Cancer reserch is extroidinarily costly no matter whether the research is privately or publically funded. In order to get grants, researchers try to be quite sure their results will definitly move knowledge forward or they will not get refunded. On the surface this may make sense BUT the down side is that a bit of out of the box thinking about the problem gets shelved because good results are too risky and therefore unlikely to get funded.
That said, there is lots of room for research on the benefits of specific foods on health that can be done using the equipment in a well stocked high school science lab. Said labs are often sophisticated enough to take that food apart and figure out which nutrients are most beneficial.
The problem with suppliments is that metabolizing a nutrient, mineral, vitamin is not done by the body in isolation. I'm guessing there are elements within a specific fruit or vegetable that are essential for properly metabolizing and benefiting from the vitamins and minerals contained within the food. There is not enough profit for a pharmacutical company to merit researching this.
Originally posted by PhrannyBack in the late 70's or early 80's grain switched from being processed with iodine to bromine. This is just one more shot that US population has taken. Bromine competes for iodine in the body and does absolutely nothing for you. In other words, Bromine crowds out what little iodine people are actually getting.
Indeed, many decades ago iodine was put in US salt. Now many of us try hard to limit salt intake. Very interesting comments on iodine. There is zero money to be made by researching the health benefits of real food. Perhaps farmers will unify to support such research and then use it in advertising. Sour cherry juice has taken a big leap due to reserch indicating it helps prevent and control arthritis.
How much public warning are we getting about this problem? None. Why? Follow the money.
Originally posted by EladarHow much do you think iodizing salt does to help?
Back in the late 70's or early 80's grain switched from being processed with iodine to bromine. This is just one more shot that US population has taken. Bromine competes for iodine in the body and does absolutely nothing for you. In other words, Bromine crowds out what little iodine people are actually getting.
How much public warning are we getting about this problem? None. Why? Follow the money.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhile there are possible disincentives to fulfillment of purpose in both private and government sectors, in the intermediate future, the greater moral hazard is in the government sector.
Well sure, my priority is keeping my job. But I might as well do some science in between drinking coffee.
In the immediate and fairly near term future, capitalism is dependent on producers filling the demands of consumers. Producing drugs, technologies, and treatments which alleviate pain, and symptoms of illness and injuries. Most entrepreneurs and scientists in the private sector don't have an unrestrained view, and so aren't looking for "solutions" but practical intermediate goals, improvements.
In fact, even these intermediate goals, create new problems to be solved. As people's lives are extended by angioplasty, better cholesterol drugs are needed, as well as dietary changes. I heard the President of Pfizer a couple of years ago say that yesterday's challenge was extending old age. The new challenge he said was extending middle age, or making old age healthier and more comfortable.
Be careful, too much caffeine isn't good for you, short or long term.
Originally posted by PhrannyThe word for the cooperation of vitamins and minerals and other nutrients is synergy. Most nutrients have at some level of intake toxicity, and poor interactions with other nutrients.
Cancer reserch is extroidinarily costly no matter whether the research is privately or publically funded. In order to get grants, researchers try to be quite sure their results will definitly move knowledge forward or they will not get refunded. On the surface this may make sense BUT the down side is that a bit of out of the box thinking about the problem ...[text shortened]... in the food. There is not enough profit for a pharmacutical company to merit researching this.
"In order to get grants, researchers try to be quite sure their results will definitly move knowledge forward or they will not get refunded."
If you've seen the movie "Ghostbusters" early on there is a great line from Bill Murray as they are planning the Ghostbuster enterprise with Egon's money. He balefully complains, "In the private sector, they expect results." This of course compared to the "research" he's been doing in parapsychology on the government's dime.
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow's that working out? Maybe in Eastern Europe? In the US, FDA has been around I don't know how long. It takes ever longer to get medicines approved, but somehow, on a regular basis, medicines get approved which are killers. Could there be a better way? Could producers be held responsible, but be given the freedom to test in ways that they determine to be best, instead of depending on government pencil pushers.
huh? are you 5? we invent what the other said now?
government funded and REGULATED projects. since you missed the point, let me explain it to you: it means that you don't rely on corrupt officials to do what needs to be done, you get off your fat apathetic ass and you constantly control them. and you change them if they misbehave.
Originally posted by normbenignwhy did this become about the fda? i am not arguing against the fda. not in this thread anyway.
How's that working out? Maybe in Eastern Europe? In the US, FDA has been around I don't know how long. It takes ever longer to get medicines approved, but somehow, on a regular basis, medicines get approved which are killers. Could there be a better way? Could producers be held responsible, but be given the freedom to test in ways that they determine to be best, instead of depending on government pencil pushers.
i am arguing that healthcare must not be a profit industry. citizens must be cared for when they are sick. so they get healthy and productive again.
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhy did this become about the tanks? i am not arguing against the tanks. not in this thread anyway.
...ind out how much the US military budget is and what profit the military returns. how much has been spent on the bailouts these last years. then tell me you would still rather fund a billion tanks...
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm sure that if you regularly salt your food with iodized salt you will get enough iodine to prevent things like goiters.
How much do you think iodizing salt does to help?
People say that we get enough salt in our canned goods and such, but the problem with that is that this food is not salted with iodized salt. You are not getting any iodine from the salt that you see on food labels.
Nice.
Originally posted by PhrannyI'd say the bigger problem with supplements is that people don't know what they need. Different people require different amounts of nutrients to achieve 'normal' levels. My wife takes 25k units of vitamin D3 every day. They say that 5k is plenty, but when she had her blood work checked, her Vitamin D level was only 48, when the doctors that I read suggest a blood level between 50 and 70, which 5k should be able to achieve.
Cancer reserch is extroidinarily costly no matter whether the research is privately or publically funded. In order to get grants, researchers try to be quite sure their results will definitly move knowledge forward or they will not get refunded. On the surface this may make sense BUT the down side is that a bit of out of the box thinking about the problem ...[text shortened]... in the food. There is not enough profit for a pharmacutical company to merit researching this.
People are different. People hold on to nutrients at different rates, each person really needs to have bloodwork done to figure out what he or she needs, but that's not what is done. People are told a one size fits all so how can we possibly achieve good results?
Originally posted by BartsBarts, are you aware of what the 'reply and quote' function is for? It's helpful to keep track of what point you are responding to. My post that you 'replied and quoted' to was one in which I was hi-lighting Z's hypocrisy and using his own words to do so. The topic of the thread has been 'Does the medical industry have an incentive to cure patients?' A poster raised the very worthy point that one of the greatest dis-incentives to investing in cures is guvamint regulation i.e. the FDA and the cost and time to get a treatment past the FDA.
By equating humans with vehicles. If I needed more reasons to disregard what you say (apart from your stubborn refusal to read an economics book past chapter 1), I've now got one.
To which Z replied "why did this become about the fda? i am not arguing against the fda. not in this thread anyway."
As if the FDA's stifling of new and innovative cures was off topic, but previously Z had gone into a rant where he introduced 'a billion tanks' and military funding which was clearly a hundred miles off topic, I call it hypocrisy, what would you call it?