What happened to the promise of Genetics?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by McGirth, Mar 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Menaz. again you haven't brought anything new. To clarify, what I mean is that what you brought is redundant points which I already adressed.
    Also you've misconstrued a number of my points, which I won't even dignify with a reply. If you have to engage in misrepresentation/strawmen to make your point, then enjoy your hollow victory.

    The only new thing i see, your strongest point thus far, is that "Analysis of that genome led the company to new meningitis vaccines, which are now in development.", which you rightly bolded this point, your strongest and only point(which i think you know, which is why you bolded it). Now read the underline part. What does that tell you?

    I group you with ghet because you've both sought out the same evidence, just in different countries , and both of you have illustrated my point perfectly: lots of hype, few products, with markets. All those links you posted pretty much supports for my argument, whcih confirms its correctness. Amazingly, this was just a hypothesis I had, which I had no clue if it was correct or not. thanks for doing the initial grunt work, your/ghet's failure to find counter evidence has slightly strenghtened my beleif in its correctness.

    (To summarize findings: Ghet in Korea & China, he found profits based on venture capital and found 0$ in profits in the US; you looked in the US and found a single product in development)

    Again, I hold out hope that genetics claims will come to fruition. I have faith that scientists will fix their flawed theories and improve. I;'m not for cutting funding 100%, but there does need to be some accountability and redistribution into other fields of science. Private funds are okay, if people want to spend billions of their own money in the hope that products will be produced, I am ALL for that. As long as patents aren't incorrectly granted.
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I understand why you took the ad hominem attack route. It is your indication that you've finally realized that my argument itself is correct and cannot be refuted. At least now you know what is correct and what isn't. And that is not a hollow victory by far.

    There were many evidence based points I made but you simplely ignored them or created straw men, or created a red herring, and texas sharpshooter fallacies, inorder to maintain your conjecture as vaild. And to be scientific, It only takes one piece of evidence to prove factless conjecture invaild. i.e. Your speculation.

    Nothing in my links supported your argument, But feel free to stick with the inverse gambler's fallacy. There is no ghet and I, because our arguements were never alike. If ghet feels the need to speak further on his argument he'll do it. However, I seriously doubt he sees the point in it, since you think evidence is irrelevant and your conjecture is all that matters. I have no problem with you believing your correct because nothing is funnier than a person with no evidence believing something to be vaild based on his own conjecture.

    you've been proven wrong yet keep on keepin' on with your same line of factless redundance. At least HGP is a definitive theory based on supportable evidence which is successful not flawed and has enabled researchers to pinpoint errors in genes and the smallest units of heredity that cause or contribute to disease. The body is very complex so the road from gene identification to effective treatments will be far on going into the 21st century. In the meantime, biotechnology companies are racing ahead with commercialization by designing diagnostic tests to detect errant genes in people suspected of having particular diseases or of being at risk for developing them. However, The potential for using genes themselves to treat disease, as in gene therapy, is the most exciting application of DNA science yet. And this rapidly developing field holds great potential for treating and even curing genetic and acquired diseases, using normal genes to replace or supplement a defective gene or to bolster immunity to disease e.g., by adding a gene that suppresses tumor growth.


    Funny, Now you're "not" for cutting funding a 100%.


    I see so you're point is? One product disproved your conjecture of no product. I agree.

    Furthermore...

    A team of British doctors from Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College in London conduct first human gene therapy trials to treat Leber's congenital amaurosis, a type of inherited childhood blindness caused by a single abnormal gene. The procedure has already been successful at restoring vision for dogs. This is the first trial to use gene therapy in an operation to treat blindness in humans.[urlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL016653620070501?pageNumber=1[/url]

    There's TWO. And it's gene therapy.


    Gene therapy is effectively used to treat two adult patients for a disease affecting nonlymphocytic white blood cells called myeloid cells. Myeloid disorders are common and include a variety of bone marrow failure syndromes, such as acute myeloid leukemia. The study is the first to show that gene therapy can cure diseases of the myeloid system. http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/about/news/release/2006/3-gene-therapy.htm

    There's three, And it's gene therapy.



    Researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, successfully reengineer immune cells, called lymphocytes, to target and attack cancer cells in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma. This is the first time that gene therapy is used to successfully treat cancer in humans.
    http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/MelanomaGeneTherapy

    There's four, and it's gene therapy.

    University of California, Los Angeles, research team gets genes into the brain using liposomes coated in a polymer call polyethylene glycol (PEG). The transfer of genes into the brain is a significant achievement because viral vectors are too big to get across the "blood-brain barrier." This method has potential for treating Parkinson's disease. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3520

    There's five, and it's gene therapy.

    Gene Therapy cures deafness in guinea pigs. Each animal had been deafened by destruction of the hair cells in the cochlea that translate sound vibrations into nerve signals. A gene, called Atoh1, which stimulates the hair cells' growth, was delivered to the cochlea by an adenovirus. The genes triggered re-growth of the hair cells and many of the animals regained up to 80% of their original hearing thresholds. This study, which many pave the way to human trials of the gene, is the first to show that gene therapy can repair deafness in animals.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7003

    There's six, and it's gene therapy

    http://www.bioprotocol.com/store/pr...CQIEV54XG1PR3FQLMSFEWHUWBNQIV0?id=prod2610016 More on How well gene therapy is performing.

    I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with this for now. Ghet might though.
    test
  3. McGirth moves goal posts with Atlasian strength
    test
  4. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    underlined edits adress new points youve made; italics emphasises stuff already refuted.


    test
  5. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Weird. I thought we reached a sort of consensus that there has been alot of genetic research with few technological fruits produced based on said theory. We differ in that you call for more funding given the failures/delays(same point as Ill Rich/Sodium), whereas I call for public fund redistribution. I also make patent law claims, which you seem to have no opinion on either way.

    Seems like you wanted to "score" or ethics grounds (Which Menaz initially feeled out before deciding not to take this route), or on grounds of the existence of genetic theoretical/research (which menaz also tried). You correctly acquiesced to this being outside the scope of the argument, then You shifted over to finding evidence to refute the ACTUAL claims made (finding actual technology), but then gave up on not being able to find much (China/NK Stuff). Menaz has yet to do this.

    Now you switch to bandwaggoning with Menaz on points we moved past already, like someone in bball who claims he was fouled in the 2nd quarter after having losing the game in the 4th.
    test
  6. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    i'm not calling for more government funding

    the banks and venture capitalists will take care of it since there's money to be made and they want a slice

    i'm just saying genetics is going to be a big part in the future of biotech, even though the delivery of results may be more long term than expected
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You've refuted nothing, because you're the one producing conjecture here who got refuted. You have however once again created yet another straw men argument.


    test
  8. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ^2 new points you made (the rest is just you being the judge/jury of the validity of your own arguments), just to wrap up the argument.

    1-The link to the study on rats. Again, this is not a product/invention within the confines of the patent act & with actual market/no placebo. This classifies with other evidence you provided, outside scope.

    2-On the reason for the lack of products being FDA regulations. I think this argument could have some merit in some cases if shown by the facts, But i don't think it systematically explains the lack of inventions in the market based on genetic theory. Surely you would agree that not EVERY genetic issue raises concerns that lead to FDA barring products?
    Also you would need to show clear examples of this being the case. i.e. Products that received a patent, went to FDA testing and were barred by regulations.
    test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    All together now that's 7 points I brought to the table which did their job of tearing your arguments from conjecture about the genome project leading to genetic therapeutic cures apart. And your fallacy here is Appeal to ridicule.



    In that last link I provided they weren't rats. They were mice.
    And my point has always been gene therapy has shown it achieves cures.
    You are misrepersenting my argument everytime with a straw man of market accessiblity on a wide scale.
    My argument was never about a gene therapy cure being accessible to the market on a wide scale.

    Because I realize the suspensions, restrictions, and safeguards the FDA have placed on this new biotechnology. Having said that the FDA has approved one chinese product named "Gendicine" which is being used on the market right now. And other gene therapy products are in the pipeline for America, and Europe.

    "The launch of Gendicine in China, the only gene therapy product available in the market, signifies a huge boost for gene therapy and has paved the way for future products of this kind, potentially boosting the fortunes of a $150 million (€124 million) industry in 2005 and which is expected to reach could reach $5.7 billion in 2011."Numerous products are in the clinical pipeline with regulatory approval anticipated within the next three years, says the analyst of this research. http://www.the-infoshop.com/study/fs30279-gene-therapy.html

    recap: The gene therapy market has seen incredible breakthroughs for the treatment of severe diseases. And The launch of Gendicine finally signifies a huge boost for gene therapy in the market. In which they confirm the results will herald in a new era of medicine. This is not a hard concept to understand unless you are obtuse.


    I'll explain it like this. Todate the only real well known product the FDA has approved was Gendicine. FDA reasons are ethnical other reasons are religious concerns. i.e. Man was created in God's image, that sort of nonsense. Moreover, The problem is Interface. patent and FDA law is said to "interface" in a couple of different ways. Legislative enactments such as the orphan drug act9 and the patent term restoration act10 "interface" in the sense that each modifies patent law and FDA law. However, a different kind of interface may be found in the tension between the differing policies which underlie patent and FDA law. The patent system is intended to foster technological innovation and economic progress. FDA law serves different policy objectives.

    As of now the only products the FDA hasn't suspensed, restricted, or safeguarded
    is Gendicine. Other gene therapy products in the pipeline for Europe and the United States for example are Advexin and Generx which are now finally on regulatory fast track to "orphan drug" status in the market.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5570/is_200610/ai_n23571117
    Infact, Advexin has now been unrestrained by FDA for the market.

    http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6790694/Cardium-s-Generx-gets-FDA.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5570/is_200612/ai_n23584165
    Generx has just entered phase 3. which makes it a ( product candidate.)

    http://www.marketresearch.com/map/prod/934229.html
    There is also another gene therapy targeting Cystic Fibrosis, labled, tgAAVCF. It is in the later stage of phase II and looks like the FDA just might unrestrain it and put it to use in the market soon.


    To reiterate: I'm talking about something that is in it's infancy due to FDA restraints, yet you're treating it like an adult that should be doing its job already because nothing is restraining its progress from doing so.

    "The Chinese State Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Gendicine for the treatment of head and neck cancer, for sale in China in January 2004. Following this first authorization, there have been a substantial number of products in the clinical development pipeline poised to reach the European and the United States markets. Many of these products have achieved regulatory fast track and ‘orphan drug’ status, as they represent areas of unmet medical need. Revenue generated from sales of these products can potentially reach $5.73 billion by 2011," notes the analyst. The gene therapy market is therefore poised to have a significant impact on the healthcare industry."http://www.the-infoshop.com/study/fs30279-gene-therapy.html

    Like I said and as you can clearly read. The FDA restrictingly controls the progress of gene therapy to the market. Thus, why gene therapy products are restrained or safeguarded. Lets hope the FDA has Generx and tgAAVCF flooding the market soon. In conclusion, I have proven your argument on this manner invaild.
    test
  10. McGirth,

    Do you have any reports on Western genetic therapy industries being profitable compared to the Korea and Chinese industry which I have put a price tag on, both for venture capital injection AND in product sales? (all of which increase market robustness) So far, anything times 0 continues to remain 0.

    Or will those be excluded from the argument as well? You want to stick with NPPs instead? I wouldn't recommend that, being that those damn things have been turning a profit consistently since the 80s.
    test
  11. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ^ Ghet: point adressed in post #40.

    menaz: we're going in circles. New points about FDA being the reason for lack of products is a new/legit line of attack. But,you do need to provide more proof beyond comparative analysis (especially since the comparative points arent very strong to begin with). I think something like an analytical analysis of ACTUAL FDA regulations for genetic drug testing, and the effects you think these regulations have which is negative would be a good start.
    test
  12. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    "We" as in you and I shouldn't be going around in circles, But you keep moving goalposts. The FDA has only allowed Two products since 2003 to enter the market. The evidence was provided. The inhuman effects of the FDA restraints on gene therapy vastly entering the market for personal use is common sense to dying cancer patients.
    test
  13. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    agree to disagree on goalposts. As stated, you (or I) can't be both the judge of your own arguments/the debate and a participant in it. I enjoyed the exchange of ideas though.

    FDA, you need to go more in depth as per the actual regulations that blocked entry in the two cases provided, and not just assume its a moralistic ethics based argument. Maybe the reasons were that the said medicine's did not go beyond a placebo effect? just scowering the interet reading peoples posts with the medicine, it seems like many were bilked out of this so called wonder drug, dying from cancer in the process.

    Its funny actually, my brother recently was in a developing country, a cap on his tooth was loose he went to a dentist there beleiving it to be much cheaper and the same in quality. Oh it was cheaper, but they also lacked in ethical/cleandliness/procedural standards, he also has no recourse to sue if they messed up and no professional body was overseeing the operation. What was the result? The tooth was pulled out (for 20$!) that should have received a cap. Now he has to get an implant over here to prevent shifting of other teeth (which is expensive as hell) OR wear a denture his whole life.

    Frankly, i don't get the general thrust in this forum to reduce everything in the west to chinesse/developing country standard, from FDA, food, and labour laws. (or maybe its just you and ghet)
    test
  14. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    http://www.fda.gov/Cber/gene.htm


    "However, the amount of gene-related research and development occurring in the United States continues to grow at a fast rate and FDA is actively involved in overseeing this activity. FDA has received many requests from medical researchers and manufacturers to study gene therapy and to develop gene therapy products."

    This can't be made anymore clearer. The problem is you don't get what is being said to you.

    In March 2006 an international group of scientists announced the successful use of gene therapy to treat two adult patients for a disease affecting myeloid cells. The study was published in Nature Medicine. Dr. Brian Brown from the San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy successfully treated metastatic melanoma in two patients using killer T cells genetically retargeted to attack the cancer cells. they developed a way to prevent the immune system from rejecting a newly delivered gene. No placebo effect.

    The anecdotal about your brother irrelevant.
    test
  15. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ^
    Great you've established that scientists conducted initial tests and that the FDA is in fact a regulatory agency.

    now... the substnative part...! (edit/highlied my last 2 post to make it clearer. see BOLD/RED)
    test
  16. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    What you have over looked again due to your straw man fallacy.

    FDA has received many requests from medical researchers and manufacturers to study gene therapy and to develop gene therapy products."

    You're incorrect. I showcased my other substnative points accomodatingly in posts 42, 49, and 54.



    "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary government agency charged with protecting the health of U.S. citizens by ensuring that drugs, medical devices and biological products are safe and effective before they are used by doctors, nurses, other health care professionals, hospitals and consumers.
    The FDA's authority includes any human gene therapy product sold in the United States. Because of FDA's strong involvement in the regulation of human gene therapy products" When FDA's scientists receive an IND application for gene therapy, they review it carefully before permitting the manufacturer or researcher to begin the study. FDA may ask the study sponsor to do more laboratory tests and include more safeguards to ensure the safety of patients[/U]

    http://www.fda.gov/cber/infosheets/genezn.htm


    I'm not assuming anything here, you are! I backed my statements up every step of the way. You're the one assuming it isn't the ethical Principles of a regulatory agency such as the FDA. You're conjecture is invalid. The FDA does place ethical restraints on Gene therapeutic products. retract your statement.
    test
  17. Don't even both arguing with him on this topic.

    He ignores links and doesn't even read them.

    For example:

    03-12-2008, 11:39 PM
    03-09-2008, 12:43 PM (Three days before that post)
    Summary: When brought up that South Korean Cloning Industry makes infinitely more profit than their Western Counterparts, McGirth grabs the goal post and throws it away by saying "Cloning has nothing to do with my Genetics Arguments!!!!!!!!!" (A very convenient defense mechanism, btw) When summarizing the evidence brought against him, McGirth flat out ignores the fact I have provided direct evidence of Chinese Gene Therapy being already available on the market (including overseas) and is achieving infinitely more profits than their Western counterparts. The promise of genetics is already being achieved everywhere else but the West.

    Maybe if you screened the context of your prophets and stopped believing the Jetsons, you wouldn't be so upset that we don't have flying cars en masse yet, either.
    test
  18. this seems more like a bout of egos than a socratic dialogue
    test
  19. maybe

    i wish it was solid :(

    mcgirth doesn't believe venture capitalism qualifies as economic validity when, in reality, that is the basis of capitalism
    test
  20. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    okay now your just foot dragging... the requested info is IN THE LINK YOU PROVIDED.

    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)