Hi Les
Have a look at this weeks ABC Health Report - based on a NEJM study - seems you can lower homocysteine levels as you say - but it does not make any difference to vascular and cardiac outcomes - at least in those with know disease - statins do I am told.
There is an mp3 avialable to listen to on the abc site.
Cheers
David
---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:50:19 +1100, Dr. Les Bolitho wrote:
> IMHO - folic acid deficiency or insufficiency is associated with high homocysteine levels levels
> ( and increased cardiovascular disease risk ) Treatment with folic acid reduces levels by
> altering metabolic pathway precursors
>
>
> Regards
> Les Bolitho
>
> Dr Leslie E Bolitho
> Consultant Physician in Internal Medicine
> MBBS FRACP FACRRM
>
> 6 Dixon Street, Wangaratta .Vic.3677.Australia
> Phone 61 3 5721 5533 ; Fax 61 3 5722 1781
> Mobile 0418 574 463 ; email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken
> Harvey Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2006 10:08 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk
> Subject: [GPCG_TALK] Michael Crichton's op-ed on patentability
>
> This Essay Breaks the Law
>
> on%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors&oref=slogin
>
> By MICHAEL CRICHTON, New York Times, March 19, 2006
>
> . The Earth revolves around the Sun.
>
> . The speed of light is a constant.
>
> . Apples fall to earth because of gravity.
>
> . Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.
>
> . Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.
>
> . Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.
>
> . Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels
> to see whether the patient needs vitamins.
>
> ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a
> royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the
> condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test
> results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held
> that mere thinking violates the patent.
>
> All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be argued before the Supreme
> Court on Tuesday. In 1986 researchers filed a patent application for a method of testing the
> levels of homocysteine, an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further and asked for a
> patent on the basic biological relationship between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency. A patent
> was granted that covered both the test and the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called
> Metabolite took over the license for the patent.
>
> Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods - other companies make homocysteine
> tests, too - they assert licensing rights on the correlation of elevated homocysteine with
> vitamin deficiency. A company called LabCorp used a different test but published an article
> mentioning the patented fact. Metabolite sued on a number of grounds, and has won in court so far.
>
> But what the Supreme Court will focus on is the nature of the claimed correlation. On the one
> hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic bodily processes and "products of nature" are not
> patentable. That's why no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time, courts
> have granted so-called correlation patents for many years. Powerful forces are arrayed on both
> sides of the issue.
>
> In addition, there is the rather bizarre question of whether simply thinking about a patented
> fact infringes the patent. The idea smacks of thought control, to say nothing of
> unenforceability. It seems like something out of a novel by Philip K. Dick - or Kafka. But it
> highlights the uncomfortable truth that the Patent Office and the courts have in recent decades
> ruled themselves into a corner from which they must somehow extricate themselves.
>
> For example, the human genome exists in every one of us, and is therefore our shared heritage and
> an undoubted fact of nature. Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned. The
> gene for diabetes is owned, and its owner has something to say about any research you do, and
> what it will cost you. The entire genome of the hepatitis C virus is owned by a biotech company.
> Royalty costs now influence the direction of research in basic diseases, and often even the
> testing for diseases. Such barriers to medical testing and research are not in the public
> interest. Do you want to be told by your doctor, "Oh, nobody studies your disease any more
> because the owner of the gene/enzyme/correlation has made it too expensive to do research?"
>
> The question of whether basic truths of nature can be owned ought not to be confused with
> concerns about how we pay for biotech development, whether we will have drugs in the future, and
> so on. If you invent a new test, you may patent it and sell it for as much as you can, if that's
> your goal. Companies can certainly own a test they have invented. But they should not own the
> disease itself, or the gene that causes the disease, or essential underlying facts about the
> disease. The distinction is not difficult, even though patent lawyers attempt to blur it. And
> even if correlation patents have been granted, the overwhelming majority of medical correlations,
> including those listed above, are not owned. And shouldn't be.
>
> Unfortunately for the public, the Metabolite case is only one example of a much broader patent
> problem in this country. We grant patents at a level of abstraction that is unwise, and it's
> gotten us into trouble in the past. Some years back, doctors were allowed to patent surgical
> procedures and sue other doctors who used their methods without paying a fee. A blizzard of
> lawsuits followed. This unhealthy circumstance was halted in 1996 by the American Medical
> Association and Congress, which decided that doctors couldn't sue other doctors for using
> patented surgical procedures. But the beat goes on.
>
> Companies have patented their method of hiring, and real estate agents have patented the way they
> sell houses. Lawyers now advise athletes to patent their sports moves, and screenwriters to
> patent their movie plots. (My screenplay for "Jurassic Park" was cited as a good candidate.)
>
> Where does all this lead? It means that if a real estate agent lists a house for sale, he can be
> sued because an existing patent for selling houses includes item No. 7, "List the house." It
> means that Kobe Bryant may serve as an inspiration but not a model, because nobody can imitate
> him without fines. It means nobody can write a dinosaur story because my patent includes 257
> items covering all aspects of behavior, like item No. 13, "Dinosaurs attack humans and other
> dinosaurs."
>
> Such a situation is idiotic, of course. Yet elements of it already exist. And unless we begin to
> turn this around, there will be worse to come.
>
> I wanted to end this essay by telling a story about how current rulings hurt us, but the patent
> for "ending an essay with an anecdote" is owned. So I thought to end with a quotation from a
> famous person, but that strategy is patented, too. I then decided to end abruptly, but "abrupt
> ending for dramatic effect" is also patented. Finally, I decided to pay the "end with summary"
> patent fee, since it was the least expensive.
>
> The Supreme Court should rule against Metabolite, and the Patent Office should begin to reverse
> its strategy of patenting strategies. Basic truths of nature can't be owned.
>
> Oh, and by the way: I own the patent for "essay or letter criticizing a previous publication." So
> anyone who criticizes what I have said here had better pay a royalty first, or I'll see you in
> court.
>
> Michael Crichton is the author, most recently, of "State of Fear."
>
> Related Articles (links in original)
>
> * A Biotech Battle Royal; Rivals Laying Siege to Amgen's Near Monopoly in Anemia Drugs (December
> 23, 2005)
>
> * Times Select Content TECHNOLOGY; Guidelines Set On Software Property Rights (December 19, 2005)
>
> * Times Select Content BlackBerry Patent Case Is Nearer Showdown (December 1, 2005)
>
> * Revamping At Merck To Cut Costs (November 29, 2005)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1452 (20060320) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
