Slashdot Mirror

Greed is the only fucking reason this product still costs so much in the US. And regardless of how many people use insulin, diabetes is still one of the largest killers in our society. Get your fucking facts straight next time.

Diabetes isn't one of the largest killers in your society. That's heart disease, cancer and diseases related to weakened immune systems from secondary factors(old age, etc).

I didn't say it was our largest killer, I said it was one of our largest killers, and 80,000 deaths per year makes that fact pretty damn clear. It was ranked 7th on our list in 2014, and I doubt much has changed since then. And you haven't even identified our actual largest killer, which is a product we call cigarettes. Greed again clarifies why this top killer is a legal product today.

You're more likely to die of malaria in the US then diabetes.

You're really degrading your fact-checking capability now. There are less than 2,000 cases of malaria reported in the US each year. That's a far cry from diabetes.

FYI the reason it was sold for $1 wasn't because of a goodwill gesture, you should go read up some more about Frederick Banting and Rickard Macleod. There's far more to that story then you understand, or go take a trip to London, Ontario visit Banting House where they figured it all out.

This fact has already been clarified here, and $1 back in 1921 is as much of a goodwill gesture as $1000 would be today.

https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7Bb3848683-e962-43ac-b23b-5b2c10f711a8%7D/frederick-banting-discovered-insulin-in-1921

And before you or some sad AC troll replies with a "but u don't know anything about diabetics" or something else, I'll just add that having a sister who was a juvenile diabetic back in the 1980's, I do know a few things. You know those lovely 1980's where the child mortality rate from undiagnosed diabetes in young children still had a 50% death rate. Look at how far we've come, it's less then 5% now in the west...in 30 years.

My argument has nothing to do with how far we've come. My argument has to do with Greed, which adds to those 80,000 deaths per year. When people cannot afford the very chemical required to sustain life, it's a death sentence, which sadly still rings true today. You know this.

Almost a century ago, scientists discovered insulin, and found it could be used to treat diabetes. They sold that patented idea for $1 as a goodwill gesture because they knew their discovery could save millions of lives.

Fact-checking this one, and it turns out to be true. The researchers who discovered insulin, Banting, Collip and Best, did sell the patent for one dollar.
https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7Bb3848683-e962-43ac-b23b-5b2c10f711a8%7D/frederick-banting-discovered-insulin-in-1921

One does not follow the other. Testosterone is a major necessity for males, and is used in much more than sperm production.

TFA doesn't mention testosterone being down.

Ol Olsoc does. https://www.healio.com/endocri...

http://www.webmd.com/men/news/... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/d...

A low Testosterone level in a male decreases sperm count. In on of those weird twists of fate, supplementing testosterone will lower it even further. http://www.webmd.com/men/featu... So one of the keys to healthy sperm production is to ensure the body is producing it's very own testosterone, not via creams or injections.

Is the trend of lower testosterone levels responsible for the trend of lower sperm count? Correlation is not causation, but even if it were some other cause, that cause would be lowering testosterone levels at the same time.

And my original posting which notes that males are being inundated with phytoestrogens in the west, is not crackpot-ism. Even the NIH is getting involved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is worth noting that in opposition to the politico-economic interests demanding that phyto-estrogens be completely safe for males, they note :

"Further investigation is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn. In the meantime, caution would suggest that perinatal phyto-oestrogen exposure, such as that found in infants feeding on soy-based formula, should be avoided.

And let us not forget all of the estrogen mimics like Bisphenol-A, Phthalates, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and beef growth hormones. These chemicals have been and many are still used

So really, it doesn't matter if TFA doesn't mention Testosterone level. Testosterone levels are relevant to Sperm count, and Testosterone levels are also related to estrogen loads. Conjecture on that is a completely valid path of discussion. Sperm count is down, and males are exposed to a lot of chemicals that are proven to do just that. Making discussion that speaks to these facts being somehow off limits doesn't make a lot of sense.

You're arguing against yourself, because I've never raised the notion of there not being unquestionable settled science. I've simply said that where there is strong consensus in science, people are going to be interested in pushing ahead with building on that consensus and very reluctant to reexamine the fundamentals based on a single study purporting to show they're all wrong. Things that make the latter more likely are the reputation of the authors, reviewers and publication, the credibility of any replacement theory including its ability to explain previous results, etc etc.

I'm arguing that there is no place in science for the term "settled science". "Settled" implies finality - and thus should not be used for a field of knowledge where everything is provisional. "Until someone disproves this, this is our best guess at what's happening"

Scientific research that is backed by good data and accurate models doesn't care what you label it- because reality doesn't care what individuals believe - align your beliefs with reality or do not, reality will continue on.

Science that isn't backed by good data and research can use the term "settled science" to attack and discredit contrary evidence and research - and that ultimately hurts the reputation of and practice of science.

You've misunderstood what I meant by allocative efficiency. It doesn't involve payment. Never mind.

Payment is how resources get allocated. No one does science for free. Payment isn't just monetary compensation, though it plays a big part.

There was no such consensus about smoking being good for you. That's a myth. The tobacco industry drove a particular view in their self-interest, but the evidence contradicted them - the former is not science, the latter is. Here's a nuanced reading. You'll note that the epidemiological studies were only conducted in the late 50s, so it wasn't about contradictory evidence as about the first credible evidence on the subject. http://www.healio.com/hematolo...

From your article: "Many physicians still doubted that there was a wide-spread connection between smoking and disease. Instead it was believed that only certain individuals' health was affected by smoking; it was thought to be a case-by-case situation. "

Is "many" not a consensus? It wasn't "smoking good for you", but it is not the same consensus as we have today.

Consensus has value as a starting point for research- it just shouldn't be used as a pre-filter to discredit dissent - "He doesn't believe in the consensus! Ignore him!" I think any use of "settled science" is going to devolve into just that line of attack and thus undermines the scientific process.

I think you have the image of Galileo too firmly lodged in your mind, boldly declaring "it still moves".

Science is determined by the preponderance of evidence. And Ockham's razor plays a part too. If you found a result that suggested there was no link between smoking and cancer, we're not suddenly going to ignore the huge mass of evidence that suggests there is a link, because the greater likelihood is that you're an asswipe with an axe to grind, have made a mistake in your work, or that an artefact has weakened your results.

To pick up on your Newtonian physics point, the new science had to explain both the new areas where the old science didn't work and the old areas where the old science did work. The same would be true for a result that purported to show no link between smoking and cancer.

You're arguing against yourself, because I've never raised the notion of there not being unquestionable settled science. I've simply said that where there is strong consensus in science, people are going to be interested in pushing ahead with building on that consensus and very reluctant to reexamine the fundamentals based on a single study purporting to show they're all wrong. Things that make the latter more likely are the reputation of the authors, reviewers and publication, the credibility of any replacement theory including its ability to explain previous results, etc etc.

You've misunderstood what I meant by allocative efficiency. It doesn't involve payment. Never mind.

There was no such consensus about smoking being good for you. That's a myth. The tobacco industry drove a particular view in their self-interest, but the evidence contradicted them - the former is not science, the latter is. Here's a nuanced reading. You'll note that the epidemiological studies were only conducted in the late 50s, so it wasn't about contradictory evidence as about the first credible evidence on the subject. http://www.healio.com/hematolo...

Yup, that's the crux of the problem. While it may be true, as others say below, that publication bias against negative results occurs in all fields (such as physics) regardless of study funding, what we are seeing now is the influence of pharmaceutical industry funding in the clinical trials used for FDA approval of drugs (that is, a company funding the trial of its own drug).

Specifically, drug studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are four times more likely to show a positive benefit than ones funded by neutral sources. This is a problem because nearly two-thirds of clinical trials used for FDA approval are now industry-funded.

I know, I know, they don't teach history in school anymore. It's all about indoctrination, propaganda, and conformity instead of critical thinking.

Here's a bit of history of indoctrination and propaganda you ought to consider before branding the previous poster as ignorant.

I don't think I labeled anyone as ignorant.

There's plenty of propaganda going around in the past and today, you can find lots of examples of it all over the place. But your examples are quite insignificant compared to the anti-smoking propaganda dispensed today, and none of them are examples of indoctrination.

I know, I know, they don't teach history in school anymore. It's all about indoctrination, propaganda, and conformity instead of critical thinking.

Here's a bit of history of indoctrination and propaganda you ought to consider before branding the previous poster as ignorant.