Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (98859)	6/24/2009 1:09:29 AM
From: NOW	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

LJ: I am not afraid to tell you you clearly are out of your reach on this subject. IN fact what he said is backed up by copious evidence. If you dont know about it, google is a free search engine. I suggest you might start by reading Angells nybooks.com Former editor in chief of the most prestigous medical journal.

To: Little Joe who wrote (98859)	6/24/2009 5:35:49 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

LJ, the problem with the current health care industry is that they pretty much only care about making money. this is why diet is almost always over looked and not researched to the extent of the next billion dollar drug. diet is the biggest controllable key to health and disease. for example, an WHOPPING 83% reduction in diabetes incidents was correlated with a mediterranean diet minus grains in a major spanish study (>13k participants). reuters.com 83% reduction in the incidence of diabetes. treating diabetes is one of the most costly diseases to treat. this diet consists of, ta da!, real food - chicken, fish, fruits, vegetables, olive oil and nuts. who would've thunk it? pharmas have likely spent billions to get 1/10 of that result AND your physician almost certainly knows nothing about this study because nobody spent money to tell them about it. the system is backwards. fortunately, the doctors at harvard medical school actually did research and recommend what is basically a 40-30-30 (with a range for modification) as the ideal ratio of carb, protein and fat calories. of course, the carbs are good carbs (vegetables and fruits) and the fats are good fats (nuts olive oil, long chain omega 3s). i personally know two people who eliminated severe pain just by applying the principles of this anti-inflammatory diet. the latest one had spent $10k+ out of pocket and exhausted everything modern and alternative medicine could provide (over 5 years of failure!) to resolve her back pain without success. within 2 days on an anti-inflammatory diet, she told me, and i quote, "i can't believe it, the inflammation is gone." 3 days later she was off her ulcer medication. dietary intervention should be a first step. as it is now, it isn't even on the radar when it is, in fact, the best treatment available (as in the case of my friend's back pain). don't expect the government to point people in the right direction, they are busy subsidizing foods that generate cellular inflammation (omega 6 fatty acids and high glycemic load carbs) and are bought and paid for by the drug pusher industry - just like they are bought and paid for by the banks and the military industrial complex.

To: Little Joe who wrote (98859)	6/24/2009 2:48:08 PM
From: benwood	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

First of all, are most medical innovations made in America? Probably... but do you really know? Secondly, the $42,000 per year in drug costs my one friend pays says there will be no true pharmaceutical breakthrough in Parkinson's, unless it is something that costs $50,000 per year. I have no idea if the gov't even funds any research at all in pharmaceuticals. I think mostly they just hand out corporate welfare and tax breaks, which in theory indirectly supports research, or at least really nice stock options. If you think a drug company would kill it's own cash cow without replacing it with a more expensive cash cow, I think you will be waiting a long time to see it happen. The drugs for Parkinson's for example last a very short time and have severe, often permanent side effects. My brother, who has Parkinson's, had one that caused his socks to glue themselves to his feet. The fact that there's no cure for many diseases doesn't mean that there aren't people trying and that it isn't extremely difficult. The big thrust in a quantum improvement in PD patients is surgical, not pharmaceutical (search Deep Brain Stimulation for more info). The irony in what you say is that as millions each year drop off the insurance rolls, fewer and fewer people will be having their lives improved by any of these drugs. We can't charge tens of thousands per year per patient and not have insurance. All that said, my premise, which you said you disagreed with, is that true, breakthrough innovations which can be cost effectively implemented will come from without the pharmaceutical industry (e.g. Livestrong Foundation). I believe that big pharma solutions will be designed to bleed us dry.

To: Little Joe who wrote (98859)	6/24/2009 10:55:19 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

>>Drug companies and medical innovation companies spend Billions to develop drugs that are effective and billions on drugs to treat every major medical condition to make money<< that's why they do it. that's why they won't spend a nickel to tell your doctor about a dietary study of 14k spanish folks that showed eating lean protein, fruits and veggies, extra virgin olive oil and nuts was correlated with an 83% reduction in diabetes. they would, however, spend millions to tell you about their new drug that reduced the incidence of diabetes 5%. ps - almost all of those drugs have some pretty nasty side effects, too. for example, almost as many people die in america each year from taking the proper dose of aspirin as die from aids.