Posted on 09/10/2002 7:16:04 PM PDT by mjp
They are interested in studying cancer. The difference is huge, and the results are a massive fraud of the masses.
Thomas Edison, if alive today, would be studying the possibility of a light bulb and would still be applying for government grants instead of selling product.
PhD-types are trained to be self-absorbed a$$holes who can't fathom the existence of something they can't understand. This precludes them from being useful towards solving problems such as death by cancer.
OK, so who would be good at "curing cancer?"
Semi-retired lumberjacks? Yourself?
So you'd like to think. I really know him. God says you are just a poser who likes to pretend you hang with his posse.
Frankly, your opinion of me means nada to me, but thanks for the energy anyway.
Why? That makes no sense. These were human cancer cells they were experimenting on. I think you're paranoid.
Frankly, your opinion of me means nada to me, but thanks for the energy anyway.
Well, your paranoia means nothing to me, so I guess we're on the same page now.
Uncountable numbers of people are dead who never knew that medicines existed or were available elsewhere but not here. Dead men tell no tales.
You can pretend all you want, but it's not a game. Sick people receive help. Sinners receive undeserved grace. Even you.
The RNA will come from the specific target cells in the adult.
The FDA's mission was to make sure treatments were "safe and effective". Now they're more concerned with the level of control they have and how much instant data companies should provide for them.
That was true before the 30's. There used to be a guy who sold radioactive water as a "health tonic".
There's no reason for the FDA to block product improvements just so data can be available for inspectors at a moments notice. The auditors could wait a day or two.
Most companies have already put several hundred million dollars into safety trials before NDA submission. Once the NDA is sent to the FDA, companies have 7 years to regain their investment plus any profit before they lose ownership and the generic manufacturers can start selling the product. When there's no longer a profit, there will no longer be any new drugs. Why do you think two-thirds of new drug submissions are reformulated drugs rather than new drugs?
Unfortunately people can die in trials. Sometimes it results from the effect of the drug, but many people in trials are dying already anyway. Biology being what it is, its not always possible to know how individuals will react to a drug in advance, because people carry so many mutations.
That's illegal. The disclaimers are for the lawyers. Health care companies are sued hundreds of times every day.
You mean like AIDS drugs during the Clinton presidency?
Accidents and cross-discipline discoveries are the source of much of the world's breakthroughs because pompous idiots with PhD's cannot fathom the reality of a phenomenon without accepting that they don't know why it occurs. Much better to dismiss or bury useful effects they can't explain - makes them feel in control. Thinking inside the box is the epitome of a PhD's paradigm.
Thomas Edison built a light bulb without knowing 'why' - the fact is, it worked, and the world was better for it.
Whenever you hear in the future the phrase 'scientists are at a loss to explain it', my point will reverberate through your thick skull.
And you know this because...? By the way, have any suggestions for the Lotto?
Like the Human Genome Project, private industry with brute force robust testing will hone in on promising cures without 'understanding' the personality of the bug at a pace far beyond that of the institutional deadweight.
Actually, the NIH finished before Celera Genomics, but that wouldn't matter to you.
Accidents and cross-discipline discoveries are the source of much of the world's breakthroughs because pompous idiots with PhD's cannot fathom the reality of a phenomenon without accepting that they don't know why it occurs.
You're an idiot. The folks who work for pharmaceutical and biotech firms have just as many advanced degrees as those who work for government and university laboratories.
Thomas Edison built a light bulb without knowing 'why' - the fact is, it worked, and the world was better for it.
Actually, he did know why it worked.
Whenever you hear in the future the phrase 'scientists are at a loss to explain it', my point will reverberate through your thick skull.
Huh? There are lots of things that scientists don't understand. The point of science is to seek to explain them. What do you have against ordinary human curiosity? What have YOU got to hide?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.