.Tiny diamonds show promise against tough cancers

[oaktree]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US researchers said Wednesday they have found a way to attack late-stage breast and liver cancer tumors by attaching a potent chemotherapy drug to tiny carbon particles known as nanodiamonds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110309/hl_afp/healthuscancerresearch

Pretty cool article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation_nanodiamond#Use_in_medicine

It is interesting how the role of Nanodiamonds may play in the future of medicine.
I wonder if Nanodiamonds will be the precusor for nanorobotics:

Nanomedicine
Potential applications for nanorobotics in medicine include early diagnosis and targeted drug-delivery for cancer,[38][39][40] biomedical instrumentation[41] surgery,[42][43] pharmacokinetics[44] monitoring of diabetes,[45][46][47] and health care.
In such plans, future medical nanotechnology is expected to employ nanorobots injected into the patient to perform work at a cellular level. Such nanorobots intended for use in medicine should be non-replicating, as replication would needlessly increase device complexity, reduce reliability, and interfere with the medical mission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobot#Nanomedicine

 

[billc]

I don't think they will be covered under Obamacare.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I don't think they will be covered under Obamacare.

Why?

 

[billc]

As a new technology, that prolongs life, they will be expensive and put a strain on an already over burdened system. The administration is already looking at cutting back on cancer fighting drugs now, like Avastin, I think that is the name, so any new technology is going to "die on the vine."

 

[Touch Of Death]

As a new technology, that prolongs life, they will be expensive and put a strain on an already over burdened system. The administration is already looking at cutting back on cancer fighting drugs now, like Avastin, I think that is the name, so any new technology is going to "die on the vine."

Oh, I see. I wasn't aware those crazy Dems were trying to shorten our lives. Thanks for the heads up.
Sean

 

[billc]

Here you go, those crazy dems in action...

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2011/03/08/fda-out-rations-the-europeans/

From the article:

In June 2010, a subpanel at the FDA recommended that the late-stage cancer drug Avastin be denied insurance and Medicare coverage for breast cancer patients. Cost was specifically mentioned as a reason for the decision. “De-labeling” the drug will save Medicare the burden of paying for the drug that can run $80,000 a year.

So I bet Nano bots are going to be out as well, including tiny diamonds.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Here you go, those crazy dems in action...

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2011/03/08/fda-out-rations-the-europeans/

From the article:

In June 2010, a subpanel at the FDA recommended that the late-stage cancer drug Avastin be denied insurance and Medicare coverage for breast cancer patients. Cost was specifically mentioned as a reason for the decision. “De-labeling” the drug will save Medicare the burden of paying for the drug that can run $80,000 a year.

So I bet Nano bots are going to be out as well, including tiny diamonds.

So, you have no problem spending $80,000 a year on a cancer drug, but think its obscene to pay that a year to a government employee doing actual work?
Sean

 

[David43515]

So, you have no problem spending $80,000 a year on a cancer drug, but think its obscene to pay that a year to a government employee doing actual work?
Sean

Lets see, $80,000 to have saved the lives of my dead sister or my best friend`s dead mother vs $80,000 toa federal employee doing a job that`s most likely either redundant or being done in the private sector for $50,000. Yeah, lett me think about that and get back to you.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Lets see, $80,000 to have saved the lives of my dead sister or my best friend`s dead mother vs $80,000 toa federal employee doing a job that`s most likely either redundant or being done in the private sector for $50,000. Yeah, lett me think about that and get back to you.

... I suspect that asking the drug corporations to lower the seventeen year waiting period, before a generic equivalent can be made, is out of the question. Much better to take from the working class?
Sean

 

[billc]

Well, since they made the miracle drug that saves lives, and probably put 300 million dollars into the drug just to get it to FDA trials, I think I could live with them making some money on their risk and investment. You are free to make new miracle drugs through your own company as well.

they also tend to have programs to help people who can't afford their drugs. I'm curious where you found the information on how long it takes before these companies are forced to give up their patents on certain drugs.

 

[billc]

This article talks about the length of a drug patent.

http://www.life123.com/career-money/business-law/patents/how-long-does-a-drug-patent-last.shtml

Clinical Trials Impact Length Of Drug Patent
In the United States the patent filed on a drug lasts for 20 years; however, because companies file even before clinical trials, by the time the drug hits the marketplace, the patent may only have between 8 to 10 years left. Once the patent expires, other companies can produce the drug using the same ingredients and bring their version to the market, introducing competition and generally lowering the prices for the drug.

I am curious. I know that medicine has an importance that a windshield wiper doesn't have, but if a company makes a drug, from scratch, why should they have to surrender the patent in any different a way than the wind shield wiper?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Well, since they made the miracle drug that saves lives, and probably put 300 million dollars into the drug just to get it to FDA trials, I think I could live with them making some money on their risk and investment. You are free to make new miracle drugs through your own company as well.

they also tend to have programs to help people who can't afford their drugs. I'm curious where you found the information on how long it takes before these companies are forced to give up their patents on certain drugs.

...They taught me that in college. I was under the impression it was common knowledge. Thats my source; I can't direct you to any website if that is what you are asking. I like your term "forced." Should the waiting period be longer?
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

This article talks about the length of a drug patent.

http://www.life123.com/career-money/business-law/patents/how-long-does-a-drug-patent-last.shtml

Clinical Trials Impact Length Of Drug Patent
In the United States the patent filed on a drug lasts for 20 years; however, because companies file even before clinical trials, by the time the drug hits the marketplace, the patent may only have between 8 to 10 years left. Once the patent expires, other companies can produce the drug using the same ingredients and bring their version to the market, introducing competition and generally lowering the prices for the drug.

I am curious. I know that medicine has an importance that a windshield wiper doesn't have, but if a company makes a drug, from scratch, why should they have to surrender the patent in any different a way than the wind shield wiper?

Ooooh! I know this one... for the good of the public. And, it keeps drug company execs alive long enough to continue raping the elderly and the sick.
Sean

 

[billc]

so the public can steal the work of other people simply because they think they have a good reason. Hmmm. Interesting argument. We should try this in other areas of life. Like, building roads and bridges that go to hospitals are important, so road crews could be conscritpted, for the good of the public to build those roads. Medicines don't really matter without doctors to give them out, so, for the good of the public, doctors should be compelled to work for free, for the good of the public. That would cut down on healthcare costs. Or, after say 18 years of practice, the doctors should be required to work for free, that might work. I see your point.

 

[billc]

Doing all the research, spending upwards of 300 million dollars, without knowing wether the drug will actually work, and taking all the risks of making a drug to only have people sue you for the inevitable bad results a certain percentage of people will have, all to come up with a drug that will either cure or relieve the suffering of millions of people. Yeah, I'd call that raping the sick and the elderly.

 

[Touch Of Death]

so the public can steal the work of other people simply because they think they have a good reason. Hmmm. Interesting argument. We should try this in other areas of life. Like, building roads and bridges that go to hospitals are important, so road crews could be conscritpted, for the good of the public to build those roads. Medicines don't really matter without doctors to give them out, so, for the good of the public, doctors should be compelled to work for free, for the good of the public. That would cut down on healthcare costs. Or, after say 18 years of practice, the doctors should be required to work for free, that might work. I see your point.

I think the drug companies have a pretty sweet deal now. At $80,000 a year per patient on just one drug! Thats a lot of money; and, our government allows the drug companies to market directly to an uneducated public. Which is obscene, considering the doctors are supposed to be the experts. Your silly point was not my point.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Why don't your Republican buddies have a vote on extending the patent? Should pass considering the poor drug companies are getting screwed.
Sean

 

[billc]

Well everyone needs to eat, or they die. Some people need expensive medicine but everyone actually needs food every day. So for the public good, we could send in soldiers to confiscate all privately held farms. After all, farmers are literally holding the world hostage because they control food production. Those greedy farmers could then be forced to work for free, "for the public good" and that would make food free for everyone. This is easy.

 

[billc]

They tend to be big government types as well. If they did extend the patent, the price for the drugs would probably come down.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Well everyone needs to eat, or they die. Some people need expensive medicine but everyone actually needs food every day. So for the public good, we could send in soldiers to confiscate all privately held farms. After all, farmers are literally holding the world hostage because they control food production. Those greedy farmers could then be forced to work for free, "for the public good" and that would make food free for everyone. This is easy.

Too late; that already happened.