Welcome to mygnrforum.com Guns N' Roses Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

SoulMonster

Members
  • Content count

    11,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,662 Excellent

About SoulMonster

  • Rank
    FRONTMAN

Previous Fields

  • Sex Male

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Recent Profile Visitors

2,266 profile views
  1. Limitations

    None of which were effective at preventing you from creating this thread.
  2. Shkreli, Drug Price Gouger, Denies Fraud and Posts Bail

    It is the one where you don't leave out the fact that I would ONLY accept a drug with potentially less efficacy and adverse side effects IF it would result in many more patients being treated. You simply asked me if I would be happy releasing a drug to market with side-effects, not mentiong that the premise is that the drug would be accessible to many more patients. Again, the market already accepts that we can't test the drugs to the point of being 100 % certain they are safe. It would not be irresponsible to accept quicker regulatory pathways for certain drugs (notably for those where no other treatments exists and the outcome of not being treated is death) where the result would guaranteed be MANY more being treated while at the worst only a VERY FEW not have an effect of the medicine or, at the very worst, would experience side-effects. It is an easy cost-benefit analysis. Maintaining a system that lets millions die or suffer from not proper medication because they don't have access to necesarry medicine, is what is irresponsible. I don't see any reason why there should be any changes to who would be held responsible for any approved drugs turning out to have unknown side-effects, if the system was less rigid and smarter. Again, you are confusing generics for biosimilars. These are not the same. The market has a very low acceptance for biosimilars.
  3. my favourite/favorite...

    The porn industry is a tough one. Can't blame Snake-Pit for starting at the bottom with bat porn and trying to work his way up to those ebony beauties.
  4. Shkreli, Drug Price Gouger, Denies Fraud and Posts Bail

    I am not happy to release such a drug. Why would I want that? But I would be happy to release a drug to market for which I could half the price leading to 10-fold more patients surviving a disease, even if this drug now has a slight increased risk of not being as efficient for every patient or have a slight increased risk of having adverse side-effects for a small minority of patients. You are questioning whether the market would want it. Yes, a terminally ill patient in Angola would EMBRACE the chance to get access to a drug for which he (or his nation) otherwise could not afford even if it meant there was a small chance that he could be in the subgroup for which it wouldn't be effective, or even have an adverse side-effect. The alternative is DEATH. The worst-case scenario is death with an adverse side-effect. I think he, and anyone else, would jump at such an opportunity. You suggest that it would be better to work on "reducing the litigation between drugs originators and those companies which seek to reproduce them". I don't see this as much of a problem, at least not to rival excessive drug costs as a problem. The main barrier to generics/biosimilars isn't litigation from originators, but market acceptance (patients and doctors not trusting copy medicine) and regulatory hurdles (incessant requirements that means development of replica medicine costs much more than needed). I spent Monday and Tuesday this week at a conference in Berlin discussing exactly WHY biosimilars only now start to enter the markets, and litigation never came up. Sure, this is an area of industry with plenty of legal disputes but this is not considered a particular problem for copy medicines and their market penetration.
  5. my favourite/favorite...

    To do bat porn. One of the more rare fetishes.
  6. Shkreli, Drug Price Gouger, Denies Fraud and Posts Bail

    Wrong type of drugs, I guess...
  7. Shkreli, Drug Price Gouger, Denies Fraud and Posts Bail

    There already IS a trade off. FDA and EMA has decided where that trade off should be. I am suggesting it is skewed slightly in favor of quicker development times so that we can reduce the prices and treat more people, even if there is a slight increase in an approved drug not beign equally efficaous. Your example of 20 % is not something I too would accept, but it is a gross exaggeration. In my opinion we are looking at drugs that could potentially treat 5 million more patients globally with only very slight probabilities of the drug being less efficaous (not being inert, just less efficaous) or having an increased adverse side-effect profile. I am also not saying that the requiremnets should be less rigid for all drugs, just that the regulatory bodies should be smarter in terms of what they require of clinical trials and documentation for specific drugs. E.g., should REALLY an insulin biobetter with only one amino acid substitution need the FULL clinical trial requirements as if it was a NBA (new biological entity), or could such biobetter drugs rather be approved through the now established biosimilar fast-track program 501(k)? In my opinion we would be WAY better off if we allowed this. I wasn't talking so much about generics (small-molecule copies) as biosmilars (biologics copies; large-molecule copies) where 501(k) approval exists now but where there is still a too high demand on both clinical trials (despite the FDA voiced requirement to only show bioequvalence (aka similarity) and not drug efficacy!) and physicochemical tests to demonstate that the originator and the biosimilar are biologically equivalent.
  8. Shkreli, Drug Price Gouger, Denies Fraud and Posts Bail

    Goverrment shoud be more involved. The safety of its citizens is to important to be put into the hands of companies. That is why governments ARE involved to diffeernt degrees around the world. E.g. Norway has a system for getting biosimilars to market much more afforably than its originator drugs. What you need to understand is that the approval system already today is a cut-off between making sure that the drug is safe, and that the drug actually enters the market. In theory you can never be 100 % certain the drug is safe for every patient, so we have decided to ONLY test each drug for X no of patients in such and such ways. I am not saying that we shouldn't test drugs, just that we shoudl reduce the amount of trials experiments for some drugs, and be a little smarter about what trials must be passed (i.e. the extent of physicochemical tests to be done with biosimilars is ridiculous!). This would ensure that, say, twice as many patients can get access to a drug globally, but with only slight increase in risk of that drug not being exactly as efficious as expected or with only a slight increase in probablity of side-effects.
  9. Shkreli, Drug Price Gouger, Denies Fraud and Posts Bail

    I didn't say they shouldn't earn money. There could easily be a cap on prices and big pharma would still earn money. Trust me, they have pretty substantial margins as it is I am not against capitalism, and think it is great that one can earn lots of money from selling producs others desire. But there is a difference between the owners of Tesla becoming filthy rich from selling cars and the owners of Pfizer becoming filthy rich from selling life-saving drugs. Everybody can't afford a Tesla, and that is fine, they can have a cheaper car or maybe get by without one altogether. But everybody can't find a cheaper cancer drug, or "get by" with advanced stage cancer or other forms of terminal cancer. There simply is a differece between these things and in this specific and rare case I believe governments should enforce caps that would open up access to certain medicines and STILL allow pharma to earn nice money. I disagree with your opinion that "the last thing we want is to cut corners when it comes to the voracity of the testing protocols". If we could reduce the requirements for some clinical trials then drug development would become less expensive, and pharma could lower prices without losing revenues resulting in drugs becoming accessible to more patients. There is a balance here between approving something for market which could potentially be ineffective or dangerous, and having so expensive approval process that the costs of drugs becoming prohibitive to many patients. What would we be best off with? I believe that by skewing the balance slightly in favor of quicker (and less expensive regulatory pathways) the net effect would be more patients treated due to lower prices and quicker market access (although we would have slightly more cases of drugs being taken off market because it would turn out that post-approval their efficacy wasn't so great).
  10. Shkreli, Drug Price Gouger, Denies Fraud and Posts Bail

    Similar system in Norway, and some drugs are so expensive we just won't buy them. It's atrocious. As for a cap on prices. Yes, there should be some cap on the price of originator drugs. A pharmaceutical company with monopoly on a drug shouldn't be allowed to set whatever price they want. Sick people will pay ANYTHING for medicine, especially if it is life-saving. So to prevent pharma companies exploiting this by raising the price as high as possible, there should be some cap that would ensure that they get only good margins (enough to compensate for the costs they have had, and some). Exactly what that cap will be I don't know, and I have no problems with pharma earning money and people getting rich. The important thing is not to cut their earnings but to fix a system where large porportions of patients (both in poor countries but also in rich countries) don't have access to necessary medicine because of prohibitive high prices. But more importantly than a cap on exit-prices, there should be quicker regulatory pathways for non-originator drugs (generics and biosmilars) so that these may come to market earlier to create compettion and lower the prices. The way it is now, getting a non-originator to market takes too long (so that the originator can rule the market alone with their high prices) and costs too much because of obligatory clinical trials and similarity demands (so that the price of the replica isn't as low as it should be). This means the originator can rule the market alone beyond its patent protection, and when it gets competition from copy medicine, that competition isn't as harsh as it should be. Lastly, the costs of developing drugs must be reduced so that the exit-price of drugs can be lowered without this meaning a cut in the companies' margins. Developing a drug costs WAY too much today. There are many reasons for this, including regulatory pathways and costs of clinical trials, but also inefficient R&D in pharma, the structure of M&As, inefficient tech transfer from Academia, etc. A lot can be done to reduce these costs.
  11. Shkreli, Drug Price Gouger, Denies Fraud and Posts Bail

    Shkreli really is a disgusting person:  
  12. OJ Simpson and Amanda Knox

    When reading the thread title I thought this was about them becoming a couple while in prison.
  13. 'BELIEVE IN ME' Re-issued on Color Vinyl

    Bought it immediately when it came out. I really liked it and listened to it a lot. Not all songs were good, it it was very messy, but still, fun album.
  14. What religion are you?

    Not really. You are mixing domatic and non-dogmatic. I am open to the possibility of being wrong about anything. Bring on the evidence! I say. But I consider the chance of being wrong on atheism incredible small, almost as small as the possibility of the earth not being round, of mass not attracting mass, of me not loving my kids, etc. But I am definitely open for being wrong on all these; I will certainly not reject any evidence suggesting I am wrong. But the fact that I am open to being wrong doesn't make me an agnostic rather than an atheist. I am an atheist because I consider the chance of gods' existing so small that for all practical purposes I know they don't exist. Just like I know the earth is round (even if I am open for being shown to be wrong). Or, to quote Bertand Russel, like I know there are no teapots orbiting Alpha Centauri. An agnostic, on the other hand, is more sitting on the fence on this issue, or believes there are no gods but hasn't completely ruled them out, yet. I find it strange to adopt such a wishy-washy position on something where the absence of evidence in favour of godly existsnce is so glaring. You either underdtand no gods exist, you are mentally ill, or you have adopted that religion as a little child when you had little resistance to mumbo-jumbo. This also connects with the fact that it is very few things we can with 100 % certainty know doesn't exist. Because of this near impossibility, atheism as defined as knowing with 100 % certainty, because pointless. No one would fall in that category if the criteria was that strict. That is why the modern definition is rather to be completely convinced there are no gods.
  15. Stephanie Seymour arrested

    I had no idea Gina also claimed Axl abused her. Still, what about all the other girlsfriends he must have had? Or where you only thinking about those three when you said it?