Regenerative cells in the nose used for potential spinal repair.

@Linkon:

The lack of big pharma funding is due to the patent laws that a person’s own cells cannot be patented.

How true, how i hate the line for being so true, and one of the reasons why i think the “market” should stay clear of pharmaceuticals. ( I mean, just because it is more profit to redefine “osteoporosis” and sell lots medicine that proven doesn’t treat the all-day symptoms but puts you back outside the definition -or else:does nothing important and proven so- … just because of that there is not enough funding to treat diseases in the third world, that were close to extinction, but now had all the time in the world to develop “nice” resistances …sigh). I also love how other natural cells (like from trees somewhere in the Amazon) can indeed be patented… when i was younger i thought things like that were “discovered” not “invented” and you can only patent inventions… gee i was wrong.

@F_alk:

@Linkon:

The lack of big pharma funding is due to the patent laws that a person’s own cells cannot be patented.

How true, how i hate the line for being so true, and one of the reasons why i think the “market” should stay clear of pharmaceuticals. ( I mean, just because it is more profit to redefine “osteoporosis” and sell lots medicine that proven doesn’t treat the all-day symptoms but puts you back outside the definition -or else:does nothing important and proven so- …

go to medline - look up MeSH headings “calcitonin” “vertebral fractures” and “pain” - you should find something here.  Also putting people outside the definition is about decreasing their chances of future fractures which is SOOOOO important - particularly when it comes to the elderly.  There is HUGE mortality and morbidity associated with a hip fracture that anyway i can prevent one, i will - even if that means simply “putting someone outside the definition”.

just because of that there is not enough funding to treat diseases in the third world, that were close to extinction, but now had all the time in the world to develop “nice” resistances ….sigh).

i know what you are saying.  Still, check the following out:
http://www.ihp.ca/
This was founded by people in my province.  My parents took about $10 000 worth of medical supplies to Africa, and it cost them a fraction of this cost.  The pharma companies seem to be pretty excited about this, and it has spread around the world (Prince Charles and Tony Blair are huge advocates) and has done a lot of good around the world - including for Pakistan’s recent earthquake and subsequent medical nightmare.

I also love how other natural cells (like from trees somewhere in the Amazon) can indeed be patented…. when i was younger i thought things like that were “discovered” not “invented” and you can only patent inventions… gee i was wrong.

equally annoying is the idea of gene sequences being patented.

@cystic:

…Also putting people outside the definition is about decreasing their chances of future fractures which is SOOOOO important - particularly when it comes to the elderly.

But: it doesn’t (well, not with osteoporosis)
It has been shown that raising the bone density is not correlated to (or reducing) the number of fractures in elderly population.
I do know an expert on this in case you need a contact (as i assume that you don’t have the time to do the full lierature research and i can’t remember where my list is anyway :) ).

There is HUGE mortality and morbidity associated with a hip fracture that anyway i can prevent one, i will - even if that means simply “putting someone outside the definition”.

But, raising the bone density (the way the current pharmaceuticals do) do not prevent a single fracture. And the definition of “Osteroporosis” is only by this density …. compared to the density of a 30 year old male.

… check the following out: …

Sure, this kind of action does exist. I was more complaining about the total underfunding for Malaria and other “tropical” diseases…. While our systems are drained by pharmaceutical companies who “bribe” doctors with a one week conference somewhere nice which has exactly one 15minutes talk … to proscribe their “new-and-thus-by-definition-better” product … against a disease that didn’t exist yesterday and where it is not proven that the proscription helps.
…
i really do get agitated about that topic. I have seen some studies where you should not only take away any degrees of the ones doing the study, but also of all peers that have reviewed it and missed the blatant mistakes.

equally annoying is the idea of gene sequences being patented.

Yeah … that is about as “sensible”.

Sorry F_alk - i gotta’ disagree with you.
A casual look at the literature (i.e. pubmed search - MeSH headings bone density, fractures, bisphosphonates - with limits being RCT’s) shows that these are VERY effective at improving bone density AND substantially reducing fracture risk.

It does increase the density, true.
But there is no solid EBM study out there proving that this newly won density makes the bones more stable (ie less fractures).  It’s not only about “adding weight” -although that is what the drugs do- but also about the structure of the bone and the new material.
Maybe there are many stuides … i bet there are: these people want to sell their drugs, they better have financed a few studies to “prove” their point. But these studies are not good examples of science.

At least that was the case last year or two years ago. I doubt that a new medication has been developed in the meantime.

Do a simple lit search F_alk.  you’re wrong.

Don’ t have the time for that … can you give me a link or mail me a pdf ? … i will look up the problems and material i have here … but not tonight.

I can assure you, i was not wrong two years ago. And the studies that were out there at that time “proving” how helpful the medication was were “questionable”.