Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tali
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    Odar, I highly respect you
    But your link sends me here:
    "Plague (diseaseFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
    Did you mean: Plague (disease)
    Look for Plague (disease on one of Wikipedia's sister projects: Wiktionary (free dictionary)
    Wikibooks (free textbooks)
    Wikiquote (quotations)
    Wikisource (free library)
    Wikiversity (free learning resources)
    Commons (images and media)
    Wikinews (free news source)
    Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Plague (disease in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
    Start the Plague (disease article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it.
    Search for "Plague (disease" in existing articles.
    Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other reasons this message may be displayed:

    If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
    Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
    If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?. "

    there have been 'discoveries' but not cures.

    Leave a comment:


  • Odar
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_(disease)

    "From 1347 to 1351, the Black Death, a massive and deadly pandemic originating in China, spread along the Silk Road and swept through Asia, Europe and Africa.[15] It may have reduced the world's population from 450 million to between 350 and 375 million.[22] China lost around half of its population, from around 123 million to around 65 million; Europe around 1/3 of its population, from about 75 million to about 50 million; and Africa approximately 1/8th of its population, from around 80 million to 70 million (mortality rates tended to be correlated with population density so Africa, being less dense overall, had the lowest rate)."

    Just a little specification


    The best progress we have made is providing nearly everyone in the so-called developed countries with the basic conditions for a decent living (until now, at least). That alone has almost completely erased the major epidemics from those areas (except AIDS, but that's a new one), as well as a number of infective diseases that still kill/disable hundreds of thousands every year in the rest of the world. Especially where there's a war going on.
    I suspect one of the reasons why treatment for "old school" diseases was implemented was that a dead man is of no use as a soldier/worker/consumer. A man suffering from cancer, heart condition, mental illness or one of the many degenerative diseases, on the contrary, can still produce and buy for quite a long time, until they're with both feet in the grave. And even then, they "consume" treatment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tali
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    Ah, so there was the division. I was discussing global while you were discussing national.
    Ultimately, we are agreeing. There was some progress but not in finding cures, per se.

    Leave a comment:


  • Haykakan
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    I am discussing this on a national level because it is nations that decide what their people need not some vague world wide structure. Some nations have different diseases then others thus each nation can work on the cure it needs most. Some forms of cancer are more of a problem then others so these are the ones which will get the attention first. Just ask the person i mentioned earlier what she thinks about the wonders of modern medicine under capitalism. Imagine no progress in over 60 years! Makes me sick.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tali
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    Perhaps I wasn't clear. I understood what you're saying. But from a healthcare profession standpoint that I have, I see it differently. For instance, stroke is not a disease. Heart disease is usually linked to more genetic-based. Cancer has so many different forms. There's breast cancer, colon cancer, 'blood' cancers, and so many more. Some of these are more common say, in America versus Canada, or Africa, China, and so forth. Drugs are an international market; so 'picking a cure' would be interesting. Not impossible, but interesting because the type of diet people have, the type of exercise necessary to live in various societies will affect what kind of diseases they are prone to. For instance, the plague was in Europe, not Asia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Haykakan
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    Tali I don't think you are grasping this concept very well. There are a few diseases today which already effect or will in the future effect most of the population. Cancer, heart disease, stroke are things that almost everyone will get unless cures are found therefore we are all afeected and would want cures to these diseases. It is not as complicated as you are making it out. The search for cures is driven by the self interest of the population not the profitability for pharma (idealy).

    Leave a comment:


  • retro
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    Originally posted by myragnarok View Post
    There is also incentive to get $$$ for stuff like cure for cancer, and say we still haven't found the cure for it when they might have... you get the point
    If you get cancer you are pretty much done for and it's a really horrible thing. A cousin of mine is an Oncology Nurse and she was telling me that maybe nine out of ten people, who she threats don't make it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tali
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    Originally posted by Haykakan View Post
    Which disease to research cures for is easy to decide. You start with the ones afflicting the most people and doing the most damage. You research to find cures for whatever ails society the most. People do care about cures - even if you do not have heart disease or cancer you should still care about finding cures because chances are you will have them later and your family and friends will to. Yes there will be less choices but you will get what you need and there will be actual cures to serious problems instead of treatments which never fix anything. The answers are all there its the power to make things happen that is not.
    Not so easy... For which demographic? for which race? Some diseases discriminate. Whose society? People generally don't care about cures because they want the symptoms to go away. If it's not bothering them, they learn to tolerate whatever it is they have (ie: our asthma). As for those people that do care, when you go to ask them for money they shy away from you. (I was a fundraiser.. got firsthand experience on that one ) People live in a perpetual state of denial. Everyone thinks "it won't be me." This is assuming people even find the cure. How many "cures" have we really found to date? I wouldn't say so much the power, I'd say the willingness isn't.

    Originally posted by Odar View Post
    The analogy with food is not correct. There are different types of food indeed, but, say, Chinese noodles are Chinese noodles, no need to have 450 different brands of the same thing right? People almost always judge a product from its package, whereas its taste - or in case of medications - its active principles are more or less the same. If we take it for good that a certain chemical compound/xxxxtail is supposed to have this and that effect on the average human being, then let's have just one product, the one that works best, and that's it.
    I think you missed my point. I was saying food. You gave me a perfect example. You chose a specific type of food: Chinese noodles. Chinese noodles are grains. What else are grains? Cereal, bread, etc. We have a variety of food that still gives you the same nutrients that your body needs. So the point I was making was that we could pretty much live off of austronaut food - which though isn't very appetizing, does give you what you need to survive. Astronaut food is typically considered "the best;" at giving you the essentials. So really, to stay in line with the idea of medicine simplisticism, we'd all be eating astronaut food.


    Originally posted by Odar View Post
    Also, it's not researchers and chemists who profit the most from the marketing of a product - it's who runs the firm they're working for. Hence, they should still receive a salary like any other worker, and maybe an even better one once the buck doesn't get wasted in CEO bonuses, advertising, and legal counseling should smth "go wrong" And of course more funds would then be available for serious research on treatments and not just on palliatives, and on sensible information campaigns for the public - not the rather terroristic ones we see now :/
    agreed.
    however, a lot of the commercials' point is to make people aware of medicine to ask their doctor about and "see if it is right" for them. I'd rather have these temporary patches than none while waiting for a cure that may or may not come. There actually was a time when medicine was not allowed to air commercials.

    Originally posted by KanadaHye View Post
    Capitalism in concept sounds good but it's all just a fake system where the corruption is concealed from the general public. The idea of investing in companies which is supposed to allow people to own commodities and/or a stake in the company sounds like the most fair way that you can share the profits. Also if you work for a medical company, you'd work harder seeing that if your company does well, the shares would do well and you'd benefit from the labour. The flaw is that your rights to say something like a cure to a disease would belong to the company since you are their employee. Now why would I work hard to develop something only to see someone else benefit?
    Hmm... you described two different things: employees and shareholders. When working for a company, you are not automatically a shareholder. You still have to buy the "stock." It is the shareholders who get a vote in what the company does... but the point of shareholding is to make a profit when they're doing well. If the company is doing poorly, you lose money.

    As for your last question, that's interesting. Many researchers don't have the disease they're researching on. Some are researchers because it was the available job. They're just there to get their paycheck. So, your question also applies: Now why would I work hard to develop something only to see someone else benefit? They won't get a payraise for finding the cure. The company will get the credit.
    Last edited by Tali; 02-21-2011, 06:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • KanadaHye
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    Capitalism in concept sounds good but it's all just a fake system where the corruption is concealed from the general public. The idea of investing in companies which is supposed to allow people to own commodities and/or a stake in the company sounds like the most fair way that you can share the profits. Also if you work for a medical company, you'd work harder seeing that if your company does well, the shares would do well and you'd benefit from the labour. The flaw is that your rights to say something like a cure to a disease would belong to the company since you are their employee. Now why would I work hard to develop something only to see someone else benefit?

    Leave a comment:


  • Odar
    replied
    Re: Drugs and Treatments in todays capitalist markets

    The analogy with food is not correct. There are different types of food indeed, but, say, Chinese noodles are Chinese noodles, no need to have 450 different brands of the same thing right? People almost always judge a product from its package, whereas its taste - or in case of medications - its active principles are more or less the same. If we take it for good that a certain chemical compound/xxxxtail is supposed to have this and that effect on the average human being, then let's have just one product, the one that works best, and that's it.
    Also, it's not researchers and chemists who profit the most from the marketing of a product - it's who runs the firm they're working for. Hence, they should still receive a salary like any other worker, and maybe an even better one once the buck doesn't get wasted in CEO bonuses, advertising, and legal counseling should smth "go wrong" And of course more funds would then be available for serious research on treatments and not just on palliatives, and on sensible information campaigns for the public - not the rather terroristic ones we see now :/

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X