|
KingNastidon posted:This is so absurd and cynical. Separate your dislike of pharma marketing and pricing practices from the difficulty of discovering truly novel therapies and the risk Most of that's borne by the public sector via federal and university research in the form of developing novel compounds. The majority of private sector drug research is animal testing and lit review.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
PJ looks so weird in a not clean shaven guise! Nice of him to give a shout out to Moore who just can't seem to catch a break of late---hopefully he can still make it on the show somewhere in the next few weeks upon recovery as he would've had a freaking ball on there with Brokovich making this case for Flint and beyond. OT and all was pretty loaded for carrying water for Clinton and diminishing Sanders---honestly surprised to see the Iraq vote washed out to such a degree by folks that drat well know better. Though it was amusing to see Maher yet again try for a point on the Islam front with women's rights as Steinem was entirely not expecting such a turn from the looks of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
I love how every time PJ makes a joke on Real Time it gets a zero from the crowd. Every. Single. Time. It's like the worst of Norm MacDonald bombing but at least when Norm bombs it's because he literally doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:56
|
|
comes along bort posted:Most of that's borne by the public sector via federal and university research in the form of developing novel compounds.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Bill Maher's last new rule about Bowie taking the virginity of a 15 year old skeeved me out a little. I mean, I get that his point was that young people do reckless things and to just let them do it and reflect later on it when they're older, but...it's still statutory rape, dude! And I love Bowie but let's call it what it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
fart blood posted:Bill Maher's last new rule about Bowie taking the virginity of a 15 year old skeeved me out a little. I mean, I get that his point was that young people do reckless things and to just let them do it and reflect later on it when they're older, but...it's still statutory rape, dude! We should also call Maher a felon for smoking pot. I'm pretty sure you actually missed the point entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Super Deuce posted:We should also call Maher a felon for smoking pot. I'm confused by your comment. Are you implying I'm wrong when I say a grown man having sex with a 15 year old, regardless of whether she wanted to or not, is statutory rape?  Edit: not trying to be a jerk here, I'm legitimately wondering if I'm missing something. fart blood fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
fart blood posted:I'm confused by your comment. Are you implying I'm wrong when I say a grown man having sex with a 15 year old, regardless of whether she wanted to or not, is statutory rape? It wasn't relating to Bowie at all. It was relating to the woman. He wasn't talking about whether Bowie regretted something did in his 20s. It was about someone telling another person how to feel about something. Also, I'm sure he was told by the girl throwing herself at him how old she was. But, again, that's irrelevant to the point. Edit- Also, what I meant initially is that you don't need to mention every detail about everything to make every point. Every time Maher says anything, do we need to be reminded that he's a felon for smoking pot? Do we need to be reminded that it's illegal to have sex with a 15-year-old? Not if it's not relevant. Super Deuce fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Wow. Bill's pro-CTE rant. gently caress you Bill. I mean, not for the first time, but goddamn what a despicable piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Wow. Bill's pro-CTE rant. gently caress you Bill. I mean, not for the first time, but goddamn what a despicable piece of poo poo. What is CTE?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
fart blood posted:What is CTE? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy The subject of the excellent film Bill relentlessly mocked because he's a football fan apparently Concussion. Or maybe it's just because he's an anti-science idiot, he's both I guess. Basically playing football loving ruins your brain and makes you stupid/depressed/suicidal/hyper-aggressive in 80-95% of NFL players tested. Which we all knew (especially the NFL's own doctors and executives who deliberately hid it), but is now a demonstrable scientific fact. After doing the movie Will Smith said he wouldn't let his son play football even though Will Smith loves it. Will Smith's son not being good at anything notwithstanding, that says something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
fart blood posted:What is CTE? Assuming he is referring to the football thing. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE. However I don't get the complaint. Bill is simply saying look either ban football or shut up about this because there isn't really any middle ground. How do you eliminate the risks for CTE and still keep having football? Also it tied into the "people should be able to do what they want and a lot of people everywhere are doing stuff all the time that might have later on life consequences but at some point you have to accept people are going to make their own choices".
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Assuming he is referring to the football thing. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE. However I don't get the complaint. Bill is simply saying look either ban football or shut up about this because there isn't really any middle ground. How do you eliminate the risks for CTE and still keep having football? Also it tied into the "people should be able to do what they want and a lot of people everywhere are doing stuff all the time that might have later on life consequences but at some point you have to accept people are going to make their own choices". Yes and one of his examples was smoking, which was heavily demonized for being ridiculously harmful to your health and cut down upon drastically. Feeding into the people should be able to do what they want thing, fine, but what NFL player started playing after becoming an adult? Their brains were being hosed from childhood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
IRQ posted:The subject of the excellent film Bill relentlessly mocked because he's a football fan apparently Concussion. Or maybe it's just because he's an anti-science idiot, he's both I guess. Basically playing football loving ruins your brain and makes you stupid/depressed/suicidal/hyper-aggressive in 80-95% of NFL players tested. Which we all knew (especially the NFL's own doctors and executives who deliberately hid it), but is now a demonstrable scientific fact. Ok but what is your solution? Keep in mind that ending the NFL isn't even close to a plausible possibility. I'm not even a football fan, but if you think there is some way to keep the NFL going AND mitigate the risks of CTE then I have a bridge to sell you. I will agree that the NFL can get hosed for the cover up poo poo, but now that this is a known thing, what do you expect to happen? IRQ posted:Yes and one of his examples was smoking, which was heavily demonized for being ridiculously harmful to your health and cut down upon drastically. Feeding into the people should be able to do what they want thing, fine, but what NFL player started playing after becoming an adult? Their brains were being hosed from childhood. I know he mentioned pot, but maybe he mentioned cigs too. I can't remember and I would have to rewatch it, but what is your point? Also I promise you that if you went and launched a CTE awareness campaign targeted at kids/high schoolers that were possible future NFL players, it would do absolutely nothing. No athlete that has a chance at the NFL that wants to play is going to suddenly change their mind once they know the risks of CTE. ApexAftermath fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Ok but what is your solution? Keep in mind that ending the NFL isn't even close to a plausible possibility. I'm not even a football fan, but if you think there is some way to keep the NFL going AND mitigate the risks of CTE then I have a bridge to sell you. Educate parents on the consequences is all we can do. It apparently swayed Will Smith. I mean I know that won't really do it 100% either, but demonizing smoking has done a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Also I promise you that if you went and launched a CTE awareness campaign targeted at kids/high schoolers that were possible future NFL players, it would do absolutely nothing. No athlete that has a chance at the NFL that wants to play is going to suddenly change their mind once they know the risks of CTE. So don't let kids do something that will gently caress their brains for life? Like booze or going to war. Wait until they're stupid barely-adults. I don't have a solution. Make Americans realize that football is boring and sucks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Haha Bill said "social justice warrior" last night. Thanks to the writer that told him that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Educate parents on the consequences is all we can do. It apparently swayed Will Smith. I mean I know that won't really do it 100% either, but demonizing smoking has done a lot. What does it matter if Will Smith was swayed? He isn't in a position to play for the NFL nor are his children. You can educate parents all day, but if a child has that level of talent for the NFL and wants to play then no parent is going to be able to stop them. Same deal with kids who want to the join the military. Dave Mirra might have CTE from years of BMX competition. Should we launch a campaign against BMX bike racing? Where does it end? IRQ posted:So don't let kids do something that will gently caress their brains for life? Like booze or going to war. Ok so in this debate you're operating totally outside of reality then? Ok cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:This is so absurd and cynical. Separate your dislike of pharma marketing and pricing practices from the difficulty of discovering truly novel therapies and the risk + time of bringing any drug to market. Do you really think there's a secret cabal of big pharma executives, clinical drug discovery teams, and practicing hematologists/oncologists preventing cures or better therapies from coming to market? Maybe I just haven't been invited to the club yet, but I work at an oncology-focused biotech and attend ASCO, ASH, etc. meetings annually and have yet to uncover this widespread, international collusion and fraud. No, I don't really believe there's a cabal that's actively trying to prevent these things. That's why I prefaced that with "devil's advocate." That isn't my viewpoint exactly. We live in an absurd world that's rife with things capable of inducing cynicism. There's room for idealism but I've seen enough evidence to warrant (or at least entertain) the things I've said. To act as if any industry that large is purely benevolent would be naive IMO. There are bad actors with influence everywhere. I don't dislike "BIG EVIL pharma" or anything. I've seen the good they can do. KingNastidon posted:Nearly all pharma/biotechs are publicly traded corporations or aspiring to be. How would shareholders react if they announced they're lowering drug cost, therefore lowering short-term revenue growth and long-term growth via drug research and clinical trials? Drug companies have every incentive to maximize the WAC of the drug while establishing broad access support services to ensure the median OOP cost to the patient is next to nothing. Assuming it's a cheap, easy to manufacture small molecule drug then it is still plenty profitable to cover whatever the patient's insurance or independent foundations do not. Not well. That's some of what I'm getting at. Ochowie posted:So you think those people would pay out of pocket for sustaining chemo but wouldn't pay a larger amount for a full cure that doesn't essentially poison them? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. That's a completely case-by-case thing and would depend on the scales. Some people aren't going to be able to afford paying for drugs if they were exorbitantly high. Ochowie posted:Your second argument makes no sense. You're saying that after a cure was discovered pharma companies would continue to create chemo treatments instead of attempting to synthesize their own cure? That's like arguing that no one would invent the car because horse drawn carriage companies would be inventing new expensive carriages while cars got steadily cheaper. No, those were two different scenarios. One in a world where a cure existed and one in a world where new chemo drugs were coming out constantly. A cure would most likely garner less money (over many years) as it'd become cheaper over time. Newer/breakthrough kinds of drugs generally start out more expensive. KingNastidon posted:This wasn't the argument. Zogo was arguing that there's widespread collusion to prevent truly novel medicine or "cancer cures" (lol for anyone with a clue) from coming to market. Of course corporations are benefited in many ways by government funded research and investment. Your misunderstood my post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate Heh.. Zogo fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:What does it matter if Will Smith was swayed? He isn't in a position to play for the NFL nor are his children. You can educate parents all day, but if a child has that level of talent for the NFL and wants to play then no parent is going to be able to stop them. Same deal with kids who want to the join the military. It's also worth pointing out that Will Smith is incredibly rich and his kids never have to worry about money the rest of their lives whereas football can seem like a way out of poverty for many families. Zogo posted:No, those were two different scenarios. One in a world where a cure existed and one in a world where new chemo drugs were coming out constantly. I still don't understand your point here. You think that after a cure came out that pharma companies would continue to create new chemo drugs that would be more expense since they're new (although less effective)? My point is that the invention of such a cure would be the equivalent of the invention of the automobile in the world of the horse drawn carriage. It would force companies to completely shift where they put their R&D dollars. Unless you think that all the big pharma companies have signed an agreement not to search for a true cure so they can just continue pumping out expensive chemo drugs. In that case it's a prisoner's dilemma and I guarantee you that every company would defect if they had the means to do so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Ochowie posted:I still don't understand your point here. You think that after a cure came out that pharma companies would continue to create new chemo drugs that would be more expense since they're new (although less effective)? My main point there was that once a cure is discovered the cost to produce and replicate the drug will invariably decrease as time goes on. And if it's really a cure you won't need to go back for more. Thus a lower cost for those inflicted with cancers and only used for a short time. OTOH, new drug development provides companies a never-ending cycle of incremental improvements/treatments/experimentation for the industry to rake in the cash in perpetuity. A growing number of cancer patients each year in an endless cycle of chemo treatment and maintenance. Ochowie posted:My point is that the invention of such a cure would be the equivalent of the invention of the automobile in the world of the horse drawn carriage. That analogy doesn't work because in some magical scenario where a full cancer cure was found then that's mainly the end of the line. Sure, there may be some minute enhancements but if you have cured patients they won't need anything more from you. OTOH, cars are a product that must be continuously used and maintained and then replaced. Cars are constantly being improved upon and still aren't close to their zenith. Cars are not drugs. Cars are not a pill. IRQ posted:Will Smith's son not being good at anything notwithstanding...  ApexAftermath posted:How do you eliminate the risks for CTE and still keep having football? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_football Problem solved! Zogo fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Ok but what is your solution? Keep in mind that ending the NFL isn't even close to a plausible possibility. I'm not even a football fan, but if you think there is some way to keep the NFL going AND mitigate the risks of CTE then I have a bridge to sell you. Yep, nothing can be done. People want to play football, so they can just strap on their leather maskless hats and just go out and hit each other in any possible way they can manage. Same thing can be said about auto racing, you're never going to stop all deaths of drivers and fans, so why bother with a roll cage or fences. Why is the NFL thing such a big deal? Because they did everything in their power to hide any and all evidence and pretend it didn't exist so they didn't have to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Slickdrac posted:Yep, nothing can be done. People want to play football, so they can just strap on their leather maskless hats and just go out and hit each other in any possible way they can manage. I hear that the NFL hid information for a long time, but I'm pretty sure everyone without Alzheimer's has known for the entirety of my post-toddler life. I remember stuff from the mid-'90s about this same basic information where players were compared to boxers in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Zogo posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_football I have a feeling someone will remove a single letter from the term 'flag football' as an insult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:What does it matter if Will Smith was swayed? He isn't in a position to play for the NFL nor are his children. You can educate parents all day, but if a child has that level of talent for the NFL and wants to play then no parent is going to be able to stop them. Same deal with kids who want to the join the military. So the solution is to throw up our hands and do nothing? Ok cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
IRQ posted:So the solution is to throw up our hands and do nothing? Ok cool. People are going to keep playing football. I don't know how you make the sport any safer without altering the game in fundamental ways. What exactly do you realistically believe is going to happen here? I think you need to pick and choose your battles and this is a dumb and pointless one. Athletes gonna do what they gonna do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
IRQ posted:So the solution is to throw up our hands and do nothing? Ok cool. We should start using Surrogates!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Zogo posted:My main point there was that once a cure is discovered the cost to produce and replicate the drug will invariably decrease as time goes on. And if it's really a cure you won't need to go back for more. Thus a lower cost for those inflicted with cancers and only used for a short time. This is going around in circles, but I don't know why you think that just because there is no incremental treatment that this would bring in less money. It's all in how the treatment is priced and I'm sure there's a way to price the treatment to offset any loss of income from the maintenance treatments. And even if the cost to produce the drug goes down why would that mean the price to the consumer would have to go down? The only way that the price would go down is through competitive pressure from other companies, but by the time they can catch up there would have been plenty of time to recoup and far surpass the initial investment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
This thread got incoherent. Are people defending Dr. Scamface?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Wow. Bill's pro-CTE rant. gently caress you Bill. I mean, not for the first time, but goddamn what a despicable piece of poo poo. I don't have an opinion on the CTE part but what made me question his sanity was when he got to talking about how no one should have a problem with Chris Brown and Rihanna dating. Really, Bill? Really?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:People are going to keep playing football. I don't know how you make the sport any safer without altering the game in fundamental ways. What exactly do you realistically believe is going to happen here? I think you need to pick and choose your battles and this is a dumb and pointless one. Athletes gonna do what they gonna do. Formula 1 has become pretty much impossible to be seriously hurt in. I guess football is more complicated to be made safe than open air cars going 200 mph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Ochowie posted:...I don't know why you think that just because there is no incremental treatment that this would bring in less money. Because a brand new drug is usually expensive (to recoup all the costs involved with research/production/marketing etc.) While a cure that's been around fifty years generally is not. If you have found a fantasyland cure there is no reason to continue research/testing/trials/marketing and every other $$$ aspect. That's a LOT of jobs lost and a much less lucrative industry. Ochowie posted:It's all in how the treatment is priced and I'm sure there's a way to price the treatment to offset any loss of income from the maintenance treatments. Theoretically yes, but I'm not just talking about the price of the pill. I'm talking about the whole HIV/Cancer economy. Let's take another example. What if we found a cure for Type 1 and 2 diabetes? No one needs insulin anymore..UHOH. No one needs insulin pumps/syringes/pens/glucose meters/pills or checkups any longer. That's an entire industry that would be decimated and vanished into ether. Ochowie posted:And even if the cost to produce the drug goes down why would that mean the price to the consumer would have to go down? It's not a 100% guarantee but that's generally the way things work (at least adjusted for inflation). Ochowie posted:The only way that the price would go down is through competitive pressure from other companies, but by the time they can catch up there would have been plenty of time to recoup and far surpass the initial investment. That's not really the reality with prescriptions in the modern US with all the regulations and restrictions on drug selling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Because a brand new drug is usually expensive (to recoup all the costs involved with research/production/marketing etc.) While a cure that's been around fifty years generally is not. If you have found a fantasyland cure there is no reason to continue research/testing/trials/marketing and every other $$$ aspect. That's a LOT of jobs lost and a much less lucrative industry. You're entire premise is based on the belief that companies care about the other industry players. I can assure you that they don't. If a company discovers a cure, being able to basically put their competitors out of business would be the cherry on the sunday. You seem to be in some fantasy world where companies care about "the industry" (essentially their competitors) to the detriment of a huge windfall. If a company did invent a magical diabetes cure why do you think they would care about separate diabetes supply companies? Anyways, I'm kind of done with this because I doubt anything is going to disabuse you of the notion that there is a back room cabal running the pharma industry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Let's take another example. What if we found a cure for Type 1 and 2 diabetes? No one needs insulin anymore..UHOH. No one needs insulin pumps/syringes/pens/glucose meters/pills or checkups any longer. That's an entire industry that would be decimated and vanished into ether. Well not really because pharmaceutical and medical supply companies don't just make products for one disease. Plus, if there was a cure for diabetes, they'd be the same ones selling it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
You guys are arguing the weirdest drat thing when we literally just had Bill arguing pro-pedophilia. That girl was 14 when she got passed around by Bowie and the others, not 15.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Botnit posted:You guys are arguing the weirdest drat thing when we literally just had Bill arguing pro-pedophilia. How the gently caress can you miss the point of what he was saying by so much?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:How do you eliminate the risks for CTE and still keep having football? Have women play it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Super Deuce posted:How the gently caress can you miss the point of what he was saying by so much? You might want to go back and watch it again before acting like more of an ignorant gently caress. His entire speech is about how society shouldn't judge someone for doing something that might hurt them, the problem is that his other examples are hilariously idiotic. First he calls Paul Walker's death "joy riding". Walker was going 100MPH, over twice the speed limit on a public road literally endangering people's lives. Then his second example he added a year to make statutory gang rape seem totes not so bad. Third example? A woman getting her face smashed and alternating going back and forth between doing what sane people do and then dangling chum in the water for media attention. So sorry poster extraordinaire Super Deuce, but it seems you've either missed his point or you did get his point and were a fool that actually believed that people shouldn't be allowed to form opinions about others who are committing crimes and endangering the well beings of others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Nude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Botnit posted:You might want to go back and watch it again before acting like more of an ignorant gently caress. People are allowed to make their own choices in life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:09
|
|