Oh right--the only way to learn something is to do a clinical trial.Â::rolleyes::
Do you prefer a crystal ball or a divining rod? I guess we can fix climate change with more pirates too.
You can bet money the drug makers have known this for a while but kept silent to protect profits.
I doubt it. And I certainly doubt any of the companies making generic beta blockers know.
When a novel drug is created/discovered the company will pay for multiple animal trials and eventually human trials. That costs millions of dollars and half a decade to a dozen years to complete. The upshot is that if it does what it's supposed to do and has an acceptable number and frequency of side-effects it gets approval to be sold. So the company gets to be the sole provider for twenty years. Now they can make a slight change to that drug and go through an expedited approval and get another 20 years off of the modified version; but the original formula can now be produced and sold by any other pharmaceutical company. Keep in mind that less than 10% of drugs that go through clinical trials actually get approved. So those trials need to be paid for by the successful drugs as well. Many health insurance policies also pick up less of the cost of a brand name drug once generics become available as well.
Typically the original company stops making the drug once it can no longer compete with the generic manufacturers. Generic manufacturers aren't looking to do new studies on drugs because there's no benefit in doing so. Actually it would be very detrimental. Once the patent has expired, there's no benefit to doing further studies by the pharmaceutical companies because every company that makes a drug will benefit from a new study even if they didn't pay for it. This is why no companies run trials for herbal extracts or anything that can't be patented.
However there have been a lot of questions about the way in which many drug trials have been done. We know that the pharmaceutical companies have massaged the numbers to flat out lied. In many cases companies who do the trial have also lied out of fear that they wouldn't get more contracts if things didn't go the way the company wanted. But in this case, I'd guess that the cohort size of the original trial simply didn't pick up on this.
I think the word you're looking for is "shutter", referring to those wooden doors that people used to fold over their windows at night or in bad weather.
You are correct, but my phone had a different idea than me.
And I'm pretty sure that he was saying his company had a good visionary idea.
That might be what he believes. But no.
The co-founder of the company told TechCrunch their glasses would be the "first real step towards vibe thinking."
Was this co-founder trying to make a case for why the company should just shudder its operations?
It would be better to recycle the plastic, to sequester it, or to convert it to something that doesn't release those gases but can be used by us in some way.
It would be better if we could get all of our energy needs from magical fairy dust too. But that's not reality. As the person you replied to correctly stated, that fuel will be burned regardless. It can be extracted from the ground and refined, or it can come from plastic that's going to just break down into more microplastic.
Tossing it in a landfill and sealing it off is a temporary solution at best. Eventually whatever material that's being used to seal it away will deteriorate and release it or a natural disaster will. Converting it into something that isn't fuel or that won't decompose into microplastic will likely use even more energy.
USPS should be letter only, No bulk mail, no occupant mail.
So you want to tank the USPS? The total annual revenue for the post office is $80 billion. Bulk mail accounts for $15 billion of that.
Cool. Then in 2 generations everyone will move to West Virginia or Arkansas, drive squated trucks while flying the confederate flag. I guess on the flip side, they can roll coal all they want for a couple decades.
Conversations will be interesting:
"Hi, this is my wife-sister-cousin Betty Sue."
"Yes, I know. Betty Sue is my sister-aunt"
And this is why you should only buy HDDs, SSDs, and thumbdrives from Amazon themselves
No, you shouldn't. I tried buying a Seagate drive from "Amazon themselves" last year. The first was used and the warranty was expired. So I exchanged it. The next one was the same, and additionally had a counterfeit label on the drive. It was actually a convincing fake label but the QR code went to a bogus website that looked like the Seagate website and the label was missing the Seagate website address. The third was also used with an expired warranty and the counterfeit lable on that one didn't have the Seagate website or a QR code. None of them were valid according to the Seagate warranty check website.
The one I ordered from Newegg actually checked out as valid on the Seagate website. Basically you should only order a spinning disk from a place on the company's verified retailer list that's not named Amazon.
The hard drive is going to be running in the datacenter whether you store something on it or not. Deleting the email will cause more heat, because you'll have to process the info.
Yes, but they also said pictures. Have you never lifted a box full of photographs? Those things are heavy. One-thousand 4x6 photos weights 3 kg. Just think about how much extra energy it takes for a spinning disk with an extra 3 kg of pictures saved on it must use. According to Google 1TB can hold 25,000 to 500,000 pictures. Even on the low end, that's 1500 kg of extra weight on a 20TB spinning disk.
It's madness I tell you
Sincerely.
UK government
Hey dipshit, by your own numbers W. earned $20M and Biden earned less than $9M (after 16 years of inflation).
Hey dipshit, the point was that Biden was making money for his family, just as the OP was accusing Trump of doing. As I also posted, Trump himself actually lost money during his first term. Something that no other president has done in modern times.
So, Biden earned the least. But you're a raving shilling dipshit, so you had to try to spin it to fit your fantasy narrative.
No, Trump earned the least. He actually lost money.
GTFO
Seek mental help.
1. Norway isn't a big producer (2.2% of world);
Just 5.5 million people are benefiting from selling 2.2% of the global oil. So
None of this should be normal, but the GOP won't hold him accountable so here we are.
While I agree with you, what Trump is doing is no different than what others have done prior. Hell, Trump actually lost money after his first term. He went from a net worth of $3 billion to $2.3 billion after he got out in 2020.
Obama had a net worth of $1.3 million in 2008 and was worth $70 million when he left office. His "foundation" is worth almost $1 billion. Most of that will go toward paying his family and friends as most of those types of foundations do.
Bush Jr. went from $20 million to $40 million. Which is the most modest gain since Reagan.
Clinton was worth $1.3 million when he got in office and was worth over $240 million when he left in 2000. But they claimed they were broke.
Bush Sr. was worth $4 million when he became president and $23 million when he left office. Granted, he only had 4 years.
Reagan was worth $10.6 million in 1980 and $15.4 when he left. Considering the inflation we had in the early 1980's, that's not as great as it sounds.
Biden is an interesting one. His net worth in 2009 was $30K. Just $30 thousand. By the time he left office as vice president he was worth $270K. By 2019 he manged to get that up to $9 million. But his son raked in almost $7 million between 2013 and 2016 alone. If you look at where his income came from it makes no sense as he wasn't qualified for any of the roles he had. And then there's the "art". I'm pretty sure everyone with an IQ above 50 understands that art is one of the biggest money laundering schemes there is.
Byte your tongue.
