this is very complicated.
Once one reads about this technically they find the illegal stem cells are
pretty much worthless. Not one anything has ever been used or found un them
to do nadda.
Legal cells used all the time is kicking total ass.
it's just another troll like global warming.
The stem cell research bush kept illegal is useless.
Anybody who invest an hour researching will agree.
New nick suggestion for cliff
Sure man, if you believe all the propaganda and do zip for research except
reading huffingtons blog, it prolly lokks that simple.
In fact going to the moon looks pretty damn simple to the naked eye
also...doesn't make it so.
Havn't been to any nutcase blogs yet if thats what you mean.
And after watching that I seen a book review.
Looked up the info after that on google.
Seems it's a big ass troll. Stem cell research is working, in fact seen some
chick on the news that had a larnx grown and put in her throat.
Those came from adult stem cells.
The real winner is embillical cord stem cells, where people are paying to
have their kids stem celss frozen when born. lots of hopeful stuff coming
Baby embrio stem cells....nothing has been shown to date for them to be of
any use whatsoever.
Im not a winger ya braiwashed lib.
I just don't buy every lie shoved in my brain by the media and politicians.
do some learning on your own before you join the propaganda team and spew
ignorance all over usenet.
there's all kinds of stem cells.
Bone marrow has been used successfully for a long time now in bone marrow
transplants. they come from adults.
nor for cliff but for open minded people:
No currently approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem
cells. There are no human trials-despite all the hype and all the media.
After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven't been used to treat
people because the cells are unproven and unsafe. They tend to produce
tumors, cause transplant rejection, and form the wrong kinds of cells.
Private investors aren't funding embryonic stem cell research. They are
funding adult stem cell research, which is an ethical alternative. Some of
the most startling advancements using adult stem cells have come in treating
Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.
The scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply does not support
continued investment in research. Even if the research were successful, it
is morally bankrupt and endangers women. Federal funding should not be used
to pay for research that many Americans know is morally wrong and
scientifically unsound. That makes embryonic stem cell research a bad
investment for our tax dollars.
Philip H. Coelho: Let's take a look at three sources of stem cells:
embryonic stem cells, adult bone marrow stem cells, and neo-natal cord blood
stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have theoretical advantages: they can
become all the different tissues of the body and they have a whole life's
worth of cell divisions available to them. But they have also triggered
malignant carcinomas in animals, and so researchers are cautious about
expecting any clinical trials using embryonic stem cells in the near term.
Adult stem cells are typically drawn from the bone marrow of patients. They
also have advantages and have been used clinically about 30,000 times. They
do have some disadvantages, however: there are risks to the donor during
extraction; there is significant risk of transmission of infectious disease
from donor to recipient; and the cells have the potential for fewer
Her'es a web page showing a video from the heritage foundation. It has 3
panelists commenting on it. All three are highly educated, semi famous
people. And it's live.
The heritage foundation seems to be non political.
Believe what you want, vote for who you want, give your money to who you
want. be a slave to propaganda if it makes you feel like the republicans are
finally getting the punishment they deserve?
Or whatever cliffs motives are for buying every piece of nonsence the
liberal nitcases are throwing at him.
(crossposting into alt.usenet.kooks?)
Jeesh...some people have no pride whatsoever.
Because they're not interested in your health. They're interested in making
as much money as possible with as little risk as possible. Like all
biologic-treatment research, it's too close to basic research for private
corporations to take the risk. There are better ways for them to make money,
such as inventing new weight-loss pills. That's where the big money is.
If you care about your health, or for a cure for a disease or condition some
relative or friend may have, you have to support the university research,
and that means federal money.
If you don't care, no problem. You can just ignore it or pretend there's
another way, to avoid challenging your spiritual beliefs. It's no skin off
your nose, after all.
90% of most drugs are developed with government money / university research
and then the drug companies take it the last 10% and patent it. Calif,
Bankrupt California, voted to support stem cell research. With taxpayer
$$$$$$$$$$ and the writers of the proposition put in that the state could
not make a profit from it. Idiot voters passed the law.
It seems they have a strong self-focus wherever he was working. The
university researchers do develop most of the small-molecule drug precursors
these days, but the vastly larger investment is done by private pharma. And
they spend most of their money on clinical studies, not on marketing,
And the not so idiot voters knew that they would like someday to receive the
benefits from the money put into scientific research. Like in the form of
new medications, procedures, and innovations, that will inevitably come from
putting money into medical research. That's pretty smart if you ask me. Not
like republicans who don't want to spend the money and then die from some
They went along with the proposition writers. Who happen to be the same
ones who get the money and get to patent any finds and make money from same.
Not even pay back the taxpayers for funding them. Pretty nice to have the
taxpayers be the venture capitalists and not have to give them any
ownership. You want to give me all your money and I will try to create
business with it? If the business fails, you lose your money. If the
business succeeds you lose your money. Why not get the cure and help the
state stay out of bankruptcy? And you do not seem to be very smart if you
That's true, and it may be annoying, but the political deal was that it
would reduce the cost of federal funding for those research centers. It was
one of those back-door deals to reduce government spending.
Increases to NIH funding ran at the rate of 14% - 15%/year for years before
2004. Then it was reduced to 2%/year. In 2007, NIH got their first actual
*cut* in funding.
I'm sure there's more to it but those cuts were the objective of the whole
I think your figures are misleading, Bill. University researchers develop a
chemical, and if it has potential as a drug, a drug company will license it
or buy it and develop it into a drug for humans. In terms of the chemistry I
wouldn't disagree -- the university researchers often create the active
agent (I forget what percentage it is of new drugs, but it's significant) --
but that usually requires further lab work to make it a safe and effective
What's misleading is the implication in your statement about where the work
and money goes. I don't recall the figures but this is the order of
magnitude: the chemical typically costs 10% or so of the cost to bring a
drug to market; pre-approval marketing may be 30%; and most of the balance
is in clinical testing done by the pharma company, at their own risk.
This is the last drug I worked on when I was in the industry:
Sanofi Aventis had, IIRC, around $300 million sunk into the drug when the
FDA decided not to approve it. Of that, the figure I heard was that
something like $10 million - $20 million was the cost of acquiring the
chemical. Around $110 million was spent on marketing (in Europe) and
pre-approval marketing in the US. The rest was refinement of the chemical
and clinical trials, and, at the time of disapproval, two enormous,
worldwide clinical trials were underway, which dwarfed the sized and cost of
the ones that had been done to that point.
More crucial than specific drugs is the work university research departments
do in the basic science of pharmacology. If they don't do it, nobody else
will, and that's where the ideas for new drugs come from. Those labs make
some money by developing specific products that may become drugs, but the
outside funding is necessary for the basic research.
I don't underestimate the value of those university research labs -- they're
the cornerstone of the whole thing -- but they are not the ones spending the
really big bucks in drug development.
The 300 mill for clinical is a big cost, but the basis for the chemical and
the treatment came out of a university most times. So the chemical company
takes it the extra 10%, which may cost more than 10% of the money and gets a
patent on it. I worked on biomechanical systems. RF treatment of collagen,
and we went off others work, added extra complexity to the system to avoid
patent infringement. And then hurt a couple women during clincals. some
because of bad training, and a couple because the management would not
accept some concerns and change the physical design. Not my part that
failed, as I was the electronic / embedded software guy. Of the $35 million
burned by the company, a lot was saved by leveraging prior arts.
Yeah, it was a big one -- Wall Street was predicting that rimonabant was
going to be a $3.5 billion/yr. blockbuster in the US, and the FDA was
especially picky for a couple of reasons. But the order of magnitude of
those costs is quite common with major new drugs.
I don't know where the basic work on the chemical was done -- I suspect
university labs, because it has a completely novel mechanism of action and
it was based on some deep, basic-science research with newly discovered
I think we discussed your work before, and we said then that the
relationship of costs, and the relative work that went on in university
research versus private companies was somewhat different for devices than it
is for drugs. With drugs, the big money is in the clinical trials, which
only Big Pharma can afford today.
And a drug like rimonabant (brand name Acomplia in Europe) often needs
further work to make it safe and/or effective. Nevertheless, the university
work, as I said, underpins the whole process of new-drug discovery.
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:11:03 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:
Hmmm, we cover the same profession. I've done a number of medical
products. The last was the electronics which attached to a drip line and
periodically sucked some fluid from the patient for testing then returned
the sample to the patient via the same drip line. Our chemists had a
polymer which could be doped to react to a broad range of chemicals and
In this case we were testing for lactic acid to determine the state of
patient distress in real time. Prior technology required a mass
spectrometer which was anything but real time.
Before that I did the electronics for inhalation therapy and long ago I
did physiological patient monitors. And lots of embedded system projects
before, in between, and a after until I closed my consulting business.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.