California's Fires

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:27:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/26/2017 1:36 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:07:39 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 8:21:12 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

P.S. I just came across this on you tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQajOum6wA

Isn't the epipen nothing more than a convenience? Most people that are
going into antiphalactic shock are perfectly able to load a needle and
use it. This is not an instantaneous reaction. And if you are so
severely allergic to something that you need to carry medication with
you all the time wouldn't you be sure that the people around you would
know what to do?

So it is sort of confusing to me that people that had to do these
things for decades suddenly can't do them because there is a more
convenient method available.

Convenience in an emergency translates to survival rate. Most people
subject to anaphylactic shock are not trained nor used to injecting
themselves, much less locating the drug, figuring and measuring a dose,
and then injecting, all while rapidly deteriorating physically and
mentally.

The epipen provides a pre-measured dose, a convenient and easily
recognized method of storage, and a simple mode of operation -- you just
stab it in, through clothing, no fine control needed. It's usable by a
person in a medical emergency, or by a family member without special
training. EMTs and emergency room physicians use them too, I watched
the process when my wife went into anaphylactic shock last summer.

The big problem seems to be that it's too difficult to get competing
products approved, and too easy to milk government protected
intellectual rent. The epipen or equivalent is hardly rocket surgery.
--

Radey - if you do not understand that you have allergies of a nature
that would set off anaphylactic shock why would you be carrying an
epipen? And if you do surely you understand that these people would be
trained in instantly recognizing the symptoms and would always carry
medication and hypos.

Training that is used seldom or never is difficult. Anyone regularly
going into anaphylactic shock is probably not long for the world. Most
of those carrying epipens rarely have to use them, almost all are
probably replaced unused, when they pass their expiration date.

Should we all stock fire extinguishers that have to be loaded just before
they're used?

Or do you carry an epipen around with you on the off chance that
someone is going to require emergency medical treatment after eating
some of John's Thai food?

I don't, but medical or quasi-medical offices, eg dental offices, do
keep epipens on the off chance that a patient will require them. A nice
market to abuse. Would you rather a dental hygienist had to try to
look up or remember the right dosage of epinephrine, locate it, put it
in a syringe, and inject, or just stab a ready-made device into some
patient going into shock?


By the way do you know if the recommended dose is
weight-adjusted? I'm thinking your standard issue 8 year old
with peanut allergy versus a 350lb adult USAian. I don't know.

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 also read that obesity is a major health problem in the U.S.:
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro...vidence-report
"First guidelines developed by the Federal Government to address
overweight and obesity-conditions that affect an estimated 97 million
Americans and are the second leading cause of preventable death in the
United States."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/26/2017 7:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:27:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/26/2017 1:36 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:07:39 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 8:21:12 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

P.S. I just came across this on you tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQajOum6wA

Isn't the epipen nothing more than a convenience? Most people that are
going into antiphalactic shock are perfectly able to load a needle and
use it. This is not an instantaneous reaction. And if you are so
severely allergic to something that you need to carry medication with
you all the time wouldn't you be sure that the people around you would
know what to do?

So it is sort of confusing to me that people that had to do these
things for decades suddenly can't do them because there is a more
convenient method available.

Convenience in an emergency translates to survival rate. Most people
subject to anaphylactic shock are not trained nor used to injecting
themselves, much less locating the drug, figuring and measuring a dose,
and then injecting, all while rapidly deteriorating physically and
mentally.

The epipen provides a pre-measured dose, a convenient and easily
recognized method of storage, and a simple mode of operation -- you just
stab it in, through clothing, no fine control needed. It's usable by a
person in a medical emergency, or by a family member without special
training. EMTs and emergency room physicians use them too, I watched
the process when my wife went into anaphylactic shock last summer.

The big problem seems to be that it's too difficult to get competing
products approved, and too easy to milk government protected
intellectual rent. The epipen or equivalent is hardly rocket surgery.
--

Radey - if you do not understand that you have allergies of a nature
that would set off anaphylactic shock why would you be carrying an
epipen? And if you do surely you understand that these people would be
trained in instantly recognizing the symptoms and would always carry
medication and hypos.

Training that is used seldom or never is difficult. Anyone regularly
going into anaphylactic shock is probably not long for the world. Most
of those carrying epipens rarely have to use them, almost all are
probably replaced unused, when they pass their expiration date.

Should we all stock fire extinguishers that have to be loaded just before
they're used?

Or do you carry an epipen around with you on the off chance that
someone is going to require emergency medical treatment after eating
some of John's Thai food?

I don't, but medical or quasi-medical offices, eg dental offices, do
keep epipens on the off chance that a patient will require them. A nice
market to abuse. Would you rather a dental hygienist had to try to
look up or remember the right dosage of epinephrine, locate it, put it
in a syringe, and inject, or just stab a ready-made device into some
patient going into shock?


By the way do you know if the recommended dose is
weight-adjusted? I'm thinking your standard issue 8 year old
with peanut allergy versus a 350lb adult USAian. I don't know.

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 also read that obesity is a major health problem in the U.S.:
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro...vidence-report
"First guidelines developed by the Federal Government to address
overweight and obesity-conditions that affect an estimated 97 million
Americans and are the second leading cause of preventable death in the
United States."
--
Cheers,

John B.


"A death is a tragedy.
A million deaths is a statistic."

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:33:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/26/2017 5:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:20:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

[...]

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I thought it was the very reason we
have patents.

Huh? I am responding to comments about the cost of drugs. We had Jay
not understanding that the cost of developing drugs is gigantic.

I understand better than you know. My father was a pharmacist who
started out as a research chemist at Eli Lilly. My uncle was
president/CEO of Pfizer. I read the 10Ks and annual reports just to
get jaw-dropped by his compensation package. R&D was a big part of the
presentation because having a new drug in the pipeline jacks up share
value, particularly when its Viagra.

The fact that a product is the result of expensive R&D does not mean
the federal government should be prohibited from negotiating over the
purchase price of that product -- whether it's a drug or a
computer. Imagine if the USAF was prohibited from negotiating with
Boeing or Lockheed over the price of bomber.

Are you sure that would be noticeably worse? Follow the F35?

I think Tom means that this stuff is all just fine:
https://www.thenation.com/article/on...a-toilet-seat/


There are a number of reasons for defense Department stuff to be seen
to be over priced. Not all of them due to malfeasance. In fact I once
was the instigator of such foolishness.

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.

Thus my order would, had I not, luckily, discovered the problem and
corrected it would have resulted in the maker having to start with
special over size material and then machine and grind the three or
four reamers I had ordered as a special run. which would, of course,
have resulted in some very highly priced reamers.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/26/2017 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:33:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/26/2017 5:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:20:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

[...]

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I thought it was the very reason we
have patents.

Huh? I am responding to comments about the cost of drugs. We had Jay
not understanding that the cost of developing drugs is gigantic.

I understand better than you know. My father was a pharmacist who
started out as a research chemist at Eli Lilly. My uncle was
president/CEO of Pfizer. I read the 10Ks and annual reports just to
get jaw-dropped by his compensation package. R&D was a big part of the
presentation because having a new drug in the pipeline jacks up share
value, particularly when its Viagra.

The fact that a product is the result of expensive R&D does not mean
the federal government should be prohibited from negotiating over the
purchase price of that product -- whether it's a drug or a
computer. Imagine if the USAF was prohibited from negotiating with
Boeing or Lockheed over the price of bomber.

Are you sure that would be noticeably worse? Follow the F35?

I think Tom means that this stuff is all just fine:
https://www.thenation.com/article/on...a-toilet-seat/


There are a number of reasons for defense Department stuff to be seen
to be over priced. Not all of them due to malfeasance. In fact I once
was the instigator of such foolishness.

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.

Thus my order would, had I not, luckily, discovered the problem and
corrected it would have resulted in the maker having to start with
special over size material and then machine and grind the three or
four reamers I had ordered as a special run. which would, of course,
have resulted in some very highly priced reamers.
--
Cheers,

John B.



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

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:20:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

[...]

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I thought it was the very reason we
have patents.

Huh? I am responding to comments about the cost of drugs. We had Jay not understanding that the cost of developing drugs is gigantic. Some of the instruments I developed for assisting the development of drugs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and these required many of these per facility. Literally thousands of tests are required per each drug and no matter how well they are tested anyone can have a reaction to them. We end up with these silly commercials on TV - "If you die from our drug stop using it."

Certainly development costs are high but Viagra, which was approved in
1998 sold 40,000 pills the first year. The effect on the company was:

"Sales and Success of Viagra

With the annual sales of Viagra hitting the $1 billion mark in
1999-2001, Viagra began to be considered as one of the highest money
grossing prescription drugs it has ever produced. In a report
published on July 10 1998 in the New York Times, the sale of the
erectile dysfunction drug propelled in increasing the second-quarter
profit margin of Pfizer by a whopping 38%."

The latest cost survey I've found was 2016 with $1.5 billion in sales.

At what point did Pfizer recover its development costs.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2017 5:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:20:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

[...]

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I thought it was the very reason we
have patents.

Huh? I am responding to comments about the cost of drugs. We had Jay
not understanding that the cost of developing drugs is gigantic.

I understand better than you know. My father was a pharmacist who
started out as a research chemist at Eli Lilly. My uncle was
president/CEO of Pfizer. I read the 10Ks and annual reports just to
get jaw-dropped by his compensation package. R&D was a big part of the
presentation because having a new drug in the pipeline jacks up share
value, particularly when its Viagra.

The fact that a product is the result of expensive R&D does not mean
the federal government should be prohibited from negotiating over the
purchase price of that product -- whether it's a drug or a
computer. Imagine if the USAF was prohibited from negotiating with
Boeing or Lockheed over the price of bomber.

Are you sure that would be noticeably worse? Follow the F35?

I think Tom means that this stuff is all just fine:
https://www.thenation.com/article/on...a-toilet-seat/

Except I was asking Mr. Beattie. Seems pointless repeatedly trying to
poke Mr. Kunich with a stick.

--

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 1:24:05 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:20:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

[...]

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I thought it was the very reason we
have patents.

Huh? I am responding to comments about the cost of drugs. We had Jay not understanding that the cost of developing drugs is gigantic.

I understand better than you know. My father was a pharmacist who started out as a research chemist at Eli Lilly. My uncle was president/CEO of Pfizer. I read the 10Ks and annual reports just to get jaw-dropped by his compensation package. R&D was a big part of the presentation because having a new drug in the pipeline jacks up share value, particularly when its Viagra..

The fact that a product is the result of expensive R&D does not mean the federal government should be prohibited from negotiating over the purchase price of that product -- whether it's a drug or a computer. Imagine if the USAF was prohibited from negotiating with Boeing or Lockheed over the price of bomber.

-- Jay Beattie.

https://www.google.com/search?q=.pfi...w=1391&bih=762

My step grand parents, the Danieli whom I named my discovery sub species bird after lived since before the Depression. on a stockbrokers bluff above the Meadowlands

Meadowlands now a refuge: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4656215

was Pfizer's love canal or love swamp.

meadowlands was settled by the Dutch who wrote of 3 foot long oysters feeding livestock ( BAU ) of an environment supportive of those great blooming left alones.

The swamp was home to the Great New Jersey mosquito terror of everyone living down there.

Pfizer blew a large tank of red dye into the swamp devastating the mosquito pop

There was red dye everywhere. The event was tourist positive and off we went to see what from farther inland. Red dye everywhere bank to bank so to speak.

Hoffman La Roche is up the road a few miles higher

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:10:24 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/26/2017 7:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:27:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/26/2017 1:36 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:07:39 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 8:21:12 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

P.S. I just came across this on you tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQajOum6wA

Isn't the epipen nothing more than a convenience? Most people that are
going into antiphalactic shock are perfectly able to load a needle and
use it. This is not an instantaneous reaction. And if you are so
severely allergic to something that you need to carry medication with
you all the time wouldn't you be sure that the people around you would
know what to do?

So it is sort of confusing to me that people that had to do these
things for decades suddenly can't do them because there is a more
convenient method available.

Convenience in an emergency translates to survival rate. Most people
subject to anaphylactic shock are not trained nor used to injecting
themselves, much less locating the drug, figuring and measuring a dose,
and then injecting, all while rapidly deteriorating physically and
mentally.

The epipen provides a pre-measured dose, a convenient and easily
recognized method of storage, and a simple mode of operation -- you just
stab it in, through clothing, no fine control needed. It's usable by a
person in a medical emergency, or by a family member without special
training. EMTs and emergency room physicians use them too, I watched
the process when my wife went into anaphylactic shock last summer.

The big problem seems to be that it's too difficult to get competing
products approved, and too easy to milk government protected
intellectual rent. The epipen or equivalent is hardly rocket surgery.
--

Radey - if you do not understand that you have allergies of a nature
that would set off anaphylactic shock why would you be carrying an
epipen? And if you do surely you understand that these people would be
trained in instantly recognizing the symptoms and would always carry
medication and hypos.

Training that is used seldom or never is difficult. Anyone regularly
going into anaphylactic shock is probably not long for the world. Most
of those carrying epipens rarely have to use them, almost all are
probably replaced unused, when they pass their expiration date.

Should we all stock fire extinguishers that have to be loaded just before
they're used?

Or do you carry an epipen around with you on the off chance that
someone is going to require emergency medical treatment after eating
some of John's Thai food?

I don't, but medical or quasi-medical offices, eg dental offices, do
keep epipens on the off chance that a patient will require them. A nice
market to abuse. Would you rather a dental hygienist had to try to
look up or remember the right dosage of epinephrine, locate it, put it
in a syringe, and inject, or just stab a ready-made device into some
patient going into shock?


By the way do you know if the recommended dose is
weight-adjusted? I'm thinking your standard issue 8 year old
with peanut allergy versus a 350lb adult USAian. I don't know.

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 also read that obesity is a major health problem in the U.S.:
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro...vidence-report
"First guidelines developed by the Federal Government to address
overweight and obesity-conditions that affect an estimated 97 million
Americans and are the second leading cause of preventable death in the
United States."
--
Cheers,

John B.


"A death is a tragedy.
A million deaths is a statistic."

and I suggest that Joseph was correct.


--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 7:07:54 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2017 5:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:20:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

[...]

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I thought it was the very reason we
have patents.

Huh? I am responding to comments about the cost of drugs. We had Jay
not understanding that the cost of developing drugs is gigantic.

I understand better than you know. My father was a pharmacist who
started out as a research chemist at Eli Lilly. My uncle was
president/CEO of Pfizer. I read the 10Ks and annual reports just to
get jaw-dropped by his compensation package. R&D was a big part of the
presentation because having a new drug in the pipeline jacks up share
value, particularly when its Viagra.

The fact that a product is the result of expensive R&D does not mean
the federal government should be prohibited from negotiating over the
purchase price of that product -- whether it's a drug or a
computer. Imagine if the USAF was prohibited from negotiating with
Boeing or Lockheed over the price of bomber.

Are you sure that would be noticeably worse? Follow the F35?

I think Tom means that this stuff is all just fine:
https://www.thenation.com/article/on...a-toilet-seat/

Except I was asking Mr. Beattie. Seems pointless repeatedly trying to
poke Mr. Kunich with a stick.

Who? What? Well, yes, not all negotiations are successful. I don't know enough about military contracting to know what could have been done better with the F35. The cost is staggering. I think the fuselage and wings are made out of laminated $1,000 bills. It shoots gold and platinum bullets -- maybe diamonds.

-- Jay Beattie.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski