|
Thanks I did read the NEJM report Homocysteine is perhaps another marker for
CVS risk - ? similar to CRP We do not know how to use the information-
however, we can alter the levels with supplementation The trails are still needed to explore what
the markers are indicating There is definitely reduction in CVS
morbidity and mortality with aspirin, statins, ACEI and betablockers – we
are still after the next holy grail! Regards Les Bolitho Dr Leslie E Bolitho Consultant Physician in Internal Medicine MBBS FRACP FACRRM Phone 61 3 5721 5533 ; Fax 61 3 5722 1781 Mobile 0418 574 463 ; email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David More 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 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 > > > 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 > > 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, > > . 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 " > > 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 > > 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
