California's Fires

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:10:06 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 8:28:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 2:32:32 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:40:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want..

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.

Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.

The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.

The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html

The largest drug company in the world is Roche and they have the largest R&D budget and almost ALL of their companies are American.

Nope. Johnson & Johnson with 2016 revenues of 71.89 billion dollars is
the largest Pharmaceutical company in the world while Roche, which is
a Swiss company, had 2016 revenues of only 50.11 billion.


So why are you using an example of a holding company that has gone to a tax haven?

J&J isn't a drug company per se'. They manufacture medical devices and consumer goods which is where the vast majority of their money comes from..

Roche is an American company that moved to the tax haven of Switzerland. Calling them a Swiss company when they are nothing more than a holding company for American pharmaceutical companies is false advertising.

NO IT ISN'T. ROCHE IS A SWISS COMPANY AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. I REPEAT: ROCHE . . . SWISS. EOM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffmann-La_Roche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Hoffmann-La_Roche

-- Jay Beattie.

Continue telling me all about them when I worked for Genentech.

Are you a f****** idiot? (rhetorical question). Genentech is a US company. It merged into a Swiss company, the "Roche Group." Roche is a Swiss Company.

What you're trying to say is that Genentech merged into Roche and is now a division of a Swiss company. Roche did a tender offer and then a short-form merger. Simple. It does not make Roche a US company. IT'S STILL A F****** SWISS COMPANY!!!!!

Since you worked at Genentech, you must have had tons of stock and made a bundle on the tender offer! Sweet! Go buy some expensive meat!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/27/2017 4:25 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 8:59:45 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2017 10:40 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2017 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
I would go even further. How many people in the U.S. are severely
allergic to peanuts, bee stings, etc.?

Not that it is a scientific study but I can't remember ever actually
seeing anyone fall down and die after being stung by a bee, or eating
a peanut, in fact I can't remember more then a few people that were
stung by a bee.

This is not to say that it never happens but I did look up some
numbers and I read that bee stings result of ~50 deaths annually.

I suppose you could get a rough idea by looking at the annual sales
count for epi-pens. I doubt anyone buys them just for fun.

I doubt that. Almost all epipens are eventually thrown away, since
their shelf life is a year or so. You wouldn't look up sales figures
for fire extinguishers to count fires, nor air bags to count auto
crashes.


Unless to purposefully obfuscate, such as border seizures
numbers (drugs and people) when the overwhelming bulk of
both fly commercial and have for many years.

I don't believe that's so Andrew. At least until 2009 virtually ALL drugs came into the US through land and water. Seizures of drugs on airlines were more on the order of legal drugs making illegal entry.

It wouldn't have taken much to change that poison gas sniffer I programmed to sniff out drugs. And it could be made incredibly sensitive. It would make dogs seem clumsy.


I just happen to know something about this and you're mistaken:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local...449444223.html

These small discoveries are a regular news item but
inconsequential to to overall volume. The cargo crews are
cheaper than a tunnel[1].

Regarding illegal aliens, the overwhelming numbers are visa
overstays and that has not been newsy for 30 years.

You'd have a point regarding criminal illegals, MS13 etc,
but not the significant bulk of illegals.

And as regards contraband, weapons do mostly move north from
Mexico but the organized drug trade goes over/around it by
plane or boat now, small players notwithstanding.

[1] in the same way that buying a road inspector is cheaper
than the contract rebar and concrete.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:43:38 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/26/2017 11:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/26/2017 9:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:

c.f. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin vs NASA.
I rest my case.

Mmm. I think you give Bezos too much credit. NASA was
starting from scratch. Bezos is, as Newton said, standing on
the shoulders of giants. And probably still making mistakes.

I've been friends with two NASA engineers (both avid
cyclists, BTW) and I'm the friend of a friend of a certified
NASA rocket scientist, whom I've met and talked to a few
times. He's now retired but he still gets called back from
time to time to consult on certain problems.

Regarding one of Blue Origin's trademark ideas, the re-use
of booster rockets, he said "Of course we looked at that
right from the beginning. It made no economic sense." I
suspect it probably makes no sense still, but perhaps
something has changed over the decades. Technology does
improve over time.

He also mentioned other situations and problems where the
Blue Origin crew contacted NASA, and NASA staff said "Oh,
you're trying that? We tried that; we could have told you it
wouldn't work." I've forgotten the details on one that I
heard of, but I could check on it and report back.


From scratch? That was the Wehrmacht.
Staff transitioned to NASA later.

At, I understand, a liberal increase in salary. The capitalistic
economic system in action.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 2:32:32 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:40:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.

Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.

The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.

The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html

The largest drug company in the world is Roche and they have the largest R&D budget and almost ALL of their companies are American.

Nope. Johnson & Johnson with 2016 revenues of 71.89 billion dollars is
the largest Pharmaceutical company in the world while Roche, which is
a Swiss company, had 2016 revenues of only 50.11 billion.


So why are you using an example of a holding company that has gone to a tax haven?

J&J isn't a drug company per se'. They manufacture medical devices and consumer goods which is where the vast majority of their money comes from.

Roche is an American company that moved to the tax haven of Switzerland. Calling them a Swiss company when they are nothing more than a holding company for American pharmaceutical companies is false advertising.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG is a Swiss multinational healthcare company
that operates worldwide under two divisions: Pharmaceuticals and
Diagnostics. Its holding company, Roche Holding AG, has bearer shares
listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange. The company headquarters are located
in Basel....

Founded in 1896 by Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche, the company was early on
known for producing various vitamin preparations and derivatives. In
1934, it became the first company to mass-produce synthetic vitamin C,
under the brand name Redoxon.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:27:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:10:06 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 8:28:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 2:32:32 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:40:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.

Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.

The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.

The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html

The largest drug company in the world is Roche and they have the largest R&D budget and almost ALL of their companies are American.

Nope. Johnson & Johnson with 2016 revenues of 71.89 billion dollars is
the largest Pharmaceutical company in the world while Roche, which is
a Swiss company, had 2016 revenues of only 50.11 billion.


So why are you using an example of a holding company that has gone to a tax haven?

J&J isn't a drug company per se'. They manufacture medical devices and consumer goods which is where the vast majority of their money comes from.

Roche is an American company that moved to the tax haven of Switzerland. Calling them a Swiss company when they are nothing more than a holding company for American pharmaceutical companies is false advertising.

NO IT ISN'T. ROCHE IS A SWISS COMPANY AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. I REPEAT: ROCHE . . . SWISS. EOM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffmann-La_Roche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Hoffmann-La_Roche

-- Jay Beattie.

Continue telling me all about them when I worked for Genentech.

Genentech is a U.S. company that was fully acquired by Roche in 2009,
some 113 years after Roche was initially formed, as a Swiss company.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:19:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/27/2017 11:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2017 10:40 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2017 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
* I would go even further. How many people in the U.S. are severely
allergic to peanuts, bee stings, etc.?

Not that it is a scientific study but I can't remember ever actually
seeing anyone fall down and die after being stung by a bee, or eating
a peanut, in fact I can't remember more then a few people that were
stung by a bee.

This is not to say that it never happens but I did look up some
numbers and I read that bee stings result of ~50 deaths annually.

I suppose you could get a rough idea by looking at the annual sales
count for epi-pens. I doubt anyone buys them just for fun.

I doubt that.* Almost all epipens are eventually thrown away, since
their shelf life is a year or so.* You wouldn't look up sales figures
for fire extinguishers to count fires, nor air bags to count auto
crashes.


Unless to purposefully obfuscate, such as border seizures numbers (drugs
and people) when the overwhelming bulk of both fly commercial and have
for many years.

No problem. Just build a wall 35,000 feet high.

Won't work, those scoundrels will just dig a tunnel under the wall :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/27/2017 8:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:19:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/27/2017 11:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2017 10:40 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2017 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
I would go even further. How many people in the U.S. are severely
allergic to peanuts, bee stings, etc.?

Not that it is a scientific study but I can't remember ever actually
seeing anyone fall down and die after being stung by a bee, or eating
a peanut, in fact I can't remember more then a few people that were
stung by a bee.

This is not to say that it never happens but I did look up some
numbers and I read that bee stings result of ~50 deaths annually.

I suppose you could get a rough idea by looking at the annual sales
count for epi-pens. I doubt anyone buys them just for fun.

I doubt that. Almost all epipens are eventually thrown away, since
their shelf life is a year or so. You wouldn't look up sales figures
for fire extinguishers to count fires, nor air bags to count auto
crashes.


Unless to purposefully obfuscate, such as border seizures numbers (drugs
and people) when the overwhelming bulk of both fly commercial and have
for many years.

No problem. Just build a wall 35,000 feet high.

Won't work, those scoundrels will just dig a tunnel under the wall :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.


Yes, under. Or over the wall:
http://www.ibtimes.com/mexico-drug-t...der-us-2051941

Up the coast in a Panga boat:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/art...NEWS/140317609

And as in any other market, margins can be adjusted with
some effort and creativity:

http://gotnews.com/exclusive-law-enf...nia-wildfires/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:34:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

I suppose you could get a rough idea by looking at the annual sales
count for epi-pens. I doubt anyone buys them just for fun.

But the majority of buyers are getting them for emergencies that
almost certainly won't happen, and epi-pens go stale rather fast.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:23:43 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Briefly I ordered a number of machine reamers and specified them by
the decimal equivalent of their nominal size, i.e., 1/4" machine
reamer and I wrote on the request, "0.250" machine reamer".

What I had forgotten was that the actual size of a machine reamer is
0.0005" smaller then the nominal size. A standard machine reamer
marked 1/4" is actually 0.2495" in diameter.

Precision reamers are undersized because the steel expands to the
correct size as they get warm while cutting metal. 0.2495 sounds a
bit too small unless you're reaming titanium:
http://www.maford.com/products/index.aspx?series=270P
Yep. 5th from bottom of the list. It's 0.02498
Tolerance is:
D1 Tolerance = +.0001/-.0000 +.0025mm/-.0000mm
I think one needs refrigerated coolant to maintain that level of
precision.

You would have broken the bank anyway as precision reamers are not
cheap and do not maintain their precision after reaming only a few
holes.

We return you now to the off topic discussion of the day.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:36:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:23:43 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Briefly I ordered a number of machine reamers and specified them by
the decimal equivalent of their nominal size, i.e., 1/4" machine
reamer and I wrote on the request, "0.250" machine reamer".

What I had forgotten was that the actual size of a machine reamer is
0.0005" smaller then the nominal size. A standard machine reamer
marked 1/4" is actually 0.2495" in diameter.

Precision reamers are undersized because the steel expands to the
correct size as they get warm while cutting metal. 0.2495 sounds a
bit too small unless you're reaming titanium:
http://www.maford.com/products/index.aspx?series=270P
Yep. 5th from bottom of the list. It's 0.02498
Tolerance is:
D1 Tolerance = +.0001/-.0000 +.0025mm/-.0000mm
I think one needs refrigerated coolant to maintain that level of
precision.

You are getting a bit confused here. "Machine Reamers" cut on the end,
much like a drill bit and are not considered high precision tooling in
the trade.

You would have broken the bank anyway as precision reamers are not
cheap and do not maintain their precision after reaming only a few
holes.

We return you now to the off topic discussion of the day.

Heaven forbid that RBT should be restricted to technical discussions
only :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.