Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Ever wonder what it was like to live in the Dark Ages when a simple scratch could turn into a fatal infection that the best available medicine was powerless to stop? Unless something changes drastically soon, you are about to find out   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Tufts Medical Center, Infectious Diseases Society of America, infections, penicillins, drug pipeline, medications  
•       •       •

7240 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Apr 2013 at 11:12 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-18 10:45:42 AM  
But god forbid we spend any money on this.
 
2013-04-18 10:52:47 AM  

DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.


Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves
 
2013-04-18 10:53:28 AM  
We may not have the medical power to kill them, but we know so much more about how disease spreads that we wouldn't have a massive population breakout.

Quarantine and not killing cats will allow us to manage until these new drugs are ready.
 
2013-04-18 10:54:51 AM  

cman: We may not have the medical power to kill them, but we know so much more about how disease spreads that we wouldn't have a massive population breakout.

Quarantine and not killing cats will allow us to manage until these new drugs are ready.


Couldn't disagree more. What if there's a latency period? Stuff can get around the world before anyone shows any symptoms. It would be insane to rely on this.
 
2013-04-18 10:56:27 AM  

DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.


Magorn: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves


I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.
 
2013-04-18 11:00:29 AM  

cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.


And about how no drug companies are spending money to solve it.
 
2013-04-18 11:17:20 AM  
Dark ages? You mean like 70 years ago?
 
2013-04-18 11:17:21 AM  
How about we disallow subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics in animal feed?
 
2013-04-18 11:20:41 AM  
Amazing how the free market works, isn't it? At least we can still get our dicks hard when we get old, I guess. Too bad about those antibiotics, huh?
 
2013-04-18 11:20:55 AM  

cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.


Because marketing "antibacterial" products and using them to raise livestock in otherwise inhumanely cramped conditions didn't contribute to superbug evolution at all.  Nuh-uh.

Disinfecting surface wounds is no biggie, and even deep wounds can be cleaned.  Problem is when bacterial infections proliferate.  They may debride open wounds like a champ, but shoving maggots up your nose isn't the best way to cure a bacterial sinus infection.
 
2013-04-18 11:21:17 AM  

DamnYankees: cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

And about how no drug companies are spending money to solve it.


And about how doctors over-prescribe in order to retain patients.

/Dr. Quintilius Varus, give me back my happy pills!
 
2013-04-18 11:21:19 AM  

cman: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Magorn: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves

I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.


I like how you think corporations will spend money on projects like this.
 
2013-04-18 11:23:38 AM  
All we need to do to make sure this problem goes away is ensure a couple of drug company CEOs get infected with multi-drug resistant bacteria.  Suddenly billions will be thrown at the problem and solutions will magically appear.
 
2013-04-18 11:24:52 AM  
So, um, don't bring bacteria with you when you move to Elysium Mars?
Another problem solved by technology.
 
2013-04-18 11:25:42 AM  

cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.


Because it  is about capitalism. Although this article didn't spell it out as clearly as it could have (but it was mentioned), I've read plenty of stories on sites that specialize in science news (PhysOrg, Science Daily, Scientific American, just to name a few) that explain it clearly.

Big money isn't in drugs like antibiotics because they're typically used for a short period, maybe a few weeks. The big money is in drugs that people take for long periods of times, sometimes for the rest of their lives -- things like drugs to deal with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and a host of psychiatric drugs (which represent 3 or 4 of the top 10 most prescribed drugs in the US).  So this is where the pharma companies pour the bulk of their R&D.
 
2013-04-18 11:27:53 AM  
d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net
 
2013-04-18 11:29:44 AM  
Dark Ages?

Which one?

Watch out when you shave.
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-18 11:30:38 AM  
I'm so glad dumping 75% (by weight) of the antibiotics into cattle feed has had no negative side effects.
 
2013-04-18 11:33:32 AM  

Magorn: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves


They are, but it's not enough.

We need a holistic approach to this problem.  Throwing another antibiotic at it won't solve the problem, merely delay it.

We're going to need to reverse the public's "OMFGWTFBBQ!!!! GERMS!" attitude as well
 
2013-04-18 11:33:42 AM  
This is part of Drew's plan, you'll be too terrified to leave your basements and thus spend more time farking around.  The link should have the "Featured Partner" notation.
 
2013-04-18 11:34:32 AM  
I'm guessing the author has no idea what a bacteriophage is.
 
2013-04-18 11:34:59 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I'm guessing the author has no idea what a bacteriophage is.


That's that thing that was killing the Krogan babies, right?
 
2013-04-18 11:37:11 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com

Is listening
 
2013-04-18 11:37:40 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Dark Ages?

Which one?

Watch out when you shave.
[24.media.tumblr.com image 470x300]


You know who else died from shaving?

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/12/09/a-deadly-ritual-5-men-who-d ie d-from-shaving/

The Thoreau one is fascinating.
 
2013-04-18 11:39:47 AM  

cman: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Magorn: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves

I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.


I DID read the article, hell I submitted it.  And if YOU read TFA you'll see the following:
Unlike drugs for chronic diseases such as diabetes, which are taken over many years, antibiotics are used for just a few weeks, and efforts to control resistance have led doctors to prescribe the drugs sparingly.
...
Of the seven, one company, Polymedix, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy this month, and AstraZeneca, which is making two of the drugs, last month said it would invest less money in developing antibiotics.
The other companies include Merck, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline and privately held Achaogen Inc of South San Francisco, California.
The ISDA is pushing for new economic incentives for drug companies, a clarification of U.S. regulations for antibiotic approval, more funding for basic research, better infection-prevention efforts and better data on the spread of drug resistance and the use of antibiotics
.

Now I'm not BLAMING captialism per se, in this case, just pointing out that per the Article, these drugs are not very profitable for companies to develop and as a consequence they aren;t bothering to do so.  In otherwords a "free market" soultion to this dilemma is unavailble.   The study's authors called for spending funds or changing the law to give drug makers greater economic incentive to do this research.  I, instead suggest cutting out the middle man, and taking the money that would be used for incentivizing the existing dfrug makers and using it to create a fedeal lab that researches and develops these drugs and then releases them for general licensing like a generic drug.
 
2013-04-18 11:40:57 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I'm guessing the author has no idea what a bacteriophage is.


But do we use those much in the US? I know they're big in France and the former Soviet Union but do the US use them?
 
2013-04-18 11:45:24 AM  

Magorn: cman: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Magorn: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves

I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

I DID read the article, hell I submitted it.  And if YOU read TFA you'll see the following:
Unlike drugs for chronic diseases such as diabetes, which are taken over many years, antibiotics are used for just a few weeks, and efforts to control resistance have led doctors to prescribe the drugs sparingly.
...
Of the seven, one company, Polymedix, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy this month, and AstraZeneca, which is making two of the drugs, last month said it would invest less money in developing antibiotics.
The other companies include Merck, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline and privately held Achaogen Inc of South San Francisco, California.
The ISDA is pushing for new economic incentives for drug companies, a clarification of U.S. regulations for antibiotic approval, more funding for basic research, better infection-prevention efforts and better data on the spread of drug resistance and the use of antibiotics.

Now I'm not BLAMING captialism per se, in this case, just pointing out that per the Article, these drugs are not very profitable for companies to develop and as a consequence they aren;t bothering to do so.  In otherwords a "free market" soultion to this dilemma is unavailble.   The study's authors called for spending funds or changing the law to give drug makers greater economic incentive to do this research.  I, instead suggest cutting out the middle ...


Just because some drugs are more profitable than others does not negate the fact that those drugs are profitable.

There is only so much money one can make on one drug. This is why big pharma invests in pretty much everything; to get the most amount of money.
 
2013-04-18 11:49:05 AM  

The Crepes of Wrath: cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

Because it  is about capitalism. Although this article didn't spell it out as clearly as it could have (but it was mentioned), I've read plenty of stories on sites that specialize in science news (PhysOrg, Science Daily, Scientific American, just to name a few) that explain it clearly.

Big money isn't in drugs like antibiotics because they're typically used for a short period, maybe a few weeks. The big money is in drugs that people take for long periods of times, sometimes for the rest of their lives -- things like drugs to deal with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and a host of psychiatric drugs (which represent 3 or 4 of the top 10 most prescribed drugs in the US).  So this is where the pharma companies pour the bulk of their R&D.


It's a bumper-sticker phrase but true nonetheless.  There is no money in CURING a disease, but shiatloads in treating its symptoms.

A disease currently near and dear to my heart is Type II Diabetes.  Having recently been diagnosed with the same, I did my usual geek thing of trying to learn all I could about it, the treatments for it, etc.  I came away shocked that wile I have a nigh-infinite choice of drugs to take daily to control it, (some of which are pretty neat science actually)   NONE of the major Diabetes support or research  organizations are advocating low-carb diets as a method to treat,or even cure the disease (which seems like a bloody no-brainer to me and has been working exceptionally well for me I'm happy to report)  and there is almost no awareness in the general populace or even themedical community of the critical importance vitamin D in regulating how efficently your body uses insulin.  Most US adults are Vit D. deficient, because we spend our days indoors and use too much suncreen when we do go out, and yet adequate vit D may be THE key in preventing the onset of Type II
 
2013-04-18 11:55:29 AM  

cman: Magorn: cman: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Magorn: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves

I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

I DID read the article, hell I submitted it.  And if YOU read TFA you'll see the following:
Unlike drugs for chronic diseases such as diabetes, which are taken over many years, antibiotics are used for just a few weeks, and efforts to control resistance have led doctors to prescribe the drugs sparingly.
...
Of the seven, one company, Polymedix, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy this month, and AstraZeneca, which is making two of the drugs, last month said it would invest less money in developing antibiotics.
The other companies include Merck, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline and privately held Achaogen Inc of South San Francisco, California.
The ISDA is pushing for new economic incentives for drug companies, a clarification of U.S. regulations for antibiotic approval, more funding for basic research, better infection-prevention efforts and better data on the spread of drug resistance and the use of antibiotics.

Now I'm not BLAMING captialism per se, in this case, just pointing out that per the Article, these drugs are not very profitable for companies to develop and as a consequence they aren;t bothering to do so.  In otherwords a "free market" soultion to this dilemma is unavailble.   The study's authors called for spending funds or changing the law to give drug makers greater economic incentive to do this research.  I, instead suggest cutting out th ...


True, but its all about ROI.  Lets say it takes roughly the same to develop a new antibiotic as it does a blood pressure drug that is taken every day.   The antibiotic is so pwoerful that a week's treatment will knock any infection out, and so revolutionary that Drs agree or the NIH mandates that it should go in the "Use only when all other treatments have failed" category to preserve its effectiveness.   Now If you price the thing at $100k/dose you are going to get awful pub for your comapny as you are pilloried in the press as having no conscience and denying people medicine they need in the name of corporate profts.  OTOH the BP drug will be covered by every insurance plan in America, so few if any of the users will notice that their $35 co-pay if covering a $250/ bottle drug they have to take daily.

  If you are preparing the annual report to your stockholders, which one do you want on your balance sheet?
 
2013-04-18 11:58:00 AM  

Magorn: The Crepes of Wrath: cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

Because it  is about capitalism. Although this article didn't spell it out as clearly as it could have (but it was mentioned), I've read plenty of stories on sites that specialize in science news (PhysOrg, Science Daily, Scientific American, just to name a few) that explain it clearly.

Big money isn't in drugs like antibiotics because they're typically used for a short period, maybe a few weeks. The big money is in drugs that people take for long periods of times, sometimes for the rest of their lives -- things like drugs to deal with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and a host of psychiatric drugs (which represent 3 or 4 of the top 10 most prescribed drugs in the US).  So this is where the pharma companies pour the bulk of their R&D.

It's a bumper-sticker phrase but true nonetheless.  There is no money in CURING a disease, but shiatloads in treating its symptoms.

A disease currently near and dear to my heart is Type II Diabetes.  Having recently been diagnosed with the same, I did my usual geek thing of trying to learn all I could about it, the treatments for it, etc.  I came away shocked that wile I have a nigh-infinite choice of drugs to take daily to control it, (some of which are pretty neat science actually)   NONE of the major Diabetes support or research  organizations are advocating low-carb diets as a method to treat,or even cure the disease (which seems like a bloody no-brainer to me and has been working exceptionally well for me I'm happy to report)  and there is almost no awareness in the general populace or even themedical community of the critical importance vitamin D in regulating how efficently your body uses insulin.  Most US adults are Vit D. deficient, because we spend our days indoors and use too much suncreen when we do go out, and yet adequate vit D may be THE key in prevent ...


Yep.  Hell a friend asked me to 'advise' his wife who was diagnosed with T2 recently.  I asked her about what the doc had told her about.  Nothing.  Had her on long acting massive doses twice a day and a crazy sliding scale after meals and at night.  Hundreds of units of insulin daily.  The doc told her she could eat whatever she wanted, just follow the scale and if she eats extra, take a little more.  Didn't refer her to counseling, education, or advise her about diet or exercise.

After about a month I had her effectively off the sliding scale and her long acting down to about 1/4 of what it was initially by just changing her diet.  She lost weight ta boot.

Not really a story about the drug angle, just following you T2 tale about how everything is geared towards just flinging drugs and no prevention or education.

re: profits,  I have seen it multiple times across industries.  Once a company if for-profit and publicly traded it does not matter if something makes a profit per se.  It's about if it is making enough profit.  I have seen entire, profitable product lines shut down and workers laid off because the market did not like that the company had a segment that, while profitable, was not making as much profit as the investors required.
 
2013-04-18 12:07:21 PM  

DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.


Exactly. It is a losing battle. Nature will find a way to limit our numbers. We should stop fighting God's plan.
 
2013-04-18 12:11:58 PM  
Looks like its time for some bootstrappy private corporations to get another infusion of taxpayer r&d cash.
 
2013-04-18 12:12:41 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Marcus Aurelius: I'm guessing the author has no idea what a bacteriophage is.

But do we use those much in the US? I know they're big in France and the former Soviet Union but do the US use them?


No, they only work on French and Russian people.  I got a lucky break though, I'm Lithuanian so I get some residual positives.
 
2013-04-18 12:22:35 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: StoPPeRmobile: Dark Ages?

Which one?

Watch out when you shave.
[24.media.tumblr.com image 470x300]

You know who else died from shaving?

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/12/09/a-deadly-ritual-5-men-who-d ie d-from-shaving/

The Thoreau one is fascinating.




Awesome. I love that shiat. Thanks.

/history nut
 
2013-04-18 12:24:36 PM  

BafflerMeal: Magorn: The Crepes of Wrath: cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

Because it  is about capitalism. Although this article didn't spell it out as clearly as it could have (but it was mentioned), I've read plenty of stories on sites that specialize in science news (PhysOrg, Science Daily, Scientific American, just to name a few) that explain it clearly.

Big money isn't in drugs like antibiotics because they're typically used for a short period, maybe a few weeks. The big money is in drugs that people take for long periods of times, sometimes for the rest of their lives -- things like drugs to deal with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and a host of psychiatric drugs (which represent 3 or 4 of the top 10 most prescribed drugs in the US).  So this is where the pharma companies pour the bulk of their R&D.

It's a bumper-sticker phrase but true nonetheless.  There is no money in CURING a disease, but shiatloads in treating its symptoms.

A disease currently near and dear to my heart is Type II Diabetes.  Having recently been diagnosed with the same, I did my usual geek thing of trying to learn all I could about it, the treatments for it, etc.  I came away shocked that wile I have a nigh-infinite choice of drugs to take daily to control it, (some of which are pretty neat science actually)   NONE of the major Diabetes support or research  organizations are advocating low-carb diets as a method to treat,or even cure the disease (which seems like a bloody no-brainer to me and has been working exceptionally well for me I'm happy to report)  and there is almost no awareness in the general populace or even themedical community of the critical importance vitamin D in regulating how efficently your body uses insulin.  Most US adults are Vit D. deficient, because we spend our days indoors and use too much suncreen when we do go out, and yet adequate vit D may be THE key in ...


I actually refused to take insulin when the doc suggested it (after the GIGANTIC dose of Metformin she perscribed with no build-up made me violently ill for a week) When she asked why, I patiently explained a logic chain that judging by the look on her face, had literally never occured to her:

1) Your body builds up a resistance to insulin the more it is exposed to it
2) therefore your body needs MORE insulin to do the same job, creating a feedback loop with point 1
3) when you reach the point your pancreas can no longer keep up with this cycle, and/or burns out, you develop type II Diabetes
4) the only way to have a hope in hell of "curing" this is to re-sensitize your body to insulin
5) That means you have to have LESS of it in your body for a while
6) so isn't it way better to eat stuff that doesn't require so much  insulin to process for a while, rather than injecting myself with MORE of it?

(and that's totally beside the links between high  Insulin levels, and things like High blood pressure, weight gain, asthma, the build up of arterial plaque, etc)
 
2013-04-18 12:26:06 PM  
Let's specify the problem: new crucial, life-saving drugs are not being developed because they are generally not profitable enough.

Eventually someone not concerned with profit will need to put the time and money into solving this. Except it won't be the USA, because the Republicans will be aghast that they want to use public funds for it. And people will die while they dick around in Congress. So somewhere where they've still got a functional government better get on this shiat.

Or nothing will happen at all because we get one of these scare stories once every six months about this or something like it, and somehow we're not all dead yet.
 
2013-04-18 12:28:35 PM  

cman: We may not have the medical power to kill them, but we know so much more about how disease spreads that we wouldn't have a massive population breakout.

Quarantine and not killing cats Jews will allow us to manage until these new drugs are ready.


One of the great tragedies of the Black Death. Besides, how do we expect to cure anything unless that nice Jewish boy down the street is allowed to grow up and become a doctor like his Mama wants?
 
2013-04-18 12:32:00 PM  

Magorn: BafflerMeal: Magorn: The Crepes of Wrath: cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

Because it  is about capitalism. Although this article didn't spell it out as clearly as it could have (but it was mentioned), I've read plenty of stories on sites that specialize in science news (PhysOrg, Science Daily, Scientific American, just to name a few) that explain it clearly.

Big money isn't in drugs like antibiotics because they're typically used for a short period, maybe a few weeks. The big money is in drugs that people take for long periods of times, sometimes for the rest of their lives -- things like drugs to deal with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and a host of psychiatric drugs (which represent 3 or 4 of the top 10 most prescribed drugs in the US).  So this is where the pharma companies pour the bulk of their R&D.

It's a bumper-sticker phrase but true nonetheless.  There is no money in CURING a disease, but shiatloads in treating its symptoms.

A disease currently near and dear to my heart is Type II Diabetes.  Having recently been diagnosed with the same, I did my usual geek thing of trying to learn all I could about it, the treatments for it, etc.  I came away shocked that wile I have a nigh-infinite choice of drugs to take daily to control it, (some of which are pretty neat science actually)   NONE of the major Diabetes support or research  organizations are advocating low-carb diets as a method to treat,or even cure the disease (which seems like a bloody no-brainer to me and has been working exceptionally well for me I'm happy to report)  and there is almost no awareness in the general populace or even themedical community of the critical importance vitamin D in regulating how efficently your body uses insulin.  Most US adults are Vit D. deficient, because we spend our days indoors and use too much suncreen when we do go out, and yet adequate vit D may ...



Another tidbit on that:  A lot of folks also aren't aware these days that high blood sugar and insulin swings also make people more susceptible to infection.  I've been involved in a lot of research around that topic.

But generally, every time someone asks me about the T2 issue, my advice is always to figure out (gradually) what their actual baseline is.  Being prescribed insulin after going to the doc in hyperglycemic crisis always skews towards the extremes (unless one has a good doc who will suggest the same along with a few other tests).
 
2013-04-18 12:32:27 PM  

BafflerMeal: I have seen entire, profitable product lines shut down and workers laid off because the market did not like that the company had a segment that, while profitable, was not making as much profit as the investors required.


This is speculation on my part, but I think investors would actually sour on tearing down a profitable line, because that would cost money in the short run.

The problem with American-style capitalism is that, for all the MBAs running around executive offices, actual business administrators are laughably incompetent at comprehending the relationship between performance incentives and human behavior.  The apocryphal fable is that of a guy who quickly became the "best" tech support rep by hanging up on everyone who called.  The firm supposedly graded the reps on how long they stayed on the phone.  So it didn't matter how enraged the customers were; he always finished with the best numbers.  Whether or not that's true, the jarring disconnect between incentives and productivity is pretty much how companies implode -- they literally pay themselves to destroy it.

Back to the ill-fated line, this would apply if some executive received a bonus based entirely on profit margin.  If the factory represented a lion's share of the revenue generated by his department, by tearing it down he could increase his compensation (despite generating far less profit) by increasing the relative weight of smaller units with larger margins.  This is destructive to the company, but I've never heard of an executive compensated primarily through bonuses who gave a rat's ass about the long-term fate of the company.

American business is inherently sociopathic.  They don't just wallow in it; they're damn proud of it and will actively fight any attempt to impose social responsibility.  If you want to develop new methods for treating bacterial infections, you either need to work very carefully with private sector incentives or cut them out entirely.  Frankly, considering how uninterested they are in doing good, I don't see why we can't adopt Magorn's idea.
 
2013-04-18 12:33:45 PM  

Magorn: BafflerMeal: Magorn: The Crepes of Wrath: cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

Because it  is about capitalism. Although this article didn't spell it out as clearly as it could have (but it was mentioned), I've read plenty of stories on sites that specialize in science news (PhysOrg, Science Daily, Scientific American, just to name a few) that explain it clearly.

Big money isn't in drugs like antibiotics because they're typically used for a short period, maybe a few weeks. The big money is in drugs that people take for long periods of times, sometimes for the rest of their lives -- things like drugs to deal with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and a host of psychiatric drugs (which represent 3 or 4 of the top 10 most prescribed drugs in the US).  So this is where the pharma companies pour the bulk of their R&D.

It's a bumper-sticker phrase but true nonetheless.  There is no money in CURING a disease, but shiatloads in treating its symptoms.

A disease currently near and dear to my heart is Type II Diabetes.  Having recently been diagnosed with the same, I did my usual geek thing of trying to learn all I could about it, the treatments for it, etc.  I came away shocked that wile I have a nigh-infinite choice of drugs to take daily to control it, (some of which are pretty neat science actually)   NONE of the major Diabetes support or research  organizations are advocating low-carb diets as a method to treat,or even cure the disease (which seems like a bloody no-brainer to me and has been working exceptionally well for me I'm happy to report)  and there is almost no awareness in the general populace or even themedical community of the critical importance vitamin D in regulating how efficently your body uses insulin.  Most US adults are Vit D. deficient, because we spend our days indoors and use too much suncreen when we do go out, and yet adequate vit D may ...


My wife is currently rotating as a pharmacy student in a diabetes clinic. One of the common problems they have with suggesting dietary changes to new patients who may need to take insulin for their diabetes (or long time patients that just haven't heard) is that few of them manage to adhere to a new diet. Doesn't excuse your doctor for not mentioning that first though.
 
2013-04-18 12:35:31 PM  

Magorn: BafflerMeal: Magorn: The Crepes of Wrath: cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

Because it  is about capitalism. Although this article didn't spell it out as clearly as it could have (but it was mentioned), I've read plenty of stories on sites that specialize in science news (PhysOrg, Science Daily, Scientific American, just to name a few) that explain it clearly.

Big money isn't in drugs like antibiotics because they're typically used for a short period, maybe a few weeks. The big money is in drugs that people take for long periods of times, sometimes for the rest of their lives -- things like drugs to deal with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and a host of psychiatric drugs (which represent 3 or 4 of the top 10 most prescribed drugs in the US).  So this is where the pharma companies pour the bulk of their R&D.

It's a bumper-sticker phrase but true nonetheless.  There is no money in CURING a disease, but shiatloads in treating its symptoms.

A disease currently near and dear to my heart is Type II Diabetes.  Having recently been diagnosed with the same, I did my usual geek thing of trying to learn all I could about it, the treatments for it, etc.  I came away shocked that wile I have a nigh-infinite choice of drugs to take daily to control it, (some of which are pretty neat science actually)   NONE of the major Diabetes support or research  organizations are advocating low-carb diets as a method to treat,or even cure the disease (which seems like a bloody no-brainer to me and has been working exceptionally well for me I'm happy to report)  and there is almost no awareness in the general populace or even themedical community of the critical importance vitamin D in regulating how efficently your body uses insulin.  Most US adults are Vit D. deficient, because we spend our days indoors and use too much suncreen when we do go out, and yet adequate vit D may ...




Take a statistics class.
 
2013-04-18 12:40:47 PM  

dragonchild: cman: I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.

Because marketing "antibacterial" products and using them to raise livestock in otherwise inhumanely cramped conditions didn't contribute to superbug evolution at all.  Nuh-uh.

Disinfecting surface wounds is no biggie, and even deep wounds can be cleaned.  Problem is when bacterial infections proliferate.  They may debride open wounds like a champ, but shoving maggots up your nose isn't the best way to cure a bacterial sinus infection.


Can you cite a double-blinded, maggot-placebo-controlled, randomized trial that proved maggots can't cure sinusitis?

/the above is a rhetorical device intended to illustrate the limitations of evidence-based medicine.
//No actual endorsement of shoving maggots up one's schnozzola is intended or implied.
///Void where prohibited by law.
////Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
 
2013-04-18 12:47:51 PM  

Magorn: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves


commie

I would rather die of a pus filled lung than let you pinkos have your way...for freed*cough cough*om!
 
2013-04-18 12:50:55 PM  

cman: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Magorn: DamnYankees: But god forbid we spend any money on this.

Indeed.  Call me a dirty, unregenerate socialist if you like, but it seems to me we have a farking National Institute of Health for a got-damn REASON, and if things like orphan drugs and antibiotics aren;t profitable enough for the drug companies to research or produce, then let's throw some damn tax dollars at the problem and do it our ownselves

I like how you didnt read the article and immediately blame capitalism when the subject of the article is about antibiotic resistance.


I like how you read the article but utterly fail to understand the real-world implications of how the system works.
 
2013-04-18 12:54:22 PM  
verbal_jizm:
My wife is currently rotating as a pharmacy student in a diabetes clinic. One of the common problems they have with suggesting dietary changes to new patients who may need to take insulin for their diabetes (or long time patients that just haven't heard) is that few of them manage to adhere to a new diet. Doesn't excuse your doctor for not mentioning that first though

 I suspect that the complaince with dietary changes is so low because few, if any mainstream medical people are wiling to fully embrace the key of true low carb diets. To wit: that if you actually keep your carbs under a certain level, your intake of dietary fat simply does not matter, it is metabolically irrelevent.   No matter how much fat you eat, if your body stays in Ketosis, you will NOT gain weight (you'll actually lose it rapidly)  You will NOT increase your LDL (actually the reverse it true, your HDL goes up and LDL goes down) and you won't build up arterial plaque or anything else.

  This seems like such anathema to centuries of recieved medical wisdom that most doc just cannot bring themselves to suggest it, so they try to get patients to restrict carbs AND do a low fat diet which I would find nigh-impossible, personally.  For me the key to the low-carb high protein diet, was, that unlike any other diet I had ever tried, mentally I had permission to eat.  I literally could have as much as I wanted/needed, so long as I chose the right foods.     This put me, mentally in a place where I could begin to learn to eat normally and divorce y physical need for food from my psycological one.  As a result in 2000 I went form 370 to 260 in a matter of less than six months*.  And part of that is that A0 high fat foods are satisfy yo very quickly, and b there is a certain allure to being able to eat foods you formerly conisdered "forbidden", when peanut butter is a diet food for you, it's kinda fun.


*Sadly after a couple years I got very complacent about eating and went back to a regular carb (well High carb honestly) diet, and while most of the weight stayed off, I did actualy develop type II this year.   Now in a Lower-carb diet (instead of the strict 40, I try to stay under about 80 a day) I've droped 40 lbs and in 3 months my A1c went from 11.9 to a 5.6 with my only medical support being 2mg of glimperide a day.
 
2013-04-18 01:09:06 PM  

Magorn: verbal_jizm:
My wife is currently rotating as a pharmacy student in a diabetes clinic. One of the common problems they have with suggesting dietary changes to new patients who may need to take insulin for their diabetes (or long time patients that just haven't heard) is that few of them manage to adhere to a new diet. Doesn't excuse your doctor for not mentioning that first though

 I suspect that the complaince with dietary changes is so low because few, if any mainstream medical people are wiling to fully embrace the key of true low carb diets. To wit: that if you actually keep your carbs under a certain level, your intake of dietary fat simply does not matter, it is metabolically irrelevent.   No matter how much fat you eat, if your body stays in Ketosis, you will NOT gain weight (you'll actually lose it rapidly)  You will NOT increase your LDL (actually the reverse it true, your HDL goes up and LDL goes down) and you won't build up arterial plaque or anything else.

  This seems like such anathema to centuries of recieved medical wisdom that most doc just cannot bring themselves to suggest it, so they try to get patients to restrict carbs AND do a low fat diet which I would find nigh-impossible, personally.  For me the key to the low-carb high protein diet, was, that unlike any other diet I had ever tried, mentally I had permission to eat.  I literally could have as much as I wanted/needed, so long as I chose the right foods.     This put me, mentally in a place where I could begin to learn to eat normally and divorce y physical need for food from my psycological one.  As a result in 2000 I went form 370 to 260 in a matter of less than six months*.  And part of that is that A0 high fat foods are satisfy yo very quickly, and b there is a certain allure to being able to eat foods you formerly conisdered "forbidden", when peanut butter is a diet food for you, it's kinda fun.


*Sadly after a couple years I got very complacent about eating and went back to a regular ...




You binge.

Stop doing that.

I binge on preparing food. I seek perfection sometimes. Stay out of my kitchen if you don't know what you are doing. Don't even think of washing that pan!

But I do wonder if I would be fat if I couldn't cook.

/has had many injuries including spine and is not fat
 
2013-04-18 01:13:39 PM  
Lots of criticism for the drug industry here for not developing "unprofitable" drugs.

Any consideration that maybe if the rest of the world did away with or reduced price controls there would be more potential profit that pharma companies would pursue, incenting them to develop these drugs?

/If we are truly headed to a catastrophe, then of course there is enough profit to incent pharma. There would be enormous profits in being the patent holder for drugs that would kill the superbug. Unless of course, potential innovators anticipated price controls or other government restraints on profit in such a situation.
 
2013-04-18 01:24:10 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Don't even think of washing that pan!


OH!

So you're that asshole who thinks rancid bacon and egg grease tastes good.

/real chefs wash their pans
//They leave them seasoned
///It's different from leaving them a disgusting mess
 
2013-04-18 01:25:01 PM  
Mother in law scratched her psoriasis until it got infected...but not fatally. Yet.


/holding out hope for some fatality
 
2013-04-18 01:38:21 PM  
GOD WILL PROTECT US
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report