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
6 Dixon Street, Wangaratta .Vic.3677.Australia
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
*Sent:* Tuesday, 21 March 2006 1:51 PM
*To:* General Practice Computing Group Talk
*Subject:* RE: [GPCG_TALK] Michael Crichton's op-ed on patentability
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]
<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
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpini
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpini>
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
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
__________ NOD32 1.1452 (20060320) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
