They definitely do cause issues - higher risk of exciting cancers and a generally more sickly existence. Studies in IBD have their efficacy at 20-30% of patients in remission after a year so they're only somewhat effective (vs half that for placebo). Anecdotally (from my own experience, and from talking to my doctors) quality of life can be poor - mind crushing fatigue is fairly common. Admittedly the fatgue may be the cocktail of other crap in my body!
Something new with few side effects might help lots of people avoid surgery.
Sorry to hear of your experience, but wanted to say for others that autoimmune diseases and the associated medications are complex beasts and ymmv...
I have been on a TNF-a inhibitor for over a year and the results thus far have been literally life changing - for the better. I haven't been this healthy or had this much energy since before adulthood.
In the US anti-TNF biologics treatments can cost several thousand dollars per month. Even with patents expiring this year the industry isn't expecting dramatic price drops due to the different regulatory process for bio-similars versus a typical generic drug.
I'm sure there are many patients who would be happy for a more cost effective option.
"several thousand" is "list price" for single shots and no or fake health insurance.
In practice insurance companies negotiate the price down and average patient pays much less than that.
Major drug makers are ready to go the second the patents expire. Prices should drop dramatically for something like Humira (adalimumab) and biosimilars.
Major problem with generic biomimetics is that without the feedstock creating infliximab etc a generic's -mab is actually going to hit the receptor in a different way, and there is some evidence (sorry, on mobile and on holidays, don't have the resource available) that such 'generics' will actually function differently.
Interesting question is whether they then need to go through the process of FDA/similar approval.
The cost savings aren't as simple as just creating the chemical structure... We are talking about immunoglobulins
And they also come with some unpleasant side-effects: a much higher incidence of skin cancer and all the risks that come with being immunosuppressed. (Plus the disadvantages - if you like soft cheese and deli meats, being on an anti-TNF drug will suck.)
Having a depressed immune system means you're more likely to contract things like listeria or toxo plasmosis which are commonly found in cured meats and soft cheeses. This is also the reason why pregnant women are advised against eating them.
"In one circuit, termed “the inflammatory reflex,” action potentials transmitted in the vagus nerve inhibit the production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), an inflammatory molecule that is a major therapeutic target in RA. Although studied in animal models of arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, whether electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve can inhibit TNF production in humans has remained unknown. The positive mechanistic results reported here extend the preclinical data to the clinic and reveal that vagus nerve stimulation inhibits TNF and attenuates disease severity in RA patients."
Private, endowment and British funds can make up for the EU.
Getting out from under EU regulations and negotiating as a free agent is a better deal for most Brits.
[ edit: must have touched a nerve. +1 to -4 in an instant. ]
If private endowment wanted to fund those researchers - they would have already done so, since they respond to market forces and not on charity towards North Wales.
The reason why the EU was providing funding was because market forces were unwilling to.
I don't doubt there are funds in the UK, but so far it's been far more common to rely on the EU for projects that require a longer or more nebulous time horizon, with little or no payback.
- Human rights are governed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is a separate organization and treaty than the EU. It's unlikely the UK will leave the Council of Europe too.
- Safety regulations on products are part of the single market treaties, just as free movement of people is. If the UK wants to remain in the EEA (e.g. through membership of the EFTA), it will still have to accept those.
And this coming from a politician that, for most of the Brexit campaign, kept on the sidelines because she was undecided about which side to choose? From a minister that introduced the Snooper's Charter, massively expanding the scope of their intelligence services? Yeah, those pesky human rights could well interfere with her method of governing.
But her statement really shows her (willful) ignorance:
"The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights"
As the home office minister, she should know damn well that the ECHR has no teeth except for EU regulation. Leave the EU, and there is no enforcement mechanism left for ECHR rulings. Not to mention the inconsistency of her own statement: how come the ECHR binds the hands of the UK government, but not Russia's? (The answer is above: it's EU regulation, not ECHR that bound her hands).
Well, for example all the bad stuff TTIP will bring the rest of Europe? Everybody here is pissed about TTIP. Now the Brits vote to get into a position to do something about such undemocratic bs and suddenly they are the bad guys? I see the pro-EU marketing campaign in which all the smart, rich and famous people that you should want to be like, say pro EU things, is working well. Even among the intellectual HN crowd.
All this anti UK sentiment is caused by fear mongering from the pro-EU lobby. The Brits are our friends, but just like the Russians, they don't dance to the tune of the power hungry EU bureaucrats and the propaganda machine is suddenly aimed in their direction.
People keep talking about how the UK will be able to negotiate its own market access deals after brexit. What that means in practice is that if TTIP goes ahead it will be the only route to US trade deals.
Also TTIP is the kind of think I can see a Conservative government signing up to immediately. The UK is far more "free market" than the rest of Europe.
> Well, for example all the bad stuff TTIP will bring the rest of Europe? Everybody here is pissed about TTIP. Now the Brits vote to get into a position to do something about such undemocratic bs and suddenly they are the bad guys?
As far as I understand it the UK was a very strong driving force behind TTIP..
Getting us into this mess and then leaving before the consequences start to affect you, isn't very nice to say the least.
The majority of the population has used drugs illegaly.
You're saying "we aren't in control of ourselves" ? Most folks can handle a joint or an oxy or an underage brewski.
Abuse should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. We need to take the cops and lawyers and the prison industry out of fixing it.
Implementing the drug laws in practice targets the poor and minorities.
People illegally selling hard drugs should go to jail. As for the rest of the War on Drugs' imprisonment policy, I'll agree that it's counterproductive and harmful.
I respectfully disagree. People who sell drugs are by and large non-violent offenders.
American prisons would have plenty more room to keep pedophiles in prison and off probation if the cells weren't packed wall to wall with non-violent drug offenders.
Like that FiveThirtyEight piece I linked to points out, releasing everyone that's in prison for primarily drug crimes will only reduce the prison population by 14%. The headline figures of 50% that you hear includes anyone that has any drug charge as part of their conviction, even if it's not the most serious charge.
14% is a sizable share, and, in any case, a large portion of those with drug and other charges, rather than just did charges, have all the charges stemming from drug-related activities or transactions, or otherwise connected to drug prohibition (similarly many with no drug charges, but only other charges); ending the war on drugs wouldn't just eliminate the imprisonment tied solely to dig charges.
Leaving the harsh regulations of this customs union can benefit Britain and non-EU trading countries.
They're better offer negotiating as a free agent.
I'm fairly confident of one but, of course, timing is difficult and carry costs of short positions are high (they nearly killed Scion) so I prefer to simply wait out the market.
It depends on the mutual fund and the ETF. For Vanguard 500, the VOO ETF and the VFIAX index fund are effectively the same, they even have the same expense ratio. The latter you need $10k upfront though. (VFINX, if you only have between $3k and $10k, has a higher expense ratio.)
VFIAX is not a mutual fund, it's just the "Admiral" class of the VOO ETF. Admirals shares offer lower expense ratios in many instances, but I guess the VOO expense was already at its floor.
VFIAX is a mutual fund. Vanguard holds a patent which allows a dual share class, where the ETFs and mutual funds share the same pool of securities. This allows share conversions from mutual fund->ETF, interestingly.
Not exactly a good argument for mutual funds being the same cost as ETFs though. It's only technically a mutual fund from what I can tell. I see your point though.
Vanguard's Admiral share mutual funds almost never differ in cost from their ETFs.
As for it only "technically" being a mutual fund: consider that VFIAX predates VOO by 10 years. How does that square with VFIAX only "technically" being a mutual fund, when presumably it was a real, honest mutual fund in the years 2000-2010 (before VOO was introduced)
