On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:49:51PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Now is it clear?
It was clear before, just wrong, again. Under the law, I don't know of
any way someone can prevent you from commenting on publicly available
information. Even if you signed a contract that specifically stated that
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:55:29PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
ROTFLMAO. Erik, I really appreciate the work you do in research for
this group, but on this subject you are speaking from ignorance.
ROTFLMAO. Dan, I really appreciate the data and references you post to
the list, but on this
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:08:13PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
When you hold a government clearance you aren't supposed to even
discuss stuff that is common knowledge because by doing so you may
verify or discount information that may or may not be correct.
Bullshit. Sure the secrecy Nazi's
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:08:13PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
When you hold a government clearance you aren't supposed to even
discuss stuff that is common knowledge because by doing so you may
verify or discount information that may or may not be correct. I'm
not sure it the same in the
Erik Reuter wrote:
Bullshit. Sure the secrecy Nazi's may want you to sew your lip shut and
never talk again, but in reality, they can't stop you as long as you
don't reveal secret information, and it is certainly possible to write a
short email without having any possibility of revealing
Erik Reuter wrote:
It was clear what you meant before your clarification, just not
relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly available information,
In my experience (and I have a great deal of it), it is very wise to
stay well clear of the *appearance* of impropriety. To do otherwise is
a
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job
that involves decisions and information that have to be handled
responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from.
You know, Gautam, if
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 12:53:39PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
_Everybody_ eventually may come up with things that are secret. I
doesn't make anyone important to say so.
Of course. I didn't say otherwise.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:13:14AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
I'm quite willing to consider your opinions on whether this is a good
system or not, but I hear you denying the existence of such rules,
which strikes me as naive posturing.
What rules? I am specifically talking about legality of
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
You know, Erik, if you didn't keep reminding us we
might forget what a jackass you are.
Lessee, I believe we can trash this one under the header: personal
attack. At least stay polite. Or else take it off-list boys.
Sonja :o)
xROU: Let's play: same rules for all, shall we
In a message dated 8/31/2004 9:16:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But your keen understanding of _Capitalist_ just clarified my
point. Do you think you are so much smarter than any advisor
that has ever counseled the drug companies? Don't you think
any other
In a message dated 8/31/2004 9:16:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I have a suspicion as to _why_.
Every other science has progressed geometrically over the past
50 years. If Medicine had advanced the way computers have, we
would have a life expectancy of 500 years
Erik wrote:
Bullshit. Sure the secrecy Nazi's may want you to sew your lip shut and
never talk again, but in reality, they can't stop you as long as you
don't reveal secret information, and it is certainly possible to write a
short email without having any possibility of revealing secrets.
Jane's
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will govenments that inhibit stem cell research
be viewed?
Poorly, I imagine. I don't support this particular
position of the President's. Although the apparent
Democratic
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My numbers indicate that about 20% of the cost of
drugs goes into
development, cost and production, and that the rest
is systematic overhead.
I can't comment on this much (for
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Gautam
Mukunda wrote:
I can't comment on this much (for obvious
reasons). I
Not so obvious, actually.
All right. The reason is that I spent most of the
last two years working as a consultant to several
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:05:23AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not so obvious, actually.
All right. The reason is that I spent most of the last two years
working as a consultant to several companies in the pharmaceutical
industry and therefore am
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was clear what you meant before your
clarification, just not
relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly
available information,
of which there is a great deal, as I posted. Acting
like you know a
lot about a subject based on secret information
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Well, Erik, I guess I'll have to live with your
disapproval...forgive me while I sob. Anyone who read
what I wrote might note:
1. I disputed it only to the point that I thought it
was a little low
I agree, there was no dispute, because we both agree on this
subject -
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I claim that has _already_ been oriented to them
in the past 50 or so years, where _no_ significant
disease has found a final _cure_.
Alberto Monteiro
The problem, Alberto, is that the antibiotics were
discovered a little bit before that.
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Privately funded medical research is evil,why it must be
eradicated
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I claim
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes and no. It is possible to come up with vacines
to prevent viral
diseases. The polio vacine is a great example of
this. When the virus
mutates on a regular basis, (e.g. the flu), the
vacine is not as effective
against the mutated form. The
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
... I claim that has _already_ been oriented to them
in the past 50 or so years, where _no_ significant
disease has found a final _cure_.
The problem, Alberto, is that the antibiotics were
discovered a little bit before that.
Yep. And vaccines another 50 years
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job
that involves decisions and information that have to be handled
responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from.
You know, Gautam, if you don't keep
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Don't you think
any other intelligent consultant could duplicate your reasoning
that it's a bad idea to research a drug that cures disease X
instead of a drug that keeps a X-patient forced _forever_ to buy
drugs that will extend his life?
Capitalism has no compassion :-/
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:58:39AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote:
On top of that, what premium wouldn't I pay to not have her go
through the trauma of chemo and the discomfort and inconvenience
of radiotherapy? Perhaps (depending on the cure) to not have to
go through the second and third
Erik Reuter responded when:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:58:39AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote:
On top of that, what premium wouldn't I pay to not have her go
through the trauma of chemo and the discomfort and inconvenience
of radiotherapy? Perhaps (depending on the cure) to not have to
go through
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:52:48AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote:
But whatever that abritrary amount is that I can lay my hands on, or
that insurance companies will supply, it will always be a lot higher
than for the treatment drugs.
No, in total it will be a lot lower. It is much easier to
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Privately funded medical research is evil,why it must be
eradicated
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:52:48AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we
might forget how
important you are and how you have all sorts of
contacts and secret
information that you can't share with us.
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
You know, Erik, if you
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
And I have a suspicion as to _why_.
Every other science has progressed geometrically
over the past
50 years. If Medicine had advanced the way computers
have, we
would have a life expectancy of 500 years [except
that once
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Privately funded medical research is evil,why it must be
eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31,
Dan wrote:
BTW, I got why he couldn't talk even about common knowledge from the
beginning. At Teleco, we knew when our VPs knew something because they
would stop talking about subjects that they talked about before. We knew
what was going on, and respected them for it.
When you hold a government
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My numbers indicate that about 20% of the cost of
drugs goes into
development, cost and production, and that the rest
is systematic overhead.
I can't comment on this much (for obvious reasons). I
think 20% is a little low, though.
I really don't
In a message dated 8/29/2004 3:45:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
History will, I think, most likely be amazed at the
foolishness of governments that decided to sacrifice
all future innovation and new drug development in
order to get questionable savings on current
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will govenments that inhibit stem cell research
be viewed?
Poorly, I imagine. I don't support this particular
position of the President's. Although the apparent
Democratic position - that no ethical limits on
medical research may ever be made - I reject, of
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And now for something completely different: those
_vampires_
that control medical research are not interested in
finding cures
for any disease, they are just pumping money into
expensive
drugs that make _any_ disease a cronical disease.
This
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
2. Despite what people think, it's really not all that
clear what to do in Africa. The AIDS drugs that we're
finally giving out there do some good, but the methods
used to get them (basically, browbeating pharma
companies that bothered to do research to try to cure
38 matches
Mail list logo
