Ed Huntress wrote in message ...

While I was waiting for the veterinary tech to mix up the last batch of
amoxicillin for our cat, I asked her how the procedure differed from the
way
it's done for humans. "Different flavor," she said, "but it's otherwise the
same. But the flavor we're giving your cat is bubblegum." g

Ed Huntress

I imagine there are two differences between veterinary drugs and human
drugs.

The first is liability insurance, you could make Secretariat drop over dead,
and it would still be pocket change compared to giving Bill Gates a
hangnail.

The second is FDA approval. According to the PhRMA, it takes 10-15 years and
$800,000,000 on average to bring a drug to market. I imagine they are very
happy to have a secondary market to recoup those costs on, should a drug not
get approval.

Paul K. Dickman

In article , Bray Haven says...

veterinary tech to mix up the last batch of
amoxicillin for our cat, I asked her how the procedure differed from the way
it's done for humans. "Different flavor," she said, "but it's otherwise the
same.

Yep, I've taken quite a few antibiotics over the years marked "veterinary use
only". Keflex is one that I know is exactly the same, from the same production
line.

Although you probably want to avoid
using keflex for you average cold
or sniffle....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

How about one of those passed down in the family thingies?

Ha ha. Actually I come from a long line of non-religious
folks. You could say that the oral tradions are strong.
My dad actually recalls going to 'sunday school' where
he was required to learn bible verses.

He recounts that none of the boys really took an
interest in the topic, until the teacher said that
the boy who learned the most of them would get
a prize.

The prize was: a BB gun! After that things
picked up a bit in the class.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 24 Dec 2003 22:31:06 GMT, (Bray Haven) wrote:

|Just heard on the radio (NPR) that we are having the economy growing at the
|greatest pace in 20 years.
|
|Ha, that must've stuck in their liberal throats on the way up ) (having to
|admit that)

Maybe they are trying to change their image.
I heard a good story this week on NPR investigating the allegations that
Haliburton landed Iraq windfall contracts because of Dick Cheny. They thoroughly
and completely debunked it, concluding that Haliburton got the contract because
they knew how to do the job, had the resources, experience, manpower etc to get
the job done and could start immediately. No other company fit the bill.
Speaking of Bill, they also noted that Clinton also chose Haliburton
companies for Bosina contracts, without a bidding process, simply because they
were the best - perhaps the only - choice.
Rex in Fort Worth

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:08:29 +0000, Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:55:03 +0000 (UTC), Neil Ellwood
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:57:15 -0500, Gary Coffman wrote:

On 24 Dec 2003 22:45:47 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
But, I'm a druid. Does this apply to me?

Orthodox or Reform?

Gary
He cannot be orthodox as in the days of the original druids there were no
written records. Modern druidism is just fantasy started around the
eighteenth century.

How about one of those passed down in the family thingies?

G
After two thousand years plus I wouldn't guarantee to be word perfect.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email

I question the reality of liability being the real reason that medical
costs are so high in the Untied States. To the best of my memory, the
Sr Bush (when looking to severely limit lawsuits on medical providers)
used (raw) numbers to show just how horrible the costs of the liability
insurance and lawsuits were to the medical industry. However, when you
took the numbers he gave for "liability costs" and put them with the
gross expenditures for medical services in the USA, the liability costs
were only 5% of the gross expenditures. Effectively this means that
even if ALL liability suits and costs were eliminated, your medical bill
would only decrease by 5%.

I don't have time to look up cites for this right now...however, it
looks like the liability issue (on an overall basis) is more of a
red-herring issue to keep the populace from looking at the real cause of
high medical costs.

I'll give an example that happened around here last summer...foot x-rays
performed at a clinic attached to the local hospital were billed to
another clinic to handle which were billed to a third location to "read"
which were billed from the same hospital where the x-rays took place. A
big circle with each transfer taking a cut of the pie and jacking the
cost. The same thing often happens (or at least used to) with those
military "cost plus" contracts....run the costs up by circular billing
because in the end, you just get to add a percentage to the higher cost
and can't be questioned..."we only take this tiny fair profit...why are
you complaining???"

Koz

Paul K. Dickman wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in message ...


While I was waiting for the veterinary tech to mix up the last batch of
amoxicillin for our cat, I asked her how the procedure differed from the


way


it's done for humans. "Different flavor," she said, "but it's otherwise the
same. But the flavor we're giving your cat is bubblegum." g

Ed Huntress



I imagine there are two differences between veterinary drugs and human
drugs.

The first is liability insurance, you could make Secretariat drop over dead,
and it would still be pocket change compared to giving Bill Gates a
hangnail.

The second is FDA approval. According to the PhRMA, it takes 10-15 years and
$800,000,000 on average to bring a drug to market. I imagine they are very
happy to have a secondary market to recoup those costs on, should a drug not
get approval.

Paul K. Dickman

Effectively this means that
even if ALL liability suits and costs were eliminated, your medical bill
would only decrease by 5%.

Koz.. that is very true.. the same can be said of "insurance fraud" the numbers
are very small in the big picture but give them reason to be stingy with
treatments and raise premiums..

Later,
Mike

Mike
www.newtechmanufacturing.com
"We need to move more jobs overseas
so they can buy our stuff." Walton Family

I only spoke about drug costs for humans vs animals.
Drug costs are (according to PhRMA) 10% of American medical expenditures.
I agree that medical costs are out of hand. I suspect the medical profession is like the public school system, where they have more administrators than teachers.

Paul K. Dickman

Koz wrote in message ...
I question the reality of liability being the real reason that medical costs are so high in the Untied States. To the best of my memory, the Sr Bush (when looking to severely limit lawsuits on medical providers) used (raw) numbers to show just how horrible the costs of the liability insurance and lawsuits were to the medical industry. However, when you took the numbers he gave for "liability costs" and put them with the gross expenditures for medical services in the USA, the liability costs were only 5% of the gross expenditures. Effectively this means that even if ALL liability suits and costs were eliminated, your medical bill would only decrease by 5%.

I don't have time to look up cites for this right now...however, it looks like the liability issue (on an overall basis) is more of a red-herring issue to keep the populace from looking at the real cause of high medical costs.

I'll give an example that happened around here last summer...foot x-rays performed at a clinic attached to the local hospital were billed to another clinic to handle which were billed to a third location to "read" which were billed from the same hospital where the x-rays took place. A big circle with each transfer taking a cut of the pie and jacking the cost. The same thing often happens (or at least used to) with those military "cost plus" contracts....run the costs up by circular billing because in the end, you just get to add a percentage to the higher cost and can't be questioned..."we only take this tiny fair profit...why are you complaining???"

Koz

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:08:00 GMT, "JTMcC" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:47:27 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:
"Marv Soloff" wrote in message
...
the rape of our elderly by greedy pharmaceutical
houses

How long can a business operate at a loss and still develope safe and
effective medicine?

This is a simple question but no one will answer it. Given your druthers,
several of you would like to see the "evil" drug companies punished to the
point of being unprofitable, at which point your dear old grandma will be
getting her state of the art, best in the world wonder meds from, oh say,
Guatamala or Somalia. Good luck grandma g

JTMcC.

Actually, I thought I did answer it below. However, if the answer was
too subtle for you, what the data says is that the drug companies are
*not* anywhere close to operating at a loss despite your assertion to
the contrary.

The data also shows that their world market profits would be sufficient
to support the level of R&D spending they're actually doing *without* the
gouging that they're doing in the US market. Example, Lilly makes a
profit of $3 billion outside the US, but only spends $2.1 billion on R&D.

The $8 billion extra profit they're making on US sales is *not* being
ploughed back into R&D. It is being pocketed by the shareholders.

No one is saying the drug companies shouldn't make a profit. What
I'm saying is that they're unfairly *gouging* the US market thanks to
government meddling causing defacto restraint of trade in the US.
In fact the data shows that they are pricing their products for sale in
the US about 3 to 10 times higher than they're pricing the same
products on the world market.

Even at world market prices, the drug companies make sufficient
profit to easily maintain their R&D spending (over half of which is
actually legal costs rather than actual research and development
anyway). They're only spending 19% of their profits on R&D. That's
very low compared to many high tech industries.

Gary

Eli Lilly just announced its 4th quarter dividend. They proudly say it
is the 37th year in a row that the dividend has increased. The drug
companies aren't losing money. They're one of the most profitable
industries in the USA, and are getting more profitable every year.

Lilly alone made $11 billion in 2002. $3 billion of that was in foreign
sales. Note that they sell the exact same products to foreign markets
at greatly lower prices than they do to the US market. Yet they make
a profit on every sale, foreign or domestic. They aren't a charitable
organization.

They make a grossly larger profit on US sales because they have
a captive market thanks to FDA policies banning such activities as
*re-importation* of the *exact same Lilly made drugs* from places
such as Canada or Mexico.

I'd also note that Lilly (and others) sell the *exact same drugs*
produced on the *exact same production lines* to the veterinary
market for less than 1/10th the price that they sell those same
drugs to US pharmacies. I know this is true for Lilly because I
took the tour, and saw the exact same drugs being loaded into
different packaging for the two markets.

US drug companies spend about 19% of their profits on bringing
new drugs to market. Lilly says in their annual report that the majority
of the $2.1 billion in "R&D" money they spent in 2002 was spent on
patent litigation and meeting regulatory requirements. In other words,
over half of their "R&D" spending is paid to *lawyers* securing financial
advantages for the company rather than for actual research.

(It should be noted that former drug company executives hold high
positions in the FDA, and that many former FDA employees hold high
positions in the drug companies. This incestuous relationship is one
of the main reasons the US drug companies are able to gouge their
US customers.)

Gary

On 25 Dec 2003 08:19:02 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...
They make a grossly larger profit on US sales because they have
a captive market thanks to FDA policies banning such activities as
*re-importation* of the *exact same Lilly made drugs* from places
such as Canada or Mexico.

There was an article about that in the NY times yesterday.
Seems like one state wanted to cut down its medicaid
costs by importing certain drugs from Canada. The
federal government stepped in and nixed it, said that
"there was no assurance that the imported drugs would
meet the same quality standards."

That's just BS. They're often still in the sealed drug company
packaging when they are re-imported. Besides, Canada isn't
exactly a third world country. They police their own pharmacies
at least as well as the US does.

What's actually going on is that the FDA is protecting their turf,
and they're protecting the excessive profits their buddies at the
drug companies are gouging from US customers.

I'd also note that Lilly (and others) sell the *exact same drugs*
produced on the *exact same production lines* to the veterinary
market for less than 1/10th the price that they sell those same
drugs to US pharmacies. I know this is true for Lilly because I
took the tour, and saw the exact same drugs being loaded into
different packaging for the two markets.

Which leads to the rather amazing effect where somebody like
my neighbor will self-medicate with antibiotics purchased
at the pet store. His comment: "what do you think they do
at the production lines, say 'ok, this stuff is going for
pets, put a bunch of junk and floor sweepings in it now' and
from your comments above I would say that he's at least right
in that regard. Not that I approve of self-medication,
that is.

I've used veterinary medicines for 35 years. I've saved
thousands of dollars, and gotten exactly the same medicines
I would have gotten if I'd bought them at a pharmacy with
a prescription.

This isn't something people should do without knowing what
they're doing, of course. Generally, people shouldn't act as
their own doctor. Let the professional figure out what's
wrong with you and what medicines you need. Just don't buy
them at a pharmacy at inflated prices.

There are standard books, for example the Physician's Desk
Reference, which will tell you the active ingredients in the
name brand meds, and allow you to figure how to get the
correct dosage with what's available at the farm co-op store.
You *will* save a ton of money.

Gary

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:01:06 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:


I've used veterinary medicines for 35 years. I've saved
thousands of dollars, and gotten exactly the same medicines
I would have gotten if I'd bought them at a pharmacy with
a prescription.

This isn't something people should do without knowing what
they're doing, of course. Generally, people shouldn't act as
their own doctor. Let the professional figure out what's
wrong with you and what medicines you need. Just don't buy
them at a pharmacy at inflated prices.

There are standard books, for example the Physician's Desk
Reference, which will tell you the active ingredients in the
name brand meds, and allow you to figure how to get the
correct dosage with what's available at the farm co-op store.
You *will* save a ton of money.

Gary

Something we can both agree on.

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:08:00 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:47:27 GMT, "JTMcC"

wrote:
"Marv Soloff" wrote in message
...
the rape of our elderly by greedy pharmaceutical
houses

How long can a business operate at a loss and still develope safe and
effective medicine?

This is a simple question but no one will answer it. Given your druthers,
several of you would like to see the "evil" drug companies punished to
the
point of being unprofitable, at which point your dear old grandma will be
getting her state of the art, best in the world wonder meds from, oh say,
Guatamala or Somalia. Good luck grandma g

JTMcC.

Actually, I thought I did answer it below. However, if the answer was
too subtle for you,


Yes Gary, you probably are just way to smart for me to understand. Of course
you are assuming I read what you wrote.




what the data says is that the drug companies are
*not* anywhere close to operating at a loss despite your assertion to
the contrary.


I made no assertion, I just ask a simple question. Read into it all you
want, it weas a simple question. I



The data also shows that their world market profits would be sufficient
to support the level of R&D spending they're actually doing *without* the
gouging that they're doing in the US market. Example, Lilly makes a
profit of $3 billion outside the US, but only spends $2.1 billion on R&D.

The $8 billion extra profit they're making on US sales is *not* being
ploughed back into R&D. It is being pocketed by the shareholders.

No one is saying the drug companies shouldn't make a profit. What
I'm saying is that they're unfairly *gouging* the US market thanks to
government meddling causing defacto restraint of trade in the US.
In fact the data shows that they are pricing their products for sale in
the US about 3 to 10 times higher than they're pricing the same
products on the world market.

Even at world market prices, the drug companies make sufficient
profit to easily maintain their R&D spending (over half of which is
actually legal costs rather than actual research and development
anyway). They're only spending 19% of their profits on R&D. That's
very low compared to many high tech industries.

Gary

Eli Lilly just announced its 4th quarter dividend. They proudly say it
is the 37th year in a row that the dividend has increased. The drug
companies aren't losing money. They're one of the most profitable
industries in the USA, and are getting more profitable every year.

Lilly alone made $11 billion in 2002. $3 billion of that was in foreign
sales. Note that they sell the exact same products to foreign markets
at greatly lower prices than they do to the US market. Yet they make
a profit on every sale, foreign or domestic. They aren't a charitable
organization.

They make a grossly larger profit on US sales because they have
a captive market thanks to FDA policies banning such activities as
*re-importation* of the *exact same Lilly made drugs* from places
such as Canada or Mexico.

I'd also note that Lilly (and others) sell the *exact same drugs*
produced on the *exact same production lines* to the veterinary
market for less than 1/10th the price that they sell those same
drugs to US pharmacies. I know this is true for Lilly because I
took the tour, and saw the exact same drugs being loaded into
different packaging for the two markets.

US drug companies spend about 19% of their profits on bringing
new drugs to market. Lilly says in their annual report that the
majority
of the $2.1 billion in "R&D" money they spent in 2002 was spent on
patent litigation and meeting regulatory requirements. In other words,
over half of their "R&D" spending is paid to *lawyers* securing
financial
advantages for the company rather than for actual research.

(It should be noted that former drug company executives hold high
positions in the FDA, and that many former FDA employees hold high
positions in the drug companies. This incestuous relationship is one
of the main reasons the US drug companies are able to gouge their
US customers.)

Gary

In article , Gary Coffman says...

What's actually going on is that the FDA is protecting their turf,
and they're protecting the excessive profits their buddies at the
drug companies are gouging from US customers.

It's a case where the regulated industry, and the
arm of the government that is supposed to *do* the
regulating, are simply in bed together. The
second is simply to beholden to the first, to
rock the boat.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:01:06 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

.............

I've used veterinary medicines for 35 years. I've saved
thousands of dollars, and gotten exactly the same medicines
I would have gotten if I'd bought them at a pharmacy with
a prescription.

This isn't something people should do without knowing what
they're doing, of course. Generally, people shouldn't act as
their own doctor. Let the professional figure out what's
wrong with you and what medicines you need. Just don't buy
them at a pharmacy at inflated prices.

There are standard books, for example the Physician's Desk
Reference, which will tell you the active ingredients in the
name brand meds, and allow you to figure how to get the
correct dosage with what's available at the farm co-op store.
You *will* save a ton of money.


Interesting - can you give some examples of "farm store" drugs that
are suitable for human usage??


Laurie Forbes

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:14:34 GMT, am (Laurie Forbes) wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:01:06 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:
I've used veterinary medicines for 35 years. I've saved
thousands of dollars, and gotten exactly the same medicines
I would have gotten if I'd bought them at a pharmacy with
a prescription.

This isn't something people should do without knowing what
they're doing, of course. Generally, people shouldn't act as
their own doctor. Let the professional figure out what's
wrong with you and what medicines you need. Just don't buy
them at a pharmacy at inflated prices.

There are standard books, for example the Physician's Desk
Reference, which will tell you the active ingredients in the
name brand meds, and allow you to figure how to get the
correct dosage with what's available at the farm co-op store.
You *will* save a ton of money.


Interesting - can you give some examples of "farm store" drugs that
are suitable for human usage??

Ok, here's a very partial list:

penicillin, tetracycline hydrochloride, streptomycin sulphate,
terramycin, chloramphenicol, hydrocortisone acetate, isopropamide
iodide, prochlorperazine edisylate, neomycin sulphate, erythromycin
thiocyanate, glyceryl guaiacolate, sulfamethizole, nitrofurazone,
phenylbutazone, roxarsone, sulfachlorpyridazine, sulfadimethoxine,
plus a huge variety of wormers, flea powders, topical ointments,
and liniments.

Gary

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

And 5 gallon buckets without lids kill more small children than both.
Martin

On 3/13/2015 9:04 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 21:29:15 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

And 5 gallon buckets without lids kill more small children than both.
Martin

And unintentional injuries (slips and falls) kill 10 times more than
either. Doctors and hospitals kill ten times that many.

http://nfsi.org/nfsi-research/quick-facts/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm



On 3/13/2015 9:04 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

--
Stoop and you'll be stepped on;
stand tall and you'll be shot at.
-- Carlos A. Urbizo

On 3/13/2015 7:29 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
And 5 gallon buckets without lids kill more small children than both.

Bull****. http://www.hannonboyers.com/accident...tatistics.html


--

Your first duty is to th' country...is to th' flag, and then...and then
th' army,
and then to...and then to god. Flag, Army, God - F.A.G.

Mark Wieber
75th Rangers, 1971-1973

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun
is.'
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.
--
pyotr filipivich

The State says they issue similar numbers of boat registrations and
hunting licenses, and see around 100x the hospitalization rate from
the boaters.

"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 07:50:50
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun
is.'
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.
--
pyotr filipivich

The State says they issue similar numbers of boat registrations and
hunting licenses, and see around 100x the hospitalization rate from
the boaters.

Interesting.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."