Computer Science Canada Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Author: | Zeroth [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
I've been thinking that there are a lot of bad science issues facing us, particularly online, where anyone has a voice and an audience. I've seen a LOT of bad science everywhere, and if you want a good blog that talks about these issues in more depth, there is badscience.net. But one of the biggest and most dangerous crank topics is that of aids. There is a growing community of people that claim that it is the anti-retroviral medicines prescribed for AIDs that makes people sick, when the real cause of AIDs is malnutrition. There are innumerable sites and dialogs out there that follow those same principles. Supposed toxicologists, anesthesiologists, etc, that claim to have studied the evidence and find there is no link between the HIV virus and AIDs. This is especially dangerous, because in places like South Africa, with 25% of the adult population being infected, such claims and ignorance can and have caused monstrous loss of life. One particular thing I've noticed in the AIDs dissidents discussions is always the question of the homosexual population of America that contracted AIDs first, and how that fits into the nutritional claims. Their response is always so homophobic as to remove any doubt about their bias. Its always something about the large drug use, and party lifestyle of the homosexual population, which if one had done the research would basically describe risk behaviours that spread STVs in general. They also ignore the substantial amount of people that do contract AIDs that A) eat properly B) don't do drugs and C) don't sleep around. Take a look at this link: http://www.suppressedscience.net/aids.html One particular quote stands out: Quote: Mainstream AIDS researchers, bureaucrats and so-called educators generally act like this challenge does not exist, and when they are forced to comment on it, they usually dismiss it using ridicule, ad-hominem attacks, appeals to scientific majoritarianism and empty claims that this challenge has been answered, when in fact its scientific substance has been evaded and ignored. Ironically, the very people who are in massive denial concerning the true scientific merits of the theory they espouse accuse their opponents of being in denial. By aggressively labeling critics of the HIV paradigm "denalists", they seek to avoid scientific debate and silence dissent.
Basic tenets of science are that you make a prediction or model, and see if the experiment or reality fits the hypothesis. If it doesn't, you've still learned something. The test must be repeatable, or the model must make testable predictions. When it comes to medicine, things must be, by necessity, even stricter, requiring trials, large-scale tests and analysis. However, the aids denialists use many different techniques to answer all reason and evidence. First, they move the goalposts. In that quote paragraph above, you can see that from this part, "empty claims that this challenge has been answered, when in fact its scientific substance has been evaded and ignored." They especially will quote long-since discredited studies from the 90's, as evidence they are right, when as early as 2000, the Durban Declaration has been publicly available, signed by over 5000 PhD or M.D. professionals, none working for commercial companies, to avoid the appearance of bias, stating that the evidence is irrefutable. Another technique denialists use is to refer to the scientific majority repressing them, which is seen here, "appeals to scientific majoritarianism". They always try to bring up luminaries like Galileo, and others, that were punished for their beliefs, trying to liken themselves to lone underdogs fighting a conspiracy. Which isn't true, because the conclusions and Galileo and others, for which they were punished, were only disagreed with by the Church, not by their community of peers. They were not punished by their peers, but by a religious institution, which has no bearing or relationship between the tens of thousands of researchers, professors, doctors, and experts that condemn the denialists. I know this post would likely bring out a few of the crazies on this board. If you would like to post a disagreement with the established medical protocol of anti-retroviral medicine, you better have some damn good evidence, which is recent, as free of bias as possible, and not been discredited. Rather, I wanted to bring this issue to the awareness of compsci.ca posters, so they can be aware of the arguments and flawed logic, in case members of their families, or friends are undergoing the tragedy of HIV/AIDs and are being told these lies. Oh, one more reference, thank you wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism |
Author: | Exordium [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:38 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Hah, I see we have similar interests Zeroth. It saddens me that more people aren't familiar with the scientific method and how powerful it is. Good post - nothing much to add. |
Author: | Zeroth [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Yeah. Mostly I'm just against bad science. I see it everywhere, and it annoys me so much. I especially detest this "underdog" syndrome that journalists have when writing about scientists. They always make the lone quack sound credible by making it sound like a conspiracy. Yes, its a conspiracy... against illogical and unfounded conclusions. The science reporters don't have the knowledge nor inclination to write the right story. |
Author: | jernst [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Zeroth @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:09 pm wrote: Yeah. Mostly I'm just against bad science. I especially detest journalists writing about scientists. The science reporters don't have the knowledge nor inclination to write the right story.
+1, Most journalists have no business writing about science. Couple that with people who watch "Mythbusters", read the articles and think they're instant scientists and it makes me very sad. |
Author: | Homer_simpson [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
it is unfortunate for people who will take unscientific theories for truth without reason. but personally i'm kind of suspicious towards the origins of the hiv virus. on a related note 2 iranian doctors who created a relatively effective treatment for HIV(not aids) were imprisoned for no logical reason http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/01/iranian-hiv-pioneers-face-deat.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tU_3613sVM |
Author: | Tony [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Homer_simpson @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:53 pm wrote: but personally i'm kind of suspicious towards the origins of the hiv virus.
Very interesting TED talk on topic -- http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/nathan_wolfe_hunts_for_the_next_aids.html |
Author: | Homer_simpson [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:03 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
also related: hopefully you guys have heard about the swine flu outbreak. you should try and wash your hands more often. it is appearantly very contagious |
Author: | ecookman [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:37 am ] |
Post subject: | RE:Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
GAAH SWINE FLU SWINE FLU a couple hundred people have died from it already. for those who don't know it is the "Wrose-then-sars" mexican brew equlivent brew of sars. ---------------------------------------edit------------------------------------------------ should we really~ be going to school? it is proven schools and populated buildings are the fastest places to spread stuff like this. uhuo ( i wonder if the board of education cares that a [i]deadly[i] flu is going around and that can KILL us.) |
Author: | rdrake [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:01 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: RE:Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
ecookman @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:37 am wrote: GAAH SWINE FLU SWINE FLU
It's worse than SARS yet the only people who have died are from poor countries with pathetic health care systems? Alright.
a couple hundred people have died from it already. for those who don't know it is the "Wrose-then-sars" mexican brew equlivent brew of sars. ---------------------------------------edit------------------------------------------------ should we really~ be going to school? it is proven schools and populated buildings are the fastest places to spread stuff like this. uhuo ( i wonder if the board of education cares that a [i]deadly[i] flu is going around and that can KILL us.) Should you go to school? Definitely. |
Author: | ecookman [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:06 am ] |
Post subject: | RE:Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
people have died in the US |
Author: | jernst [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:17 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: RE:Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
rdrake @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:01 am wrote: Should you go to school? Definitely. lol +1, its funny in a thread about bad science how someone writes some like this: Quote: for those who don't know it is the "Wrose-then-sars" mexican brew equlivent brew of sars. |
Author: | Dan [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | RE:Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Personaly i think swine flew is alot of media hype. In most cases it is not deadly and will pass in a few weeks and you would not even know it was worse then the noraml flew virus. Tho the problem comes in when there are complications or the person has a weak or compermised immune system. There are also treaments for it and i blive there is a vacince but it was not devloped for this strain in particuler. Edit: from the artical rdrake linked to: Quote: In almost all cases outside Mexico, people have been only mildly ill and have made a full recovery. |
Author: | Zeroth [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Yeah, pretty funny. Here's the situation as I've seen it: swine flu has killed people in countries with abysmal health care systems. In Canada, you will almost certainly survive. At the very worst, some of the recent research into anti-retroviral medicines for HIV can be useful in treating cases of the swine flu. What usually kills people with influenza is the dehydration and damage to the body caused by the symptoms, not the virus directly. I couldn't find much information, but of the one or two cases discussed of deaths already, they stem from dehydration. Modern health-care is more than up to the task of managing dehydration. Only in very rare circumstances does a flu actually kill directly, like the 1918 epidemic. Which means this: practice proper food preparation, wash your hands ONLY when needed, and only go to the hospital when your symptoms are severe. Don't panic. Live your regular life, don't travel far. Basically the biggest risk factor right now is air-travel, which can spread a disease across the entire country in just a few hours. Everyone that is travelling by air, no matter the inconvenience, should not, until the virus is contained. If I were in charge, I'd shut down or severely restrict and limit air-travel to only necessary travel. |
Author: | Dan [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Zeroth @ 28th April 2009, 12:55 pm wrote: Which means this: practice proper food preparation, wash your hands ONLY when needed, and only go to the hospital when your symptoms are severe. Don't panic. Live your regular life, don't travel far. Basically the biggest risk factor right now is air-travel, which can spread a disease across the entire country in just a few hours. Everyone that is travelling by air, no matter the inconvenience, should not, until the virus is contained. If I were in charge, I'd shut down or severely restrict and limit air-travel to only necessary travel. My girlfriend is flying home from Toronto tomorrow >_> |
Author: | Zeroth [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Is she coming from Mexico or other infected places? If not, then it should be okay... but she might be able to get one of those face-masks... I'd definitely recommend that. |
Author: | Tony [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | RE:Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
She's coming from Toronto... (well, GTA~ish area). They better put this under control soon, I still want to go to Japan in June. |
Author: | Homer_simpson [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
it's true flu virus usually does not kill, but there also almost no medication to deal with the virus directly, the best that we do is try to keep the body homeostatic and hydrated, however an average persons immune system is very capable of dealing with the virus. The only scary thing about the flu virus is that it mutates very rapidly(also the reason people get vaccination every year) edit: just found out there is anti viral medication that can actually help the immune system deal with the swine flu. |
Author: | Tony [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Homer_simpson @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:52 pm wrote: edit: just found out there is anti viral medication that can actually help the immune system deal with the swine flu.
I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to, but Interferon is used to help one's immune system deal with RNA viruses such as flu, SARS, hepatitis C. It's also useful against colds, and apparently against some types of cancer. |
Author: | Homer_simpson [ Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
there's actually a few drugs that can actually inhibit certain functions of a virus by cutting off a pathway. e.g. Neuraminidase inhibitors |
Author: | Zeroth [ Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:18 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Research like this looks like the best avenue to fighting HIV and other viruses, if we were immune to them in the past: http://io9.com/5227470/a-drug-to-re+awaken-ancient-human-genes-and-fight-hiv Short story: long time ago, we had a gene that made us immune to HIV and similar viruses. Due to a freak mutation that did not affect survival rate, this gene was turned off, about 20,000 to 50,000 years ago. Researchers have found a way to turn this gene back on, and it has been shown to effectively fight HIV. Now, they are working towards human trials, once they figure out a safe way to apply the chemical which apparently can cause DNA transcription errors. Which reminds me: io9.com is absolutely fantastic with their science reporting. |
Author: | jernst [ Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:34 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: RE:Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Tony @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:05 pm wrote: She's coming from Toronto... (well, GTA~ish area).
They better put this under control soon, I still want to go to Japan in June. +1, I'm headed to england at end of may, no way im missing it ![]() |
Author: | Homer_simpson [ Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Zeroth @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:18 am wrote: Research like this looks like the best avenue to fighting HIV and other viruses, if we were immune to them in the past: http://io9.com/5227470/a-drug-to-re+awaken-ancient-human-genes-and-fight-hiv
Short story: long time ago, we had a gene that made us immune to HIV and similar viruses. Due to a freak mutation that did not affect survival rate, this gene was turned off, about 20,000 to 50,000 years ago. Researchers have found a way to turn this gene back on, and it has been shown to effectively fight HIV. Now, they are working towards human trials, once they figure out a safe way to apply the chemical which apparently can cause DNA transcription errors. Which reminds me: io9.com is absolutely fantastic with their science reporting. DNA is soooooo sexy ![]() also there's some serious claims being made by this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBeKB7aKzOs edit also ron paul on flu: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=6370 and this guy: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=6382 |
Author: | Zeroth [ Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Uh.... I'm sorry Homer_Simpson, but you fail. Have you done a background check on Leonard Horowitz? When SARS broke out, he and several others set up naturopathic websites claiming they already had effective cures for SARS. That immediately, to me, discounts ANYTHING he has to say about the swine flu issue. He tried to profit from panic, fear, and suffering, and that makes him lower than the lowest. Like I said before, please evaluate what you post before you post it. Now, Ron Paul and associated videos: we don't know enough to call it a hoax. People have died from it. This isn't "Wag the Dog: Real Life". |
Author: | Homer_simpson [ Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:13 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Zeroth @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:49 pm wrote: Uh.... I'm sorry Homer_Simpson, but you fail. Have you done a background check on Leonard Horowitz? When SARS broke out, he and several others set up naturopathic websites claiming they already had effective cures for SARS. That immediately, to me, discounts ANYTHING he has to say about the swine flu issue. He tried to profit from panic, fear, and suffering, and that makes him lower than the lowest.
Like I said before, please evaluate what you post before you post it. Now, Ron Paul and associated videos: we don't know enough to call it a hoax. People have died from it. This isn't "Wag the Dog: Real Life". lol i never said i support anything that these people said. i just said this guy has made some serious claims(not necessary valid claims) edit: anyone and any corporation that generates a profit from the pharmasutical products is lower than the lowest just like the 76 flu pandemic where they gave people ineffective vaccinations, the exact same principal that exists with the HIV generic medication not being allowed in africa because of patent issues or companies trying to buy sequences of code from the human genome project to try to generate a profit. One might argue that these companies have invested lots of money in research to come up with these medications but it still does not justify holding back on life saving medications for profit. it is absolute BOGUS, the concept of profit in the medical field is just ridiculous. edit: also on top of that I despise the the FDA, they are the most evil of organizations to stain the earth, i just read the Horowitz letter to the FDA and in certain aspects i share the same feelings as he does about this organization, HOWEVER i am by no means supporting what he has to say about the flu or sars. |
Author: | Zeroth [ Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Homer_simpson @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:13 pm wrote: Zeroth @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:49 pm wrote: Uh.... I'm sorry Homer_Simpson, but you fail. Have you done a background check on Leonard Horowitz? When SARS broke out, he and several others set up naturopathic websites claiming they already had effective cures for SARS. That immediately, to me, discounts ANYTHING he has to say about the swine flu issue. He tried to profit from panic, fear, and suffering, and that makes him lower than the lowest.
Like I said before, please evaluate what you post before you post it. Now, Ron Paul and associated videos: we don't know enough to call it a hoax. People have died from it. This isn't "Wag the Dog: Real Life". lol i never said i support anything that these people said. i just said this guy has made some serious claims(not necessary valid claims) edit: anyone and any corporation that generates a profit from the pharmasutical products is lower than the lowest just like the 76 flu pandemic where they gave people ineffective vaccinations, the exact same principal that exists with the HIV generic medication not being allowed in africa because of patent issues or companies trying to buy sequences of code from the human genome project to try to generate a profit. One might argue that these companies have invested lots of money in research to come up with these medications but it still does not justify holding back on life saving medications for profit. it is absolute BOGUS, the concept of profit in the medical field is just ridiculous. edit: also on top of that I despise the the FDA, they are the most evil of organizations to stain the earth, i just read the Horowitz letter to the FDA and in certain aspects i share the same feelings as he does about this organization, HOWEVER i am by no means supporting what he has to say about the flu or sars. This just leaves me scratching my head. You have no idea how big of a scam, how much knowing deceit and purposeful deception that happens with the homeopathy and naturopathy industries, do you? Just knowing he's associated with those industries is a big warning sign about his "letter to the FDA". You /want/ to believe the FDA is wrong. Hence, anything that supports that view is vigorously embraced. That is not intellectually rigorous. Your views and opinions are spurious and not worth consideration. I hate to be a jackass about it, but please, actually rigorously make an argument, rather than pointing to supposed pieces of authority. "Argument by authority" is not a valid debate technique. Here's the problem: we ascribe meaning to events and correlation where there is none. You want to assume there is actual, pre-meditated malice, where it is more likely to be incompetence. I've argued this before: people are not inherently bad. Conspiracies like those you keep wanting to claim exist, evil organizations, etc, would require a heretofore unnoticed plague of dastardly and evil villains, all twirling their moustaches. It is a... reassuring fiction. It assigns purpose to actions. There is a meaning. Even if you can't tell what it is, their is a meaning, someone to blame, to appeal... But just because we want to believe something doesn't make it true. The reality of the world, though much more mundane, is a very sad reality. People do evil stuff, believing they are doing the right thing. Bad stuff happens randomly to good people. There is no meaning, no malice, no purpose, no beneficence. In short, you are deluded, Homer_Simpson, because its easier to believe. It comforts you, like a security blanket. Here, take a look at the badscience.net blog. The author writes for a UK newspaper, exposing and shaming lies and deception in reporting, advertising, and even medical studies themselves. It is a fantastic read, written by a very talented and intelligent person. An especially good post is here where he shares a chapter from his book: http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/ that he couldn't publish till the lawsuit was over. Here's the simplest question, and biggest blow against naturopathic medicine: if it works, why did we develop other medicines in the first place? |
Author: | Homer_simpson [ Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:37 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
see now i'm just confused,you've put words in my mouth so to speak, i'm not sure what your critisizing me of. I dont know how you got the idea that i supported homeopathy or naturopathic medicine....? Secondly how is my logic appearing as "Argument by authority". the only thing that said is that i shared with that person was the disapproval of the FDA methods and here's why in detail: It is not a conspiracy or something i want to believe it is FACT, the law empowers a pharmaceutical company to patent a new substance that they've discovered(not invented) for a period of time meaning that no other company anywhere in the world(not just USA) is allowed to produce a generic copy of that substance (HIV treatment medication) up until the patent has ran its course and the company has made a profit by charging however much they please... An example of this is good ol' tylenol which is acetaminophen. I also said that ,to put profit above health and wellbeing of mankind is wrong, this is a fundamental problem of capitalism not a conspiracy, to me it is morally and ethically wrong but that's the way it has been,is and will be. i'm a logical person, i'd say you'd get a better response from by not insulting as no good could possibly come from that, I must say my view are most probably not perfect, it is based on what i've observed through out my life and if there's one thing i'm sure of, is that nothing is for sure , if a new idea is more probable than the one i held for truth i will easily change my perspective. Einstein: "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." |
Author: | Zeroth [ Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
A couple of things: the FDA does not provide or is involved with drug patents in any way. They merely certify a drug for human use, have standards for nutritional information and drug disclosures, designs testing procedures and so on. Now, as to the companies inventing medicines. Why do you use the word discovering? Drug patents do not cover the molecules themselves, but the process to synthesize them. If you can develop a different process to synthesize a molecule, then go ahead. The companies have invented a way to synthesize a molecule. That is what the patent covers. I want you to imagine something. Imagine a world where there were no patents. Everyone would be extremely afraid to release their inventions, for fear of being copied. The only ones that could afford to do so would be the ones with all the money to hire hitmen. Say you spent 10 years working on an invention... what kind of protection do you have to ensure you make a profit off of YOUR work? None. Patents are there to encourage scientific and engineering development to continue, by allowing the inventors, the company, the scientist, whomever, to profit from their invention for a period of time, while at the same time, the details of their invention are available to the public. That is what patent filings are for, so that when the patent expires, you can use the same refinements they used, and possibly develop something new. Luckily, there is a very strong resistance against unlimited patents, unlike unlimited copyright. So who do you think would be developing these medicines and the processes themselves? Universities? Well, they won't risk marketing something just so it can be copied by an unscrupulous company. Other companies? The Government? What is going on right now is a fine mix of public and private research, with patents protecting both. When a university researcher develops something new, the University spins off a new company to own the patents, and market the invention, if its a worthwhile development. Companies can have protection for a period of time to establish a brand and sell the medicine. They need that period of time to pay-back the research and development costs, which are usually in the billions, incurred in finding a medicine. Consider the length of time from discover(filing of patent for the process) to human trials. This can be upwards of 15 years! That is a huge investment. The fact is, we need those drugs. Those companies want to make money. But, because of the FDA, they have to make drugs that are actually effective and safe. Compare this to a place like Japan, where their FDA equivalent is non-effective, and easily bribe-able. Japan is flooded with pills and narcotics, with nasty side effects, with pills that don't actually do anything, and so on. (Reference: Dogs and Demons by Alex Kerr) You are looking at one tiny aspect of the issue, of a company spending billions on a drug, then having some well-deserved protection so we actually get effective medicine. The issue is, yes, the price. But they incurred billions. They are not a charity. People often misunderstand why medicines are priced the way they are. But the FDA has no control, nor responsibility over drug prices. They do not grant or protect drug patents. You are blaming the wrong organization. The FDA works very very hard with a limited budget to keep our food and medicine safe in America. Canada's equivalent does the same. So what we have is a mix of the two paradigms, and it works well. The drug companies have to give up their monopoly on the drug after a certain amount of time, ensuring that cheap generics can enter the market and compete, in exchange for a limited window of profit. Otherwise, we wouldn't get these medicines, because the government would never spend the billions required. Now, Tylenol. Tylenol has trademark protection, but not patent protection. You can't market tylenol, but you can market acetaminophen or ibuprofen. They are not protected anymore. So... you picked a bad example. I'll say this again, the patent protection is needed, to ensure we get development of new medicines that the government couldn't afford to do. Look at what happened with Viagra. It was developed as a heart medicine, but the side-effect proved to be more powerful than its healing abilities. No government lab would have released viagra. But viagra has made millions of people happy. Repeatedly. The protection on Viagra's process has run out, so the market has a bunch of competitors. Understand the system before you start condemning the wrong organization for the issues you believe in. You are welcome to believe what you want, but at least understand why the system is as it is. The patent system is working perfectly(when it comes to drugs, but not software). At the very least, think about credible alternatives to allow for development of medicines, both life-saving, and life-improving like Viagra. The government doing everything is not a credible solution. The only credible solution is the one we have now, with a mix of public and private, a mix of both ideologies, taking the Middle Way. |
Author: | Zeroth [ Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Bad Science: AIDs Dissidents |
Before we get too offtopic, a post from the badscience.net blog directly about swine flu: http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/parmageddon/ |