PhilGeis

There is short term reporting requirement for isolation of some microbes - such as biological warfare agents - and there are disease reporting requirements https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6253a1.htm. Think the presumption that clinical labs are competent and would promptly engage state health dpts labs and CDC addresses broader issues you mention. I'd not get too concerned re. "pandemic" - the term has been been overused https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/ and become hollywood melodrama ala "Hot Zone."

I understand the perception re manufacturing but that's still subjective on our part. I'm sure capital investment, research, compliance and controls have increased nominal costs but they may well have been limited by efficiencies, and big increases in so few years is tough to understand. Lilly et al. should answer the question and to dimreep's point, gov should pressure for that answer. But 1 for 1? man on the moon? don't understand the meaning of the former and the latter return has just been funded for 1.6 billion - certainly not at the cost of NIH budget. Strawman? I'll offer what i see as relevance of the Kodak lesson. It was intended to address the comment that money is against solving the issues with diabetes. With > billion in research for diabetes, if there is a "cure" or "prevention" to be discovered - Lilly and the other 2 would be foolish if they didn;t both carefully follow current research as well as maintain their own effort. A single pivotal publication could immediately hit their stock price - a temporary inconvenience - if/until with success the happy researcher formed his/her own startup. No impact on insulin profits yet - just as Kodak saw no impact on theirs until ~ turn of the century. Presuming additional success the startup technology goes to the highest bidder or is knocked off by somebody else. Again presuming success - it is only a matter of time.

No - neither argument /attack here or before. So you haven't read the citations sufficiently to summarize the "validity' claimed and do not have support for "...formulation and manufacturing cost is completely unchanged for decades." Please recall these were your statements.

Oh sure, they are all evil. Perhaps you shouldn't presume others would apply your morals. Government disinterest? With > billion in funding diabetes research-(that's just the NIH) and grant recipients eager for their own startup opportunities? If there is gov "disinterest" its lies in pressuring appropriate costs and that is clearly an open question for this and many drug products. Think you guys fail to understand how business thinks long term - developing technology has no exclusivity. Let me help you understand how business sees technology. Please consider the lesson taught in business schools as well as business training in all major companies. In 1975 Kodak developed digital photography, a technology they chose not to develop and market as it would cannibalize their existing film/camera business. Kodak employed ~150,000 FTE’s globally at that time. in the 90's the technology was marketed by other folks– Kodak could not catch up and lost ~ everything, declared bankruptcy in 2012. Their plan - sell the patents they still possessed and get into the copier business with remaining ~2000 FTE’s. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging-to-a-future-beyond-film.html The lesson – that Lilly et al fully understand – technology will bring advances that can obsolete your core business. You’ll not know this unless you pursue its development and, if it is discovered, you’re screwed if you don’t own it. I hope the above helps. I know it easy to throw some references on a post. - but i think there was reference to validity and specifics. . Can you take me through the claimed validation and again - can you please review materials and manufacturing costs. I'm suggesting nothing re. the latter - it was your affirmative statement about which I inquired "...formulation and manufacturing cost is completely unchanged for decades."

The original post focused therapies and prevention not on price. Since you've focused on price, mind sharing the claimed validation? Shouldn't be hard since so obvious - or is it a bias?. and please understand "big pharma" is more than the three insulin suppliers. If others could obtain a share - or all of the diabetes business - they would. I don;t know the price structure or understand why costs have doubled just in this decade. Lilly for one offers what appears to be a tangential response that doesn't answer the question . https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/eli-lilly-discloses-pricing-data-for-its-popular-insulin-humalog.html as you claim to know = what are the manufacturing and materials costs through the decades? Separately - do agree with iNow's comment were lifetime immunosuppressive therapy the risks of which are probably much greater than the current insulin therapy .

There are effectively three companies producing insulin for the world. Rather than holier-than-thou "big pharma" bashing, consider for one Lilly's current reported diabetes research https://www.lilly.com/partners/scientific-areas-of-interest as well as NIH billion+ diabetes research program https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/budget-legislative-information/diabetes-research-improving-lives-path-cure-2015.

The body produces bicarbonate and it is a intermediate compound in carbon dioxide elimination as well as pH balance. Not aware there is a boric acid application "in" the body. Takes a lot of boric acid ingested to establish toxic effect.

Most paper comes from tree plantations and managed forests - renewable resources. I'd not worry too much for our extinction.

search @ Google scholar

Counts in commercial yogurt are often not stable - to the extent the strains as viable counts are actually "probiotic" in you, the numbers are likely too low to be effective.

From healthy folks - urine is usually near sterility and vaginal flora would offer fairly harmless Lactobacilli

Certainly some diseases can - be "inherited". HIV can be a congenital disease and our normal flora/microbiomes originates in part from parents. to the other aspects of your question - acquired characteristics are generally not heritable. http://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions-and-treatments/conditions/c/congenital-hiv/symptoms-and-causes

Sulfonilamides are aniline derivatives - chemotherapeutics not antibiotics per se. As hypervalent said, resistance is an issue both specific MRSA and general - pseudomonads and anaerobes. Antibiotics when developed were more effective.

suggest you check with the supplier - bioMerieux. What is application - pharma?

To continue pedantry - all species are/were "invasive" - those present/the condition observed at the time of human/our observation are seen as resident. As all is to human or any species or group's perspective (it's all about us) - we're "ok" killing those (resident or invasive of whatever species or tribe) we don;t like esthetically or health wise, those we kill for food or sport, those eliminated indirectly in our economic efforts, etc.. in our societal organizations we do compel and kill others of our species but what would be benefit of killing those who drained the swamps - esp. as many of those activities were beneficial at the time. btw - much more than 98% of the world's species have disappeared. Should we exterminate photosynthesis because of its toxic waste product?