Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Duh (Score 1) 818

by Yaotzin (#46764871) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

Still, as a Swede talking, I don't feel like I live in a true democracy. We only have public votes once every 10 years or so, and the results of those are often discarded. I'm aching for a more direct democracy where the government only has the executive mandate. I don't know if the country would be run better, but at least we'd get a say.

Comment: Re:Go after em Nate (Score 1) 335

by Yaotzin (#46541995) Attached to: Nate Silver's New Site Stirs Climate Controversy

Yes, well nutrition is a very good example of perfect confusion actually. The media, or the tabloids in any case are wont to blow up the significance of every "new discovery" immensely. New super diets and what not, this and that will kill you etc. It's usually a product of narrow-minded studies but the media doesn't care about the methods. On the other hand, the public health departments come off as more or less inert, which doesn't help either.

Comment: Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? (Score 1) 387

by Yaotzin (#46387613) Attached to: Girl's Facebook Post Costs Her Dad $80,000

Absolutely, that's a fair point. I see I was a bit frivolous with my usage of 'obviously', but I've the notion that a settlement is to save time and money instead of just going through the motions in court. This is generally a good thing. This whole NDA changes everything though, it's a low blow. While I now realise the economical reasons for accepting such an offer, the moral implications are dubious. Paying him off communicates to me that Gulliver was in the wrong and that they're (sort of) sorry. Putting a gag on the man mucks it up completely, saying rather that they realised that they did wrong but that they're NOT sorry. In the end he lost his money since the agreement was voided, all fair, but the agreement should never have included a non-disclosure clause. Gulliver, if they were honest, should never have put it on the table and the man should never have agreed to it. The lawsuit shouldn't have been about the money, but about fair compensation. IMHO, being told to take the money and shut up is not fair compensation. So in accepting, he acknowledged it was about the money and Gulliver, by proposing, acknowledged they didn't care about fair compensation. Now both sides look like shit and so, nothing was accomplished. Just my $.02.

Comment: Why'd he sign the agreement? (Score 1) 387

by Yaotzin (#46382501) Attached to: Girl's Facebook Post Costs Her Dad $80,000

Gulliver obviously settled because they weren't sure about their chances to win the lawsuit, so why should he accept their terms of non-disclosure and not just see it through? It feels like he gave away a winning hand. If someone's done you wrong you'd want to tell people about it. IANAL so maybe I'm missing something.

Comment: Re:In My Opinion (Score 1) 255

by Yaotzin (#46195785) Attached to: Big Pharma Presses US To Quash Cheap Drug Production In India

I'm not sure I agree but I'm not wading into the quagmire that is morality right now. I just wanted to add that all pharm ads are not illegal in Europe, just the prescription drugs. Which is as it should be. Patients with little or no understanding of their treatment cannot be expected to be able to choose correctly their own medication. Especially if their knowledge stems from whether the TV said this or that drug is pretty good or not. Rx drugs require a prescription for a good reason, these are serious forces we are messing with. A single-payer healthcare system would do you good from an economical point of view though, since a larger purchasing entity can demand better prices from the private sector.

Comment: Re:Big Numbers! Give Us Money! (Score 1) 255

by Yaotzin (#46195707) Attached to: Big Pharma Presses US To Quash Cheap Drug Production In India

I am unsure how the process works in the US, but in Europe no new drug will be approved unless it's verifiably better than already existing drugs. So simply exchanging a functional group for a bioequivalent won't get you anywhere. Meaning that the money is spent on better cures. Basic research is already mostly done by universities (funded with tax money) but I doubt actual product development would be done more efficiently by them since (IMHO) a lot of university research projects tend to go nowhere or reach already acknowledged conclusions.

However, purchase of drugs should be done by as large entities as possible for maximum efficiency and lowest cost for the individual. As it is today, the US is where most pharmaceutical companies earn money, because they can charge higher prices per pill since buying entities are smaller. This means pharmaceutical companies will largely ignore markets where they will have to deal with societal scale buying entities, and we're all worse off for it. You pay more, we get fewer drugs.

Comment: Re:So... (Score 1) 351

by Yaotzin (#46066373) Attached to: Fighting the Flu May Hurt Those Around You

On the other hand, too much vaccination and too much hygiene seem to be responsible for more sickness by keeping immune systems weak. Not only is there solid research on this, but it's quite instructive to watch the farm kids out running barefoot in pig shit... and never get sick. And let's face it: there are worse ways to die, like cancer.

What solid research? Farm kids don't get allergies as much, but they get sick just like the rest of us. Also, you don't seem to know how vaccines work. They strengthen the immune system by showing it an inert form of the pathogen so that it can react instantly on the next encounter.

"Summit meetings tend to be like panda matings. The expectations are always high, and the results usually disappointing." -- Robert Orben

Working...