoken like a true Arizonan who should know

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.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:29:42 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:14:52 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:13:57 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:


Notable achievements to be sure, but try coming up with ones closer to
the 21st century which is what I was talking about as I said. Start
with naming 10 new major drugs that have been produced in Europe or
Canada within the last decade or so.

"10 new major drugs"???

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."