Privatise the NHS

[Happy Face 29]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

 

Ministers are preparing to completely revamp their strategy to tackle health inequalities in what is being interpreted as an admission of failure.

The Department of Health has asked World Health Organization expert Sir Michael Marmot do the groundwork for a new approach for England.

It is highly unlikely the 2010 target to cut the gap in infant mortality and life expectancy rates is going to met.

Experts said the problem was the huge gap in wealth had not been addressed.

The news comes as European health ministers and leading academics gather in London for a summit on health inequalities.

 

Ministers in England have pledged to reduce the inequality gap - measured by infant mortality and life expectancy - by 10% between 1997 and 2010.

But government data published in March showed the gap between the richest and poorest has actually widened in the past decade.

The approach in England has been characterised by interventions.

These have included measures such as the appointment of a network of health trainers to get people fit to ploughing money into poor areas to create schemes like sure start for young parents and children.

But research released during the middle of the two-day conference cast into doubt the success of such schemes.

A University of London study into nearly 8,000 children looked at the impact of sure start schemes on 14 outcomes covering immunisation, accidents, social behaviour and obesity.

It found benefits for just five of the outcomes, the Lancet reported.

In contrast, Sir Michael's previous work for the WHO has focussed more on socio-economic factors such as work, wages and the local environment.

And ministers are now asking him to use that experience to identify what works and what objectives and targets need to be set.

Wealth gap

Professor Danny Dorling, a health inequalities expert from Sheffield University, said: "It is clear the government's approach has not been working.

"The problem is that it has focused on the health gap but been content to let the wealth gap widen.

"The two are linked and until that is addressed they will struggle."

The government said it was still aiming to hit the 2010 target, although admitted it would be difficult.

Health Secretary Alan Johnson said he was determined to tackle health inequalities, pointing out that there has been some progress in recent years.

"I believe that the steps we are taking to tackle the determinants of poor health will reduce inequality and improve the overall health and well-being of this country.

"But our focus on health inequality must be relentless - it must be an integral part of every aspect of health and social policy."

A Department of Health spokesperson said Sir Michael was in a strong position to build on the work that had already been carried out.

"Sir Michael is not reviewing our current targets but renewing our commitment beyond 2010."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7713802.stm

[Renton 21986]

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

Piss myself laughing indeed. I've just realised you are confusing the common cold with influenza. Oh dear, you really are utterly clueless.

[peasepud 59]

On a slightly related note for the pharmawhatical people on here.

 

If Dettol can bring out a spray that kills 99.9% of flu virus germs then why isnt there the equivalent drug?

 

Can I snort Dettol to get rid of this bastard illness?

[Fop 1]

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

Piss myself laughing indeed. I've just realised you are confusing the common cold with influenza. Oh dear, you really are utterly clueless.

 

Nope you mentioned flu along with the "common cold", like I said your example.

 

 

The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, influenza viruses etc, all of which have dozens of subtypes constantly mutating, which is why vaccination is not feasible. Iirc the HIV virus mutates even more rapidly, and of course affects the immune system itself, so its not surprising vaccination is likely to be next to impossible and frankly not worth wasting money on.

 

And yet there they are wasting money on it.

[Renton 21986]

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

Piss myself laughing indeed. I've just realised you are confusing the common cold with influenza. Oh dear, you really are utterly clueless.

 

Nope you mentioned flu along with the "common cold", like I said your example.

 

 

The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, influenza viruses etc, all of which have dozens of subtypes constantly mutating, which is why vaccination is not feasible. Iirc the HIV virus mutates even more rapidly, and of course affects the immune system itself, so its not surprising vaccination is likely to be next to impossible and frankly not worth wasting money on.

 

And yet there they are wasting money on it.

 

The influenza virus can cause cold like symptoms in its milder form, clinically they can be impossible to distinguish. It occurs in less than 10% of colds though, so vaccination against flu is very unlikely to protect against the cold. What vaccination against influenza will do is protect against full blown flu however, you would know the difference if you have ever had it. It's a much easier target for vaccination. There is no comparison with it and HIV though, the fact you don't know this highlights your ignorance.

[Renton 21986]

On a slightly related note for the pharmawhatical people on here.

 

If Dettol can bring out a spray that kills 99.9% of flu virus germs then why isnt there the equivalent drug?

 

Can I snort Dettol to get rid of this bastard illness?

 

Dettol's an antiseptic, it is non-specific and can only be used topically. If you drank it, sure, it would kill any bug it touched, along with the host (i.e. you).

[Fop 1]

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

Piss myself laughing indeed. I've just realised you are confusing the common cold with influenza. Oh dear, you really are utterly clueless.

 

Nope you mentioned flu along with the "common cold", like I said your example.

 

 

The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, influenza viruses etc, all of which have dozens of subtypes constantly mutating, which is why vaccination is not feasible. Iirc the HIV virus mutates even more rapidly, and of course affects the immune system itself, so its not surprising vaccination is likely to be next to impossible and frankly not worth wasting money on.

 

And yet there they are wasting money on it.

 

The influenza virus can cause cold like symptoms in its milder form, clinically they can be impossible to distinguish. It occurs in less than 10% of colds though, so vaccination against flu is very unlikely to protect against the cold. What vaccination against influenza will do is protect against full blown flu however, you would know the difference if you have ever had it. It's a much easier target for vaccination. There is no comparison with it and HIV though, the fact you don't know this highlights your ignorance.

 

 

Yes, of course the it's so easy to vaccinate against that they've had to redevelop specific strain vaccines each and every year. (make you wonder why they bothered, eh? )

 

The universal vaccine (if it works) breaks that cycle.

 

Like I said your own example and yet here we are (I guess you were as ignorant about that vaccine as you seem to be about everything else in this area. ).

 

 

So again a HIV vaccine will appear eventually, and probably when it's deemed worthwhile $$$'s-wise.

[Fop 1]

Oh and I notice you're still dodging the public money = private profit issue.

[Renton 21986]

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

Piss myself laughing indeed. I've just realised you are confusing the common cold with influenza. Oh dear, you really are utterly clueless.

 

Nope you mentioned flu along with the "common cold", like I said your example.

 

 

The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, influenza viruses etc, all of which have dozens of subtypes constantly mutating, which is why vaccination is not feasible. Iirc the HIV virus mutates even more rapidly, and of course affects the immune system itself, so its not surprising vaccination is likely to be next to impossible and frankly not worth wasting money on.

 

And yet there they are wasting money on it.

 

The influenza virus can cause cold like symptoms in its milder form, clinically they can be impossible to distinguish. It occurs in less than 10% of colds though, so vaccination against flu is very unlikely to protect against the cold. What vaccination against influenza will do is protect against full blown flu however, you would know the difference if you have ever had it. It's a much easier target for vaccination. There is no comparison with it and HIV though, the fact you don't know this highlights your ignorance.

 

 

Yes, of course the it's so easy to vaccinate against that they've had to redevelop specific strain vaccines each and every year. (make you wonder why they bothered, eh? )

 

The universal vaccine (if it works) breaks that cycle.

 

Like I said your own example and yet here we are (I guess you were as ignorant about that vaccine as you seem to be about everything else in this area. ).

 

 

So again a HIV vaccine will appear eventually, and probably when it's deemed worthwhile $$$'s-wise.

 

 

Fop, you're the ignorant one, not me. I've written peer-reviewed clinical guidance on the management of the common cold and influenza, what have you done? Oh, that's right, you won't say. But clearly the fact you don't know the difference between them speaks volumes. There will NEVER be a vaccine for the common cold, at least not a vaccine as we know it, its as simple as that. Influenza is a doddle in comparison.

 

Oh, did you know that the average adult gets 2-4 colds a year (double this for children)? Can you imagine the profits that would be made with proper treatment, let alone a vaccine? It's obvious if it could be done it would.

 

Regarding HIV, I am no expert at all, but from what I understand its rate of mutation, and the fact it uniquely attacks the very cells that usually protect us, precludes the development of a vaccine as we know it again. It's been tried, and failed miserably. It has the greatest brains in the field stumped, but incredibly, you are arrogant enough to know different.

[Renton 21986]

Oh and I notice you're still dodging the public money = private profit issue.

 

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about Fop, I'm not dodging anything.

[Gemmill 46027]

Hey Renton, it's nice to see you back posting on here again. Especially seen as you've had Fop in a full Nelson ever since you returned.

[Fop 1]

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

Piss myself laughing indeed. I've just realised you are confusing the common cold with influenza. Oh dear, you really are utterly clueless.

 

Nope you mentioned flu along with the "common cold", like I said your example.

 

 

The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, influenza viruses etc, all of which have dozens of subtypes constantly mutating, which is why vaccination is not feasible. Iirc the HIV virus mutates even more rapidly, and of course affects the immune system itself, so its not surprising vaccination is likely to be next to impossible and frankly not worth wasting money on.

 

And yet there they are wasting money on it.

 

The influenza virus can cause cold like symptoms in its milder form, clinically they can be impossible to distinguish. It occurs in less than 10% of colds though, so vaccination against flu is very unlikely to protect against the cold. What vaccination against influenza will do is protect against full blown flu however, you would know the difference if you have ever had it. It's a much easier target for vaccination. There is no comparison with it and HIV though, the fact you don't know this highlights your ignorance.

 

 

Yes, of course the it's so easy to vaccinate against that they've had to redevelop specific strain vaccines each and every year. (make you wonder why they bothered, eh? )

 

The universal vaccine (if it works) breaks that cycle.

 

Like I said your own example and yet here we are (I guess you were as ignorant about that vaccine as you seem to be about everything else in this area. ).

 

 

So again a HIV vaccine will appear eventually, and probably when it's deemed worthwhile $$$'s-wise.

 

 

Fop, you're the ignorant one, not me. I've written peer-reviewed clinical guidance on the management of the common cold and influenza, what have you done? Oh, that's right, you won't say. But clearly the fact you don't know the difference between them speaks volumes. There will NEVER be a vaccine for the common cold, at least not a vaccine as we know it, its as simple as that. Influenza is a doddle in comparison.

 

Oh, did you know that the average adult gets 2-4 colds a year (double this for children)? Can you imagine the profits that would be made with proper treatment, let alone a vaccine? It's obvious if it could be done it would.

 

Regarding HIV, I am no expert at all, but from what I understand its rate of mutation, and the fact it uniquely attacks the very cells that usually protect us, precludes the development of a vaccine as we know it again. It's been tried, and failed miserably. It has the greatest brains in the field stumped, but incredibly, you are arrogant enough to know different.

 

And yet you still seemingly didn't know about the universal flu vaccine (desipite using flu as an example of something there's never be a overall vaccine to combat.

 

Yes clearly you're no expert on HIV, Flu or much else, but like Flu eventually there will be a "vaccine", even if it goes about thing in different ways or ways that haven't currently been thought about.

 

Your idea that (public moneyed research, at least) just "gives up" if it's difficult and not immediately profitable is spurious, although your right about private research...... but then that IS what this is all about really.

 

How can you be so wrong?

[Fop 1]

Hey Renton, it's nice to see you back posting on here again. Especially seen as you've had Fop in a full Nelson ever since you returned.

He was wrong about that too, said he'd never get involved...... within 2 hours he was upto his neck. Doesn't know what he's doing or saying from one moment to the next.

[Fop 1]

Oh and I notice you're still dodging the public money = private profit issue.

 

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about Fop, I'm not dodging anything.

 

I've put the question several times, yet still you (and Chezzy) run away from it.

[Happy Face 29]

This looks awesome

 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/jcvd/

 

[Renton 21986]

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

Piss myself laughing indeed. I've just realised you are confusing the common cold with influenza. Oh dear, you really are utterly clueless.

 

Nope you mentioned flu along with the "common cold", like I said your example.

 

 

The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, influenza viruses etc, all of which have dozens of subtypes constantly mutating, which is why vaccination is not feasible. Iirc the HIV virus mutates even more rapidly, and of course affects the immune system itself, so its not surprising vaccination is likely to be next to impossible and frankly not worth wasting money on.

 

And yet there they are wasting money on it.

 

The influenza virus can cause cold like symptoms in its milder form, clinically they can be impossible to distinguish. It occurs in less than 10% of colds though, so vaccination against flu is very unlikely to protect against the cold. What vaccination against influenza will do is protect against full blown flu however, you would know the difference if you have ever had it. It's a much easier target for vaccination. There is no comparison with it and HIV though, the fact you don't know this highlights your ignorance.

 

 

Yes, of course the it's so easy to vaccinate against that they've had to redevelop specific strain vaccines each and every year. (make you wonder why they bothered, eh? )

 

The universal vaccine (if it works) breaks that cycle.

 

Like I said your own example and yet here we are (I guess you were as ignorant about that vaccine as you seem to be about everything else in this area. ).

 

 

So again a HIV vaccine will appear eventually, and probably when it's deemed worthwhile $$$'s-wise.

 

 

Fop, you're the ignorant one, not me. I've written peer-reviewed clinical guidance on the management of the common cold and influenza, what have you done? Oh, that's right, you won't say. But clearly the fact you don't know the difference between them speaks volumes. There will NEVER be a vaccine for the common cold, at least not a vaccine as we know it, its as simple as that. Influenza is a doddle in comparison.

 

Oh, did you know that the average adult gets 2-4 colds a year (double this for children)? Can you imagine the profits that would be made with proper treatment, let alone a vaccine? It's obvious if it could be done it would.

 

Regarding HIV, I am no expert at all, but from what I understand its rate of mutation, and the fact it uniquely attacks the very cells that usually protect us, precludes the development of a vaccine as we know it again. It's been tried, and failed miserably. It has the greatest brains in the field stumped, but incredibly, you are arrogant enough to know different.

 

And yet you still seemingly didn't know about the universal flu vaccine (desipite using flu as an example of something there's never be a overall vaccine to combat.

 

Yes clearly you're no expert on HIV, Flu or much else, but like Flu eventually there will be a "vaccine", even if it goes about thing in different ways or ways that haven't currently been thought about.

 

Your idea that (public moneyed research, at least) just "gives up" if it's difficult and not immediately profitable is spurious, although your right about private research...... but then that IS what this is all about really.

 

How can you be so wrong?

 

I suspect no-one on here is an expert on immunology or vaccination. Speaking personally, iIm a generalist who deals in evidence based medicine and I come from a medical/biological background. What about yourself?

 

For the last time, I never talked about influenza vaccination, I discussed vaccinations for the common cold. The fact that you are too thick to realise that, and that you keep repeating the falsehood, puts me in mind of old threads where I had the misfortune to get involved with Leazes (the successful suicide bombers should be executed one springs to mind).

 

Your last point, again, I have no idea what you are on about - I suspect you are directing it at the wrong person though, as I have not mentioned anything on public or private research on this thread to my knowledge.

 

Oh, and Hi Gemmill, nice to see the odd post from you too.

[Fop 1]

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

Piss myself laughing indeed. I've just realised you are confusing the common cold with influenza. Oh dear, you really are utterly clueless.

 

Nope you mentioned flu along with the "common cold", like I said your example.

 

 

The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, influenza viruses etc, all of which have dozens of subtypes constantly mutating, which is why vaccination is not feasible. Iirc the HIV virus mutates even more rapidly, and of course affects the immune system itself, so its not surprising vaccination is likely to be next to impossible and frankly not worth wasting money on.

 

And yet there they are wasting money on it.

 

The influenza virus can cause cold like symptoms in its milder form, clinically they can be impossible to distinguish. It occurs in less than 10% of colds though, so vaccination against flu is very unlikely to protect against the cold. What vaccination against influenza will do is protect against full blown flu however, you would know the difference if you have ever had it. It's a much easier target for vaccination. There is no comparison with it and HIV though, the fact you don't know this highlights your ignorance.

 

 

Yes, of course the it's so easy to vaccinate against that they've had to redevelop specific strain vaccines each and every year. (make you wonder why they bothered, eh? )

 

The universal vaccine (if it works) breaks that cycle.

 

Like I said your own example and yet here we are (I guess you were as ignorant about that vaccine as you seem to be about everything else in this area. ).

 

 

So again a HIV vaccine will appear eventually, and probably when it's deemed worthwhile $$$'s-wise.

 

 

Fop, you're the ignorant one, not me. I've written peer-reviewed clinical guidance on the management of the common cold and influenza, what have you done? Oh, that's right, you won't say. But clearly the fact you don't know the difference between them speaks volumes. There will NEVER be a vaccine for the common cold, at least not a vaccine as we know it, its as simple as that. Influenza is a doddle in comparison.

 

Oh, did you know that the average adult gets 2-4 colds a year (double this for children)? Can you imagine the profits that would be made with proper treatment, let alone a vaccine? It's obvious if it could be done it would.

 

Regarding HIV, I am no expert at all, but from what I understand its rate of mutation, and the fact it uniquely attacks the very cells that usually protect us, precludes the development of a vaccine as we know it again. It's been tried, and failed miserably. It has the greatest brains in the field stumped, but incredibly, you are arrogant enough to know different.

 

And yet you still seemingly didn't know about the universal flu vaccine (desipite using flu as an example of something there's never be a overall vaccine to combat.

 

Yes clearly you're no expert on HIV, Flu or much else, but like Flu eventually there will be a "vaccine", even if it goes about thing in different ways or ways that haven't currently been thought about.

 

Your idea that (public moneyed research, at least) just "gives up" if it's difficult and not immediately profitable is spurious, although your right about private research...... but then that IS what this is all about really.

 

How can you be so wrong?

 

I suspect no-one on here is an expert on immunology or vaccination. Speaking personally, iIm a generalist who deals in evidence based medicine and I come from a medical/biological background. What about yourself?

 

For the last time, I never talked about influenza vaccination, I discussed vaccinations for the common cold. The fact that you are too thick to realise that, and that you keep repeating the falsehood, puts me in mind of old threads where I had the misfortune to get involved with Leazes (the successful suicide bombers should be executed one springs to mind).

 

Your last point, again, I have no idea what you are on about - I suspect you are directing it at the wrong person though, as I have not mentioned anything on public or private research on this thread to my knowledge.

 

Oh, and Hi Gemmill, nice to see the odd post from you too.

 

 

It was your example, if you didn't want it included then you shouldn't have mentioned it. How you didn't know about that vaccine is beyond me though.

 

As to public funding = private profit, it's at the crux of all these issue (and you're "vaccine" one as wrong as you have been proven to be), but just keep on dodging.

[ChezGiven 0]

Why do you keep saying you've been 'proved right' and others 'proved wrong' fop?

 

It makes you look like a cunt.

[soccermom 0]

Christs sake children!

 

Are you really still arguing about this????!!!

 

Agree to disagree and move on, lmao.

 

You two are very entertaining!!

[Fop 1]

Why do you keep saying you've been 'proved right' and others 'proved wrong' fop?

 

It makes you look like a cunt.

What makes you care?

 

What makes you try?

 

What makes you run?

[Fop 1]

Christs sake children!

 

Are you really still arguing about this????!!!

 

Agree to disagree and move on, lmao.

 

You two are very entertaining!!

 

 

Argument is the lifeblood of... more argument.

[Renton 21986]

It was your example, if you didn't want it included then you shouldn't have mentioned it.

 

No, it wasn't. Definately getting into Leazes territory now, which is a shame, I thought you had a bit more about you.

[Fop 1]

It was your example, if you didn't want it included then you shouldn't have mentioned it.

 

No, it wasn't. Definately getting into Leazes territory now, which is a shame, I thought you had a bit more about you.

I'm afraid it was. You should learn to choose your examples more carefully in future.

[Happy Face 29]

It was your example, if you didn't want it included then you shouldn't have mentioned it.

 

No, it wasn't. Definately getting into Leazes territory now, which is a shame, I thought you had a bit more about you.

 

 

Can I ask why?

[Renton 21986]

It was your example, if you didn't want it included then you shouldn't have mentioned it.

 

No, it wasn't. Definately getting into Leazes territory now, which is a shame, I thought you had a bit more about you.

I'm afraid it was. You should learn to choose your examples more carefully in future.

 

No, it wasn't my example though. You are clearly uneducated regarding the common cold and flu, and unable to learn the difference.

 

Frankly, you strike me as a bit of a cretin now, I really hope you take some solace in the Universe you have created for yourself. Regardless, I'll reserve my energies for people who have half a brain cell (at least); good luck you utter saddo.