Ok, the Wikipedia links just don't work and distort everything. Even not
in (plain) text mode.
I am apologizing...
Best,
Stefan
Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Oops, I try to send the same message in another format... :-[
Michael Chapman wrote:
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest
NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now that I ran out
of my prescribed NSAID, I again took a gram's worth of aspirin
(acetosalicylic acid). As before, it worked twice as well as the 30x
more expensive newer -coxib.
That's how patents and the like distort real life, in the medical
circuit. ...
I am obviously sorry for this incident. If you are right, this is a
case
of wrong treatment or prescription, not really patent-related.
I must disagree.
Patents _do_ distort the market.
Unpatented medicines have no budget for marketing: for
representatives to visit practitioners, for advertising, for stands at
conferences, for sponsorship, for ....
(which could bring is back to elegant arguments about ambisonics;-)>
The best example is perhaps the 'anthrax scare'. 'Everyone knows'(TM)
that plain ordinary penicillin is effective at treating anthrax (well
that's
what the textbooks used to say), but one patented product had a
licence: governments spent fortunes stockpiling the latter, whilst the
former must cost only a few cents a gram ....
Michael
Sorry, but no. There are forms of anthrax which can't be treated by
penicillin. If we talk about biological weapons, unfortunately they
would use these forms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
