O/T: Major Sea Changes

Page 6 of 16  
Larry Jaques wrote:

Actually Larry, I don't think the majority of Canadians (with two exceptions in this newsgroup) are backing our hellscare bill and are probably watching it with some dismay. This is going to put a serious crimp on the pressure relief valve for their own system. A good number of Canadians come to the US for treatment when they are either denied care or the wait time is too long to endure the pain. With this plan, that relief valve is disappearing.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:53:26 -0700, Mark & Juanita

Not as large a number as you'd like to believe. And you know what is being forecast? The US will be coming to Canada's drug companies for its medicines because we're not as hell bent on gouging a profit out of our people and the system. I hope we soak you for everything you've got. That seems to be the only type of commerce you respect.
If your country circles the drain as your continual sky is falling rhetoric expounds, your citizens will be coming up here for medical care, at least they will be trying to. How ironic would it be if your failing health care system managed to turn ours into a comparable gouging, money grabbing mob. Wouldn't that be a hoot? :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And the internationally known Canadian Pharmaceutical companies are?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course they are, but still measurably cheaper than the gouging that happens every day by US drug companies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, you have no pharmaceutical companies doing research?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"LDosser" wrote:

Probably don't have any that spend more on sales and marketing than they do research like our US companies either.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like night follows day, so do sales and marketing follow research. But First there has to be something to sell and market.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, let's make something up, like restless leg syndrome, and invent a drug to foist off on the public for big $$$. What crap. I've had the "jimmies" fer 62 yrs! My brother had em. My daughter has 'em. So what? Never been more than a curiosity. Hardly the affliction the drug companies would have us believe. What were those symptoms they mentioned for Zoloft? "Do you feel less than comfortable at social gatherings?", or some such nonsense. Yeah!! It's called shyness, you dolts! Not some psychobabble affliction you need to run to the pharmacy for.
God! ...the masses are dumber'n a bag o' hammers. No wonder homeopathy is more popular than ever. And despite computers, space stations, etc, some people still believe eating a tiger's winkie will get theirs up. Lordy!, I can't think of a species that deserves to become extint more than us. :\
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"LDosser" wrote:

Very interesting, but stupid.
The pharmacutical industry already has a market available limited only by known disease.
Mass marketing of a drug to the general public in an attempt to get the public to pressure the medical community to specify that drug is riduculous, especially when the so called "disease" has been defined by the industry.
"Restless leg" comes to mind.
But heh, TV time seems to be less expensive than a crew of "detail people" canvassing the physicians to promote high profit drugs, which helps the bottom line, just not the end user.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/27/2010 4:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

I used to think that. Then I saw Dick Cavett interview Ingmar Bergman, who among other things described the condition and how it was affecting his life--the interview was back in the '60s. So apparently it's a real problem for some people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:

The operative word is "some".
Given it is a problem for some people, it is also not a problem of the masses.
A rather limited part of the medical community specializes in treating the problem thus conventional means of drug_manufacturer/doctor communication already exists.
Substitute a few other of the high profit, recreational like drugs such as Viagra, if that works better for you.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/27/2010 9:18 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Lemme get this straight--you're saying that not being able to get it up is something that was "defined by the industry"? You gotta be a young fella.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

No, I'm saying it's an "opportunity", not a "necessity".
Lots of money to be made selling the illusion of returning to those thrilling days of yesteryear, even if only momentarily, to a bunch of old farts, some of whom have to be reminded to take their meds.
As far as age is concerned, I'm old enough to remember Pearl Harbor, take it from there.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/27/2010 11:52 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Illusion? If it comes up it's no illusion.

And you can still get it up without meds? You're lucky.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Viagra was not invented as a recreational drug or for ED. It was undergoing clinical testing for angina relief but it did not work very well for that. When the men in the trial did not want to stop the drug, it was discovered that they liked the side effects.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

But they were definitely thinking about it. At a conference in Philadelphia on nitric oxide* Louis Ignarro answered a question about using a cream with an NO donor substance to enhance erections as follows: Sounds like a bad idea, because the partner might faint due to lowering of blood pressure when the substance would enter her system. I remember the laughs.
NO (nitirc oxide) stimulates an enzyme called guanylate cyclase that generates cGMP, which is responsible for vasodilation. Nitroglycerin is an NO donor that also causes vasodilation via cGMP generation, but it works best for the heart. Viagra etc are inhibitors of one of the enzymes that degrade cGMP. There is some tissue specificity in the diverse cyclic GMP phosphodiesterases (PDEs), so Viagra etc work better for the purposes they are now marketed for.
At the time (late 80s, early 90s), there was great interest in commercializing the NO research. Louis Ignarro got the Nobel prize with Robert F. Furchgott and Ferid Murad for their NO-related research. Furchgott discovered an "endothelium-derived relaxing factor" which turned out to be NO. Murad was involved in the cGMP research for Abbott Labs.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Why Lew, you actually agree with Rush. He has been parodying that product for years.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

That way, the sales and marketing people can afford to pay for the expensive medicine their very expensive research develops.
Anyway, seems Canada doesn't have much going for them in pharmaceutical research? I guess they've been content to live off the efforts of the American free market system.
What will they do now, other than stagnate like good little socialist bastards deserve?
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I can't speak as to new experimental drugs, maybe that's what you have in mind, but then they're not yet regular pharmacy drugs are they? We're talking about everyday prescription drugs.
Canadian drugs are markedly cheaper than in the US. Flocks of your seniors make day trips on buses to come up here and buy generic drugs. Read a little bit will you? http://drugs.about.com/od/faqsaboutyourdrugs/f/Canada_cheap.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

CLUE: You get MOST of them from the US or from patent rip-offs in India.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.