View Single Post
Old 2011-03-04, 01:23   Link #162
ruurguy
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr View Post
What. If what you mean is "scr is dismissing the possibility of QB being evil", I never stated that. My opinion is that QB _is_ evil, but maybe I didn't make it obvious enough.
Mmm, I'm going to start off by saying I am probably debating a bit just because I like debates as long as they don't go wildly off course and don't devolve into just slander. I'm going to try to avoid that but if you think my arguments are stupid or just don't want to continue though just let me know and I'll drop it =) Anyway, no, my statement was arguing because you believe it is 'evil' and I was trying to make an argument against that, although it is clearly amoral, a sociopath by human standards, alien, and almost certainly the antagonist in the series. I fully get that your opinion is that it is evil.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scr View Post
Yes, it can. That's _exactly_ why there are all sort of tests, so that the flaws can be discovered now rather than later. This is the reason why medicines are so goddamn [the rest of expletives redacted] expensive to the dismay of the people in the undeveloped countries: even if those medicines are cheap to make, testing new medicines makes the cost rise to stellar level.
Mmm, ok, let me deconstruct a few parts about this argument:

1) Are you aware of drugs like Procrit, Vioxx, and others? Procrit is an EPO used to treat anemia, primarily in cancer patients who may or may not be in chemo or radiation therapy. You may know it more commonly as the drug cyclers (like Lance Armstrong) might take to boost their red blood cell levels as a PED. Procrit was like most drugs heavily researched, went through extensive clinical trials, had millions if not billions of dollars poured into it, and yes, cost into the "stellar levels". Almost all cancer patients get anemic at some point, so it was routine to give them Procrit regardless of whether they were on chemo or radiation. Are you aware that later studies showed that for cancer patients who weren't actively on chemo and radiation therapy though that Procrit had little benefit and that it actually led to deaths of some of those patients that were not directly related to their cancer?

How about vioxx, a drug for osteoarthritis and acute pain. I'm sure you have heard of the lawsuits for its increase in chance for heart attacks. Whether all the lawsuits are justified or not is of course questionable. Numerous were thrown out. However it is without a doubt true that the drug has an increased chance of heart attack AND it was not properly documented, warned, or even known about before the drug was released. This is a major drug from Merck that went through extensive testing, extensive clinical trial, thousands of clinical trial subjects, and yet still didn't find all the side effects. Testing isn't perfect. It is basically impossible to cover every co-morbidity and concomitant medication and even just the various factors like ages, gender, and more. It is NOT neat and clean. You seem to be a bit idealistic in thinking that drug companies can actually test everything about these things before release and no issues ever pop up.

2) Deconstructing a different part, are you aware of how much research we have done using animals. Is this "wrong"? Some people believe it is. Animal rights activists are a huge force. In order to get sufficient sample to determine efficacy on a large number of subjects it seems like a "necessary evil" to test on animals. What is your opinion on this? Does a couple of hundred mice or other animals make a difference to you? Let's say that it is your only shot to prove some efficacy in your drug that otherwise would never get funding. This drug has to potential to save millions of people. Is this a necessary evil? What if we are the gerbils and mice to the QB? Ok, the entropy thing is kinda stupid in a pseudo science fiction sort of way. But we'll just substitute it with some other "for the greater good" ideal.

If you don't want to go into animals, how about the patients we use for actual clinical trials? Subjects for say a Phase III clinical trial are sick, in pain, or otherwise in need of medical attention with possibly a variety of things and are mostly volunteers. The drugs we find may kill them prematurely. But they were going to die anyway, and we found a safety risk because of them. Is this a necessary evil? They volunteered afterall to be test subjects. While some patients I guess wouldn't mind doing the greater good by showing there was a risk, I'm sure most of them are taking the drug in the hopes it is the miracle to make them better. To save them from a terminal illness or to relieve them of pain, etc.

Drug development is extremely hard, extremely time consuming, extremely expensive, and most of all, still imperfect. A lot of time and effort is going into designing better clinical trials, reducing costs, limiting risks, but if you think it is perfect and tested drugs never have issues you are sorely mistaken. That is reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scr View Post
Have you ever heard of this neat little thing called Occam's Razor?
Sure. Are you trying to use the definition "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one"? Because that is not actually what occam's razor is technically. It is that you must have reason for bringing in plurality (basically extraneous assumptions and arguments) should not be brought in without cause. I am of course arguing that there is possibly cause beyond "it is evil". Occam's razor means we should tend toward the simpler theories, but it does not meant that the simplest theory is the right one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scr View Post
This is my expectation too.
Yup, I hope so too personally that they figure something out. I am just hoping it isn't TOO sweet and far fetched. Damn you Mai Hime -_-

@Triple_R: Hmm so is your main issue with the entropy issue (which I agree with others is in the end a kind of silly idea to use but it's not the first time) is that it is a sci fi element? Are you saying that let's say it was some mystical magical thing like the balance of "witch power" or "grief power" or some even "happiness power" that it would have been ok? But it is just about the sci fi element that disturbs you? If so I think you are taking the element a bit too seriously. I think in the end it is just a sort of morality argument and he used a sci fi element cause Gen thought it would sound cool. But it is essentially just a "greater good" morality argument which I think most people were predicting of some sort. So sure the literal sci fi element is out of left field but I don't think the general principle of it is that shocking, and I don't really have an issue with it as a result.

Last edited by CrowKenobi; 2011-03-04 at 03:06. Reason: Don't double post, use the EDIT button instead...
ruurguy is offline   Reply With Quote