Guppyman
Aquarium Advice FINatic
Just saw a trite, banal and superficial report by Dan Rather on CBS News. What a waste of the airwaves. There wasn't one relevant or inteligent point presented. What a joke! - Guppyman
CBS News and GloFish
- Thread starter Guppyman
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
lyquidphyre
Aquarium Advice Addict
I wish I had watched it!
My only problem with this whole thing is they spend all sorts of time making things they can market but still can't find a cure for cancer. Instead of making fish glow in the dark to make big bucks, why not spend that time and money on something a little more important.
I think it is neat and all.. and I will prolly wind up buying a few... but none the less.
My only problem with this whole thing is they spend all sorts of time making things they can market but still can't find a cure for cancer. Instead of making fish glow in the dark to make big bucks, why not spend that time and money on something a little more important.
I think it is neat and all.. and I will prolly wind up buying a few... but none the less.
Enki
Aquarium Advice Freak
The technology was developed for a useful purpose, the first ones they developed would start to glow only if there was certain chemicals in the water, using the fish to track pollution, but then they just made the short leap to fish that glow all the time. So it is not like they planned on making these fish just for aquariums.
What is scarier than the glowing fish, IMO, is the fact that ALL the TV news is superficial, trite and banal. The press is only free if you already own one
What is scarier than the glowing fish, IMO, is the fact that ALL the TV news is superficial, trite and banal. The press is only free if you already own one
Guppyman
Aquarium Advice FINatic
GloFish
It's not like their taking money AWAY from cancer research to do genetic engineering on fish. And, yes - these were developed for the important scientific research of finding harmful pollutants in water - that can cause cancer. So there you go! For lack of a better term, "Two birds with one stone."
If everyone actually knew WHY these fish were developed and how they are being used there would be very little complaint from anyone about their existence. Do they belong in the aquarium hobby? Why not? They certainly can't hurt anything and I'd have no problem if they became wildly successful. I feel that the folks who spent a fortune on the R&D of these creatures are entitled to make their money back any way they can. As far as the "what's next" question - it doesn't matter. We are powerless to stop technology unless you want to become an environmental anarchist. Science and technology created most of the mess that we and the planet are in and only science and technology can save us.
They can take all the money they use to develop a new candy bar and put it to curing cancer, OR take all the money everyone spends at NFL games on just one Sunday - but that's just not how the world works. Some things in life are serious and some are frivolous. And what's frivolous to one person is serious to the next. That's the reality of life. Long live the GloFish. - Guppyman
It's not like their taking money AWAY from cancer research to do genetic engineering on fish. And, yes - these were developed for the important scientific research of finding harmful pollutants in water - that can cause cancer. So there you go! For lack of a better term, "Two birds with one stone."
If everyone actually knew WHY these fish were developed and how they are being used there would be very little complaint from anyone about their existence. Do they belong in the aquarium hobby? Why not? They certainly can't hurt anything and I'd have no problem if they became wildly successful. I feel that the folks who spent a fortune on the R&D of these creatures are entitled to make their money back any way they can. As far as the "what's next" question - it doesn't matter. We are powerless to stop technology unless you want to become an environmental anarchist. Science and technology created most of the mess that we and the planet are in and only science and technology can save us.
They can take all the money they use to develop a new candy bar and put it to curing cancer, OR take all the money everyone spends at NFL games on just one Sunday - but that's just not how the world works. Some things in life are serious and some are frivolous. And what's frivolous to one person is serious to the next. That's the reality of life. Long live the GloFish. - Guppyman
ferret
Aquarium Advice Addict
You won't see a cure for Cancer. Or for AIDS. There's more money to be made with the treatment than in curing it.
ferret said:
That is a pretty bold statement! Actually, there is a cure for many cancers already. Depending on the kind of cancer (there are so many different types of cancer you can't really lump them into one), a different % of people are cured. A lot of the cancer treatments, like surgery and radiation therapy, don't really make money for anyone. The people who decide about the treatment, and the doctors who research new cancer treatments, don't make money out of keeping people sick. And the companies that produce chemotherapy medication would actually benefit a huge deal if they did actually come up with a general tonic that cures all cancers.
I don't know exact numbers, but I'm sure there is a ton of research going on trying to find a cure for AIDS.
ferret
Aquarium Advice Addict
For every 'good' doctor ernestly looking for a cure, there's at least 5 that are gonna find their research in the hands of a medical company, whether they like it or not, that doesn't really care. The treatments currently available for aids are over $5000 a month. Not much hope for most people.
Developing cures is not cheap. Coming up with a new medicine takes years of work, equipment, and so on. The people and companies who spent millions developing a medicine can't afford to give it away for free. That's just a fact of life.
Being a doctor myself, and knowing tens of doctors, I haven't met one who'd rather make money out of keeping people sick than trying to cure them. The problem with AIDS and most cancers is that they are complex illnesses, and therefore complex to cure. The majority of health care in Finland is government sponsored, and doctors don't make more money out of keeping people sick instead of curing them. I find that kind of claims almost a personal insult.
Being a doctor myself, and knowing tens of doctors, I haven't met one who'd rather make money out of keeping people sick than trying to cure them. The problem with AIDS and most cancers is that they are complex illnesses, and therefore complex to cure. The majority of health care in Finland is government sponsored, and doctors don't make more money out of keeping people sick instead of curing them. I find that kind of claims almost a personal insult.
snapcrackler
Aquarium Advice Addict
SURELY you jest Guppyman... Dan Rather being trite, banal and superficial?!?!?!?!
**FAINTS and falls down the stairs**
LOL!!
Sob.... I had put so much faith liberal media until you posted that.. now my life is ruined..
Guppyman how can you even stand watching those barnacle heads for even a few minutes. 8O My sympathies to you.. your stomach is probably still turning hehe!
Sorry, I just expended an entire day's worth of sarcasm on ONE post. But liberal news makes me want to barf, and barf and barf.
Guppyman I agree 100% and, you could not have written it better. A true waste of the airwaves.
Thank God for Debka and Pravda.... at least they are interesting...
**FAINTS and falls down the stairs**
LOL!!
Sob.... I had put so much faith liberal media until you posted that.. now my life is ruined..
Guppyman how can you even stand watching those barnacle heads for even a few minutes. 8O My sympathies to you.. your stomach is probably still turning hehe!
Sorry, I just expended an entire day's worth of sarcasm on ONE post. But liberal news makes me want to barf, and barf and barf.
Guppyman I agree 100% and, you could not have written it better. A true waste of the airwaves.
Thank God for Debka and Pravda.... at least they are interesting...
ferret
Aquarium Advice Addict
Let me clearify.. I'm not speaking of the doctor's themselves, so much as the companies, which are in the end watching out for their bottom line and profits. In the US, health care is expensive. Far more so than it should be, IMO. The government in my opinion does nothing to aid people in need of it. I can't afford it myself, if I get sick I pretty much just hope I get better cause a doctor visit is easily $100 just to get 5 minutes with the doc and be told you have the flu. Capitalism, much as I enjoy it, does not make medicine cheap. My wife right now is basing her decision on whether or not to keep her current job on if they offer her health care. Which they said they would and have now become 'iffy' on.
I do not mean offense to the doctor's, but my wife in particular worries herself sick trying to figure out how to make medical payments, because we can't afford any major to happen. If some does, the likelihood of us meeting our next rent payment is slim.
I do not mean offense to the doctor's, but my wife in particular worries herself sick trying to figure out how to make medical payments, because we can't afford any major to happen. If some does, the likelihood of us meeting our next rent payment is slim.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife's situation . The medical system in the U.S. is quite different from ours, whether it's for better or worse. The good part about the U.S. system is that there is a lot of good research done, whether it's sponsored by medical companies or not. The negative side is that not all people get the treatment they need. A "socialistic" system like ours is not 100% good, either, but most people here want to keep it government sponsored instead of making it private.
I'm not sure how much the average American doctor is involved with the medical companies. We certainly are aware of them, and have their people market their products. But a doctor's duty is to decide whether this new medication is actually better than an old, cheaper one. It's self-evident that without medical companies it would be very hard to get the medicines we need, but a doctor has to evaluate what is the best treatment for his/her patient. We need to be critical of the medical business, but there is no denying we desperately need them. It may not be an ideal system, but a 100% government controlled system would hardly work, either.
I have absolutely no company watching after my actions. I can choose whatever medicine or other treatment I think is best for a patient. I know doctors who are involved in studies that are at least partly sponsored by medical companies, but still the companies are not in any way controlling their decisions overall. It's the doctor's duty to decide what's best for an individual patient.
. The medical system in the U.S. is quite different from ours, whether it's for better or worse. The good part about the U.S. system is that there is a lot of good research done, whether it's sponsored by medical companies or not. The negative side is that not all people get the treatment they need. A "socialistic" system like ours is not 100% good, either, but most people here want to keep it government sponsored instead of making it private.I'm not sure how much the average American doctor is involved with the medical companies. We certainly are aware of them, and have their people market their products. But a doctor's duty is to decide whether this new medication is actually better than an old, cheaper one. It's self-evident that without medical companies it would be very hard to get the medicines we need, but a doctor has to evaluate what is the best treatment for his/her patient. We need to be critical of the medical business, but there is no denying we desperately need them. It may not be an ideal system, but a 100% government controlled system would hardly work, either.
I have absolutely no company watching after my actions. I can choose whatever medicine or other treatment I think is best for a patient. I know doctors who are involved in studies that are at least partly sponsored by medical companies, but still the companies are not in any way controlling their decisions overall. It's the doctor's duty to decide what's best for an individual patient.
ferret
Aquarium Advice Addict
I believe at one time the UN or the World Health Organization tried to made an appeal to American companies, to get them to lower the cost of AIDS treatments for developing countries which can't afford the outrageous prices. I'm sorry, but they really do over charge, because they know people in the more developed countries will be able to pay if desperate enough (I imagine quite a few take loans out and such). But that's not an option in those other countries. I read the article long ago, so I won't say this is fact, but if I remember correctly, they forced UN/WHO (Whichever it was) into making an agreement that no generic AIDS treatments could be made.
Treating millions of people for a almost 100% lethal virus (over time..) should not be about your patents.
Treating millions of people for a almost 100% lethal virus (over time..) should not be about your patents.
I partly agree with that. The AIDS problem in Africa is really bad. If I remember right, in some countries about 30-40% of people are infected with HIV. The number one thing to do for the future would be to prevent people from spreading it.
As for the drugs, I don't personally know how well they work, and how much they prolong a person's life. Needless to say, they still won't cure the disease itself. But of course ideally everyone should have access to it.
As for the drugs, I don't personally know how well they work, and how much they prolong a person's life. Needless to say, they still won't cure the disease itself. But of course ideally everyone should have access to it.
Guppyman
Aquarium Advice FINatic
snapcrackler said:
I do not want to give the impression that I watch Rather. I confess that I prefer Jennings, but in reality they all are pretty bad. I just happened to catch the "promo" for the story - so I tuned in. It's not like I was expecting something out of National Geographic, but a bit more "depth" would have been nice. - Guppyman
