On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:55:55 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:07:34 GMT, john_kulp@hotmail.com (John Kulp)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:27:13 GMT, grant kinsley
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just an important one for me is Novo Nordisk in Denmark. One of the
>>>world leaders in recombinant DNA produced proteins, they not only
>>>produce a variety of human analogue insulins, but also recombinant
>>>factor VII for hemophiliacs, Norditropin, a synthetic human growth
>>>hormone and are currently testing for a variety of anti-tumour
>>>proteins.
>>>
>>>Thats a quick sample of what the rest of the world is doing, took me
>>>about 10 minutes to find that and certainly represents a nice slice of
>>>the many things that worldwide labs, both large and small are doing.
>>
>>Well good for you. You have done your research. I won't go into how
>>Pfizer is the largest in the world, has the largest selling drug in
>>Lipitor, etc. etc. It is true that these companies developed those
>>you cite, but the question is where not who. Most if not all of these
>>countries have major facilities in the US where a lot of r and d is
>>done and they do a lot together with other companies. A lot of the
>>research is also done in universities, not companies in any case and
>>licensed to the companies. In any case, as I stated before, I have no
>>problem acknowledging that this is a global interconnected business.
>>I was simply refuting Black's nonsense about the US having a ghastly
>>system. You at least answer intelligently which is appreciated. Much
>>better than the others who just babble and ignore the very real faults
>>of their systems.
>
>
>the largest selling company doesn't provide 90% of the development.
How do you know who does 90% of the development.
>
>If you want to talk aboput where development takes, it is all over the
>world with studies in many many countries, so your whining on that
>front doesn't hold up. There are university sites throughout western
>Europe, Canada, India South Africa working on drugs for many of the
>companies, including Pfizer.
True, but this doesn't tell anything about how much of the development
is done where does it? It just says that development is being
undertaken in lots of different places.
>
>The point of argument here is that you refuted Black with an argument
>that you couldn't back, you've been shown the evidence, now move along
>to something you can back.
You haven't done anything but list a bunch of different drugs.
Nothing more. I never said non-US drug companies didn't do
development. I said that the article I read said that 90% (at the
point the article was written) was done in the US. Period. And you
have no idea where that list of drugs you came up with were developed
do you? For all you know, they may have been developed in the US.
>
>The fact that 10 minutes of research on my part showed your 90% of all
>good medical things are american is false. Maybe you should learn that
>arguments need facts to back.
Which, of course, is a complete distortion of what I said, which
referred only to drug development and, as I said, you proved no such
thing. You have no clue where those drugs you listed were developed,
as I said. You only showed who sells them after they are developed
and who owns their rights to do so. Nothing more.
>
>Bluntly I don't care about the American medical system, That's for
>Americans to worry about. I found your misinformation, however,
>offensive and you made those statements based on your nationalistic
>hubris.
And you are full of shit, because I did no such thing but you're
making a great attempt here of doing that yourself aren't you?
Crowing about a list of drugs owned and marketed by non-US companies
that you have no clue where they were developed. |