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
    now compare the above explanation from the FDA to your explanation of reasons for FDA regulations:


    So what exactly is your objection here with the FDA regulations? That they test so placebos aren't sold? That the FDA tests to see if something actually works? that it makes sure products are safe before entering the market? That they don't have unintended medical consequences?

    i have no problem with your line of argumentation against the FDA. But, given the lack of proof of actual FDA regulations being enacted for said reasons (underlined above) which you said constrain genetic products reaching the market (i.e. religious concerns), your pretty much basing your arguments on nothing here. Keep in mind this proof is from the VERY LINK YOU PROVIDED.
    test
  2. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    i would say more of a policy debate, which has been productive/interesting.
    test
  3. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ghet: first quote taken out of context, its a reply to Menaz trying to synthesize several pages of debate between us, which admitably included my assessment of said debate. I didn't mention the profits from the SK company (i actually did follow the link) in the synthesis, because honestly, the amount was so low as to be negligable.

    again, yes, your technically correct that negligable profits > 0$ profits (which is acutally wrong, US has some products, BUT i'm not going to do your research for you). But, like I said, your negligible Asian profits>0$ is such a weak argument (your "infinately more profit" argument), that I won't even bother pursuing it further till you come up with a stronger argument or better proof on established points. [for reference, more does not equal better. better means POINTED research that goes DIRECTLY to support claims made by legitimate sources]

    also i never said anything about "economic validity", don't know where you got that from. I only made a distinction between profits from hype/venture capital and prodfits from production/fruits. The latter indicates that a venture was succesful, which assuming something makes it past the FDA testing (which Menaz questions as valid) and on to the market, and then sells alot. Then we can can that that that technology is developed. By contrast, if we just have a hypothesis and alot of venture capital, then we can hardly call that a technology now can we? i.e. failure to deliver on hype (i.e. the promises of genetics researchers.) with actual technology. Which is precisely the topic of the thread. What happened to the promises of genetics from the last few decades? To say... look they've produced... more venture capital, products in testing, hypothesis, powerpoint presentations, academic conferences, science fiction novels, ethics debates... precisely proves my point: they haven't delivered.

    so, in terms of "economic validity" you can just have hype replace more hype and that would be an economic success for said company, as it would receives piles of venture capital without producing results. This would be good for stock holders, etc... However, it would not represent actual technology being produced/profits from said technology sold.

    Menaz' line of reasoning is a good line of attack in theory by Questioning the FDA's methods, it goes right for the jugular of my argument by questioning its role as gatekeeper the US market. But he failed to establish his claim as my last couple of posts showed again religion being the reason for products not being on the market (as opposed to legit reasons about safety/whether stuff actually works! i.e. clinic trials). He may have something yet though... Maybe if he proves (or at least comes up with an argument) clinical trials are not the proper methodds for whatever reason.
    test
  4. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You misconstrued the agrument once again.

    The FDA restricts gene therapy due to ethnical concerns. I've proved your factless conjecture for WHY these new products have a slow time coming to the market for personal use wrong by showing you the obvious FDA restraints --> ethnical safeguarding regulations. These various regulations restrain and slow the role of gene therapy products entering the market for public patients.

    For example: Gene therapy has cured cancer (as I've already point out on page 3) but what the FDA does is erroreously state more infromation is needed for the public (i.e. their ethnical safeguarding doesn't really care what Gene therapy cures) Thus, gene therapy products remain in the pipe-line due to FDA ethnical safeguarding regulations. i.e. The bureaucratic facade.

    SCNT and germline modification are more FDA ethnical/religious concerns of gene theraphy.
    http://www.fda.gov/CBER/genetherapy/clone.htm
    http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid33452.aspx

    "SCNT is not reproduction since a sperm cannot be used with the technique, but rather it is an extension of technology used not only in research but also used to produce medically relevant cellular products such as cartilage cells for knees, as well as gene therapy products. On February 28, 1997, FDA announced a comprehensive plan for the regulation of cell and tissue based therapies that incorporated the legal authorities described in FDA's 1993 guidance Proposed Approach to Regulation of Cellular and Tissue-Based Products"

    This is not my argument. This is the FDA'S ethnical safeguarding restraining regulations at work here. As I provided.

    I just used the FDA to prove my point to you "ethnical safeguarding regulations" are why gene theraphy products are being restricted and slow to enter the market for patient consumption. Now stop misconstruing and retract.
    test
  5. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    That is a misconstruction of my argument though.

    I said "other reasons" such as "Religion concerns".

    As in: SCNT and germline modification issues as well.

    It's not hype the technology does cure. Come to think of it I should call your argument of creating biotech hype to only perpetuate more venture capitialist profit the actual hype here. Because it's nothing more than your premature alarmism conjecturing venture captialism hasn't yet produced a vast enough market for this "new working technology" which consumers can fully utilize. However, China has already done so. So Your conjectured premature alarmism doesn't make gene theraphy technology a failure at all. We're talking about a new technology here that is in it's infancy but actually works. What you've failed to realize though is gene theraphy products entering the market for consumer interaction are being controlled by the FDA which is nothing more than a huge bureaucratic nuisance restraining these new products from entering the market place quicker. You keep regurgitating your old talking points which are dead issues.
    test
  6. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Menaz: the proof you pointed out relates to cloning, its use in gene therapy, and FDA constraints. My concern is more about gene therapies, medicine, genetic tests stemming from correlating genes to disease, not from cloning. (as was establsihed early in the thread) Basically their 2 different fields (though I admit that they both use the term "genetic", so you if you want rally against the thread title solely, and ignore everything else, then you have a valid point)
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You asked me about the "other reasons" to which I provided the other answers as to why gene therapy is also FDA regulatory restrained. I already explained the former safeguarding reason to you as well. SCNT/germline modification are just "other reasons" because they're apart/utilized for Gene theraphy. And Gene therapy is the biomedicine being produced for market which I just explained has these "other reasons" for it's FDA regulatory restraints. The thing that concerns them most about gene therapy besides what was mentioned in post 64 is genetic manipulation/Germ-line gene therapy. i.e. They think these genes will be passed down to the next generation. So they are concerned it would violate the rights of subsequent generations to inherit a genetic endowment that has not been intentionally modified. They are also concerned it would open the door to attempts at altering traits not associated with disease, exacerbating problems of social discrimination.



    Anyway, Gene therapy is the biomedicine for treating/curing gene diseases. As in a gene transfer. The best way to create such genes is SCNT. All this new technology plays a key role in creating/helping/making biomedicine which is gene therapy which is all under FDA regulatory restraints. Every single aspect of this new biotechnology being utilized for biomedicine gene therapy purposes is under FDA regulatory restraints. Basically gene therapy is a genotypic pharmacology.

    And the most important element, actually one of the most important elements is the identification and cloning of the gene or genes related to the disease, which is maintained or treated by gene therapy.

    The factors that contribute to the treatments are either gene products, or are capable of interacting with gene products, or have the ability to interact with gene products in an individual cell or a group of cells. The interactions of contributing factors to gene therapy success are extremely capable of regulating particular genes, which either directly or indirectly, leads to the cure of a disease. As a result of this interaction a cure of the disease will be achieved through only a single treatment. Today, gene therapy is capable of curing not only genetic diseases, but also cancer, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, neurodegenerative disorders and other acquired diseases.
    test
  8. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    I think you have established your point concerning FDA restricting cloning based gene therapies. I actually agree with you here that this area shows promise, and falls outside of what I was talking about in terms of having alot of hype/little results. In the area of cloning, while there is certainly alot of hype, it does seem to be warrented so far.

    As per whether or not governments should be restricting cloning tech. Honestly that's such a difficult issue and is absolutely fundamental. Its a whole new debate really.

    Just as a preliminary, if we think about it from a property perspective. Since cloning a human being would give right to a human being, being endowed with human characteristics (i.e. the ability to reason, etc), thus the resulting technology (a new human) could not according to property theory be subject to property (you can't have property in a subject of property). So basically, anywhere and everywhere a company would reach cloning humans, the economic incentive to do so would be nill. They would also be hitting a battery of legal issues that would follow from creating a human being (a new subject of property, whcih would also have rights), which I'm sure they would like to avoid like the plague. Amazingly, here abortion activism has led to fetus having few rights (or their lack of granting) so there may be proproetary interest in cloning fetusus up to a certain point, unless of course they fix the legal loophole by, for instance, positing the following. That both fetusus and women have rights, but, in the case of carrying a child in pregnancy, a women's rights trump those of the infant, until said infant develops to a certian point. (which can be arbitary) This would prevent corps have having property rights in fetusus (ala matrix) and would fit within the existing legal framework with minimal alteration. One method through which this could be brought in (giving fetus rights) is through a criminal law case where a women gets stabbed and the fetus dies. Succesfully establishing a murder charge would in effect grant fetus human rights, and prevent future corporate interests in fetuses.

    While some may claim china would clone despite what hte west does. China is also subject to the same international regimes for IP that most of the world is signatory to, to whic htere are economic sanctions. Further, their market is largely the west (where they sell their goods), therefore the cost of developing such cloning technology would probably not be worth it either since they would not be able to sell their property in the west (if they were wto see clones as property). If China were to classify clones as persons, China already suffers from overpopulation and already has effective culturating regime for individuals bieng brought up in the state, what exactly would be the point of allowing cloning?

    An army of 10, one million, or 2 million within the same geographical distance can be wiped out by the same 10 megaton nuke. Further, raising clones would pose a huge expense for the state and would cause instability when they would come of age (same as people).


    I can see cloning of humans as something that will be done a few times, it will make headlines, etc... but the economic incentives just wont be there for it to happen again after that.
    The only people that I can really envision even wanting cloning is individuals wanting heirs, in particular those that cannot have children naturally. However, legal regimes may prevent this from occuring for policy reasons.

    of course property isn't the only consideation. There is also ethics of science, family law/politics, etc. Wider political theory (since it touches basically on absolute fundamentals)
    test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    There really is no hype here. Anyway, I'm glad you retracted and decided to agree on the gene theraphy issue.

    China is a sovereign state. There are many different nations that'll be willing to do economical business with China on human clones if as you assumed America won't do economical business with them at a later date. Russia did economical business with cuba for years. Infact, russia proped up cuba's economy and castro was under U.S. embargo which is much more severe than sanctions. Yet cuba found other buyers. China's economical business in this respect shouldn't be a problem either. Further more, China has already shown they can bank millions off the new gene therapy technology. China isn't looking to sell human clones at the moment. Got alittle head of yourself there.

    As I already pointed out China's figures and projected figures from this new gene therapy technology...

    "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 $5.7 billion in 2011."


    They're probabally not going to be cloning humans any time soon, but it could lead to that which is where more ethical concerns come in. Though I personally think they should clone humans. However, they'll most likely stay focused more on cloning genes (recombinant DNA technology) for now. And correct there are alot of moralistic ethical legality concerns over any type of cloning. That's not to say these moralistic ethical legality concerns can't be overcome at a later date.

    later.
    test
  10. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    your getting your arugments confused.

    Gendicine is a cell line based medication. (i.e. if it works, it would have/will be approved by the FDA). It dosen't really fall in the field of stuff stopped by the FDA for ethical reasons relating to cloning. i.e. its not gene therapy that involves cloning. In fact, I just read an article that it was tested and failed FDA tests for safety/lack of effectiveness reasons.

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_10/b3974104.htm


    basically your Gendicine arguments don't really relate to your new valid arguments about FDA and cloning regulations possibly blocking progress in the devleopment of new treatments. The Gendicine points are part of your old refuted way of thinking. stick to the new stuff, your regressing.

    test
  11. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Gendicine is a gene therapy, it is a genetically modified type-five adenovirus, which replicates inside tumour cells with dysfunctional p53 genes, killing them and stopping the cancer's spread. I.e. it's a unsophisticated gene-transfer.

    It works.

    [​IMG]

    dramatic improvements in patients treated with Gendicine after just two months.



    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200709/ai_n20517042
    Gendicine is doing fine, it didn't fail.
    http://fdcalerts.typepad.com/asia/2007/11/bendas-anticipa.html
    Infact, Gendicine is looking to enter the india Market in 2008.

    I'm not confused but you're trying to confuse what has been said to you. The cloning part was me explaining to you the OTHER REASONS. You asked so I explained. You've confused yourself. Even you're own article pointed out the FDA approved it in China.



    Gendicine did not Fail in China it has already been apporved by their SFDA for some time. That process still took time though due to SFDA restraints but their restraints are obviously alot more relaxed than the ones in America when it comes to that sort of biomedicine. All this has already been pointed out to you. And America is going to lose the Biomedicine race to china at this pace. lastly, You're atricle is from 2006. It's older news anyway.
    test
  12. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ^ that line of argument failed already. since no new points, don't feel like revisiting old topics.
    good luck in life!
    test
  13. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    arg! I should have shorted biotech stocks!!
    what do the top 10 biotech stocks of april 2007 have in common?
    Top 10 Emerging Biotech Stocks - Seeking Alpha

    80% of them failed to turn any profit (and still have not, for reasons stated in this thread), and subsequently their these companies stocks are now in the toilet with an average drop of about 75% from the point when this post was first made.
    test
  14. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    oh fuck. i especially should have shorted the company that made the so called "gendicine" whose promise menaz was using as an example to supposedly refute my point.

    Small Cap & OTC Stock Quotes and Company News
    price nov 2007 - 2.50$ (date of the article menaz posted)
    price april 2008 - ~0.30$ (around the time of this thread was started)
    price today: 0.07$

    so lets see, 90% drop in stock price. how close is this industry from the prediction that:

    "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 $5.7 billion in 2011."
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

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