An interesting article http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/07/us-survival-statistics.html#more discussed marginal returns from medical care. I'd describe the curves shown as "squaring the curve". It's what happens when survival rates for individual illnesses improve, but the underlying problem of the aging process isn't addressed.
Most major causes of death grow exponentially with age - roughly 7% per year. Demographers will tell you that reducing the death rate from any given illness by 50% will give a pretty marginal improvement in overall longevity because the death rate from other things will grow very quickly and replace most of the improvement. In fact, reducing the overall deathrate by 50% would only increase lifespan by about 10 years.
The answer: research aimed at aging itself. This would be much, much more cost effective than trying to hold back the tide of individual illnesses. Unfortunately, drug companies don't want to tackle that - they publicly say so.
Now, is aging curable? Of course. The human body is not supernatural - it's an engineering marvel that can be reverse engineered and understood.
Why do small mammals like mice live 4 years and very similar small mammals like bats live 40 years? Why do some birds live 6 years, and other 60 years? There are obviously very small genetic differences that can be understood and used to develop drugs or genetic treatments.
To believe otherwise is, IMHO, a religious statement.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Is more spending on medicine good?
It's often said that the US spends twice as much as other countries like Canada and the UK, while it's residents live no longer.
So, are we wasting our money?
No.
Simple comparisons are seductive, but misleading.
The US has significantly more obesity than the rest of the world (the health effects of this - diabetes, heart disease, etc are commonly known as "diseases of affluence - this isn't a moral judgement, it's a reflection of the fact that affluence brings more and cheaper food, and less physical labor), and that obesity has been rising during the last 30 years. Obesity has a very large effect on lifespan and morbidity - this has to be taken into account in any analysis.
Further, the US funds drug development for the rest of the world.
Bottom line: as agriculture and manufacturing shrink due to continuing growth in labor productivity, goods give way to services. Which service sectors of the economy would you consider as value added? Which would you target for expansion: entertainment, law, finance, or medicine???
So, are we wasting our money?
No.
Simple comparisons are seductive, but misleading.
The US has significantly more obesity than the rest of the world (the health effects of this - diabetes, heart disease, etc are commonly known as "diseases of affluence - this isn't a moral judgement, it's a reflection of the fact that affluence brings more and cheaper food, and less physical labor), and that obesity has been rising during the last 30 years. Obesity has a very large effect on lifespan and morbidity - this has to be taken into account in any analysis.
Further, the US funds drug development for the rest of the world.
Bottom line: as agriculture and manufacturing shrink due to continuing growth in labor productivity, goods give way to services. Which service sectors of the economy would you consider as value added? Which would you target for expansion: entertainment, law, finance, or medicine???
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Medical research
I read http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2011/07/peak-university.html and thought the following:
As best I can tell, medical research is being stifled by "careerism", in which researchers produce as little as possible about a topic which is as narrow and limited as possible, in order to publish a string of papers just important enough to publish. That way they can get the maximum number of papers from the minimum of real research, and preserve and extend their career.
This has the effect of delaying real breakthroughs as long as possible.
What do you think?
As best I can tell, medical research is being stifled by "careerism", in which researchers produce as little as possible about a topic which is as narrow and limited as possible, in order to publish a string of papers just important enough to publish. That way they can get the maximum number of papers from the minimum of real research, and preserve and extend their career.
This has the effect of delaying real breakthroughs as long as possible.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)