Re: [North Georgia Democrats] Unintended consequences?

W Lorraine Watkins commented on her post in North Georgia Democrats. W Lorraine Watkins 12:07pm Oct 2 Natasha I am well aware of what the system is today. And how radically different it is. But new is not necessarily best. Your numbers are meaningless without appropriate definitions and that can be debated endlessly. But IMO a very high percentage of what is called research is crap and proof of the corrupting influence of applying a business model to civil (inalienable) rights. Actually by my definition is mostly not even science. I did cancer chemotherapy research as a member of a multi-institutional collaborative study group in the 60 and 70s. The key concept was COLLABORATIVE and We published collaboratively as the SWSSG and SWOG mostly in Cancer Chemotherapy Reports. I am listed as one of the several authors. I have a few obscure papers published in the pediatric and one in cardiology literature. I can't even recall where or titles. Yes it was a whole different system with its own flaws but when I got my own cancer it was with mixed feelings that I discovered how few really new agents had been developed in that long long time ago. And frankly not that big an improvement in survival not related to early diagnosis. (As an aside I watched mammography being developed by among others Ted Leigh at Emory. I doubt he got one patent penny. Might be interesting to check It was however with some pride that some of the basic concepts we elucidated have proven to endure. I do give a tip of the hat in cancer research to some of the specific targeting agents that are slowly slowly coming available -- at $100,000 course in order to feed shareholder profits. Comment History Natasha Stark 11:37am Oct 2 W Lorraine Watkins this is a general comment as I am not sure how long it has been since you were a PI, but one of the newer developments in the research space is indeed the development of marketable products. Universities are just now starting to ramp up technology, licensing, and commercialization offices to adjust to these changes. That being said, I didn't claim we were exceptional. I said we are the leader in research. And we are. That is a numerical, statistical fact that has been reported on ad nauseum by both NSF and NIH at every conference I've attended for the past 2 years. Sally Rockey just presented the updated numbers in August at the NCURA conference, and it is a frequent topic on her blog Rock Talk. Now, does that mean that we will continue to be the leader? Not if the government continues to cut research funding and we are losing ground. Which is precisely why NSF and NIH are on a major campaign to have research funding restored, and are putting out everything possible to get the public to pay attention to what is happening with research funding and how continuing to slash the dollars going to research ~ especially biomedical research ~ will eventually be the death of us (literally). At any rate, what was your research on? Do you have any pubs available in pubmed? Mark Gilstrap 11:29am Oct 2 I think there is a broad, responsible consensus for action to prevent a widespread Ebola outbreak in the US. James Charles 11:26am Oct 2 New research or not, it appears as though we are the best hope currently. It also now appears as we really need to apply what we know before it spreads here or more people come here with it and spread it. I hope the president and congress and work together (ha ha ha ) and get the FDA to fastrack where possible. W Lorraine Watkins 10:53am Oct 2 Natasha I don't intend to claim the work you and many others are doing is not valuable, nor that the US is not contributing volumes of knowledge to the world. My comments are directed at this point to which our system providing for medical research and care which I think is corrupted and daily degraded in quality. I do think to claim we are so exceptional and lead the way in everything good is dangerous hubris. W Lorraine Watkins 10:47am Oct 2 The more I hear of this case I have little doubt this man came expecting to need treatment. Hell His family called the CDC to tell them he had it and because the local hospital had still not caught on. There will be more. acting in their self interest? View All Comments Original Post W Lorraine Watkins 10:00pm Oct 1 Unintended consequences? More information on the Liberian under treatment in Texas seems to suggest he knew full well he had been exposed to Ebola and actually quickly sought out medical attention telling them of his concern about Ebola. I would love to know if he bought his airline ticket before or after he had contact with the woman who died from it along with her brother in Liberia? All the Medical ptb are out there reassuring the US that the medical care for Ebola is so much better than in Africa, specifically Liberia. "it is a different disease in the US than in Africa" they say. It would be hardly surprising that Liberians who worry about contact would head for the airport. So do we have a moral obligation to bring Ebola victims here for life saving treatment? View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.