• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Professional Looters Agree To Reduce Looting By 111 Billion Next Year

michaelsuede said:
While drug creation is a complex process, determining the effectiveness of a drug in human trials is a straight forward procedure that any doctor should be capable of preforming.
Click to expand...

It depends on the drug, but in general, no it's not. In this case we're talking about treating brain cancers. The average doctor wouldn't even have the knowledge to assess progress, let alone the equipment.

Just because it doesn't follow the formal protocols established by today's practices doesn't mean it is ineffective or not a valid way of conducting research.
Click to expand...

Correct. It's an ineffective and invalid way of conducting research because it wouldn't work.

We would know if a doctor prescribed it properly etc.. etc.. etc.. because he would be following the manufacturers guidelines and issuing his reports in a standardized format.
Click to expand...

There are no manufacturer's guidelines for use of the drug in treating cancer. Research is what develops those guidelines

There is no reason why such standardized reports could not be created and issued to doctors who volunteer to engage in research of the drug.
Click to expand...

Who would be issuing these standardized reports? In your "protocol" there's not even an overseeing team. Just a bunch of doctor's who for some reason are individually testing a drug. Who coordinated it? Who developed the protocols and experimental design? Who collected, collated, and analysed the data?

Where do they come from? On loan from a society with government funded research?
 
icerat said:
It depends on the drug, but in general, no it's not. In this case we're talking about treating brain cancers. The average doctor wouldn't even have the knowledge to assess progress, let alone the equipment.



Correct. It's an ineffective and invalid way of conducting research because it wouldn't work.



There are no manufacturer's guidelines for use of the drug in treating cancer. Research is what develops those guidelines



Who would be issuing these standardized reports? In your "protocol" there's not even an overseeing team. Just a bunch of doctor's who for some reason are individually testing a drug. Who coordinated it? Who developed the protocols and experimental design? Who collected, collated, and analysed the data?

Where do they come from? On loan from a society with government funded research?
Click to expand...

Your missing the entire point.

There are no standardized procedures for distributed testing because the freaking State doesn't allow for that!

That's my entire point. The entire way drugs are tested would be wide open for change.

As for your brain doctor comment, who would be prescribing the drugs? Brain doctors right? So they would be the ones responsible for filling out the test forms for brain tumor drugs.

If a drug is created for brain tumors that needs testing, obviously brain doctors would be the ones prescribing the drug, and therefore they would be the ones monitoring the results of the drug tests.

The report collectors and analyzers would be third party review sites, just like consumer reports, only for drugs.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, if nothing else I'm not entirely confident on listening to economists on the details of medical research. But, I guess, saying economists understand science better than the actual scientists is how we role in libertopia.
 
michaelsuede said:
I have prepared.

I own junk silver to barter with, a large stash of storable food, firearms, ammunition, water filtration units, Bitcoins, and other urban survival necessities in the event that socialist chaos erupts from the discontinuation of State handouts or a breakdown of the monetary system.
Click to expand...

Do you have Kim from 24 trapped in your basement?
 
michaelsuede said:
As for your brain doctor comment, who would be prescribing the drugs? Brain doctors right? So they would be the ones responsible for filling out the test forms for brain tumor drugs.

If a drug is created for brain tumors that needs testing, obviously brain doctors would be the ones prescribing the drug, and therefore they would be the ones monitoring the results of the drug tests.
Click to expand...

Well, brain doctors, or anyone who has managed to fake the brain doctor certificates in order to scam people for money, safe in the knowledge that there is no government to shut them down for it.
 
michaelsuede said:
Funny.

The Mises article of the day is about this topic:

http://mises.org/daily/5462/The-Pretense-of-Medical-Knowledge
Click to expand...

I'll give that a read later.

michaelsuede said:
Your missing the entire point.

There are no standardized procedures for distributed testing because the freaking State doesn't allow for that!

That's my entire point. The entire way drugs are tested would be wide open for change.
Click to expand...

And you're missing the entire point.

So it's open for change. I get that. But in the example given, where is the market motivation to do anything?

You just say "this can be done" - but you've given no explanation of who would do it or why. Sure it could be done. In fact the "distributed testing" you claim doesn't happen because of state regulations is done in drug trials today.

But you still haven't addressed the point. In your model - who is going to pay for it? (and why?)
 
michaelsuede said:
I know I'm greatly simplifying the drug testing processes in my commentary, but the basics of allowing doctors to run their own experiments and compile reports is a completely valid way of doing drug testing. While drug creation is a complex process, determining the effectiveness of a drug in human trials is a straight forward procedure that any doctor should be capable of preforming.
Click to expand...

Running drugs trials is very complicated not least to ensure that you have the correct candidates, the correct protocols and the correct blinding. These days there are treatments for most conditions so a lot of it comes down to statistics, determining whether the drug on trial more effective than placebo and existing treatments. Likewise with side effects, do they statistically outweigh the benefits (and vs. placebo and existing treatments)

Doctors don't have the funds, the numbers of patients or the ability to do this work.

If it all goes wrong, who do you sue, the Pharma company or the Doctor who ran (part of) the trial ?

I Know you don't think there's a problem here, I just wanted to explain to other thread participants some of the complexities involved.
 
You guys aren't seeing all the potential cost saving measures of medical experimentation in a completely free market society.

First of all it costs very little to get test subjects. There's no law or safety protocol here. If you need some people to test some drugs on just have the security force you employ round up some of society's dregs. Any complaints from them, "Hey what am I doing here, what's that you're injecting me with??" are really just a minor concern. If they were any sort of people worth worrying about they'd have hired a security force to protect themselves. Since they haven't (or their security force isn't as strong as yours) they clearly don't value their safety very much.

The free market really can solve all problems.
 
Michael,

I have two very honest questions, as this is by no means my area of expertise.

1. I understand you want to scrap the current system of government, but I'm confused as to what you want to replace it with. How is whatever you're suggesting different than anarchy?

2. Regarding your answer to the first question, can you point to an example where it has worked, present or past?

Thanks.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Michael,

I have two very honest questions, as this is by no means my area of expertise.

1. I understand you want to scrap the current system of government, but I'm confused as to what you want to replace it with. How is whatever you're suggesting different than anarchy?

2. Regarding your answer to the first question, can you point to an example where it has worked, present or past?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

1. Libertopia

2. Somalia. Although, I'm not so sure about the "worked" part.
 
PGH said:
You guys aren't seeing all the potential cost saving measures of medical experimentation in a completely free market society.

First of all it costs very little to get test subjects. There's no law or safety protocol here. If you need some people to test some drugs on just have the security force you employ round up some of society's dregs. Any complaints from them, "Hey what am I doing here, what's that you're injecting me with??" are really just a minor concern. If they were any sort of people worth worrying about they'd have hired a security force to protect themselves. Since they haven't (or their security force isn't as strong as yours) they clearly don't value their safety very much.

The free market really can solve all problems.
Click to expand...

That's one of my issues with anarcho-caps, they have an interesting theory on how to run things without a government, but I don't see what prevents the above scenario from happening without a government that protects everyone's rights. The anarcho-caps agree that everyone should be protected from that sort of thing, but who protects people without money? Is there supposed to be a charity-run security force? How do you ensure such a thing will exist?
 
michaelsuede said:
orly?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade

Check out the growth in the past few months.

This is what the trade page looked like in February:
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Trade&oldid=3537

This is what it looks like 6 months later:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade

I figure it will be so full of vendors by the end of the year that a special search page will need to be created to deal with them all.
Click to expand...

I mentioned that list specifically, and the comment stands. A few charities, some Internet services, alpaca socks and a few businesses here and there.

That is no take-up whatsoever. The reasons are easy to see. Speculative market, no liquidity, dodgy exchanges (did you see what happened to dwolla?), scams and hacking left and right.

That is not the basis for an economic revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom