Flue Season is here- I opt out of flue shots.

[SkyHog]

Here's a question - you can only get Shingles if you've had the Chicken Pox, IIRC. Does that mean that the Chicken Pox vaccine exposes our children to the possibility of Shingles later in life?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Am I wrong that vaccinations can never do harm?

You are wrong to say they can do no good.

Am I wrong that vaccinations are not always 100% effective nor 50% effective?

You are wrong to say the effectiveness is 0% or near zero.

Am I wrong that FDA cannot be completely trusted to deliver drugs that do not harm us?
Am I wrong that the drug companies influence over FDA is too strong and not health for America?
Am I wrong that many drugs get through FDA that cause more harm than good?
Am I wrong that a drug not need be better than less risky alternatives to be approved and accepted by FDA?

I personally think the FDA should either be abolished or changed so that it only regulates safety, not efficacy, of food and drugs. But none of your rhetorical FDA questions seem to have anything to do with vaccination per se.

Am I wrong that a drug need be no more effective than white apple vinegar is to reduce high blood sugar to be approved as an expensive potentially dangerous drug?
Am I wrong that we do not know all the ramifications on every system in the body or interactions between chemicals on every drug released into the system?

You don't even know the ramifications of the foods you eat. I bet you still eat, though. How do you decide which foods to eat?

Am I wrong that simple things like good nutrician, exercise and sunlight daily and normal sleep have more to do with your good health and resistance to most of these maladies than vaccinations based on the efficacy studies of these same vaccinations?

Yes, VERY wrong. Half of the deaths during 1918 influenza pandemic occurred in the healthiest age group - 20 to 40 years of age (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic) The 1918 pandemic killed between 20 and 100 million people worldwide.

Am I wrong that money corrupts? Am I wrong that we are talking about enough money that it corrupts almost absolutely?
Am I wrong that Drug companies commission and pay for studies on their proposed drugs and then do not submit those studies that do not support their application for approval to FDA?

You are wrong to assume that a yes answer to these rhetorical questions prove anything useful.

Am I wrong that there is an industry of research facilities setup to work out studies that will give only the most positive results on outcomes paid for by those companies, which are submitted to FDA for approvals?

Which facility is this?

Am I wrong that there are billions of dollars thrown around in this mostly government funded mandate?

What mandate are you talking about? I was not aware anyone was forced to get a flu shot.

Am I wrong that Richard Rumsfeld was chief counsel for Monsanto and later became asst director of FDA and largely stopped government efforts to label genetically altered foods?

Am I wrong to not worry about genetically altered foods because humans have been genetically altering foods for thousands of years before Rumsfeld was born?

How does a lawyer have the expert knowledge to run FDA?

The FDA is a regulatory agency, so legal expertise is a requirement. If they could find someone who also had scientific training that would of course be helpful.

Am I wrong that there could be other "most important" motives to support a US capacity to do chemical and biological (warfare) research which is otherwise outlawed by international conventions?

I don't understand this rhetorical question. Please rephrase.

 

[Old Geek]

Your are saying that it is black and white and that science says its safe its on and if science says it is not safe it is off.

Not true and very naive.

Why is poison allowed in almost every mouth wash?

What's your definition of "poison". I know for a fact that my Costco mouthwash is 40% ethanol. Obviously a poison if you consume too much. I still use it twice a day. But I'm careful not to swallow on days I'm flying.

 

[Gary F]

If the subject of vacines is open and shut case then why were there several hospitals who had to threaten to fire their nurses for refusing inoculations? Why did the Nursing unions fight this? Why did several hospitals have to back down from their demands and threats of terminations?

Hospital and nursing home staff have a responsibility not to infect patients who are often very frail.

 

[mnewb1]

This discussion reminds me of the early 90s when supposedly leaks and ruptures of silicon breast implants were causing terrible immune mediated illness in women. It was becoming an epidemic at the time. Though study after study demonstrated NO causal relationship...The overwhelming evidence was that there was no relationship at all and silicon implants were not causing any disease...but women were adamant, furious if anyone dared doubt there claims...lawsuits flew, Dow filed for bankruptcy...

The FDA again approved silicon breast implants for use in 2006...How many cases of immune mediated disease from breast implants do you hear about today...0


It was a mass hysteria that had no basis in fact though people believed these claims to their core!! Exactly the same as the vaccine hysteria we witness today.

 

[Gary]

Since this trust debate revolves around trust of government and how industry effects government presented facts, does anyone wish to comment on the make up of the Food Pyramid? Which is largely discredited?

As mentioned, the government itself has backed off on the importance of the "Food Pyramid".. But, the pyramid is only a guide or recommendation. Not sure how to evaluate "trusting government" from that example.

If the subject of vacines is open and shut case then why were there several hospitals who had to threaten to fire their nurses for refusing inoculations? Why did the Nursing unions fight this? Why did several hospitals have to back down from their demands and threats of terminations?

Of all the medical advances, I'd have to rate vaccines as one of the most robust successes. Time and time again they have been proven to be effective, safe and overwhelmingly advantageous to our society as a whole. You have already heard from a geneticist and a physician on this this board (neither of whom are part of the government) that attest to this fact.

Both government and industry will tell you that fracking for natural gas does not pollute water but the city administrator of Pratt, KS tells how their county has no water for farming as it was either used or polluted by gas fracking.

Ok - now you are entering my area of expertize. Fracking is done with an extremely high level of success with no adverse effect on anyone's drinking water. Is it perfect - no!. It isn't hard to find examples of improperly installed wells have caused groundwater contamination. One major weakness the industry has, is dealing with this problem. That being said, is it logical and reasonable to completely ban fracking due to the very, very few wells that have caused problems? OR - is the solution to set up a system to deal with the problems?

How about the experts Allan Greenspan who said the markets will largely manage the flows of money and that wall street does not need to be regulated. The corporate worlds finds an expert and then promotes him to Super star status and then in lock step repeats his findings as if it were the 2nd coming of Christ. The whole industry rallys behind its paid guns and congress is convinced and regulators are muzzled and money is raked in and rich get richer (nothing wrong with that unless it is done wrongly hurting people) and the society as a whole pays the price.

Allan Greenspan was a Harvard professor who sold his expertise to the Keating 5 on the Savings and Loan crises of the 80's. He testified that Keating did no wrong. Dispite this lie Keating when to Jail and Allan Greenspan got $100k for his testimony and later rewarded as a faithful upholder of conservative cause and got into politics. On the record after the crash of 2008, after he retired a millionaire he said "I got it wrong."

I'm kinda with you on this. Alan Greenspan readily admits his error. Yes, the corporate world has an excessive influence on our government, no argument.

How about Fluoridation in our city water? Is that open and shut case also? Fluoride both naturally occurring but also a by product toxic waste from the production of steel/iron. Carnegie needed a way to get rid of this toxic waste and so it was propagandized to make bones and teeth stronger and sold to municipalities.

Yes, it is an open and shut case. The dental benefits of fluoridation are indisputable. It is indeed a naturally occurring element and is present in most non-treated water. As with most elements/compounds, the dose is important. At 1 part per million (the general dosage level) no ill effects have ever been shown. Bump that up to a couple of hundred parts per million and the story is different.

As to the reference to Carnegie, I have no idea where that came from. Monosodium fluoride is not and never was , made from toxic waste from steel mills. in Carnegie's day, water was not fluoridated, I doubt the benefits were even known. If you have a reputable reference, I'd love to see it

Please don't use this one -
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fluoridation.htm

Gary

 

[PilotAlan]

Wow......just wow.

Maybe you want to harken back to the day before the Polio vaccine where 20,000 American kids where paralyzed each year? Where over 1,000 of them died every year?

Or smallpox, which had killed about 15% of all people who have ever lived, killed over half a billion people in the 20th Century alone.
And was eradicated through vaccination.

Just from smallpox, alone, vaccinations have prevent over a billion deaths.
But yeah, it's all a scam.

 

[Henning]

Is the record increase in human life span because of all these poisons or in spite of them?

Just wondering.

Actually, if you look at this chart and reflect on what happened in the 1860s, things become clear, modern medicine happened. The advent of immunization drastically reduced infant mortality which is the biggie that kept the population in check, later antibiotics kept the momentum of keeping people alive until their bodies wore out. Life expectancy is a bit of a misnomer for all this, people always lived to be octa and even centenarians, just not as many as do today, and modern medicine is the cause. The scary thing is, the population graph runs parallel to the life expectancy graph.

 

[3393RP]

I had the flu once.

I've gotten the shot ever since.

-Rich

Many people think they contract influenza, when it is usually something much more benign. If you have a slight fever, throw up a few times and feel bad for a couple of days it's not the flu.

About ten years ago I had the real thing...four days of 103+ fever, constant vomiting and diarrhea, couldn't keep down a saltine cracker. I finally went to the ER. They gave me 3,000 ml of fluids IV and almost admitted me because of dehydration. I was sick for another ten days, and it took me another two weeks to fully recover. I was 40 years old and in excellent health, but that didn't matter.

Since then I get a flu shot...influenza is a serious illness and shouldn't be treated lightly. Children, the elderly, and those in poor health should get vaccinated. It's stupid not to.

 

[bluee]

Many people think they contract influenza, when it is usually something much more benign. If you have a slight fever, throw up a few of times and feel bad for a couple of days it's not the flu.

About ten years ago I had the real thing...four days of 103+ fever, constant vomiting and diarrhea, couldn't keep down a saltine cracker. I finally went to the ER. They gave me 3,000 ml of fluids IV and almost admitted me because of dehydration. I was sick for another ten days, and it took me another two weeks to fully recover. I was 40 years old and in excellent health, but that didn't matter.

Since then I get a flu shot...influenza is a serious illness and shouldn't be treated lightly. Children, the elderly, and those in poor health should get vaccinated. It's stupid not to.

That pretty much describes my delightful flu twelve years ago, when I was in my 20s.

My father-in-law died of the flu several years ago. He should have been in a hospital.

 

[Henning]

Of all the medical advances, I'd have to rate vaccines as one of the most robust successes. Time and time again they have been proven to be effective, safe and overwhelmingly advantageous to our society as a whole. You have already heard from a geneticist and a physician on this this board (neither of whom are part of the government) that attest to this fact.

Gary

I doubt that history will bear that out as a truth, not for our species. We have not developed the ethical intelligence to match our technical intelligence. From a shortsighted view of an individual's family unit, yes, a great success. From a society as a whole perspective, it is likely to be at the root of the downfall of mankind. We can't run a population at these levels successfully and be greedy and selfish at the same time.

 

[PilotAlan]

If the subject of vacines is open and shut case then why were there several hospitals who had to threaten to fire their nurses for refusing inoculations?

Because we live in an age where the miracles of vaccination and antibiotics have removed from us the agony of:
Watching children die from common diseases,
Watching young men and women die from infections and simple ailments,
And where medical progress has doubled life expectancy in one lifetime.

Now, people do not understand the gravity and importance of these things. Their great-grandparents would have given anything and everything to have the vaccines we have today, and not see one out of four of their children die painful deaths.

Because they don't SEE these things, they become opinions, conspiracy theories, and controversies.

Why did the Nursing unions fight this? Why did several hospitals have to back down from their demands and threats of terminations?

The hospital has a vested interest in making sure their employees are not spreading illness.
One of the issues with the unions was that if anyone got sick after taking the vaccine, then they insisted that it be treated as a work-related illness (whether you CAN get sick from the vaccine is a separate issue).
Some people refuse to be told to do anything. Some refuse vaccinations for various philosophical reasons.

The union sees its job as to represent the members who do not want to comply with the requirements of the company. The union's opposition has nothing to do with the merits or weakness of the hospital's position.
SOME hospitals backed down in the face of union opposition, from threats of lawsuits or contract grievances. The fact that hospital backed off also has no correlation to the merits of weakness of the hospital's position, merely a judgment as to the cost of the fight and likelihood of being successful before it's too late to have a positive impact.

These are exactly the same issues we had when the smallpox vaccine was made available to healthcare personnel in 2002.

 

[Gary F]

Actually, if you look at this chart and reflect on what happened in the 1860s, things become clear, modern medicine happened. The advent of immunization drastically reduced infant mortality which is the biggie that kept the population in check, later antibiotics kept the momentum of keeping people alive until their bodies wore out. Life expectancy is a bit of a misnomer for all this, people always lived to be octa and even centenarians, just not as many as do today, and modern medicine is the cause. The scary thing is, the population graph runs parallel to the life expectancy graph.

The improvement in life expectancy has as much to do with advances in sanitation, food production and refrigeration as anything else.

I have probably had more vaccinations than most people here including anthrax, meningococcal, yellow fever and many other vaccines compliments of the US Army. I've had also been given hep B, hep A and others due to occupational risk. If you don't want to avail yourselves of this or any other medical technology that's your choice.

 

[Henning]

The improvement in life expectancy has as much to do with advances in sanitation, food production and refrigeration as anything else.

I have probably had more vaccinations than most people here including anthrax, meningococcal, yellow fever and many other vaccines compliments of the US Army. I've had also been given hep B, hep A and others due to occupational risk. If you don't want to avail yourselves of this or any other medical technology that's your choice.

Lol, not me, I get my shots, just not flu shots. I've been vaccinated for all sorts of stuff including Japanese Encephalitis and Rabies. One interesting thing a doc in Aus figured out when they were having post vaccination issues there. 2 weeks of vitamin C supplements for the kids pre vaccination pretty much eliminated negative responses.

 

[Gary F]

Lol, not me, I get my shots, just not flu shots. I've been vaccinated for all sorts of stuff including Japanese Encephalitis and Rabies.

I should have written if somebody, not you, sorry. I never thought you were afraid of medical technology. I was thinking more of the OP.

 

[Henning]

I should have written if somebody, not you, sorry. I never thought you were afraid of medical technology. I was thinking more of the OP.

Hell, the follow ups on the JE and the Rabies I had to give myself and my crew. They were all balking when I stabbed them into my own leg and said "Who's next?" Lol.

 

[Gary F]

Hell, the follow ups on the JE and the Rabies I had to give myself and my crew. They were all balking when I stabbed them into my own leg and said "Who's next?" Lol.

The old hepatitis immune globulin was a large injection in the butt that hurt for days. I'm not even sure why we were given it during the first Gulf war.

 

[Unbeliever]

Quick, somebody change Scarpelli's display name to "BillOfRights" I see this thread going the same way and as long as the one on the Red Board.

I have always wondered about that -

If I get chicken pox, and have an immunity to it from having the disease - how can I catch it again? Its like a flu shot - you get the shot- and it makes you immune to whatever they are injecting you with - how can you get it again?

You don't get it again. You still have it. Chicken Pox is in the herpes family of viruses (herpes zoster), and with all herpes viruses, once you catch it, you have it forever as it hangs around inside your nerve cells.

Like all herpes viruses, they have the potential to reactivate. That's what shingles is. A reactivation of herpes zoster/Chicken Pox.

While it's reactivated, someone with shingles can give someone chicken pox to someone who has never had it.

What the vaccine does is amp up the antibody production for it big time, so when it does activate, your immune system "nips it in the bud" before major symptoms happen.

Here's a question - you can only get Shingles if you've had the Chicken Pox, IIRC. Does that mean that the Chicken Pox vaccine exposes our children to the possibility of Shingles later in life?

The varicella vaccine is live, but weakened. It is possible to get chickenpox from the vaccine, but it will be extremely subdued version of it, with the benefits of having an amped up immune system to deal with shingles in the future.

--Carlos V.

 

[Henning]

The old hepatitis immune globulin was a large injection in the butt that hurt for days. I'm not even sure why we were given it during the first Gulf war.

That one and tetanus were the painful ones.

 

[DavidWhite]

I've had a few tetanus shots. They aren't much fun.

 

[DavidWhite]

I finally learned not to play around rusty metal things.....every time I would break skin on something metal and rusty it was a tetanus shot.

 

[Henning]

I finally learned not to play around rusty metal things.....every time I would break skin on something metal and rusty it was a tetanus shot.

Lol, you don't need a shot every time.

 

[DavidWhite]

Lol, you don't need a shot every time.

If it was more than a year apart I think I had to get one.

 

[James_Dean]

I pay about $2.50 per dozen organic eggs that I bought from a local producer and pay about $1 more per gallon for organic milk. I buy some but not all organic veggies which means I do not shop much at walmart/sams for food. I put my money where my mouth is.

It is no so much that I believe every half baked idea out there but it is that I don't watch what the Kardisans Girls are doing on TV and instead, I read and pay attention when walmart apple juice from china has arsenic in it, or baby food has antifreeze in it, or pet food is tainted and 100s of animals die from Chinese produced dog and cat foods.

I believe food especially should be locally sourced to the extent possible. I beleive in sustainable living and sustainable farming.

You might see if Wholefoods is interested in buying better quality eggs and chickens. I might be the minority but I am definitely not alone in wanting good quality food for my family.

You are right it costs much more to eat healthier foods. If you get into producing sustainable healthy foods then the educated consumer is your best friend.

If you're paying $2.50 for locally grown organic eggs then that farm isn't sustainable. It simply costs more than that to do it. I would also caution you that you are at higher risk for salmonella as there are no testing requirements for flocks under 3,000 birds as there are with all larger producers. I also think you're wrong about the cost of your organic milk, or it isn't truly organic. It simply costs way more than that to do it.

I think you are rather misinformed about many of these issues and are living with risks that you don't know about and are running scared from things that are rare. Kind of like staying away from tall buildings because of 9/11.

 

[No Joy]

Does over use of antibiotics represent a risk to humans of super bugs?

Definitely.

However you're not seeing the other side of the coin.

The ignorance, hatred, greed and hysteria that has been in your posts are contributing to the human risk of superbugs.

You are trying to scare people away from vaccines. Your type of rhetoric is increasing our risk of a global pandemic nightmare.

Your anti-Corporation anti-capitalistic rhetoric, helps stifle the development of new antibiotics. Pressure from the public, government and Obamacare is driving big businesses out of researching antibiotics. The pressure to drive down the costs of prescription drugs already in production, has reduced profit margins, so corporations can't afford to spend as much in research and development.

In the public and our government's greed and shortsightedness; people would rather have cheaper Viagra, then to spend money on research and development to fight superbugs to try to stop a pandemic.

Policies of insurance companies and our government is contributing to the rise of superbugs. Obamacare is making things much worse. The doctor wrote me a prescription for five days of antibiotics. Because of Obamacare (insurance companies and governmental pressures to reduce costs) the insurance company would only pay for three days of antibiotics. Skipping on antibiotics is helping to cultivate superbugs. By only taking enough antibiotics to kill off most of the infection, it's allowing the infection that is antibiotic resistant to survive, thereby cultivating superbugs.

Using antibiotics when it is not necessary is creating superbugs, however not using enough or the right type when they are needed, is also creating superbugs.


Frontline : Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria
http://youtu.be/uKeUaJvcj3M

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ightmare-bacteria/a-superbug-outbreak-at-nih/

Researching and developing antibiotics doesn't happen overnight. It takes a lot of time, money and a lot of expertise. Because of the current political and economic climate; research and development has all but stopped. There is a brain drain out of the industry.

Between improper use of antibiotics and not enough research and development; we are setting ourselves up for a perfect storm. Pandemic.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I feel nothing but ignorance, hatred, greed and hysteria right now.

Which is good because a while back I was hungry, glad that was sublimated because I need to lose weight.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

You are trying to scare people away from vaccines. Your type of rhetoric is increasing our risk of a global pandemic nightmare.

I've not said anything scary other than we cannot trust our government on all things.

Your anti-Corporation anti-capitalistic rhetoric, helps stifle the development of new antibiotics.

I am anti bad corporation not anti corporation. BS on the next statement. Most raw research is performed by government grants and universities which is then developed and sold very cheaply to drug companies who make outlandish profits with little or nothing invested. Drug companies regularly put their sales and marketing expenses into the R&D lines to inflate their real investments. That game is long over and everyone knows about creative drug company accounting.

Pressure from the public, government and Obamacare is driving big businesses out of researching antibiotics.

Big pharma do not do raw research period. Obama care or not.

The pressure to drive down the costs of prescription drugs already in production, has reduced profit margins, so corporations can't afford to spend as much in research and development.

again bs. drug companies passed optimum profitability and over extracted revenues from their customers and caused a backlash.....no one to blame but them selves. Even conservatives were beginning to get in line to do something about pharma.

In the public and our government's greed and shortsightedness; people would rather have cheaper Viagra, then to spend money on research and development to fight superbugs to try to stop a pandemic.

OK I know you are joking, trolling or just plain drunk at that is just stupid talk. Pharma does not do raw research on any drugs, none, zip, nada. You are mouthing silliness.

Policies of insurance companies and our government is contributing to the rise of superbugs.

Oh yeah, thats it....ha,ha,ha..

There is a brain drain out of the industry.

ha,ha,ha....where are these brains going? China? Wallstreet? Good riddance. With brains like that who needs enemy's?

 

[RJM62]

If it was more than a year apart I think I had to get one.

I think it's ten years now. Could be wrong, though.

-Rich

 

[Henning]

I think it's ten years now. Could be wrong, though.

-Rich

It's been 10 longer than David's been alive lol.

 

[Skylane81E]

It's been 10 longer than David's been alive lol.

I've only got a couple years left on mine now, but I think I'll wait and see if I hurt myself and get it then. Got my last one after cutting my head open at work, went back to work for a few hours before the pain and stiffness from the shot sent me home. So a facial laceration and 9 stitches and I went back, add a tetanus booster and not-so-much

 

[Aeric]

I feel nothing but ignorance, hatred, greed and hysteria right now.

Which is good because a while back I was hungry, glad that was sublimated because I need to lose weight.

 

[mnewb1]

I think it's ten years now. Could be wrong, though.

-Rich

you are correct, the normal interval for booster is 10 years however if you have a penetrating injury especially one involving soil where clostridium tetani reside, and it has been at least 5 years since your last booster, then a repeat administration is recommended.

 

[Dr. O]

Just a few comments.
On the vaccine and shingles: We 'think' that the vaccine does not set you up for shingles later in life because the vaccine is not a live virus.
When you have the Chickenpox you have a live virus in your body that then enters the nerve ganglia and becomes 'dormant' (not well understood yet).
No live virus = no later shingles (so far)
Being of the age that had the real C-pox (amongst a bunch of other childhood diseases) and having tried to treat the misery of chronic shingles in the elderly, I took the shingles vaccine shortly after it became available. So far, so good.

On the silicone breast implants: I had families that had to move away when the lawsuit craze peaked and Dow Silicone had to shut the unit down. The plant is 3 miles from my office. The women in these families were breast implant artists at Dow who crafted custom implants to match the patient's remaining breast - and lost those high paying jobs that supported their family.
I was involved in some of those suits. The court ignored my professional opinion (shrug)

Dow was found liable on a legal basis, not a scientific one. You have to understand that the law is a world of it's own. If a court held that X was true in a case a hundred years ago - even where that precedent ruling on X was clearly wrong scientifically/factually/logically -today a case involving X will adhere to that precedent ruling even though clearly not correct. It will take a huge amount of time and money to pursue an appeal through the USSC to overturn X.
So trying to equate court rulings with fact is a total waste of your time. And is the prime reason that attorney's, for the most part, have total contempt for right and wrong. The law is not about being right, it is strictly about what you can get away with.

I produce grain in the real world. I have to use herbicides and pesticides or I cannot stay in business. It is that simple. Corn this morning is $3.85 - and we are combining corn today. My direct cost of production (seed+chemicals+fertilizer+diesel+machine repairs) is well North of $3.00 leaving only a few cents of positive cash flow. If I don't use chemicals on the ground I lose 20% - 30% - 40% of my yield. At that point I will be bankrupt. If the market was willing to pay me $20 a bushel for corn then I could produce without chemicals.

 

[Bob Noel]

I produce grain in the real world. I have to use herbicides and pesticides or I cannot stay in business. It is that simple. .

The industry uses herbicides and pesticides, etc or a lot more people would go hungry (and die of hunger)

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Big pharma do not do raw research period. Obama care or not.



again bs. drug companies passed optimum profitability and over extracted revenues from their customers and caused a backlash.....no one to blame but them selves. Even conservatives were beginning to get in line to do something about pharma.



OK I know you are joking, trolling or just plain drunk at that is just stupid talk. Pharma does not do raw research on any drugs, none, zip, nada. You are mouthing silliness.

What do you mean by raw research?

I used to work directly in the pharma industry, and still work pretty much on a daily basis with chemists in the pharma industry. They are certainly working on new compounds for many illnesses. They also grant universities money for working out mechanisms for illness.

As for profits, very few compounds ever reach the drug stage. Out of maybe 100,000 compounds tested, maybe 5 become drugs. That means there's a lot of overhead in research prople that those 5 compounds need to carry. Compounds get screened out because they fail to exhibit sufficient biological activity, or they are toxic, or are no better than existing drugs, or fail to work in humans. The pharma companies are cutting their overhead- much of the synthesis work has been moved to China and India, to the detriment our our science community.

Are the drugs we make perfect? Nope. Our understanding of biology and biochemistry isn't perfect although it is getting better. We also have enough genetic variation that some people see odd effects of medicine; Dr. Steingar, who posted in this thread, has forgotton more about this area of research than I know.

Cronyism between government and industry? There is some, fortunately we do have groups tht look for this sort of thing and bring it to light. Our system isn't perfect by any means, but is still pretty much the world standard. The USA did escape most of the problems from thalidomide because the FDA standards at the time were more rigorous than other places in the world.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Actually, if you look at this chart and reflect on what happened in the 1860s, things become clear, modern medicine happened. The advent of immunization drastically reduced infant mortality which is the biggie that kept the population in check, later antibiotics kept the momentum of keeping people alive until their bodies wore out. Life expectancy is a bit of a misnomer for all this, people always lived to be octa and even centenarians, just not as many as do today, and modern medicine is the cause. The scary thing is, the population graph runs parallel to the life expectancy graph.

Actually, most of the developed world shows flat, or declining populations. I've presented you several references on this in the past.

Life expectancy still doesn't exceed 120 years or so for anyone, no matter how good their medical care.

 

[Henning]

Actually, most of the developed world shows flat, or declining populations. I've presented you several references on this in the past.

Life expectancy still doesn't exceed 120 years or so for anyone, no matter how good their medical care.

Yet the population continues to grow, amazing that. We can't separate the developed world from the developing world, the earth is one big closed system.

Yes, maximum life expectancy hasn't changed, that was my point, average life expectancy has changed so drastically because more people now make it to maximum.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yet the population continues to grow, amazing that. We can't separate the developed world from the developing world, the earth is one big closed system.

You also ignored citations showing that even in the developing world, the rate of population growth is decreasing. The population in those countries is increasing, but at a slower rate.

Yes, maximum life expectancy hasn't changed, that was my point, average life expectancy has changed so drastically because more people now make it to maximum.

And this was referenced with an exponential graph with the suggestion that life span would follow the same curve:

The scary thing is, the population graph runs parallel to the life expectancy graph

 

[Henning]

You also ignored citations showing that even in the developing world, the rate of population growth is decreasing. The population in those countries is increasing, but at a slower rate.

And this was referenced with an exponential graph with the suggestion that life span would follow the same curve:

Rate of growth decreasing is not the same as population decreasing, population is still increasing.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Rate of growth decreasing is not the same as population decreasing, population is still increasing.

Yep. But you pointed out an exponential growth curve, which is not what I'm describing.

The only real question is will the growth be arrested soon enough (will the curve change direction fast enough) to avoid the curve being arrested due to overpopulation.