On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:45:49 +1100, "Sean"
blah.com.au>
wrote:
>
>Gee, it;s hard hard pan :)
Year, I am a hardcase. That's a fact I am immensely proud of. :-)
>"Hardpan"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cjj1s3hh6mlfr6tvboe00klbpcvqd68p2q@4ax.com...>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:58:59 +1100, "Sean"
blah.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>"Hardpan"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:m3gvr3dps6mn714u9qfjh6q4gk6pfur459@4ax.com...>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:04:44 +1100, "Sean"
blah.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Does Genentech offer anyone any level of Money-back Guarantee if the use
>>>>>of
>>>>>$120,000 worth of Avastin makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE to Debbie
>>>>>Hirst
>>>>>and others?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. No one can guarantee that when you drive the safest car on the
>>>> road that you wont get killed either. I don't really see your point.
>>>>
>>>
>>>OK. I'll explain. When you buy a product or service like a car, there's a
>>>guarantee that the car , THE car itself, will operate as promised. That's
>>>the guarantee. No guarantee you won't be killed because of bad driving or
>>>bad roads. OK?
>>
>> The problem with your theory is that cars are designed and
>> manufactured by humans. The human body is not.
>>
>
>It's the DRUG that is manufactured, just like the CAR ... i am talking about
>the drug NOT the human body.
The problem is that there in NO equivalent to a medication for a human
body and a similar product intended for a car.
>> Its true that the basic design of the human anatomy of most people on
>> this planet is similar in looks and the placement of organs and so on,
>> but we are not built wholesale on an assembly line like most cars and
>> other devices are.
>>
>
>Yes, SO WHAT?
So humans use, metabolite and eliminate food, drugs and other
ingestible and breathable ingredients in different ways and in
different timescales. Check all the warnings on the labels of OTC
medications.
Most of them tell the consumer NOT to use them if they have liver,
kidney or other problems like diabetes and to consult your doctor.
Of course if you cant afford a doctor you are SOL, I suppose.
BTW, speaking of diabetics, who don't metabolize glucose and insulin
levels properly, should they be able to sue the sugar companies if
they consume a product with sugar in it ?
>Drugs, all drugs, are designed to work in a human body for a particular
>PURPOSE and ACTION within a human body.
And they will NOT work the same way in every human body. That's a well
known fact.
>The drug companies TRIAL all drugs in human bodies and they get a variation
>of results. They KNOW that .... but when they sell a drug they are marketing
>that it will only have the positive effect, that it will do what they say it
>will do. In evastins case THEY CLAIM it will.
Do they claim that it will do this in ALL cases? I very much doubt
that.
In this day and age of lawsuits, they would be very foolish to make
such a wide claim, knowing that some cancer patients are going to get
worse and die no matter what medication is administered.
>This is what they are selling, a promise, a fitness of their product that
>"Avastin in combination with chemotherapy significantly prolonged
>progression-free survival inbreast cancer patients."
But not ALL patients, correct?
>IF the drug does NOT do that in the human body they sell it to, they should
>give a refund, automatically. The DRUG has not met the sales pitch, it has
>NOT performed. People don;t pay $120,000 to be a guinea pig, they want
>performance, they shopuld get it OR their money back.
What people should do or get and what the courts say they should are
often two different things, all too often.
When one is fighting cancer, one needs to take some risks, assuming
that they wish to increase their chances of survival.
>It isn't about whether the woman lives or dies from Cancer, it's about DOES
>THE DRUG DO WHAT THEY SAY IT WILL DO, or not in all seopcific cases ... not
>"overall in the majority" but in every single case.
Like I posted above, I doubt they used such wording.
Can you show me proof that they did not use small print to allow them
to make such a claim?
>BUT, drug companies, and Microsoft as another example, are let off the hook
>in this regard. They legally allowed to sell shit that does not actually
>work, or suit the purpose for which THEY promise it will.
Micro-shit is malware and anyone who has been around PC's for a time
knows that MS is full of bugs and always has been, going all the way
back to DOS.
That still doesn't make a valid comparison to the "operating system"
of the human body, which was not designed by Bill Gates :-)
>
>> What one medication, penicillin, that saves people like myself
>> from a serious bacterial infection, for instance, can easily kill
>> another human being. The list goes on and on in that regard.
>>
>
>If pennicilian killed you, would you like to get your money back and pass it
>onto your Estate? How are YOU at fault if Penicillin killed you?
I am not at fault, of course, but at the time I was dying and
Penicillin helped to save me.
>The repsonsibility lays with the Doctor and the drug company to BE SURE it
>won;t kill you, but if it does, they are 100%% Liable.
In the case it would be the doctors fault because there are simple
tests to determine if one is allergic to certain medications like
antibiotics, BTW.
>Same as if you bought a new Toyota ... and went driving down the road
>"normally" and it exploded and killed you and all your family. YOU are not
>responsible, TOYOTA is. They are Liable ... not only should you get all your
>money back for buying the car ... they should be required to pay for all
>damages caused, including pain and suffering.
>
>Think !!!
You mean my estate, of course as I would be dead.
Nevertheless cars rarely "explode" without an accident of some sort
occurring. Most cars that have problems burn up, not explode. As a
decent shade-tree mechanic and a long time professional driver, I can
assure you that what I claim is true.
>> But we humans didn't know that in the beginning of the use of this
>> medication, did we?
>>
>> Same idea goes for all these new medications.
>>
>
>Think again.
About what? There are certain risks in life and one has to be willing
to accept them.
Or as Robert Hienlien used to say: TANSTAAFL.
>>
>>>Now when one buys a product from the drug company, it too is designed to
>>>do
>>>a particular thing. That's what they "promote" and that's why people use
>>>that product.
>>>
>>>But people take these "products" and yet there is NO guarantee that the
>>>product will actually work for THEM as designed ... the way it did in the
>>>Company promotions based on testing.
>>
>> Like I have proven above, with the human body there are no guarantees
>> but one and that is that we all die in one manner or another.
>>
>
>You have proven nothing, all you did was express your opinion about what you
>"think" I was saying.
There is NO "opinion" about everyone dying, unless you know of someone
who found the fountain of youth, correct?
>>>In Debbie's case .. she can spend $120,000 a year and yet the product may
>>>not make an ounce of difference .. it may not perform on her, like the
>>>drug
>>>company says it will ie to SLOW down the progression.
>>
>> If you were to read the fine print I'd be willing to wager that it
>> does NOT claim to slow progression of the disease in all cases.
>>
>
>Fine print is a con job on you and everyone else.
Nevertheless it is there and that is what you need to consult an
attorney about. If he/she makes a mistake you can sue them.
>Did Tobacco companies KNOW nicotine was highly addictive?
>
>The repsonsibility is on those that produce propducts and sell them as being
>able to do what THEY say they will do. If they didn;t SAY IT ... know one
>would BUY the product to begin with.
The responsibility to use tobacco falls on the shoulders of the
smoker. Nicotine has long been known to be addictive, like lots of
other things, including alcohol.
>
>> These huge drug companies hire expensive attorneys to make sure
>> that there are such warnings in all of their literature, so that if a
>> law-suit occurs it cant be used to obtain a guilty or liable verdict.
>>
>
>
>Like I said ... it;s a con-job, a legalised con-job.
So what do you propose to do about it?
>>
>>>If she spends $120,000 I think she desrerve's at least a money back
>>>guarantee that it will WORK as described in HER .... just like every
>>>Toyota
>>>will WORK as advertised for ALL purchasers no matter how they drive it.
>>>That
>>>is guaranteed 100%%, or they fix the car for you.
>>
>> Well, all I can say at this point is that the Maker of human being
>> didn't create an owners manual not did the Maker claim that your body
>> will last for one year or one hundred years. People are not cars.
>>
>
>
>
>Drug companies do not sell human bodies. Think! :)
I did, but I "think" you missed my point completely.
>
>
>>>hope that clarifies. It would stop profit gourging by drug companies, they
>>>would be more inclined to do far better work before releasing a drug, and
>>>doctors would be more cautious about drugs etc that far too often kill
>>>people as opposed to helping them.
>>
>> In the countries that have single-payer healthcare they do put caps on
>> how much money will be paid for a certain medication. In the US we
>> have no such laws and in fact the congress have banned The Medicare
>> system from using drugs that are far cheaper in countries like Canada.
>>
>
>Right, another legalised con job.
But in the case of the US it was congress that screwed the consumer of
low priced medications, not the drug companies.
>It is YOUR right as human being to be able to purchase drugs from anywhere
>and from anyone in the world. That's YOUR right to put into your mouth
>anything you want, but the legalised con-job of the drug companies and their
>cronnies in Congress stop you from buying CHEAP alternatives that are no
>different.
>
>Speak with your Congressman, and DEMAND they change these draconian laws, is
>one option.
Yes, that is what you should be doing.
>Your drug companies that still hold active patents on drugs, new drugs, sell
>those drugs to Australia CHEAPER than they sell them to you. If they can
>sell them cheaper to us, then they can sell them to you, and the rest of the
>world.
They will not do so of their own accord, that's for certain.
>Everyone who knows economics, knows there';s a thing called "price points".
>More people travel today because the price points went down, not because of
>economies of scale. The airlines are now far more profitable, and have grown
>enormously because of this. It didn;t happen the other way around.
>
>Present Competition economics KNOWS that REAL free-market competition lowers
>prices. Drugs, and health care costs are ARTIFICIALLY HIGH in the USA
>because of corrupt price controls, unnecessary restrictive patents, and
>legalised manipulation to the advantage a very small group of wealthy
>PEOPLE.
For the most part "free-market" competition is no such thing at all. I
know as I used to own a business myself. The laws favor large
companies over the small-fry companies like my own was.
>
>>>>No one gets compensated when drugs are
>>>the cause of death, or they do not actually work as expected. THAT's one
>>>the
>>>major thing that's what's wrong with the system at present. imho.
>>
>> That is incorrect. There are many lawsuits against the manufacturers
>> of these new drugs, particularly in the many US homicide and suicide
>> cases, where people have been using psycho-active medications before
>> killing themselves and/or others.
>>
>
>Who WINs those cases?
Usually the people with the deep pockets. Its all about money.
>People should not be required to take a huge mulitnational to court when
>their loved ones are killed to due to the non-performance, or the
>side-effects of Drugs.
So what solution do you propose instead?
>That's my opinion. The current system allows snake oil salesman to 'get away
>with murder" basically. Legalised Secrecy allows drug companies to get away
>with MIS-representing the benefits and the known failures of their products.
I am well aware of the con-job most drug companies are pulling when
they claim that certain drugs will "prevent" certain diseases. The
statin anti-cholesterol medications are a perfect example of this.
They have NO proven track record of preventing heart attacks and
stokes and yet the MD's pass them out like candy here in the US.
Why?
Because the doctors get kickbacks from these money-grubbing
drug companies, who even use the inventor of the "artificial heart"
to push their dangerous drugs on an unsuspecting public.
>
>>>ALL systems in the world have challenges because of higher costs of
>>>technology and drug costs .. that's why all health care systems are
>>>struggling and expensive ... the universal health care system have the
>>>same
>>>problem, even though they do a good job at managing costs.
>>
>> So do all the major health insurance companies in the US.
>>
>
>Another legalised and govt backed con-job. People die, and shareholders keep
>making huge incomes from HMO's etc.
Which is why we need to get rid of these health insurance companies.
If everyone was covered by a single-payer plan, the costs would be
cheaper as you would have 50 million people paying taxes into the
system, instead of being left out in the cold, when they take ill.
>> They even pay doctors to NOT perform certain procedures if at all
>> possible. That's how they manage and control costs.....for the wealthy
>> stockholders that is.
>>
>
>Eactly, so if you can see this happening ... keep looking past the trees and
>you'll see another forest that is "snowed" over by Politicians, health
>professionals, and marketers.
I see that we are coming to an agreement of some sort here. There DO
need to be MAJOR changes in the system, that we both seem to be in
agreement on.
>>>But, in the USA 50 million have NO health care, and yet the USA spends
>>>double the cost per person on health care, and the Govt share of that is a
>>>higher %% of GDP than any other nation listed on that wiki chart. Not only
>>>that, but insured people still get refused treatment, and still get
>>>charged
>>>out of pocket expenses, and both longevity and infant mortality is worse
>>>than nations running universal health care.
>>
>> That is all true. Which of course make one wonder why we don't have a
>> universal healthcare plan for everyone here in the US.
>>
>
>It does doesn't it? But be prepared for "universal health care" to be
>demonised just as Reagan did when he claimed it would lead to communism
>taking over America.
>
>Fear mongering iow, NOT the honest truth.
I agree.
That's why I don't feel any fear for much of what I read and hear from
liars like the politicians, who constantly tell us that we are in
danger from some source or another.
Unfortunately they do a great job of scaring the hell out of the
general public, for the most part.
>>>So it looks to me that all nation shave a problem, but teh USA is the one
>>>with the biggest problem of all .... people like Fred shouldn't be
>>>preaching
>>>to other nations or claiming their systems are utterly wrong, but fixing
>>>his
>>>own back yard first. :)
>>
>> Yeap. This system is broken and it wont be repaired anytime soon
>> either. The big pharmaceutical companies and health insurance will
>> make sure of that.
>>
>
>That;s my point .... They are the one's who thru their own
>self-interest block every attempt for a decent system to develop.
Of course that is true, but there is another factor or factors working
in America that put the brakes on any single payer healthcare plan.
We have had employer-paid healthcare for so long and have been so
conditioned to believe that socialized healthcare will be a disaster
that even the voters have voted down universal healthcare plans
in some US states.
>They falsely claim that they need huge profits in order to keep doing
>research and they THREATEN the American people that if they can't have open
>slather then they will STOP future developments .... that my dear friend is
>a complete LIE.
>
>Competition, the free market, can PROVE that that is a complete lie.
The fact is that much of the research study on new medications and
other medical technology is done in public universities at taxpayer
expense.
Its just one more of the BIG LIES that the medico-pharma industry
doesn't want you to know about.
>So, what you end up with is a totally controlled system that is more
>controlled than any universal health care system in the world.
>
>Basically, US citizens are being totally ripped off by their own people.
>Part of the result of this, is that many many people die for nothing .....
>sure one can't stop a person dying, but before they die a HUGE proportion of
>their wealth is transferred to drug companies, doctors, and hospitals ....
>basically wealthy sahreholders all get a share of the terminally ill.
We are in agreement here.
Like I always say, I am a misanthrope because I realize that most
humans think or rationalize every evil thing that they do to one
another away in one manner or another.
>What a great deal ... and it;s all LEGAL and accept as somehow wonderful and
>living in the grreatest nation on earth. It's BS, complete BS, and the rest
>of the world knows it. Americans, most americans do not. C'est la vie.
>
> hope that helps ... don;t believe me, go do your own objective
>research.
I have and I will do so as I always have.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
>> and I'm not sure about the the universe."
>>
>> -Albert Einstein
>
>AGREED ... I'm with Albert. :)
>
Yeap. Me too !
----------------------------------------------------------
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the the universe."
                -Albert Einstein
