How Syfy canceled the 2nd most popular TV series in the world

[morrismike]

Big Pharma's profit motive is to keep people sick, because if everyone were healthy, Big Pharma wouldn't earn such large profits anymore.

Some of the more interesting research and solutions were devised by more simple people:
* The penicillin was discovered (by chance) by a Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming, but U.S. and UK governments financed research in mass-producing it;
* The soluble vitamin juice tablet was created by a doctor or researcher in a U.S. public institution during or after WWII, when there was a need to safely and dryly transport ascorbic acid to needy children in the UK, without the medicine losing its properties during transport;
* And almost by chance, too, two Australians — pathologist Robin Warren, and physician and crazy scientist Barry Marshall discovered what caused peptic ulcers and gastritis and their discovery was greatly resisted by Big Pharma, which at the time earned well from manufacturing medicines that only alleviated the symptoms.

The cause of peptic ulcers was widely known in the medical community all the way back to before WWII. It was the medical community supressing that knowledge, not big pharma. Most of the health issues have absolutely nothing to do with prescription medicine.

[Mardus]

[...] If we are sick of high costs we need tort reform so the majority of medical care is not defensive in nature.

I don't think tort reform has much to do with anything, and medical malpractice would still happen even if tort reform were to be passed. One thing is, that the U.S. does not allow importation of drugs from foreign countries; the other is that with lots of private insurers there is too much administrative overhead, which is expensive. The number of uninsured in the U.S. is also the greatest amongst the "rich industrialised" countries, and this puts a heavy strain on emergency services and hospitals, which have to pass these costs down to those that can pay (if only barely). The failure in providing timely treatment to all because some people can't afford it, means that they must resort more to emergency aid.

The cause of peptic ulcers was widely known in the medical community all the way back to before WWII. It was the medical community supressing that knowledge, not big pharma. Most of the health issues have absolutely nothing to do with prescription medicine.

First off, the bacterial cause for peptic ulcers — Helicobacter pylori — was only discovered and definitely proven in early eighties by said Australians; the medical community did not suppress this knowledge, but dismissed it during those early eighties and before, because it was beyound belief for them that bacteria could live in the acidic stomach. Neither was it easy to produce any proof, and it happened by chance anyway.

Oh btw, I am rather indifferent as to whether the U.S. makes advances on medicines or drugs, or not. After all, other countries can make those advances, too. For example, the "nano tea bag" water filter (well yes, not a medicine or a drug) was developed in South Africa.

[The_Asgard_live]

Healthcare is one of the fields, where capitalism creates a conflict of interest, whereby private entities want to make a profit from a situation where people would be willing to do no matter what to get healthy or stay alive.

Once prices are jacked up, it will become impossible to maintain a good level of healthcare, no matter how good that country's scientists are there in the field. I believe such a situation exists in both the U.S. and China.

Willing to do anything with the exception of eat well, live well and exercise, generally speaking (I'm aware sometimes there are compelling complicating circumstances that make those things not possible).

The American health care system is not an example of capitalism in action.

Big Pharma's profit motive is to keep people sick, because if everyone were healthy, Big Pharma wouldn't earn such large profits anymore.

Do you really believe there is a global conspiracy to suppress medical breakthroughs? It would have to encompass all corporations, all medical universities, governmental research facilities, all countries, and every kid that goes to university thinking he's going to be the person to cure cancer.

And you'd have to argue that the company that cures something like AIDS with a pill isn't going to become wealthy beyond imagination. Which seems like a difficult position to take.

[KEK]

There is nothing matter of fact about what you have said at all. I'm not even sure it makes sense as it appears to be a condemnation of the very idea 'capitalism' itself.

Why wouldn't that make sense? Capitalism is brutal, exploitative system that only functions when it is kept in check by a degree of socialism, as it is in all developed nations, the US included. Obviously the relative trivialities and luxuries in life can be left to the private sector, but leave your life in the hands of those who want to primarily rinse as much cash from your treatment as possible? No thanks. I bet the Asgard weren't capitalist

The profit motive is the only reason drug companies do research on new drugs. Do you want to live in a world where USA makes no advances on medicines and drugs?

Faulty logic, on a number of levels. Firstly, the profit incentive would still be there, it just wouldn't be as great. Secondly, the incentive doesn't encourage cures, it only encourages treatments, as a cure is not profitable. The absolute last thing any drug company would want, or example, is a cure for AIDS or cancer, because treatments are a much better money spinner. You can milk someone for the rest of their life with treatment, but once you cure them, then what? Thirdly, most medical breakthroughs come from universities, not pharmaceutical companies, that's why proportionally the UK is about on par with the US in that regard, if not slightly ahead.

This is getting a bit off topic however, the original point was that Eli's mother could move to the UK or Canada from treatment, which I don't think has been refuted.

[Quizziard]

One of the biggest problems is that medical research is ghastly expensive, in a competitive field, with only limited pay-back. If company X invents a "cure" to cancer A, only the victims of cancer A will need the treatment, and typically not even all of them. It's a limited market and the research was so expensive, they end up making the treatment controversially expensive. Here in the UK, many such drugs aren't even approved for use on the government health service they're so expensive (not least because many at the moment "only" prolong life for 3-12 months, rather than cure the disease).

[Bagpuss]

Start a thread in OT Chatter if you want to get into discussion of medicine in the real world.

Seeing that there's precious little ON topic content here through the last two pages : thread seems to have run it's course.